Why more skyscrapers than "Avenue" style building proposals?

[fedplanner]

Basically it's because for a 4 storey or less building, you can use wood framed construction (cheap) and may not need an elevator. For 5 or more storeys, you are required to use concrete and steel construction, which is a lot more expensive. Developers HATE building 5 storey buildings. I don't understand why planners have such an obsession with "mid rise" construction, because developers are not going to build condo buildings which have uneconomical building heights where it is hard to make a decent profit. Usually most proposals for buildings above 4 storeys are for a 15-20+ storey building; the taller the building, the more units the developer can put in the building and the more money a developer can make.

I'm curious. Is it possible to use concrete for the first storey, below-grade garage and foundation with 4 stories of wood frame above? Would that be economical from the construction side or is it still not allowed under the Ontario building code.

 

[jaycola]

http://www.secondsuites.info/Homeowners_Guide.pdf

Here is info on accessory apartments from the city.

 

[ttk77]

Even if the approval process is changed to make it easier for mid-rise construction, has any assessment been done on land values to see in which areas of this city this could actually be profitable? There's no sense in advocating for midrise avenues in areas where developers can't recoup the costs of construction and land purchase.

 

[intervention]

Honestly ... it all comes down to demand and profit margins. More units (whether it be through added or increased height and/or density) = more money for the developer/investor.

 

[fedplanner]

I remember reading a post by Mike in To awhile back that briefly touched on the issue.

Aha! Finally found that post in the Mrvish thread

Default

Why is mid-rise cost prohibitive?

Official plan amendment fees same as high-rise
Zoning by-law amendment fees same as high-rise
Permit fees same as high-rise
Planning process just as long as high-rise
Political discourse and neighbourhood planning issues often just as contentious as high-rise (I.e. beaches, 109oz)
Unlike B.C. Six-storey wood not permitted in OBC, builders must utilise part 3 of code just like high-rise
Land costs and land assembly difficult along avenues often more suitable to point towers
mid-rise often adjacent to low-rise communities - buffers can be a challenge on shallow lots along retail main avenue streets
Fire code requiring stairwell exits same at high rise
Elevator costs significant when dispersed over few units
Parking ratios and cost of underground parking difficult to disperse over fewer units
loading facility requirements often same as high-rise, again costs are dispersed over fewer units
Site plan agreements same for mid vs high-rise
Many other soft costs I haven't listed are fairly static whether constructing 75 units or 350 units, therefore cost per unit is significantly lower in larger buildings

 

[W. K. Lis]

Elevators are becoming more common in low-rises. However, they would also add to the cost of the building when the price is split between the number of units they would serve.

Some "green" elevators may help a bit. See this link.

While there are elevators in single-family houses, they could become more common as the baby-boomers age.

 

[wopchop]

Since condos are sold on a per sq ft basis I don;t see the difference between building fewer larger units vs more but smaller. For example 1 unit 1600 sq ft at $500/sq ft would sell for $800,000. For 15 units that would be $12,000,000. If you have 30 units at 800 sq ft each, selling at $500 per sq ft, that unit will cost $400,000. For 30 units of the same the same size, this = $12,000,000. People are now paying huge sums of money for houses in the city that are less than 1600 sq, ft so the money would be there for condos. What they need to do is change the aspect of condo fees. Every unit should be individually metered for gas, water and hydro. To be paying 800 for monthly condo fee makes no sense, Even in a house a roof is replaced 25-30 years. Condos have been around since the 80's so they must have an idea what it would cost to replace the condo heating system (equavalent to a furnace in a house). Someone is collecting too much money in condo fees and is profitting

The problem is that there are many fixed construction and development costs that are applicable for smaller AND larger buildings. Land assembly and zoning are a big part of this, as the costs are mostly fixed. Construction mobilization is another large cost. This is, in my mind (as a construction professional), a big reason why you don't see a lot of 5 - 10 storey buildings being constructed, and instead see developers pushing for the big towers with the associated big profits.