Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[oldschoolcalgary]

simple solution too all the debate with respect to sustainability - put in place an apportioned tax.

All the tax dollars that are generated in each ward, stays in the ward - with a % that goes into general revenue/schools.

We can supplement that with toll roads or a local gas tax where the monies go into infrastructure maintenance (pot holes, plowing etc.)

for my one trip a week to an box stores in the burbs, i'd gladly pay a toll to use deerfoot or macleod.

Seems like a very fair way to ensure that tax dollars are actually spent in the up keep of one's own community.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by 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.

Just came back from my first stroll over it, what a cool piece of art and infrastructure for Calgary. It has such a fun vibe about it. Especially on a gorgeous spring day like this afternoon.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by LeftWing

Asinine? What's asinine? I made some observations:

1) I observed over the course of a day, whenever I turned my head to look at the bridge there was rarely any real activity. Do I think the results of that analysis are scientific? Um, no.

2) I commented that the comparison between interchanges and the bridge is not a good one - because interchanges seem to get a lot more traffic. Some folks say that interchanges cost a lot more - but as I've said before, I don't know how much they cost. I've spent a lot of time on interchanges, I know that there's a considerable larger amount of traffic on a regular basis than there was on the bridge yesterday. That's an observation. Please note - I didn't commission any studies, I have no empirical data - just some observations. Now in fairness, no one else has presented any numbers to the contrary.

Once again, do I think that they should give the bridge back? No, of course not. They should simply widen it enough to get two lanes of traffic in - that's all. See, perfectly reasonable.

and what exactly is the ratio of traffic interchanges/overpasses to pedestrian bridges/overpasses in Calgary? And the relative dollars spent on each?

not sure why the comparison isn't a valid one? If use/volume is part of your analysis, then your anecdotal evidence should actually legitimize your argument.

[shermanator]

I've walked across it twice in the last week, and I'm a fan. I'm not a fan of where they placed the crosswalk, but walking an extra 2 blocks won't kill me.

Nothing that hasn't been said 100 times already in this thread.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Just came back from my first stroll over it, what a cool piece of art and infrastructure for Calgary. It has such a fun vibe about it. Especially on a gorgeous spring day like this afternoon.

Me too. It was great! I think $25 million would be worth it just for the artistic impact alone. The fact that it is a functional bridge is just a bonus IMO.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by trew

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.

I barely ever water my lawn. It's not substantially bigger than the lawn of a smaller house in an inner city neighbourhood. As houses have gotten bigger, lots have gotten smaller.

My house is 30 years old. Construction debris from it is long gone. Buying it was way better for the environment than buying an inner city home, ripping it down, and building an attached infill, which was the alternative.

Finally, garbage trucks for my house drive much less distance than garbage trucks servicing sunnyside. The landfill (spy hill) is on the NW outskirts. My house is much closer to that, and so the trucks travel much shorter distances.

Originally Posted by trew

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?

I'm sure sunnyside does cover it's educational costs. It has high property values, so it pays high property taxes. It also costs more to educate children in a small, old school. Is it your contention that rich neighbourhoods should get to spend more money per pupil than poor neighbourhoods? That's defensible, but I bet if we took a city wide vote most people would think that rich and poor students should be treated equally.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by trew

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?

Where do you think city dumps, sewage and water treatment plants are? They are no where near the inner city.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

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.

You're missing the point completely. Sure, inner city residents made a conscious decision to live in the inner city in spite of the subsidies. However, the part of the cost we're talking about is not for the convenience and lifestyle of inner city living. We're paying not only for our lifestyle, but for the suburban lifestyle as well. Which happens to be lifestyle that is very ineffecient, has high short-term and long-term costs to the city, yet is artificially encouraged by the city. And then people complain when their taxes go up. Well this is why. Subsidizing sprawl is like subsidizing cigarettes. Sure, the smokers benefit (and will oppose the removal of the subsidy), but it's an illogical thing to subsidize in the first place and a financial time bomb with the long-term costs you create.

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.

