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

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

In my experience (and it's as a foreigner in most places not a resident) neighbourhoods with buildings mostly around 4-6 stories seem to be the most walkable and livable. Examples of the top of my head from my travels include the most livable parts of London, Barcelona, Istanbul and Buenos Aires. Skyscraper neighbourhoods tend to have a more sterile feel to them, as the streetscape becomes a less significant part of life.

Neighbourhoods of single family homes have an opposite problem, as the density is not high enough to support a core of services.

Generally that's true - the densest community in Calgary (Lower Mount Royal) doesn't have a building higher than 5 storeys - also a really liveable community.

But, that's not to say communities with high-rises can't be also extremely liveable, it just requires extremely good planning and design - which most cities generally haven't been very good at. On the other hand, take a look at Yaletown in Vancouver - very thoughtfully designed, great public spaces, extremely dense and tall but the buildings also relate to the street very well. I think Calgary has learned well from this example in recent years - our newest highrise residential buildings (Stella/Nova/Luna, Waterfront, Arriva, Union Square, - the new proposed towers in East Village etc) are all very engaging buildings from a pedestrian's standpoint.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Not hard at all. Scan every car that enters the road by their license plate but only issue invoices to the cars that are registered outside of Calgary. Out of province plates could be ignored as well which would prevent the tourism issue you previously mentioned.

A toll would be levied on the vehicle, not the individual. The toll is the same whether there is one out of towner or six in the car.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Reaper

A toll would be levied on the vehicle, not the individual. The toll is the same whether there is one out of towner or six in the car.

So? There's only one car using Calgary resources.

[corporatejay]

Reaper, you're acting as though we've asked Calgary to implement a space program. It's a toll program, a program used virtually everywhere else in the world and you act as though it's like splitting the atom.

Btw, I'm not suggesting a massive fee, like $1, something like that. If a tourist is going to "skip" calgary because a $1 toll, then good riddance. The point of the program is to capture the daily commuter.

[Reaper]

Meh, I've officially stopped giving a sh1t about trying to have any non-confrontational discussion about this topic.

[Bill Bumface]

Winners by TKO on the 9th page: Tollllllllllll Booootherss!

[4X4]

I think it would be pretty easy to implement. I've seen the cameras they use in Toronto and the ones they use in Rome. They snap a pic of every plate that drives underneath them (basically a big arch over the roadway, just like the ones that hold signs for road names) and the plates that have certain types of registration get sent a bill. It's not a fine, and it's not some kind of evil ticket for misusing the roadway, it's just a small tax that adds up over the course of the month and then sent out as a bill. Just like getting your water bill for every time you fill your nalgene.

Charge the parasites a dollar for entry on weekdays and bingo, we're no longer footing the whole bill for roads and systems that are also used by bedroom communities.

Also, it could have another arch of cameras on the outbound roads, and if a car was only in town for half an hour (using Deerfoot to get to Mulletville) or was in town for more than a workday (assumably contributing to local businesses), then the system doesn't charge the dollar.

The camera technology exists. The software exists. This city is camera happy anyway... Why the hell not? What are the parasites gonna do? Move to Calgary and pay property taxes? Work in Okotoks instead? We win either way.

[Bertuzzied]

So thinking about it why wouldn't the calgarian politicians consider a toll? it's not like any of the people upset by this would be voting/not voting for them.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Also, one of the main reasons there are so many bums in Vancouver is because the winter climate is mild and attracts them from other cities. The fact there are so many, I think adds to the argument that the city is very "livable", even for street people.

Just to clarify - you're calling Vancouver a hobo sanctuary, correct??

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

Just to clarify - you're calling Vancouver a hobo sanctuary, correct??

I think Victoria already has that title.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

Just to clarify - you're calling Vancouver a hobo sanctuary, correct??

Well, if you were going to be homeless, where would you rather be; Prince George or Vancouver? Saskatoon or Vancouver? Etc., etc....

