[SebC]

Originally Posted by Titan

Thanks. I appreciate that response. It must have taken an hour to do. I went through the posts you referenced again and I think I have a better understanding of the arguments for density. My comment would be that so much of the pro-density points are just that, "Density is good, sprawl is bad. So there." I see, or at least understand, fewer arguments about how to "make it so" in Calgary. One of the posts you referenced seemed to be on the right track with the encouragement to in fill inner city neighborhoods. Also, more creative "single family" residences would perhaps make me consider something other than my house in the burbs.

It would seem that from the examples of other cities given that McKenzie Towne is actually an attempt to become more dense. On my street there are several townhomes 2, 4 or 5 story condos, two old folks multistory condos, a sobeys, a business district and lots of single family homes. I can walk to my bank, groceries, restaurants, a gym, dentist, doctor, chiro, optomotrist, barber etc. This seems to be a good start is it not? If not, why not?

There are still a couple things that are unclear to me. What is "inner city" What is the definition you use? Why is "downtown" the ultimate goal? Is it? It would seem that mixed use areas like Quarry park could meet a lot of the same goals and reduce the traffic on Deerfoot. Am I off base on this?

Finally, I am unclear on the inputs that go into the economic subsidy argument.
I don't think it is as simple as a house in Sunnyside pays 20% highe taxes than I do so they say they are subsidizing me. I'm not sure that is what they are saying but obviously it is far too simplistic. Also, the comment I have made a few times about the roadway being an essential part of our economic system and not solely for commuters seems to have not been addressed. The fact that the province pays to maintain the Deerfoot would seem to argue that the cost of the Deerfoot should be taken out of the equation. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks again for the response.

For me, the "how" to make Calgary denser is to change how the city collects taxes so that the low density areas are paying their way. Once they are doing so, I don't care if people choose high or low density.

The East Village is being paid for a with a Community Revitalization Levy - essentially, the city has projected the increased tax revenue the infrastructure upgrades in the area will bring and borrowed against that tax revenue to build the infrastructure. The result is it doesn't cost other taxpayers anything.

I'd like for Cranston to be funded the same way, but the reality is that it can't - not without tax rates going up. We could say that perhaps then it shouldn't be built at all, but I don't like that. Instead, I'd suggest that taxes in the area should be raised so that it can pay for itself. But, taxes don't need to go up for the areas that can pay for themselves at current rates (i.e. East Village), hence I'm advocating for a tax structure that is not solely based on market value.

You are absolutely correct that the design of the low-density areas is important. For efficient transit delivery, you need straight collectors and direct pedestrian routes to those collectors. For a given density, there a better and worse layouts (yet density is still a very important factor). The problem with McKenzie Towne is that while it may have a good local structure, it's very existence has created demand for the SE LRT. It has not and will not generate enough property tax for the city to pay for the SE LRT. Contrast that with the North Central line - many people see it as less of a necessity despite the fact that it would serve a higher population. This is because bus service is more efficient in the North Central area - it is closer to downtown, and the buses get to run in a (mostly) straight line.

Now, yes, the LRT is paid for by the province. But if we to allocate funding for the SE LRT, chances are it will be because we've chosen it over the NC LRT (which is more "paid for" than the SE LRT) and the downtown subway. That's actually one of the reasons I'm not a fan of the ring road - I think those funds would've been much better used for LRT. (There were political impediments to efficient use of the money, but that's a bit of an aside.) Point is, even provincially-funded infrastructure comes at a cost to other areas of the city.

Developments like Quarry Park are, in my opinion, not as good as downtown development. They are, however, the next best thing. As for a precise line between inner city and suburbs, I don't have one. I also don't know precisely where the line between subsidized and subsidizing is, but as far as the inputs go, essentially it works out like this: if the developer fees plus property taxes are insufficient to cover to delivery costs of services the house/area receives, it is being subsidized. If the taxes/fees cover the cost of services received, it is generating a surplus that is being used to pay for subsidies in other areas (as the city runs a balanced budget overall). You can pretty much assume that any development of new communities at the periphery of the city is going to be subsidized. After that, low density, peripheral communities that are recently built are the next most likely to fall on subsidized side of the line.