Visiting the dump

there is always a time during the project when dumpster placement becomes a problem.  Right now the garage is under construction so the rear isn't an option.  The front yard was just being prepped for sidewalk so it also wasn't an option to store a bin.  

You can store a bin in the street but that tends to attract a lot of dumping from people in the area.  There is a good chance your new empty bin will be a target for nasty couches and junk of any description.  It is also in the way of deliveries and parking. with fees for tipping waste being so high I'm currently not going to do that until we can find a lidded bin, or set something up in a garage once the door is on  

So for now I'm back to mobile dumping courtesy of my truck. you can get a lot of junk in one truck if you recycle all the cardboard first.  At this point in the project I've likely done five large cardboard loads to the local recycle depot. The main rule of bin management is no cardboard in the bin. That results in just paying to ship air to the dump which is a huge waste of money.  Another option I have been resisting is buying my own dump trailer. As soon as I do this I'm sentencing myself to a lifetime of dump runs and I'd rather not. 

lots of junk for the dump  

No Appeal. The rowhouse permit marathon is nearly over...

I think the greatest relief of last week was not getting my stucco finished and the scaffold pulled off or the sidewalks poured so we can start landscaping.  It was having the appeal window expire without an appeal being filed to attempt to overturn the row house development permit.

While the permit hasn't yet been released, (I did pay the $4000 fee called the offsite levy), we have to meet a few more attainable technical conditions, the permit itself cannot be contested.  The cost of moving the project along has been heavy in terms of funds, time and sanity.  I wont be able to get a building permit for another month or so, and we still have the stormwater management and site servicing project drawing outstanding, but despite all the big hurdles left, I am pretty sure I can get this basement dug before the end of summer.

The project was arguably susceptible to being overturned on appeal because we had to negotiate a front setback relaxation.  The appeals board could easily have required that relaxation be revoked, and we'd be back at the design phase.  It would have been another major time consuming and costly process to re-submit a modified plan, and the project would have suffered mightily in terms of design quality.

The City is providing the public a better online tool to track these projects from beginning through to final permitting.  Here is a screen shot of the rowhouse application showing the approval from developmentmap.calgary.ca.

No appeal was submitted.  The four best words on screen.  All of this information is located on a mobile friendly page at development map.calgary.ca

Comments on front setback requirements - where is the common sense?

While pouring the front sidewalk today and seeing the end product, a sensible person can't help but look how we are building homes on lots in the inner city and and feel there is something wrong.   

This means we are rebuilding the city from the inside out but not in a way that we won't come to regret. By this I suggest that the front setback is such a burdensome and project damaging requirement that it should be changed by the city.   

The result of long contextual front setbacks is 'backwardization' of the site coverage.  Tiny back yard and oversized front yard is the outcome.  This is what we are building in 2017, although the context was set 50-75 years ago by homes that are largely being demolished now. I would prefer the opposite site use than what is currently allowed, and so would my buyers, the new community members that are going to live in these houses.  The buyers have zero say in permitting matters, by the time they enter into the picture the project is long since permitted and possibly built.  

What will it take to change this bylaw?  I'm not sure, but what we have now needs a redo.  This is another problem with a 400 page zoning bylaw. It doesn't contain a chapter on common sense.  I have heard there is support at the political level to change this, and it looks like some planning staff are considering new rules on front setbacks.  Maybe with the main streets initiative passed earlier this month some planning staff resources can be reallocated to this issue?    

The flatwork is done. My crew did a nice job. The front setback looks ridiculously long from this vantage.  Can we ever change this?  Why are we building houses with bigger front yards that are essentially used for nothing except sod, and smaller rear yards where a lot of outdoor living is meant to take place?

Hardwood install 2 - stairs

Covering the treads and risers in hardwood is a significant use of our finishing budget.  The work is labour intensive and consumes a lot of material.  The outcome is worth the expense in my view.  My installer is working by himself, unfortunately he's a one man team.  I like the end result however. Here is a shot of the first few treads going in. 

