2010 Calgary Civic Election issues ?

[stampsx2]

We need to build up our downtown but lower our taxes? Sounds like a one way street to me. East Village as far as I remember requires some sort of funding no?

I don't know how everybody expects to build up (condo's) when half the condo's in the city are partially vacant. If the demand is not there then you can't build up. The demand for houses is there. The house inventory is shrinking. So you have to build out.

The only argument against that is infill's but that's not building up.

[Bigtime]

I think the term "building up" may be wrong for Calgary, perhaps "intensification" is a better term? Infills going in to the inner-city communities are helping add more density to the area.

Density doesn't have to be only 30 storey condo towers, I'm hoping to see a mix of tower, mid-rise, rowhouses, infills, and yes even single family in the ideal neighbourhood. If we could incorporate them all into a community with easy access to retail, commercial, schools, and services I think we'd have a winner.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

We need to build up our downtown but lower our taxes? Sounds like a one way street to me. East Village as far as I remember requires some sort of funding no?

I don't know how everybody expects to build up (condo's) when half the condo's in the city are partially vacant. If the demand is not there then you can't build up. The demand for houses is there. The house inventory is shrinking. So you have to build out.

The only argument against that is infill's but that's not building up.

There is a temporary oversupply of multi-family units, but the long term trend has shown that the proportion of multi-family homes built compared to single-family homes is rising. Changing demographics such as an aging population, fewer married couples and fewer children, housing affordability as well as increasing commute times as the city grows are all factors that will drive demand in the long term. There is need to plan effectively for both. To facilitate growth in the centre- and inner-city investment is needed and should be encouraged for many reasons.

[algernon]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

I don't want to subsidize downtown living any more than they want to subsidize the suburbs... now I want to enjoy a back yard, deck, bbq, yard etc etc...

Somewhat related, the commuter from outside the city are the worst offenders.

The sprawl is not the issue it is the accountability and allocation of tax dollars.

Originally Posted by stampsx2

I don't know how everybody expects to build up (condo's) when half the condo's in the city are partially vacant.

I wonder if all these vacant Condos are in the suburbs, or downtown. If they're in the burbs, maybe they aren't selling because some people want two yards?

[SeoulFire]

So why not come down now?

If they come you will build it?

I wonder if all these vacant Condos are in the suburbs, or downtown. If they're in the burbs, maybe they aren't selling because some people want two yards?

My apologies for not proofing my post and repeating one entry.

[Muta]

There isn't enough supply of residential properties in the inner core. This is why property values are so high, and as a result of that, our taxes are too.

Increase the supply, property values go down, and so do taxes. It's that simple. We need a mayor who takes the development of downtown, and our TOD's, to the next level.

As for existing infrastructure costs; my guess is it costs less to maintain existing infrastructure then it costs to build new infrastructure. It's also interesting to note the fire hydrant example; a fire hydrant downtown usually services way more people per hydrant than in the suburbs, given the higher densities of residential (and commercial) properties. Do we get tax breaks because of it? No. Is it a more efficient use of existing infrastructure? Yes. Maintaining these hydrants costs less than building new water lines and hydrants for fewer people / lighter densities in the suburbs.

Infrastructure also includes things such as parks... and there's some of us that just don't need backyards. If I want to go to a 'backyard', I can simply walk across the street to a nice, free, already taken care of, city-owned green space. And, they're huge. Way bigger than anything I could afford on my own. And guess what? I'm already helping to maintain that park through paying my taxes, so I just use what I'm already paying for. Parks are the best backyards in the City.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

If they come you will build it?

