Latte Sipping, YOP Gobbling Urban Planning Megathread

[GGG]

Since we keep destroying Bunks other thread I thought we should have a thread to discuss the endless sprawl vs density issues that keep coming up.

[MrMastodonFarm]

If Yop-Gobblers makes its way into the political lexicon I will be so happy.

[nik-]

This will go swimmingly.

[flylock shox]

Go density go?

Seriously, Calgary's drive-everywhere big-box-store-favoring current configuration is its biggest flaw.

[GGG]

My general position is that people should pay for what they use.

This means no subsidies for anyone, infill, suburb, Condo etc should pay for the capital costs of adding their new properties.

The Cause of sprawl isnt new communities it is everyone who lives in Calgary's fault. The amount you contribute to sprawl is based on the square footage of the lot where you live. Transportation congestion is also not caused by where you live but when, where, and how much you drive.Therefore we need some sort of lot size based tax to assess the costs of sprawl and some sort of road toll to asesss the cost of driving.

[frinkprof]

I haven't been able to participate in the election or similar threads as much as I'd like to due to other commitments, so this is going to be another of my long-winded posts touching on a number of thoughts. Fair warning that I might not have time to do a back-and-forth defense on this over the next few days.

Re: Subsidy

The figure between $4-5K per new lot was laid out fairly well by Bunk a little while back and thanks for that. The thing about this number though is that it's only within the context of the capital outlay that the City of Calgary pays for. The capital outlay for new suburbs that the Province pays should be in the discussion as well (you would have to have some corresponding number-crunching as well with the different tax streams if you really want to go deeper, and I don't have a "final" number to give you, mostly speaking qualitatively here, but the point is intuitive enough on that level).

In the context of the Provincial capital outlay, the big ones are hospitals and other healthcare facilities, schools and highways (aka Deerfoot and Stoney Trail in the context of those within Calgary city limits). It's been posted a number of times in the past, but basically, Calgary's public school attendance hasn't nearly kept pace with population growth (people having less kids) and yet the geographic representation of school projects sees a ton of new schools being built on the outreaches of the city and older schools systematically being closed closer in. Now, the "but that's where the kids are" argument is more chicken-and-egg than those who would bring that up might want to admit (i.e., would you continue to live somewhere if there weren't a school about to be built there?) and is also a bit of a red herring (kids can be bused to school if need be).

Hospitals and healthcare facility capital outlay is a lot easier in terms of examples and explanation. It involves taking a trip south as if you were heading to Lethbridge (and you actually almost make it there), spinning your head in the direction of the Deerfoot/22X interchange and noticing that thing that rises out of the sea of beige and brown.

With Provincial highway projects, Stoney Trail is a multi-billion dollar outlay. You can justify one half of it in that it helps enable goods movement which benefits a wide swath of the population and the economy. A lot of it (especially the SW leg) is largely a tool to enable and encourage suburban and exurban commuters though. The thing about ring roads such as this one is that it invites and encourages people to build on the other side of them. Houston is currently working on its third ring road, each one of which was, in its own time, justified as being a quick way to get around the city for those inside of it.

I know the SW ring road is a big issue right now and I don't intend for that to flare up, as I do recognize and acknowledge some of the arguments for it and it is not without its redeeming qualities, but let's look at some of the consequences of this expenditure as it applies to this context. Just trying to give some things to think about. For those in the southwest south of Glenmore and especially south of Fish Creek who are clamouring for this thing - consider that you and all your neighbours are currently making-do and are willing to live in your current situation and in some cases have been for decades. Now the ringroad gets built and you have exponentially more people such as yourself that are willing to live further south and west than you do now because there's been a paradigm shift that makes those places have conditions similar to what you are currently willing to live with. Providence is the new Oakridge and Silverado-south is the new Bridlewood, all made easier and enabled by spending on the southwest ringroad.

What the Province builds and where they do it factors into where development happens too, and you can't take the fact that they build schools and highways for granted and treat it as some natural, unchangeable force. Yeah, it's a bit beyond the strict scope of this thread, but it fits into "subsidy" talk, as a bit of a broader topic. Shift the capital outlay on schools to renovating and expanding existing schools, shift some of the highway building to balancing it with capital transit projects. Not necessarily 180 degree turnarounds, but changing the balance should be in the conversation if we want to look at the big picture. Either that, or figure out a way to approximate how much each new lot benefits from the proposed Provincial capital outlay (whereby the bulk of it is built in a geographic orientation that benefits outlying suburbs and exurbs more than existing residents versus alternative orientation/building schemes that is more balanced) and pass that on to whoever chooses to live there.

Re: "Where do you put all the people?" or "People have to live somewhere"

Not without some merit, this argument does resemble a red herring as it's been used by some. The implication here is that established areas are somehow filled up and thus to add people (as I'm sure most will agree - adding people is a good thing), the only choice is to build outwards.

I think a lot of people underestimate how many empty or underused lots there are in inner city Calgary and other key established areas and how many people and jobs could be accommodated far before Calgary resembles Hong Kong, Seoul or Tehran levels of crowding.

For an example I know well, Beltline alone can accommodate 50 000 people whereas it is hovering around 20 000 people right now. I live in the most built-up part of the community (the three city blocks surrounding my place is the densest residential area in Alberta, and one of a handful of the densest in Canada) and there is a huge vacant lot (just sitting there, not even being used for surface parking) on my block, another on an adjacent block, another few within the next ring of blocks, and probably a dozen within a 500 meter radius. That's without counting all the single-story shops and small commercial strips, and the many aging two-and three story walkup buildings that sit on large half-block lots. The 50 000 figure is arrived at after making some assumptions about reserving land for new parks and cultural spaces and using what is allowed under existing land-uses - not Hong Kong style 200 sqft apartments in every possible corner. Lots more employment as well, especially between 12th Avenue and the CPR tracks.

That's just Beltline. There's Mission, Bridgeland, Hillhurst-Sunnyside (more appetite and better political environment for development there in the last few years after the changes to the ARP by the way - before the history of NIMBYism argument gets trotted out), Lower Mount Royal, Bankview, Sunalta, Inglewood and others. Add in some of the stronger TOD sites with redevelopment plans in place (and the rest eventually) such as Chinook, Brentwood, Westbrook. Dealing only with the very inner city and some TOD pockets, without really any land use redesignations at all, you could add into the hundreds of thousands of new residents to these areas, and lots of jobs as well (some commercial in TOD and inner city and still lots of developable lots downtown).

Theoretically speaking (and no, this is not what I want to see happen), you could bring all suburban and exurban development to a standstill and easily accommodate all the regional population growth in the next 5-10 years by building out inner city and TOD areas and then spend the next 20-30 building out the successive rings of existing communities and other TOD areas without ever building a single new snout house in Mahogany or 2 + bonus room in Airdrie.

The core and inner city really isn't full at all and a lot of people seem to be waving their hands and just saying that it is so bring on 250th Avenue SW. It's a lot "emptier" than a lot of people think and a lot more can be accommodated there without even coming close to the mega density of the cities I mentioned earlier.

I don't want to see the obviously extreme and unhealthy theoretical situation I posted above, but there's a lot of room for the balance to shift, coupled with a discussion about appropriate redevelopment levies (Beltline already has a levy). I also agree with earlier comments that people in established areas who are pushing for less surburban development have to realize that part of that equation means that their areas will see more intensive redevelopment.

Fotze's gripe about some of the pain this can cause is legitimate (and this is part of why the theoretical scenario above can't work and some concurrent outward growth is needed), but there are lots of solutions on the construction management and inspection side of things that will go a long way to mitigate this. The City currently doesn't do a very good job in this area and it needs to improve - something we're working on in our community.

Re: "Not everyone works downtown"

While of course true, Calgary has a freakishly high proportion of downtown workforce for a city of its age, location, type and size, but we've been over that in this or another thread recently. Still, I've always found the "I can live in the suburbs and still live close to work" argument a bit spurious, in a general sense.

The problem is that people change job locations more often than they change residences, and there is a lot of workplace location variance within many households. Long gone are the days when the father would go and work at the same place for 40 years and the woman stay at home and I don't think telecommuting will ever take as strong a hold as its proponents argue.

Okay, so you bought a house in Douglasdale or Mahogany because you work in Foothills or Starfield Industrial, or you bought a house in Saddleridge or Coventry Hills because you work at the airport or surrounding business parks. The problem comes when your spouse or significant other is likely to work on the opposite side of the City (say, Quarry Park or Rockyview Hospital). What happens when you yourself will be in the same situation once you change companies, change careers or your company moves offices (look at Imperial Oil or CP Rail as large and recent examples)? I suppose you can say you had a good run of 5 years.

The thing about living more centrally is that you can hedge your bets against this a little bit. Sure, the person living in West Hillhurst who works near the University may find themselves or the people they live with working in Seton or somewhere out off of northeast Stoney Trail in 5 years, but it's a good thing they didn't choose to buy a house in Tuscany (the Calgary one). It's also why locating employment more centrally is a good idea too (how else do you think the concept of a "downtown" in nearly every city in history came to be?).

-------------------
-------------------

Not sure if this is really a rebuttal to any one issue, but regarding suburbs in Calgary, there's a couple issues that I have trouble getting past from a standpoint of my personal preferences. I don't think I've seen anyone bring these specific points up recently.

The aging (60s-90s) suburbs have all the traditional problems with suburbs. There's no variety or good opportunity to age-in-place, the layout is terrible and infuriating; sidewalks, parks, school sites are barren and windswept, walking and transit are woefully unideal situations.

The ones being built now are better in many ways that I will acknowledge and a lot closer to something I could actually see myself choosing. The built form is better, the housing type mix is better, the street hierarchy and street layout is better. The problem with the new suburbs is that they are too geographically removed from everything, being removed from the rest of the city by several rings of the older variety of suburbs. Walden's great. It's just that it's about 120 blocks too far south.

-------------------
-------------------

Sorry to be so verbose, as usual, but I hope it's noted that I do acknowledge that there are lots of intelligent arguments from all directions on these issues and I'm just putting some food for thought out there.

[Clarkey]

$5000 subsidy per suburban new build lot? Simple solution, remove the subsidy and the builders/developers will just pass the cost onto the consumer. What is an extra $5k on the mortgage on a typical $500k new build, or whatever they are going for right now? If they do this all the yuppy/hipsters/dinks/doinks can shut up there mouths.

As for sprawl? The city should annex further, implement a 'green belt' perimeter and then control growth through zoning. Allow single family detached but reserve larger sections for building up and future transit zones.

[nik-]

It's not just the subsidy. The tax rates have to be more in line with the actual costs of providing the services.

[Cuz]

$5000 subsidy per suburban new build lot? Simple solution, remove the subsidy and the builders/developers will just pass the cost onto the consumer. What is an extra $5k on the mortgage on a typical $500k new build, or whatever they are going for right now? If they do this all the yuppy/hipsters/dinks/doinks can shut up there mouths.

As for sprawl? The city should annex further, implement a 'green belt' perimeter and then control growth through zoning. Allow single family detached but reserve larger sections for building up and future transit zones.

That's what I have thought, but it's almost too simple to actually happen.

[Ozy_Flame]

That's what I have thought, but it's almost too simple to actually happen.

Which is why the subsidy should be axed and be a logical win for everyone.

[frinkprof]

I think I'm going to run that tome of a post I just wrote through the Springs1 translator and repost it.

[Table 5]

If Yop-Gobblers makes its way into the political lexicon I will be so happy.

It's one of the best terms to hit CP in years.

[V]

From the last thread:
But why should an individual in a new community pay for the impact of roads they dont use or need. If you want to charge new communities for their impact to roads you need to charge all comunities for their imoact to roads. This means tolls based on usasge and time of use.

I fully agree. I think it's hilarious that grandma who's lived in Sunnyside forever has had to pay increasing property taxes to pay for the endless amount of enormous interchanges.

Actually, I had heard that it's not legal for the province to set up toll booths on roads, I don't know how true that is.

But in the absence of a user fee system for every service that you use, I don't think it's asking too much for a new community to not only pay for the capital costs of the project, but also the life cycle costs. This means that neighbourhoods should be built in such an efficient manner that they can bring in enough revenue on their own to maintain the roads, utilities, fire departments, police stations, etc. A lot of that is on the City mandating certain density and mixed use requirements. I believe that's getting much better, although it's been pretty freaking terrible for a very long time.

[Bill Bumface]

From the other thread:

k4FuV0WO1LQ


Coles: We keep going as we are, we're all broke

[JobHopper]

Are they not allready making new communities like Quarry Park and the new Hospital in the south area? Work on making new communties higher density and put everything there that people need including offices.

Why not just create new smaller facilities for infastructure like waste treatment plants rathern than try to tie everything together to existing. Same thing with roads and traffic, reduce the number of cars allowed in the city or on given roadways. That's how you make real change.

[SebC]

Why not just create new smaller facilities for infastructure like waste treatment plants rathern than try to tie everything together to existing.Because of economies of scale.

[Cuz]

From the last thread:


I fully agree. I think it's hilarious that grandma who's lived in Sunnyside forever has had to pay increasing property taxes to pay for the endless amount of enormous interchanges.

Actually, I had heard that it's not legal for the province to set up toll booths on roads, I don't know how true that is.

But in the absence of a user fee system for every service that you use, I don't think it's asking too much for a new community to not only pay for the capital costs of the project, but also the life cycle costs. This means that neighbourhoods should be built in such an efficient manner that they can bring in enough revenue on their own to maintain the roads, utilities, fire departments, police stations, etc. A lot of that is on the City mandating certain density and mixed use requirements. I believe that's getting much better, although it's been pretty freaking terrible for a very long time.

I think there are a few ways to look at this issue.

First, at the community level, I see it being similar to the equalization program between the provinces and just like that system, there would be have and have not communities. In a system where only work and or maintenance for a community was based on the taxes generated within said community, some neighbourhoods would be at a distinct disadvantage versus others who possess a larger revenue base (e.g. Forest Lawn v. Mount Royal). Having tax revenue collected at a level above the community (i.e. the city) and distributed by that larger entity is a more equitable way for all communities to thrive.

Second, at the individual level, one cannot realistically expect to receive full value for ones tax dollars. The best example of such would be tax revenue that goes towards education as not every tax payer has children who reap the immediate benefits of a publicly funded education system. Ultimately, funding education is a long term benefit for the greater good of society.

As to tolled roads, I am not sure about the legality of placing tolls on existing roads, but personally, I am ideologically opposed to tolls on roads that are funded by tax payers.

[Bigtime]

Glad to see this thread start, I think it will be a good catch-all thread for all the very good debate and discussion to be had on the many issues our uni-city faces.

Oh and I am going to start using the Yop-Gobblers term as much as possible. It is the yin to our latte-sipping yang. :)

[GGG]

My problem with asking the new community to have to pick up all of the lifecycle costs is that it is not the fault of the new community that it is so far out. It is the fault of years of poor city planning and low density growth. Like Frinkprof said above new communities are being better planned.

The other issue with just adding costs to new construction is that it just raises the cost of a suburban home which in turn raises the value of an inner city home. So while you will recover costs on new construction you also have created a wealth transfer from future home owners to current home owners.

How can one justify charging Walden for its future traffic problems while kingsland gets a free pass. Its why I keep coming back to lot size as your contribution to sprawl. If you sip your latte on a 50ft frontage lot you are causing more sprawl then any new suburb and should pay for it. If we want people to pay for their impact we need to recognize that the new community isn't entirely to blame and therefore shouldn't bare all of the cost.

[MarchHare]

Its why I keep coming back to lot size as your contribution to sprawl. If you sip your latte on a 50ft frontage lot you are causing more sprawl then any new suburb and should pay for it. If we want people to pay for their impact we need to recognize that the new community isn't entirely to blame and therefore shouldn't bare all of the cost.

So under your proposal, people who live in mid-rise and high-rise condos (that have a very small footprint per occupant) should receive a huge tax break?

