Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(11-03-2021, 09:11 PM)taylortbb Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2021, 08:15 PM)WLU Wrote: [ -> ]How did the building become more of a luxury housing development?
The total number of units went down, and the amount of parking went up. That means fixed costs, like site acquisition, planning, etc get split over fewer units, and more parking means the cost of parking (~$50k/spot) goes up on a per-unit basis.
The only way to keep the project viable will be to make it a higher end (more luxurious) development. Costs are up probably $20-30k/unit, which means final price has to go up more to make the margins still work out.
Same thing happened with Ophelia, where the preservation of the two houses turned it into a "luxury rental" development as that was the only way to make the increased costs still have acceptable margin.
And/or value engineered out when it gets approved to reduce material quality and any parts of the architecture that incur more cost than the developer wants to eat, and perpetuating negativity for densification that animates part of the original NIMBYism.
On luxury or extra-luxury, we have a lot of market pressure to house people at all levels. If such changes do manifest in an increased cost of units, it just means those priced out are going to be snapping up the remaining lower tiers of housing and leaving less at the bottom of the market or push up the rental costs for those buying to lease.
I wonder what the discussion would be like if any of the increased density requests (height & setbacks) had been specifically tied to an affordable housing component?
For instance, elsewhere $300,000 was the figure given to build 1 affordable housing unit. I wonder what would have happened if the folks developing this project had reached out to Menno Homes and offered to give the equivalent of two floors of this building to affordable housing or geared to income housing? Partner with a co-op that would own and manage those units and suddenly there is a mix that might, just might, ease the housing crunch lower down the affordability scale.
Paying Menno Homes to build affordable housing "not in my development" but elsewhere isn't a great way to build a diverse community either.
(11-04-2021, 12:26 AM)nms Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder what the discussion would be like if any of the increased density requests (height & setbacks) had been specifically tied to an affordable housing component?
(...)
Paying Menno Homes to build affordable housing "not in my development" but elsewhere isn't a great way to build a diverse community either.
In most cases, people opposed to development in their own neighbourhoods are also opposed to affordable housing in their neighbourhoods. So, they will certainly not be pushing to dedicate a portion of the units to be affordable/attainable/income-geared. It will only happen if the city forces the issue.
(11-04-2021, 09:51 AM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2021, 12:26 AM)nms Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder what the discussion would be like if any of the increased density requests (height & setbacks) had been specifically tied to an affordable housing component?
(...)
Paying Menno Homes to build affordable housing "not in my development" but elsewhere isn't a great way to build a diverse community either.
In most cases, people opposed to development in their own neighbourhoods are also opposed to affordable housing in their neighbourhoods. So, they will certainly not be pushing to dedicate a portion of the units to be affordable/attainable/income-geared. It will only happen if the city forces the issue.
NIMBY: "We need affordable housing, not more luxury buildings in our neighbourhood."
US: "Here, let's build some affordable housing in our neighbourhood then."
NIMBY: "Oh no no no no no, not like that, not here, it ahh...doesn't fit the character...the character of an impossibly static neighbourhood."
(11-03-2021, 08:29 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2021, 04:10 PM)westwardloo Wrote: [ -> ]Another way to look at it is, the Nimby's successfully removed 15 +/- residential units from a project in a region that is desperate for more housing supply and probably made the cost per unit slightly higher. I wish the "local" paper would start running stories showcasing the negative effect these "community" organized anti-development groups have on projects.
Can't decide if I like the concept. Seems like they have a lot going on and no doubt the change in floor plate from one floor to the next will be value engineered.
Is the bold section true? I was always under the impression that high rise developments had a higher cost per sqft, so is there a point where the increased height flips and start becoming cheaper again? Or is it cheaper up to a certain height, where the engineering challenges start to increase cost?
I believe that the cost per floor is less the taller the building. It starts to go up per floor after the 41st floor. I remember reading about it in a textbook in school or on another forum. Quick google search has a blog post to back it up. Not sure how reliable the source is.
https://buildingtheskyline.org/skyscraper-height-iv/
(11-04-2021, 02:25 PM)westwardloo Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2021, 08:29 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: [ -> ]Is the bold section true? I was always under the impression that high rise developments had a higher cost per sqft, so is there a point where the increased height flips and start becoming cheaper again? Or is it cheaper up to a certain height, where the engineering challenges start to increase cost?
