What would make Calgary more livable?

[Dan02]

Well we suburbanites haven't had a lecture on how we're destroying the world/city in awhile we were due.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

As for the stadium example by virtue of where anyone decides to live they make a decision about how much they want to pay in gas and parking ... and is irrelvant to how municipal taxes are allocated.

So I'm confused, the inner city dwellers shouldn't be subsidizing infrastructure that benefits the suburbs more but the suburbs should be subsidizing the infrastructure that benefits the inner city more???

[CrispyGriz]

Just as an idea, in terms of putting the train underground through the core of the city. If it is going to be so expensive to put it underground and cause so many problems, why don't we just put it on the same level as the +15s and work it into that system. This would make the +15s a much bigger emphasis of downtown that is unique compared to a lot of cities. With how developed they already are, their full potential could be reached and would create a very unique environment. With the tracks above the roads, traffic no long has to deal with trains and 7th ave can be converted into either another road or a pedestrian mall(thinking along the lines of what Denver has down town).

http://www.downtowndenver.com/BID/BID16thStreetMall.htm

Combine this with creating more condos and town houses downtown. I'm not saying we shouldn't keep building out in areas, but there should be equal development on both fronts. If there is a reason to live downtown, people will. Getting to work would be cheaper as walking, biking and alternative methods of getting to work become more realistic. As the 'scene' continues to develop down town, in terms of music, clubs, shopping, restaurants, ect; there will be more reason and demand for housing near it.

So Rather than trying to force an end to suburbs, as people obviously want them, give people a reason to want to live near the core. Make it as attractive an option as buying a place on the edge of the city.

I'm not going to touch anything on taxes, but if they are as out of whack as what people say, maybe they should be adjusted so they work for more people.

I like a lot of what mel has been saying about park spaces. The first place they should deal with is the Stampede grounds. This is where the biggest event our city hosts that has the most international attention takes place. Lets make ourselves look good. When the flames Build their new arena, take the same time to remodel the entire place and bring it up to date. Stampede park could be a great selling point to the city and would help encourage people to want to live near the core and slow some of the sprawl around the city.

I'm curious what people talk about when they say we should start investing more into the arts. Arts are fine and good, but forcing them onto a city will never work. The arts scene should be allowed to grow organically on its own IMO. Otherwise it will seem forced and wont attract anyone.

This post is all over the place for sure, but thats the order i thought of things so that is how they went down.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Because I travel alot and realize the planet is a little bigger than a few cities in Canada. Canada is one of the worst countries in the developed world at zoning cities, and Calgary is a great example.

I have also travelled to many places. I would hardly say that Canada is the worst, or even one of the worst of. I'd say the US is the worst by a fair margin, and pile the asian countries as next worse. Then Mexico.

Sure, Europe is better, but then again I find it unfair to compare a city like London to Calgary, seeing as how London has had a few thousand years head start.

And, Canada has some shining examples of "dense" cities - Montreal, Vancouver, hell, even Victoria.

So just quit and build another 40 Lake bonavistas?!

No, what I am trying to tell ad nauseum is that you're never going to be satisfied with the density of Calgary, no matter what this city does, unless we literally raze whole sections of the city and start over.

Yes Mount royal should be taxed heavily and I believe that it is, by my reasoning noted earlier they would be taxed as heavily as anyone else and likely worse. As for proof you are right ... you might have picked up on any of the 3 previous times that I said that this belief is not based on working for the city but rather hearing from multiple builders.

I'd hardly trust builders as a credible source. After all, they're telling you that Calgary's going to fall apart, and on the other hand building those exact structures that will lead to that collapse.

That and I have had property in a few areas around town and am amazing how cheap taxes are in the burbs.

Last time I checked, everybody in Calgary has the same mill rate. Taxes are based on property value. Therefore, your properties are taxed less because they're worth less.

ok thanks. Kinda obvious, but thanks. I'm not sure I understand what your point is.

Point being, once again, for the umpteenth time, that it was the misplanning fourty years ago that put us in the bind we're in now, not the current development (well, okay, except for the jerks in Elbow Valley).

I actually agree with most of your suggestions for a path forward. However, I do not agree on your assertions as to the causes of the problem. Quite simply, IMHO, no one could have forecast the explosive growth this city has suffered through. It doesn't help that we have a city council dumber than the snot I blow out of my nose, but even if we were to have Brainiac as council, I'm not sure how much of a better job he would've done.

