Latte Sipping, YOP Gobbling Urban Planning Megathread

[SebC]

Originally Posted by 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.

A few things:
- Operating costs are location dependent too. Lot size is a factor, but so is lot location - particularly when it comes to transportation.
- Revenues are significantly higher for inner city lots.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

A few things:
- Operating costs are location dependent too. Lot size is a factor, but so is lot location - particularly when it comes to transportation.
- Revenues are significantly higher for inner city lots.

Operating costs are location dependant but where a house is in the city is purely a function of wealth. Your own statement that the inner city is more desireable agrees with this. So you shouldnt increase tax on a postage stamp lot just because it is located in Bridlewood instead of sunnyside. The reason the house in Bridlewood is so far out is because of a lack of density everywhere from the core out. So its not fair to put the transporatation costs entirely on the person doing the commuting. The cost of that commute needs to be born by the people who cause that comute to be long. Those people are space users not yops or lattes.

As for revenues being higher for similar square footage lots that is the progressive nature of our tax system where wealthier people pay more in tax than less wealthy people. A person in an inner city sfh makes more than a person in a burb sfh and a person in an urban condo makes more than one in a suburban condo.

Tax lifestyle choice not wealth. As an aside I have always been curious in the lot size of the more vocal latte sippers. Are they causing more sprawl that the yops? Or are they too living on postage stamp lots in cookie cutter infills.

[MarchHare]

As an aside I have always been curious in the lot size of the more vocal latte sippers. Are they causing more sprawl that the yops? Or are they too living on postage stamp lots in cookie cutter infills.

Speaking only for myself and not any of my fellow latte sippers, my wife and I live in an 8-story midrise condo building in the Beltline. I think it's fair to say we're not contributing to sprawl as my building has the same footprint as maybe 2-3 homes in the suburbs but provides housing to 31 families.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by 4X4

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.

I don't know why you're defending yourself either. Nobody has made any argument that nobody should live in the suburbs, and that to do so is evil and turns you into an object of derision. The argument is that if suburban living is subsidized, then it becomes more attractive, and more people move out there, which in turn increases the fiscal burden and is inefficient, and ultimately unsustainable. That's pretty well it, shorn of all the emotional rhetoric and drama.

The "free market" solution of building out and continually expanding has actually very little to do with the free market. You say yourself you "want" certain amenities, which you can only afford if you live in suburbia. But that opportunity only exists because there is a planned system set up that provides what you want at a price you can pay. The "free market" hasn't waved its invisible hand over Calgary and made it so, the City planners, developers and builders have worked together to provide it in a controlled and predictable manner by a mixture of central planning and an oligopoly. Your "wants", in other words, don't drive the market, you are just fortunate that they align with much of what the planners were aiming to give.

There is nothing divinely ordained about this system. It can, and should, change depending on the circumstances. If that means suburbia becomes more expensive to buy into, and multi-family units in the core become relatively less expensive, well, that's unfortunate for you, but it's not any more unfair than the fact that I can't buy a condo where I want for the money I can afford right now. I'm *not* saying things should change to make me happy, either - things should change so that 40-50 years from now, Calgary isn't like Detroit or any other of the examples where the flight to the suburbs has essentially killed the city. In the meantime, yelling that they'll take your yard over your cold, dead body isn't any more helpful a position than that of those who would like to put a wall around the city and never let another person in unless they promise to live in a 340 square foot bachelor pad over a vegan supermarket.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by SebC

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.

If the government were to put a tax on chocolate ice cream and a rebate for vanilla, people would buy more vanilla - perhaps even if the prefer chocolate. It doesn't make sense to then point to the sales of vanilla and claim that it's outselling chocolate because people prefer it, and therefore for people to get what they want we should maintain the subsidy - but that's effectively what you (and the homebuilders/UDI) are claiming when it comes to single-family housing.

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?

Originally Posted by kevman

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?

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

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.

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.

I've quoted these posts as they're all on basically discussing the same thing.

It would be interesting to poll every person living in a downtown or even suburban townhouse, condo, apartment and see why they're living there. I'd be pretty comfortable assuming that the majority are living there because they can't afford living in a SFH. I've been landlord and broker and generally people live in the most they can afford. Starting at the single bedroom condo apartment, followed by two bedroom, townhouse and finally SFH.

Can the system provide SFH's closer to the core? No, then building out is the only way to provide the demand for SFH's.

So, what happens if we add the so called life cycle costs into new development. I'd bet housing prices go up around the new communities. Why, because it's suddenly more expensive for the new SFH in Mahagowoodston and as such Cranstonrado already built houses are more desirable.

What happens to the inner city (or utopia)... Umm, more expensive?

How much money does a developer make on a new home? Or the entity selling the land to the developer? Someone is going to get squeezed and it's not just going to be the buyer at the end level because they'll shop around.

I can't see in a free market how anything different would happen. The Latte's say everyone wants to live in the inner city they just choose an inferior good (my home) because they have to. Okay, so in that scenario everyone wants to live inner city, demand is high, prices are up, only the wealthy can live in the inner city (at a fairly obvious price per sf ratio) and the less wealthy you are, the further you'll move. As you get farther away prices will go down due to demand and we're right back where we started.

