Vancouver loses top spot on world's most livable cities list

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Reaper

It won't happen because Canada is a free country. What is being suggested is a no visa/no entry type system where all applicants are approved because the only people who would have to apply would be out of town residents. How would it be enforced? Would units wander around town checking people's papers?

Have you seriously never seen a tollbooth before?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I'm not sure I agree with that site's methodology. For New York, they're including the entire metro area which includes New York City, Newark, Jersey City, Yonkers, Bridgeport, New Haven, and about 10 other cities across 4 states..

A lot of people in those outlining areas commute to New York for work, I really don't see a difference because they are divided into different cities.

Do you think people who work and live in White Rock don't commute do Vancouver for work? West Vancouver? New Westminster? POCO?

Not everyone who lives in the burbs in Calgary commute to downtown Calgary.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Why wouldn't [toll roads] happen [?] Tonnes of cities around the world have tolls, and frankly, it would probably pass a vote at city because parasites wouldn't have a say.

I believe it's not likely to happen because the roads that bring the leeches into the city aren't under the city's jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by Rathji

So the people who get the benefit of not needing to drive for an hour to get to work, need to pay less tax? How do these 'normal' places all over the world figure this out? By the length of road that you need to drive on to get to the core of a city?

You start of by figuring out the cost of servicing new (and existing) communities (and developments). The city can do this, because they pay for it. They know what it costs. You include downstream effects (i.e. if a new community or group of new communities adds enough traffic to an existing road that that road needs to be expanded, that community or group of communities is allocated the cost of that expansion). Once again, you can do this. There are statistics; there are correlations.

Then, you can do a few different things. You can make the developers pay those costs up front (acreage fees). You can use the cost allocations to create a factor (preferably 1:1 proportional) that your property value gets multiplied by to figure out your tax payments.

Yes, the cost allocations won't be perfect, so the system will still be somewhat arbitrary, but it would be much more fair than what's currently in place, and better for the city as a whole because it would make the city fiscally sustainable.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Obviously when you factor in metro area it really messes with the numbers, however unless you are somehow claiming that this inaccuracy would move Calgary from a middle of the pack at 62, to top of the pack in the top 5, the basic idea is still fairly reasonable.

Where Calgary would fall on any list relies heavily on what the criteria are and which cities are included. If someone was talking about population density in North American cities that have 500,000+ in population, I could see Calgary being one of the lowest density if you're talking about cities and not metro areas.

Just glancing at some densities for city populations around North America I can only find a few of any size (Nashville, Jacksonville, and Oklahoma) that have a lower population density within their city limits than Calgary. And I believe at least some of those cities (Nashville for sure) have consolidated city and county governments so there are large rural areas included within their city limits; the vast majority of the population there lives in a much higher density than the average. So it's possible if one made a list with that criteria that Calgary would finish on the top 5 of lowest population density.

But again, that's not really an apples to apples comparison because Calgary is much more self contained than a lot of those cities. A lot more sprawl (and the lower density that comes with it) will show up in Calgary's city figures than other cities who have just as much sprawl in their metro area that's not within their city limits.



What I'd like to see is data which shows what percentage of a city's population lives in various levels of density. Total numbers aren't all that helpful when you consider that large parks, mountain ranges within city limits, and other unlivable areas can greatly affect overall density numbers without changing actual housing density.

For instance, a city of 1 million people that's 1000 km2 in size could be very different depending on its makeup. On the one hand it could be constant sprawl with everyone living in fairly low densities of about 1000/km2. On the other hand, there could be a dense inner core with 500,000 people living in a density of 5000/km2, an area outside that with 400,000 people living in a 2000/km2 density, a couple hundred km2 with mountains and parks, and then a low density outlying area with the remainder living at about 200/km2. Both cities would have the same number of people in the same amount of land, but the population centers would be greatly different in terms of density.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

If any Canadian doesn't know how lucky they are, take this survey to heart. To live in Canada is to live in one of the most functional, safe, prosperous countries in human history.

Ca-na-da!!! CA-NA-DA!!!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by evman150

Haha they lost top spot because of some drunken idiot on the malahat? That's funny, and pretty embarrassing for the legitimacy of the survey.

Would have been way better if they lost it because of the riots.

Legitimacy of the survey was shot when they ranked Wancouver ahead of Melbourne several times.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by SebC

I believe it's not likely to happen because the roads that bring the leeches into the city aren't under the city's jurisdiction.

