MacKenzie Town to U of C

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally posted by shane_c+Feb 14 2005, 08:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shane_c @ Feb 14 2005, 08:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-shane_c@Feb 14 2005, 01:58 AM
Hi there,
We were down to MacKenzie Town today looking at houses. It's a wonderful community. I work at U of C and wonder how long of a drive it is? We drove from MacKenzie Town to the 16th Ave N exit in about 17 minutes. I'm guessing it's about another 10-15 from there to the U of C. Mind you today was Sunday and I'm figuring weekday traffic would be a little heavier. Does anyone else make this drive? How long does it take?

We were looking at several other communities. Our other favorite being Tuscany. Which from the people I talk to at work who live there, it takes them 25+ minutes to get to U of C. I don't mind driving a few extra minutes. We really like the community feel of MacKenzie Town compared to a lot of other subdivisions around that just seem like they decided to build a bunch of houses. The other thing we like about it is the fact that we could get the same house in MacKenzie Town for approximately $10-15,000 less than in Tuscany. As for schools, that doesn't matter to us. We don't plan on having any kids. [/b][/quote]
You should try and get a hold of the Herald from the weekend. They did a great write up on Mackenzie Town and what they tried to do, which I though was great. It was supposed to be even larger than it is with "employment centers" in them but the demand for more "traditional" housing was too big.

I lived in the NW for 20 years and traffic is abysmal for people west of Ranchlands as the intersection of Crowchild and Nose Hill is a nightmare. The new Macleod and Anderson. Good thing the city has it teed up for replacement in the year 2014 or something..... Oh well, these people should know what they're getting into.....

[shane_c]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+Feb 14 2005, 02:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Feb 14 2005, 02:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-shane_c@Feb 13 2005, 06:58 PM
Hi there,
We were down to MacKenzie Town today looking at houses. It's a wonderful community. I work at U of C and wonder how long of a drive it is? We drove from MacKenzie Town to the 16th Ave N exit in about 17 minutes. I'm guessing it's about another 10-15 from there to the U of C. Mind you today was Sunday and I'm figuring weekday traffic would be a little heavier. Does anyone else make this drive? How long does it take?

When did you do that drive?

16th Ave is absolutely awful in the morning rush, and will be even worse next year when construction on the road begins. You might be better off taking Memorial Drive up to Crowchild, even allowing for the backups on Memorial until you pass the flyover. Hell, going up to McKnight might even be faster.

Glenmore is a good alternate route heading west, then north on Crowchild, and should be *alright* during construction of the new interchanges, as they are actually paving an entirely new, 6 lane detour around the the actual construction. Just watch for backups as you hit the causeway, and the 14th/Crowchild interchanges.

I have a couble of good friends that go from MacKenzie Towne into downtown every day. Takes them 30-40 minutes simply taking the bus. [/b][/quote]
I drove from MacKenzie Town to 16th Ave on Sunday afternoon. I timed this morning going from the Deerfoot - 16th Ave exit to the U of C and it was approximately 18 minutes with Monday morning traffic. Thanks for all the ideas on alternate routes. We should have a downpayment saved up by May or June and then we'll start looking for a place to buy. We really liked it down there. Being maritimers we really liked that there was a lot of brick, historical looking buildings around and that it felt like a small town.

[shoestring]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Feb 14 2005, 09:45 AM
I'd take Deerfoot North from Mackenzie Town (obviously), then exit onto Memorial Drive. Head West on Memorial till about 5a Street, and turn north onto it. You can immediately turn left onto 2nd Ave. NW and drive along it, parallel to Memorial, but with basically no traffic. When you hit 10th Street, turn right (north) till you get to 16th. You can then ride out the last little bit of 16th straight to University Drive, or you can keep going up 10th to 24th Ave, which runs along the north side of campus.

Little shortcuts like that can take 10-15 minutes off the commute, I'm beginning to find.

Your one of those guys that keeps cutting through my neighbourhood,forcing it to put in all these new stop sign and traffic calming devices.Isn't that why they built MacKenzie Town ,pedestrian friendly so that people wouldn't drive through it?
Pretty soon sunnyside will be a fenced community so that we don't have a rush hour.
You can't turn off tenth street NW onto 24 ave.Confederation park.

[Table 5]

Originally posted by Hakan@Feb 14 2005, 02:51 AM
"There's no problem of urban sprawl in Calgary." - Dave Bronconnier

that's the biggest load of crap i've ever heard. Our city has one of the biggest footprints in North America, and when you consider we are only at 1 million people, anybody who doesnt think this city is sprawling out of control is crazy.

