HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2013, 8:11 PM
ByeByeBaby's Avatar
ByeByeBaby ByeByeBaby is offline
Crunchin' the numbers.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: T2R, YYC, 403, CA-AB.
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radley77 View Post
Cox: City’s bankruptcy troubles weren’t caused by sprawl

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...#ixzz2OZm9ECOb

Found this article interesting and annoying particularly because:
1. There is still much undeveloped land outside Calgary, and
2. that the author looks at "housing affordability" through a narrow lens and not all-in "city affordability" which includes transportation, water utilities, etc.

I would bet a $100 bucks this a developer commissioned editorial.

Especially considering this editorial only a few days before by Avi Amir (president of Avi Homes):
Ah, Wendell Cox. The man who has never met a freeway he didn't love. Bought and paid for is an accurate, if entirely too kind a description for someone with his level of intellectual dishonesty. He brings up relative densities to imply that Calgary and Stockton are of similar density, without noting that virtually every inch within Stockton's city limits is already developed land, the airport (not really used) is outside city limits, as are 3 of the 7 largest parks/golf courses in the contiguous urban area. Calgary, on the other hand, has a very large airport, some of the largest urban parks in the world and 30+ years of undeveloped land inside our city boundaries. He also claims to believe that "the huge drop in property taxes and new home development fees with the collapse of the housing market" is entirely unrelated to urban sprawl in any way, shape or form. In another life, he'd be the doctor doing studies paid for by RJ Reynolds Tobacco proving that smoking has absolutely nothing to do with lung cancer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2013, 10:18 PM
Radley77's Avatar
Radley77 Radley77 is offline
The City That Moves
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bridgeland, Calgary
Posts: 1,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby View Post
Ah, Wendell Cox. The man who has never met a freeway he didn't love. Bought and paid for is an accurate, if entirely too kind a description for someone with his level of intellectual dishonesty. He brings up relative densities to imply that Calgary and Stockton are of similar density, without noting that virtually every inch within Stockton's city limits is already developed land, the airport (not really used) is outside city limits, as are 3 of the 7 largest parks/golf courses in the contiguous urban area. Calgary, on the other hand, has a very large airport, some of the largest urban parks in the world and 30+ years of undeveloped land inside our city boundaries. He also claims to believe that "the huge drop in property taxes and new home development fees with the collapse of the housing market" is entirely unrelated to urban sprawl in any way, shape or form. In another life, he'd be the doctor doing studies paid for by RJ Reynolds Tobacco proving that smoking has absolutely nothing to do with lung cancer.
Glad that Calgary Herald isn't (*yet*) so far the sell-out that Calgary Sun is.

With the CHBA having Sun reporter Rick Bell to give speeches to the CHBA:
http://www.calgarysun.com/videos/fea.../2191640622001

Seems the CHBA is really pulling out all the punches with shoddy reports and using angry Rick Bell. *sigh*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2013, 10:22 PM
Radley77's Avatar
Radley77 Radley77 is offline
The City That Moves
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bridgeland, Calgary
Posts: 1,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed View Post
I can't believe this thread still exists.

Somebody link Strongbow's sig into here, please.
Sorry buddy, didn't know where else to put this article... This should have gone in a "greenfield developer thread." Obviously there are some good suburban developers out there. Maybe Brookfield, but not Avi or Shane Homes though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2013, 10:28 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191
I like to pretend that that "2 styles enter, one style leaves!" means the one style which leaves is a combination of the best of the two which entered...
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2013, 10:47 PM
Radley77's Avatar
Radley77 Radley77 is offline
The City That Moves
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bridgeland, Calgary
Posts: 1,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge View Post
I like to pretend that that "2 styles enter, one style leaves!" means the one style which leaves is a combination of the best of the two which entered...
It's a great point that could see more convergence rather than divergence.

Maybe it's a bit of both, where so-called urban areas become a bit more suburban (accommodating existing bike traffic), and that suburban areas become a bit more urban by accommodating transit orientated development and bringing in more local business amenities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 12:01 AM
Radley77's Avatar
Radley77 Radley77 is offline
The City That Moves
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bridgeland, Calgary
Posts: 1,450
That didn't take long: looks like developer Shane Wenzel of Shane Homes on twitter saying "Cox: City's bankruptcy troubles weren't caused by sprawl":

https://twitter.com/79reasons/status/316329916234883073

Wish these folks would think a bit more holistically about the city, and at least present more authentic info to the public.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 12:32 AM
suburbia suburbia is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,271
http://www.theprovince.com/technolog...407/story.html
Quote:
In January 2012, Rose Jordison was initially ordered by a B.C. Supreme Court judge to put her condo up for sale after an avalanche of complaints from other owners.

The concerns about Jordison and her son Jordy included excessive noise, abusive language, the uttering of threats and harassment over a period of several years.

Jordison, who moved into her suite on Guildford Drive in 2006, was fined $20,000 by the strata council over the years but failed to pay up or change her behaviour, so the council took her to court.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Richard Blair said it was a “draconian” measure to order her to sell, but necessary.
Wowzers!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 3:07 AM
MichaelS's Avatar
MichaelS MichaelS is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbia View Post
Yeah, almost as bad as this guy:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...362/story.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 3:10 PM
Radley77's Avatar
Radley77 Radley77 is offline
The City That Moves
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bridgeland, Calgary
Posts: 1,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by kw5150 View Post
I hate how people only look 2 or 3 years down the road. The changes Calgary is making will be seen years down the road.
Yeah, here's a report from the Canada West Foundation that says:

"Calgary’s debt has been growing in recent years such that Calgary has the second highest level of per capita debt among large cities in Canada after Montreal. This debt has been used in large part to finance infrastructure for greenfield communities at the edges of the city."

http://publicaccess.calgary.ca/lldm0...ion%3DDownload

I've read that some $1.5 billion of that is growth related and due in part to paying for water and sewer in greenfield communities.