[GGG]

So under your proposal, people who live in mid-rise and high-rise condos (that have a very small footprint per occupant) should receive a huge tax break?

In general yes. They cause less transportation policing and fire costs so they should get a tax break. Now I probably wouldn't tax only based on lot size as there are services that we receive from the city which are independent of sprawl but in general people in Condos should pay less as they use less services

[Bigtime]

I think part of the problem is the "Older communities didn't have to pay this" crowd.

Well what's in the past is in the past, time to make a clean break and move forward in a financially sustainable way, including infill and intensification of existing communities paying their appropriate costs too.

[Slava]

I think part of the problem is the "Older communities didn't have to pay this" crowd.

Well what's in the past is in the past, time to make a clean break and move forward in a financially sustainable way, including infill and intensification of existing communities paying their appropriate costs too.

This is exactly the stance that should be taken.

[Bigtime]

I know, so why can't the city get that message out just as clearly? Instead it has become muddled into this false perception of inner-city vs suburbs.

I hate it.

[GGG]

Because it is likely the Walden folks will use the same roads as the kingsland folks, where the Kingsland folks will never EVER going to go to Walden. (Also, where the fata is Walden, who picked that name).

That's what annoyed me in Sunnyside. Half of the city's population used the same 20 ft of road I used to get to work and I did not use the 25 km of roads they needed yet paid the same taxes because of the arbitrary value of your land taxing philosophy.

And we should charge new communities because they do not exist yet.

In that video it had a new community and the cost to build and the ongoing op costs, I wish the city released that for a new community. Have an example of a real community with real numbers to really demonstrate the point, because I really have no idea what the average maintenance cost is for a section of road, or alley or sewer or fire protection, etc.

i.e. Mahogany cost $1B to build all the infrastructure and costs $20MM per year to maintain and the city receives $10MM per year in new tax revenue.

Are you asserting that a current resident of Calgary has more right to be here then a future resident of Calgary? Because then what you are saying makes sense that the new people should pay for the impacts that the existing people have caused.

My general point in focusing on lot size is the fact that ithe reason these new communities are so far out is that the current communities take up too much space. So why should a new community have to pay for all of the planning mistakes.

The reason that everyone can't drive the same 20ft of roads is that you can't fit that many 50ft frontage lots into that space. So shouldn't everyone on a 50 ft frontage lot pay for the costs of sprawl for that lot? Choosing to live in the inner city is a reflection on wealth and therefore should be taxed progressively (the wealthier pay more) choosing condo, vs townhouse, vs SFH small lot vs SFH is a lifestyle choice and should be taxed based on cost.

Just because you currently live in sunnyside does not mean you don't contribute to sprawl.

[Slava]

I know, so why can't the city get that message out just as clearly? Instead it has become muddled into this false perception of inner-city vs suburbs.

I hate it.

Because the debate has been framed to say that the problem is sprawl, when in reality that's only part of the problem. Its been made into a latte-sippers vs. Yop-gobblers argument and in the meantime some of us enjoy both beverages!

[Slava]

The other thing that I don't fully understand. Each one of the new houses on the outskirts, that's not a new citizen to Calgary, its most likely someone from closer in moving out to a bigger house for cheaper. So the city isn't actually gaining new tax revenue its just swapping it for a more expensive citizen.

And to pile on the parasite communities, they have to cost the city a craptonne compared to the revenue they bring in, don't they? Has anyone done studies on that? and sorry their 'weekend shopping revenue' probably is negligible. We all weekend shop, so that's a wash.

Sure, but net new residences means a tax increase. It could also be someone who was renting before and now becomes a direct taxpayer. In the case of Walden it also can be those new businesses set-up which are clearly new taxpayers for the city.

[GGG]

I wouldn't put it that way, but kinda. We draw the line now and new citizens (or existing citizens who buy cash flow negative homes) pay more.

To me this is unfair because your aren't charging existing resitdents for there impact. Essentially because we got here first and bought up the housing using up the low cost room inefficiently people in the outskirts in there more efficient use of land should pay more. To me something is wrong with that. Land that is used less efficiently needs to pay more in taxes than land that is used more efficiently regardless of where anyone lives or when they move to the city

[SeeGeeWhy]

Four thoughts come to mind so far. Keep in mind I am probably categorized as a latte sipper even though I live in a yop gobbling community. I would move if I could afford to do so, and didn't have two large dogs.

First, I think the fear of allowing new communities to be taxed at a higher rate is coupled to the fear that EVERYONE will eventually pay more tax, because that's what slimy governments do. They put in a wedge, then drive the door wide open for as much taxation as possible.

Second, I think I am a latte sipper because I geek out hard on reading about urban planning and maximizing value of a developed space. It's obvious that wisely planned and incrementally built dense spaces are also the most unique, fun and enjoyable spaces as well (as far as urban settings go). However, this focuses on minimizing up front development cost and maximizing potential unitized revenue from the space. Why aren't we scrutinizing the maintenance costs of supplying services as part of this conversation? Government obviously has to be more effective at controlling its budgets, which is a conversation that happens all the time, but it never seems to be on play when we are talking about the sustainability of our cities. Those of us who are putting pressure on development laws to optimize revenue potential of a space should also be putting as much pressure as possible on reviewing how we operate our maintenance and services to keep the future burdens as low as possible as well. But as anyone who is in business understands (especially in oil and gas) - sales hides many problems. And as anyone who might be involved with lean philosophy of business operations - waste is often accepted as a way to deny that deficiencies in our system exist... Because admitting we are wrong, and changing our ways are hard things to do. I would say we tend to live in a culture where life is viewed as linear, and not as a closed loop - this creates many problems.

Next thought is a hypothetical. What if developers were allowed to tax the residents of its communities in exchange for accepting the long term liabilities of that development? I have my own thoughts on this but unwanted to put it out there.

Last... The importance of looking at what works, and the importance of events to spur change. Expo 86 helped kick off a transformation of the false creek area in Vancouver, would an Olympic bid for Calgary help get the east village even further along? What about the pearl district in Portland? Intentional gentrification of dead or under utilized spaces, which Calgary has many... East village, eau claire, ramsay, inglewood, etc.. These spaces usually have he greatest potential for an expression of unique personality and character.

[Muta]

It's one of the best terms to hit CP in years.

That would be hilarious if it caught on. I just threw the term YOP out there in the other thread because it perfectly symbolizes the locust kids that spread along with the suburban disease, and counter-balanaces the elitist, latte-sipper terminology used to describe us inner-city folk.

:D

[BlackArcher101]

Why are roads the only infrastructure used when comparing inner city vs suburbs useage? If you solely use roads for a comparison of actual usage vs tax level, you will always arrive to an unfair advantage. The problem with that line of thinking is that roads is not the only infrastructure used by residents. You have water, wastewater (both sewage & storm), electricity, and other items. The utilities built in the inner city for the very people complaining about subsidizing the suburbs are starting to degrade and fail. Guess what? Repairs, replacements or modifications must be made but who's stuck footing the bill? All residents of Calgary. Using the roads example, then it's the suburbs who are getting screwed for paying for repairs on stuff we don't use. Flood prevention modifications to the elbow/bow river floodplains? Again, all of Calgary.

Using roads solely is short sighted and doesn't look at the big picture.

Just my beef for the day.

[Hack&Lube]

I know what a Yuppie is but what is a Yop?

[bizaro86]

In the context of the Provincial capital outlay, the big ones are hospitals and other healthcare facilities, schools and highways (aka Deerfoot and Stoney Trail in the context of those within Calgary city limits). It's been posted a number of times in the past, but basically, Calgary's public school attendance hasn't nearly kept pace with population growth (people having less kids) and yet the geographic representation of school projects sees a ton of new schools being built on the outreaches of the city and older schools systematically being closed closer in. Now, the "but that's where the kids are" argument is more chicken-and-egg than those who would bring that up might want to admit (i.e., would you continue to live somewhere if there weren't a school about to be built there?) and is also a bit of a red herring (kids can be bused to school if need be).


Operating costs are also relevant to the discussion from the province's perspective, and I don't think it would pencil out in favour of the inner city neighbourhoods.

Royal Oak school has 529 students K-4. The building is new and energy efficient, and requires one principal and one assistant principal. If the school is underutilized as the neighbourhood ages, it was designed to expand to K-6 to keep the building full.

Hillhurst school has 296 students K-6. The building is old and energy inefficient, and requires one principal and one assistant principal.

The operating costs for Hillhurst school per student will be much higher.



The aging (60s-90s) suburbs have all the traditional problems with suburbs. There's no variety or good opportunity to age-in-place, the layout is terrible and infuriating; sidewalks, parks, school sites are barren and windswept, walking and transit are woefully unideal situations.

The ones being built now are better in many ways that I will acknowledge and a lot closer to something I could actually see myself choosing. The built form is better, the housing type mix is better, the street hierarchy and street layout is better. The problem with the new suburbs is that they are too geographically removed from everything, being removed from the rest of the city by several rings of the older variety of suburbs. Walden's great. It's just that it's about 120 blocks too far south.


You're right about the problem, but wrong about the scale. It's not just the middle ring suburbs that aren't dense enough, its just about every neighbourhood, including many that are considered inner city. To continue my previous example, West Hillhurst has 2420 people per square km, while Royal Oak has 3130 people per square km.

The only thing that's wrong with many of the new suburbs is that a bunch of inefficient old neighbourhoods are separating them from downtown.

Maybe if we had less NIMBYism and more approved ARPs this would change, but it hasn't so far. Since density is the primary driver of operating costs, and the city says the new neighbourhoods don't pay their operating costs, the only logical conclusion is that the vast majority of the older neighbourhoods don't cover their op costs either.

On an operating cost basis Royal Oak and neighbourhoods like it are subsidizing West Hillhurst and neighbourhoods like it. (Maybe not Hillhurst specifically due to the market assessment taxation, which is a separate issue)

[GGG]

Why are roads the only infrastructure used when comparing inner city vs suburbs useage? If you solely use roads for a comparison of actual usage vs tax level, you will always arrive to an unfair advantage. The problem with that line of thinking is that roads is not the only infrastructure used by residents. You have water, wastewater (both sewage & storm), electricity, and other items. The utilities built in the inner city for the very people complaining about subsidizing the suburbs are starting to degrade and fail. Guess what? Repairs, replacements or modifications must be made but who's stuck footing the bill? All residents of Calgary. Using the roads example, then it's the suburbs who are getting screwed for paying for repairs on stuff we don't use. Flood prevention modifications to the elbow/bow river floodplains? Again, all of Calgary.

Using roads solely is short sighted and doesn't look at the big picture.

Just my beef for the day.

I think roads becomes the focus because outside of the $4800 current subsidy the capital costs of everything else has been paid for by new communities. Waste Water, Sewage, Electrical etc.

Although for all of these things they should be incorporated into the rate we pay for water. It is ridiculous that the capital costs of water treatment is a city capital project and not a project that is funded by the users of the water. The price of Water and Sewer per Cubic meter should include the capital operating and maitenance costs. Costs of installing pipe should be born by the new community but usage fees should cover the remainder of the costs. If you want a green lawn you should pay for all of the costs associated with it.

[Regulator75]

I know what a Yuppie is but what is a Yop?

Some disgusting yogurt "drink" from the 90's.

[rotten42]

I think part of the problem is the "Older communities didn't have to pay this" crowd.

Well what's in the past is in the past, time to make a clean break and move forward in a financially sustainable way, including infill and intensification of existing communities paying their appropriate costs too.


Smartest thing said in this thread so far. Just because things weren't done right in the past it doesn't mean they should continue this way.

[nik-]

Some disgusting yogurt "drink" from the 90's.

I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but Yop is still around.

[V]

The other issue with just adding costs to new construction is that it just raises the cost of a suburban home which in turn raises the value of an inner city home.

Actually, it raises the value of every single existing home, inner city or suburb. My house in the suburbs just became more valuable because people want to live in the burbs, but they don't want to pay the high new construction price. So my demand just went up. In fact, I'll bet my demand went up more than the inner city latte-sippers.

How can one justify charging Walden for its future traffic problems while kingsland gets a free pass. Its why I keep coming back to lot size as your contribution to sprawl. If you sip your latte on a 50ft frontage lot you are causing more sprawl then any new suburb and should pay for it. If we want people to pay for their impact we need to recognize that the new community isn't entirely to blame and therefore shouldn't bare all of the cost.

Who do you think is paying for the inefficiencies now? It's everyone. We're already paying for those terrible decisions. Why would we want to add to the load? Let's focus on enhancing the efficiencies where we already live, and make sure that all development, whether inner city, existing burbs or new development is done in a sustainable manner that will pay for itself.

[DFO]

To me this is unfair because your aren't charging existing resitdents for there impact. Essentially because we got here first and bought up the housing using up the low cost room inefficiently people in the outskirts in there more efficient use of land should pay more. To me something is wrong with that. Land that is used less efficiently needs to pay more in taxes than land that is used more efficiently regardless of where anyone lives or when they move to the city

But us inner city dwellers are paying more taxes - property values & assesments are higher than the outskirts.

[Bigtime]

I'm getting some pushback from my suburbanite friends that don't understand that Yop-Gobbler is a badge of pride for them to wear.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Bulldoze all single family units in Sunnyside and replace them with multi-family units. Banish anyone who resists to Cranston.

Boom. All problems solved.

NEXT!

[V]

I think roads becomes the focus because outside of the $4800 current subsidy the capital costs of everything else has been paid for by new communities. Waste Water, Sewage, Electrical etc.



I can only speak for electrical, but that's incorrect. The developers pay absolutely nothing for the power, as the utility invests in the infrastructure and collects interest on the asset through riders on your electrical bill that the entire rate base pays for.

[nik-]

I'm getting some pushback from my suburbanite friends that don't understand that Yop-Gobbler is a badge of pride for them to wear.

Just tell them that using the term is "taking the word back"

[Bigtime]

I also think the latte-sipping area shall be defined by the current Car2Go home area. Thoughts?

[nik-]

North to 16th, south to Marda Loop, west to Bankview, East to Bridgeland/Renfrew?

[_Q_]

I also think the latte-sipping area shall be defined by the current Car2Go home area. Thoughts?

I doubt there's much latte sipping happening in Dalhousie or Tuxedo Park, let alone Yop-Gobbling.

I think latte sipping/yop-gobbling should be defined as distance from the Peace Bridge. Say 2 km on a bike path to be a yop-gobbler and 5 km to be a latte sipper.

[nik-]

You have it backwards good sir.

I SAY GOOD SIR!

[19Yzerman19]

I think latte sipping/yop-gobbling should be defined as distance from the Peace Bridge. Say 2 km on a bike path to be a yop-gobbler and 5 km to be a latte sipper.
2km won't even get you to 17th Ave, much less Victoria Park. Shouldn't it be 5km for Latte Sippers and "no bike path reaches your home" for the other one?

[Flash Walken]

This thread warms my little progressive heart.

[Ozy_Flame]

Yop. If you have two kids, a backyard, white picket fence, and a cookie cutter house . . . .

YOP!

[GGG]

But us inner city dwellers are paying more taxes - property values & assesments are higher than the outskirts.

Thats a progressive taxation measure, The same way higher incomes are taxed at a higher rate. I don't think you can argue that you are paying your share because you pay your higher taxes. In my magic future taxation world you would first assess tax based on lot size and then apply a income factor or a home value factor to make it so higher income paid more.

[undercoverbrother]

I have no issue with the passing on the costs of new developement to the "yop gobblers", while the latte crowd can bear the cost of the flood clean up in their areas, and the cost of future flood mitigation.

[undercoverbrother]

Some disgusting yogurt "drink" from the 90's.

I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but Yop is still awesome.

At times it was the best part about being in the military.........

[corporatejay]

North to 16th, south to Marda Loop, west to Bankview, East to Bridgeland/Renfrew?