Each tread is a paintstaking process. But it looks great. Carpeting these treads would be a fraction of the cost.  

Hardwood install 1 - handmade nosings

The project we are working on features a lot of nosing material.  These can be provided by the manufacturer, however we've been making our own for a more custom and flexible installation.  In this project the appearance of the nosing is a big factor in how the finished product will turn out. Of course this comes with a significant installation bill, but for this type of work you need to pay for a really good installer otherwise you risk not only bad workmanship, but wasting costly material as well.

While it isn't clear in a photo, the nosing are also grain matched, so the grain of the wood wraps around the edge.  This makes the transition from vertical to horizontal even nicer.

Stucco Final

The stucco crew is on its second day of applying the acrylic coat onto the scratch coat.  The final stucco coat has encountered a new and unfamiliar weather phenomenon, it was too hot in the direct sun to apply it.  The guys had to wait until the morning sun had moved off the east face of the building to start applying the acrylic.  We had a productive holiday monday, and the weather was so fine I felt guilty the guys were working.  This is an issue with construction work in Calgary, the best weather needs to be taken advantage of despite weekends and holidays.  The stucco guys go back to Lebanon in the winter, so they do get a long break, but still I would rather seem them spending time with the family on this day.  

The acrylic goes on and the scaffold comes down, what a relief.  Sidewalks are next.

Tile Part 4

We are nearing the end of the tile project.  A lot of the tile selections were the same for both sides, one of the final choices was the glass herringbone mosaic we used for the backsplash.  This has turned out to look very nice, I may use this product again.

The herringbone tile takes more skill to install, and a wet saw to cut.  I like the outcome. 

This is another selection from stonetile west.  I like to shop there and they make an effort to supply tile at reasonable prices, this helps a lot when you are buying 3-400 pieces at a time.

Garage framing...long weekend work

The crew elected to start framing the garage over the long weekend. This is an odd choice because this weekend in particular is known more for beer drinking and camping than construction.   

We also have the stucco crew back on site starting the final coat.  This was also unexpected but a huge relief to get the scaffold taken down.  We have concrete booked on Tuesday and the poles were in the way.  Now we can actually landscape the front yard. Overall a very productive May long weekend.   

Garage framing

We've taken delivery of the garage package.  This normally uneventful event is getting its own post on the blog.  It was an opportunity for me to get a little exercise.  The package was fairly large, so we had to drop it in the alley.  This isn't really allowed (blocking alley, storing stuff in the alley), so I had to move it all onto the pad by hand.  

Unfortunately, or maybe with very good reason, the delivery forklift company policy is not to drop lumber on a new slab, or maybe even on any slab. They just don't want the liability that comes with possibly damaging fresh concrete work.  As is typical for the inner city, there simply is no space to store material.  I would have put down some plywood and dropped the load onto that slowly, and it would have been ok.  Given that I wasn't driving the forklift, I at least got my exercise in.

This is all complicated by not having a really firm delivery time.  I don't have anyone that can just wait around all day for lumber.  Inevitably it means I waste a half day waiting around and trying to get guys to be 'on call' to assist with the moving.  The lesson here is just make sure you organize your delivery and manpower to be all at the same time.  If not you are taking a chance your lumber could block access to the neighbours garage, and the neighbours at my current site are fairly 'particular' about these issues.

Hardwood - ready to go

It seemed like the entire city was in a rush to get some last minute work done before basically everything shuts down for the weekend.  We have hardwood install ready after the break, so they delivered today.  In theory the material can acclimatize to its new home, I think this is pretty much nonsense because the boxes are individually wrapped.  Undoubtedly the wood is arriving from a super dry warehouse somewhere in SE Calgary, not exactly a climate controlled environment. 

We have some interesting details planned for the install.  I have used this shop before, and found their sales, service and install to be very good.  I've given them a challenging install and we are going to see what they can do next week.

