Latte Sipping, YOP Gobbling Urban Planning Megathread

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by jammies

So your argument is that unverifiable information is superior to verifiable? That's certainly a unique perspective to bring.

I know that Edmonton growth has been more aggressive than Calgary growth from 2004 until 2008. You can check CMHC Housing Market stats for each respective municipality to veryfy this, if you want.

Added:

These are the CMHC SF housing starts for Edmonton and Calgary. Take the numbers as they relate to the incremental total population increases in each respective municipality for a better illustration.

Edmonton:

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/esu...=1384812842845

Calgary:

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/esu...=1384812936664

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Planning science is evolving though.

And getting rid of the sprawl subsidy and unorganized infrastructure provision is part of this evolution.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I like your second paragraph, actually! Take it one step further. How do you see the role of a planner (planning department) in a large municipality? How they should and shouldn't affect municipal development? Can you tell what's right? Do you know?

As a brief aside, when I was asked to consider ways to provide developers with incentives to provide additional amenities one of the best incentives I came up with was: Let a third party review planning applications instead of planners from the City.

The role of planners and the planning system is complicated and, to be honest, I'd have to really think about it before I could provide you with an answer. In terms of development control (i.e. processing applications) my take on the role of planners stems from the British system. Planners are there to consider any and all relevant material planning considerations (incl. statutory guidelines and plans) and judge the project on its planning merits.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

YI disagree with the highlighted statement in your second paragraph. Increasing costs of land and construction drive the prices up when the demand is there.

\

As SebC alluded to, you have it backwards. Increased demand drives the prices of land and construction up, not the other way around. The price of any good in a market system is set by how much people are willing to pay, and not by cost of production. The only thing that stops goods from being sold for less than their cost is that, in the long run, companies that do so over a wide product range go bankrupt.

You can buy timeshares in California right now for the cost of assuming the back taxes, or, essentially free, as tax is incidental to market price. The cost of production has no bearing on that; the reason being that the market has very little demand and a huge oversupply. If someone perfected cold fusion tomorrow, and oil lost its central place in the economy, you would see house prices in Calgary deflate precipitously, and the price of new housing drive to zero regardless of how much it still cost to build.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Addick

..

As a brief aside, when I was asked to consider ways to provide developers with incentives to provide additional amenities one of the best incentives I came up with was: Let a third party review planning applications instead of planners from the City.

The role of planners and the planning system is complicated and, to be honest, I'd have to really think about it before I could provide you with an answer. In terms of development control (i.e. processing applications) my take on the role of planners stems from the British system. Planners are there to consider any and all relevant material planning considerations (incl. statutory guidelines and plans) and judge the project on its planning merits.

So, why not eliminate planning departments' policing function completely then? If planners, engineers and architects are all bound by their professional ethics and standards of practice, why is reviewing professional work by the administration is necessary? What makes a reviewing planner, engineer, architect (often one-two years out of college) better than another planner, engineer, architect?

What you brought up is the same thing that bothers many people in the industry, government and general public: who and how should have the authority to decide in matters that are so subjective in nature? Many times I've seen planners presenting a fully-compliant application to Council and being challenged by aldermen on why they shouldn't have approved it. And the opposite: when a planner goes outside of the box and recommends something for approval based on relaxed guidelines, he/she is being attacked for doing so by the aldermen who don't agree with the rationale. I am sure you can relate to these scenarios.

It is never 100% right or wrong. There are always different and very subjective views on planning principles and policies, including housing. Which is why I get so frustrated when people see it so black and white.

[WCan_Kid]

Originally Posted by SebC

This is one of the great fallacies of the homebuilder/UDI argument. Lower prices on suburban homes vs. urban homes show that suburban is an inferior good (don't get mad, it's a technical term). It is not what people want, but what they can afford. Furthermore, when consumers choose suburban over urban, they're making that choice based on the subsidized price.

I thought I bought my house because I liked it and the area, turns out I just couldn't afford what I apparently really wanted. Learn something new every day.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This. You and some other posters aggressively attacking the suburban development in Calgary seem to imply that there is a "system", some kind of an established conspiracy that has been forcing its choice on calgarians when it comes to housing. It is what it is because of what people wanted to buy.

