Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by fotze

Being poor is nothing to be ashamed of.

Thanks Fotze!

Now that I have permission I can continue to be happy living as a 2 person family in a 2000+ sq ft house.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by fotze

Am I ever serious? I don't even live in the inner city and I drive to work. I bet you are in Royal Oak, everone seems to be in Royal Oak these days.

No worries, green text implied.

I'm in Hawkwood, house ~30 years old. I'm freeloading off the library/YMCA/Crowchild interchanges/LRT station that were all built in the years leading up to my house purchase.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

My ideal neighbourhood to live in would be Sunnyside, but I can't afford the amount of space I want there. So I traded out to a NW suburb. That's a perfectly valid choice (and the infrastructure for my house was paid for decades ago). I don't begrudge the inner city types their lifestyle, why should they begrudge mine?

If you choose space over location, that's fine. Just as long as you're the one paying for it.

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

They don't begrudge you, they're just better than you. Some of them fail to realize those neighbourhoods weren't always there and other people likely subsidized their roads utilities when they were being developed.

Even if inner city / older communities were initially subsidized (by who?), they've more than paid back those subsidies. Something which newer communities haven't done and might never do (once inflation and maintenance are factored in). You're the one whose understanding is failing here.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Right. Because he only wants to pay half for the things he doesn't use. But why would he think other people might not want to pay their full share for the things he uses and they don't. That would just be ridiculous.

I like the Peace bridge, but some of the self-righteous attitude about inner city living going around gmg. My ideal neighbourhood to live in would be Sunnyside, but I can't afford the amount of space I want there. So I traded out to a NW suburb. That's a perfectly valid choice (and the infrastructure for my house was paid for decades ago). I don't begrudge the inner city types their lifestyle, why should they begrudge mine?

Very few begrudge you, they just don't like paying for the unsustainable infrastructure cost base that too many calgarians feel entitled to.

Signed,
Sunnyside

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by SebC

If you choose space over location, that's fine. Just as long as you're the one paying for it.

Even if inner city / older communities were initially subsidized (by who?), they've more than paid back those subsidies. Something which newer communities haven't done and might never do (once inflation and maintenance are factored in). You're the one whose understanding is failing here.

The newer communties aren't temporary, they will pay for themselves over time, much like the older communities have. Maintenance and inflation costs are irrelevant, they would have been a similar drag on the city whether it was 50 years ago or today.

[4X4]

Where do all the Sunnyside residents buy their furniture? And all their xmas presents? Where do they go when they need a garden hose?
They go to the big box stores and malls that only exist because the edges of town have so much space.
I've been on both sides of this argument, as I've lived both inner city and far suburbs, and I've come to the conclusion that it's ridiculous to have a rivalry with yourself. If some of you people hate Calgary so much then just leave. You can't draw a target on a map and say that everyone within the first circle is "living sustainably" and the people and houses outside are the "unsustainables". Everything in the city was once on the edge of town, so what's the problem? The city is too big? For who? You? Then move to one of the dozens of small towns in the vicinity.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

The newer communties aren't temporary, they will pay for themselves over time, much like the older communities have. Maintenance and inflation costs are irrelevant, they would have been a similar drag on the city whether it was 50 years ago or today.

How the heck are maintenance and inflation irrelevant? If a new community costs more to maintain than it pays in tax, it will never pay for itself over time. Inflation is hugely relevant because the sum of a geometric series can be finite (like inflation ajusted payback). Combine the two and it's entirely possible that at current subsidy level new communities will never pay themselves off. (In fact, if the city's done their analysis correctly, that's what the "1 billion dollars" figure reflects: the infinite sum of [ongoing costs minus revenues generated adjusted for inflation] (this sum contains infinite elements, but is itself finite) minus the inital subsidy.

Older communities, on the other hand, have more than paid themselves off, and are now paying for the new communities. So the idea that there's an equivalency between Inglewood 100 years ago and Cranston today are somehow equivalent is flat out wrong.

