|
Retarded feud in my neighbourhood (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
thats my point...
and thats why when a neighbourhood gets together to fight development it just makes me laugh. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
thats my point...
and thats why when a neighbourhood gets together to fight development it just makes me laugh. |
well, infill in my area has been allowed to go on unabated it seems. Apparently, this lady was targeted in particular for her intent to erect the 2 tall/thin single family units in the same lot. I guess this drew concern in that it would set a precedence for other private developers to do the same..
again whether or not you defend what she wants to do as part of 'progression' is what's up for debate.. i personally being a resident of this area would not like to see this as it would likely have an adverse affect on the property value of our homes, which is what i think everyone is trying to preserve, moreso than the 'character' of the community..
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
well, infill in my area has been allowed to go on unabated it seems. Apparently, this lady was targeted in particular for her intent to erect the 2 tall/thin single family units in the same lot. I guess this drew concern in that it would set a precedence for other private developers to do the same..
again whether or not you defend what she wants to do as part of 'progression' is what's up for debate.. i personally being a resident of this area would not like to see this as it would likely have an adverse affect on the property value of our homes, which is what i think everyone is trying to preserve, moreso than the 'character' of the community..
|
again, if developers are hot for land in your neighbourhood it will drive UP the land value. By stopping this development your area is no longer as desirable for development. Therefore your property values will not grow as much as they could have.
For example your property value today is $400 G lets say.
If developers could intensify density and make more money maybe theyd be willing to pay $600 G but now that they cant all you can hope for is the original 400 G that may or may not go up depending on market forces.
Those residents just shot themselves in the foot land value wise... |
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ not necessarily true...and quite likely not true in this case.
part of what makes a residential area 'valuable' is the extent to which the homes conform to the neighbourhood. It's a standard part of any home valuation.
people on a street of century homes don't want someone erecting something full of aluminum siding...or an art deco home...or a modern glass and steel construct...etc.
the homes don't have to 'look the same'...but there should be general conformity among them to preserve the value of the neighbourhood. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
again, if developers are hot for land in your neighbourhood it will drive UP the land value. By stopping this development your area is no longer as desirable for development. Therefore your property values will not grow as much as they could have.
For example your property value today is $400 G lets say.
If developers could intensify density and make more money maybe theyd be willing to pay $600 G but now that they cant all you can hope for is the original 400 G that may or may not go up depending on market forces.
Those residents just shot themselves in the foot land value wise... |
Yea, but it depends on WHAT they're developing.
If they're going to put up some gawd-aweful, pink and blue polka-dotted monstrosity we have a different case; the surrounding value is effected as a direct result of that project.
It's no different than if I want to buy a condo in the Jane and Finch area; it's cheap for a reason... |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
but i think the plan was to develope that area into many homes of similar type and that was the beginning.
I remember in 1986 they put up the xerox tower at yonge and finch and everyone on the street behind it complained about how it overshadowed their houses. It was BIG news back then. I remember it clearly. It was also the first major tower in north york. It did not "conform" to the area at all and was in fact a major eye sore.
Fast forward to 2006. Yonge st is its own urban downtown. Most people probably dont even notice the xerox tower because of all the other tall buildings that blend in around it.
Yonge st between 401 and finch has also gone from a seedy strip to a major hub due to the development. Property values there are also through the roof as a result.
Oh and as for the people who bitched about their property values on the street behind xerox? 2 new gigantic condos are about to be finished on that property. I guess they got their payout after all!! |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
again, if developers are hot for land in your neighbourhood it will drive UP the land value. By stopping this development your area is no longer as desirable for development. Therefore your property values will not grow as much as they could have.
For example your property value today is $400 G lets say.
If developers could intensify density and make more money maybe theyd be willing to pay $600 G but now that they cant all you can hope for is the original 400 G that may or may not go up depending on market forces.
Those residents just shot themselves in the foot land value wise... |
perhaps, but then at the same time part of the reason why this area is desireable is not because there are twice as many homes on every lot than there is now. the developers may want to pay top dollar for the land initially, but if it gets to a point where density & appearance come at the expense then i can't be so sure that people are going to be rushing here..
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
perhaps, but then at the same time part of the reason why this area is desireable is not because there are twice as many homes on every lot than there is now. the developers may want to pay top dollar for the land initially, but if it gets to a point where density & appearance come at the expense then i can't be so sure that people are going to be rushing here..
|
it didnt stop them along yonge or recently along sheppard where they built a whole bunch of new townhouses where the same style houses used to be.
Those property values are way higher now.
The Yonge-Finch-Willowdale-Sheppard quadrant is a huge commodity right now and trying to limit growth there will just end up hurting land values. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
it didnt stop them along yonge or recently along sheppard where they built a whole bunch of new townhouses where the same style houses used to be.
Those property values are way higher now.
The Yonge-Finch-Willowdale-Sheppard quadrant is a huge commodity right now and trying to limit growth there will just end up hurting land values. |
maybe i should be a bit more specific. there is an abundant amount of infill that is ongoing right now in this area which is receiving the support of many residents here. what this lady was planning to erect was juss simply gawd awful. there's already one lot on the street that had this done and it's a brutal eyesore, and i'm not talking on the scale of the Xerox towers here. i'd rather have a Xerox tower overshadowing my house than this thing. a number of the lots are having large supersized houses built which supports the added growth needed in the area while at the same time maintaining asthetics and style.
it IS possible to encourage the needed growth in this region and spur the appreciation of land values without throwing away any sense of practicality and appearance at the same time.
|
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ exactly.
there is significant difference between large scale planning changes and one idiot who could up a street by not considering anything other than their own interets. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
maybe i should be a bit more specific. there is an abundant amount of infill that is ongoing right now in this area which is receiving the support of many residents here. what this lady was planning to erect was juss simply gawd awful. there's already one lot on the street that had this done and it's a brutal eyesore, and i'm not talking on the scale of the Xerox towers here. i'd rather have a Xerox tower overshadowing my house than this thing. a number of the lots are having large supersized houses built which supports the added growth needed in the area while at the same time maintaining asthetics and style.
it IS possible to encourage the needed growth in this region and spur the appreciation of land values without throwing away any sense of practicality and appearance at the same time.
|
what if every house on the street looked like that one? |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
what if every house on the street looked like that one? |
Heaven help us if it does
|
|
|
|
|