Do people really want to buy cookie-cutter houses with postage stamp backyards on the fringes of the city, or do people buy those homes because it's the only housing choice that's affordable for many families?

[CaramonLS]

Keep in mind, Yooh has some skin in the game. He isn't exactly providing a "balanced" point of view.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Do people really want to buy cookie-cutter houses with postage stamp backyards on the fringes of the city, or do people buy those homes because it's the only housing choice that's affordable for many families?

As someone that paid way too much for way too little to live close to work I have a hard time believing it but yes, some people do want to live there. Weird eh?

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Do people really want to buy cookie-cutter houses with postage stamp backyards on the fringes of the city, or do people buy those homes because it's the only housing choice that's affordable for many families?

Can't speak for anyone, but I bought because I wanted a garage and a detatched home. So yes, I bought not because I couldn't afford inner city. In fact, if I wanted to sacrifice space and not being attached to anything, I could be living in a condo downtown for less money and have a lower mortgage.

Oh, and again with the "cookie cutter" insult. How are condos downtown any less cookie cutter? Every freaking unit is the same layout with the same finishings and the same color. If you are talking cookie cutter, condos take the cake. Sure, you can say the outside is better looking, but I honesty don't really care what it looks like on the outside. I live on the inside of the house, and suburban homes are way more customized to owner preferences inside than condos.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Keep in mind, Yooh has some skin in the game. He isn't exactly providing a "balanced" point of view.

Way more balanced than some people here.

[Tinordi]

People want to live there because they aren't paying the full costs of living there.

Look at living in an auto dependent suburb. Residents don't pay carbon taxes on the fuel they consume. They don't pay for the lost ecosystem services of greenfield development (which can be small or very large depending on where you build). They don't pay long-term servicing costs of overbuilt infrastructure. They also don't generally pay for the road network that supports their community. Half of road maintenance budgets are paid of our general taxes not through gas, insurance, registration taxes.

So yes, you remove those subsidies you'd see alot of people re-evaluating how much they want a detached house.

[MarchHare]

Can't speak for anyone, but I bought because I wanted a garage and a detatched home. So yes, I bought not because I couldn't afford inner city. In fact, if I wanted to sacrifice space and not being attached to anything, I could be living in a condo downtown for less money and have a lower mortgage.

That's exactly my point -- you get more house for your buck the further away from downtown you're willing to go because outlying areas are less desirable (or, more accurately, central areas are more desirable), so demand is lower, reducing prices. A 50-year old 1250 sqft single-family detached home with a garage in Sunnyside or Lower Mount Royal is going to cost significantly more than a 5-year old 2500 sqft single-family detached home with a garage in Copperfield or Citadel.

[Tinordi]

And just because we aren't making you pay for those costs doesn't mean that they aren't real and substantial and that you don't have some god given to avoid paying them. We've set up our urban development policy based on incomplete information over the past 70 years to the point that we (CaptainYooh) delude ourselves into thinking that the status quo is optimal. But guess what, we know things now that we didn't before. We know that climate change will have significant costs on urban environments and just people in general. We know that there is no functional long-term funding model for the sprawl environment. We know that it is much cheaper to use existing ecosystem services such as water filtration than building a facility to do it for us.

So yes, we're stuck with a sub-optimal system, and the people/businesses/politicians that are creaming it will eventually have to pay for it. That or their children and grandchildren will but who gives a shat about them anyways right?

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

People want to live there because they aren't paying the full costs of living there.

Look at living in an auto dependent suburb. Residents don't pay carbon taxes on the fuel they consume. They don't pay for the lost ecosystem services of greenfield development (which can be small or very large depending on where you build). They don't pay long-term servicing costs of overbuilt infrastructure. They also don't generally pay for the road network that supports their community. Half of road maintenance budgets are paid of our general taxes not through gas, insurance, registration taxes.

So yes, you remove those subsidies you'd see alot of people re-evaluating how much they want a detached house.

Sorry, but that's just absurd. You don't pay carbon taxes either for the beef you consume or the heat that you use. What's your point?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Sorry, but that's just absurd. You don't pay carbon taxes either for the beef you consume or the heat that you use. What's your point?