You start of by figuring out the cost of servicing new (and existing) communities (and developments). The city can do this, because they pay for it. They know what it costs. You include downstream effects (i.e. if a new community or group of new communities adds enough traffic to an existing road that that road needs to be expanded, that community or group of communities is allocated the cost of that expansion). Once again, you can do this. There are statistics; there are correlations.

Then, you can do a few different things. You can make the developers pay those costs up front (acreage fees). You can use the cost allocations to create a factor (preferably 1:1 proportional) that your property value gets multiplied by to figure out your tax payments.

Yes, the cost allocations won't be perfect, so the system will still be somewhat arbitrary, but it would be much more fair than what's currently in place, and better for the city as a whole because it would make the city fiscally sustainable.

This I would totally support, but randomly saying that XYZ community needs to pay more tax seems like it is simply punishing the person who bought the house because the City didn't control sprawl (by charging developers).

I know in the end it is pretty much the same thing, though.

[SeoulFire]

I think we should work with what we have and build up more nodes within the city. I don't believe that a city with one "go-to" location is appealing at all (not that Calgary is because DT sucks balls here anyways).

Just out of interest...how many of the people wishing for more urban density have actually lived in a dense area? Furthermore, how many have posted in the GMG thread about other people doing stuff (noise, parking, driving etc etc). It seems like there is a massive disconnect between what is found fashionable and the reality of actually living in a location with significant density.

Maybe not all of you but I am sure that many are just on the latte-sucking fashion train of being a sprawl basher.

And back to the thread (probably already posted but I skimmed)...wonder if they will riot in protest?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Have you seriously never seen a tollbooth before?

A lot of them now just have cameras that take a picture of your place when you enter and exit a road, then send you a bill in the mail.

I'm all for toll roads. Let the users pay. Why should someone who sacrifices having a big suburban back yard so that they can live closer to their work, have to pay for the roads used to bring people in from the suburbs? I am speaking as some who does have to commute.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

I think we should work with what we have and build up more nodes within the city. I don't believe that a city with one "go-to" location is appealing at all (not that Calgary is because DT sucks balls here anyways).

Just out of interest...how many of the people wishing for more urban density have actually lived in a dense area? Furthermore, how many have posted in the GMG thread about other people doing stuff (noise, parking, driving etc etc). It seems like there is a massive disconnect between what is found fashionable and the reality of actually living in a location with significant density.

Maybe not all of you but I am sure that many are just on the latte-sucking fashion train of being a sprawl basher.

And back to the thread (probably already posted but I skimmed)...wonder if they will riot in protest?

I think calling them latte-sucking just makes you feel better. Maybe they don't walk around with 80's polo shirts with their collar popped. They just think it's a much more cost effective and resource efficient way to build a city. Calgary is a city that has people in the middle financing the spiraling cost of infrastructure, and that's just a fact, and when the current city tax allocation methodology was rolled out that was the goal, to apply tax heaviest to the high valued land (read not highest value homes). It reminds me of people who think driving with cell phones is ok or 20 years ago the debate about seat belts. The answer is so obvious, but people just want to defend what they are used to seemingly unconditionally.

Others have referred to taxing new communities via the builders is nice but it's impossible to apply retroactively, so it can only be part of a solution.

I agree with what you said about building other central districts, you referred to them in the context of a commercial zone which is fine, but they also make sense from a residential perspective, to build around mass transit hubs. In Calgary's case that should be around areas like Chinook LRT, Anderson LRT, that Westgate mall area and probably more around the Sunnyside to 16th ave corridor up 10th and 14th St NW.

And when you say how many people have lived in significantly dense areas, what you do mean? Like Midtown? I think the areas you are referring to would not be relevant. People don't expect a midtown to be built, they just don't like Calgary's extreme case of ignoring density and sprawling endlessly.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Where Calgary would fall on any list relies heavily on what the criteria are and which cities are included. If someone was talking about population density in North American cities that have 500,000+ in population, I could see Calgary being one of the lowest density if you're talking about cities and not metro areas.

Just glancing at some densities for city populations around North America I can only find a few of any size (Nashville, Jacksonville, and Oklahoma) that have a lower population density within their city limits than Calgary.