So what's the solution? Build more inner city density? Sure, it's increasing, but people still want the SFH with the garage and the yard. The inner city will grow, but I'd imagine the demographic will be skewed to the single, rental, mix of lower income, students, etc and less family's. Give it enough time and this thriving inner city will generate jobs, income, growth and more families that want to live in a house with a garage and yard.

I can see more efficient houses, better planning, better transit, more fuel efficient vehicles, less water (resource intense) living, better use of resources, keeping people shopping within their communities, but not giving up the SFH. It's going to be a long time until that culture changes.

On a slightly spin off subject. What's the number of kids a family needs these days to be contributing to population growth? Short answer obviously one, but for long term population growth?

[V]

Originally Posted by SebC

A few things:
- Operating costs are location dependent too. Lot size is a factor, but so is lot location - particularly when it comes to transportation.
- Revenues are significantly higher for inner city lots.

You have no idea what these numbers are though, do you? For a guy that has one and only one talking point on anything and everything I find it absurd that you're so vague on your details.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by V

You have no idea what these numbers are though, do you? For a guy that has one and only one talking point on anything and everything I find it absurd that you're so vague on your details.

Yeah, I'd be interested to see operating costs for water/sewer and electricity. The biggest cost that's often used is roads, which I can fully understand and is obvious, but I'd like to see where the power generation, sewer treatment, and water supply is coming from. I think that new treatment facility out by Tuscany is looking pretty large and likely more efficient than the one servicing the inner city.

That said, I'm just guessing.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

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.

While there are many things that are not black and white, some things are pretty clear and there is a right/wrong answer. When you consider the role of local government, you cannot justify things like the urban/suburban infrastructure subsidy and unorganized/free-for-all fringe development. These things are greatly different to a builder/developer trying something new and being shot down by administration or council.

In cases of compliant projects being denied approval, I'll have to defer to the British precedent once again. In England, they tend to utilize the legal system and courts and let them handle these types of cases. I admire this and find it preferable as the courts have to look at it objectively and according to the planning merits of the development (i.e. how it adheres to plans and guidelines but also how it could accomplish planning goals/objectives). There is a bit of subjectivity when it comes to accomplishing goals and objectives but I'd rather the discretion of a judge than most Councillors.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Yeah, I'd be interested to see operating costs for water/sewer and electricity. The biggest cost that's often used is roads, which I can fully understand and is obvious, but I'd like to see where the power generation, sewer treatment, and water supply is coming from. I think that new treatment facility out by Tuscany is looking pretty large and likely more efficient than the one servicing the inner city.

That said, I'm just guessing.

In terms of water / Sewer the only costs do to sprawl are pumping costs, the longer the pipe the larger the pressure drop, and maitenance costs more feet of pipe to maintain. I am not sure how much pumping costs and maitenance costs are but I would imagine that a large portion of water treatment / sewer cost is pipe maitenance.

For electricity I think the increased cost is marginal for operating costs. Since your resistance losses over high voltage lines is roughly the same whereever you hit the transformer in the city and the distance from the transformer to a home is roughly similar. The number of transformers is dependant on power usage so the number of transformer stations per person is roughly constant.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

So what's the solution? Build more inner city density? Sure, it's increasing, but people still want the SFH with the garage and the yard.

One possible and partial solution that I would like to see is to look at creating mini-downtowns, or at least, further concentrating business/commercial parks out on the periphery. Part of the problem is that as downtown gets more and more dense with offices, more and more people are travelling into and out of the core, and that puts a huge strain (inefficiently, since the roads are in heavy use for only a few hours a day) on transport infrastructure. Adding residential density close in is one way to help, but moving commercial density out is another.

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

I can see more efficient houses, better planning, better transit, more fuel efficient vehicles, less water (resource intense) living, better use of resources, keeping people shopping within their communities, but not giving up the SFH. It's going to be a long time until that culture changes.

Specific to that, I would like to see far more small commercial developments within communities and accessible by secondary roads that link neighborhoods directly. The fetish for controlling access to communities is great for traffic engineers, but has the side-effect of compartmentalizing and constraining people to always take the same path to the same places. A bit of chaos is good for people.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

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.

This! I like living at the edge of the NW. I can get out of town quickly. I only have a 25 minute computer to the NE. I like my neighbors and how quiet the area is. I have all the shops I need to get to within 1-5 kms of where I live. Two out of the 3 maor post secondary institutions are a quick bus/LRT ride.


When I lived closer into town I did way more driving than I do now. Where I live is a choice based on my lifestyle at this point of my life. With kids it makes better sense for me to live where I do. When they move out of the house I won't need such a big place and I can look again towards the inner city. Cost had nothing to do where I choose to live. You can spend just as much on a house out in the burbs as you can in the inner city.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Yeah, I'd be interested to see operating costs for water/sewer and electricity. The biggest cost that's often used is roads, which I can fully understand and is obvious, but I'd like to see where the power generation, sewer treatment, and water supply is coming from. I think that new treatment facility out by Tuscany is looking pretty large and likely more efficient than the one servicing the inner city.