The "inner city" is typically North - 16th, South Glenmore, West Crowchild, East Deerfoot.

[Bigtime]

I have no issue with the passing on the costs of new developement to the "yop gobblers", while the latte crowd can bear the cost of the flood clean up in their areas, and the cost of future flood mitigation.

Did you even read the first couple of pages (specifically my one statement)?

[nik-]

I have no issue with the passing on the costs of new developement to the "yop gobblers", while the latte crowd can bear the cost of the flood clean up in their areas, and the cost of future flood mitigation.

What about the people who pay for their YOPs by having downtown jobs?

[undercoverbrother]

Glad to see this thread start, I think it will be a good catch-all thread for all the very good debate and discussion to be had on the many issues our uni-city faces.

Oh and I am going to start using the Yop-Gobblers term as much as possible. It is the yin to our latte-sipping yang. :)

I think part of the problem is the "Older communities didn't have to pay this" crowd.

Well what's in the past is in the past, time to make a clean break and move forward in a financially sustainable way, including infill and intensification of existing communities paying their appropriate costs too.

I know, so why can't the city get that message out just as clearly? Instead it has become muddled into this false perception of inner-city vs suburbs.

I hate it.

I'm getting some pushback from my suburbanite friends that don't understand that Yop-Gobbler is a badge of pride for them to wear.

Did you even read the first couple of pages (specifically my one statement)?


Which one?

[GGG]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/data-centre/population-density/index.html

A link to population density by neighbourhood.

[Bigtime]

Number 2. I think that is a very fair statement that implies we are all in this together and we should all bear the appropriate costs to keep the city running.

[Regulator75]

Yop-Gobbler sounds so gross compared to Latte Sipper.

Nothing ever sounds good with the word Gobbler associated to it.

[undercoverbrother]

Yop-Gobbler sounds so gross compared to Latte Sipper.

Nothing ever sounds good with the word Gobbler associated to it.

unless you are the one receiving the gobbling....

[undercoverbrother]

Number 2. I think that is a very fair statement that implies we are all in this together and we should all bear the appropriate costs to keep the city running.


Sorry I am running on very little sleep, so I must have missread/missunderstood you post.


At the end of the day I no longer have skin in this game.

[MarchHare]

I also think the latte-sipping area shall be defined by the current Car2Go home area. Thoughts?

That's way too large, IMO.

For me, "inner city" means being within a ~30 minute walk of the downtown core. In terms of neighbourhoods, I would classify anyone who lives in any of these areas as a latte-sipper: Beltline, Mission, Lower Mount Royal, Cliff Bungalow, Sunalta, Sunnyside, Hillhurst/Kensington, Inglewood, Bridgeland. Also maybe Bankview, but that's pushing the limit.

I also really like the earlier suggestion of latte-sipper being defined by living within X KM of the Peace Bridge; we just need to come up with a reasonable value for X.

[Ozy_Flame]

That's way too large, IMO.

For me, "inner city" means being within a ~30 minute walk of the downtown core. In terms of neighbourhoods, I would classify anyone who lives in any of these areas as a latte-sipper: Beltline, Mission, Lower Mount Royal, Cliff Bungalow, Sunalta, Sunnyside, Hillhurst/Kensington, Inglewood, Bridgeland. Also maybe Bankview, but that's pushing the limit.

I also really like the earlier suggestion of latte-sipper being defined by living within X KM of the Peace Bridge; we just need to come up with a reasonable value for X.

Got it --> you know that rule for dating women? Age /2 + 7. Seems like a good a formula as any since people like to "bitch" about it. Like the girlfriend that costs a lot of money :)

So, the Peace Bridge was 2010:

4/2 + 7 = 9

Anyone within 9 km of the bridge is inner city, and therefore have the potential to use it.

[MrMastodonFarm]

That's a dangerous game, x KM's away from the Peace Bridge. Plenty of latte's being arrogantly sipped in the East Village, Inglewood and 17th ave. Considering the western location of Mr. Calatrava's beautiful bridge of Peace we might have to re-think that.

[Muta]

I also really like the earlier suggestion of latte-sipper being defined by living within X KM of the Peace Bridge; we just need to come up with a reasonable value for X.

Figure out the percentage of people wearing skinny jeans walking around. Once that drops below 50%, find out the distance to the bridge and that will now border yop-gobbler territory. Once that drops to <10% and you see baggy jeans with wallet chains, you're in Edmonton and you've gone too far.

[DFO]

That's way too large, IMO.

For me, "inner city" means being within a ~30 minute walk of the downtown core. In terms of neighbourhoods, I would classify anyone who lives in any of these areas as a latte-sipper: Beltline, Mission, Lower Mount Royal, Cliff Bungalow, Sunalta, Sunnyside, Hillhurst/Kensington, Inglewood, Bridgeland. Also maybe Bankview, but that's pushing the limit.

I also really like the earlier suggestion of latte-sipper being defined by living within X KM of the Peace Bridge; we just need to come up with a reasonable value for X.

Rosedale, Crescent Heights, and Renfrew are inner city I would think.

[MarchHare]

BTW, I LOVE the "yop gobblin" tag used for this thread. I'm imaging a goblin-like creature shaped like a YOP bottle. Can anyone with artistic skills draw "Latte Sippin" and "Yop Gobblin" mascots?

[19Yzerman19]

I also really like the earlier suggestion of latte-sipper being defined by living within X KM of the Peace Bridge; we just need to come up with a reasonable value for X.
Inglewood really throws a wrench into this whole concept.

[Hack&Lube]

Inglewood really throws a wrench into this whole concept.

That's because latte sipping boundaries shouldn't be measured in kilometers but by mean cycle time to reach the nearest latte/vinyl store on the average hipster velocipede.

[bizaro86]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/data-centre/population-density/index.html

A link to population density by neighbourhood.

Do you know the sourcing on that? I was about to apologize for my West Hillhurst comments, which don't match the density from the Herald. Then I looked at my sources, which I think should be just as accurate.

Example: Census for West Hillhurst 2012 is 5802 people.
http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.calgar y.ca%2fCA%2fcity-clerks%2fDocuments%2fElection-and-information-services%2fCensus2012%2fFinal%25202012%2520Census% 2520Results%2520book.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1

Size of West Hillhurst is 2.4 km2
http://calgaryarea.com/index.php?p=communities&c=West%20Hillhurst

For a density of 2418 people/km2, matching my previous post, while the Herald reports West Hillhurst at 3346 people/km2

[MarchHare]

How about this:

Anyone living within a 3KM radius of any of these landmarks is a latte sipper:

Peace Bridge (Eau Clair)
Ship & Anchor (17th Ave)
Oolong Tea House (Kensington)

Does that cover everyone?

[Hack&Lube]

How about this:

Anyone living within a 3KM radius of any of these landmarks is a latte sipper:

Peace Bridge (Eau Clair)
Ship & Anchor (17th Ave)
Oolong Tea House (Kensington)


Does that cover everyone?

I still think it should be measured by maximum biking distance when hamstring/quads are trapped within skinny jeans.

[_Q_]

Guys Inglewood is within the 5 km on a bike path limit from the Peace Bridge that qualifies its residents as Latte Sippers.

https://www.google.ca/maps/preview#!data=!1m4!1m3!1d24952!2d-114.0732052!3d51.0479873!4m22!3m21!1m4!3m2!3d51.03 76202!4d-114.0249499!6e2!1m5!1sPeace+Bridge%2C+Calgary%2C+A B!2s0x53716fefda81eadd%3A0xb2735cd653782ce3!3m2!3d 51.05388!4d-114.079013!2e1!3m8!1m3!1d24955!2d-114.0435629!3d51.0434791!3m2!1i1920!2i955!4f13.1&fid=0

Yop-Gobbling, however is a different story, but that's a pretty exclusive club to be a part of.

[Muta]

I live close to Killarney. Can I be considered a latte-sipper? I want to be part of that club too.

[Zarley]

How about this:

Anyone living within a 3KM radius of any of these landmarks is a latte sipper:

Peace Bridge (Eau Clair)
Ship & Anchor (17th Ave)
Oolong Tea House (Kensington)

Does that cover everyone?

I'd suggest adding Riva's Eco Store in Inglewood.

[GGG]

Do you know the sourcing on that? I was about to apologize for my West Hillhurst comments, which don't match the density from the Herald. Then I looked at my sources, which I think should be just as accurate.

Example: Census for West Hillhurst 2012 is 5802 people.
http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.calgar y.ca%2fCA%2fcity-clerks%2fDocuments%2fElection-and-information-services%2fCensus2012%2fFinal%25202012%2520Census% 2520Results%2520book.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1

Size of West Hillhurst is 2.4 km2
http://calgaryarea.com/index.php?p=communities&c=West%20Hillhurst

For a density of 2418 people/km2, matching my previous post, while the Herald reports West Hillhurst at 3346 people/km2

No idea what the sourcing is I just through it out there as at least a baseline point for discussion. Are the census area for west hilhurst and the calgaryarea link for west hillhurst using the same boundarys?

[Hack&Lube]

Guys Inglewood is within the 5 km on a bike path limit from the Peace Bridge that qualifies its residents as Latte Sippers.

https://www.google.ca/maps/preview#!data=!1m4!1m3!1d24952!2d-114.0732052!3d51.0479873!4m22!3m21!1m4!3m2!3d51.03 76202!4d-114.0249499!6e2!1m5!1sPeace+Bridge%2C+Calgary%2C+A B!2s0x53716fefda81eadd%3A0xb2735cd653782ce3!3m2!3d 51.05388!4d-114.079013!2e1!3m8!1m3!1d24955!2d-114.0435629!3d51.0434791!3m2!1i1920!2i955!4f13.1&fid=0

Yop-Gobbling, however is a different story, but that's a pretty exclusive club to be a part of.

Yop-Gobbling parameters could be defined by the amount of space you have in your luxury SUV to load up palates of Yoplait from your weekly Costco runs to stock your 5000 square foot parasitic-sprawl home.

[MarchHare]

I'd suggest adding Riva's Eco Store in Inglewood.

The only problem with that is that then you'd get people who live 3KM East of Inglewood (e.g. Forest Lawn, Erinwoods, etc.) added to the latte sipping crowd, which doesn't seem right.

What we need is a good landmark on the East end of downtown that would include Inglewood within its radius but exclude those other communities. Maybe the library or Olympic Plaza?

[_Q_]

Wait a minute... is Yop-Gobbling a term for suburbanites? I thought they were just known as parasites.

[Canehdianman]

I'm getting some pushback from my suburbanite friends that don't understand that Yop-Gobbler is a badge of pride for them to wear.

If they are wearing it, then they aren't swallowing fast enough.

[Hack&Lube]

The only problem with that is that then you'd get people who live 3KM East of Inglewood (e.g. Forest Lawn, Erinwoods, etc.) added to the latte sipping crowd, which doesn't seem right.

What we need is a good landmark on the East end of downtown that would include Inglewood within its radius but exclude those other communities. Maybe the library or Olympic Plaza?

I don't think you can set a radius from a single point as the central area is too diverse. You need to set outer bounds such as the transitional DMZ between where Inglewood goes from lattes to Blackfoot Diner coffee.

[Mazrim]

I think I'm gonna visit the Peace Bridge on Saturday with a Tim Hortons Latte in hand and see what happens.

I'm getting some pushback from my suburbanite friends that don't understand that Yop-Gobbler is a badge of pride for them to wear.

Perhaps an Urban Dictionary page for this term would be informative for the masses.

[V]

Wait a minute... is Yop-Gobbling a term for suburbanites? I thought they were just known as parasites.

I thought those were the Airdrie or Chestermere dwellers.

You could go with tax dodgers as well.

[Muta]

I think I'm gonna visit the Peace Bridge on Saturday with a Tim Hortons Latte in hand and see what happens.



Perhaps an Urban Dictionary page for this term would be informative for the masses.

Agreed. An Urban Dictionary submission is needed.

[Hack&Lube]

I think I'm gonna visit the Peace Bridge on Saturday with a Tim Hortons Latte in hand and see what happens.


I think the fabric of the universe would collapse if you collide those worlds together. That's the real reason the Peace Bridge was so expensive and looks like it's from the future. It's Calgary's Latte Hadron Collider.

[_Q_]

OK so I submit this:

Latte-Sipper - A resident of Calgary living within 5 km of the Santiago Calatrava designed Peace Bridge.

Yop-Gobbler - A resident of Calgary living outside the 5 km radius detailed above.

Tax Dodger - A resident of the city of Airdrie, or Rocky View, Wheatland and Foothills counties that regularly commutes into the City of Calgary in order to avoid paying property taxes. Also known as parasite, or scum of the earth.

[bizaro86]

No idea what the sourcing is I just through it out there as at least a baseline point for discussion. Are the census area for west hilhurst and the calgaryarea link for west hillhurst using the same boundarys?

Not sure, I got both of those links from Wikipedia. I did look for census boundaries but couldn't find them.

[MarchHare]

I don't think you can set a radius from a single point as the central area is too diverse. You need to set outer bounds such as the transitional DMZ between where Inglewood goes from lattes to Blackfoot Diner coffee.

How about some kind of point system then? If your total score is >0, you're a Latte Sipper; if your total score is <0, you're a Yop Gobbler.

Is your usual method of commuting to work either walking or cycling? (+1)
Does your commute involve travel on Deerfoot Trail, Crowchild Trail, Glenmore Trail, or 16th Ave? (-1)
Do you have two or more children. (-1)
Have you ever cast a ballot for Druh Farrell or Kent Hehr? (+1)
Have you ever cast a ballot for Ric McIvor? (-1)
Do you believe that the Peace Bridge is a beautiful piece of architecture that enhances the city? (+1)
Do you believe that your property taxes went up to pay for the Peace Bridge? (-1)
Have you ever purchased a full pass to either the Calgary Folk Music Festival or Sled Island Music and Arts Festival? (+1)
Do you normally buy groceries from either Costco or Superstore? (-1)
Are you a regular reader of FFWD? (+1)
Do you subscribe to the Calgary Sun? (-1) Specifically to read Rick Bell's column? (-5)
Have you ever completed the New York Times Sunday Crossword? (+1)
Does your family own more than one vehicle? (-1) Is at least one of them an SUV or minivan? (-1)
Have you ever said the phrase "good fences make great neighbours"? (-1)
On average, do you use the Tim Hortons drivethrough at least once per week? (-1)
Is your preferred caffeinated beverage made with steamed milk? (+1) Do you avoid Starbucks because you only want to support local businesses? (+1)
Do you own an item of clothing, accessory, or household decoration with a bird on it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmLljk2t8M)? (+1)
Is your favourite watering hole the Ship & Anchor, National, Wurst, District, or Molly Malones? (+1) Is your home within drunken stumbling distance of any of these establishments? (+1)
Have you ever purchased a case of Molson, Labatts, Coors, or Budweiser? (-1)

I'm sure we can use our combined brain power to add to this list and make it more precise.

[nik-]

How about some kind of point system then? If your total score is >0, you're a Latte Sipper; if your total score is <0, you're a Yop Gobbler.

