Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Flames in 07]

we're just copying your stuff pal.

your words:
Because with that tax increase comes a property value increase.

[SeoulFire]

Yeah he typed it wrong. Get over it. Pal.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Did I say that? No, I gave a relative comparison. Without suburbs making the city bigger, and therefore placing the inner city closer to the core, your inner city house is worth less. Just like some house 5 minutes away from the downtown of a small town. How is that hard to understand?

What your argument fails to address is both population and demand. Comparing Calgary to Three Hills makes no sense. Of course its cheap in 3 Hills: there's no businesses "downtown" and there isn't a large influx of new citizens every month.

without making the city any bigger, but having the same population growth, would increase value in all houses, of which inner city would still be the most expensive.

People don't move to the suburbs to get away from some kind of Dickensian downtown core; they move because its cheaper for the amount of house they get or they simply cannot afford to live inner city.

Once the City begins to end the subsidies to the developers, housing in the 'burbs will be much more expensive - Nenshi has stated that subsidies won't continue if he gets his way.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Yeah he typed it wrong. Get over it. Pal.

Then he can recognize that and not assume I'm having glue for breakfast. Thanks for your input though.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

What your argument fails to address is both population and demand. Comparing Calgary to Three Hills makes no sense. Of course its cheap in 3 Hills: there's no businesses "downtown" and there isn't a large influx of new citizens every month.

without making the city any bigger, but having the same population growth, would increase value in all houses, of which inner city would still be the most expensive.

People don't move to the suburbs to get away from some kind of Dickensian downtown core; they move because its cheaper for the amount of house they get or they simply cannot afford to live inner city.

Once the City begins to end the subsidies to the developers, housing in the 'burbs will be much more expensive - Nenshi has stated that subsidies won't continue if he gets his way.

Or they have no desire to live (in a pathetic and lifeless) downtown (core). That one is kind of important.

I still like the bridge.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Or they have no desire to live (in a pathetic and lifeless) downtown (core). That one is kind of important.

I still like the bridge.

yea, this is what i mean by trying to catch up to the 90's now. It's changing now but downtown is generally lifeless. very little useful storefront retail, and still a ways away from a critical mass of residential density that would allow for better grocery shopping, drug stores, things that people would walk to.

Because of the value of the Cgy lunch hour crowed there are a few decent restaurants scattered around but your right, Cgy has a long way to go before downtown is more attractive to prospective residents. I bet EV will help, I'm looking forward to watching those projects develop.

[MarchHare]

If inner city communities like the Beltline, Mission, Kensington, Sunnyside, etc. are "pathetic and lifeless", what does that make the typical Calgary suburb?!

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

yea, this is what i mean by cry trying to catch up to the 90's now. It's changing now but downtown is generally lifeless. very little useful storefront retail, and still a ways away from a critical mass of residential density that would allow for better grocery shopping, drug stores, things that people would walk to.

Because of the value of the Cgy lunch hour crowed there are a few decent restaurants scattered around but your right, Cgy has a long way to go before downtown is more attractive to prospective residents. I bet EV will help, I'm looking forward to watching those projects develop.

As am I but I chose not to pay the premium not only in purchase price but also high condo fees.

I have not lived in a condo downtown since I bought my first one - what do the condo fees cover these days and how would it relate to homeowner expenses? Loosely speaking, a $500 condo fee would translate into an added $100k on top of the purchase price (before any adjustments to equalize with a house) over 25 years. This and the potential for special assessments (rare?) does not make it attractive for a "maybe it will get better".

I rolled my dice on the Seton development becoming a SE mini-core or hub.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If inner city communities like the Beltline, Mission, Kensington, Sunnyside, etc. are "pathetic and lifeless", what does that make the typical Calgary suburb?!

Even more pathetic and lifeless?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

As am I but I chose not to pay the premium not only in purchase price but also high condo fees.

I have not lived in a condo downtown since I bought my first one - what do the condo fees cover these days and how would it relate to homeowner expenses? Loosely speaking, a $500 condo fee would translate into an added $100k on top of the purchase price (before any adjustments to equalize with a house) over 25 years. This and the potential for special assessments (rare?) does not make it attractive for a "maybe it will get better".

I rolled my dice on the Seton development becoming a SE mini-core or hub.

hmm I'm not sure you are including everything when you compare.

Those condo fees, for the most part, pick up expenses that you would otherwise have to pay for as a home owner. Furthermore, real estate out on the edge of the city are much more exposed to downturns and don't appreciate as fast as central areas during appreciating markets.

True, central areas will cost more, and you have to pay more in interest, however the return on that interest payment (on the appreciation of your house) will likely be one of the best returns you get in your life.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

hmm I'm not sure you are including everything when you compare.

Those condo fees, for the most part, pick up expenses that you would otherwise have to pay for as a home owner. Furthermore, real estate out on the edge of the city are much more exposed to downturns and don't appreciate as fast as central areas during appreciating markets.

True, central areas will cost more, and you have to pay more in interest, however the return on that interest payment (on the appreciation of your house) will likely be one of the best returns you get in your life.

• I am not including everything - I explicitly stated that it was before any adjustments were made.

