CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20646
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:08 am
 


Thanos wrote:
bootlegga wrote:
This all goes back to my original assertion - you can't just keep building out, you have to eventually start building up.


When you have the land and the wealth to keep building out, as Calgary (just like Winnipeg or Regina) does because we're not locked in by a mountain range or a large body of water, then doing both upwards and outwards makes perfect sense.


You are correct that most prairie cities are not constrained by natural obstacles to growth like many other cities are. However, there is a limit to how much arable land there is in Canada, which should be an impediment to unlimited growth. Or are you advocating that the Prairies become one massive city?

I can't speak for Calgary, but Edmonton is debating whether or not to develop the Horse Hills area of the city (NE quadrant). It is said to have some of the best farming land in the province because of a micro-climate there.

City council wants to plow the land under - currently occupied by farms, nurseries and greenhouses - and slap up houses and strip malls. That strikes me as crazy.



Thanos wrote:
Quote:
I remember an article from e Edmonton Journal a while back that noted that Edmonton will spend over $1 billion in the comimg decades to build new suburs. That because the city pays for infra like roads, sewers, etc and relies on property taxes to pay for them. I would guess Calgary is facing similar costs. I would try and find you tye link but I'm on my tablet and it's terrible for cutting and pasting things like that.


I absolutely do not believe either Calgary or Edmonton when the councils and city managers say the expansion is getting too expensive. Even if it is, assuming that each new house built costs $10K in infrastructure, then slap on an additional $10K at the point of purchase for the developer to download to the buyer as a levy or surtax to generate more money for the city. Each new home is getting nailed with about $2000 in property taxes anyway so the city makes back whatever infrastructure costs per house within five to six years. Anyone who can't get an additional $10K added on to a mortgage for this kind of levy on a new house in the $300K range probably shouldn't even be given one.


Well, just because a city gets $10k in taxes in five/six years doesn't mean that the costs of the infrastructure are paid off, simply because most of the budget goes to other things like law enforcement, fire protection, road maintenance, etc.

Your idea to tack on the added costs of infrastructure makes sense to me, but I wonder if cities are legally allowed to do that - under the current taxation system, all they are allowed to collect is property taxes.



Thanos wrote:
Quote:
As fore idea knocking down one old house and putting up a triplex or quadplex, I think it's brilliant as it solves two problems at once (making existing neighbourhoods more dense & revitalizing older neighbourhoods). Some developers have begun doing it here too and I fully support it.


I don't necessarily disagree. As much as I detest Nenshi I found his idea on legalizing more basement suites entirely logical. The problem for the existing neighbourhoods where these suites were going to go was the parking problems that were going to be created. Odds are that each occupant of a basement suite is going to have at least one vehicle, probably more if it turns into a general roommate situation with multiple occupants sharing the suites. The inner city neighbourhoods are not exactly known for having attached or detached garages per home the way the next ring and then outer ring of districts do. The old neighbourhoods in the 80 to 100 year range were built when about one out of ten people had a vehicle. They all street park today and most of them don't even have a driveway or parking pad to use. Add in tiny narrow alleyways that are barely navigable for today's garbage trucks and parking in the back is eliminated too. Doubling or tripling the number of people in an area by rezoning for additional suites would have unleashed pure chaos for parking. Without these suites right now the streets in the older neighbourhoods are already stuffed with parked cars. Legalize those suites and the parking issues would become pure insanity.


That's odd, because in most of the older neighbourhoods here in Edmonton (like Ritchie, built during/after WW1), almost every older house has a garage - it's typically a single car garage, but they do have one. Many also have a concrete pad where they can park another car.

The newer triplex/qaudplexs developers are building here also come with attached garages, so that limits the need for street parking too.

While it can be an issue, if the city plans it right (like mandating that triplexes/quadplexes MUST have an attached garage), the problem should be manageable.



Thanos wrote:
Quote:
While you're correct that not everyone can afford it, many can and it's a far better option than a condo for families.


Allowing more new suburban developments would have maintained a level of affordability so that new buyers wouldn't have been forced into the "$500K-plus for an inner ring duplex or $500K-plus for an average sized outer ring house" scenario. The cities were either not thinking about the effects of their actions, which is entirely typical of urban liberals when they end up with municipal political power, or they just didn't care because they weren't going to depart from their precious 'sustainability' theories. They took the stresses of Vancouver and Toronto, most of which are caused by topological factors, and imported them en masse to Calgary and Edmonton where those same factors do not exist at all. That condo you mentioned? Hell, those fucking things are now getting out of the reach of average people. That's how bad it's gotten in such a short period of time since this kind of civic/social re-engineering mindset took over the city governments.