Garage Slab

So we finally had the right combination of schedule and weather and the garage slab is done. Just in time as I have booked the framers and lumber.  

Placing concrete is another job that looks fairly easy until you try it yourself. There is a lot of pressure on the placing crew because you can't afford to get it wrong and concrete dries according to its own schedule.  Seems like four guys is good number for a large pour.  

The last wet concrete is being placed. Note the size of the blue shaft that allows them to reach way into the forms.  

The power trowel is used to polish the surface. A lot of gear goes into flatwork, another reason not to try this yourself  

Pot light details

The pot lights fit almost like a surface mount fixture, instead of a large metal can they just grip the ceiling drywall. Each light comes with AC to DC transformer and that acts as the junction box.  These are the fixture we will be using just about everywhere in my next project. I am going to be building a project to be 'hardened' for leasing, so I don't want to be changing bulbs and cleaning dusty fixtures (or worse fixing damaged wall lights).  

These are a plug and play item.  Easy to install as well

The transformer gets the other end of the plug.

Selecting lights

I tend to always leave lighting for the end, and then scramble around the various suppliers to find some last minute pieces.  The good news is the large hardware stores have started to stock replicas of the really expensive designer stuff at reasonable cost.  And all the new stuff tends to be integrated LED, which was unobtainably pricey just a few short years ago.  

Similar fixtures that are now in customized LED with shapes and styles that can't be easily made used to be lit by G9 style halogens.  Those were the kind of bulb that often blew out prematurely and were hard to replace, burnt really hot, and sucked a lot of power.  Often you'd see a bathroom light with 3-4 x 60 watt halogen.  That is way too much electrical use for one fixture.  

We will be starting the interior completion of the project shortly, that means we are going to do the lights and plumbing first, the hardwood second, and then the carpet and appliances at the very end.  It is always nice to be at this stage of the project because the end is definitely near.

Round shaped LED fixture are now available at your local hardware store. 

The insane greed factor of Calgary land sellers is off the charts...

Another interesting couple of properties arrived in my inbox today.  The first is a classic example of the typical Calgary land seller today.  Essentially the strategy of the land seller is two fold:

1. Capture more than the intrinsic value of the land in the sale, and attempt to take as much of the builder margin as possible when doing so, despite many months of work and investment needed to even begin to develop the site into a viable business venture.  

2. When marketing the land, misrepresent and exaggerate the ultimate development potential of the site to further increase the listing price, thus feeding into item #1.

You can pick up this delightful property for an easy $850,000.....

The second lot is now a multifamily zoned site that was re-designated for free (for the seller) thanks to the mainstreets initiative at City Hall.  While the land now has the right zone to be useful, the seller of course neglects to mention how terrible the access to the site is for needed requirements (i.e. parking),  and how poor the actual development potential is for the site without bundling the land along with another parcel (may be difficult or impossible to do this). Of course the land is priced as if it is immediately suited for a multi unit project (I don't think this is the case whatsoever).  The agent doesn't mention that without a lane, and fronting onto a couple busy roads, parking is going to make for some seriously awkward planning.  The listing agent claims it has 'excellent development opportunities'. I think not. 

Note the poor site access, the detached garage that exits onto 37 st cannot be allowed in future development.  How else will parking be accessed here?  Well I guess 19 ave can be used, but this is also less than ideal.  I wouldn't touch this lot at half the current valuation.

Blog readers, feel free to send me addresses of property you'd like to build on, and I will be happy to identify its failings' free of charge!

Construction screw ups continued ...

Here is the latest in our ongoing series of construction screw-ups.  I had the engineer out to review the preparations to the garage slab.  Since he designed the slab, he wanted to see it pre-pour, otherwise it would be too late to determine if the pad was built to his specs.

