|
Antifreeze Head posted:I forgot to mention that the City of Winnipeg maintains a publically viewable list of properties sold over recent years that should help you determine what other stuff in the area is selling for. http://www.winnipegassessment.com/AsmtTax/English/SelfService/SalesBooks.stm Holy poo poo, this is incredible; I never knew this existed. I'm now going to spend way too much looking at this and I'm not even in the market for a home.
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
Dreylad posted:Yeah it's the legacy costs I'm talking about. Building infrastructure is one thing, and developers often cover some or all of it, but maintaining it 50 years later is a big problem It's also how people got owned in Calgary, basically getting excited over buying a condo but then learning the city is not going to build stuff like a school due to the commodity crash.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
etalian posted:It's also how people got owned in Calgary, basically getting excited over buying a condo but then learning the city is not going to build stuff like a school due to the commodity crash. I honestly don`t know how Calgary is going to survive, trying to build and maintain infrastructure for a city so loving spread out must be a nightmare.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I honestly don`t know how Calgary is going to survive, trying to build and maintain infrastructure for a city so loving spread out must be a nightmare. It won't. Most of North America is headed for a reverse version of the urban decay experienced last century. These vast socially stagnant suburbs will atrophy and rot away, while city cores are increasingly densified.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Rime posted:It won't. Most of North America is headed for a reverse version of the urban decay experienced last century. These vast socially stagnant suburbs will atrophy and rot away, while city cores are increasingly densified. It will be pretty ironic seeing what happened to US cities after WWII.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Yeah, and it's going to horrible for everyone who isn't wealthy. At least urban slums had transit, communities, and proximity to services and were survivable As the suburbs turn into detroit-style ghettos it's going to isolate a hell of a lot of people. It's not something I'm cheering about. It's something we should have been transitioning away from over the last decade but there's way too much inertia and cultural baggage to stop it, the only thing that's going to stop it is for poor suburbs to run out of money and fall into a cycle of decay leading to a diminishing tax base leading to more decay. But, as we've seen in Detroit and many other poor suburban areas, the very poor can't just move. The places worth moving to they are priced out of and their existing homes are worthless. Richer suburbs will be fine because they're able to pay enough taxes to actually maintain their communities, middle class suburbs will feel the pinch and have to accept higher taxes and once they start paying what it actually costs to maintain that poo poo these areas won't be quite so appealing, or they'll keep voting no for tax increases and get into a cycle of decay leaving only the most poor and vulnerable behind. I'm sure the government will bail out some areas and further subsidize them, specially if the areas vote for the correct people.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
I'm disappointed I won't have more than a week in Istanbul, as it's pretty fascinating from an urban planning context for exactly these reasons. 15 million people stacked in an area the same size as metro van + "the valley", but with the constraints imposed by having to work around literally millenia of existing planning and structures. I understand there's a similar disconnect going on there right now: with lower and working class districts are being demolished to make room for foreign investment upscale projects (and actually reducing density in the process) , the displacement resulting in shanty towns springing up in stretches of the Theodosian Walls. It's pretty much reached the fullest extent of urban sprawl on both continents, so now it's starting to eat itself. Rime fucked around with this message at 05:32 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Rime posted:It won't. Most of North America is headed for a reverse version of the urban decay experienced last century. These vast socially stagnant suburbs will atrophy and rot away, while city cores are increasingly densified. I'm actually semi-optimistic. Calgary might do alright if we keep intensifying existing neighborhoods. Bowness and Montgomery are good examples of this. Because these areas used to be their own towns, the street system/property lines were set up originally with 4 acre lots. They've been sold off over the years, but a large number of the lots were still 50 or 60' by 110' or so lots. That's huge. Right now every time one of these lots goes up for sale (and sometimes two beside each other will) developers a swooping in to add 2 or three units on a lot where there used to be one. Right now last I looked Bowness had ~11,000 residents. I'd be surprised if it wasn't over 20 thousand in the next ten years. Mongomery is headed in the same direction and is probably ahead of Bowness in that regard too.