What would make Calgary more livable?

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

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.

Because Canadas tax code(along with the taxs of most other industrialized nations) revolve around the idea that those who can afford more, pay more. For the most part we are not a user pay nation.

[Bigtime]

So what makes you think I can afford more? I bought my new condo when the market wasn't going crazy, so I certainly didn't pay $600 per sq.foot for it. A tax bill that is costing around 333 bucks a month seemed a little high to me.

[sadora]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

From my impression from reading all the threads on here, less hookers and blow would be a good start.

less? I think more would make it ideal...and perhaps a more tropical climate.

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

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.

Simple. Tax is calculated on the fair market value of your dwelling, which is the only fair way of doing it. So, your parent's place is worth around $600K and you place is closer to a million. Sounds fair to me.

[psicodude]

Taxing the suburbs more is impossible because you have to ASSUME that those people use infrastructure more than inner-city folks. My neighour works by the South Calgary medical centre, a 5 minute drive. I know the owner of Memory Express that lives in a condo downtown. He drives all over the city daily. So how is it fair to tax the burbs more?

I agree with one of the posts a few pages prior. Make the developers cough up for a larger chunk of the initial costs of getting infrastructure to new neighbourhoods.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by psicodude

I agree with one of the posts a few pages prior. Make the developers cough up for a larger chunk of the initial costs of getting infrastructure to new neighbourhoods.

I agree with this as well.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by psicodude

Simple. Tax is calculated on the fair market value of your dwelling, which is the only fair way of doing it. So, your parent's place is worth around $600K and you place is closer to a million. Sounds fair to me.

My place is definitely not worth anywhere near a million. $550K tops.

But I do agree with your stance about developers coughing up more. So do I need to mention that the developer of my condo has already coughed up in excess of 1 million dollars for our little block of the inner city? I'm pretty sure that has helped take care of any utilities that needed to be improved for our building.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

My place is definitely not worth anywhere near a million. $550K tops.

Did you not get a tax assessment which stated what the assess value of your residence is? If yours was 500k and your parents was 500k you'd be paying the same taxes. Obviously the city has not pegged your properties at anywhere near the same value.

I believe your assessment is based primariily on your square footage and the average selling price of the residences around you.

[Traditional_Ale]

A designated CP cheering section at the dome, complete with heroin-beer taps in every chair!

[Muta]

Originally Posted by psicodude

Taxing the suburbs more is impossible because you have to ASSUME that those people use infrastructure more than inner-city folks. My neighour works by the South Calgary medical centre, a 5 minute drive. I know the owner of Memory Express that lives in a condo downtown. He drives all over the city daily. So how is it fair to tax the burbs more?

Meh, can't please everybody. Nothing is perfect. It still fundamentally makes sense. Living on a big property is still ultimately a lifestyle choice; you can choose to live in the inner-city, too. Inner-city living is high-density, and ultimately results in a lower ecological footprint no matter how you look at it. That's the whole point of it; for every one person that lives downtown and drives out, there's 10 that live out and drive downtown. Owning a Hummer / SUV / 350 Dodge Ram or whatever they're called only compunds to that problem in an ecological sense - and there's LOTS of them in Calgary.

[nieuwy-89]

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).

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

You lost me here...Denver's LRT is all at surface through the downtown...as are most US LRT systems. In Denver some streets are shared pedestrian/transit malls and some are shared LRT/traffic corridors. Above or below ground has nothing to do with it.

[Ayrahb]

No CP rail going through downtown.
Removal of transients and crack whores.
Legalized and taxed prostitution.
Another downtown core.

[Wookie]

Originally Posted by Muta

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.

I'm confused, does the main sewer start in downtown calgary? Does the main water supply come from downtown calgary? Does all my power stem from downtown calgary?

[Traditional_Ale]

No more artists!

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Wookie

I'm confused, does the main sewer start in downtown calgary? Does the main water supply come from downtown calgary? Does all my power stem from downtown calgary?

Be realistic. You know exactly what he's talking about. Roads, fire, police, ambulance services, recycling, garbage pickup, there are alot of things. The further they have to drive out, the more expensive it gets, and the less sense it makes for people who live in high-density areas, such as downtown.

I live in a condo building; everybody's garbage gets picked up from one location. I'm not a fan of paying to drive huge, gas consuming trucks around for hundreds of kilometers just so everyone can have their big houses in the 'burbs.

I think this has been beaten to death, and I'm just going to get hammered on this all over again.

My point - Calgary can be made more liveable by densifying.

[Wookie]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Be realistic. You know exactly what he's talking about. Roads, fire, police, ambulance services, recycling, garbage pickup, there are alot of things. The further they have to drive out, the more expensive it gets, and the less sense it makes for people who live in high-density areas, such as downtown.

I live in a condo building; everybody's garbage gets picked up from one location. I'm not a fan of paying to drive huge, gas consuming trucks around for hundreds of kilometers just so everyone can have their big houses in the 'burbs.

I think this has been beaten to death, and I'm just going to get hammered on this all over again.

My point - Calgary can be made more liveable by densifying.

In Calgary's business district (over 70 national and international head offices), over 145,000 Calgarians work downtown.

Employed Calgarians as of May 2008 - 695,000
20% of the workforce is downtown, yet we should all live there in high rise buildings?
We should pay more because we all drive downtown or all take the train to work?
The trucks drive a lot less distance to pick up my garbage than they do yours.
I am moving to a townhouse complex in the NW soon, 40 residences, 4 garbage bins, all closer to the dump and trucks than downtown. My water comes from Bearspaw. Not downtown.

