Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8
Interesting thread. There are many factors that drive sprawl. A lot of people say that people want sprawl - believe a lot of this 'demand' is the result of market distortions and poor policy.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8
1) Perverse subsidies. Many cities subsidize sprawl by paying for the costs of the new infrastructure required. Also, unbelievably, in the United States you are paid farmer's aid even if you aren't farming the land.
|
Calgary is not one of those cities, or rather not as much as you would expect. All infrastructure within the subdivision itself is paid for directly by the developer. Cost for police, fire, library and recreation facilities is somewhat covered by the additional development levies developers pay to the city above the cost recovery basis for planning services.
Oh, and paying farmers not to farm is a solution to a problem created by subsidies in the first place (over supply). If you want to have family farmer income support without destroying the world agricultural economy, this is a better way to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8
2) Implicit automobile subsidies. All taxpayers regardless of how much they use roadways pay for them equally. That means if you walk everywhere you are subsidizing the lifestyle of someone who commutes 30 km. Who pays for new roads and highways? - pedestrians and SUV drivers equally do. It is a result of our tax system. To solve this you would need to implement gas taxes which fully pay the cost of road maintenance or some sort of electronic road-tolling system.
|
In Calgary, the amount we get from the province and federal government in refunds for the
gas tax is pretty close to equal the amount the city spends on roads (capital and operational a year).
Before Al Duerr secured the transfer from the provincial government, your subsidization argument would have been 100% correct for Calgary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8
3) Poor Planning. Part of sprawl is that no care has been taken into how people well people of all ages and incomes will function in that neighbourhood. Poor city planning focuses growth at the periphery instead of in the city using existing infrastructure. I think a successful planning strategy in combating sprawl involves planning growth inside the city and setting up a greenbelt to protect farmland and natural habitats. No matter how orderly growth is, at some point the city needs to end.
In some jurisdictions (e.g. Manitoba), residential developments are not required to have proper sewage system and can rely on septic pools. This poses serious environmental issues as septic pools are usually located near rivers and can overflow into them after a heavy rainfall.
|
No argument there. However Calgary lacks much of the industrial brown field sites perfect for re-purposing that other older cities have. The C-Train system is for all intensive purposes at capacity during rush hour, negating at least some redevelopment activity for now.
The massive rise in per square foot cost of multifamily housing that is close to any existing infrastructure tells me there is so much demand, that we are close to maximum capacity for building anything that isn't wood framed.
There is a place for managed smart growth balanced between new subdivisions, brown field, and pure intensification. Unless we decide as a society to stop the growth in the population of course.
As for septic systems, they have there place in rural communities, not in ex-urbs that I think your mad about here. Fortunately I've never heard of this as a huge issue, maybe since we get comparatively less rain that southern Manitoba.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8
4) NIMBYism. Preventing development in the city drives the demand for sprawl since sprawl only has a few neighbours at most to deal with. Better planning and education can help reduce NIMBYism, but I think what is also needed is a clearer understanding of property rights.
Many people just don't realize that we have so much sprawl because poor planning and policy has tilted the playing field overwhelming in its favor for so long. I believe that if these distortions are corrected, that much of this 'desire' for a suburban lifestyle will disappear. The market as it should, would be more inclined to a more sustainable and efficient use of existing infrastructure as well higher-density mixed-use neighbourhoods.
|
Number one issue for NIMBY's in Calgary is basement/secondary suites, followed closely by infills.
In Calgary the
Imagine Calgary document I believe will help bring voice to the silent majority.
IE: Your Nimbyism is against the stated Imagine Calgary goals for reduction of foot print per son.
Sort of like a dogma, but it might work.