2010 Calgary Civic Election issues ?

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

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.

Speaking more generally and not specifically toward you again.

Remember that "very accessible" is kind of vague. You mention the deep south which indeed has very accessible amenities for automobiles. As hulkrogan notes above, these areas are often not accessible for those wishing to (or having no other option but to) walk, you have already mentioned transit and I will also add cycling. Such areas and designs often mandate both car ownership and car use.

Also, while it is great that this area is self-contained for you personally, considering you work from home, it can probably be said that such employment options are not contained within the area, and thus it is not self-contained for most people.

I of course say this without knowing which exact community you live in, but can't think of any community anyone would include in the "deep south" that wouldn't fit the above.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Speaking more generally and not specifically toward you again.

Remember that "very accessible" is kind of vague. You mention the deep south which indeed has very accessible amenities for automobiles. As hulkrogan notes above, these areas are often not accessible for those wishing to (or having no other option but to) walk, you have already mentioned transit and I will also add cycling. Such areas and designs often mandate both car ownership and car use.

Also, while it is great that this area is self-contained for you personally, considering you work from home, it can probably be said that such employment options are not contained within the area, and thus it is not self-contained for most people.

I of course say this without knowing which exact community you live in, but can't think of any community anyone would include in the "deep south" that wouldn't fit the above.

This seems to imply that living downtown or near the core walking is always an option. I disagree. From 1990-2000 I lived either downtown or just outside of downtown so I know the limitations of that lifestyle as well. I did not have a vehicle for many of those years and I was severely limited in my options - it is not just the suburbs. I also have no further desire to be among the incessant noise, drunks, dealers and bums.

Regarding employment it is a pretty ridiculous notion to think that most people will be able to live where they work - if we could all be so lucky. My example was to emphasize the fact that I have zero incentive to make the trip and no reason to be there at all. Take work out of the equation and most outlying community areas are quite self-sufficient.

Whether it is the suburbs or the core it comes down to lifestyle choices. I could live downtown and walk/transit everywhere just as easily as I could live in the suburbs and walk/transit everywhere pending the choice of location of the residence.

The most irritating thing about this is that most people wishing for higher population density have probably never lived in one.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

My grip 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.

As a parent, I wouldn't want a 7-11 in walking distance.. Too much sugar and expense!!

Even though the crazy mazes exist, there still are walk paths between one maze point and another. People can walk, bike, etc through the neighborhood much easier than drive.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Regarding employment it is a pretty ridiculous notion to think that most people will be able to live where they work - if we could all be so lucky. My example was to emphasize the fact that I have zero incentive to make the trip and no reason to be there at all. Take work out of the equation and most outlying community areas are quite self-sufficient.

It's even more ridiculous if there are 2 breadwinners in the family.

We deliberately chose our current house to be close to my wife's work, since she hates to drive, and farther from mine since I don't mind driving. Neither one of our businesses are anywhere close to the downtown, and thus we have no reason to head there. It also makes no sense for me to take any transit, since it would extend my trip from 30 minutes to over 2 hours... ridiculous.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by calculoso

As a parent, I wouldn't want a 7-11 in walking distance.. Too much sugar and expense!!

Even though the crazy mazes exist, there still are walk paths between one maze point and another. People can walk, bike, etc through the neighborhood much easier than drive.

Although hulkrogan doesn't speak to it, the other issue is having somewhere to walk to.

"Walkability" means more than just having the ability to walk aimlessly through the neighbourhood possibly while walking the dog or in an effort to just get out of the house and get exercise. It means having the amenities necessary for living day-to-day life to be within walking distance and to be reasonably accessible to the pedestrian. On the most basic level, this means groceries, a drug store and green/park space, and can be expanded a little to a sit-down restaurant, hardware store and clothing store.

Check out the "walk score" site. Pretty interesting.

http://www.walkscore.com/

To calculate your "score" they include in their criteria: Transit, Grocery Stores, Restaurants, Coffee Shops, Bars, Cinemas, Parks, Libraries, Bookstores, Fitness, Drug Stores, Hardware Stores, Clothing & Music

Now the methodology is a bit choppy since it just uses whatever is in Google Earth, which doesn't always indicate reality. Nevertheless, it should still give you a good illustration of the concept.

Many newer communities in Calgary (what many might classify as "sprawl") do very poorly at "walkability." Believe it or not though, one much-maligned community that actually does a decent job (relative to its contemporaries) is Mackenzie Towne. Still not the greatest though. It is a difficult thing to achieve, especially once density is reduced.

Originally Posted by calculoso

It's even more ridiculous if there are 2 breadwinners in the family.

We deliberately chose our current house to be close to my wife's work, since she hates to drive, and farther from mine since I don't mind driving. Neither one of our businesses are anywhere close to the downtown, and thus we have no reason to head there.