[Winsor_Pilates]

Vancouver; the most livable city on earth...


for hobos

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Vancouver; the most livable city on earth...


for hobos

Vancouver is Canada's version of Venice beach full of freaks and tweaks. Gastown and East Vancouver is a great place to visit mixed in with the lovely aroma of fish and urine.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rathji

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.

I agree with you to some extent. I find it increasing taxes on people who made a rational decision based on the city's existing structure to be distateful. Increasing taxes would decrease property values (whereas increasing acreage fees would increase them). That could put people under water on the mortgages, which is definitely not good.

The problem is that increasing acreage fees is only really viable as a long-term solution. The city still has an infrastructure debt and balloning spending to deal with in the short and medium-term. So either we let our level of service drop or we increase taxes.

And I find increasing taxes evenly, thus "punishing" people who didn't buy subsidized housing to be even more distasteful than recouping the costs of the subsidies from the people who actually benefitted (and continue to benefit) from the subsidies. And I don't think decreasing spending is an option - we're already behind on our infrastructure.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Alternatively, many US cities (eg Denver**) have income taxes at the municipal level. I actually think that would be a reasonably elegant solution, although it would require the province to authorize municipalities to collect that sort of revenue. There could be some sort of refundability built into the system for those who already live in Calgary.

Municipal income taxes are interesting, but they don't fix the subsidy issue. I think it's reasonable to replace property taxes with income taxes (why selectively discourage property ownership?) but you'd still need to jack up acreage fees to make it work.

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Agreed. The ultimate goal of the South Calgary Hospital and area (for example) is to create a southern hub/node of professional, commerce, food (restaurants) etc etc. that services the massive SE. If they do it effectively the value of the homes in the area should increase and the taxes to follow which should tend towards self-sufficiency - that is what the dt people claim they want so I don't see how there can be too much opposition (unless their actual goal is a further increase in their own property values due to more dt development).

I am just guessing that many who claim to desire density have never actually experienced it - this is also referring to the trendy nature of the debate (from the dt perspective). I am also guessing that they have never experienced the drawbacks of a high density urban environment but are clinging to the current glamour of that side of the debate.

I highly doubt the South Calgary Hospital will be good for the city's finances. At least not once we built the LRT out to it. It's gonna put strain on the road network, on public transit, on water treatment and it will drive construction of new communities in the surrounding area that will be net drain.

And yes, I live in a VERY high density area, and yes, it's awesome. But it could still be better with a tax structure that doesn't transfer resources to the periphery, just for being peripheral.

Originally Posted by Bunk

I agree with the idea of decentralizing via centralized transit-oriented hubs. Seton, Brentwood/University, Westgate, etc. But the core should and will always be pre-eminent - and more resources need to go into improving it (it's an economic driver and represents the image of the city more than anywhere else).

Yeah, centralized cores are good for cities. For one thing, labour mobility: you can switch jobs in the core and your commute doesn't change. But the bigger a city gets the less efficient a single core becomes, so it makes sense to have other hubs as well, just not on the current edge of the city. (I'm looking at you, South Calgary Hospital.)

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by SebC

...

And yes, I live in a VERY high density area, and yes, it's awesome.....

I think this is where we disagree the most - I do not see any area in Calgary of of having any significant density. I lived downtown (or just outside) for 9 years and it was ok (at best). I then lived in a density that would make most people's heads explode (17,288.8/km2 or 44,777.8/sq mi - highest in OECD if can trust wiki and twice that of New York) for 10 years.

I can see how the faux density could be appealing however...

[SebC]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

I think this is where we disagree the most - I do not see any area in Calgary of of having any significant density. I lived downtown (or just outside) for 9 years and it was ok (at best). I then lived in a density that would make most people's heads explode (17,288.8/km2 or 44,777.8/sq mi - highest in OECD if can trust wiki and twice that of New York) for 10 years.

I can see how the faux density could be appealing however...

By Calgary standards, okay?

And it kind of depends on how big an area you bucket...

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by SebC

By Calgary standards, okay?

And it kind of depends on how big an area you bucket...

Yeah...I think I will just stay out of this one as my perspective has been massively skewed. I find dt Van to be somewhat slow too fwiw.