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Gorau posted:I'm actually semi-optimistic. Calgary might do alright if we keep intensifying existing neighborhoods. Bowness and Montgomery are good examples of this. Because these areas used to be their own towns, the street system/property lines were set up originally with 4 acre lots. They've been sold off over the years, but a large number of the lots were still 50 or 60' by 110' or so lots. That's huge. Right now every time one of these lots goes up for sale (and sometimes two beside each other will) developers a swooping in to add 2 or three units on a lot where there used to be one. Right now last I looked Bowness had ~11,000 residents. I'd be surprised if it wasn't over 20 thousand in the next ten years. Mongomery is headed in the same direction and is probably ahead of Bowness in that regard too. I just moved into Montgomery, its going to have some fun growing pains but for the most part its doing pretty well. I find the residential stuff is progressing way faster than the business. Now we have fancy townhouses surrounded by 8 gas stations 4 car washes and like 5 liquor stores. It's an interesting place.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Oh wow, the Globe and Mail is actually offering sensible advice to a man who asks if he can afford to buy a condo:quote:Client situation I don't know how this guy survives on $100 of groceries and $700 of dining out per month, but he contributes to his TFSA and RRSP and pension plan without going broke. I mean yes you can get like a $7 lunch and $12 dinner and leave a lousy tip every day, but drat.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
 A young couple paid $1.52 million – $200,000 over reserve – for a classic 1950s family home in Eastwood that its owners had paid just £6400 for in 1964. http://news.domain.com.au/domain/re...502-1myfxy.html
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Mainland Chinese loving LOVE wearing matching outfits and it horrifies me.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
eXXon posted:I don't know how this guy survives on $100 of groceries and $700 of dining out per month, but he contributes to his TFSA and RRSP and pension plan without going broke. I mean yes you can get like a $7 lunch and $12 dinner and leave a lousy tip every day, but drat. Lunch: 10*21= 210$ (pretty normal) Dinner: (700-210)/21= 23,3$ per dinner (ridiculously expensive) Breakfast and weekend food: 100/30= 3.3$ per day (this is the strange one) In comparison, my daily food budget is like 6,5$, that's what I can eat for without breaking my budget and food is loving expensive where I live. What the hell are you eating on a daily basis if his lifestyle seems frugal to you? 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Lunch: 10*21= 210$ (pretty normal) Uh, I'm assuming that he eats lunch and dinner 30 days a month, not just 21?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Uh, I'm assuming that he eats lunch and dinner 30 days a month, not just 21? I'm assuming that he eats at home most of the days which he isn't working.  The alternative is that his breakfast seriously costs over 3$ which is ridiculous for someone that is that lazy.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
quote:
http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/mobile/realtors-association-says-winnipeg-housing-market-steady-not-problematic-1.2355142 Yeah ok. Balanced
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:Mainland Chinese loving LOVE wearing matching outfits and it horrifies me. they wore lumberjack plaid since they thought it would make them blend in. eXXon posted:Oh wow, the Globe and Mail is actually offering sensible advice to a man who asks if he can afford to buy a condo: At least from the CHMC rental survey people would probably be better off just renting especially for most hot markets. For a single bed new condo in GTA you are looking at around $2500-$3000 a month if you factor in all the costs of home ownership. Still funny how some of the people in the article seem to spend $500-$800 each month just eating out. etalian fucked around with this message at 03:32 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah when ever I talk about development I'm basically talking about urban development, condos and poo poo where the infrastructure already exists to support them. Suburuban/greenfield developers get so many hand outs. We're making them pay more and more for the initial construction for poo poo like overpasses (which they half finish then declare bankruptcy leaving the city to pay for the rest!) but it's not like they have to pay the upkeep, unless the whole development is private, but I'm really against privatized roads/communities. Suburban areas generally are not taxed enough either to support the infrastructure they require, not just in front of their door, but they need a whole route of roads and highways leading from their sprawl to the city where they work. They end up needing and using vastly more transport infrastructure than anyone else but generally pay a much lower share of tax towards that. Then they go online and leave angry comments about how we need a bike tax because bikes don't pay the gas tax and it's unfair we're spending money painting lines on the roads for them. God drat I'd love someone to do the math and actually charge them for their "fair share" of the transport budget based on how often they drive, how far, and how much their vehicle weighs. You have just perfectly described Langford, holy gently caress. This place is so blindly stupid that it's staggering.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 03:34