[burn_this_city]

Prove it. I highly doubt the completed suburban community maintenance costs are higher than they pay in taxes year to year. When you mentioned inflation I didn't think you meant on the initial investment, which of course you are correct on. I don't care if they end the subsidies on new communities, obviously the city felt to maintain growth they had to give incentive to developers.

Like 4x4 said, this whole argument is a joke. Everyone complaining made a conscious decision to live in the inner city, pay more for homes and consequently more taxes. Thats the cost of convenience and the lifestyle you desire. It also happens to have its benefits when your home prices climbed more rapidly during the boom than the exterior of the city.

[trew]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Prove it. I highly doubt the completed suburban community maintenance costs are higher than they pay in taxes year to year. When you mentioned inflation I didn't think you meant on the initial investment, which of course you are correct on. I don't care if they end the subsidies on new communities, obviously the city felt to maintain growth they had to give incentive to developers.

Like 4x4 said, this whole argument is a joke. Everyone complaining made a conscious decision to live in the inner city, pay more for homes and consequently more taxes. Thats the cost of convenience and the lifestyle you desire. It also happens to have its benefits when your home prices climbed more rapidly during the boom than the exterior of the city.

Proportionally higher costs to maintain suburban communities is pretty much a fact.

This is because:

1) Water and Sewer. Costs to pump both from/to central facilities gets more and more expensive the further you get from city center. Entire system upgrades are necessary to create sufficient pressure to reach extremities.

2) Roads. The road use of suburbanites commuting to the CBD is proportionally higher than inner city residents. Cost to plow, and maintain is also higher as staff and materials have to be transported further to reach outer communities. Also the stress on interior roads is increased. This also says nothing about traffic upgrades to major corridors to handle increases in car commuters.

3) Transit also is incrementally more expensive the larger the system grows.

4) Education, Police, Fire, etc.. All cost incrementally more to bring to a suburban community. New infrastructure and increased time/cost to deploy and service relative to inner city are the reasons.

5) Debt maintenance costs. Debt financing is required to install infrastructure because city taxation doesn't collect and save surplusses to fund growth. This added interest expense magnifies the impacts of all the other factors. Half of the cities 3+ billion in debt comes directly from the capital cost of installing depreciating infrastructure to service new suburban communities over the past 10 years.
(Source: http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/ne...g-sprawl-6361/)

These are all costs that are shared equally amongst all property owners in the city. The ratio of subsidization increases the further out a suburb is from the core of city services. Eventually a line is crossed where a suburb will never, ever repay its cost.

Case in point. A study from Edmonton on the lack of tax recovery from their own, similar, subsidized suburban growth program:

... analysis conducted for the City of Edmonton shows that the lack of cost-recovery for new subdivisions places a substantial burden on other taxpayers. Of Edmonton’s seventeen developing or future neighborhoods examined, only one – an area with a very high proportion of commercial/industrial development – will generate sufficient revenue to cover its costs. For the remaining neighborhoods, costs will be 41% higher than the revenue generated by those neighborhoods during the first thirty years and 78% higher after that.

(Source:
http://www.civiccamp.org/wp-content/...wth-Report.pdf)

[4X4]

Originally Posted by trew

Higher costs to maintain suburban communities is pretty much a fact.

1) Water and Sewer. Costs to pump both from/to central facilities gets more and more expensive the further you get from city center. Entire system upgrades are necessary to create sufficient pressure to reach extremities.

2) Roads. The road use of suburbanites commuting to the CBD is proportionally higher than inner city residents. Cost to plow, and maintain is also higher as staff and materials have to be transported further to reach outer communities. Also the stress on interior roads is increased. This also says nothing about traffic upgrades to major corridors to handle increases in car commuters.

3) Transit also is incrementally more expensive the larger the system grows.

4) Education, Police, Fire, etc.. All cost incrementally more to bring to a suburban community. New infrastructure and increased time/cost to deploy and service relative to inner city are the reasons.

