Urban vs Suburban - 2 styles enter, one style leaves!

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

So were back on this one huh?

Because as everybody knows urban infrastructure, potentially many decades old or even older can scale to accommodate absolutely any density at little or no cost. That sewer line ran to a warehouse in 1928 is surely sufficient for a cluster of condo buildings.

In a brownfield location, the pipe will have to be replaced while a new one will have to be installed in the greenfield location. Either way, a new pipe will have to be put in the ground at a cost to The City. Both are going to have their own capital cost and the decision should be based on both the capital and operational costs of the necessary infrastructure. Which pipe is going to be efficiently and effectively utilized?

[kw5150]

You dont care about Calgary if you cant see the importance of spending a little money on the urban core. It has been neglected for decades, and YES, people actually like living downtown, contrary to what you may hear or believe. Infilling a city drastically improves the tax base. You have to be able to see more than 3 years down the road dude. A pipe is a pipe is a pipe.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

So were back on this one huh?

Because as everybody knows urban infrastructure, potentially many decades old or even older can scale to accommodate absolutely any density at little or no cost. That sewer line ran to a warehouse in 1928 is surely sufficient for a cluster of condo buildings.

[Radley77]

Here's the president of Shane Homes saying in response to the appointment of Rollin Stanley:
"I'd like someone who engages the stakeholders and is mutually agreed upon by the city and industry."

https://twitter.com/79reasons/status/316571959561445378

See; not a fuck given for Calgary taxpayers who live in the communities or fund part of levies that developers have refused to pay.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by kw5150

You dont care about Calgary if you cant see the importance of spending a little money on the urban core. It has been neglected for decades, and YES, people actually like living downtown, contrary to what you may hear or believe. Infilling a city drastically improves the tax base. You have to be able to see more than 3 years down the road dude. A pipe is a pipe is a pipe.

No, I just seek a little honesty.

Absolutely any cost associated with suburban development is made out to be the most catastrophic boondoggle ever. While costs associated with urban intensification that can be off the chart and highly disruptive in other ways are almost excluded from the discussion.

High density development and the associated infrastructure can be done very efficiently in some forms. CityPlace in Toronto for instance which was built on CN's Spadina Yard. Scattershot infill is the polar opposite of that.

[patm]

Originally Posted by kw5150

There should be an angry mob chasing these developers who sell them all of this bullshit.

There should be a disclaimer for each new community:

*Welcome to your dream community, it will not be a dream community until 50 years down the road when it is redeveloped and infilled with multi-family, retail and commercial. In 10 years it will become a neglected shanty-ville and then be rebuilt over decades. All of the big box stores and chains will vacate and leave you with large undeveloped parking lots and empty retail bays for years and years until the community finds it own niche. Get ready to drive everywhere and be very bored of your community in about 5 years. Most of the trees will not be maintained and will die off, schools will close, and then all of the infrastructure will need replacing. By this time, you will welcome multi-family with open arms, kisses and hugs to improve the tax base and overall appearance and livelihood of the neighborhood. Oh, and good luck walking to any of the stores, a car is basically mandatory.*

Where the fuck are you living in Calgary where you see that? Thats like saying:

"Welcome to your BRAND NEW high rise condo complex! Just steps from downtown, prepare for awesome things like SPECIAL ASSESMENTS! PAPER THIN WALLS! AND HOMELESS PEOPLE! Oh enjoy inner city schools and parks where your kids can experience playing in the urine left by the same homeless people that live outside your building! Hopefully you don't need anything more then the occasional knick knack, a bar or overpriced food, cause thats all you'll find within walking distance of your new home and driving around here is a MASSIVE PITA (but we got BIKE LANES which are great for winter. Luckily Calgary doesn't get very much snow or cold). Our spacious units offer the square footage of a pantry for the equivalent of your own 1,500 sqft house in the suburbs. Tons of room for your bikes, skis and other equipment as long as you don't mind keeping them in your bedroom! Better hope Calgary's commodity based economy doesn't start hurting cause everyone knows that no one is going pay 300K for a closet just cause it's close to downtown if that happens! Dreams come true at ______"

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

No, I just seek a little honesty.