[T@T]

I didn't read this whole thread but how about a huge friken lake or ocean for boating and water skiing, that in a nutshell is whats missing from any big city without water.

Don't blame me..blame my upbringing in Nova Scotia and while i have loved Calgary for 27 years now i still miss the water.

[Wookie]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

1. Well some things I don't need proof about. I presume they all use the transmission lines, sewer lines, water lines, gas lines, roads and parks. I have no idea what the location of someones workplace means, and why you think that matters.

2. And that is exactly how you manufacture a tight labor market. The bottleneck right now to growth in Cgy is certainly not jobs ... it is interest in the city. You may not care, but then, you probably don't have a business that is dependant on the vibrancy and/or growth of the city.

1. There is a water treatment plant a few blocks from where I live. I'm confused, do you not use water living downtown? Do you not drive on the roads? Do you not use electricity?

Actually my job is totally dependant on the growth of the city. But if someone comes here and bitches and complains that it's not what they thought - then they didn't do their home work and no I don't care.

Things are fine. I don't see a problem at all.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Well we suburbanites haven't had a lecture on how we're destroying the world/city in awhile we were due.



So I'm confused, the inner city dwellers shouldn't be subsidizing infrastructure that benefits the suburbs more but the suburbs should be subsidizing the infrastructure that benefits the inner city more???

OK we are starting to develop some drama queens here. I haven't given anyone a lecture on if it is ok to live in the burbs, although boring I know some people think that living in their car is the ideal lifestyle ... that's ok ... no lecuture from me. I'm just saying that I understand it to be the case that the core subsidizes the actual cost of maintaining such a vast landscape ... and that isn't right. IF the core is subsizing the burbs, that should stop. Simple as that.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Shazam

I have also travelled to many places. I would hardly say that Canada is the worst, or even one of the worst of. I'd say the US is the worst by a fair margin, and pile the asian countries as next worse. Then Mexico.

In the developed world Canada does not spend money on infrastructure. Edmonton and Ottawa are in a similar position to us, except that their workforce isn't nearly as centralized ... so I think they are bad examples. As for the US, NY is one of the best planned urban centers there is. Houston is bad, LA is bad, and overall I'd say they are all over the map. Mexico wasn't what I was thinking of when I said developed countries ... weather that is technically correct or not I don't know, but it wasn't in my scope.

Originally Posted by Shazam

And, Canada has some shining examples of "dense" cities - Montreal, Vancouver, hell, even Victoria.

agreed.

Originally Posted by Shazam

No, what I am trying to tell ad nauseum is that you're never going to be satisfied with the density of Calgary, no matter what this city does, unless we literally raze whole sections of the city and start over.

how exactly would you know what I would be satisfied with? all I said is that I'd like to increase the denisty of the core, and frankly, particularly in the beltline and the sunnyside TOD we'd be doing just that.

I have to say alot of what you say really isn't responsive to what I'm actually saying here. Bonavista is fine, I'm just saying I'd like to see the core built up.

Originally Posted by Shazam

I'd hardly trust builders as a credible source. After all, they're telling you that Calgary's going to fall apart, and on the other hand building those exact structures that will lead to that collapse.

they may be a bad source I don't know, but your point isn't really relevant, they know they are creating the problem, the city is compensating them for doing so.

Originally Posted by Shazam

Last time I checked, everybody in Calgary has the same mill rate. Taxes are based on property value. Therefore, your properties are taxed less because they're worth less.

Point being, once again, for the umpteenth time, that it was the misplanning fourty years ago that put us in the bind we're in now, not the current development (well, okay, except for the jerks in Elbow Valley).

I actually agree with most of your suggestions for a path forward. However, I do not agree on your assertions as to the causes of the problem. Quite simply, IMHO, no one could have forecast the explosive growth this city has suffered through. It doesn't help that we have a city council dumber than the snot I blow out of my nose, but even if we were to have Brainiac as council, I'm not sure how much of a better job he would've done.

what is a mill rate?

I don't believe I ever said the cause, I just said what I'd do today. All I said is that people think it is their birthright to own a big plot of land. That has to change as the city grows.

