Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Bunk

That's only capital costs, the operational costs are not considered in that calculation. The problem being that if a community isn't well designed and efficiently laid out, operational costs for things like transit are ridiculously high - hence the push for greater density and better, more 'complete' communities (lowers operating costs substantially).

During research for my dissertation I really began to notice the impact of operational costs. While fixing the development levies is pretty simply (i.e. 100% cost recovery), numerous public goods are tied into the operational costs and the solution will require a more complex calculation.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I've always wondered why fiscal conservatives where never pushing harder to reduce this subsidy and for better community design/ higher density.

Which is mind bottling to me in regards to supporters of Ric McIvor. He positioned himself as a fiscal conservative who would have said no to everything EXCEPT the status quo for development subsidies.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The cost of development in established areas is not free, but is far less than adding a new unit on the fringe of the city. There are infrastructure levies applied to certain existing areas with a lot of redevelopment.

Because of this fact, incentivizing redevelopment becomes attractive to municipalities.

I'd love to have an incentive to redevelop Renfrew other than simply loving my location. We've had to jump through a number of hoops and red tape that are standard process with the city. I feel bad for areas like Inglewood or Bridgeland where the sewer is so old you have to replace the whole thing when you do your hookup, my part of Renfrew isn't old enough to have that problem.

BUT we did get screwed by the city taking a 3mx3m corner off of our property so that waste and recycling could turn down our alley.. that they can't turn out of.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by fotze

Don't assume all fiscal conservatives live in the burbs. I would argue (but could be wrong) that the wealthier the person is, the more fiscal conservative they are (on average) and as you move to the centrer of the city, the house prices go up.

The exception being the parasite springbank/ MILLARVILLE acreage owners ....coughcoughcowperson.

I'm not assuming he lives in the burbs, I'm saying it's kind of hypocritical that the one thing that is a big financial problem for the city is the one thing he likely wouldn't have done a thing about, yet would have called himself a fiscal conservative.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I'd love to have an incentive to redevelop Renfrew other than simply loving my location. We've had to jump through a number of hoops and red tape that are standard process with the city. I feel bad for areas like Inglewood or Bridgeland where the sewer is so old you have to replace the whole thing when you do your hookup, my part of Renfrew isn't old enough to have that problem.

BUT we did get screwed by the city taking a 3mx3m corner off of our property so that waste and recycling could turn down our alley.. that they can't turn out of.

If they expropriated that I assume you got paid for it?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If they expropriated that I assume you got paid for it?

Nope.. we had to dedicate the land, meaning that it's still ours, but we can't build anything within that area. We get a slight reduction on property taxes is all.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I'd love to have an incentive to redevelop Renfrew other than simply loving my location. We've had to jump through a number of hoops and red tape that are standard process with the city. I feel bad for areas like Inglewood or Bridgeland where the sewer is so old you have to replace the whole thing when you do your hookup, my part of Renfrew isn't old enough to have that problem.

The planning process can be burdonsome and difficult and really does put redevelopment at a disadvantage. This is something we're making a big effort to fix. Stay tuned.

[Bunk]

Went to go check out the bridge. Wow, it's impressive. Has sort of a futuristic feel to it. Not really bothered by the concrete deck, I think it works pretty well. It was nice seeing it under the sun this afternoon.

Lots of people lingering on the bridge, which I think it's great. You simply can't do that on our other pedestrian bridges, they're far too narrow. If you did do so, you'd be yelled at for getting in the way.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The planning process can be burdonsome and difficult and really does put redevelopment at a disadvantage. This is something we're making a big effort to fix. Stay tuned.

The first step in the right direction was contextual development guidelines.. our DP was submitted before that happened though.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The planning process can be burdonsome and difficult and really does put redevelopment at a disadvantage. This is something we're making a big effort to fix. Stay tuned.

As a spur towards redevelopment, would there ever be a chance of a wholesale zoning increase for the city?