The two sources for Calgary's drinking water are both surface sources. The Bow River supplies the Bearspaw Water Treatment Plant and the Elbow River flows into the Glenmore Reservoir, which is the source of water for the Glenmore Water Treatment Plant. The Bearspaw Plant primarily supplies water to the north sector of the city, while the Glenmore plant supplies the south. However, the water supply from the two plants is interconnected through large diameter transmission mains to ensure a reliable supply to all times.

I really am confused. I've been in an ambulance and paid for it. It took me from a hockey rink to the foothills hospital. How does that have any bearing on where I or you live?

Actually I'm probably a shorter drive to the footihills than downtown apartment towers.

There is a fire station pretty close to me. How is that more expensive?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Wookie

I'm confused, does the main sewer start in downtown calgary? Does the main water supply come from downtown calgary? Does all my power stem from downtown calgary?

Well if you want an example, in higher density areas the ratio of residence-to-fire hydrant is much higher than that of the suburbs; hence, less infrastructure costs and greater savings for the taxpayer on a comparative level.

But don't worry, my taxes in the inner-city are higher than yours. So I guess that makes it okay.

[Wookie]

Originally Posted by Muta

Well if you want an example, in higher density areas the ratio of residence-to-fire hydrant is much higher than that of the suburbs; hence, less infrastructure costs and greater savings for the taxpayer on a comparative level.

But don't worry, my taxes in the inner-city are higher than yours. So I guess that makes it okay.

Hmm.. good example. Minus the snooty comment about your taxes.

I wouldn't/didn't buy in downtown calgary because I can't afford the expensive properties and taxes that go with them. Unfortunately if you can, and you chose to live there it's kind of your fault. While I can empathise with what your saying - and I'm sure there is some examples that back up your arguments I don't really care. Increasing downtown density and shopping and lifestyle/entertainment might be nice for some people it has zero bearing on my life. Maybe the odd time I go out to party downtown it might be a smidgen more "interesting" but not an amount that I think it warrants any more thought from me.

I'm not even sure if I'm on topic anymore. Kinda need to go back and re-read how the thread evolved. But I've got to go to some social thingy... which isn't downtown. After that I think I'm meeting someone for a drink, after I try to squeeze in a run/bike that is probably more manageable and pleasant in the suburbs than would be downtown.

But in all that I'll try not to burn down my house (I'm honestly going to go looking for the closest fire hydrant*** as soon as I finish typing though).

*** Opposite side of the street, 10 houses away.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by psicodude

I agree with one of the posts a few pages prior. Make the developers cough up for a larger chunk of the initial costs of getting infrastructure to new neighbourhoods.

Failing that, recover the money from the people who bought the homes at subsidized prices, but slowly and over time.

Originally Posted by toonmaster

1. I dont agree with increasing the density in the beltline, Kensington & Eau Claire. I think the city needs to increase the density around the LRT hubs/stations that are out away from the core. Have a bunch of high density pockets throughout the city where residents can walk to the station in 10-15 minutes. Not low rise apartment buildings, but along the size of the London towers at Heritage, larger if possible and more then 2 or 3 towers at each station, 10-15 would be a more appropriate number.

2. The LRT needs to be upgraded. 4 car trains, and expansion of the platorms (the majority of the stations can already handle this expansion, there are a few platforms that can't). More lines are needed but more lines = more problems downtown = more delays

5. A downtown tunnel would be nice, but for the next 50 years it wont happen. Unless they are going to bury it in the bedrock that is 30-40 meters deep, the soil wont handle it. The deeper you go, the more expensive it gets. They also have to integrate it with the current system which has a standards at the slopes these trains can handle, so you cant bury it too deep. It is one heck of a problem to get this downtown tunnel to become a reality.

The problems with point #1 are point #2 and point #3. If you're 15 minutes from Heritage station and work downtown, you're still about 45 minutes away from work. And you still have to ride the LRT which is insanely busy (cue the videos from Japan, but everyday I get on at Anderson and see people who can't get on the trains from Southland onwards). Furthermore, they're already maxing out the throughput capacity of the 7th avenue corridor downton, so as transit ridership increases it'll only get worse. In fact, I could rapidly see this becoming a major deterrent for people who are thinking about living in a community like London, as not only are the trains packed, but they're also slowed down because they have no buffer between trains to keep them moving independently of each other.

The only solutions are increasing the length of the cars (which can only be done up to four cars), seperating the two lines onto seperate roads (worst possible idea ever), elevating the C-train, or burying it.

Calgary's LRT ridership is up 50% from 2001. Going to four cars would only increase capacity 33%, with no further room to expand. That's why we need a subway underground, and we need it as soon as possible.

[CrispyGriz]

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

You lost me here...Denver's LRT is all at surface through the downtown...as are most US LRT systems. In Denver some streets are shared pedestrian/transit malls and some are shared LRT/traffic corridors. Above or below ground has nothing to do with it.

Your right that Denver has all their trasit above ground. That wasnt what i was refering to when i talked of their mall they have through downtown. If we were to raise the tracks to the level of the +15s, then we would have a street that no longer has anything on it. What we do with this is an oppurtunity to create something similar to what denver has in their down town core where it is a pedestrian and bus only road that is essentially one big mall.

Only problem with this idea is the city apparently doesnt want to go with the raised tracks downtown according to a previous post in this thread.