Is your usual method of commuting to work either walking or cycling? (+1)
Does your commute involve travel on Deerfoot Trail, Crowchild Trail, Glenmore Trail, or 16th Ave? (-1)
Do you have two or more children. (-1)
Have you ever cast a ballot for Druh Farrell or Kent Hehr? (+1)
Have you ever cast a ballot for Ric McIvor? (-1)
Do you believe that the Peace Bridge is a beautiful piece of architecture that enhances the city? (+1)
Do you believe that your property taxes went up to pay for the Peace Bridge? (-1)
Have you ever purchased a full pass to either the Calgary Folk Music Festival or Sled Island Music and Arts Festival? (+1)
Do you normally buy groceries from either Costco or Superstore? (-1)
Are you a regular reader of FFWD? (+1)
Do you subscribe to the Calgary Sun? (-1) Specifically to read Rick Bell's column? (-5)
Have you ever completed the New York Times Sunday Crossword? (+1)
Does your family own more than one vehicle? (-1) Is at least one of them an SUV or minivan? (-1)
Have you ever said the phrase "good fences make great neighbours"? (-1)
On average, do you use the Tim Hortons drivethrough at least once per week? (-1)
Is your preferred caffeinated beverage made with steamed milk? (+1) Do you avoid Starbucks because you only want to support local businesses? (+1)
Do you own an item of clothing, accessory, or household decoration with a bird on it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmLljk2t8M)? (+1)
Is your favourite watering hole the Ship & Anchor, National, Wurst, District, or Molly Malones? (+1) Is your home within drunken stumbling distance of any of these establishments? (+1)
Have you ever purchased a case of Molson, Labatts, Coors, or Budweiser? (-1)

I'm sure we can use our combined brain power to add to this list and make it more precise.

My score is massive ... but I don't have anything with a bird on it.

[Mazrim]

Well crap, my score is 0. What would be the term for someone in between Latte-Sipper and Yop-Gobbler?

[MarchHare]

Well crap, my score is 0. What would be the term for someone in between Latte-Sipper and Yop-Gobbler?

Then we need to refine the quiz by adding more questions to eliminate edge cases like you!

[19Yzerman19]

There has to be a question on there that essentially adds to or subtracts from your score based on whether the jeans you're wearing have a hem width of more or less than 9".

Also, add a point for every tall boy of PBR you've had in the last calendar year as well as each trip to the 10th avenue MEC in the past 30 days.

+1 (for each) for having ever made a purchase at Silk Road, Tea Trader, Roasterie, Broken City, Una Pizza, Kensington Wine Market, Gravity Pope, Leo, or Vine Arts.

[nik-]

Do the PBR's have to be Tall Boys? What if I just kill a 15 pack every now and then?

[DownInFlames]

I'd suggest you're a Yop-gobbler if you drive to pick up your mail.

[19Yzerman19]

Do the PBR's have to be Tall Boys? What if I just kill a 15 pack every now and then?
The concept of buying beer in a 15 pack should itself be anathema to the latte sipper. The whole point is that you have to pay a lot of money for the PBR, despite it being ####ty beer. Ideally $6 a can at Broken City.

If buying beer at a liquor store, you should be doing it in single serving increments and buying a selection of things, ideally featuring the word "trappiste", "porter", "dubbel", "imperial" or advertising its unreasonably and preferably undrinkably large hops content.

PS this has actually just evolved into an exercise in describing the things I do myself.

[nik-]

What if I use the PBR's to make micheladas?

[CaptainYooh]

How about some kind of point system then? ...
A few more points and this could be a sexuality test for men...

[calgaryrocks]

-2 - guess I'm a yop gobbler

[_Q_]

Hold up... this looks more like a hipster test than a latte sipping test. Being a hipster definitely doesn't equal being a latte sipping yuppie.

[Regular_John]

I'd suggest you're a Yop-gobbler if you drive to pick up your mail.

This is my favourite thing about the complex I live in (which Mazrim can confirm), we get our mail delivered right to our door, the million $+ McMansions on the west side of Elbow have to go to a community box. It gives me a nice smug feeling watching folks climb out of their BMW's/MB's to get their mail in the cold.

Yes, I am a horrible person, petty as well.

[MarchHare]

Hold up... this looks more like a hipster test than a latte sipping test. Being a hipster definitely doesn't equal being a latte sipping yuppie.

The "hipster-ish" questions are there to ensure the quiz-taker is classified correctly even if he/she does not live within a defined distance of the core. One can be a latte sipper without living in/near the inner city, afterall. For example, I have a friend who lives in Brentwood (clearly outside the "Peace Bridge radius") because she works at the University. She is most definitely not a yop gobbler. So the questions about the Folk Festival/Sled Island, New York Times crossword, supporting local coffeeshops, etc. are there to ensure she falls into the right category.

Likewise, I know a family who lives in an inner city neighbourhood, but they're still unquestionably yop gobblers. The questions about owning minivans/SUVs, voting for Ric McIvor, etc. are there for them.

[GGG]

This is my favourite thing about the complex I live in (which Mazrim can confirm), we get our mail delivered right to our door, the million $+ McMansions on the west side of Elbow have to go to a community box. It gives me a nice smug feeling watching folks climb out of their BMW's/MB's to get their mail in the cold.

Yes, I am a horrible person, petty as well.

Add home mail delivery to the subsidy list for Latte Sippers. Why they haven't done away with door delivery of mail and installed the boxes is beyond me.

I did the quiz and although I live in Bridlewood. I am about a plus 5 on the latte scale and if you add in trips to MEC in the last month I get to like +7. The one thing I miss about working downtown is the District. Such good food and beer. I might have to make a pilgrimage.

Other than having 2 kids and owning an SUV (only 1 vehicle though) I fit the Latte stereotype. I also enjoy Lattes.

[Mazrim]

This is my favourite thing about the complex I live in (which Mazrim can confirm), we get our mail delivered right to our door, the million $+ McMansions on the west side of Elbow have to go to a community box. It gives me a nice smug feeling watching folks climb out of their BMW's/MB's to get their mail in the cold.

Yes, I am a horrible person, petty as well.

On the flip side, us multi-family types on the East side of Elbow get no trick-or-treaters, and no election candidates come door knocking. I'm pretty sure that we don't even exist in DCU's mind.

or subtracts from your score based on whether the jeans you're wearing have a hem width of more or less than 9".
I had to google search hem width, so I'm pretty sure that's an additional -1 on this question.

[MarchHare]

On the flip side, us multi-family types on the East side of Elbow get no trick-or-treaters, and no election candidates come door knocking.

I'm honestly not sure if you mean this to be a pro or a con.

[Mazrim]

I'm honestly not sure if you mean this to be a pro or a con.

I just want our pumpkin carving to be noticed. :whaa: (and on a more serious note, I would have actually liked to have one of the Ward 13 candidates come to my door)

[chemgear]

This is my favourite thing about the complex I live in (which Mazrim can confirm), we get our mail delivered right to our door, the million $+ McMansions on the west side of Elbow have to go to a community box. It gives me a nice smug feeling watching folks climb out of their BMW's/MB's to get their mail in the cold.

Yes, I am a horrible person, petty as well.

Do you also leave caltrops all over the road in front of the communal mailbox? That would definitely make you horrible and petty . . . :)

[Regular_John]

On the flip side, us multi-family types on the East side of Elbow get no trick-or-treaters, and no election candidates come door knocking. I'm pretty sure that we don't even exist in DCU's mind.


I had to google search hem width, so I'm pretty sure that's an additional -1 on this question.

Last year I had 6 trick-or-treaters, this year I've got full sized chocolate bars waiting for em. With numbers so low I can finally be "that house".

[Mista_Incognito]

Whats your YOP Score?


http://i.imgur.com/iJusTid.png

[SebC]

If you live in a community where taxes (adjusted for ability to pay) exceed lifecycle costs, you're in latte zone. Otherwise, Yop for you.

[MarchHare]

Whats your YOP Score?


Is that list calculated by taking the inverse of Walkscore (http://www.walkscore.com/CA-AB/Calgary#hood-ranks)?

[Jedi Ninja]

Last year I had 6 trick-or-treaters, this year I've got full sized chocolate bars waiting for em. With numbers so low I can finally be "that house".

I totally did that last year... not sure any of the parents "got" my costume, though.


http://i39.tinypic.com/2s6x5ko.png

[Maccalus]

Whats your YOP Score?


http://i.imgur.com/iJusTid.png


I didn't realize that many people live in fish creek park...

[Mista_Incognito]

Is that list calculated by taking the inverse of Walkscore (http://www.walkscore.com/CA-AB/Calgary#hood-ranks)?

No, I managed to get access to the YOP sales database. YOP sales are tracked at a meticulous level… everytime a YOP exits your body it is added to the database.

[Ozy_Flame]

I can't believe there is a YOP score. Holy #### lol

[troutman]

Any escape might help to smooth the unattractive truth
But the suburbs have no charms to soothe the restless dreams of youth

[The Yen Man]

Yes, I'm second on that list! What do I win? (Other than your hard earned cash to subsidize my commute to and from work). Yes, your tears of frustration are delicious. :cool:

[MrMastodonFarm]

Yes, I'm second on that list! What do I win?

http://commoncentsmom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/i_produit_familleYop.jpg

[The Yen Man]

Had to google what YOP was. Yuck. I guess I must have missed the thread on why we think suburbanites like it.

[Temporary_User]

Whats your YOP Score?


http://i.imgur.com/iJusTid.png
14
I need it lower!

[Mista_Incognito]

City Dwellers, Ask your barista to make your latte with YOP instead of milk.

Surburbanites, Put a shot of espresso in your childrens YOP before packing that lunch.

...soon we will be one.

[Flames in 07]

I think there are a few ways to look at this issue.

First, at the community level, I see it being similar to the equalization program between the provinces and just like that system, there would be have and have not communities. In a system where only work and or maintenance for a community was based on the taxes generated within said community, some neighbourhoods would be at a distinct disadvantage versus others who possess a larger revenue base (e.g. Forest Lawn v. Mount Royal). Having tax revenue collected at a level above the community (i.e. the city) and distributed by that larger entity is a more equitable way for all communities to thrive..

So what you are saying is that the yoppers are like Quebec?

Parlez vous Yop! You unsustainable parasites!

[stevinder]

39. More of a DanActive guy actually. ;)

[onetwo_threefour]

Seems appropriate to me, I live in Mahogany, have a couple of these 'locust children' that Muta is worried about and have a case of Yop in the fridge that I bought at the Okotoks Costco 'cause it's not not as busy there and my kids love to gobble the Yop...

Furthermore, my kids get bused to school in Parkdale and University Heights so even my kids are yop-gobbling up the roadways.

:w00t:.

[Knalus]

t6aI9dTFyjo

[Hack&Lube]

My YOP score is below 10!

I hope lattes provide as much calcium as Yop as I'm not gobbling any.

[Voodooman]

I think I like March Hare's point system better than the YOP score, although I score an exceedingly latte-sippy +7 (and about +15 once you add in the establishment list). Here are a few additional questions:

Do you regularly curse suburbanites clogging up your neighbourhood on weekends? (+2)
Are 18th century Victorian armoires available from multiple vendors within walking distance from your home? (+1)
During the first snow storm of the year, is it quicker to walk to downtown than drive? (+1)
Do directions to your home involve the phrase "It's the 3rd blue Cape Cod on the left, past the 2 side-by-side beige 2 storeys with front garages" (-2)
Are there trees in your yard (+1)? Are they more than 8 feet tall? (+1)
Do you wonder what the deal is with all those blue Smart Cars in downtown? (-1)

[MarchHare]

I think I like March Hare's point system better than the YOP score

Actually, I'm starting to think a hybrid of YOP Score + point system is the way to go. I'm thinking the first question in the quiz should be:

Is your YOP Score <=20 (+5) or >20 (-5)?

That way somebody can still be a latte sipper even if they live away from the inner city (like my friend in Brentwood I mentioned earlier) but only if they satisfy many other requirements of latte-sippiness. Likewise, somebody could still be a Yop Gobbler even if they live near the core if they have many other Gobbler attributes, for example if they own two or more cars (including an SUV or minivan), subscribe to the Calgary Sun, buy groceries at Costco etc.

[GGG]

I think I like March Hare's point system better than the YOP score, although I score an exceedingly latte-sippy +7 (and about +15 once you add in the establishment list). Here are a few additional questions:

During the first snow storm of the year, is it quicker to walk to downtown than drive? (+1)


I think this is almost true for all areas of the city. I used to just call it a snow day and 22x it to the mountains.

[4X4]

Actually, I'm starting to think a hybrid of YOP Score + point system is the way to go. I'm thinking the first question in the quiz should be:

Is your YOP Score <=20 (+5) or >20 (-5)?

That way somebody can still be a latte sipper even if they live away from the inner city (like my friend in Brentwood I mentioned earlier) but only if they satisfy many other requirements of latte-sippiness. Likewise, somebody could still be a Yop Gobbler even if they live near the core if they have many other Gobbler attributes, for example if they own two or more cars (including an SUV or minivan), subscribe to the Calgary Sun, buy groceries at Costco etc.

Ok, this is getting insulting.

[Bunk]

Was chatting with Daorcey in the office about the Yop Gobbler term. On the weekend he was up at Costco shopping, which he tweeted. Someone replied this upped his Yop Gobbler quotient. But he said it was counterbalanced by the fact that he drove Car2Go to get there. Daorcey is a latte sipper through and through. Anyway, the funny thing was, when that person tweeted back to him about his Yop Gobbler quotient he swears he was standing right in front of a giant wall of Yop. It's clearly destined to be Yop Gobbler.

[Bigtime]

I saw that exchange but didn't know about the wall of Yop he faced. Clearly the term is meant to be.

[You Need a Thneed]

I think I like March Hare's point system better than the YOP score, although I score an exceedingly latte-sippy +7 (and about +15 once you add in the establishment list). Here are a few additional questions:

Do you regularly curse suburbanites clogging up your neighbourhood on weekends? (+2)
Are 18th century Victorian armoires available from multiple vendors within walking distance from your home? (+1)
During the first snow storm of the year, is it quicker to walk to downtown than drive? (+1)
Do directions to your home involve the phrase "It's the 3rd blue Cape Cod on the left, past the 2 side-by-side beige 2 storeys with front garages" (-2)
Are there trees in your yard (+1)? Are they more than 8 feet tall? (+1)
Do you wonder what the deal is with all those blue Smart Cars in downtown? (-1)

Including these questions with the original questions places me at a +2. I live in Martindale - clearly Yop Gobbler territory.

[kermitology]

Was chatting with Daorcey in the office about the Yop Gobbler term. On the weekend he was up at Costco shopping, which he tweeted. Someone replied this upped his Yop Gobbler quotient. But he said it was counterbalanced by the fact that he drove Car2Go to get there. Daorcey is a latte sipper through and through. Anyway, the funny thing was, when that person tweeted back to him about his Yop Gobbler quotient he swears he was standing right in front of a giant wall of Yop. It's clearly destined to be Yop Gobbler.

That was me who tweeted that to him.

[Maccalus]

Here is a 2 for 1 deal for the Yop Guzzling, extreme couponing crowd. Hard to pass this up.

http://i40.tinypic.com/2prb6ft.jpg

[HOWITZER]

Interesting article in today's Globe and Mail on the cost of suburban sprawl.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-true-costs-of-sprawl/article15218154/

[ranchlandsselling]

Wow, when this thread started I bookmarked it to follow for future interest. While funny it's certainly gone way off topic and the first few posts should probably be removed and restarted in a new thread.

Can one gobble latte's?

[Bunk]

The headline could be read in a number of ways:

'Hipster' hunting growing in popularity in Alberta

Province saw nearly a 10% increase from 2011 to 2012 in some age groups

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/hipster-hunting-growing-in-popularity-in-alberta-1.2356289

[Temporary_User]

The headline could be read in a number of ways:

'Hipster' hunting growing in popularity in Alberta

Province saw nearly a 10% increase from 2011 to 2012 in some age groups

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/hipster-hunting-growing-in-popularity-in-alberta-1.2356289That headline makes me cringe

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

'Hipster' hunting

The least dangerous game.

[Maccalus]

On Saturday I went to the information session regarding the area south of SETON. Yes, this is south of the new hospital. They had presentation boards of 3 proposed community plans to draw ideas from.

I apologize for some of the poor pictures. I didn't look at them after I took them till later.