IE RC1 all become RC2, RC2 all become MC-CG, MC-CG become MC1 etc.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The planning process can be burdonsome and difficult and really does put redevelopment at a disadvantage. This is something we're making a big effort to fix. Stay tuned.

It's also just frustrating dealing with the city at times. The counter girl, pretty as she was, forgot to include a basement BP when it was in the package submitted so we had to go back and get that, and our garage BP was expired without any notice delivered to us or the site foreman.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Nope.. we had to dedicate the land, meaning that it's still ours, but we can't build anything within that area. We get a slight reduction on property taxes is all.

So did you dedicate it "The Kermitology Waste Services Turning Area"?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

So did you dedicate it "The Kermitology Waste Services Turning Area"?

I should put something on the ground there that will make light of the situation. Luckily it's not on my side of the lot, we got the other side. So no corner cut!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Nope.. we had to dedicate the land, meaning that it's still ours, but we can't build anything within that area. We get a slight reduction on property taxes is all.

That seems like a terrible deal to me. I suppose you can probably still use it as the setback area, but still. IMO anytime someone wants to put a caveat on my land they should be paying for it.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

That seems like a terrible deal to me. I suppose you can probably still use it as the setback area, but still. IMO anytime someone wants to put a caveat on my land they should be paying for it.

My options were pretty limited. I could appeal the decision but it would have held up my project by 3-4 months.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

As a spur towards redevelopment, would there ever be a chance of a wholesale zoning increase for the city?

IE RC1 all become RC2, RC2 all become MC-CG, MC-CG become MC1 etc.

In general I think we'd only ever see that kind of wholesale rezoning along a future LRT route (such as NCLRT), or something like that.

[V]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I'm pretty sure TILMA didn't kick in before this project was awarded. As well, sole sourcing still happens in the private sector.

I'm quite sure TILMA was in effect long before this project was awarded. I remember being quite surprised when this was sole sourced, because of TILMA.

Also, sole sourcing takes place in the private sector for both design and construction. I'm not sure how it relates to the discussion at hand.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Are you insane? You do realize the huge amount of taxes generated by the business the make up the core pay for large part of everything? Where do you think all those employees come from? You realize the largest portion of the Calgary population lives in the suburbs? And they're the ones paying the big bills whether your property values are higher on a per sf basis and you're paying slightly more taxes. What about those dirty leeches that live in the core and work outside the core? I know plenty. Or the students who go to the University of Calgary and live in apartments and condos downtown.

Sorry - but you're going to need a bit better than econ 101 to trump out some random theory like the above.

I have better than ECON 101.

The Central Business District is gonna be the Central Business District whether or not the suburbs get subsidized. But if you cut the subsidies, inner city residential development goes up and that makes the commercial CBD even stronger. And the dirty leeches who live in the core and work outside the core are the biggest consumers of infrastructure the city has.

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

And the same thing probably happened 20-30 years ago for those communities and 100 years ago for the other communities.

Who subsidized the first communities? Nobody. And this hasn't been going on forever.

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

You want to change the current system because you deem it unfair to inner city residents. Well they bought their houses knowing exactly how the system worked or they've had ample time to move if they don't like it. Suburbanites bought their houses under the same assumptions. Can't just up and change it for the benefit of the few and ignore the many. Spock would be pissed!

If we don't change the system, it will collapse. We will have a giant low-density that costs so much to service that quality of life will erode or taxes will keep going up (as they already are). As far the suburbs go, some short-term pain is needed for long-term gain.

Also, subsidies (for things that don't have positive externalities) cause a net loss to society. Do not invoke Spock, because you are not being rational.

Do you happen to sell ranchland on the perimeter of the city by any chance? Because I don't know if you actually believe the garbage you're spewing or if you're just trying to advocate for a position that suits your financial interests.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I'd love to have an incentive to redevelop Renfrew other than simply loving my location. We've had to jump through a number of hoops and red tape that are standard process with the city. I feel bad for areas like Inglewood or Bridgeland where the sewer is so old you have to replace the whole thing when you do your hookup, my part of Renfrew isn't old enough to have that problem.

