MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by pepsifree

i don’t believe that children should be allowed in pubs but that doesn’t mean i want them to be taken out back and hung.

nimbp

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by woob

I mean, lets not kid ourselves. There's definitely a strong aspect of NIMBYism which is driven by not wanting lesser than's living in their neighbourhood. It's the same with safe injection sites, transit projects, low income housing, etc. Sure there's other factors at play, but you're kidding yourself if you think its a small part of the overall NIMBY view.

Maybe leave that example out, because there is 100% a valid argument to be made about safe injection sites by anyone who lives in the vicinity of one. Who in the hell wants drug zombies living in their neighbourhood leaving needles laying around, and who could fault them for saying otherwise?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Maybe leave that example out, because there is 100% a valid argument to be made about safe injection sites by anyone who lives in the vicinity of one. Who in the hell wants drug zombies living in their neighbourhood leaving needles laying around, and who could fault them for saying otherwise?

You just gave me an idea...they should set it up in the Stampede grounds for the 350 days a year it sits unused as a massive swath of wasted space. Close the fences, let the zombies wander.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You just gave me an idea...they should set it up in the Stampede grounds for the 350 days a year it sits unused as a massive swath of wasted space. Close the fences, let the zombies wander.

I don't know if the Stampede Grounds are the right answer but this rest is bang on.

[TorqueDog]

If he suggests televising it next, he's just copying George Carlin.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You just gave me an idea...they should set it up in the Stampede grounds for the 350 days a year it sits unused as a massive swath of wasted space. Close the fences, let the zombies wander.

I mean the remaining 350 days it's also the parking lot for events at the Saddledome, Big Four, BMO Centre, etc. so I don't know if "sits unused" is accurate.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

If he suggests televising it next, he's just copying George Carlin.

I mean the remaining 350 days it's also the parking lot for events at the Saddledome, Big Four, BMO Centre, etc. so I don't know if "sits unused" is accurate.

I've seen zombies make their way past parked cars in The Walking Dead, I think they can handle the obstacles.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, it would be weird to do that. Like suggesting someone wanted to evict people and bulldoze their homes because they don’t see a need for SFH.

Who would do something like that? So strange!

I wasn’t questioning GGGs motives - I was questioning the degree of coercion that would be necessary to transform neighbourhoods so radically. Nice try, though.

Back to the question at hand, the notion that densification typically means rich people being forced to allow less affluent people into their neighbourhoods simply isn’t borne out by reality. It’s more often the homes of older, less-affluent residents who originally bought when the neighbourhood was working or middle-class being replaced with infills for high-earning buyers. The more bellicose champions of densification seem to want us all to ignore that gentrification is actually a thing.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Mainly parking and traffic. Also buildings blocking sunlight.

I guess I have a hard time getting onboard with the narrative that a 73 year old retired bookkeeper who lives in a bungalow in Killarney is some sort of contemptible elite, while the high-earning professionals who will move into the fourplex that replaces her and her neighbour’s houses are downtrodden salt of the earth.

While I don't agree, I at least understand the concern around parking and traffic.

But looking at recent development trends, blocking sunlight is par for the course. Most of these neighbourhoods are prime for redevelopment of SFH that absolutely dwarf row houses in size.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by kevman

While I don't agree, I at least understand the concern around parking and traffic.

But looking at recent development trends, blocking sunlight is par for the course. Most of these neighbourhoods are prime for redevelopment of SFH that absolutely dwarf row houses in size.

Totally. What's the difference between a 4-plex, 2 house semi-detached, or a SFH? They're all massive nowadays, the only difference is the amount of doors you put on the house. So why should the SFH or 2 house semi-detached be allowed but not the 4-plex?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Torture

Totally. What's the difference between a 4-plex, 2 house semi-detached, or a SFH? They're all massive nowadays, the only difference is the amount of doors you put on the house. So why should the SFH or 2 house semi-detached be allowed but not the 4-plex?

The number of CARS! Think of all the cars on the street! MORAL PANIC!

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by kermitology

The number of CARS! Think of all the cars on the street! MORAL PANIC!

You know, I think you're actually right here without knowing or intending it in the way you are. More people living in an area will mean more activity and more cars or specifically traffic. One bungalow might have a family of four living in it, but you knock that down in favour of a fourplex, you might end up with four people -- one per dwelling -- or you could theoretically end up with sixteen -- four per dwelling. Now start doing that across more of the neighbourhood and it's potentially a big difference in numbers.