The crew unfortunately had not thickened the edge of the slab adequately, such that he couldn't pass the work.  I had to call back the company owner and give him the bad news.  Fortunately they were willing to return quickly and make corrections, so our pour date is not jeopardized.  

When the engineer calls for a 16 inch thickened edge, he actually means he wants 16 inches.  This is how it looks now that the excavation increased from 12 to 16.

This type of situation can often decay relationships between the builder and the contractor.  Undoing and re-doing work is something nobody wants.  For me, I just want the pad prepped correctly, and I don't want to pay for it twice.  Construction has become a game of passing responsibility on to someone else, and of course the expense that goes with it.  

My job here is to make sure I have evidence of documentation on what specification the job was quoted to by the contractor.  Very often the response to this type of failure is something like 'we built it according to the plan you gave us, etc'.  I was able to pull out two instances where I had provided the engineer's drawings to the contractor before work began.  This goes a long way toward minimizing disputes about charging for extra work.

A new land use re-designation with a troubled history...and a tricky future.

A local housing company (definitely not me), purchased a large corner Killarney property a few years ago, and attempted to change the land use from a grandfathered R2 class to MCG, which is a grade oriented townhouse use.  In my view, this was a very reasonable choice at the time, and the fact it lost at the Council level is more a reflection of how politics work than how planning should work.  This was an informative process for me to watch unfold because it was classic effective NIMBY'ism at play, and some of the same tactics were used against my own land use change application in 2016, thankfully my application was strong enough so that I emerged the winner on that one.

The owner of the Richmond Road site, (a multifamily building specialist) has now held this property for three years, it is highly under utilized as a rental, and must be bleeding them dry monthly on the carrying cost.  Of course I am super sympathetic to this situation because I have been in it so often myself.  It only gets worse that they overpaid for the land in the heady days of 2013-4 (as well all did and still do).  They tried to dump the lot (if you'd call this dumping, I sure would not) for $200k more than they paid for it, and pretended that building the site as a six unit townhouse project would be rubber stamped at City Hall. Those among us not born yesterday knew this was a total farce.  I featured this property on my February 9th post as a hideously misrepresented land deal.  I highlighted the contentious site plan the company had put forth as likely impossible to ever get permitted based on my own dealings with townhouse planning and permitting.

All my comments in red show why I think this had little chance of becoming a reality.  

I think the builder must have agreed with my assessment of the land value, (despite pretending it could sell for $200k more than they bought it for), that it would be a non-starter to reapply for the same impossible project.  They'd have been happy to take the buyers money and basically screw them, but, as a rational player in the business, they needed to do something different.  

Here is the situation they are now in:

1. They overpaid for land and failed to get it rezoned to a use that the could make a business case out of.  

2. They tried unsuccessfully to sucker someone into buying it.  This failed because the potential buyers weren't dumb enough to pay the asking price.

3.  They are losing a lot of money carrying the property and likely need the funds to build elsewhere in the city (because they have a lot on the go right now).

4.  They realized that since the land can't be sold, they are going to have to build their way out of this mess (or likely sell the land and take a loss - builders are too stubborn to accept this outcome).

5.  They need to try again with a higher likelihood of passing the re-designation despite the emboldened and vigorous local resistance.  

6. A new land use class has been introduced, RCG (the rowhouse class) since the original failed application

7. The site is an ideal RCG candidate, this property is 99% likely to pass at the Council level

8.  They want to build six units to capitalize on the investment to date.

Here are my thoughts on the site. I don't think six units will work under the RCG zone.  I think even five will be difficult due to the length of the lot.  Unfortunately the lot is very wide, but only 120 ft long. After accommodating the garage which must be detached, and the contextual setback which is very large, there is hardly a building pocket left of perhaps 60 ft? How can you fit six row houses on this?  The units would be 10 x 65 ft long.  No sane builder is going to proceed with that layout.  Unless the builder has hired a more creative person than me, the unit count needs to be cut to four, or the arrangement something I have not considered, which is likely the route they will take. I am sure the builder has a design team and a draft in production now of some favourable arrangement to retain six units (no doubt the builder needs six units to have a viable project here given the investment to date).