Personally, I don't have a problem with suburbs - I live in one myself in north Edmonton. I also agree that there should be a balance.

I think the problem largely lies with developers. They only build a couple types of properties (condos/townhouses and single family homes) here in Alberta and force cities to make tough decisions like this. If developers built affordable 3 or 4 bedroom condos (instead of 'luxury condos with million dollar pricetags), families could live anywhere in the city, including downtown if they so chose. But by building only 2 bedroom condos in the core, they essentially force families to the suburbs once they have a kid or two and put the city between a rock and a hard place.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:18 am
 


bootlegga wrote:

Your idea to tack on the added costs of infrastructure makes sense to me, but I wonder if cities are legally allowed to do that - under the current taxation system, all they are allowed to collect is property taxes.
Yes, they could increase the costs to the developer to fund the building of infrastructure. Wouldn't be helpful in making those new houses affordable.





bootlegga wrote:
I think the problem largely lies with developers. They only build a couple types of properties (condos/townhouses and single family homes) here in Alberta and force cities to make tough decisions like this. If developers built affordable 3 or 4 bedroom condos (instead of 'luxury condos with million dollar pricetags), families could live anywhere in the city, including downtown if they so chose. But by building only 2 bedroom condos in the core, they essentially force families to the suburbs once they have a kid or two and put the city between a rock and a hard place.


Just talked to a guy working for a big developer yesterday. Said they find it very hard to make a profit on condos in the 'burbs. In Vancouver, with our land costs 3 or 4 bedroom condos would still cost a fortune. It's not the lux features, it's the land cost that makes them expensive. Saving 20k on lux features isn't going to make much diff. And building crappy wood frame condos have their own problems for families. Just a case in the news where a family is being forced to sell their townhouse because the kids make so much noise and they have a second floor unit.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13419
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:15 am
 


There is probably an oversupply of condos around here but they are still popping up like mushrooms. One of the side effects of having inflated real estate values is that it makes it easier to attract speculative investors that put their money into new construction. The growth rates in Southern Ontario (and likely the Lower Mainland) are such that they will all make money from it, too.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20646
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:42 pm
 


andyt wrote:
bootlegga wrote:

Your idea to tack on the added costs of infrastructure makes sense to me, but I wonder if cities are legally allowed to do that - under the current taxation system, all they are allowed to collect is property taxes.


Yes, they could increase the costs to the developer to fund the building of infrastructure. Wouldn't be helpful in making those new houses affordable.


As Thanos said, if you can't afford $10k on a $400k house, you probably cannot afford the house.



andyt wrote:
bootlegga wrote:
I think the problem largely lies with developers. They only build a couple types of properties (condos/townhouses and single family homes) here in Alberta and force cities to make tough decisions like this. If developers built affordable 3 or 4 bedroom condos (instead of 'luxury condos with million dollar pricetags), families could live anywhere in the city, including downtown if they so chose. But by building only 2 bedroom condos in the core, they essentially force families to the suburbs once they have a kid or two and put the city between a rock and a hard place.


Just talked to a guy working for a big developer yesterday. Said they find it very hard to make a profit on condos in the 'burbs. In Vancouver, with our land costs 3 or 4 bedroom condos would still cost a fortune. It's not the lux features, it's the land cost that makes them expensive. Saving 20k on lux features isn't going to make much diff. And building crappy wood frame condos have their own problems for families. Just a case in the news where a family is being forced to sell their townhouse because the kids make so much noise and they have a second floor unit.


No, it shouldn't make one difference to the developer.

Assuming the building has 40,000 sq ft in it, the breakdown in size per unit is irrelevant. The only difference is instead of selling 2 bedroom condos for 200K (approximate price of a 900 sq ft condo in Edmonton), they sell the 3 bedroom units for 300K (which are 50% larger than the 2 Bdrm units) and 4 bedroom units for 400K (twice as large as 2 bdrm units). In the end, the total sale value is the exact same and the square footage is the same. In fact, if the building has fewer units, then there are probably fewer legal fees and other administrative costs when it comes to selling them to the public.

No, the problem is developers - in Edmonton at least - don't want to build 3 or 4 bedroom condos unless they are outfitted as "luxury suites" and at/near the top of a tower downtown. Those go for a million bucks or so, even in Edmonton. The vast majority of families CANNOT afford that. But if a family wanted to live downtown and had the equivalent of two 2 bedroom condos sandwiched together at approximately the same price as buying two 2 bedroom condos, then some people would buy them. Not everyone wants to live downtown, but there are a fair number who do.