I believe that the cost per floor is less the taller the building. It starts to go up per floor after the 41st floor. I remember reading about it in a textbook in school or on another forum. Quick google search has a blog post to back it up. Not sure how reliable the source is. https://buildingtheskyline.org/skyscraper-height-iv/
I mean, you're looking at averages, across many contexts and regulatory environments.
For any given building, the function will be vastly more complex. We cannot know, without hiring an expensive architect, the exact differences.
But one thing is VERY clear, and that is the increase in parking. This absolutely is a significant increase in cost for the units.
(11-04-2021, 04:13 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2021, 02:25 PM)westwardloo Wrote: [ -> ] I believe that the cost per floor is less the taller the building. It starts to go up per floor after the 41st floor. I remember reading about it in a textbook in school or on another forum. Quick google search has a blog post to back it up. Not sure how reliable the source is. https://buildingtheskyline.org/skyscraper-height-iv/
I mean, you're looking at averages, across many contexts and regulatory environments.
For any given building, the function will be vastly more complex. We cannot know, without hiring an expensive architect, the exact differences.
But one thing is VERY clear, and that is the increase in parking. This absolutely is a significant increase in cost for the units.
Right. That is definitely $10-15K in incremental costs per unit for the 0.3 additional spaces. Plus, the cost of land and the cost of common areas goes up about 20% per unit. I would expect a per-unit cost increase of $30-50K, which will translate to a somewhat larger increase for the selling prices.
"A smaller more graceful building"...
I mean, this one is smaller, how much smaller do they want...like...I dunno... a house?
Honestly I'm done with NIMBYs, these people are harming my community.
This person simply exercised their right to free speech to share their own opinion. It doesnt matter if we agree with it or not ( I personally don't agree). But we must be open to other peoples view point and not condemn them for having an alternative view point. If that was the case, I would have stopped reading your comments a long time ago, but yet, here I am still reading them.
(11-18-2021, 11:23 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: [ -> ]This person simply exercised their right to free speech to share their own opinion. It doesnt matter if we agree with it or not ( I personally don't agree). But we must be open to other peoples view point and not condemn them for having an alternative view point. If that was the case, I would have stopped reading your comments a long time ago, but yet, here I am still reading them.
People are absolutely entitled to their opinions.
That does not mean I cannot judge them based on their opinions.
Further, this is not just an opinion, this is advocacy, this person has chosen to fight to harm our community. I absolutely can and must call that out.
You are welcome to read, or not read my comments. But when I am advocating in a public manner for something you feel is harmful to the community, please do call that out. I may not change my mind, but it's a discussion worth having.
On that note, it's interesting that our local media only every focuses on the NIMBYs. Rarely do you read an article suggesting we should build something. I write the cities and region very often and at most get back a generic response: yeah thanks, we'll put this in the public record. I know media likes to post provocative bullshit to generate revenue, but it'd be nice to see them publish things that are pro-development.
Surprised they aren't lurking this forum for stories, though I'm sure at least a couple reporters do so. They definitely use Reddit for material.
I think they have gotten ideas for stories from here for sure. I have noticed in some cases, that very soon after a discussion is started here, they will do an article...
(11-03-2021, 06:30 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]Unsurprising, but that's Waterloo Region for you. A tiny, tiny, tiny handful of annoying people can prevent others from having a place to live. On the other hand, we all complain about it, how many bother going to these community meetings in favour of these projects as proposed?
As a co-founder of Waterloo Region Yes In My Backyard, I'm all for folks attending these meetings to speak in favour
I have seen more people in support coming out in the last couple I have attended, which is great. For those who don't have the capacity to attend additional meetings though, an email (or phone call if that's your thing) to councillors is helpful too - because those who oppose these developments are definitely doing that. Having even one or two voices in support of proposals can go a long way.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10