My preference would be to have this site rebuilt as a rowhouse project.  I would be very pleased to see the existing house torn down.  I think the builder deserves a chance to build his way out of a money losing property and in doing so build something that the majority of the community would come to accept (of course a few neighbours will never agree to this - but they should not be given veto power).  I am hopeful our new Council (this vote will not happen until after the election in October), has the wisdom to grant the RCG application.  

Improving the discourse during community meetings

The local media loves to show the angriest individual at community events where contentious applications are debated.  Even worse would be to be caught on video, like the infamous crank 'people in these neighbourhoods drive a mercedes benz not the proposed SW BRT'.  I doubt he's proud of his performance all these months later.

 The most common complaint is lack of consultation (at a consultation event you often hear this), and impact on property values, plus the usual 'think of the children' nonsense.  The complainers don't seem to realize the City does not have a commitment to protect each and every individual property value.  The City is not a steward of value. If it attempted to do so it would further gridlock decision making in the city.  New applicants have a right to seek value on their private property, and existing owners have to live with the outcome of change in the City, both good and bad.

Has anyone ever complained that their property value increased too much and attempt to protest or return some of that value?  What makes a person feel like they can veto another person's project in the name of consultation?  Is the threshold of consultation only reached if you can effectively veto activity on another persons' property?  Calgarians appear more and more unsophisticated when dealing with these matters. It tends to bring out the worst in everyone.  Perhaps this is another sign that people have too much of their wealth trapped in their homes, and homes are so overvalued by the market that any perceived impact to that value can provoke hysteria.     

The offsite levy - disincentive or reasonable?

The City brought in the off-site levy last year. It is just another fee, similar to the asphalt degradation, storm water frontage, subdivision, sidewalk repair, and other fees that have been created or grown over the years. 

I haven't yet met a builder who feels this fee is legitimate.  The fee is calculated based on the additional units being built, generally the minimum fee is about $2000 and it can go up to a massive number for a larger project.  For a big project the hit to the builder cashflow is large, because the money is paid up font, long in advance of sewer use by the end buyer.  If this fee is needed, I'd at least like to see it attached to the transaction, rather than be paid a year in advance of sewer use.  The City cares little about these issues of builder viability.  For the City, getting the money a year after the permitting phase would make no difference to its cashflow, but the builder, the fee takes money that is needed to build the project and diverts it into a loss that is immediate, and months before a sale is possible.

I think the fee should not be charged to the builder at all because it is for downstream infrastructure to be used by people who live in houses, not those who build them.  I think the fee should be linked to the property taxes of new buyers, so they can contribute to the upkeep of infrastructure directly, and this could be financed cheaply over 5-10 years and not impact affordability.  This would act as an incentive to build more, rather than a disincentive to build.  The City doesn't understand how incentives stimulate business, because the City staff collect pay regardless of the value they deliver (it is possible City staff deliver more value than they deliver, and equally likely the Staff under deliver value but are paid well in salary and benefits).  The City tends to feel that everyone is compensated in the manner it is (income tax and arbitrary fees without relation to value), because it is detached from the reality of business ownership.  

In dealing with growing fees, the City believes that it is acceptable to increase any fee to the builder because it can be recouped in the sale of new homes.  This is untrue of course, because houses are sold into a market system, and some years houses go down in value rather than up.  To prove that the fee is absorbed into the selling price, you'd have to demonstrate house price increases by the amount of annual fee increase.  Of course this is impossible, and over the past few years house prices have dropped, while fees have gone up and been created.