• Overall house maintenance does not even come close to the cost of the monthly condo fees and you are not subject to changes outside of your control. Time spent could be factored in but many people quite enjoy working on their house.

• An unrealized return doesn't do anybody any good unless they want to borrow against it

• If you are a frog in a well then perhaps downtown Calgary may offer a good return (if you are willing to sell).

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Or they have no desire to live (in a pathetic and lifeless) downtown (core). That one is kind of important.

I still like the bridge.

it's definitely a different lifestyle in the inner city, and like the other poster mentioned, areas like kensington and mission are far from lifeless.

i think the point of the debate was the notion that the suburbs somehow create value for the inner city. They don't. The inner city has always been more expensive, both in terms of market value and taxation.

the developers have been riding a cash cow for decades, and its only now that city has decided that enough is enough and is forcing the developers to pay for some of the infrastructural costs they are incurring.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

Once the City begins to end the subsidies to the developers, housing in the 'burbs will be much more expensive - Nenshi has stated that subsidies won't continue if he gets his way.

Define much more expensive? 8k per house was 50% of the subsidy so 16k per house is the total subidy. That is not changing behaviours. how muh money would it take for someone to give up their detatched house for an attached one. Out in the burbs the current differential between the two types in over 100k. People gladly pay it. I think for a lot of people there are plenty of other things they would give up before moving into a condo. For example right now people are willing to pay 1 hour extra of their lives every day to have a detached house. So to have any change the costs would have to be highly punitive to change behaviours

The real argument here should not be inner ctiy vs burb. It should be condo vs attached vs detatched small lot vs detached large lot.

It does not matter where you live. It is the amount of space you take up. Where you take up the space is determined by wealth, how much space you take up is a lifestyle choice

[MrMastodonFarm]

Man, that's one nice bridge.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by GGG

Define much more expensive? 8k per house was 50% of the subsidy so 16k per house is the total subidy. That is not changing behaviours. how muh money would it take for someone to give up their detatched house for an attached one. Out in the burbs the current differential between the two types in over 100k. People gladly pay it. I think for a lot of people there are plenty of other things they would give up before moving into a condo. For example right now people are willing to pay 1 hour extra of their lives every day to have a detached house. So to have any change the costs would have to be highly punitive to change behaviours

The real argument here should not be inner ctiy vs burb. It should be condo vs attached vs detatched small lot vs detached large lot.

It does not matter where you live. It is the amount of space you take up. Where you take up the space is determined by wealth, how much space you take up is a lifestyle choice

fair enough; its not a debilitating amount of extra dollars...but it is a step in the right direction...that was money going directly into the developer's pockets in the past...

if the city really wanted to slow down growth and try getting a little denser, they could do so...unfortunately, there are more outlying wards than inner city wards. but simple measures like travel zones for buses/lrt ought to be put in place - the idea that traveling from downtown to kensignton is the same price as downtown to MacKenzie town is crazy...no big city in the world does things that way (at least the cities i've been too)....

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

Define much more expensive? 8k per house was 50% of the subsidy so 16k per house is the total subidy.

One one hand, that 16k gets split between buyers and developers. On the other hand, you're only looking at the impact on suburban cost of living, whereas downtown cost of living would also be reduced, and what's really important is the combination of these effects.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

fair enough; its not a debilitating amount of extra dollars...but it is a step in the right direction...that was money going directly into the developer's pockets in the past...

if the city really wanted to slow down growth and try getting a little denser, they could do so...unfortunately, there are more outlying wards than inner city wards. but simple measures like travel zones for buses/lrt ought to be put in place - the idea that traveling from downtown to kensignton is the same price as downtown to MacKenzie town is crazy...no big city in the world does things that way (at least the cities i've been too)....

I definately agree with that. I am a big fan of density and distance based transportation tolls.

I dont think the city can both maintain population growth and significantly slow expansion. As it stands now the city has done a fairly good job at increasing density in the burbs. If you compare any new community with the comunities built in the 70s or 80s they are significantly denser then they used to be. They could do a better job of integrating commercial space into these communities but outside of the core and the 100 year old communities the burbs density is better than other communities.

[MrMastodonFarm]

I honestly can't get over how nice it is, especially on a gorgeous spring day like this. The girlfriend, who lives near it, and I went for a walk down Memorial and went across it again, lots of people mulling about, taking pictures, very cool vibe to the whole thing. I'm sure I'm just repeating myself over and over, but I was excited for it to be built and it's exceeded my expectations.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

fair enough; its not a debilitating amount of extra dollars...but it is a step in the right direction...that was money going directly into the developer's pockets in the past...

if the city really wanted to slow down growth and try getting a little denser, they could do so...unfortunately, there are more outlying wards than inner city wards. but simple measures like travel zones for buses/lrt ought to be put in place - the idea that traveling from downtown to kensignton is the same price as downtown to MacKenzie town is crazy...no big city in the world does things that way (at least the cities i've been too)....

The New York City metro allows you to ride any distance for one fare payment.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

the idea that traveling from downtown to kensignton is the same price as downtown to MacKenzie town is crazy....

Has anyone ever paid a fair from Kensington to Downtown in the history of the ctrain though?

[starseed]

In Toronto, any distance traveled on the TTC is one fare. You can even go from the subway to a street car or bus for that same fare.