The solution is to stop the the subsidies, and let the market decide. And yeah, it's (probably) cheaper to build a 20,000 square foot home in the the suburbs than in a tall condo building. But the long term costs of a population in a smaller area are undoubtedly smaller than the same population in a larger area. People walk, bike and transit more, and the transport network length is smaller (for starters).

Originally Posted by bizaro86

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?

When there's no net subsidy (in either direction) including downstream effects and accounting for any externalities, the argument () will stop.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

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.

Well for starters you're not subsidizing anything unless it's part of a net subsidy. But you've actually touched on one of the problems with subsidizing sprawl. By making it artificially difficult for families to live in the inner city, you make it more difficult to use exisiting inner city infrastructure effeciently (talking about schools/pools/rec centres etc here). The subsidy shifts the location of students away from schools (for example), which means existing schools end up being filled with students from a long way out or not filled at all, and there is extra demand for new schools (which cost everyone money, yay!) out in the suburbs.

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by trew

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?

Most of the reservoirs, water treatment plants, garbage dumps, equipment storage yards are on the outskirts closer to the suburbs, that kind of pooches your argument.

[RogerWilco]

For those of you that are interested in cool Architecture. Netflix just provided a bunch of great Architecture videos under the “TED" talk’s name. Didn't think this would warrant a new thread and thought this may be the place to post this.
The videos are great about 10 mins each. Very innovative Architecture and entertaining.

If you want to watch them on netfix they are called:

BUILDING WONDER: TEDTALKS

[jayswin]

My new favorite thing in this thread is the poster "Trew" not knowing where a lot of services are in Calgary, speaking as if their all located in the inner city.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's not a rivaly with yourself, its a city that just catching up with the 80's or 90's thinking now.

What I can't believe hasn't become an issue yet is the run up of property tax in the last several years. And if you think that's a problem, go look at the 5 year forecast. That, is what I refer to by unsustainable. Can big box stores live? sure there's a place for everything, not everyone has to live the exact same way, but you are out of your mind if you don't thin that people in high density neighborhoods aren't subsidizing all the sprawl.

And since you want to compare, I drive about one day a week. Im not saying everyone else has to be that way (wouldn't hurt, but nobody has to) but your comparison of the resources required by the avg inner city resident vs the tuscany resident is funny. It's not the same, not even close.

[trew]

Originally Posted by flameswin

My new favorite thing in this thread is the poster "Trew" not knowing where a lot of services are in Calgary, speaking as if their all located in the inner city.

Sigh...

Ok, I'm not saying all of the services of the city are located at the center.

Just that the incremental cost of each layer of suburban development is more expensive than the one inside it.

So yes one community may be closer to the snow plows, and one might be closer to the water treatment plants, one might be closer to the dump, and one might be closer to deerfoot trail. Added up and averaged, the cost of providing municipal services goes up the further out, and the newer the development is.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

It's not a rivaly with yourself, its a city that just catching up with the 80's or 90's thinking now.

What I can't believe hasn't become an issue yet is the run up of property tax in the last several years. And if you think that's a problem, go look at the 5 year forecast. That, is what I refer to by unsustainable. Can big box stores live? sure there's a place for everything, not everyone has to live the exact same way, but you are out of your mind if you don't thin that people in high density neighborhoods aren't subsidizing all the sprawl.

And since you want to compare, I drive about one day a week. Im not saying everyone else has to be that way (wouldn't hurt, but nobody has to) but your comparison of the resources required by the avg inner city resident vs the tuscany resident is funny. It's not the same, not even close.

Some of you guys' smugness is getting irritating. If you really want to talk about sprawl, how about all the inner city lots that are 50x120? Helluva lot bigger than what you're going to get in the suburbs. Lol @ the lawn watering comment earlier. With a 1000 sqft house on a 6000 sqft lot.
Do you people really think that all the sewers and garbage trucks go downtown before they go to their respective depositing sites or something? Are you pissed that the suburbs are increasing your taxes? Because with that tax increase comes a property value increase. That 1000 sqft house in Altadore is worth $500,000.