Absolutely any cost associated with suburban development is made out to be the most catastrophic boondoggle ever. While costs associated with urban intensification that can be off the chart and highly disruptive in other ways are almost excluded from the discussion.

High density development and the associated infrastructure can be done very efficiently in some forms. CityPlace in Toronto for instance which was built on CN's Spadina Yard. Scattershot infill is the polar opposite of that.

Depends on the existing capacity of servicing is. Some inner city areas will have excess capacity for sanitary and water lines, so it makes sense to allow "scattershot" infill in those areas, as the capacity is there. But I agree that allowing disperse infill development that will trigger service upgrades without justifying the full cost of that upgrade makes little sense. If you are going to expand a sanitary trunk line, you better build lots of density for it to make sense financially.

This is why Rocky View County is broke. They were building water and sewer lines to developments with almost no density. Building a sanitary line to Balzac Mall (as much as I hate it), the industrial area to the east of that, and to CN's Conrich yards made sense. Building sanitary and water lines and lift stations for 30 unit subdivisions on 1 acre lots makes absolutely no sense.

[kw5150]

I dunno, all of the old communities seem to be disintegrating and I have heard multiple people on this forum say they sell their home ever 5- 10 years to avoid fixing them. This does not sound very sustainable. Also my buddy live downtown and works on the edge of the city. He LOVES his commute everyday and never fights traffic. I dont know how people commute everyday. And BTW food is just as expensive out in the burbs........like seriously, it is probably more expensive because you have to depend on chains who have all jacked up thier prices for mediocre crap. I typed "restaurants into my phone within 1/2 mile.......lets just say, what a list! I think there was around 250+ restaurants near within half a mile.

Oh, and my condo is pretty much sound proof.

BTW I wasnt dissing suburban homes, just the general planning of suburbia. It is not a good place for young people.

Oh, and the old trees, churches, skyline views from the 20th+ floor are goddam amazing.

Originally Posted by patm

Where the fuck are you living in Calgary where you see that? Thats like saying:

"Welcome to your BRAND NEW high rise condo complex! Just steps from downtown, prepare for awesome things like SPECIAL ASSESMENTS! PAPER THIN WALLS! AND HOMELESS PEOPLE! Oh enjoy inner city schools and parks where your kids can experience playing in the urine left by the same homeless people that live outside your building! Hopefully you don't need anything more then the occasional knick knack, a bar or overpriced food, cause thats all you'll find within walking distance of your new home and driving around here is a MASSIVE PITA (but we got BIKE LANES which are great for winter. Luckily Calgary doesn't get very much snow or cold). Our spacious units offer the square footage of a pantry for the equivalent of your own 1,500 sqft house in the suburbs. Tons of room for your bikes, skis and other equipment as long as you don't mind keeping them in your bedroom! Better hope Calgary's commodity based economy doesn't start hurting cause everyone knows that no one is going pay 300K for a closet just cause it's close to downtown if that happens! Dreams come true at ______"

[patm]

Yes, I'm not actually saying those things are true about all condos, but just like there are bad neighbourhoods, there are bad condos. There is also a ton of perfectly healthy, established communities in the suburbs. Shawnessy and area for example.

I'm young and I despise the idea of living downtown despite working there. I find that my desire to live in a certian area is directly related to how far that area is from my core group of friends cause unlike a lot of people, I actually hangout with my friends quite a bit outside of weekend outings to bars. Besides being close to bars and work, nothing else attracts me to Downtown and a lot puts me off of it. But that's just me

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Absolutely any cost associated with suburban development is made out to be the most catastrophic boondoggle ever. While costs associated with urban intensification that can be off the chart and highly disruptive in other ways are almost excluded from the discussion.

While levies against developers don't fully capture the cost of even the upfront capital, there are also vastly lower per unit operating costs for higher density.