You didn't look very hard in Canada where Edmonton, Hamilton, Ottawa and Quebec City all have less people per area than Calgary within their city limits.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Not at all....





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35160185...ious-skid-row/

Dr. Montaner is an MD specializing in HIV whose practice and research activities are based in Vancouver, specifically the downtown area. He has his agenda.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Reaper

It won't happen because Canada is a free country. What is being suggested is a no visa/no entry type system where all applicants are approved because the only people who would have to apply would be out of town residents. How would it be enforced? Would units wander around town checking people's papers?

WTF? That's honestly the only response I can muster to this incredibly off the wall post.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by valo403

WTF? That's honestly the only response I can muster to this incredibly off the wall post.

Think about it, we could have patches sewn on Dion and the other out of towners which distinguish real Calgarians from the vastly inferior outliers. It would protect the purity of our tax base.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Have you seriously never seen a tollbooth before?

Yes, I've seen a tollbooth. Are you going to put "checkpoints" on every road that leads into Calgary? Perhaps we can put up a wall when we find that people are avoiding the checkpoints by walking across unpatrolled land?

[burn_this_city]

I propose a wall, with guard dogs, and a shoot first ask questions later mentality. Or we could do like California and have the preferred fastest routes with a toll.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Yes, I've seen a tollbooth. Are you going to put "checkpoints" on every road that leads into Calgary? Perhaps we can put up a wall when we find that people are avoiding the checkpoints by walking across unpatrolled land?

Are you seriously that dense? Did anyone suggest that Calgary should be walled off from outside communities? Nope. What was suggested was tolls, a system that is used by thousands of cities around the world, the vast majority of which are in free countries. It's a very simple system, how you make the leap to checkpoints and people carrying papers is rather puzzling.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Yes, I've seen a tollbooth. Are you going to put "checkpoints" on every road that leads into Calgary? Perhaps we can put up a wall when we find that people are avoiding the checkpoints by walking across unpatrolled land?

Who said anything about walking? Wouldn't you charge for cars (that are using the road infrastructure) not people? I don't think physical tollbooths would be required either, just a camera system.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

A lot of people in those outlining areas commute to New York for work, I really don't see a difference because they are divided into different cities.

Do you think people who work and live in White Rock don't commute do Vancouver for work? West Vancouver? New Westminster? POCO?

Not everyone who lives in the burbs in Calgary commute to downtown Calgary.

That's exactly the difference.

They have their own municipalities and pay their own taxes & infrastructure costs. My Vancouver taxes don't have to go up because we're paying to build Surrey, North Van, Burnaby etc.
They all pay their own taxes and expenses.

Yes we all use each other's infrastructure as well, & share some costs but overall Vancouver is not paying for the outbound development costs of people moving into new communities in the Fraser Valley.

Calgary as a single municipality is set up to cover a large geographic area, with big city costs, and a relatively small population for that space. It's not Calgary or suburb bashing to say so, it's just acknowledging a reality that the city needs to consider in it's urban planning and tax systems.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Where Calgary would fall on any list relies heavily on what the criteria are and which cities are included. If someone was talking about population density in North American cities that have 500,000+ in population, I could see Calgary being one of the lowest density if you're talking about cities and not metro areas.

Just glancing at some densities for city populations around North America I can only find a few of any size (Nashville, Jacksonville, and Oklahoma) that have a lower population density within their city limits than Calgary. And I believe at least some of those cities (Nashville for sure) have consolidated city and county governments so there are large rural areas included within their city limits; the vast majority of the population there lives in a much higher density than the average. So it's possible if one made a list with that criteria that Calgary would finish on the top 5 of lowest population density.

The problem with comparing density within city-limits is that you're not actually comparing apples to apples. For instance, most core "city" boundaries are completely built up and surrounded by built up areas. Calgary on the otherhand maintains a 30 year unbuilt land supply. So while Calgary's "city" boundaries are 740 square km less than 500 is actually built. Similarly, Ottawa upon amalgamation has a "city boundary" of well over 2000 sq km, does this mean it's one of the least dense cities on the planet? Of course not. The empty land severely dilutes population density numbers in these kinds of comparisons.

In fact, Calgary has far denser new subdivisions than their American counterparts, which have massive swaths of unregulated ex-urban sprawl.

If you want evidence, check out this absolutely fantastic series of Aerial photographs of American Suburbs entitled "USA Sprawl Festival"

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=398065