Civitas
http://i40.tinypic.com/20t03t5.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/k1t2br.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/2qmjjup.jpg

P + A
http://i43.tinypic.com/r29ic8.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/qq748n.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/2ikuxj9.jpg

Awful curvy road design
http://i42.tinypic.com/2yl39xg.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/2a00op.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/xemq7l.jpg

[Clarkey]

I think that now that the city has seemed to start to get a grasp on managing development on the perimeter it is time to manage sprawl on the interior. Sunnyside, West Hillhurst, Briar Hill, Banff Trail and all the other similar 'inner city' neighbourhoods I'm too vanilla/suburban to know about need to start rezoning for 3 story, 4 plexes or bigger, secondary suites, and multiplexes. Single detached homes in Bridgeland on 50x120' lots make less sense than 50x120' lots in Dalhousie or Varsity (so called inner city now but was sprall of the 70's) or even farther for that matter.

[GGG]

I think that now that the city has seemed to start to get a grasp on managing development on the perimeter it is time to manage sprawl on the interior. Sunnyside, West Hillhurst, Briar Hill, Banff Trail and all the other similar 'inner city' neighbourhoods I'm too vanilla/suburban to know about need to start rezoning for 3 story, 4 plexes or bigger, secondary suites, and multiplexes. Single detached homes in Bridgeland on 50x120' lots make less sense than 50x120' lots in Dalhousie or Varsity (so called inner city now but was sprall of the 70's) or even farther for that matter.

To me this is so mey in fighting growth outwards. A portion of taxation should be based on the land you occupy. And possibly additional fees for occupying premium land that sits under-densified. Reshaping the innercity should be a priority and current property owners should be incentivised and penalized for their development choices.

There should be no 50 foot lots with SFHs in the Latte district.

[SebC]

To me this is so mey in fighting growth outwards. A portion of taxation should be based on the land you occupy. And possibly additional fees for occupying premium land that sits under-densified. Reshaping the innercity should be a priority and current property owners should be incentivised and penalized for their development choices.

There should be no 50 foot lots with SFHs in the Latte district.There's really no need to start bulldozing houses in Sunnyside (or to incentivize that) with so much undeveloped inner city land available for growth.

[Maccalus]

There's really no need to start bulldozing houses in Sunnyside (or to incentivize that) with so much undeveloped inner city land available for growth.

I would argue for some need for it to provide greater variety of density. The undeveloped inner city land (aka parking lots) is good for midrise to highrise apartments. The SFH sunnyside style lots can be used for Duplexes, fourplexes, row houses and townhouses. Uses that increase density, but still preserve the yards that many people want.

[Bigtime]

I think that now that the city has seemed to start to get a grasp on managing development on the perimeter it is time to manage sprawl on the interior. Sunnyside, West Hillhurst, Briar Hill, Banff Trail and all the other similar 'inner city' neighbourhoods I'm too vanilla/suburban to know about need to start rezoning for 3 story, 4 plexes or bigger, secondary suites, and multiplexes. Single detached homes in Bridgeland on 50x120' lots make less sense than 50x120' lots in Dalhousie or Varsity (so called inner city now but was sprall of the 70's) or even farther for that matter.

City of Calgary density is 1,329/km2 (2011).
Sunnyside density is 3,700/km2 (2012).

Plus there is plenty of infill development, and 3 midrise condo projects under construction or breaking ground soon (Pixel, Lido, Ven). The current ARP allows plenty of room for extra density, so I think Sunnyside is doing a very good job of what you believe it isn't doing.

Once again it isn't just about building high-density buildings, it is about creating communities that have ALL the housing options available to residents (SFH, townhome, 4 plexes, apartments, mid-rise, high-rise, and all the other options in between) and hopefully at all price points, to encourage good diversity of residents.

[Bigtime]

What do you all think of this, a 10' x 10', 2 floor micro-home:

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2013/10/25000-vancouver-micro-home/

RSXv1RoV168

[GGG]

There's really no need to start bulldozing houses in Sunnyside (or to incentivize that) with so much undeveloped inner city land available for growth.

There is undeveloped land for Condos, not so much for small lot SFHs or town homes. I think a real need in the inner city is more family friendly housing. The demand for sprawl is because people aren't willing to make the sacrifice of Two Car garage SFH for Condo. I think a lot more people would be willing to make the sacrifice for a small yard town house with a garage.

[MarchHare]

There is undeveloped land for Condos, not so much for small lot SFHs or town homes. I think a real need in the inner city is more family friendly housing. The demand for sprawl is because people aren't willing to make the sacrifice of Two Car garage SFH for Condo. I think a lot more people would be willing to make the sacrifice for a small yard town house with a garage.

I'm not even sure if it's the two car garage that inner-city people want. When they're not trapped in the unwalkable suburbs, families can easily get by with one (or even zero) vehicles. The real problem is the section I bolded: nobody is building three bedroom condos at a price affordable for most families. I know of at least one couple who stayed in their 2BR inner city condo after having their first child but left for the suburbs -- out of necessity, not by preference -- when baby #2 was on the way. Young families who would like to live near the core have no viable housing option except to contribute to suburban sprawl once they have two or more children.

[tete]

I'm not even sure if it's the two car garage that inner-city people want. When they're not trapped in the unwalkable suburbs, families can easily get by with one (or even zero) vehicles. The real problem is the section I bolded: nobody is building three bedroom condos at a price affordable for most families. I know of at least one couple who stayed in their 2BR inner city condo after having their first child but left for the suburbs -- out of necessity, not by preference -- when baby #2 was on the way. Young families who would like to live near the core have no viable housing option except to contribute to suburban sprawl once they have two or more children.

Very true. We're currently living in a 2 bdrm Beltline condo with our 22 month old and we figure we can have one more kid and stay for at least a few years after in this condo. However, when the kids get older, we'll have to look for something else. And right now, most 3 bdrm condos in Beltline are going for over a million, which is crazy. We love the area we live in and I just can't imagine having to move out to the burbs and become a commuter family simply because we have more than one kid. We don't need a yard, (though we'd need one parking spot, I'm not giving up my car TYVM), but 2 bedrooms just isn't practical for many families. I just pray that by the time we're contemplating moving, there'll be more family-oriented development in the core - and I mean CORE, easy walking distance to downtown, not this "if you're inside Glenmore Trail you're considered inner city and we'll build all the family stuff out there" crap.

[GGG]

I'm not even sure if it's the two car garage that inner-city people want. When they're not trapped in the unwalkable suburbs, families can easily get by with one (or even zero) vehicles. The real problem is the section I bolded: nobody is building three bedroom condos at a price affordable for most families. I know of at least one couple who stayed in their 2BR inner city condo after having their first child but left for the suburbs -- out of necessity, not by preference -- when baby #2 was on the way. Young families who would like to live near the core have no viable housing option except to contribute to suburban sprawl once they have two or more children.

This is my situation essentially, the time 6 years ago we looked in the inner city and didn't find anything in the single car garage, attached, enough grass to put a small swing set in / kick around a soccer ball that fit in the price range so off to the burbs it was. The only options were Condos or 100 year old fixers/bulldozers. I also moved my job south so I don't have to commute but I miss the food. 1 car is very feasable in the burbs as long as one person doesn't have to commute.

I was okay with attached housing just not Condos. I looked recently and there were a few developments that were getting closer in that range but not really.

Raising the price of the suburbs by offsetting the costs will only increase all housing price so still doesn't address the situation. I'm not sure how to get better family housing into the inner city but to me thats the bottleneck to reducing sprawl.

[Maccalus]

It sounds like we need to get together and start our own CP inner city family housing development company. There could be a business opening for it.

[Table 5]

What do you all think of this, a 10' x 10', 2 floor micro-home:]

As a college student or single person living on an extremely tight budget, I think that would be totally fine. Definitely not ideal, but you get the most important thing....privacy. Id rather live in something like that than a dorm, or share space with a room-mate (hey polak?!). At that age you don't spend that much time at home anyway.

[burn_this_city]

I wouldn't be too keen to live in a shed or a shipping container, the tree fort is enticing, but I doubt my wife would be on board.

[Knalus]

That microhome actually looks like a viable guest house. Also, it's small enough that it meets calgary bylaw to register as a shed. Place it beside a garage, and bam, extra living space for a decent price.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Pages/Home-building-and-renovations/Garage-or-shed/Garage-or-Shed.aspx

Garages and sheds

A Building Permit is required for all residential garages and all yard sheds including garden sheds over 10 square metres in area. This information covers requirements for garages and/or sheds that are not attached to a house. For garages attached to a residence, see Additions (http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Pages/Home-building-and-renovations/Additions/Additions.aspx).


Plumbing could be an issue, though. Looks like they have a model with no plumbing in it.

[GGG]

That is almost the perfect live in Nanny suite and it in theory only costs what developing your basement would.

[Ozy_Flame]

I don't want to give the Sun anymore attention, but I had to post this. Not sure whether to laugh or to cry:

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/11/09/calgary-conservatism-back-in-the-game-at-city-council

What a way to start the column too:

"One of the cool things about politics is that often everybody’s wrong.

Conventional wisdom in the municipal election was pretty clear.

It was a victory for what my colleague Rick Bell calls the latte lifters.

The urbanists.

Urbanists, in case you don’t recognize the term, are pretentious faddists who hate the suburbs where 87% of city dwelling Canadians reside.

But they like public art and woonerfs.

They like bicycle-share programs and public transit and mistake their esthetic preferences for morality.

They love high-density housing so much that they have a long-term strategy to force you to live in it, too."

[GGG]

I also like how they say the urbanists support transit instead of cars when by far mos of the transit users carry their yops on the train with them. Outside of roads billion dollar train lines are probably the next biggest enabler of the burbs.

[Hack&Lube]

I don't want to give the Sun anymore attention, but I had to post this. Not sure whether to laugh or to cry:

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/11/09/calgary-conservatism-back-in-the-game-at-city-council

What a way to start the column too:

"One of the cool things about politics is that often everybody’s wrong.

Conventional wisdom in the municipal election was pretty clear.

It was a victory for what my colleague Rick Bell calls the latte lifters.

The urbanists.

Urbanists, in case you don’t recognize the term, are pretentious faddists who hate the suburbs where 87% of city dwelling Canadians reside.

But they like public art and woonerfs.

They like bicycle-share programs and public transit and mistake their esthetic preferences for morality.

They love high-density housing so much that they have a long-term strategy to force you to live in it, too."

I like this author's bio. He should work for FOX news.

"He worked as a reporter and editor for seven Ontario newspapers before fleeing to Alberta after the NDP formed a government in his home province." He makes himself sound like a suffering refugee who has escaped a bloody civil war in his home country.

[HOWITZER]

Came across this tonight, thought it would be nice to share. At least it's the desert, but I'd love to see this type of gif for Calgary over the last 50 years. What a poor choice of use of 1000s of acres of prime fertile land.

http://i.imgur.com/xVpNx5X.gif

EDIT: Further to that, here's a link to a few more cities with 30 years of sprawl captured in photos.

YOP Gobbler Paradise (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2013/06/devastating-impact-30-years-sprawl-seen-space/5955/)

EDIT2:What do you know, found the site. This is quite a powerful site, encourage all of you to explore and spend some time looking.

TIME World Timelapse (http://world.time.com/timelapse/)

[Violator]

If you click on explore the world you can see calgary from around the time of the 88 olympics Im actually surprised how little Calgary has grown.

[Bigtime]

Heard the deep NE described as the "Ethnoburbs" on Facebook today, I actually quite like it. It was used in a positive connotation too (while describing delicious eats at great prices).

[Magnum PEI]

http://i401.photobucket.com/albums/pp99/MagnumPEI/http---makeagifcom--media-11-17-2013-FN1mOI_zps8ffbe219.gif

[HOWITZER]

If you click on explore the world you can see calgary from around the time of the 88 olympics Im actually surprised how little Calgary has grown.

http://i401.photobucket.com/albums/pp99/MagnumPEI/http---makeagifcom--media-11-17-2013-FN1mOI_zps8ffbe219.gif

I think you may be missing just how big a scale this is. You have to realize that every single large square that the city builds out there is one section of land. Each section being 640 acres. I don't know how many sections they've built in the last thirty years, but it's a lot.

[ranchlandsselling]

I think you may be missing just how big a scale this is. You have to realize that every single large square that the city builds out there is one section of land. Each section being 640 acres. I don't know how many sections they've built in the last thirty years, but it's a lot.

No kidding, just look at how easily nose hill was engulfed. Using that as a reference point think how many areas the size of nose hill have been developed.

[bizaro86]

I think you may be missing just how big a scale this is. You have to realize that every single large square that the city builds out there is one section of land. Each section being 640 acres. I don't know how many sections they've built in the last thirty years, but it's a lot.

It looks to me like our population density has gone up dramatically though. Population in '88 was 657k, now its 1.15MM. That's a 75% increase in population, and it looks to me like the developed area has increased by dramatically less than that. If someone has some GIS skills I'd be interested to know the exact amount.

[Bigtime]

Look at Airdrie, it just explodes in size.

[HOWITZER]

I can't believe the growth in Red Deer personally.

http://s22.postimg.org/lb4jtz7s1/reddeersprawl.gif

[undercoverbrother]

I can't believe the growth in Red Deer personally.

http://s22.postimg.org/lb4jtz7s1/reddeersprawl.gif


What is the time period between those two images

[HOWITZER]

what is the time period between those two images

1984-2012

[CaptainYooh]

Look at Airdrie, it just explodes in size.
Ever thought why?

[Bigtime]

Ever thought why?

The 10 minute commute to downtown Calgary, clearly.

[Hack&Lube]

Ever thought why?

The amount of Yoplait on Airdrie grocery shelves must have reached critical mass just like an increase of oxygen in the atmosphere may have been a cause of the Cambrian Explosion of animal life.

[CaptainYooh]

The 10 minute commute to downtown Calgary, clearly.
It's been the same distance all along. The reason satellite towns are exploding like yeast around Calgary is exactly the same reason homebuilders are getting involved in municipal politics. In addition to serviced lots becoming more and more expensive to buy, it has become almost impossible to buy them within Calgary city limits for independent homebuilding companies unless they are either owned by large developers or heavily investing with large developers.

[SebC]

Ever thought why?When a host develops immunity to a parasite, the parasite must find a new host or it will die.

[You Need a Thneed]

It's been the same distance all along. The reason satellite towns are exploding like yeast around Calgary is exactly the same reason homebuilders are getting involved in municipal politics. In addition to serviced lots becoming more and more expensive to buy, it has become almost impossible to buy them within Calgary city limits for independent homebuilding companies unless they are either owned by large developers or heavily investing with large developers.

Than why did Calgary "explode" at pretty much the same rate, and FAR greater overall growth?

Also, why are all the communities in Airdrie developed by the same large developers?

[CaptainYooh]

Than why did Calgary "explode" at pretty much the same rate, and FAR greater overall growth?

Also, why are all the communities in Airdrie developed by the same large developers?
Calgary is growing, because there are jobs and people want to move here. That's a good thing. Satellite towns are growing like crazy because housing is less expensive there.

Developers are in business of developing land into serviced lots. Why wouldn't they develop in Airdrie if there is demand?

To better illustrate my point, population growth in Edmonton has been as robust as it has been in Calgary in the last 10 years; but there is no service lot shortage there. Municipal policies are not growth prohibitive and the number of active developers there is substantially higher than in Calgary,

[You Need a Thneed]

Calgary is growing, because there are jobs and people want to move here. That's a good thing. Satellite towns are growing like crazy because housing is less expensive there.

Developers are in business of developing land into serviced lots. Why wouldn't they develop in Airdrie if there is demand?

To better illustrate my point, population growth in Edmonton has been as robust as it has been in Calgary in the last 10 years; but there is no service lot shortage there. Municipal policies are not growth prohibitive and the number of active developers there is substantially higher than in Calgary,

There's no serviced lot shortage here either.