[guzzy]

I agree with the burbs comment. There should be an infrastructure charge with every new house in Calgary. I believe there was talk of a $3500 infrastructure cost but I don't know what became of it. I was offended last year when the city lowered the taxes in the burbs but raised them in the inner city. It should be the other way around. I lived inner city for years until this week when I moved out to Chestermere. I had no idea why my taxes went up to help pay for overpasses for those living in the burbs, whose taxes went down.

Calgarians believe bigger is better and are very afraid of old things. That is why we flock to the burbs and then complain to the govt that they can't build roads, hospitals and infrastructure quick enough.

[McMack]

There should be no need to add a special tax to people who live in new suburbs. The city just needs developers pay for ALL of the infrastructure costs up front. They did introduce some nominal lot tax a year ago, but this needs to go further. Part of the problem is that the city obviously doesn't do enough up-front planning to know all of the infrastructure costs in advance. This will make it more expensive to buy a suburban home, but this is kind of the point. If the price difference between a far-suburb home and an infill home narrows, you will see more builders building infill homes and other types of housing.

As for Lake Bonivista, there is no reason you can't see infill housing there too.

[Ozy_Flame]

The City lacks a solid plan for expansion outwards, and are trying to come up with citizen ideas through their Plan It Calgary initiative. Here is the link for you to browse through:

http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/...nable_city.pdf

There are some interesting ideas here, and the City is very concerned about how we can manage growth; particularly, taking a green spin on the constant demand for new homes.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CrispyGriz

Just as an idea, in terms of putting the train underground through the core of the city. If it is going to be so expensive to put it underground and cause so many problems, why don't we just put it on the same level as the +15s and work it into that system. This would make the +15s a much bigger emphasis of downtown that is unique compared to a lot of cities. With how developed they already are, their full potential could be reached and would create a very unique environment. With the tracks above the roads, traffic no long has to deal with trains and 7th ave can be converted into either another road or a pedestrian mall(thinking along the lines of what Denver has down town).

The City has publicly stated a couple of months ago they are moving away from a +15 centric walkway system, and I would imagine that would include public transportation as well. They want more ground-level pedestrian-friendly developments to keep people in the core after 6 PM, and unfortunately, while the idea of elevated transit is good, would be too costly and counter-intuitive to people remaining ground level.

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by guzzy

I agree with the burbs comment. There should be an infrastructure charge with every new house in Calgary. I believe there was talk of a $3500 infrastructure cost but I don't know what became of it. I was offended last year when the city lowered the taxes in the burbs but raised them in the inner city. It should be the other way around. I lived inner city for years until this week when I moved out to Chestermere. I had no idea why my taxes went up to help pay for overpasses for those living in the burbs, whose taxes went down.

Calgarians believe bigger is better and are very afraid of old things. That is why we flock to the burbs and then complain to the govt that they can't build roads, hospitals and infrastructure quick enough.

Not sure where or what year you are getting your numbers from; but our suburban taxes went way up.

[Boblobla]

What would make Calgary more livable?

More naked hot chicks.

Well, naked hot chicks, I can't really say more because the only ones I have seen have been on the old PC.

Wait, what?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Wookie

1. How can you prove that the person who lives in Tuscany, Hawkwood, Edgemont, etc. doesn't work at the Foothills/Children's hospital, UofC, Local school, West of the city, out of town, Crowfoot professional buildings etc.? Same goes for any suburb. What about the majority that live in the suburbs that like it? Wait, tax them more because the minority wants trendy shops, condo's and nice shops and strolls around downtown.

2. People moving here and their expectations? Wow - that's something I really could not care at all about! If someone moved here and was upset because it didn't meet their expectations I'd think they were an idiot.

Burb taxes shouldnt necessarily be increased but should be brought in line to what a condo owners pays in taxes and most of them cannot even park on the street without paying.

For 900 sq feet I pay 1400 in taxes, there are 6 stories in my building so from about 1400sq feet of city space they are collecting 8400/year and its even worse for newer/taller condos. What does someone in the burbs pay for 1200sq feet of home plus their yard? which equates to more concrete being required for roads, sewer etc and sprawl mess with more fire stations and schools etc required just so people can have a yard. If you want a yard fine, but people who dont have one shouldnt have to subsidize those who do.

I think a 25K (which equates to 5% or less of new homes) new home tax in undeveloped areas should be applied rather than increasing property tax but thats just me.

