CBBarnett
Senior Member
Maybe they are trying to push National out? Seems like real bizarre timing/hugely detrimental for National. I wonder what the conversations were behind the scenes between National's owners and Arlington?
|
|
|
General Construction Updates
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
O-tac
Active Member
What better way to increase vibrancy than to push out a bustling bar? There’s also the Ship & Anchor next door. Together those places create the only life on that intersection. The other corners have a gas station, an empty stripmall and a construction zone.
JesseLikesCities
Active Member
UrbanRED
Active Member
Sucks, we already have too much suburban growth.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
A question for all the urban thinkers out there:
The economics of sprawl are known to be dubious as sprawl rarely pays its own way on capital, operating and, often ignored lifecycle cost of infrastructure. Complicating the picture is the "network effects" of growth (e.g. who pays for a new interchange that is triggered because we added another 10,000 car dependent households somewhere else in the network?). Similarly, cash-flows from new taxes brought in by suburban developments as they are built out are often too low to replace or upgrade the infrastructure once it needs replacing in coming decades, meaning that many neighbourhoods become net-loss areas where the cost to operate them are always higher than the taxes they provide. As a result we look for tax dollars elsewhere to close the gap (among other reasons), commercial properties being a key one.
With the reforms in the fee/service structure in the past years, the City has been improving on the capital side as developers now pay most of that cost. Density and design improvements (street-connectivity, mixed use) has theoretically improved the tax productivity, servicing deficiency of new developments. However, network costs, infrastructure lifecycle costs and operating costs still are not fully accounted for, necessitating ever-increasing taxes to pay for new sprawl.
My questions are three:
The economics of sprawl are known to be dubious as sprawl rarely pays its own way on capital, operating and, often ignored lifecycle cost of infrastructure. Complicating the picture is the "network effects" of growth (e.g. who pays for a new interchange that is triggered because we added another 10,000 car dependent households somewhere else in the network?). Similarly, cash-flows from new taxes brought in by suburban developments as they are built out are often too low to replace or upgrade the infrastructure once it needs replacing in coming decades, meaning that many neighbourhoods become net-loss areas where the cost to operate them are always higher than the taxes they provide. As a result we look for tax dollars elsewhere to close the gap (among other reasons), commercial properties being a key one.
With the reforms in the fee/service structure in the past years, the City has been improving on the capital side as developers now pay most of that cost. Density and design improvements (street-connectivity, mixed use) has theoretically improved the tax productivity, servicing deficiency of new developments. However, network costs, infrastructure lifecycle costs and operating costs still are not fully accounted for, necessitating ever-increasing taxes to pay for new sprawl.
My questions are three:
- Are my simplified assumptions of how this works correct?
- Are we as a city actually getting more sustainable sprawl developments?
- If sprawl isn't financially sustainable, why do we want these developments in the first place? Why bother trying to compete with Rockyview MD, Airdrie etc. for net-loss suburban growth? I get the planning rationale of the uni-city model (debateable whether this approach got us much, as we managed to develop a very sprawled, unsustainable city anyways) and free-rider issues of system users that aren't taxpayers, but if these developments aren't sustainable what does it matter? At least Calgary doesn't negatively impact it's finances chasing poor investments.
Alex_YYC
Senior Member
I don’t think we have much choice but to approve greenfield development. Ultimately I would still like to see the ratio for inner-city development be higher, but for the time being Greenfield development isn’t going anywhere. It’s still a popular choice for most people.
MichaelS
Senior Member
The business cases for each new area (including the ones that weren't approved) are available here:
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=56590
They outline the anticipated costs and revenues from each growth area. The required infrastructure, as well as mix of uses, really impacts the evaluation. It should be noted that some of these numbers were further revised between the June 28th PFC meeting (the link I provided), and yesterday's council meeting.
gsunnyg
Senior Member
The fact they have to further increase property taxes to support these communities really baffles me. When the heck did we go from 8 last month to 14 now? its like the councillors we're held at gunpoint by greenfield developers. I still don't agree greenfield development is popular as it seems, whats making it in demand is the countless approvals like these happening that end up flooding the market with more supply hence making buying a home in a new community cheap and affordable. Like I mentioned before, IMO, no further Greenfield development should have been introduced until a certain amount of time was passed to justify more. Vancouver, Toronto and countless other cities are stuck with the land they have but they still manage to keep property taxes under control even though there home values are outrageous. Who on earth would spend money on a condo in the beltline when u can buy one for half the price in a community like skyview? Only people that have a demand for dense/inner city living would think towards something like the downtown or beltline over skyview but that too if their pockets allow them to do so. A regular middle class or immigrant family would rather save on that double price. Overall, I've had my say on this topic plenty of times and I know many don't agree but eventually this is how u bankrupt or poorly manage cities, with a city of 1.2 million, our footprint on satellite maps is completely outrageous. I'll sure be letting my councillor know that his vote yesterday was unacceptable and extremely short sighted. If this continues on and Toronto and Vancouver continue getting denser and more vibrant, I don't see many young people wanting to stick around in Calgary especially if there is no hope of a boom coming back. IMO, Only thing that can save this train wreck now is if the provincial and federal government make it mandatory for cities to build within a minimum density to secure funding for certain city services like transit expansion, it would be in their best interest too to save money where they can and I'm sure urban sprawl really does some serious damage seeing Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto are the only cities with reasonable density.
darwink
Senior Member
The businesses cases for supporting densification is coming in the fall iirc - it isn't a slam dunk that it is way way cheaper to add semis and quads and towns and low rises to established neighbourhoods. Largely Calgary has been counting on extra capacity built 50-70 years ago in redeveloping neighbourhoods, and some are reaching the point where major investment is needed to increase capacity to keep densification going.