Personally, I think new communities should have to pay the LARGEST amount of taxes. For these houses to be built, the city has to not only build all new infrastructure, but it also has to take money away from existing communities to do it. An older house has a considerably smaller strain on the entire city, as all of its support is already built and functional. If the city had a smaller footprint, if would not have to spend all that money building roads out in the boonies, and therefore could invest in BETTER roads for an existing community.

This city needs to make sure all its empty land is infilled, before it goes out and starts buildings towards the US border.

[Table 5]

Originally posted by shoestring@Feb 14 2005, 12:23 PM
Isn't that why they built MacKenzie Town ,pedestrian friendly so that people wouldn't drive through it?

bah, McKenzie Towne is only "urban" in marketing perspectives. While an interesting attempt, its still extremely reliant on cars and big-box stores. If it truly wants to be less car-reliant, they need to start building more business and offices within the community, so people don't have to commute quite as much, because right now it doesnt really function as a self-sufficient community. Getting an LRT out there sure would help the situation too.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Table 5@Feb 14 2005, 10:24 AM

Personally, I think new communities should have to pay the LARGEST amount of taxes. For these houses to be built, the city has to not only build all new infrastructure, but it also has to take money away from existing communities to do it. An older house has a considerably smaller strain on the entire city, as all of its support is already built and functional. If the city had a smaller footprint, if would not have to spend all that money building roads out in the boonies, and therefore could invest in BETTER roads for an existing community.

New communities do pay the largest taxes, and by a lot. The alleged cost of a growing city is a crutch the city uses to justify tax hikes and nonsense spending.

New communites have way higher densities than old. Something like 4 times - though that's only what I've heard, not what I know.

Thats' roughly 4 times the tax base - say 2 times for agruments sake.

So the city gets twice the taxes (or more) out of an acre in say McKenzie Town than it does in a community like Bridgeland.

That's after its all built.

Plus:
- the city charges for each acre of land to be developed, and makes a killing on it
- the local roads are built and paid for by the developer , eventually the consumer
- water, sewer, and utilities run as profit centres - new communties pay an extra rider for those services and pay for the installation
- boulevards, landscaping and greenspace maintenance fees are (mostly) covered by community levies in new areas, not the city. In older communities the city does all that.
- water and energy use is way lower (per house) in new communities.

I'm not saying anyone has to like urban sprawl, but the cost argument doesn't wash.

[Table 5]

Originally posted by Bend it like Bourgeois@Feb 14 2005, 01:08 PM
New communities do pay the largest taxes, and by a lot. The alleged cost of a growing city is a crutch the city uses to justify tax hikes and nonsense spending.

New communites have way higher densities than old. Something like 4 times - though that's only what I've heard, not what I know.

Thats' roughly 4 times the tax base - say 2 times for agruments sake.

So the city gets twice the taxes (or more) out of an acre in say McKenzie Town than it does in a community like Bridgeland.

That's after its all built.

Plus:
- the city charges for each acre of land to be developed, and makes a killing on it
- the local roads are built and paid for by the developer , eventually the consumer
- water, sewer, and utilities run as profit centres - new communties pay an extra rider for those services and pay for the installation
- boulevards, landscaping and greenspace maintenance fees are (mostly) covered by community levies in new areas, not the city. In older communities the city does all that.
- water and energy use is way lower (per house) in new communities.

I'm not saying anyone has to like urban sprawl, but the cost argument doesn't wash.

New communities do pay the largest taxes, and by a lot. The alleged cost of a growing city is a crutch the city uses to justify tax hikes and nonsense spending.

I'ld love to see some proof of this.

New communites have way higher densities than old. Something like 4 times - though that's only what I've heard, not what I know.

are you kidding me? New communities are made up of massive houses with giant lots and double/tripple garages. Older communities like Bridgeland or Sunnyside have multi-story apartments and much smaller lots that hold the same amout of people. And this doesnt even take into consideration the big-box stores like Westhills and Deerfoot Meadows.....

But again, if you have proof. I'd love to see it, because it just doesnt make logical sense.

- the local roads are built and paid for by the developer , eventually the consumer

But your thinking only of the community. What about the roads leading INTO the community? What about the fact that the city has to build its major routes longer and have them cover more areas? These are NOT built by the developers, and the costs are passed onto everybody in the city. The fact that all these new communities keep stretching our boundaries means the city has to pay more and more to mantain a road network to support them. And all these roads have to be mantained and repaired as well dont they? How many years do the developers pay for that?

See, the problem is that people only think of themselves or their own communities when this matter comes up. Sure it might be cheaper to build a house in the burbs, but in the end to maintain that community costs everybody else a qite a big chunk of change in the long-run.