Also, the market has never decided urbanization. The only 2 things that have ever decided it are geography and government interference (making it cheaper to go dense etc).

[LChoy]

a couple more Stanley Cups

[Muta]

Flames in 07, I generally agree with what you're arguing here. I work in the industry (the development industry), so I can give a few opinions if I may:


1) There should be a suburban-based infrastructure cost. If you choose to live ridiculously far away from the centre of the City (and let's not kid ourselves here, downtown is THE business hub for a great number of people), you should pay more money on an annual basis to use that infrastrcuture to allow you to live that far away. Roads, Power lines, sewer lines, environmental costs... these are resources that, by and large, are NOT being stretched by people who live closer to the core. A resident in Kensington uses FAR LESS infrastrucutre than a resident in Chapparal.

But...

With the availability of inner-city housing still at a relative low, prices are driven up and people are forced to look for cheaper options which happen to be on, ironically, bigger properties on the outskirts of the City. Once more condominium towers are developed in the core, the supply will increase and inner-city housing prices will go down.

But...

Until that happens, that's a moot point. The Beltline is the fastest developing neighbourhood in North America currently (my statistic came from a presentation made by my client at work), and this is all good and well; but it still isn't enough. There's two problems:

1) People not wanting to live in a higher-density lifestyle with lower square footage. It's a lifestyle people, especially Calgarians, won't try to get used to. Everyone wants their space, and we're see this theory tangibly develop as this City gets bigger and bigger in its ecological footprint. At some point, it will be forced on them as resources get costlier. But for now, this is the mentality. Calgary isn't the 'cosmo' society that Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto are. Condo living is still in the early stages of growth.

2) There are people against such development - in MASS QUANTITIES in this City. There are too many anti-change, high-powered machismo-fueled rednecks in this City that are in decision-making positions.

I can tell you from experience in my industry that there have been a HANDFUL of City-changing developments proposed for Calgary over the last 10 years - absolutely AMAZING ideas from out-of-town developers (that's right, out-of-town'ers from bigger cities who know what urban planning is all about) - that have been kai-boshed by anti-change decision makers and ignorant / uninformed residents and community associations. One of them was a MASSIVE development next to Shaganappi and Crowchild, with high-density towers, recreations areas, parks, shops, art centres... proposed by a Vancouver developer. Shot down, because residents thought traffic would increase and it would be noisy, and it wouldn't look good. That's right, the same people who already chose to live right next to Crowchild and Shaganappi, an already noisy and congested area. Unbelieveable. The elevated track idea for the West leg of the LRT is another example: Bankview residents complaining that an elevated track would look bad. Well guess what: there are infrastructure needs that need to be considered, you chose to live in that area. Deal with it, it needs to happen one way or another.

The public infrastructure too, ie. public transit. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... move the systems underground as much as possible. Spend the damn money and do it properly like other major, temperate-climate cities around the world.

/end rant.

[Ozy_Flame]

What about a micro-management system of funds for each community? What I'm saying is, houses in a suburban neighborhood get a tax break, but pay a community association fee similar to what condo owners pay. The community association gets a standard income they can arbitrarily set to account for all the neighborhood fixings, like roads, parks, etc. That way, when a neighborhood needs a new set of roads, the rest of us don't have to pay out of our pockets for roads we're never going to use; our bucks stay within the community.

Thoughts?

[Locke]

A bar on every street corner...

[taco.vidal]

I often hear that Calgary is sprawling because Calgarians want their space and dont want to live in condos. Have you been out to the new suburbs? Most lots are small and offer little privacy from neighbours. There are estate lots but those are the exception rather than the rule. I cant believe how crappy some new neighbourhoods are. I have friends that when you sit out on their tiny back deck, you can see into everyones yard all around you and into the homes. Very limited privacy even with fencing and hedges. Many new condos offer more privacy on their balconies through smart design.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

For 900 sq feet I pay 1400 in taxes, there are 6 stories in my building so from about 1400sq feet of city space they are collecting 8400/year and its even worse for newer/taller condos.

Tell me about it!

I have 1100 sq.feet and I'm paying $4000 in taxes, I just want someone to explain to me why I'm paying this much? My parents have 2700 sq.feet in Hawkwood and are only paying around $2500. Something about that just doesn't seem right.