There is already lots there:

-Olympic Plaza
-Prince's Island and Eau Claire area
-The Glenbow museum
-Millenium Park
-Stephen Avenue
-The Core mall
-the newly renovated Central Memorial Park
-1st Street SW with the wonderful new Haultain park for kids
-17th avenue
-4th street SW

What's needed are bodies on the street, walking the spaces and interacting with their environment. You can build all you want, but without people using it nothing will move forward.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Muta

As for existing infrastructure costs; my guess is it costs less to maintain existing infrastructure then it costs to build new infrastructure. It's also interesting to note the fire hydrant example; a fire hydrant downtown usually services way more people per hydrant than in the suburbs, given the higher densities of residential (and commercial) properties. Do we get tax breaks because of it? No. Is it a more efficient use of existing infrastructure? Yes. Maintaining these hydrants costs less than building new water lines and hydrants for fewer people / lighter densities in the suburbs.

It doesn't necessarily cost more to install new infrastructure than to maintain old infrastructure, as maintenance can cost ridiculous amounts sometimes. The problem is that for some services, building new infrastructure forces the old infrastructure to be replaced as well, because it's not big enough. Water lines, sewer lines, storm sewers (especially), roads, etc.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

There is already lots there:

-Olympic Plaza
-Prince's Island and Eau Claire area
-The Glenbow museum
-Millenium Park
-Stephen Avenue
-The Core mall
-the newly renovated Central Memorial Park
-1st Street SW with the wonderful new Haultain park for kids
-17th avenue
-4th street SW

What's needed are bodies on the street, walking the spaces and interacting with their environment. You can build all you want, but without people using it nothing will move forward.

Fair point.

My biggest beef in moving back to Calgary from overseas is the (comparatively) pathetic public transportation. Lack of service, lack of routes, and lack of decent technology for information (pdf maps? Seriously?). This could even be extended to taxis - non-existent, overpriced and really not feasible as a means of transportation. If it is not convenient for me to go there I will not go unless there is something special or spectacular that draws me - while those things you mentioned are nice they are just not good enough for me to go through the hassles of getting there.

Perhaps I was just spoiled by living in a city (and country) with outstanding public transportation and governments with the willingness and foresight to get it done.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Bunk

There is a temporary oversupply of multi-family units, but the long term trend has shown that the proportion of multi-family homes built compared to single-family homes is rising. Changing demographics such as an aging population, fewer married couples and fewer children, housing affordability as well as increasing commute times as the city grows are all factors that will drive demand in the long term. There is need to plan effectively for both. To facilitate growth in the centre- and inner-city investment is needed and should be encouraged for many reasons.

This is a theory and it may apply to Canada but not to Calgary. The average age of Calgarians is one of the lowest in Canada not aging and people continue to migrate to the city. However I don't mind my tax dollars funding a safer cleaner downtown even though I never go there.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The city has nothing to do with deciding which laws can be and can't be enforced.

They also can't legalize it.

Try telling that to Bunny Colvin!

[algernon]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Fair point.

My biggest beef in moving back to Calgary from overseas is the (comparatively) pathetic public transportation. Lack of service, lack of routes, and lack of decent technology for information (pdf maps? Seriously?). This could even be extended to taxis - non-existent, overpriced and really not feasible as a means of transportation. If it is not convenient for me to go there I will not go unless there is something special or spectacular that draws me - while those things you mentioned are nice they are just not good enough for me to go through the hassles of getting there.

Perhaps I was just spoiled by living in a city (and country) with outstanding public transportation and governments with the willingness and foresight to get it done.

Was the city you lived in 'only' 125 years old? in a hundred years Calgary should have a spiderweb train system, which becomes feasible when the core reaches higher densities, requiring (in our case) E-W connectors. If the city keeps sprawling, with out increasing density, well, it's just easier to keep adding stations.

Oh, and I thought you were referring to your front yard, so, my apologies.
I have two 'scraps of sod', (front and back) and enjoy both, BTW.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Fair point.

My biggest beef in moving back to Calgary from overseas is the (comparatively) pathetic public transportation. Lack of service, lack of routes, and lack of decent technology for information (pdf maps? Seriously?). This could even be extended to taxis - non-existent, overpriced and really not feasible as a means of transportation. If it is not convenient for me to go there I will not go unless there is something special or spectacular that draws me - while those things you mentioned are nice they are just not good enough for me to go through the hassles of getting there.