[JBR]

You're probably closer to the University of Lethbridge

[looooob]

Originally posted by Table 5@Feb 14 2005, 12:52 PM
[

are you kidding me? New communities are made up of massive houses with giant lots and double/tripple garages. Older communities like Bridgeland or Sunnyside have multi-story apartments and much smaller lots that hold the same amout of people. And this doesnt even take into consideration the big-box stores like Westhills and Deerfoot Meadows.....

I don't have any stats, so I could be out to lunch. I can say that my lot in the 'new community' I live in is MUCH (I take back the hyperbole, it is smaller, but not ridiculously so--our house is bigger though, on a smaller lot)smaller than the lot in the inner city area I vacated....there are also multi-family dwellings across from my house in my 'new community' and there was nothing but single family dwellings in my old community

I'm actually not much of a suberb guy, but we moved in part for our kids...in our old neighbourhood it was mostly 'original owners' of houses built in the 1950s...less than 5 kids on a block with 50 houses (not exagerrating). In our new communityon our block alone, 8 houses...16 kids under 3. but no school, and I doubt there will be one anytime soon (and before someone calls me on this, I"m not saying our community 'deserves' one...but its a hard trade off, move into a neighbourhood with kids...only to have to bus the kid to school)

I'm not decided what is the best option for us longterm, or where we'll end up

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally posted by Bend it like Bourgeois@Feb 14 2005, 12:08 PM
New communities do pay the largest taxes, and by a lot. The alleged cost of a growing city is a crutch the city uses to justify tax hikes and nonsense spending.

New communites have way higher densities than old. Something like 4 times - though that's only what I've heard, not what I know.

Thats' roughly 4 times the tax base - say 2 times for agruments sake.

So the city gets twice the taxes (or more) out of an acre in say McKenzie Town than it does in a community like Bridgeland.

That's after its all built.

Plus:
- the city charges for each acre of land to be developed, and makes a killing on it
- the local roads are built and paid for by the developer , eventually the consumer
- water, sewer, and utilities run as profit centres - new communties pay an extra rider for those services and pay for the installation
- boulevards, landscaping and greenspace maintenance fees are (mostly) covered by community levies in new areas, not the city. In older communities the city does all that.
- water and energy use is way lower (per house) in new communities.

I'm not saying anyone has to like urban sprawl, but the cost argument doesn't wash.

Not sure about this... since property tax is a function of your assessed value, the average inner city resident pays more than your average suburbanite. We've already established that it costs more to buy a house in the inner city.

Your housing density thought is holds some water but it's not nearly as much as 4 times, especially with something like Bridgeland where the density from 6 story condos would greatly exceed annything from Somerset.

How much of the "nonsense spending" in the City's budget is directed to appease citizens of the new burbs? Since roads, roads, roads is Bronco's mantra, I'd say most of it.

[browna]

Fully agree with the above post by I-H-H about people wanting to have their cake and eat it too when moving into a new community.

We thought about building, in Evergreen. Only about 1.5K as the crow flies from our place.

However, it would take 15 mins of driving from old house to new house.
Thus, we bought a place more central Lakeview (move in in 2 weeks(, sure, 40 years old, but with a larger mature lot, and sacrificed a hundred or so square feet.

McKenzie is cheaper because they can build out to Shepard and Strathmore on that flat land, as oppsed to west past Evergreen, where you're getting close to native land. Being a southerner, don't know and wouldn't consider the NW.

Also, as interesting a concept as McKenzie is, a north east wind on a bad day, and the city dump (<2km away) smell is more than prevalent

[Tron_fdc]

I work in the Shepard/Mckenzie area, and have been told on many occasions the smell is from the raw sewage sludge ponds in the area. Add that to the high amounts of alkali in the soil (there's a reason there are no trees out here), and the fact I'm sitting near a massive sour gas line as I type this, I don't think I could ever live in this area.

I have absolutely no proof whatsoever that there are sewage ponds out here, but I have seen large trucks (and not farmer trucks) spreading what looked like sewage of some type on the fields out here. That and the smell of saddledome beer farts really made me start to think.....

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

are you kidding me? New communities are made up of massive houses with giant lots and double/tripple garages. Older communities like Bridgeland or Sunnyside have multi-story apartments and much smaller lots that hold the same amout of people. And this doesnt even take into consideration the big-box stores like Westhills and Deerfoot Meadows.....

But again, if you have proof. I'd love to see it, because it just doesnt make logical sense.

The city has been increasing its required density for new communities steadily for a number of years.

The average in Calgary is about 5 dwellings per hectare and new communties must be at 7 or higher. That's about a 40% increase (or maybe acre, I'll admit this is what i remember, not looking at specific files).

Some of the the houses are bigger, but the lots are smaller in fact - on average. Lots in new neighbourhoods are usually about 350 sq. m. That's about the same or slightly smaller than the real old nighbourhoods, and about half the size of lots in neighbourhoods built in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. I used to have this kind of info kicking around but don;t anymore so I can't quote a report, but thats why people in new neighbourhoods can shake hands with their neighbours by reaching out the windows. And anyone who lives in the burbs can vouch for the lot size I'm sure.