Last edited by bootlegga on Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5242
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:45 pm
 


I dunno Boots. I tend to think the developers would be building those units if there was a demand for them. I think most families want the yard and the privacy that goes with a single family home.

As much as I loved living downtown when I was younger I wouldn't want to take my family there even if we could get a condo that fit us for a decent price. I'd be too worried about the kids making too much noise for the neighbours and having to walk to a park every time they needed to get out and run and scream a bit.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:59 pm
 


Unsound wrote:
I dunno Boots. I tend to think the developers would be building those units if there was a demand for them. I think most families want the yard and the privacy that goes with a single family home.


My thoughts too. They'll build you a shoe if you're an old lady and that's what you want. The big problem in Vancouver is they don't want to build rental units.

But, Vancouver City council has been pushing to densify by allowing townhouses in areas that are now zoned RS1. (Those would make sense for families - no upstairs neighbors, a bit of a yard, but more units on a given plot of land. Europe is full of them, seem to be raising healthy children.) You'd think they wanted to put in whorehouses and grow ops the way the people already living there carried on. Council had to back off and is now doing a lot more "consultation." So it's not those evil lefty councils that are preventing affordability, it's the people already living there.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13155

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:24 am
 


Xort wrote:

Yes they did chose to live away from the locations they frequented because they wanted to separate their home life from the commercial and industrial.

With the advent of cheap independent transport that was possible.


That's like saying the Ancient Romans chose high speed air travel and with the advent of the airplane that was possible. The concempt of living in one space and working in a different one a long distance away didn't even exist. Before the car, there was no such thing as the daily commuter.

The whole concept of commuting came about as a result of the car. Note before.

Quote:
The problem is that when the fuel taxes started rolling in governments didn't want to spend that money on just the roads like they said they would. They had other pet projects to fund with this huge source of revenue and after all the road system still worked.


The math is simple. The amount of space, particularly downtown, is fixed. there are skyscrapers on either side of the road and so there's nothing that can be done for the road. When the number of people wanting to travel on the road keeps growing, gridlock is inevitable.

It's comical to me that people would move into a major urban centre and then complain that they have to live like they're in a major urban centre. If you want to live like you're in a suburb or a small town then move to a suburb or small town.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:29 pm
 


The people complaining actually live in the suburbs. They're pissed at all the bikes and cars that get in their way as they try to make their way in the city. They have no investment in the city, pay no taxes, but demand to be able to drive there to earn their livelihood and expect to be able to zoom around like in the burbs. Except that in Vancouver, at least, the burbs are getting congested too, just can't build roads fast and wide enough to handle all the traffic. Especially as cross commuting, burb to burb becomes more common. Basically the burbs become cities in their own right, and people who want suburban living have to move farther and farther away, bitching all the while about those dirty left wing greenies in the city.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1068
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 4:30 pm
 


Individualist wrote:
...or more precisely, it's not simply a war on the car. The campaign of the urban left in Toronto and other large cities to get people out of cars and onto public transit or bicycles is simply one offensive in a much large war - that on the personal, be it personal mobility (cars), personal possessions (consumer goods) and personal space (single family homes). It's a social engineering scheme dressed up as an urban design movement.

That's why the likes of Christopher Hume, Jennifer Keesmaat, Richard Florida et al want to cram everyone into tiny boxes in the sky in dense urban cores, where there isn't room even to store food, let alone consumer goods. It's about grinding down a person's sense of individuality so that they can be more easily kneaded into the dough of humanity surrounding them. Make the streets their living rooms. Make public parks their back yards. Make them have to shop for food and other essentials pretty much everyday so that people are forced into social interaction. Make sure they can't get anywhere more than biking distance without being herded into public transit. It's a collectivist's dream.


Oh, and thanks to Agenda 21, it's a UN-sanctioned war. ;)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13155

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 4:56 pm
 


Necro your own nonsense thread from almost 2 years ago? And just for a one-line snide comment?


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1068
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:03 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
Necro your own nonsense thread from almost 2 years ago? And just for a one-line snide comment?


To answer both of your questions...yes.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4817
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:08 pm
 


Just buy a bike you lazy fatass.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1068
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:20 pm
 


Ah, necroing is bad form, but ad hominems are just fine. Got it.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4817
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:29 pm
 


Quote:
Well, these urban cool kids are one day going to give up box-in-the-sky urbanism along with silly facial hair and Pabst Blue Ribbon.
So you get to make fun of your opponents appearance but call out ad hominems? Please explain.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26938
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:40 pm
 


Those hipsters got all their ideas about beer from this movie.



Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.