[CaptainYooh]

There's no serviced lot shortage here either.
You've got to be kidding! :w00t:

[You Need a Thneed]

You've got to be kidding! :w00t:

http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2013/03/06/everyone-must-do-better-joint-statement-by-nenshi-and-home-builders/

There are currently 2,210 hectares (22 km2) of vacant serviced land, as defined in The City’s draft Suburban Growth Report 2013-2017, with an additional 420 hectares of serviced vacant land to be added by the end of 2014.

[jammies]

To better illustrate my point, population growth in Edmonton has been as robust as it has been in Calgary in the last 10 years; but there is no service lot shortage there. Municipal policies are not growth prohibitive and the number of active developers there is substantially higher than in Calgary,

According to Statistics Canada

2001 - 2011 Calgary grew 27.6% in population.
2001 - 2011 Edmonton grew 23.6% in population.

So actually Calgary grew considerably (17%) faster than Edmonton, and with a higher baseline to start with as well. Those "growth prohibitive" policies really seem to be slowing us down.

[CaptainYooh]

You can read whatever they publish, it doesn't matter. I am well aware of the report you are referring to. The reality is very different. All homebuilders in Calgary without exception would like to buy more serviced lots than there is available for sale. There are no lots available for sale, period. All available lots are 100% committed to the "lucky" homebuilders. When the ability to purchase a permitted product on the market is severely restricted, it constitutes a product shortage. In Calgary, this shortage is severe. Even Bunk, who doesn't agree with me on this issue, has conceded that there is a serviced lot shortage, although he blames the developers for it.

In Edmonton, builders can purchase all the lots they want from a variety of sources.

[You Need a Thneed]

You can read whatever they publish, it doesn't matter. I am well aware of the report you are referring to. The reality is very different. All homebuilders in Calgary without exception would like to buy more serviced lots than there is available for sale. There are no lots available for sale, period. All available lots are 100% committed to the "lucky" homebuilders. When the ability to purchase a permitted product on the market is severely restricted, it constitutes a product shortage. In Calgary, this shortage is severe. Even Bunk, who doesn't agree with me on this issue, has conceded that there is a serviced lot shortage, although he blames the developers for it.

In Edmonton, builders can purchase all the lots they want from a variety of sources.
Considering the developers own that land, and are responsible for the building of the roads and utilities, I'm not exactly sure how it could be the city's fault if there aren't enough "ready to build" lots. The city has the utility mains to where they need to be, now it's up to the land owners (developers) to take it from there.

[Addick]

You can read whatever they publish, it doesn't matter. I am well aware of the report you are referring to. The reality is very different. All homebuilders in Calgary without exception would like to buy more serviced lots than there is available for sale. There are no lots available for sale, period. All available lots are 100% committed to the "lucky" homebuilders. When the ability to purchase a permitted product on the market is severely restricted, it constitutes a product shortage. In Calgary, this shortage is severe. Even Bunk, who doesn't agree with me on this issue, has conceded that there is a serviced lot shortage, although he blames the developers for it.

So the City should make sure there is enough serviced land for any interested party to buy? I thought the more important role for the City was to ensure that development to accommodate the needs of the city can take place and in an orderly/sustainable fashion.

[SebC]

All homebuilders in Calgary without exception would like to buy more serviced lots than there is available for sale. There are no lots available for sale, period. All available lots are 100% committed to the "lucky" homebuilders. When the ability to purchase a permitted product on the market is severely restricted, it constitutes a product shortage. In Calgary, this shortage is severe.A shortage only occurs at a given price. If the price for developed lots were to go up (as it would be expected to, in the scenario you've described) then market allocation would no longer be based on "luck".

[CaptainYooh]

... The city has the utility mains to where they need to be, now it's up to the land owners (developers) to take it from there.

No, it doesn't, unfortunately. That's the thing.

So the City should make sure there is enough serviced land for any interested party to buy?..
Technically, yes. Builders don't buy lots for the sake of stocking up their lot inventories but ONLY because there is pent-up demand for the homes they can build on those lots. When the lots are unavailable or too expensive, the prices of new homes go up forcing the newcomers and people that are on the market for a new home to look elsewhere. This elsewhere becomes either a more affordable multi-family home (not by choice but by price) or satellite communities, where they leave their taxes.

The City doesn't develop residential lots in Calgary (some municipalities do in the jurisdicitions with slow or no economic growth). Developers do it themselves. The City is responsible to supply major services to the new lands in the timely manner. It is fully paid to do that, btw.

[You Need a Thneed]

No, it doesn't, unfortunately. That's the thing.


So, you disagree with the statement I posted that is a joint press release of the Calgary Home Builder's Association and the City?

Sorry, both "sides" agree that there is plenty of serviced land.

[CaptainYooh]

Yes.

[Addick]

Builders don't buy lots for the sake of stocking up their lot inventories but ONLY because there is pent-up demand for the homes they can build on those lots.

Builders are engaging in speculation, which carries the risk of speculating incorrectly. Just because it makes financial sense for a builder to develop their land does not mean it is economically, and socially, viable for the City to have that land developed. When the land is fully developed and the builder takes their profit or losses to the bank the City is responsible for that land. Consequently, it is their prerogative to organize the development of lands that they will have to deal with so as to minimize their risk and prevent any problematic/unsustainable scenarios.


This elsewhere becomes either a more affordable multi-family home (not by choice but by price) or satellite communities, where they leave their taxes.

I'd love to live in an apartment mansion in Chelsea right down the street from an underground line that is fully automated but I'm limited by price. Is my situation untenable?


The City doesn't develop residential lots in Calgary (some municipalities do in the jurisdicitions with slow or no economic growth). Developers do it themselves. The City is responsible to supply major services to the new lands in the timely manner. It is fully paid to do that, btw.

It is also responsible to supply these lands in an economically sustainable manner.

[CaptainYooh]

Sorry, Addick, none of the three points you've made above are valid. They are either inaccurate or presumtpious. Judging by the quotation in your signature, you are not really open to the arguments on the business and economics of the signle-family and multi-family housing. Not sure if further discussion would be helpful or worthwhile. I accept the fact that you don't like suburban development. What you need to accept in order for this debate to be interesting, is that I don't advocate for bad suburban development or against good multi-family inner-city development. Otherwise, we're both just wasting time.

[jammies]

In Edmonton, builders can purchase all the lots they want from a variety of sources.

Are you going to address the fact that you were wrong in saying Edmonton and Calgary are growing at the same rate? Or is that statistic something you disagree with as well, based on... well, apparently, based apparently on the idea that how you perceive things to be must be the truth. Not unlike your claims that there aren't enough lots to go 'round despite the City *and* the builders saying otherwise.

Also, you seem to confuse an oligopoly with a shortage. I agree that since a limited number of interested parties have preferential access to lots, prices go up, but that's not a "shortage", that's more like unspoken collusion. Houses out in the satellite communities are not less expensive because lots here are expensive, houses there are cheaper because people don't want to pay the same price as in the city for an inferior location. Cost of land and building the houses has little to do with the price to buy, it is a question of maximizing profit by selling at the price point where people will buy all your inventory and not seek out other alternatives.

[CaptainYooh]

Are you going to address the fact that you were wrong in saying Edmonton and Calgary are growing at the same rate? Or is that statistic something you disagree with as well, based on... well, apparently, based apparently on the idea that how you perceive things to be must be the truth. Not unlike your claims that there aren't enough lots to go 'round despite the City *and* the builders saying otherwise.

Also, you seem to confuse an oligopoly with a shortage. I agree that since a limited number of interested parties have preferential access to lots, prices go up, but that's not a "shortage", that's more like unspoken collusion. Houses out in the satellite communities are not less expensive because lots here are expensive, houses there are cheaper because people don't want to pay the same price as in the city for an inferior location. Cost of land and building the houses has little to do with the price to buy, it is a question of maximizing profit by selling at the price point where people will buy all your inventory and not seek out other alternatives.
Your stats are skewed, because of the time period. In my earlier post I referred to the most recent 10 years (2003-2013). If this stat was available (it is not yet, I think), the two growth rates would be much closer.

I disagree with the highlighted statement in your second paragraph. Increasing costs of land and construction drive the prices up when the demand is there.

[Addick]

Sorry, Addick, none of the three points you've made above are valid. They are either inaccurate or presumtpious. Judging by the quotation in your signature, you are not really open to the arguments on the business and economics of the signle-family and multi-family housing. Not sure if further discussion would be helpful or worthwhile. I accept the fact that you don't like suburban development. What you need to accept in order for this debate to be interesting, is that I don't advocate for bad suburban development or against good multi-family inner-city development. Otherwise, we're both just wasting time.

If you actually understood my signature you would realize that it is about providing options/choices rather than maintaining the status quo system that fails to do so. It is not that I don't like suburban development but rather I dislike the system that is built to provide only one type of development.

You call my points 'inaccurate or presumptuous' and state that I'm not 'open to the arguments on the business and economics of the single-family and multi-family housing' yet you are only focusing on the private market. Why don't you comment on the rationality of the City providing a free-for-all system that benefits one group at the expense of the tax-paying public to whom it is responsible? I guess trying to incorrectly identify my beliefs is easier...

[CaptainYooh]

... It is not that I don't like suburban development but rather I dislike the system that is built to provide only one type of development...
This. You and some other posters aggressively attacking the suburban development in Calgary seem to imply that there is a "system", some kind of an established conspiracy that has been forcing its choice on calgarians when it comes to housing. It is what it is because of what people wanted to buy.

Thinking and perceptions about what is a good place to live are changing and more people are becoming more open to the idea of living in a multi-family home. The market and the industry will respond accordingly and introduce more MF homes that are nicer, bigger, more family-oriented etc., there is no doubt about that. But only to satisfy the demand, not politician's directions and ideas.

[SebC]

I disagree with the highlighted statement in your second paragraph. Increasing costs of land and construction drive the prices up when the demand is there.Housing price drives cost of land far more than the cost of land drives housing price.

[Addick]

This. You and some other posters aggressively attacking the suburban development in Calgary seem to imply that there is a "system", some kind of an established conspiracy that has been forcing its choice on calgarians when it comes to housing. It is what it is because of what people wanted to buy.

It wasn't a conspiracy, it was result of embracing a planning philosophy/ideology that wasn't sustainable. The planning system was, and still is in many aspects, designed to accommodate one type of development and prevent others. Planning codes and regulations have had a massive impact and continue to do so today. It's easy to build the Evergreens and Somersets but a Garrison Woods or McKenzie Towne?

Undoubtedly, many people want a SFH with a big backyard but this isn't what's driving development, it's a poor planning system that when fixed will probably still pump out tons of have single family homes. If home builders are so up for letting the market decide why don't we abandon the current planning system? The City would simply provide infrastructure and service standards that interested developers/home builders would have to meet. Would the urban form be the same in this environment?

[GGG]

One thing wrong with this city is developers only sell to builders. In Saskatoon, a portion of the lots were reserved for the direct purhcase by individuals. As a result if you were willing to be your own general contractor you could save a hundred thousand dollars on the cost of your new house.

Here you are forced to deal with a builder if you want to live in a new community.

[SebC]

You and some other posters aggressively attacking the suburban development in Calgary seem to imply that there is a "system", some kind of an established conspiracy that has been forcing its choice on calgarians when it comes to housing. It is what it is because of what people wanted to buy.This is one of the great fallacies of the homebuilder/UDI argument. Lower prices on suburban homes vs. urban homes show that suburban is an inferior good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferior_good) (don't get mad, it's a technical term). It is not what people want, but what they can afford. Furthermore, when consumers choose suburban over urban, they're making that choice based on the subsidized price.

If the government were to put a tax on chocolate ice cream and a rebate for vanilla, people would buy more vanilla - perhaps even if they prefer chocolate. It doesn't make sense to then point to the sales of vanilla and claim that it's outselling chocolate because people prefer it, and therefore for people to get what they want we should maintain the subsidy - but that's effectively what you (and the homebuilders/UDI) are claiming when it comes to single-family housing.

[CaptainYooh]

It wasn't a conspiracy, it was result of embracing a planning philosophy/ideology that wasn't sustainable. The planning system was, and still is in many aspects, designed to accommodate one type of development and prevent others. Planning codes and regulations have had a massive impact and continue to do so today. It's easy to build the Evergreens and Somersets but a Garrison Woods or McKenzie Towne?

Undoubtedly, many people want a SFH with a big backyard but this isn't what's driving development, it's a poor planning system that when fixed will probably still pump out tons of have single family homes. If home builders are so up for letting the market decide why don't we abandon the current planning system? The City would simply provide infrastructure and service standards that interested developers/home builders would have to meet. Would the urban form be the same in this environment?
Planning science is evolving though. It is not an absolute science, like math or physics, and it is evolving within the realities of the locale, for sure. I like your second paragraph, actually! Take it one step further. How do you see the role of a planner (planning department) in a large municipality? How they should and shouldn't affect municipal development? Can you tell what's right? Do you know?

[jammies]

Your stats are skewed, because of the time period. In my earlier post I referred to the most recent 10 years (2003-2013). If this stat was available (it is not yet, I think), the two growth rates would be much closer.

So your argument is that unverifiable information is superior to verifiable? That's certainly a unique perspective to bring.

[CaptainYooh]

So your argument is that unverifiable information is superior to verifiable? That's certainly a unique perspective to bring.
I know that Edmonton growth has been more aggressive than Calgary growth from 2004 until 2008. You can check CMHC Housing Market stats for each respective municipality to veryfy this, if you want.

Added:

These are the CMHC SF housing starts for Edmonton and Calgary. Take the numbers as they relate to the incremental total population increases in each respective municipality for a better illustration.

Edmonton:

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/esub/64343/64343_2013_B02.pdf?fr=1384812842845

Calgary:

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/esub/64339/64339_2013_B02.pdf?fr=1384812936664

[Addick]

Planning science is evolving though.

And getting rid of the sprawl subsidy and unorganized infrastructure provision is part of this evolution.


I like your second paragraph, actually! Take it one step further. How do you see the role of a planner (planning department) in a large municipality? How they should and shouldn't affect municipal development? Can you tell what's right? Do you know?

As a brief aside, when I was asked to consider ways to provide developers with incentives to provide additional amenities one of the best incentives I came up with was: Let a third party review planning applications instead of planners from the City.

The role of planners and the planning system is complicated and, to be honest, I'd have to really think about it before I could provide you with an answer. In terms of development control (i.e. processing applications) my take on the role of planners stems from the British system. Planners are there to consider any and all relevant material planning considerations (incl. statutory guidelines and plans) and judge the project on its planning merits.

[jammies]

YI disagree with the highlighted statement in your second paragraph. Increasing costs of land and construction drive the prices up when the demand is there.\

As SebC alluded to, you have it backwards. Increased demand drives the prices of land and construction up, not the other way around. The price of any good in a market system is set by how much people are willing to pay, and not by cost of production. The only thing that stops goods from being sold for less than their cost is that, in the long run, companies that do so over a wide product range go bankrupt.

You can buy timeshares in California right now for the cost of assuming the back taxes, or, essentially free, as tax is incidental to market price. The cost of production has no bearing on that; the reason being that the market has very little demand and a huge oversupply. If someone perfected cold fusion tomorrow, and oil lost its central place in the economy, you would see house prices in Calgary deflate precipitously, and the price of new housing drive to zero regardless of how much it still cost to build.

[CaptainYooh]

..

As a brief aside, when I was asked to consider ways to provide developers with incentives to provide additional amenities one of the best incentives I came up with was: Let a third party review planning applications instead of planners from the City.

The role of planners and the planning system is complicated and, to be honest, I'd have to really think about it before I could provide you with an answer. In terms of development control (i.e. processing applications) my take on the role of planners stems from the British system. Planners are there to consider any and all relevant material planning considerations (incl. statutory guidelines and plans) and judge the project on its planning merits.

So, why not eliminate planning departments' policing function completely then? If planners, engineers and architects are all bound by their professional ethics and standards of practice, why is reviewing professional work by the administration is necessary? What makes a reviewing planner, engineer, architect (often one-two years out of college) better than another planner, engineer, architect?