For commercial developments, the developer usually pays all the costs - I believe it was the developer not the city who paid for the deerfoot trail modifications around deerfoot meadows for example. Even if the city does pay, commercial is a whole other argument.

But your thinking only of the community. What about the roads leading INTO the community? What about the fact that the city has to build its major routes longer and have them cover more areas? These are NOT built by the developers, and the costs are passed onto everybody in the city. The fact that all these new communities keep stretching our boundaries means the city has to pay more and more to mantain a road network to support them. And all these roads have to be mantained and repaired as well dont they? How many years do the developers pay for that?

Thats true - and why I said local roads.

I stand by the argument that new communties pay more in taxes - and get less services or pay extra for the same services. There's also the offset of way more efficient usues of land and infrastructure (like the combined YMCA, Police Station, High School etc in Shawnessy). Whether that covers the cost of overpasses and roads I can't say for sure. I suspect it does, long term.

I'ld love to see some proof of this.

I'm not sure which you mean - the largest taxes or my own little hobby horse about the city

The burbs definitely pay more in taxes, as above, though you could argue they should pay even more to stifle the sprawl. As for the city, don't get me started. The city of Calgary books make the federal government's look great. The city relies on that development money even as they whine about it.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse@Feb 14 2005, 12:29 PM

Not sure about this... since property tax is a function of your assessed value, the average inner city resident pays more than your average suburbanite. We've already established that it costs more to buy a house in the inner city.

Your housing density thought is holds some water but it's not nearly as much as 4 times, especially with something like Bridgeland where the density from 6 story condos would greatly exceed annything from Somerset.

How much of the "nonsense spending" in the City's budget is directed to appease citizens of the new burbs? Since roads, roads, roads is Bronco's mantra, I'd say most of it.

The inner city costs more per square foot, but not really per dwelling - and there are usually less dwellings in the older neighbourhoods per acre or hectare or whatever it is.

I guess that's counter-intuitive for some, so I'll see if can dig up some of the reports and stats.

The 'nonsense spending' comment was a shot at my own personal whipping post - the city government. It's your highschool yearbook club gone mad - with an unlimited budget.

Roads however are not part of it. Its the oerating budget at city hall that's out of control, and they consider roads separate to that - all capital costs separate in fact.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bend it like Bourgeois@Feb 14 2005, 01:22 PM

The inner city costs more per square foot, but not really per dwelling -
[/quote]
Geez I don't know about that. I was in the neighborhood of the Children's Hospital yesterday and I noticed that a shack had been torn down and in it's place a very fancy looking, large house was being built. I was told that the shack had been purchased for approximately 200 grand and was promptly torn down. In other words, they bought the lot for 200 g's.

Funny thing -- it really was a shack. Probably 400 square feet, bloody awful looking place with peeling paint and a dirt yard. It was right on Richmond road, a block south of the hospital on the east side of the road.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Meanwhile, within 5-10 minutes of downtown Winnipeg you can get a brand new 1000+ square foot home for $79,900 and they'll pay your 10% down payment for you. You pick the lot, they'll build it for you.

[looooob]

Originally posted by Marc Ciampa@Feb 14 2005, 03:05 PM
Meanwhile, within 5-10 minutes of downtown Winnipeg you can get a brand new 1000+ square foot home for $79,900 and they'll pay your 10% down payment for you. You pick the lot, they'll build it for you.

how true.

we lived in a great house in River Heights in Winnipeg...10 minutes from everything...1200 sq feet, 96 000$ we paid for it in 1998. schools, kids, arenas all over the place

tried to duplicate that house in Calgary...paid 227 000 for a smaller house, built the same year, further from downtown...no kids on the street, and the local school had closed.

so we packed up and moved (for now) to the suburbs. we'll see where this goes

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

No question there's a lot of variety within invidiual communities and between communties in the same general area. By and large though, there's houses from $200,000 - $500,000 in almost every community, plus condos etc.

Somewhere on the city website you can find the avg. house size, avg. lot size, and avg assessed value for each community. Unless something changed in the last couple years, the average prices don't vary that much community by community - excluding the obvious high end and low end.

Fotze's point would be interesting - avg taxes per sq. foot of land. Differences in green spaces, commercial buildings, right of way requirements etc could all come into play there.

In theory, all that stuff gets factored into the assesed value - in theory.

[looooob]

community stats, including average lot size here...I think

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by looooob@Feb 14 2005, 03:19 PM
community stats, including average lot size here...I think

come on internet ...don;t make a liar out of me now....

Thanks for the link.