BUT we did get screwed by the city taking a 3mx3m corner off of our property so that waste and recycling could turn down our alley.. that they can't turn out of.

Shouldn't all redevelopment / development just pay for its own infrastructure costs? An incentive to re-develop the inner city will just increase the value of the property by a corresponding amount as the profit margin for the risk of redevelopment should stay roughly the same as the market sets that.

So a subsidy should have little effect on the number of houses being redeveloped in the inner city.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by SebC

I have better than ECON 101.

The Central Business District is gonna be the Central Business District whether or not the suburbs get subsidized. But if you cut the subsidies, inner city residential development goes up and that makes the commercial CBD even stronger. And the dirty leeches who live in the core and work outside the core are the biggest consumers of infrastructure the city has.

Who subsidized the first communities? Nobody. And this hasn't been going on forever.

If we don't change the system, it will collapse. We will have a giant low-density that costs so much to service that quality of life will erode or taxes will keep going up (as they already are). As far the suburbs go, some short-term pain is needed for long-term gain.

Also, subsidies (for things that don't have positive externalities) cause a net loss to society. Do not invoke Spock, because you are not being rational.

Do you happen to sell ranchland on the perimeter of the city by any chance? Because I don't know if you actually believe the garbage you're spewing or if you're just trying to advocate for a position that suits your financial interests.

But it seems the majority of people working in the strong CBD want to live in the suburbs. You start forcing them to live elsewhere we'll end up with a different problem. Make housing more expensive than it already is and we'll have bigger labour shortage issues. Or we'll have people living in the "even worse parasite communities" like Okotoks, Airdrie, Cochrane, Chestermere, etc and commuting to the CBD. You also haven't suggested anything for the City dwellers that work out of the CBD or the suburbanites that don't work in the CBD. What about the ones that work out of town? What about the suburbanites living in large condo buildings or other high density living styles? Or someone who builds a house in the suburbs that is more self sustaining than some rowhouse in Inglewood.

Really? Renfrew and Inglewood paid for all the infrastructure that was built for them? I don't buy that... But I wouldn't be shocked to be wrong. I'd just wager the city subsidized development somehow vs. they didn't "if you build it they will come" (what's with these movies popping into my brain).

I don't know that you can prove or I can disprove what actually is a net benefit or loss to society with respect to what we're discussing. I'm sure we could get much deeper into it this and start looking at it more but that goes beyond the realm of the time I want to spend on CP.

I'm wondering if the suburbs create more jobs than some dense inner city living utopia. Or that a greater tax on the suburbs might decrease the spending power of a greater number of individuals than would be saved in the future. That said I do believe that waste and energy are two of the biggest concerns we'll have as a society going forward and the sprawl we have may very well be a huge issue in the future or maybe it is now more than I know. I'm not against different ideas to address some issues or different taxation structures etc. What bugs me is the random comments that call people who live in the suburbs parasites and drains on the inner city folks that are so hard done by and pay so much taxes and "poor poor me". Sadly I mostly started in this thread because of the ridiculous Interchange vs. Bridge comments and even defended one person making them. Holy off topic.

That said, I'm just going off of what pops into my head and some very little experience in this.

I don't have any vested interest in what I'm spewing. While I may be ignorant when it comes to some of these issues due to lack of experience/knowledge I don't think I'm biased enough to spew things just because I have a career bias. I'm actually enrolled in the UBC Sauder School of Business Real Estate Program and was going to do the Urban Land Econ part after the current job required learning. Should probably be spending more time on those studies than this board.

Additionally I don't think I've heard any civic official speak that's inspired me enough to believe they know how to address any of the issues. Maybe I'll run for mayor one day. . . . I'm going to clean up this town, Mayor Ranchlandsselling, I like the sound of that!
"Good, you can start by sweeping the floor"