5) Debt maintenance costs. Debt financing is required to install infrastructure because city taxation doesn't collect and save surplusses to fund growth. Half of the cities 3+ billion in debt comes directly from the capital cost of installing depreciating infrastructure to service new suburban communities over the past 10 years.
(Source: http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/ne...g-sprawl-6361/)

Lastly, a study from Edmonton on the lack of tax recovery from their own, similar, subsidized suburban growth program:



(Source:
http://www.civiccamp.org/wp-content/...wth-Report.pdf)

So what is the solution? Build up instead of out? Do you want calgary to be all highrises with no suburbs?

Here's the thing you people are not thinking about. The people have to live somewhere. It is cheaper to build out rather than up. If you think that building up and concentrating all the population into a small area alleviates the cost of road infrastructure or sewers, you're wrong. I'd bet that it would cost more to upgrade all the roads in the inner city and all the sewers to the necessary degree to handle all of Calgary living in the beltline or whatever it is that you're suggesting.

Also, not everyone that lives in the suburbs works downtown. I don't have a clue what the percentage is, but I bet that only maybe 15-20% of Calgary workers actually work downtown, so why is that even relevant? Do you know that there is a humongous industrial area smack in the middle of the east side suburbs?

So again, where's the problem? Fire and police? Even if Calgary was concentrated into a smaller area, we'd still want a certain amount of cops per 1000 citizens. As it is, we have satellite stations all around the city.

The real beef (I bet) are those endless neighbourhoods without any kind of large commercial area. Places to live and work. So write a letter to the city and tell them to stop approving neighbourhoods without commercial that border other neighbourhoods without commercial. Because people just keep coming to this city and it's going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. And the houses are going to keep getting built and bought.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Here's the thing you people are not thinking about. The people have to live somewhere. It is cheaper to build out rather than up. If you think that building up and concentrating all the population into a small area alleviates the cost of road infrastructure or sewers, you're wrong. I'd bet that it would cost more to upgrade all the roads in the inner city and all the sewers to the necessary degree to handle all of Calgary living in the beltline or whatever it is that you're suggesting.

You don't think the suburbs could be built smarter? Without the circular looping roads and Cul de sacs?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by trew

2) Roads. The road use of suburbanites commuting to the CBD is proportionally higher than inner city residents. Cost to plow, and maintain is also higher as staff and materials have to be transported further to reach outer communities. Also the stress on interior roads is increased. This also says nothing about traffic upgrades to major corridors to handle increases in car commuters.

I'm pretty sure all the snowplows aren't dispatched from downtown. They're mostly stored on cheaper land outside the core, so they have a longer drive to plow inner city roads than surburban roads.

[Mazrim]

I drove down Memorial at 9PM last night to see the bridge for the first time, and it looks much bigger than the pictures made it look actually. There was quite a few people on the bridge, especially at the middle taking pictures. Very impressive looking overall!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

If you choose space over location, that's fine. Just as long as you're the one paying for it.

I could spend 500k on a townhouse in Sunnyside and pay the same property taxes as I pay on my larger house in Hawkwood. I'd use the same amount of city services (trash, water/sewer, etc) that I do now. I'd probably use roads/transit less, which would have a capital and maintenance savings. I'd use services like pedestrian bridges over the river and outdoor pools more. Services that are only provided to inner city residents, and a few older communities that were previously independent. (Bowness/Forest Lawn).

I don't object to developers paying for new development. But I do question where the line is. Is there any level of development levy where the condescension would stop?

Some other services are also provided in a more efficient manner to newer neighbourhoods. For example, Hawkwood Elementary opened in 1993 and serves 429 students. Sunnyside school was built in 1919 and serves 148 students. Does anyone believe it's more efficient to educate children in very small, very old schools? They will naturally have higher administration and operating costs. So my property tax bill is subsidizing inefficient educational delivery for the inner city.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I drove down Memorial at 9PM last night to see the bridge for the first time, and it looks much bigger than the pictures made it look actually. There was quite a few people on the bridge, especially at the middle taking pictures. Very impressive looking overall!