My point is that you're habitation decisions are influenced by subsidies. You're not paying for the pollution you create from your decision on where you live. Should you have to pay for that you might make different decisions. As would the person who eats alot of beef.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's exactly my point -- you get more house for your buck the further away from downtown you're willing to go because outlying areas are less desirable (or, more accurately, central areas are more desirable), so demand is lower, reducing prices. A 50-year old 1250 sqft single-family detached home with a garage in Sunnyside or Lower Mount Royal is going to cost significantly more than a 5-year old 2500 sqft single-family detached home with a garage in Copperfield or Citadel.

Well, my point is people priortize different things. Just because I chose to live in a suburban home doesn't mean it was "forced" on me. I hate taking public transit, and I don't work downtown. It takes me the same amount of time to get to work either way. To me, living downtown or inner city is not important. If I can get what I want cheaper, why wouldn't I do it? And I'm in a community that's not high traffic and quiet. No annoying motorcycles ripping it down the road during the summers, and no drunk people wandering the streets at night.

[4X4]

Lol. So now living far from downtown causes more pollution? Is that for every person, or just the ones that commute to downtown? And we've got posters dissing the burbs because they're cookie cutter AND (wait for it) postage stamp yards. Postage stamp yards? As in, small? As in, not humongous, like the lots in the inner city?

Man. And also, "the only reason people live there is because they're subsidized". $4,500? Really? And if that number is wrong, and it's more like $20,000? Then what? It's still $200,000 cheaper to buy a similar sqft house in the burbs than in the inner city.

You guys (you know who you are) are just so full of yourselves, it's borderline pathetic. Not everybody works in downtown Calgary. For most people, living further from downtown makes more sense for everyday life. But I admit, I used to love living in Bankview and Altadore, when my lifestyle was more party time, and less parental. But then I needed to actually buy a house, so here I am, in the evil suburbs. Defending myself because... well, I don't know why. My house is much smaller than the ones I used to build on subdivided lots in the inner city, and half the price. A 50x120 tear down in Altadore is going for $500,000+. That's $250,000 per subdivided lot. I just don't get how you people think that first or second time home buyers are supposed to afford that. And if your answer is that "maybe they should buy a condo", my answer is "maybe you should go f*** your hat". I want a "postage stamp" yard for my dog and my kid, and a garage to work on my stuff, and I don't want to trust my exterior maintenance to a condo corp. I can afford that where I live. Go ahead and tack on the $4500 - $20,000 subsidy to my duplex in the burbs. It's still half the price of a duplex in Altadore. The 1950s era house I used to rent in Altadore sold for $570,000. Still watching the MLX to see what'll happen there, but at that price, the lot cost is $285 each. On a collector in Altadore. Quite frankly, I'm happy not being house poor, and not living downtown, since I don't work downtown. But punch my ticket to hell anyways, right?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Lol. So now living far from downtown causes more pollution? Is that for every person, or just the ones that commute to downtown?

That's on average, and it's not news.

Originally Posted by 4X4

Man. And also, "the only reason people live there is because they're subsidized". $4,500? Really? And if that number is wrong, and it's more like $20,000? Then what? It's still $200,000 cheaper to buy a similar sqft house in the burbs than in the inner city.

$4500 is just the municipal portion of the capital subsidy. If we were to look at the lifecycle subsidies from all levels of government, the total would be much, much higher.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by SebC

That's on average, and it's not news.

$4500 is just the municipal portion of the capital subsidy. If we were to look at the lifecycle subsidies from all levels of government, the total would be much, much higher.

Yeah? Let me know when you have something of substance to add, instead of letting Bunk do your math for you. I'm pretty sick of your Rainman act. 10 minutes to Wapner isn't an argument.

[GGG]

Always remember though lot size causes sprawl not where the house is located. Density wise the modern burbs do a fairly good job. All of us who live in postage stamp lots are doing a lot better than those who live in a full size one. So quit complaining about the burbs not paying their fair share in operating costs. Everyone who uses space needs to pay.

A subdivided infill still uses as much space as a lane hone. It shouldnt be about yops vs lattes when talking about operating costs.