News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.8K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.5K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.4K     0 

Calgary's Downtown Dilemma

I've preached it before and I'll continue to preach it: one of downtown's biggest dilemmas is the freight train tracks. It literally divides downtown. There's a reason why property values are lower closer to the tracks, why there's so many empty parking lots along them, why developers are forced to build these huge podiums, why there's less foot traffic around businesses who are not along an underpass street, and why we have these disgusting above ground parkades running the length of the tracks.
There's studies saying it's still worth it to bury the tracks, however I don't care what any study says, burying the tracks will forever be worth it long term. Generations will be reflecting 50 years from now saying "they should've buried the tracks back then." The best time to bury the tracks will always be yesterday, the second best time is right now. I'm sick and tired of the endless debate. Just do something already. It's pathetic now.
 
YourBoy007 said:
I've preached it before and I'll continue to preach it: one of downtown's biggest dilemmas is the freight train tracks. It literally divides downtown. There's a reason why property values are lower closer to the tracks, why there's so many empty parking lots along them, why developers are forced to build these huge podiums, why there's less foot traffic around businesses who are not along an underpass street, and why we have these disgusting above ground parkades running the length of the tracks.
There's studies saying it's still worth it to bury the tracks, however I don't care what any study says, burying the tracks will forever be worth it long term. Generations will be reflecting 50 years from now saying "they should've buried the tracks back then." The best time to bury the tracks will always be yesterday, the second best time is right now. I'm sick and tired of the endless debate. Just do something already. It's pathetic now.
Click to expand...
IIRC one of the issues facing the tracks being buried was the transportation of hazardous substances.

Personally I'd love to see the train tracks disappear, but it's a tall order.
 
IMO N-S corridors will struggle regardless of the tracks, but more could be done to mitigate their impact.

I would love to see the arena two blocks further north (swap the bus barns land with Remington), with a parkade on the north side of the tracks and legitimate outdoor concourse(s) serving as overpasses over the tracks. Tons of other reasons it would be a better location (access/egress, parking, downtown walkability, and effective use of 'train-track' land that is otherwise harder to develop).


Even with trenched tracks, Macleod to 4 st SW would remain a bit of a concrete wall. My Sim-City solution would be to kill all vehicle traffic on the 1st SW underpass and use it for the green line+pedestrians only. The 1st st alignment would also simplify (or at least straighten) the bridge across the river, cause a lot less disruption to PIP both long-term and short-term (Sien Lok Park offering better construction staging).

The west end is a bit more of a blank slate to develop a decent corridor, but the time to do it properly will probably be the creosote cleanup/WV development.
 
MissingMiddle said:
I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, but I found a good video that visualizes the economic benefit of urban development:

Click to expand...
I'd love to see how Calgary compares. I wonder if some of the newer (denser) suburbs would preform better than the 70's - 00's neighborhoods.

I suppose at some level, when you look at it through this lens, the issue isn't so much suburban development, but whether or not that suburban development is a net addition or drain on the tax base. Theoretically, so long as these new neighborhoods are contributing more than they're taking, there isn't as much of an issue
 
Urban Outdoorsman said:
I suppose at some level, when you look at it through this lens, the issue isn't so much suburban development, but whether or not that suburban development is a net addition or drain on the tax base. Theoretically, so long as these new neighborhoods are contributing more than they're taking, there isn't as much of an issue
Click to expand...
That's my take also. Personally, I prefer the inner city, but I also understand everyone has their preference. My issue with the new developments is the eventual cost to the city. I wish the city could increase levies or for new developments or have higher property taxes for the new areas. They could call it an infrastructure tax. Regular property taxes plus a 5-10 year additional tax to pay off the initial costs of the new infrastructure.

A house in the burbs that might pay say.. $280.00 a month as per the city's tax formula based on value, would also pay say...another $70 a month infrastructure tax for 5 years as a way of at least paying off the cost of new street lights, sidewalks, parks, etc.. Not a perfect solution, but it would help.
 
Surrealplaces said:
That's my take also. Personally, I prefer the inner city, but I also understand everyone has their preference. My issue with the new developments is the eventual cost to the city. I wish the city could increase levies or for new developments or have higher property taxes for the new areas. They could call it an infrastructure tax. Regular property taxes plus a 5-10 year additional tax to pay off the initial costs of the new infrastructure.

A house in the burbs that might pay say.. $280.00 a month as per the city's tax formula based on value, would also pay say...another $70 a month infrastructure tax for 5 years as a way of at least paying off the cost of new street lights, sidewalks, parks, etc.. Not a perfect solution, but it would help.
Click to expand...
Kind of like how self-funded local improvements are handled, such as backlane paving. Have the costs of new infrastructure required for these suburban developments amortized in the property taxes for those properties that benefit from the infrastructure over a 10-15 year period. Property taxes then better reflect the costs of servicing these areas, given the homes tend to be cheaper, and therefore property taxes are lower, and may not cover the cost of the required new servicing.
 
adamyyc said:
Kind of like how self-funded local improvements are handled, such as backlane paving. Have the costs of new infrastructure required for these suburban developments amortized in the property taxes for those properties that benefit from the infrastructure over a 10-15 year period. Property taxes then better reflect the costs of servicing these areas, given the homes tend to be cheaper, and therefore property taxes are lower, and may not cover the cost of the required new servicing.
Click to expand...
The levies and off-site levies largely already do this.

We really needed to fix this in the 2000s - Nenshi spent a decade largely doing so.
 
Yes, in 2016 the offsite levy bylaw was updated to capture the full cost of growth. That said, it was not perfect, and relied on forecasts which weren't the best, but it went a long way to resolving the issue. Further work is currently underway to address the deficiencies: https://www.calgary.ca/pda/pd/commercial-development/off-site-levy.html

In terms of other, local infrastructure, such as sidewalks, collector roads and smaller, and utilities smaller than main distribution mains; those are all paid for entirely by the land developer doing the installation. Zero capital cost to existing residents.

If property taxes are not enough to cover the operations and maintenance of new neighbourhoods, that is a Council problem in terms of tax rate or efficiency of service delivery, but I doubt it is unique to new neighbourhoods, who are now substantially more dense and in some cases mixed use than many of the donut suburbs built between the 70s and 90s.
 
adamyyc said:
Kind of like how self-funded local improvements are handled, such as backlane paving. Have the costs of new infrastructure required for these suburban developments amortized in the property taxes for those properties that benefit from the infrastructure over a 10-15 year period. Property taxes then better reflect the costs of servicing these areas, given the homes tend to be cheaper, and therefore property taxes are lower, and may not cover the cost of the required new servicing.
Click to expand...
That's exactly the example I had in mind.
 
YourBoy007 said:
I've preached it before and I'll continue to preach it: one of downtown's biggest dilemmas is the freight train tracks.
Click to expand...
Surrealplaces said:
IIRC one of the issues facing the tracks being buried was the transportation of hazardous substances.

Personally I'd love to see the train tracks disappear, but it's a tall order.
Click to expand...
I think the best outcome would be CP moving out of downtown like railroads have already been doing in other cities, then burying tracks for exclusively passenger rail service. Pipe dream: Blow up the bunker at the base of the Calgary Tower and build something new with a passenger rail hub that isn't just a gloomy basement
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top