|
|
etalian posted:they wore lumberjack plaid since they thought it would make them blend in. In Australia? Canada Debt Bubble: Uncle Wong's Outback Sheep Station I grew up in Frenchs Forest nearby and hate these Aussie stories because I like to think it's somehow been sheltered from the poo poo we're going through and I can go back one day.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
meatcookie posted:You have just perfectly described [any suburb of any major Canadian city] holy gently caress. This place is so blindly stupid that it's staggering. And for the unfortunate fuckers in places like Halifax that had their cities merged with completely rural areas, you get "hey why am I being billed for water infrastructure and transit and buses and stuff, my drat house has a well on it and I don't use any of that gay bike or bus crap" Like Torontonians - imagine if your amalgamation had extended to places like King City and East Gwillimbury. Actual farms. And then they had voting power in your council.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Basically like Ottawa? When we bought our house on the west end, one of the main requirements was that it wasn't inside Ottawa city lines becauseIsentropy posted:"hey why am I being billed for water infrastructure and transit and buses and stuff, my drat house has a well on it and I don't use any of that gay bike or bus crap" Also, I like having my garbage picked up every week. "Hey, we're cutting your garbage to twice a month so we can build a walking bridge downtown" isn't that appealing when you're dealing with diapers. Reusable cloth diapers would be an option but factoring in the electricity costs of washing and drying them, disposables end up cheaper. Why would anybody choose to live at the outskirts of Ottawa, Toronto or Halifax when they can live a few minutes further with cheaper taxes and better services?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Isentropy posted:
From the perspective of downtown Toronto, this is exactly what happened.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Isentropy posted:Like Torontonians - imagine if your amalgamation had extended to places like King City and East Gwillimbury. Actual farms. And then they had voting power in your council. This is what happened in Hamilton and it's been nothing but disastrous.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Not sure why a city would annex rural areas but annexing suburbs is always hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
etalian posted:Not sure why a city would annex rural areas but annexing suburbs is always hilarious. How does this annexing work? Is it built into your laws? In Australia cities aren't really cities but a collection of local councils playing Sprawl Wars and no one has real oversight to make city-wide planning decisions. It works about as well as you would expect 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
etalian posted:Not sure why a city would annex rural areas but annexing suburbs is always hilarious. Ironically, some of the nicest and best-planned spots in Calgary were annexed from former independent towns, and a lot of the "bedroom communities" in the area would be quite liveable if most of the folks didn't go into Calgary for work. I lived in Bragg Creek for a while, which is a little hamlet about 30 minutes outside of Calgary (at the time), and it was lovely. The only issues are a lack of local employment and schools; apart from that, it was a very liveable sort of place. Suburbs within the city limits are something much different, and much worse. You build the nearest bar/restaurant 2km from where people live, without workable transit, and you're loving surprised that they drive drunk all the time?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
my stepdads beer posted:How does this annexing work? Is it built into your laws? In Australia cities aren't really cities but a collection of local councils playing Sprawl Wars and no one has real oversight to make city-wide planning decisions. It works about as well as you would expect In the US it's driven by state level laws, for example NY state the annexation must pass a popular referendum.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
my stepdads beer posted:How does this annexing work? Is it built into your laws? In Australia cities aren't really cities but a collection of local councils playing Sprawl Wars and no one has real oversight to make city-wide planning decisions. It works about as well as you would expect The difference is in Australia the suburbs tend to be a lot closer together. What you call "suburbs" we call "neighborhoods". Like there's probably only about 10 suburbs of Vancouver in the Greater Vancouver Area. They all have their own council, but they're all at least somewhat split up geographically. It's very different to Australia where it's just like "welp this arbitrary road is the difference between these two suburbs". So a lot of the times you don't run into the same problems because the councils usually don't really need to work together that often, they're a lot more like independently run small cities than suburbs in Australia.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
