Stationlands Residential Towers | 90m | 25s | Qualico | DIALOG

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    72
roe_ said:
I think you are confusing concepts. Properties that are zoned for a certain type of development must be treated equally, regardless of whether a parcel in a new or older area. I don't believe most developers in new communities sell raw land, which is why most houses look similar and appear to be more 'intentional'. Unless there is a restrictive covenant on title or some other type of control, once a house is purchased it is not correct to suggest that the zoning rules will be applied differently in old and new neighbourhoods..

I think the primary reason you don't see infill in new communities isn't because they aren't subject to the same rules, it is because the economic life of the buildings is not over. In other words, people aren't generally tearing down 10 year old houses in new neighbourhoods, but they are with 60 year old houses in older areas. As with anything, over time things change and eventually newer areas become older and will be subject to more infill.
Click to expand...
Land developers absolutely sell "raw" land. It's common practice for them to acquire land, submit plans, go through the approval processes, put in the deep services, curbs and gutters, roads, and then sell lots to builders. Once that happens, a builder is bound to the type of lot they've purchased. There's no such thing as a builder buying a SFH lot and then building an 8 suite dwelling on it. Therefore, a person buying an adjacent lot has a measure of protection that an 8 suiter won't be built next door. Instead it will be a dwelling consistent with what the developer submitted to the city for approval and the city's 8 suite bylaw will be moot until the new build becomes profitable to tear down and rebuild or repurpose. That differs from a vacant inner city lot or a tear down where a builder and developer are one and the same. So the net effect is that established communities are bearing the burden of the city's public policy objective.
 
Out of Towner said:
Land developers absolutely sell "raw" land. It's common practice for them to acquire land, submit plans, go through the approval processes, put in the deep services, curbs and gutters, roads, and then sell lots to builders. Once that happens, a builder is bound to the type of lot they've purchased. There's no such thing as a builder buying a SFH lot and then building an 8 suite dwelling on it. Therefore, a person buying an adjacent lot has a measure of protection that an 8 suiter won't be built next door. Instead it will be a dwelling consistent with what the developer submitted to the city for approval and the city's 8 suite bylaw will be moot until the new build becomes profitable to tear down and rebuild or repurpose. That differs from a vacant inner city lot or a tear down where a builder and developer are one and the same. So the net effect is that established communities are bearing the burden of the city's public policy objective.
Click to expand...
These new developments aren't at end of life. The main reason infill lots are seeing densification is because there's demand, and the structures are in a situation where it's now economical to demolish and replace. The OWNERS are deciding to build something entirely new on THEIR LAND.
 
Barnaby said:
These new developments aren't at end of life. The main reason infill lots are seeing densification is because there's demand, and the structures are in a situation where it's now economical to demolish and replace. The OWNERS are deciding to build something entirely new on THEIR LAND.
Click to expand...
I agree with that statement. Care to express an opinion on the impact to adjacent property owners? The impact is positive if the new build is consistent with the "old" zoning bylaws imho. Not so positive for somebody living in a SFH if the adjacent property becomes an 8 suiter as a result of the "new" zoning bylaw. It's much better for projects like Stationlands to remedy the affordable housing "crisis" - if that's the city's role in the first place.
 
Gronk can take a seat at the children's table at the next public hearing. His costume makes him the chairman of it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top