If I'm to be the victim of chronic fee increases, I'd like to be the beneficiary of fee discounts if the City underperforms.  For example, the City should promise to deliver a permit to me in 30 days, and if it cannot do so it should discount the fee. This is never going to happen.  I can't see the City wanting to take on accountability for time delay because its staff are not incentivized to be productive.  Yet the City imposes arbitrary punishments on builders if it feels the builder damages the City through lateness, or say misses an inspection appointment, or has a permit expire and needs it reinstated.  There is a very asymmetric relationship between the fee taker, and the fee payer that could be rebalanced in City development.  

Welome to inner city building, your fee is ready!

Garage building part 3

In the overall grand scheme of garage building we are still in the early stage, but we are moving along now nicely.  The pad is largely prepped and rebar is tied. We have an engineer inspection date and a pour date. If all goes well we will immediately deliver the lumber and roof package, and the framers will be back.  Here is some work done from today

Early phase of slab prep.  note the thickened edges and the tighter rebar grid than the norm.

View from the apron that has yet to be finished.  This is a large four bay garage, and a lot of material goes into the slab.  I have some experienced guys doing the prep and like their workmanship thus far.

Thoughts on the Alberta builder licensing program

Frequent readers of this site will no doubt be familiar with my view on the growing amount of useless meddling and over-regulation the government is burdening home builders with.  The latest is a mandatory licensing program.

I am sure this licensing nonsense appeals to socialist central planning types that believe the bureaucracy is actually useful in improving business practices.  This program will no doubt be beneficial to government employees as they expand their employment base and collect a lot of money to fund their own benefits and retirement programs.  Unfortunately the money they demand will be taken from the productive element of society, those who invest in land and build homes.

All this is done under the guise of improving building, or protecting buyers.  Are there any buyers out there dumb enough to believe that their prospective new house will be built better because the builder has a government badge of honour?  Isn't it more likely their new house would be built cheaper so that the builder can find more cash to hand over (annually, forever), to the government?  

Let me guess how year one of the program will unfold.  Any idiot with a hammer (and $600, inflation adjusted annually no doubt), will get a license.  There you have it.  Your new home is improved because the government collected $600 it wasn't entitled to, which it then pisses away on a marketing campaign or some new logo and brochure package (plus a little bureaucrat pocket stuffing).

If the government was serious about protecting home buyers, it would find out who the worst builders are right now and put them in jail, or do whatever it can to keep them from building.  Everyone else would pass the hurdle of not being in jail, thus wouldn't need a licence.  No program fee, no annual cost the builder.  The buyer is totally protected because all the shoddy builders are in jail, so licensing the rest is no longer necessary.

The government is expert at solving problems that don't exist, because it is so useless at solving problems that do exist.  If you challenge the government to do something meaningful to get rid of problem builders, they would not take any steps because of privacy concerns, confidentially issues, etc.  Any builder that can't find a work around to getting a government licence is likely incapable of functioning anyway.  Do you really believe a criminal home builder organization wont be able to fool the bureaucrat who is issuing licences to anyone with $600?

What I'd like to do is impose a warranty and licensing program on useless bureaucrats.  This would be so easy to do.  I'd wander over to the nearest level of government, and find the first person who has no measurable contribution or job of value to the tax payer, and regulate and fee them out of existence.  That would be a real improvement to the Alberta economy.  

Let me suggest another way to avoid this licensing program.  Home buyers actually develop some intelligence and decide what builders are building shoddy homes rather than relying on the government to tell them what is acceptable.  Those poorly built homes wont sell, the builder stops building. Problem solved.   

I have one other question for the government.  If in 5, 10, or 20 years, I havent been regulated out of existence, can I have my annual fee money back?  By then it is going to be adding up to a really large amount of cash.  Thanks.

This is a really terrible idea.  I guess if you build 600 homes per year it will only add 1$ to each home cost.  I think the larger builders like this program because it is one more barrier to entry to the market.  I think the horrible builder like this program because they can fool the government into giving them a license (or maybe use their mom's name), and the buyer will then be fooled into believing the house they are buying is well built 'because the government said so'.