Perhaps someone chose and paid a premium for a high-end, less dense neighbourhood because they got the advantage of being close to the core and having a very short commute without the 'drawbacks' of it being as busy as more built-up areas. Adding density will bugger that up a little. Everything, from just the people living there, to guests coming to visit, to delivery services (Skip, Amazon, etc.), the area will get busier.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You know, I think you're actually right here without knowing or intending it in the way you are. More people living in an area will mean more activity and more cars or specifically traffic. One bungalow might have a family of four living in it, but you knock that down in favour of a fourplex, you might end up with four people -- one per dwelling -- or you could theoretically end up with sixteen -- four per dwelling. Now start doing that across more of the neighbourhood and it's potentially a big difference in numbers.

Perhaps someone chose and paid a premium for a high-end, less dense neighbourhood because they got the advantage of being close to the core and having a very short commute without the 'drawbacks' of it being as busy as more built-up areas. Adding density will bugger that up a little. Everything, from just the people living there, to guests coming to visit, to delivery services (Skip, Amazon, etc.), the area will get busier.

Well, my neighbourhood is one where there aren't cars parked all over the road, and honestly, we love that. I'm completely sure that if you throw in some duplexes and fourplexes in, that changes immediately. And as you note, it would make things more congested making it more difficult to get in/out of the community.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Mainly parking and traffic. Also buildings blocking sunlight.

I guess I have a hard time getting onboard with the narrative that a 73 year old retired bookkeeper who lives in a bungalow in Killarney is some sort of contemptible elite, while the high-earning professionals who will move into the fourplex that replaces her and her neighbour’s houses are downtrodden salt of the earth.

So the 73 year old bookkeeper gets to buy a house in their 30s, and dictate what their neighbours can do for the next 40 years?

There will be a never ending chain of someone who was "there first" and doesn't like anyone parking or driving on the public roads we all own in front of their house or blocking the sun that they don't pay taxes to.

So basically nothing should ever get changed, continue the sprawl indefinitely?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Maybe leave that example out, because there is 100% a valid argument to be made about safe injection sites by anyone who lives in the vicinity of one. Who in the hell wants drug zombies living in their neighbourhood leaving needles laying around, and who could fault them for saying otherwise?

True, but also, the problem needs to be shared. Having one massive drop in centre and one massive safe injection site is taking the problems of the entire city and dumping them in one specific neighbourhood.

I'd rather a bunch of smaller facilities distributed throughout the city, and really doubt that people would notice them much if that was the case. It would also make it harder for the parasite drug dealers to catch fish in a barrel.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

So the 73 year old bookkeeper gets to buy a house in their 30s, and dictate what their neighbours can do for the next 40 years?

There will be a never ending chain of someone who was "there first" and doesn't like anyone parking or driving on the public roads we all own in front of their house or blocking the sun that they don't pay taxes to.

So basically nothing should ever get changed, continue the sprawl indefinitely?

I didn’t say that, did I?

I’m not against up-zoning. I was challenging the assertion that this is a struggle between rich people trying to keep less affluent people out of their neighbourhood.

Most up-zoning in this city is gentrification - neighbourhoods where typically less affluent, older resident were living being transformed into neighbourhoods for high-earning professionals. Bridgeland, Bankview, Inglewood, South Calgary, Killarney. In the not-too-distant past these were working-class neighbourhoods. Next up are neighbourhoods still full of fixed-income seniors like Fairview.

The people who don’t want these neighbourhoods to densify aren’t necessarily greedy and rich (though no doubt some are) - they’re often just old and don’t want to move or change. And the people displacing them aren’t the downtrodden - they’re engineers, lawyers, and software developers.

Yes, the net impact is to increase housing supply. Which is a good thing. But in the neighbourhoods where it’s happening, the class transformation is not affluent to middle class, but the reverse.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The people who don’t want these neighbourhoods to densify aren’t necessarily greedy and rich

Agreed, everyone inherently doesn't want the parameters around the biggest transaction they will likely make in their life (their house) to change. That probably applies for most of us here. It's just that we can't realistically cater to that desire in a growing city and expect the result to be good.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yes, the net impact is to increase housing supply. Which is a good thing. But in the neighbourhoods where it’s happening, the class transformation is not affluent to middle class, but the reverse.