HookShot posted:The difference is in Australia the suburbs tend to be a lot closer together. What you call "suburbs" we call "neighborhoods". Like there's probably only about 10 suburbs of Vancouver in the Greater Vancouver Area. They all have their own council, but they're all at least somewhat split up geographically. It's very different to Australia where it's just like "welp this arbitrary road is the difference between these two suburbs". So a lot of the times you don't run into the same problems because the councils usually don't really need to work together that often, they're a lot more like independently run small cities than suburbs in Australia. I dunno. Other than the devide between Vancouver/Richmond and New West/Surrey due to the river, all the other boundaries are just some arbitrary road. (Such as North or Boundary.)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
less than three posted:I dunno. Other than the devide between Vancouver/Richmond and New West/Surrey due to the river, all the other boundaries are just some arbitrary road. (Such as North or Boundary.) Surrey/Langley, Maple Ridge/Poco, Langley/Abbotsford, they're very very separate compared to Australian suburbs. Boundary is true, that's probably the closest one to how Australian suburbs are divided up.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2015/05/03/vancouver-jail-cells-converted-into-housingquote:
DTES? You mean Railtown~ Actually I think this is much better than those stupid loving containers.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...?service=mobilequote:In Toronto’s home buyer battlegrounds, even the bullies are getting bullied Add to ... Here I am thinking vancouverites are the dumbest motherfuckers.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
              This house in Melbourne (that's right, Melbourne, not Sydney) just sold at auction for 4.21M, 1.71M over the 2.5M reserve. Your move, Canada.  It's interesting watching the 2 speed housing market in here Oz, cause I'm over in Perth and it's definitely on the way down, though you'd never believe it from the news and spruikers. I'm seeing places discounted 100s of thousands of dollars in decent suburbs still getting no interest. I'll likely be buying a place around the end of the year, so we've been watching the market non-stop for months, and it's completely obvious that list prices are way down. For example, there's a place that was listed for 945K back in Nov, it's now listed at 699K and has been for over a month, no offers or anything. "Owners are moving interstate", which is code for owner was a FIFO mine worker and was one of the thousands who lost his job over the past few month, and is moving back east. Cause unless you're old and have kids (like me), why the hell would want to stay in Perth? Never ceases to amaze me how identical the housing markets are between Canada and Australia. A couple absolutely insane markets, with a bunch on the sidelines doing nothing or falling due to commodities price drops. JBark fucked around with this message at 04:45 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2015/05/03/vancouver-jail-cells-converted-into-housing The solution to the BC housing affordability problem is getting poor people to live in former jails?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Sydney and Melbourne are like double Vancouvers. This is loving crazy.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
etalian posted:The solution to the BC housing affordability problem is getting poor people to live in former jails? The uncomfortable truth about so called progressives in Vancouver is that they all consider the residents of the dtes to be a barrier to affordable housing because the city won't let the aquillinis or bosas raze it and build ~premium luxury condos ~
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Listen, despite land prices being the driving cause of affordability problems and despite high-rises being extremely expensive per sqft to build the solution is just more skyscraper condos. Construction costs alone for a unit being 350k? If you build enough of them they'll magically get cheaper because supply/demand. If we let developers just go hog wild they'll end up building condos at a loss. That or they are accelerationists and hope with a big enough glut of poorly built condos the market will collapse sooner.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Good god, land doesn't magically divine its value out of unicorns and leprechauns. Affordability isn't set by the magical value of land which is set by some kind of bank dwelling minotaur.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
JBark posted:
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Good god, land doesn't magically divine its value out of unicorns and leprechauns. Affordability isn't set by the magical value of land which is set by some kind of bank dwelling minotaur. Yeah it sells for what people will pay for it and people are loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 06:51
|
|