What you brought up is the same thing that bothers many people in the industry, government and general public: who and how should have the authority to decide in matters that are so subjective in nature? Many times I've seen planners presenting a fully-compliant application to Council and being challenged by aldermen on why they shouldn't have approved it. And the opposite: when a planner goes outside of the box and recommends something for approval based on relaxed guidelines, he/she is being attacked for doing so by the aldermen who don't agree with the rationale. I am sure you can relate to these scenarios.

It is never 100% right or wrong. There are always different and very subjective views on planning principles and policies, including housing. Which is why I get so frustrated when people see it so black and white.

[WCan_Kid]

This is one of the great fallacies of the homebuilder/UDI argument. Lower prices on suburban homes vs. urban homes show that suburban is an inferior good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferior_good) (don't get mad, it's a technical term). It is not what people want, but what they can afford. Furthermore, when consumers choose suburban over urban, they're making that choice based on the subsidized price.

I thought I bought my house because I liked it and the area, turns out I just couldn't afford what I apparently really wanted. Learn something new every day.

[MarchHare]

This. You and some other posters aggressively attacking the suburban development in Calgary seem to imply that there is a "system", some kind of an established conspiracy that has been forcing its choice on calgarians when it comes to housing. It is what it is because of what people wanted to buy.

Do people really want to buy cookie-cutter houses with postage stamp backyards on the fringes of the city, or do people buy those homes because it's the only housing choice that's affordable for many families?

[CaramonLS]

Keep in mind, Yooh has some skin in the game. He isn't exactly providing a "balanced" point of view.

[kevman]

Do people really want to buy cookie-cutter houses with postage stamp backyards on the fringes of the city, or do people buy those homes because it's the only housing choice that's affordable for many families?

As someone that paid way too much for way too little to live close to work I have a hard time believing it but yes, some people do want to live there. Weird eh?

[The Yen Man]

Do people really want to buy cookie-cutter houses with postage stamp backyards on the fringes of the city, or do people buy those homes because it's the only housing choice that's affordable for many families?

Can't speak for anyone, but I bought because I wanted a garage and a detatched home. So yes, I bought not because I couldn't afford inner city. In fact, if I wanted to sacrifice space and not being attached to anything, I could be living in a condo downtown for less money and have a lower mortgage.

Oh, and again with the "cookie cutter" insult. How are condos downtown any less cookie cutter? Every freaking unit is the same layout with the same finishings and the same color. If you are talking cookie cutter, condos take the cake. Sure, you can say the outside is better looking, but I honesty don't really care what it looks like on the outside. I live on the inside of the house, and suburban homes are way more customized to owner preferences inside than condos.

[CaptainYooh]

Keep in mind, Yooh has some skin in the game. He isn't exactly providing a "balanced" point of view.

Way more balanced than some people here. ;)

[Tinordi]

People want to live there because they aren't paying the full costs of living there.

Look at living in an auto dependent suburb. Residents don't pay carbon taxes on the fuel they consume. They don't pay for the lost ecosystem services of greenfield development (which can be small or very large depending on where you build). They don't pay long-term servicing costs of overbuilt infrastructure. They also don't generally pay for the road network that supports their community. Half of road maintenance budgets are paid of our general taxes not through gas, insurance, registration taxes.

So yes, you remove those subsidies you'd see alot of people re-evaluating how much they want a detached house.

[MarchHare]

Can't speak for anyone, but I bought because I wanted a garage and a detatched home. So yes, I bought not because I couldn't afford inner city. In fact, if I wanted to sacrifice space and not being attached to anything, I could be living in a condo downtown for less money and have a lower mortgage.

That's exactly my point -- you get more house for your buck the further away from downtown you're willing to go because outlying areas are less desirable (or, more accurately, central areas are more desirable), so demand is lower, reducing prices. A 50-year old 1250 sqft single-family detached home with a garage in Sunnyside or Lower Mount Royal is going to cost significantly more than a 5-year old 2500 sqft single-family detached home with a garage in Copperfield or Citadel.

[Tinordi]

And just because we aren't making you pay for those costs doesn't mean that they aren't real and substantial and that you don't have some god given to avoid paying them. We've set up our urban development policy based on incomplete information over the past 70 years to the point that we (CaptainYooh) delude ourselves into thinking that the status quo is optimal. But guess what, we know things now that we didn't before. We know that climate change will have significant costs on urban environments and just people in general. We know that there is no functional long-term funding model for the sprawl environment. We know that it is much cheaper to use existing ecosystem services such as water filtration than building a facility to do it for us.

So yes, we're stuck with a sub-optimal system, and the people/businesses/politicians that are creaming it will eventually have to pay for it. That or their children and grandchildren will but who gives a shat about them anyways right?

[The Yen Man]

People want to live there because they aren't paying the full costs of living there.

Look at living in an auto dependent suburb. Residents don't pay carbon taxes on the fuel they consume. They don't pay for the lost ecosystem services of greenfield development (which can be small or very large depending on where you build). They don't pay long-term servicing costs of overbuilt infrastructure. They also don't generally pay for the road network that supports their community. Half of road maintenance budgets are paid of our general taxes not through gas, insurance, registration taxes.

So yes, you remove those subsidies you'd see alot of people re-evaluating how much they want a detached house.

Sorry, but that's just absurd. You don't pay carbon taxes either for the beef you consume or the heat that you use. What's your point?

[Tinordi]

Sorry, but that's just absurd. You don't pay carbon taxes either for the beef you consume or the heat that you use. What's your point?
My point is that you're habitation decisions are influenced by subsidies. You're not paying for the pollution you create from your decision on where you live. Should you have to pay for that you might make different decisions. As would the person who eats alot of beef.

[The Yen Man]

That's exactly my point -- you get more house for your buck the further away from downtown you're willing to go because outlying areas are less desirable (or, more accurately, central areas are more desirable), so demand is lower, reducing prices. A 50-year old 1250 sqft single-family detached home with a garage in Sunnyside or Lower Mount Royal is going to cost significantly more than a 5-year old 2500 sqft single-family detached home with a garage in Copperfield or Citadel.

Well, my point is people priortize different things. Just because I chose to live in a suburban home doesn't mean it was "forced" on me. I hate taking public transit, and I don't work downtown. It takes me the same amount of time to get to work either way. To me, living downtown or inner city is not important. If I can get what I want cheaper, why wouldn't I do it? And I'm in a community that's not high traffic and quiet. No annoying motorcycles ripping it down the road during the summers, and no drunk people wandering the streets at night.

[4X4]

Lol. So now living far from downtown causes more pollution? Is that for every person, or just the ones that commute to downtown? And we've got posters dissing the burbs because they're cookie cutter AND (wait for it) postage stamp yards. Postage stamp yards? As in, small? As in, not humongous, like the lots in the inner city?

Man. And also, "the only reason people live there is because they're subsidized". $4,500? Really? And if that number is wrong, and it's more like $20,000? Then what? It's still $200,000 cheaper to buy a similar sqft house in the burbs than in the inner city.

You guys (you know who you are) are just so full of yourselves, it's borderline pathetic. Not everybody works in downtown Calgary. For most people, living further from downtown makes more sense for everyday life. But I admit, I used to love living in Bankview and Altadore, when my lifestyle was more party time, and less parental. But then I needed to actually buy a house, so here I am, in the evil suburbs. Defending myself because... well, I don't know why. My house is much smaller than the ones I used to build on subdivided lots in the inner city, and half the price. A 50x120 tear down in Altadore is going for $500,000+. That's $250,000 per subdivided lot. I just don't get how you people think that first or second time home buyers are supposed to afford that. And if your answer is that "maybe they should buy a condo", my answer is "maybe you should go f*** your hat". I want a "postage stamp" yard for my dog and my kid, and a garage to work on my stuff, and I don't want to trust my exterior maintenance to a condo corp. I can afford that where I live. Go ahead and tack on the $4500 - $20,000 subsidy to my duplex in the burbs. It's still half the price of a duplex in Altadore. The 1950s era house I used to rent in Altadore sold for $570,000. Still watching the MLX to see what'll happen there, but at that price, the lot cost is $285 each. On a collector in Altadore. Quite frankly, I'm happy not being house poor, and not living downtown, since I don't work downtown. But punch my ticket to hell anyways, right?

[SebC]

Lol. So now living far from downtown causes more pollution? Is that for every person, or just the ones that commute to downtown?That's on average, and it's not news.

Man. And also, "the only reason people live there is because they're subsidized". $4,500? Really? And if that number is wrong, and it's more like $20,000? Then what? It's still $200,000 cheaper to buy a similar sqft house in the burbs than in the inner city.$4500 is just the municipal portion of the capital subsidy. If we were to look at the lifecycle subsidies from all levels of government, the total would be much, much higher.

[4X4]

That's on average, and it's not news.

$4500 is just the municipal portion of the capital subsidy. If we were to look at the lifecycle subsidies from all levels of government, the total would be much, much higher.

Yeah? Let me know when you have something of substance to add, instead of letting Bunk do your math for you. I'm pretty sick of your Rainman act. 10 minutes to Wapner isn't an argument.

[GGG]

Always remember though lot size causes sprawl not where the house is located. Density wise the modern burbs do a fairly good job. All of us who live in postage stamp lots are doing a lot better than those who live in a full size one. So quit complaining about the burbs not paying their fair share in operating costs. Everyone who uses space needs to pay.

A subdivided infill still uses as much space as a lane hone. It shouldnt be about yops vs lattes when talking about operating costs.

[SebC]

Always remember though lot size causes sprawl not where the house is located. Density wise the modern burbs do a fairly good job. All of us who live in postage stamp lots are doing a lot better than those who live in a full size one. So quit complaining about the burbs not paying their fair share in operating costs. Everyone who uses space needs to pay.

A subdivided infill still uses as much space as a lane hone. It shouldnt be about yops vs lattes when talking about operating costs.A few things:
- Operating costs are location dependent too. Lot size is a factor, but so is lot location - particularly when it comes to transportation.
- Revenues are significantly higher for inner city lots.

[GGG]

A few things:
- Operating costs are location dependent too. Lot size is a factor, but so is lot location - particularly when it comes to transportation.
- Revenues are significantly higher for inner city lots.

Operating costs are location dependant but where a house is in the city is purely a function of wealth. Your own statement that the inner city is more desireable agrees with this. So you shouldnt increase tax on a postage stamp lot just because it is located in Bridlewood instead of sunnyside. The reason the house in Bridlewood is so far out is because of a lack of density everywhere from the core out. So its not fair to put the transporatation costs entirely on the person doing the commuting. The cost of that commute needs to be born by the people who cause that comute to be long. Those people are space users not yops or lattes.

As for revenues being higher for similar square footage lots that is the progressive nature of our tax system where wealthier people pay more in tax than less wealthy people. A person in an inner city sfh makes more than a person in a burb sfh and a person in an urban condo makes more than one in a suburban condo.

Tax lifestyle choice not wealth. As an aside I have always been curious in the lot size of the more vocal latte sippers. Are they causing more sprawl that the yops? Or are they too living on postage stamp lots in cookie cutter infills.

[MarchHare]

As an aside I have always been curious in the lot size of the more vocal latte sippers. Are they causing more sprawl that the yops? Or are they too living on postage stamp lots in cookie cutter infills.

Speaking only for myself and not any of my fellow latte sippers, my wife and I live in an 8-story midrise condo building in the Beltline. I think it's fair to say we're not contributing to sprawl as my building has the same footprint as maybe 2-3 homes in the suburbs but provides housing to 31 families.

[jammies]

But then I needed to actually buy a house, so here I am, in the evil suburbs. Defending myself because... well, I don't know why.

I don't know why you're defending yourself either. Nobody has made any argument that nobody should live in the suburbs, and that to do so is evil and turns you into an object of derision. The argument is that if suburban living is subsidized, then it becomes more attractive, and more people move out there, which in turn increases the fiscal burden and is inefficient, and ultimately unsustainable. That's pretty well it, shorn of all the emotional rhetoric and drama.

The "free market" solution of building out and continually expanding has actually very little to do with the free market. You say yourself you "want" certain amenities, which you can only afford if you live in suburbia. But that opportunity only exists because there is a planned system set up that provides what you want at a price you can pay. The "free market" hasn't waved its invisible hand over Calgary and made it so, the City planners, developers and builders have worked together to provide it in a controlled and predictable manner by a mixture of central planning and an oligopoly. Your "wants", in other words, don't drive the market, you are just fortunate that they align with much of what the planners were aiming to give.

There is nothing divinely ordained about this system. It can, and should, change depending on the circumstances. If that means suburbia becomes more expensive to buy into, and multi-family units in the core become relatively less expensive, well, that's unfortunate for you, but it's not any more unfair than the fact that I can't buy a condo where I want for the money I can afford right now. I'm *not* saying things should change to make me happy, either - things should change so that 40-50 years from now, Calgary isn't like Detroit or any other of the examples where the flight to the suburbs has essentially killed the city. In the meantime, yelling that they'll take your yard over your cold, dead body isn't any more helpful a position than that of those who would like to put a wall around the city and never let another person in unless they promise to live in a 340 square foot bachelor pad over a vegan supermarket.

[ranchlandsselling]

Lower prices on suburban homes vs. urban homes show that suburban is an inferior good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferior_good) (don't get mad, it's a technical term). It is not what people want, but what they can afford. Furthermore, when consumers choose suburban over urban, they're making that choice based on the subsidized price.

If the government were to put a tax on chocolate ice cream and a rebate for vanilla, people would buy more vanilla - perhaps even if the prefer chocolate. It doesn't make sense to then point to the sales of vanilla and claim that it's outselling chocolate because people prefer it, and therefore for people to get what they want we should maintain the subsidy - but that's effectively what you (and the homebuilders/UDI) are claiming when it comes to single-family housing.

Do people really want to buy cookie-cutter houses with postage stamp backyards on the fringes of the city, or do people buy those homes because it's the only housing choice that's affordable for many families?

As someone that paid way too much for way too little to live close to work I have a hard time believing it but yes, some people do want to live there. Weird eh?

Can't speak for anyone, but I bought because I wanted a garage and a detatched home. So yes, I bought not because I couldn't afford inner city. In fact, if I wanted to sacrifice space and not being attached to anything, I could be living in a condo downtown for less money and have a lower mortgage.

Oh, and again with the "cookie cutter" insult. How are condos downtown any less cookie cutter? Every freaking unit is the same layout with the same finishings and the same color. If you are talking cookie cutter, condos take the cake. Sure, you can say the outside is better looking, but I honesty don't really care what it looks like on the outside. I live on the inside of the house, and suburban homes are way more customized to owner preferences inside than condos.

People want to live there because they aren't paying the full costs of living there.

Look at living in an auto dependent suburb. Residents don't pay carbon taxes on the fuel they consume. They don't pay for the lost ecosystem services of greenfield development (which can be small or very large depending on where you build). They don't pay long-term servicing costs of overbuilt infrastructure. They also don't generally pay for the road network that supports their community. Half of road maintenance budgets are paid of our general taxes not through gas, insurance, registration taxes.

So yes, you remove those subsidies you'd see alot of people re-evaluating how much they want a detached house.

I've quoted these posts as they're all on basically discussing the same thing.

It would be interesting to poll every person living in a downtown or even suburban townhouse, condo, apartment and see why they're living there. I'd be pretty comfortable assuming that the majority are living there because they can't afford living in a SFH. I've been landlord and broker and generally people live in the most they can afford. Starting at the single bedroom condo apartment, followed by two bedroom, townhouse and finally SFH.

Can the system provide SFH's closer to the core? No, then building out is the only way to provide the demand for SFH's.

So, what happens if we add the so called life cycle costs into new development. I'd bet housing prices go up around the new communities. Why, because it's suddenly more expensive for the new SFH in Mahagowoodston and as such Cranstonrado already built houses are more desirable.

