Quote:
Originally Posted by Macindoc
Calgary was not a city of a few hundred thousand under Bronconnier, the population was over 1 million at the end of his final term. With an increased tax base, along with the city's requirement that developers to contribute an increased portion toward the costs of infrastructure serving their communities, Calgary has been doing less with more under Nenshi. The city has been experiencing an increased infrastructure deficit in spite of an increased tax base (this coming tax year will be different, because a sharp drop in commercial property values will likely trigger a much larger increase in residential taxes that I will not blame on the current council) and steep increases in the mill rate every year. Building tunnels to nowhere, bridges that place form over function, overpriced (and in some cases plagiarized) public art, and designer libraries (nothing against libraries, but a larger, more efficient one could have been built for a significantly lower cost) has been the M.O. of the current city council and the one before it, and has been the reason that the city has not been getting the infrastructure it needs.
|
What infrastructure has the city not gotten that it needs because of these projects?
The bridges: first of all, where's the form over function? They function great. Their uses are high, their uses are more functional than other pedestrian bridges (and non-pedestrian bridges) around the city. They have form accompanying their function, not in spite of it. A welcome change from the bridges that lack both form and function the penny-pinching mayors and councils of the past built. But what do you think they came at the expense of? The Peace Bridge was built with a provincial capital allocation for pedestrian infrastructure. It was conditional money that built infrastructure. The George C. King Bridge was built by the CMLC also using conditional money. What was it built at the expense of?
Art: the art is overpriced
because it is tied to the infrastructure cost. Not at the expense of the project. The only reason you're seeing overpriced art is because infrastructure we need is being built.
Library: Came from the CRL and a fund that also has restricted uses. What wasn't built because of the library (more specifically, what could have been built instead using the same restricted funding sources)? Also how have we gone from 'not needing a library' to 'we could have built a bigger one?' Also what isn't efficient about the library (or similarly, what makes a library efficient)? Some of the things that made the project expensive (site location, fixed costs encapsulating the LRT) were also things that provide benefits elsewhere (taking a low value site and turning it into a useful one, freeing up other spaces for better returns). And at a lower cost, we're jut getting an uglier looking building, where's the value in that?
But to loop back around, given the funding and location restrictions these things were built with, what didn't get built that we needed?