This is a valid point and the two-or-more-people-working-in-different-places situation cannot be ignored, because it is common. I think it forces a lot of people to make difficult decisions when choosing where to live.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

This seems to imply that living downtown or near the core walking is always an option. I disagree. From 1990-2000 I lived either downtown or just outside of downtown so I know the limitations of that lifestyle as well. I did not have a vehicle for many of those years and I was severely limited in my options - it is not just the suburbs.

I wasn't implying that, but I can see how you might have gotten that impression. Living "downtown" absolutely has its own set of limitations and sacrifices that need to be made, and it isn't always a viable option for everyone. Speaking for myself, I can pretty much rule out any living arrangement with underground or structured parking, or anywhere that has limited on-street parking due to my own specific circumstances involving a work vehicle.

I'm personally not a fan of the usual argument between the extremes of Cranston and Tuscany vs. a thirty story apartment condo building within a 1 km radius of the Calgary Tower. It ignores so many other realities and possibilities that lie in between. It's a false dichotomy. I would never say that the only option is to live "downtown."

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

The most irritating thing about this is that most people wishing for higher population density have probably never lived in one.

I'm not sure that's a fair statement. The description certainly would fit for some. I think you'll find most have at the very least visited such areas.

[SebC]

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 condos are vacant because they're currently overpriced and overtaxed... they were bought by speculators who are reluctant to admit they paid too much initially. The vacancies are a result of market inefficiency (supply isn't equal to demand, which it is when the market reaches equilibrium) as a result of market sluggishness, in the same way that salaries that are slow to come down have created unemployment. Vacancies don't mean that nobody wants to live downtown, they mean that not enough people want to live downtown at current costs. That doesn't contradict my argument that costs should be reduced.

Part of the demand for houses is induced by the subsidies. And the demand for condos is reduced by the taxes that pay for those subsidies. Formally, demand is a curve, units vs. price. Adjusting taxes would move the whole curves for condos and houses, perhaps bringing them into equilibrium with supply and eliminating the current surplus of condos and shortage of houses. (Time will also bring the market into equilibrium... economic recovery would also help.) Haha... actually now that I think about, luxury goods suffer in bad times and inferior goods benefit via substitution. So maybe what the current demand patterns actually show is that people prefer inner city living?

East Village is funding itself with a Community Revitalization Levy. It will have higher taxes to pay of the debt incurred by the city to develop it... something new developments should also do (minus the revitalization part).

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by SebC

East Village is funding itself with a Community Revitalization Levy. It will have higher taxes to pay of the debt incurred by the city to develop it... something new developments should also do (minus the revitalization part).

East Village is not being paid by higher taxes to pay the debt. The way a Community Revitalization Levy works is that they set a boundary (the Rivers District) and at the CRL's onset they freeze the amount of property tax currently being collected within that zone and it continues to flow to general revenue. In the meantime, money is borrowed to pay for the infrastructure and other upgrades. This in theory attracts new development. The new taxes collected above and beyond what was being collected at the onset of the CRL is what goes to pay the debt. Tax rates are no more or less than they would be otherwise. This is managed by a arm's length development corporation called the Calgary Municipal Land Corportation. www.calgarymlc.ca

[FireFly]

If anyone is up near Beddington or otherwise in Ward 4, aldermanic candidate Jane Morgan is hosting a meet and greet from 7:30-9:30 at Beddington Heights Community Hall, 375 Bermuda Drive, NW. Go pick her brain.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

The most irritating thing about this is that most people wishing for higher population density have probably never lived in one.

One of the most irritating things during discussion on SmartGrowth is people bashing the concept because they weren't listening when advocates made the distinction between high-density and higher densities.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by FireFly

If anyone is up near Beddington or otherwise in Ward 4, aldermanic candidate Jane Morgan is hosting a meet and greet from 7:30-9:30 at Beddington Heights Community Hall, 375 Bermuda Drive, NW. Go pick her brain.

Jane Morgan = First Lady?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Addick

One of the most irritating things during discussion on SmartGrowth is people bashing the concept because they weren't listening when advocates made the distinction between high-density and higher densities.

And most of the people supporting SmartGrowth have never seen the increase in density that has occurred in the new communities on the borders of the city.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by flameswin

jane morgan = first lady?

WINNAR!!!! *white text lets me post ALL CAPS*

[GGG]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

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.

From a traffic planning standpoint limiting entry and exit points makes a lot of sense. Since you know the density of a neighbourhood you know the traffic volume coming out of it therefore you know the intersection type you need to design to accomodate that volume.

The alternative of grids leads to people bypassing the main arteries through communities and much more difficult to control traffic. Take a look at the older communities like Mount Royal or Kingsland. They are adding traffic circles and blocking off streets to prevent cutters.

Also from a walkabilty point of view they aren't so bad once you learn where the short cuts are. Really the key to walkability is being close to where you work. For the many that live and work in the south they really have no more impact then people who live and work downtown.