Perhaps I was just spoiled by living in a city (and country) with outstanding public transportation and governments with the willingness and foresight to get it done.

There's legitimacy to this concern. However, you also said you wanted a back yard, bbq, etc. The attainable level of transit (frequency, lots of route options, etc.) is linked to land use. Low density residential development (yards, patios, bbqs, etc.) means good transit service is less viable. Better design of subdivisions can help (less curvilinear street design, less segregation of uses, etc.), but a lot of it comes down to density. Transit feeds off of higher densities and good design (good integration of transit, rather than treat it as an afterthought) and vice versa.

You often can't have it both ways. Not saying that's what you're necessarily asking for.

[Chump]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Try telling that to Bunny Colvin!

Haha, that is exactly what I was thinking.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

It doesn't necessarily cost more to install new infrastructure than to maintain old infrastructure, as maintenance can cost ridiculous amounts sometimes. The problem is that for some services, building new infrastructure forces the old infrastructure to be replaced as well, because it's not big enough. Water lines, sewer lines, storm sewers (especially), roads, etc.

Exactly.

[SeoulFire]

I am not asking to have it both ways - I have made my decision. I will be living in the deep south in a pretty much self-contained area. I work out of a home office which requires some travelling (straight north shot to airport/Edmonton and easy access to E/W travel). I do not have to go far for recreation or amenities and have no use for the almost non-existent public transportation. I have many friends in the area and our recreation consists of backyard bbqs and recreation rooms (all kid friendly) and RV'ing outside the city. I have no use for overpriced restaurants/pubs with sub-standard servers with a sense of entitlement to 20% whether they be downtown or in suburbia.

I would say this thread is completely derailed.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

I am not asking to have it both ways - I have made my decision.

I didn't think you were, which is why I included the last sentence in my post. I wasn't so much replying directly to your posts as I was using them as a basis to speak generally. A lot of people do effectively ask to have it both ways.

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

I will be living in the deep south in a pretty much self-contained area.

What do you mean by self-contained? Just curious.

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

I would say this thread is completely derailed.

I wouldn't say so. The thread is about municipal issues. These are municipal issues.

[SeoulFire]

When I stated I was not asking it was more clarification on what you wrote - no malice or defense intended in the words.

By self-contained I mean that friends, recreation, parks, groceries etc are all very accessible and I have no need nor incentive to leave the general area.

[Knalus]

Another useful thing I think an alderman could consider is figuring out a way to make neighbourhoods that are neither old (such as Renfrew) nor new (such as Silverado) more livable. Take Millrise for example. One of the issues I have with a neighbourhood like that is that there is nowhere to go by foot, with the exception of Fish Creek. But not every neighbourhood has a Fish Creek. There are no/few sidewalks, the streets leading to other neighborhoods (such as Shawnessey) are busier, and have this plain, ugly fence ringing it. If there were more trees planted along roads like James McKevitt, and Corner Stores in these sorts of neighborhoods (lower/zero property taxes would certainly help re-install those), it would help make these drive-through neighborhoods a little more comfortable.

When I was a little kid, I lived in Winnipeg. It wasn't possible for Winnipeg to fund libraries in all their communities, but they did have a solution. It was called the Bookmobile, it was pretty much a trailer converted into a traveling library, in a different neighborhood each day of the week. Fixes for making older neighborhoods more livable don't have to be overly expensive to work. I still have very fold memories of the Bookmobile.

I would also like the city to find a way to encourage young families to move into neighborhoods with already build and established schools, instead of having to build new ones.

[Bill Bumface]

My gripe with new neighbourhoods is the walkability. Every kid should be able to walk to a 7-11 for a slurpee. They started screwing this up when they went away from the grid to all these crazy mazes of crescents and cul-de-sacs that have only one or two ways in or out of the community.