Doesn't that make sense? Brand new housing is going to always be of higher value, as buildings are depreciating assets.

If we knock down two 100 year old houses and build a 6 unit row house, I agree, in some scenarios the row houses will sell for not far off what each of the original 100 year old houses were worth. But what are those row houses worth in 50 years?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Doesn't that make sense? Brand new housing is going to always be of higher value, as buildings are depreciating assets.

If there is a housing crisis about lower income families not being able to afford homes that don't look like commie blocks, then the immediate focus should on building homes that look like this rather wasting time on the slow and expensive process of densification in areas where land is worth several million dollars or more per acre.



There was a Maclean's article from about a year ago about a family of five that relocated from Vancouver to Calgary and even with a modest budget for Calgary, were able to find a pretty decent townhouse for less than $300K two years ago in a newer NE community. Affordable for a two-income family, still doable with a decent single income and some sacrifices.

The three-storey townhouse was listed at $295,000 and was a 20-minute drive from downtown Calgary. The main entrance opened up to a ground-floor den, while the kitchen, living room and a powder room were on the second floor. The third floor had three bedrooms and two full bathrooms. It was a corner unit, so plenty of sunlight flooded in. “When we walked in, we had the immediate feeling that it was our home,” Nicole says. And there was a playground just a one-minute walk away.

Even if that TH's current market value is more like $400K, it's still not going be possible for anything new in the inner city to come close to that value.

https://macleans.ca/economy/realesta...-of-vancouver/

But that means doing something that supposed advocates hate even more than people not being able to afford housing, which is sprawl and new development.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by accord1999

If there is a housing crisis about lower income families not being able to afford homes that don't look like commie blocks, then the immediate focus should on building homes that look like this rather wasting time on the slow and expensive process of densification in areas where land is worth several million dollars or more per acre.

So take low income people, and put them in locations where they absolutely have to own a car to survive, rather than denser, well serviced areas where they can walk, use transit etc.

Car commuting is a massive financial drag, and makes more sense for the affluent who can afford it as part of their choice to own a single family house with a yard, that is further out from the denser areas of the city.

Putting low income people on the edges of the city just stresses them further financially, or takes people more prone to working shift work or multiple jobs and has them eat several hours a day on transit, with knock on effects to their kids that already have less of their parents time to support their development.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by accord1999

If there is a housing crisis about lower income families not being able to afford homes that don't look like commie blocks, then the immediate focus should on building homes that look like this rather wasting time on the slow and expensive process of densification in areas where land is worth several million dollars or more per acre.



There was a Maclean's article from about a year ago about a family of five that relocated from Vancouver to Calgary and even with a modest budget for Calgary, were able to find a pretty decent townhouse for less than $300K two years ago in a newer NE community. Affordable for a two-income family, still doable with a decent single income and some sacrifices.



Even if that TH's current market value is more like $400K, it's still not going be possible for anything new in the inner city to come close to that value.

https://macleans.ca/economy/realesta...-of-vancouver/

But that means doing something that supposed advocates hate even more than people not being able to afford housing, which is sprawl and new development.

We need both. I'm in favour of upzoning the developed area AND adding new neighbourhoods for development at a quick rate.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

So take low income people, and put them in locations where they absolutely have to own a car to survive, rather than denser, well serviced areas where they can walk, use transit etc.

Car commuting is a massive financial drag, and makes more sense for the affluent who can afford it as part of their choice to own a single family house with a yard, that is further out from the denser areas of the city.

Putting low income people on the edges of the city just stresses them further financially, or takes people more prone to working shift work or multiple jobs and has them eat several hours a day on transit, with knock on effects to their kids that already have less of their parents time to support their development.

Well to make those places in the inner city more affordable, you're now building apartment buildings though. Million dollar row houses or multi-family units aren't going to be much more affordable. I know we've talked about Elbow Park, but areas like Bridgeland aren't cheap either. I have to think a half duplex there is going to be about $1m these days?

And yeah, the transit infrastructure in this city is brutal. It has been for decades though. The choice for a lot of first time buyers is pay less, get more house, but have the commute issue. Or you can pay much more, get less house, but walk or bike to work. (Of course there are other factors, and I'm just broad-stroking that).