That said, I'm just guessing.

I'm not a quantitative research kind of guy so I would love to see a study completed that would show the general density in Calgary at which the City breaks even. These numbers were taken from an American study so the density is quite low but it'll give you a starting point.

Spoiler!

[GGG]

That chart really drives home the point that it isn't where you live that drives the cost up but how much land you occupy. If you allow for 20% of lands to be roads/ parks your lot size for 4000 dwellings per mile is 5500 square feet. At 6000 dwellings per mile 3700 square feet. So based on this chart most new construction in calgary falls under the 6000 dwellings per squeare mile even if it was just filled with single family homes on 35 x 100 foot lots.

One interesting thing here is that if the numbers are correct and the costs keep leveling off then increasing density beyond what Calgary is already building outward at will not significantly reduce costs as there is only an 8% reduction in costs from increasing density by 50% from 4000 to 6000. I would be very interested in seeing these numbers from Calgary.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by GGG

One interesting thing here is that if the numbers are correct and the costs keep leveling off then increasing density beyond what Calgary is already building outward at will not significantly reduce costs as there is only an 8% reduction in costs from increasing density by 50% from 4000 to 6000. I would be very interested in seeing these numbers from Calgary.

Yup, it is quite interesting. In addition to seeing the numbers from Calgary, I'd also like to see the chart for higher densities and other categories of density. These numbers are for areas that would still be considered low-density and I'd like to see if there were large gains in efficiency between groupings of low, medium and high density.

[Bigtime]

Speaking of latte-sippers, we got another pedestrian bridge put into place today:



This is the East Village traverse, connecting Riverwalk on the east end of Fort Calgary across the Elbow to the Inglewood pathway.

[nik-]

Reminds me of a Chinese Finger Trap.

[Muta]

Waste of taxpayers' money! Why couldn't that $2M go to a new cul-de-sac for a neighborhood that will have houses in it 20 years from now? Stupid city planning.

[Bigtime]

Exactly, my 16 month old could have designed that.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Yeah, I'd be interested to see operating costs for water/sewer and electricity. The biggest cost that's often used is roads, which I can fully understand and is obvious, but I'd like to see where the power generation, sewer treatment, and water supply is coming from. I think that new treatment facility out by Tuscany is looking pretty large and likely more efficient than the one servicing the inner city.

That said, I'm just guessing.

A pretty good article on that in the herald not long ago

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/He...268/story.html

It's couched in terms of the election rhetoric but the description is pretty good.

[warning] article is sure to prompt the predictable response from some predictable folks. Read only if you just want another perspective to consider sprinkled with a few facts

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Addick

While there are many things that are not black and white, some things are pretty clear and there is a right/wrong answer. When you consider the role of local government, you cannot justify things like the urban/suburban infrastructure subsidy and unorganized/free-for-all fringe development. ...

If you keep using the terms like I've hightlighted, your arguments become no better than SebC's - aggressive statements based on blind, albeit sincere, beliefs. You seem to understand the planning system and should know better - nothing's free in Calgary, especially the fringe developments. Both greenfield and brownfield developments are paying to the ying-yang. If anything, it is the inner-city infill developments that have not to-date been paying enough based on their impact on existing infrastructure (it is being reviewed; see our earlier exchange with Bunk on this topic in another thread; I don't want to repeat everything).

You raised a very good point that led to a valid question: what should city planners be allowed to do? I thought you're going to come up with your view on their role in more detail, so that we can discuss it further. I offered my thoughts on the review process, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. It is much more convoluted. Matthias Tita spoke this afternoon at the CMHC conference on how the city growth-related planning challenges are being attacked internally by the Administration and I couldn't stop thinking - they've created and imposed at least half of these challengers themselves!

BTW, he did show Rollin's favourite slide about the amount of taxes collected from an acre of land at different densities; always makes me laugh. I immediately think of all barely used inner-city school sites and the amount of land they occupy. Why not consolidate some of the schools, re-designate the remainder to the high density use and then sell all of the remaining land at a public auction for intensification? Simple sales to the highest bidders, no useless nepotic review boards stacked-up with retired bureaucrats. Did you know that The Province and The City were considering this move since the early 90's? Nope, no go, how can we allow the Bel-Aire, Maifair, Britannia, Elboya etc. residents be disturbed while they're sipping their lattes in piece and bitc..ing about suburbs.

In the mean time, all Calgary Satellite communities are showing double-and triple-digit growth while Calgary shows declines (I will post some of the charts later, they are quite striking).

Originally Posted by Addick

...There is a bit of subjectivity when it comes to accomplishing goals and objectives but I'd rather the discretion of a judge than most Councillors.

If you've invested millions in developable land that by all accounts should and could be developed, any delay beyond reasonably anticipated approval timeframe results in sgnificant cost overruns, market timeouts, financing refusals etc. Just imagine the delay imposed by the addition of the legal review process. It is there now by the way, but it is hardly used for that reason and also for the reason of applicants not wanting to create enemies at the administration and political levels.