Calgary has reached the second highest debt municipal debt load per capita.

We just can't afford to either:
1. Add massive amounts of new transportation infrastructure or
2. Continually add more development that will result in even greater financial burdens down the road

Things have to change and only smart growth for suburban AND urban areas will get us there!

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by kw5150

I dunno, all of the old communities seem to be disintegrating and I have heard multiple people on this forum say they sell their home ever 5- 10 years to avoid fixing them. This does not sound very sustainable. Also my buddy live downtown and works on the edge of the city. He LOVES his commute everyday and never fights traffic. I dont know how people commute everyday. And BTW food is just as expensive out in the burbs........like seriously, it is probably more expensive because you have to depend on chains who have all jacked up thier prices for mediocre crap. I typed "restaurants into my phone within 1/2 mile.......lets just say, what a list! I think there was around 250+ restaurants near within half a mile.

What makes you say the old communities are disentrating? Which ones specifically? Also, who are the people on the forum, other than suburbia?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Radley77

While levies against developers don't fully capture the cost of even the upfront capital, there are also vastly lower per unit operating costs for higher density.

Calgary has reached the second highest debt municipal debt load per capita.

We just can't afford to either:
1. Add massive amounts of new transportation infrastructure or
2. Continually add more development that will result in even greater financial burdens down the road

Things have to change and only smart growth for suburban AND urban areas will get us there!

Urban or suburban, levies aren't really expected to. The public contribution to servicing new development is an investment in the tax base.

But the problem is, very often density doesn't have lower operating costs, public or private. The point of diminishing returns is very, very, low as density creates costs and complexity where there isn't otherwise. Density also does little to address the labour side of the equation. Most civil human resources are distributed by population.

If you approach an undeveloped greenfield or a bulldozed brownfield and zone and develop it at extremely high density from the outset there are some savings to be realized. But this just doesn't happen very often, anywhere.

Calgary's debt load is a result of two things. One is decades of severe mismanagement by morons budgeting around windfalls from Edmonton that never came and the other is this city is badly under-taxed.

[UofC.engineer]

1. Rick Bell is the Glenn Beck of Calgary

2. The CHBA are going to try and do everything in their power to try and unseat Nenshi this fall. They are going to try and pull out all the stops to get rid of him and Stanley Rollin.

3. Suburbs cannot continue to be built in the same way, I'm hoping good things come out of Seton and the future areas of Keystone Hills and Belvedere.

4. Key corridors throughout the city must be redeveloped and densified in a methodical way.(I'm looking at you Macleod Trail and 36th street N.E.)

I hope that secondary suites can get approved sooner than later, it will help out with the affordable housing situation.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Depends on the existing capacity of servicing is. Some inner city areas will have excess capacity for sanitary and water lines, so it makes sense to allow "scattershot" infill in those areas, as the capacity is there. But I agree that allowing disperse infill development that will trigger service upgrades without justifying the full cost of that upgrade makes little sense. If you are going to expand a sanitary trunk line, you better build lots of density for it to make sense financially.

This is why Rocky View County is broke. They were building water and sewer lines to developments with almost no density. Building a sanitary line to Balzac Mall (as much as I hate it), the industrial area to the east of that, and to CN's Conrich yards made sense. Building sanitary and water lines and lift stations for 30 unit subdivisions on 1 acre lots makes absolutely no sense.

I just hope Calgary is smart enough to say no when the infrastructure is unworkable. Toronto hasn't been up to this point. Toronto has allowed intensification in some areas without the appropriate waste-water upgrades with stinky results.

The financial circumstances of the rural municipalities are a lot more complicated than that. They have a chicken, egg and pig problem where developing a tax base is concerned with the ever present reality of annexation. And they're going to get a whole lot worse.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

1. Rick Bell is the Glenn Beck of Calgary

2. The CHBA are going to try and do everything in their power to try and unseat Nenshi this fall. They are going to try and pull out all the stops to get rid of him and Stanley Rollin.