To me the key to new communities is to bulid in office space commercial and tax it less if required. The office space near Cattlebaron in the deep south is a good example of decreasing the number of downtown commutes.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Check out the "walk score" site. Pretty interesting.

http://www.walkscore.com/

To calculate your "score" they include in their criteria: Transit, Grocery Stores, Restaurants, Coffee Shops, Bars, Cinemas, Parks, Libraries, Bookstores, Fitness, Drug Stores, Hardware Stores, Clothing & Music

Now the methodology is a bit choppy since it just uses whatever is in Google Earth, which doesn't always indicate reality. Nevertheless, it should still give you a good illustration of the concept.

Walkscore is a little iffy with what the classify as each thing especially downtown. If you put in the Nu Era and Vertro buidlings by the Saddledome. The biggest drawback of those is how far you are from a grocery store the Safeway on 8th and 12th being the closest. But they give you Bromley's grocer. Which is a sketchy store on 10th and 1stish. I think the way the count anything no matter the size of the store greatly slants Walkscore in favour of downtowns. It also undervalues or doesn't count transit though it is walkscore and not Carless score.

Access to transit is one of the keys to going carless or single car as a family.

[frinkprof]

I'd like to comment more on the rest of your post, but in the interest of time, I'll just address this one part.

Originally Posted by GGG

To me the key to new communities is to bulid in office space commercial and tax it less if required. The office space near Cattlebaron in the deep south is a good example of decreasing the number of downtown commutes.

This can create other problems. What about someone who lives in the north in, say, Edgemont, and their previously-downtown-located place of employment moves out to Sunpark Plaza (the business park you are thinking of). The commute for that person (and probably a good portion of the other employees) has now gotten considerably longer. Not only that, but the area in question has worse transit connections and is not very well designed for the pedestrian (by comparison). Now, one answer for the individual employees would be to move closer to work, but as calculoso pointed out earlier, there's a good chance that their spouse works elsewhere in the City, possibly downtown or in another employment area.

Such effects of employment decentralization can be mitigated by locating these developments near current or future under-utilized transit nodes (primarily train stations), and designing them using TOD principles.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by GGG

Walkscore is a little iffy with what the classify as each thing especially downtown. If you put in the Nu Era and Vertro buidlings by the Saddledome. The biggest drawback of those is how far you are from a grocery store the Safeway on 8th and 12th being the closest. But they give you Bromley's grocer. Which is a sketchy store on 10th and 1stish. I think the way the count anything no matter the size of the store greatly slants Walkscore in favour of downtowns. It also undervalues or doesn't count transit though it is walkscore and not Carless score.

Nuera, Vetro, etc. will be a couple blocks from the new Sunterra going in the Keynote development. Due to open in a month I think. Nevertheless, good points. Walkscore is a tad fuzzy in their selection criteria, and the reliance on Google Maps, etc. I actually don't think the transit component even gets counted for Calgary due to some glitch in how it brings in the data from Google Maps.

I was just trying to provide an illustration of the general concept of "walkability."

Originally Posted by GGG

Access to transit is one of the keys to going carless or single car as a family.

Agree 100%.

[Daradon]

I'm to the party late, so I don't know if a lot of this has been discussed but I feel like Calgary is just becoming overrun with fines and penalties. While I don't disagree with the majority of them, (and no, I'm not complaining because I have been hit with a bunch. My last fine was a parking ticket 2 years ago) it does feel like a bit of overkill and that they are being used improperly to help fill city coffers.

More importantly, I feel the police themselves are being used improperly and being used to enforce a lot of these petty crimes and by-laws to bring in fines, and not being allowed to do their real, or far more important, duties. I know I have been outspoken of the police on here before, but in this I feel I am on their side. This is an administration thing, and a civic thing, and not a police issue.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I'd like to comment more on the rest of your post, but in the interest of time, I'll just address this one part.

This can create other problems. What about someone who lives in the north in, say, Edgemont, and their previously-downtown-located place of employment moves out to Sunpark Plaza (the business park you are thinking of). The commute for that person (and probably a good portion of the other employees) has now gotten considerably longer. Not only that, but the area in question has worse transit connections and is not very well designed for the pedestrian (by comparison). Now, one answer for the individual employees would be to move closer to work, but as calculoso pointed out earlier, there's a good chance that their spouse works elsewhere in the City, possibly downtown or in another employment area.

Such effects of employment decentralization can be mitigated by locating these developments near current or future under-utilized transit nodes (primarily train stations), and designing them using TOD principles.

Definately agree with the fact that people can end up with ridiculus commutes from the decentralized work places. My dad has a NW to Sunpark commute. Though the majority of the people who do work in those buildings are southerners. TOD's is definately the way forward in my opinion for increasing suburban density and providing highly walkable solutions at prices families can afford.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by calculoso

And most of the people supporting SmartGrowth have never seen the increase in density that has occurred in the new communities on the borders of the city.

Or maybe they have seen them, recognized them as a step in the right direction, but think further increases are necessary in order for certain basic threshold to be met. Also, I said further increases not massive increases.