Hey look, a post about the bridge in its thread!

[trew]

Originally Posted by 4X4

So what is the solution? Build up instead of out? Do you want calgary to be all highrises with no suburbs?

Here's the thing you people are not thinking about. The people have to live somewhere. It is cheaper to build out rather than up. If you think that building up and concentrating all the population into a small area alleviates the cost of road infrastructure or sewers, you're wrong. I'd bet that it would cost more to upgrade all the roads in the inner city and all the sewers to the necessary degree to handle all of Calgary living in the beltline or whatever it is that you're suggesting.

Also, not everyone that lives in the suburbs works downtown. I don't have a clue what the percentage is, but I bet that only maybe 15-20% of Calgary workers actually work downtown, so why is that even relevant? Do you know that there is a humongous industrial area smack in the middle of the east side suburbs?

So again, where's the problem? Fire and police? Even if Calgary was concentrated into a smaller area, we'd still want a certain amount of cops per 1000 citizens. As it is, we have satellite stations all around the city.

The real beef (I bet) are those endless neighbourhoods without any kind of large commercial area. Places to live and work. So write a letter to the city and tell them to stop approving neighbourhoods without commercial that border other neighbourhoods without commercial. Because people just keep coming to this city and it's going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. And the houses are going to keep getting built and bought.

The solution is simple, remove the up front and on-going tax subsidies, and let the market dictate. If people are willing to spend more taxes and a higher purchase cost to live in suburban houses, than they should be able to do so. To continue otherwise will bankrupt the city.

[EDIT] Also just wanted to agree that making sure there is sufficient commercial base in new neighbourhoods is also a big part of sustainable development for new Suburbs. (From both a tax revenue, and a transportation perspective.)

[trew]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I could spend 500k on a townhouse in Sunnyside and pay the same property taxes as I pay on my larger house in Hawkwood. I'd use the same amount of city services (trash, water/sewer, etc) that I do now. I'd probably use roads/transit less, which would have a capital and maintenance savings. I'd use services like pedestrian bridges over the river and outdoor pools more. Services that are only provided to inner city residents, and a few older communities that were previously independent. (Bowness/Forest Lawn).

I don't object to developers paying for new development. But I do question where the line is. Is there any level of development levy where the condescension would stop?

Some other services are also provided in a more efficient manner to newer neighbourhoods. For example, Hawkwood Elementary opened in 1993 and serves 429 students. Sunnyside school was built in 1919 and serves 148 students. Does anyone believe it's more efficient to educate children in very small, very old schools? They will naturally have higher administration and operating costs. So my property tax bill is subsidizing inefficient educational delivery for the inner city.

You will use more water (lawns) and it will cost much more money to pump it to your house, and then drain it back for water treatment. You will generate more trash to buy materials for your larger house and your larger yard. Also, the garbage trucks will have to drive much further to your house to get your garbage, costing both time and money and likely requiring extra vehicles.

Also the funding collected by Sunnyside residents for education (there is a dedicated mill rate for this), will dwarf the amount of money actually spent on education in the community by several factors. (The taxes raised per student in the community is likely several factors greater than Hawkwood).

I've also heard that there is a waiting list for the Sunnyside school. Perhaps if the education system wasn't hemorrhaging money, it could spare some funds for expansion in the inner city?

[The Goon]

I don't understand what is going on in this thread as the bridge has already been built. Why is there still a debate?

Here's how a local fashion photographer has used the bridge as an awesome backdrop:

http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/video...l?v=2217734595

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by The Goon

I don't understand what is going on in this thread as the bridge has already been built. Why is there still a debate?

Yup, I spent my last four hours out with my family on the bridge, in Prince's Island and through the wetlands, and down along the river walk to the East Village and back. Great way to spend a day.

[Bigtime]

Biked over the bridge 3 times in the last couple of hours. Packed with people, musicians, photographers and even a group shooting a video of some sorts.

This bridge is definitely the place to be on a nice weekend.