3. Suburbs cannot continue to be built in the same way, I'm hoping good things come out of Seton and the future areas of Keystone Hills and Belvedere.

4. Key corridors throughout the city must be redeveloped and densified in a methodical way.(I'm looking at you Macleod Trail and 36th street N.E.)

I hope that secondary suites can get approved sooner than later, it will help out with the affordable housing situation.

Agreed about all your points except for the bolded one. The CHBA is going to do everything in it's power to unseat individual councillors. At the end of the day, Nenshi is only one vote on council, and with Nenshi's skyhigh approval ratings they will spend the political resources elsewhere.

In advance of the election, I'd like to do a SSP Calgary meetup. Anyone else up for meeting, everyone from SSP Calgary (from all parts!) invited?

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Have you ever stopped to contemplate how aloof arguments like those you make might feed into that?

I don't actually stop to contemplate anything. I just make up statistics and facts, hope no one out there might actually call me on it (because, you know, it might be possible that there are people more knowledgeable in certain fields than I), but if they do, start acting like a child and hope that person will never live in the same city as I again...

But you're welcome to start disproving geometry. Continue on with turning agglomeration economies and theories on optimal provision of collective (indivisible) goods on their head.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

But the problem is, very often density doesn't have lower operating costs, public or private.

On a more respectful note (and hoping that you can adhere to that as well), might you be able to substantiate this?

I'd say Hong Kong might make for an interesting empirical case study that could quickly show otherwise, but then reflects precisely the associated discomort or say, disutility that an increase in density imposes as stated in my earlier "aloof" post. It's a trade-off. HK is doing quite well publicly. Housing costs are obviously higher-> on a square area basis, but are not all that disparate in per unit terms (a sort of proxy for density). Low income tax and incredibly low transport costs. Trade-offs.

But there are many factors involved, and nor do I advocate being HK. Not at all. Stick to the simplified model of the problem: Geometry.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

What makes you say the old communities are disentrating? Which ones specifically? Also, who are the people on the forum, other than suburbia?

Ranchlands and any other ones built around that time are showing signs of dereliction.

Falconridge etc etc, I dont know all of the names.

Do we just forget about these areas and bulldoze them in 40 years to build condos and infills?

[Policy Wonk]

It is simple, you complain about the way urbanism is perceived at large, then you launch into alienating rants that remind people why they believe their perceptions to be correct. You can propose any solutions you wish, but if people find them aloof and alienating they're irrelevant.

The potential problem with density is simple, particularly at the middle of the scale, it creates complexity and it creates costs but doesn't necessarily distribute them terribly well. Just because something functions doesn't mean it is in a state of equilibrium. Density works really well in isolation where everything was planned around it. When the discussion becomes raising density and dramatically it is a lot more complicated and political.

But I don't think i'm too inclined to going down this road with you again as at the end of any discussion we will both remain 100% confident that one another are fucktards while having irritated everyone else.

[kw5150]

Do you frame most of your discussions about money and places being easy to get around in a car? Because I dont know any great cities that want to be like that.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It is simple, you complain about the way urbanism is perceived at large, then you launch into alienating rants that remind people why they believe their perceptions to be correct. You can propose any solutions you wish, but if people find them aloof and alienating they're irrelevant.

The potential problem with density is simple, particularly at the middle of the scale, it creates complexity and it creates costs but doesn't necessarily distribute them terribly well. Just because something functions doesn't mean it is in a state of equilibrium. Density works really well in isolation where everything was planned around it. When the discussion becomes raising density and dramatically it is a lot more complicated and political.

But I don't think i'm too inclined to going down this road with you again as at the end of any discussion we will both remain 100% confident that one another are fucktards while having irritated everyone else.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Do you frame most of your discussions about money and places being easy to get around in a car? Because I dont know any great cities that want to be like that.

You have to ease up on this stuff guy, people are allowed to have a different opinion than yours. You are the exact opposite of Suburbia in that your posts are urbanism or bust. You aren't really contributing much to the conversation as you attack anyone who says something other than your point of view.