Congratulations on driving one day a week. There are plenty of people who do less than that in the suburbs. My friend's mom lives in Bridlehood and doesn't even own a car. She lives in a condo. She walks to the store. She takes the bus when she wants to go further. She's got a smaller carbon footprint than your once-a-week driving ass. Her garbage gets trucked to the Shepherd landfill, and the trucks that fill the store shelves she shops at barely leave the freeway. There's a water treatment plant in Chapparel.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Are you pissed that the suburbs are increasing your taxes? Because with that tax increase comes a property value increase. That 1000 sqft house in Altadore is worth $500,000.

Completely backwards. The taxes the inner city pays to support the suburbs decrease inner-city property values. Think about it, would you may more for a property that's overtaxed, or less?

[4X4]

Originally Posted by SebC

Completely backwards. The taxes the inner city pays to support the suburbs decrease inner-city property values. Think about it, would you may more for a property that's overtaxed, or less?

Without the suburbs, your property value decreases. Go check property values of houses that are 5 minutes away from downtown Three Hills.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Without the suburbs, your property value decreases. Go check property values of houses that are 5 minutes away from downtown Three Hills.

Suburbs that pay for themselves aren't "no suburbs". And anyways, it's the commercial core that drives inner-city property values, not houses in Cranston.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Without the suburbs, your property value decreases. Go check property values of houses that are 5 minutes away from downtown Three Hills.

without the suburbs, inner city prices would go up.

If there is a moratorium on development, then the only properties available have already been defined by existing inventory.

The City recognizes there is an issue with the suburbs; that is why Nenshi took the steps to try ending the subsidies to developers and forcing the burden back to them instead of the broader tax base....this added an additional 8000 per home (paid by the buyer of course) to support the infrastructure they are creating.

again, the solution is simple: An apportioned tax. If you really believe that suburbs pay for inner city residents, this ought to be a no brainer.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Some of you guys' smugness is getting irritating. If you really want to talk about sprawl, how about all the inner city lots that are 50x120? Helluva lot bigger than what you're going to get in the suburbs. Lol @ the lawn watering comment earlier. With a 1000 sqft house on a 6000 sqft lot.
Do you people really think that all the sewers and garbage trucks go downtown before they go to their respective depositing sites or something? Are you pissed that the suburbs are increasing your taxes? Because with that tax increase comes a property value increase. That 1000 sqft house in Altadore is worth $500,000.

Congratulations on driving one day a week. There are plenty of people who do less than that in the suburbs. My friend's mom lives in Bridlehood and doesn't even own a car. She lives in a condo. She walks to the store. She takes the bus when she wants to go further. She's got a smaller carbon footprint than your once-a-week driving ass. Her garbage gets trucked to the Shepherd landfill, and the trucks that fill the store shelves she shops at barely leave the freeway. There's a water treatment plant in Chapparel.

Wow, your view of reality, and reality are opposite things.

Increased taxes mean increased property value?!

You might want to check your understanding of the words cause and effect. You clearly have that understanding backwards.

While your at it, you can read up on 'representative samples'.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

without the suburbs, inner city prices would go up.

If there is a moratorium on development, then the only properties available have already been defined by existing inventory.

The City recognizes there is an issue with the suburbs; that is why Nenshi took the steps to try ending the subsidies to developers and forcing the burden back to them instead of the broader tax base....this added an additional 8000 per home (paid by the buyer of course) to support the infrastructure they are creating.

again, the solution is simple: An apportioned tax. If you really believe that suburbs pay for inner city residents, this ought to be a no brainer.

Did I say that? No, I gave a relative comparison. Without suburbs making the city bigger, and therefore placing the inner city closer to the core, your inner city house is worth less. Just like some house 5 minutes away from the downtown of a small town. How is that hard to understand?

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Wow, your view of reality, and reality are opposite things.

Increased taxes mean increased property value?!

You might want to check your understanding of the words cause and effect. You clearly have that understanding backwards.

While your at it, you can read up on 'representative samples'.

Did you sniff glue for breakfast? I did not say that increased taxes means increased property values. I said that you're paying more taxes because your property is worth more.

I don't even know why I'm arguing with you people. The fact that you begrudge half of your fellow citizens for simply existing proves that you're not worth debating.