What happens to the inner city (or utopia)... Umm, more expensive?

How much money does a developer make on a new home? Or the entity selling the land to the developer? Someone is going to get squeezed and it's not just going to be the buyer at the end level because they'll shop around.

I can't see in a free market how anything different would happen. The Latte's say everyone wants to live in the inner city they just choose an inferior good (my home) because they have to. Okay, so in that scenario everyone wants to live inner city, demand is high, prices are up, only the wealthy can live in the inner city (at a fairly obvious price per sf ratio) and the less wealthy you are, the further you'll move. As you get farther away prices will go down due to demand and we're right back where we started.

So what's the solution? Build more inner city density? Sure, it's increasing, but people still want the SFH with the garage and the yard. The inner city will grow, but I'd imagine the demographic will be skewed to the single, rental, mix of lower income, students, etc and less family's. Give it enough time and this thriving inner city will generate jobs, income, growth and more families that want to live in a house with a garage and yard.

I can see more efficient houses, better planning, better transit, more fuel efficient vehicles, less water (resource intense) living, better use of resources, keeping people shopping within their communities, but not giving up the SFH. It's going to be a long time until that culture changes.

On a slightly spin off subject. What's the number of kids a family needs these days to be contributing to population growth? Short answer obviously one, but for long term population growth?

[V]

A few things:
- Operating costs are location dependent too. Lot size is a factor, but so is lot location - particularly when it comes to transportation.
- Revenues are significantly higher for inner city lots.

You have no idea what these numbers are though, do you? For a guy that has one and only one talking point on anything and everything I find it absurd that you're so vague on your details.

[ranchlandsselling]

You have no idea what these numbers are though, do you? For a guy that has one and only one talking point on anything and everything I find it absurd that you're so vague on your details.

Yeah, I'd be interested to see operating costs for water/sewer and electricity. The biggest cost that's often used is roads, which I can fully understand and is obvious, but I'd like to see where the power generation, sewer treatment, and water supply is coming from. I think that new treatment facility out by Tuscany is looking pretty large and likely more efficient than the one servicing the inner city.

That said, I'm just guessing.

[Addick]

What you brought up is the same thing that bothers many people in the industry, government and general public: who and how should have the authority to decide in matters that are so subjective in nature? Many times I've seen planners presenting a fully-compliant application to Council and being challenged by aldermen on why they shouldn't have approved it. And the opposite: when a planner goes outside of the box and recommends something for approval based on relaxed guidelines, he/she is being attacked for doing so by the aldermen who don't agree with the rationale. I am sure you can relate to these scenarios.

It is never 100% right or wrong. There are always different and very subjective views on planning principles and policies, including housing. Which is why I get so frustrated when people see it so black and white.

While there are many things that are not black and white, some things are pretty clear and there is a right/wrong answer. When you consider the role of local government, you cannot justify things like the urban/suburban infrastructure subsidy and unorganized/free-for-all fringe development. These things are greatly different to a builder/developer trying something new and being shot down by administration or council.

In cases of compliant projects being denied approval, I'll have to defer to the British precedent once again. In England, they tend to utilize the legal system and courts and let them handle these types of cases. I admire this and find it preferable as the courts have to look at it objectively and according to the planning merits of the development (i.e. how it adheres to plans and guidelines but also how it could accomplish planning goals/objectives). There is a bit of subjectivity when it comes to accomplishing goals and objectives but I'd rather the discretion of a judge than most Councillors.

[GGG]

Yeah, I'd be interested to see operating costs for water/sewer and electricity. The biggest cost that's often used is roads, which I can fully understand and is obvious, but I'd like to see where the power generation, sewer treatment, and water supply is coming from. I think that new treatment facility out by Tuscany is looking pretty large and likely more efficient than the one servicing the inner city.

That said, I'm just guessing.

In terms of water / Sewer the only costs do to sprawl are pumping costs, the longer the pipe the larger the pressure drop, and maitenance costs more feet of pipe to maintain. I am not sure how much pumping costs and maitenance costs are but I would imagine that a large portion of water treatment / sewer cost is pipe maitenance.

For electricity I think the increased cost is marginal for operating costs. Since your resistance losses over high voltage lines is roughly the same whereever you hit the transformer in the city and the distance from the transformer to a home is roughly similar. The number of transformers is dependant on power usage so the number of transformer stations per person is roughly constant.

[jammies]

So what's the solution? Build more inner city density? Sure, it's increasing, but people still want the SFH with the garage and the yard.

One possible and partial solution that I would like to see is to look at creating mini-downtowns, or at least, further concentrating business/commercial parks out on the periphery. Part of the problem is that as downtown gets more and more dense with offices, more and more people are travelling into and out of the core, and that puts a huge strain (inefficiently, since the roads are in heavy use for only a few hours a day) on transport infrastructure. Adding residential density close in is one way to help, but moving commercial density out is another.

I can see more efficient houses, better planning, better transit, more fuel efficient vehicles, less water (resource intense) living, better use of resources, keeping people shopping within their communities, but not giving up the SFH. It's going to be a long time until that culture changes.

Specific to that, I would like to see far more small commercial developments within communities and accessible by secondary roads that link neighborhoods directly. The fetish for controlling access to communities is great for traffic engineers, but has the side-effect of compartmentalizing and constraining people to always take the same path to the same places. A bit of chaos is good for people.

[rotten42]

Well, my point is people priortize different things. Just because I chose to live in a suburban home doesn't mean it was "forced" on me. I hate taking public transit, and I don't work downtown. It takes me the same amount of time to get to work either way. To me, living downtown or inner city is not important. If I can get what I want cheaper, why wouldn't I do it? And I'm in a community that's not high traffic and quiet. No annoying motorcycles ripping it down the road during the summers, and no drunk people wandering the streets at night.


This! I like living at the edge of the NW. I can get out of town quickly. I only have a 25 minute computer to the NE. I like my neighbors and how quiet the area is. I have all the shops I need to get to within 1-5 kms of where I live. Two out of the 3 maor post secondary institutions are a quick bus/LRT ride.


When I lived closer into town I did way more driving than I do now. Where I live is a choice based on my lifestyle at this point of my life. With kids it makes better sense for me to live where I do. When they move out of the house I won't need such a big place and I can look again towards the inner city. Cost had nothing to do where I choose to live. You can spend just as much on a house out in the burbs as you can in the inner city.

[Addick]

Yeah, I'd be interested to see operating costs for water/sewer and electricity. The biggest cost that's often used is roads, which I can fully understand and is obvious, but I'd like to see where the power generation, sewer treatment, and water supply is coming from. I think that new treatment facility out by Tuscany is looking pretty large and likely more efficient than the one servicing the inner city.

That said, I'm just guessing.

I'm not a quantitative research kind of guy so I would love to see a study completed that would show the general density in Calgary at which the City breaks even. These numbers were taken from an American study so the density is quite low but it'll give you a starting point.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-v9D4Afzx1p8/UouN_VVIQMI/AAAAAAAAATg/N_OIDtlUoKc/w958-h720-no/Density%2527s+Impact+On+Infrastructure+Costs.png

[GGG]

That chart really drives home the point that it isn't where you live that drives the cost up but how much land you occupy. If you allow for 20% of lands to be roads/ parks your lot size for 4000 dwellings per mile is 5500 square feet. At 6000 dwellings per mile 3700 square feet. So based on this chart most new construction in calgary falls under the 6000 dwellings per squeare mile even if it was just filled with single family homes on 35 x 100 foot lots.

One interesting thing here is that if the numbers are correct and the costs keep leveling off then increasing density beyond what Calgary is already building outward at will not significantly reduce costs as there is only an 8% reduction in costs from increasing density by 50% from 4000 to 6000. I would be very interested in seeing these numbers from Calgary.

[Addick]

One interesting thing here is that if the numbers are correct and the costs keep leveling off then increasing density beyond what Calgary is already building outward at will not significantly reduce costs as there is only an 8% reduction in costs from increasing density by 50% from 4000 to 6000. I would be very interested in seeing these numbers from Calgary.

Yup, it is quite interesting. In addition to seeing the numbers from Calgary, I'd also like to see the chart for higher densities and other categories of density. These numbers are for areas that would still be considered low-density and I'd like to see if there were large gains in efficiency between groupings of low, medium and high density.

[Bigtime]

Speaking of latte-sippers, we got another pedestrian bridge put into place today:

http://i.imgur.com/LFJrDhi.jpg

This is the East Village traverse, connecting Riverwalk on the east end of Fort Calgary across the Elbow to the Inglewood pathway.

http://i.imgur.com/KmQyKfX.jpg

[nik-]

Reminds me of a Chinese Finger Trap.

[Muta]

Waste of taxpayers' money! Why couldn't that $2M go to a new cul-de-sac for a neighborhood that will have houses in it 20 years from now? Stupid city planning.

[Bigtime]

Exactly, my 16 month old could have designed that.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Yeah, I'd be interested to see operating costs for water/sewer and electricity. The biggest cost that's often used is roads, which I can fully understand and is obvious, but I'd like to see where the power generation, sewer treatment, and water supply is coming from. I think that new treatment facility out by Tuscany is looking pretty large and likely more efficient than the one servicing the inner city.

That said, I'm just guessing.

A pretty good article on that in the herald not long ago

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Henry+Nenshi+sprawl+subsidy+claims+mostly+fiction/9008268/story.html

It's couched in terms of the election rhetoric but the description is pretty good.

[warning] article is sure to prompt the predictable response from some predictable folks. Read only if you just want another perspective to consider sprinkled with a few facts

[CaptainYooh]

While there are many things that are not black and white, some things are pretty clear and there is a right/wrong answer. When you consider the role of local government, you cannot justify things like the urban/suburban infrastructure subsidy and unorganized/free-for-all fringe development. ...

If you keep using the terms like I've hightlighted, your arguments become no better than SebC's - aggressive statements based on blind, albeit sincere, beliefs. You seem to understand the planning system and should know better - nothing's free in Calgary, especially the fringe developments. Both greenfield and brownfield developments are paying to the ying-yang. If anything, it is the inner-city infill developments that have not to-date been paying enough based on their impact on existing infrastructure (it is being reviewed; see our earlier exchange with Bunk on this topic in another thread; I don't want to repeat everything).

You raised a very good point that led to a valid question: what should city planners be allowed to do? I thought you're going to come up with your view on their role in more detail, so that we can discuss it further. I offered my thoughts on the review process, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. It is much more convoluted. Matthias Tita spoke this afternoon at the CMHC conference on how the city growth-related planning challenges are being attacked internally by the Administration and I couldn't stop thinking - they've created and imposed at least half of these challengers themselves!

BTW, he did show Rollin's favourite slide about the amount of taxes collected from an acre of land at different densities; always makes me laugh. I immediately think of all barely used inner-city school sites and the amount of land they occupy. Why not consolidate some of the schools, re-designate the remainder to the high density use and then sell all of the remaining land at a public auction for intensification? Simple sales to the highest bidders, no useless nepotic review boards stacked-up with retired bureaucrats. Did you know that The Province and The City were considering this move since the early 90's? Nope, no go, how can we allow the Bel-Aire, Maifair, Britannia, Elboya etc. residents be disturbed while they're sipping their lattes in piece and bitc..ing about suburbs.

In the mean time, all Calgary Satellite communities are showing double-and triple-digit growth while Calgary shows declines (I will post some of the charts later, they are quite striking).

...There is a bit of subjectivity when it comes to accomplishing goals and objectives but I'd rather the discretion of a judge than most Councillors.
If you've invested millions in developable land that by all accounts should and could be developed, any delay beyond reasonably anticipated approval timeframe results in sgnificant cost overruns, market timeouts, financing refusals etc. Just imagine the delay imposed by the addition of the legal review process. It is there now by the way, but it is hardly used for that reason and also for the reason of applicants not wanting to create enemies at the administration and political levels.

[MRCboicgy]

Reminds me of a Chinese Finger Trap.
Looks like a maxipad, with wings

[4X4]

Speaking of latte-sippers, we got another pedestrian bridge put into place today:

http://i.imgur.com/LFJrDhi.jpg

This is the East Village traverse, connecting Riverwalk on the east end of Fort Calgary across the Elbow to the Inglewood pathway.

http://i.imgur.com/KmQyKfX.jpg

What's that hole in the middle? Public washroom?

[HOWITZER]

Speaking of latte-sippers, we got another pedestrian bridge put into place today:

http://i.imgur.com/LFJrDhi.jpg

This is the East Village traverse, connecting Riverwalk on the east end of Fort Calgary across the Elbow to the Inglewood pathway.

http://i.imgur.com/KmQyKfX.jpg

And this is why the peace bridge was (not necessarily money well spent, but) a good investment.

That thing is hideous.

But I like the fact Calgary is getting pedestrian only bridges. It's never fun to cross a bridge as a pedestrian on a sidewalk 3 ft. wide with either cars doing 70 on one side, or a nice big drop on the other.

[kermitology]

I think I've mentioned this before, but it always bears repeating when talking about the a Peace Bridge.

Any bridge at that location, with the restrictions in place regarding height and span without supports in the water (design requirement) was going to cost something similar to the quoted cost.

So waste of money, no, not really.

[Bigtime]

And this is why the peace bridge was (not necessarily money well spent, but) a good investment.

That thing is hideous.

But I like the fact Calgary is getting pedestrian only bridges. It's never fun to cross a bridge as a pedestrian on a sidewalk 3 ft. wide with either cars doing 70 on one side, or a nice big drop on the other.

I actually quite like the traverse. Wide, simple in its design, and with some space in the middle to stop and watch the river(s).

[Muta]

I actually quite like the traverse. Wide, simple in its design, and with some space in the middle to stop and watch the river(s).

Actually, me too. Given the fact it's such a tiny bridge, I think it's perfect for that location and has a clean, elegant design.

[Addick]

If you keep using the terms like I've hightlighted, your arguments become no better than SebC's - aggressive statements based on blind, albeit sincere, beliefs.

Free-for-all isn't accurate enough and a bit misleading but today's process does lack coordination/organization.


If anything, it is the inner-city infill developments that have not to-date been paying enough based on their impact on existing infrastructure (it is being reviewed; see our earlier exchange with Bunk on this topic in another thread; I don't want to repeat everything).

I don't think this is an excuse but simply another important issue that needs to be addressed.


so that we can discuss it further.

It's a complicated and comprehensive subject, that discussion will have to take place in the future.


I immediately think of all barely used inner-city school sites and the amount of land they occupy. Why not consolidate some of the schools, re-designate the remainder to the high density use and then sell all of the remaining land at a public auction for intensification?

As the City would like to repopulate the inner-city, it would be unwise to completely re-purpose the schools. However, the sites could be better utilized. For instance: the excess land could be sold off, the buildings could host temporary uses, or the land could be privately redeveloped to include market real estate and a more efficiently built school (i.e. occupying less land, a more urban design and adaptable).


Just imagine the delay imposed by the addition of the legal review process. It is there now by the way, but it is hardly used for that reason and also for the reason of applicants not wanting to create enemies at the administration and political levels.

I like using the legal system because it creates precedents. Obviously this isn't going to be possible or feasible in every case but this can also work in the developers' favour. The length and costs that makes it appear unfeasible for developers can also act as a deterrent for political grandstanding in some cases.

Nevertheless, the courts shouldn't be the only way to prevent acceptable developments from not being granted permission. Proactive measures like avoiding the need to go before Council and reactive measures like an appropriate appeal process are needed as well.

[CaptainYooh]

... today's process does lack coordination/organization...
At least we can agree on one thing 100%. :)

[Bill Bumface]

http://globalnews.ca/video/977385/timelapse-of-elbow-river-traverse-being-placed/

A time lapse of the traverse going in

[mykalberta]

http://globalnews.ca/video/977385/timelapse-of-elbow-river-traverse-being-placed/

A time lapse of the traverse going in

That will help my bike ride to work in the spring, summer, and fall.