Now, some of that is driven because there are standards for how much sewer capacity a residence needs, because you can't guarantee that infill that likely will have 2 people won't have 6 next year, or 20 years from now, but thems the breaks.
I think targeted investments to make curvilinear neighbourhoods cheaper to service (buying houses and building new roads to create direct central non-curvy bus routes to start with) would be good. A system to help people remove old CPR planning tools from titles would be good.
Now, some of that is driven because there are standards for how much sewer capacity a residence needs, because you can't guarantee that infill that likely will have 2 people won't have 6 next year, or 20 years from now, but thems the breaks.
I think targeted investments to make curvilinear neighbourhoods cheaper to service (buying houses and building new roads to create direct central non-curvy bus routes to start with) would be good. A system to help people remove old CPR planning tools from titles would be good.
AccUnit
Active Member
I think these are great questions to ask. In going through the new communities i believe they are doing more the make the communities more sustainable however I take issue with two continuing trends.
1. Lack of innercity zoning density. I recently started to look closer at Calgary's innercity zoning and it's incredibly low. In reviewing the document MichaelS uploaded there are 45,000 units (single & multi family) slated to be constructed over the next 10-15 years in these new communities. The city reiterated the plan to have 50% growth in existing communities and 50% in greenfield which means 45,000 units have to be constructed in existing neighbourhoods to match this. I can't fathom how that many units will be built in existing neighbourhoods with the vast majority of mature communities zoned for townhomes at most. To get 45,000 units approved in existing communities you are looking at thousands of individual rezoning applications and with that thousands of years of cumulative waiting time. Sunnyside - more than two blocks from the train and you are RC-2, bridgeland, renfrew, crescent heights, mount royal, inglewood, killarney, most of marda loop (some is MC-G), banff trail, brentwood, mount pleasant, capitol hill, rutland park, university heights, , charleswood allllllll are basically RC-2. If we honestly think growth can occur 50-50, all of these neighbourhoods should be Mc-2 minimum. Yeah we should push developers on design, aesthetic, street interaction, suite mix, quality of materials, and affordability (provided funding is there) but the question of density is grade-a bull. With the current system, unless a developer is massive and well funded the risks of rejection in Calgary's current system makes smaller developments too risky and therefore untenable. to prove my point, look at 17th ave N which was rezoned mc-2, since that zoning there are a handful of projects between 18-40 units that have been built, with the risk of zoning gone low rise apartments are going up.
2. Overall form of new communities. Despite the improvements made these communities are still going to be cut-off from the rest of the city with 2-3 entrances, have nothing but curvilinear roads and will not promote walking or mobility for basic day to day tasks. And honestly, above all, will be homogeneous, soulless, boring, and unoriginal - where are the surprises?!?!
I'm not saying those communities shouldn't have been approved, however with no other changes we are bound to continue growth inequality.
Bertie Wooster
New Member
Summing up the public discourse on this:
Advocates wanted to City to implement big levies so development would more pay for itself. City did it and developers agreed. Advocates wanted denser, more mixed use and connected suburbs so they were more sustainable and efficient to operate. City did that too and developers agreed.
Developers: We’d like to spend this money we paid and build these new types of communities now.
Advocates: how dare the city let them do that!!!!
Advocates wanted to City to implement big levies so development would more pay for itself. City did it and developers agreed. Advocates wanted denser, more mixed use and connected suburbs so they were more sustainable and efficient to operate. City did that too and developers agreed.
Developers: We’d like to spend this money we paid and build these new types of communities now.
Advocates: how dare the city let them do that!!!!
gsunnyg
Senior Member
How about the advocates that never wanted anymore greenfield development at all? or the majorirty who didn't think calgary needed 14 more communities according to 660 news poll?
Attachments
Last edited:
AJX
Active Member
They are denser, and probably more mixed use, but are they better connected? and is the mixed use helping? Are they actually more efficient? I would say the new developments are no better connected than those of 25 years ago, and only slightly more sustainable and efficient. It's still a case of 2 or 3 roads in and out, and still car dependent. The mixed use aspects such as office space in places like Crowfoot for example are still heavily car dependent even though there is LRT nearby.
BTW, I'm not blaming the developers on this, it's up to the city to do a better job of laying out an overall strategy for building new neighborhoods.
Just clarifying, this statement. Does the money from the levies get set aside and to be used for that particular neighborhood?
BTW, I'm not blaming the developers on this, it's up to the city to do a better job of laying out an overall strategy for building new neighborhoods.
Just clarifying, this statement. Does the money from the levies get set aside and to be used for that particular neighborhood?
Last edited:
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
darwink
Senior Member
The city does ring fence funds, but even if it didn't, it is no different in the end. And many of the levies are offsite, specifically for projects that serve multiple neighbourhoods.
Under the provincial off-site levies regulation, the city "must report on the levy annually and include in the report the details of all levies received and utilized for each type of facility and infrastructure within each benefitting area", and the city produces a report every year:
Off-Site Levy Annual Report 2016- Off-Site Levy Annual Report 2015
- Off-Site Levy Annual Report 2014
- Off-Site Levy Annual Report 2011-2013
The report shows every project money went to that year.