Calgary can't afford to take on more debt, and it can't afford to do business as usual.

This means change both for the City and the Development industry, and both parties should be taking more responsibility for getting the city into this mess. Very short sighted for the CHBA again to start pulling the "housing affordability" card when there is many other financial concerns at stake.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 3:45 PM
kw5150's Avatar
kw5150 kw5150 is offline
Here and There
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,807
Wowzers x 2 Great find! I love my neighbors in my condo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelS View Post
__________________
Renfrew, Calgary, Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 3:59 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
This is why I am a "market urbanist". Sprawl is horribly expensive from an infrastructure point of view, especially transportation. Which is why I find it funny when people critique urbanism as some sort of socialism. If it was a true market, we would have a lot less suburbs and much more high density housing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radley77 View Post
Yeah, here's a report from the Canada West Foundation that says:

"Calgary’s debt has been growing in recent years such that Calgary has the second highest level of per capita debt among large cities in Canada after Montreal. This debt has been used in large part to finance infrastructure for greenfield communities at the edges of the city."

http://publicaccess.calgary.ca/lldm0...ion%3DDownload

I've read that some $1.5 billion of that is growth related and due in part to paying for water and sewer in greenfield communities.

Calgary can't afford to take on more debt, and it can't afford to do business as usual.

This means change both for the City and the Development industry, and both parties should be taking more responsibility for getting the city into this mess. Very short sighted for the CHBA again to start pulling the "housing affordability" card when there is many other financial concerns at stake.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 4:06 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 24,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radley77 View Post
Glad that Calgary Herald isn't (*yet*) so far the sell-out that Calgary Sun is.

With the CHBA having Sun reporter Rick Bell to give speeches to the CHBA:
http://www.calgarysun.com/videos/fea.../2191640622001

Seems the CHBA is really pulling out all the punches with shoddy reports and using angry Rick Bell. *sigh*
That guy is such an idiot, I don't think he said anything creative in that whole speach lol.
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 4:28 PM
Policy Wonk's Avatar
Policy Wonk Policy Wonk is offline
Inflatable Hippo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Suburban Las Vegas
Posts: 4,015
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.
__________________
Public Administration 101: Keep your mouth shut until obligated otherwise and don't get in public debates with housewives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 4:33 PM
rotten42's Avatar
rotten42 rotten42 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 462
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 4:46 PM
Radley77's Avatar
Radley77 Radley77 is offline
The City That Moves
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bridgeland, Calgary
Posts: 1,450
The CHBA's version of utopia is Detroit. It does not care that Calgary taxpayers have accumulated the second highest level of municipal debt per capita. The CHBA does not give two fucks about our city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 4:49 PM
sim sim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
This is why I am a "market urbanist". Sprawl is horribly expensive from an infrastructure point of view, especially transportation. Which is why I find it funny when people critique urbanism as some sort of socialism. If it was a true market, we would have a lot less suburbs and much more high density housing.

No! You're just some hipster dufus that is trying to impose their own life values and lifestyle on everyone else!! /end sarcasm

I've posted this here as it is more congruent with the topic of this specific thread and also because it reflects the objective rationale behind the "urbanism" movement. On the one side, who gives a shit about what lifestyle is attached with what. It simply makes plain old economic sense, and I am ever more becoming irritated with when one automatically gets associated with the other.

It befuddles me when a city that ostensibly would like to be associated with economic prudence in the private realm is somehow beyond being able to understand some of the pretty basic principles behind how efficient utilization of space extends beyond an office building or factory floor.

Geometry and basic economic principles don't lie, even if you want to argue them to the death. The myriad of other additional factors inherent in this general discussion are of course not discountable, but the underlying basics hold regardless: More people paying for the same piece of infrastructure and its operation and maintanence, be it for an apartment (rent/1 or rent/4.. etc.), a new school, a road, a public transport system or a city, is inherently more economically efficient. There is invariably, associated discomfort in any of said cases as utilization increases. The conversation has repeatedly wrongly been framed. Accept the fact that this is the truth. The willingness to pay to assuage this dictum is really what the underlying issue is about. Obviously not well reflected in how we currently do things: Nobody really wants to pay the true cost of what they have if they don't actually have to. Past policies have only reinforced this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 4:51 PM
Radley77's Avatar
Radley77 Radley77 is offline
The City That Moves
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bridgeland, Calgary
Posts: 1,450
The CHBA is going off it's rocket right now about "housing affordability" on twitter:

https://twitter.com/CHBACalgary
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 4:52 PM
Policy Wonk's Avatar
Policy Wonk Policy Wonk is offline
Inflatable Hippo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Suburban Las Vegas
Posts: 4,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by sim View Post
It simply makes plain old economic sense, and I am starting to get irratited with when one automatically gets associated with the other.
Have you ever stopped to contemplate how aloof arguments like those you make might feed into that?
__________________
Public Administration 101: Keep your mouth shut until obligated otherwise and don't get in public debates with housewives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 4:56 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 24,072
I think this city is in for a very large urban vs suburban debate in the next few years, we seem to have reached a tipping point.

The unfortunate part is it doesn't have to be one or the other, all we need is a balanced approach that manages growth smartly, both urban and suburban.
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 5:27 PM
kw5150's Avatar
kw5150 kw5150 is offline
Here and There
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,807
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.*
__________________
Renfrew, Calgary, Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:21 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.