Manitoba/Saskatchewan | Pros & Cons | Suburban vs. Urban Development
 

Catch all thread for discussions dealing with the Pros and Cons of Urban Development vs. Suburban Development. Cost, Infrastructure, Livability, Transportation, Sprawl, Safety..etc.
http://thecostofsprawl.com/img/infographic1000.jpg
Source

Post taken from True North Square Thread



..

^ Anyway moving on.


http://thecostofsprawl.com/

http://thecostofsprawl.com/img/infographic1000.jpg



Challenging the myth that sprawl is cheaper
Why are suburbs growing so fast?
Costs of sprawl
Cost of roads and highways
More density can save our cities billions
Innovations that support denser communities
Economic benefits of density
Equity and fairness
Federal and provincial roles

I believe the City of Regina has been trying to get developers to shoulder more of the cost burden, and that's part of the reason why suburban lots cost so much more now.

Actually, there was a recent story in the Regina Leader-Post on this: City of Regina, developers at odds over paying for growth. It's notable that infill development is currently exempt from development fees, but would not be under the new proposal.

Yeah, can't say I agree with the City of Regina turning towards charging development fees for intensification. If the City is serious about creating more balanced growth (between greenfield development and intensification) then it needs to take an active role in this process - which means charging suburban development appropriate development fees which are reflective of the true cost. How many externalities have not been factored into the costs of suburban development (i.e. largely issues that relate to social and environmental costs - which are captured in the graphics above).

On the contrary, what are the benefits that intensification brings to a City - there are plenty (social, environmental, and economic). I think that is one of the problems with planning in Regina - too much expectation is placed on the "market" and the private sector to carry out municipal growth management objectives. If the goal is to revitalize the downtown, increase intensification along certain corridors or at certain nodes - how is the City facilitating this development? What tools of action or intervention are being employed? Very few if any. The strategy has long been to set the policy and hope the private sector carries out those objectives. So with that long winded response - increasing development fees for infill does nothing to create a balance in terms of suburban development versus intensification. If we take the perspective that development fees are largely implemented to cover capital costs of growth - then why should infill pay when the infrastructure is already there? Certainly if upgrades need to be made then that's a different story....

That being said, if both greenfield development and intensification are charged development fees, I sure hope they reflect contextual advantages/costs - i.e. greenfield development should be charged at a higher rate - none of this one size fits all costing. The result will be continued greenfield development and little intensification.

As I stated in a similar discussion many years ago, if people were wanting to live in a dense, urban environment, they will live in one. Most people on the prairies have chosen not to do so. Telling them that they are wrong to think that way doesn't change things. It's like trying to get water to flow uphill...

It's more of a financial decision than anything. Most people would probably choose to live in a walkable, mixed-use, active, transit friendly, higher density neighbourhood if that was a feasible option. In fact, there have been numerous studies across Canada that have said as much. The same can be said about Regina and Saskatoon - areas around U of S, or the legislature in Regina are two residential neighbourhoods with some of the highest property values in the province. However, supply does not equal demand and costs are exorbitant for most purchasers. They then gravitate towards neighbourhoods which are more affordable, which typically are those further away from the city centre.

Again, the way that municipalities subsidize and facilitate development, it creates a climate that is more favourable for suburban growth and impedes intensification. The end result is a cheaper cost to purchase in the suburban neighbourhoods than central areas. In reality, if accurate costing was involved suburban prices would be dramatically higher.

But the way things function right now, it's little wonder why families elect to choose larger homes at the periphery of the city than denser living - it's all a matter of price which has emerged from misdirected fiscal policies!

Suburbs receive huge subsidies.

http://imgur.com/ILUJImv

Lots of things that require capital investment for growth are not covered by development levies. Manitoba fairs far worse than Saskatchewan.

This is a huge cost added to municipalities as any transit, police, fire, education, or libraries are picked up by tax payers instead of those contributing to growth.

You can get lots in the burbs for as little as $125,000 for 0.1 acres. That's completely serviced. You're getting one hell of a deal. It's hard to say what the true cost to the city is, but if you add up all the costs of new schools, transit expansion, new police stations/fire stations/libraries it comes to millions of dollars.

That's also assuming that what they're charging for roads covers the true cost. Owing that road cost goes up above the MPI every year I doubt it.

It's not a matter of consumer preference, it's that people want an affordable house and due to government subsidy the only affordable housing is on the periphery/in high crime areas.

In terms of curbing sprawl Saskatoon has done a strong job in recent years. The suburb population density standard was 2500 people/km^2 for decades. The new suburbs they're building are in the 4500-4800 people/km^2 range. So even though greenfield dominates it is being done more responsibly.

Employment sprawl also happens due to government subsidy and that contributes to residential sprawl and car culture.

Exurbanites who don't pay municipal tax (and are usually the ones clogging city streets) are a big problem. I doubt Manitoba or Saskatchewan will ever step in and send them a surcharge.

Both Regina and Saskatoon are putting more effort into balancing their books. I think densification and infill development will result from that.

Interesting topic. I've got a couple thoughts:

1. Despite what some people think, developers pay for almost all new infrastructure in Winnipeg suburbs - local roads, collector roads, sidewalks, watermains, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, lighting, etc. etc. etc. The also pay for half of arterial streets. That's not to say there aren't soft costs that aren't covered (e.g. libraries, schools, fire halls, etc.) - but in reality, those amenities typically haven't been built in Winnipeg suburbs until long after build-out (and once a tax base has been thoroughly established). Expressways (if we can call them that) are not covered by developers, but in many respects, these roads are regional and definitely benefit more than just the residents in the suburb.

2. In my experience, infill can often be just as expensive to service (from an infrastructure standpoint) as greenfield. There's a common perception that infill doesn't have any additional costs - the roads are there, the sewers are there, so build up up up. The reality is that infill often has tonnes of infrastructure costs - upsizing pipes, upgrading substation capacity, decombining joint storm/sanitary sewers, etc. This isn't "free".

In short, I'm definitely of the opinion that there needs to be a balance between prudent suburban growth and targeted infill development. Both are needed (and wanted) in a growing city with a diverse population. I do think that a "level playing field" is ideal, but in order to get there, there has to be a solid understanding of the current playing field.

Why are suburbs growing so fast?

I'd agree to the bolded above, but I've always found the reasoning to be more closely related to the cost of purchasing a home in a greenfield development, and what you actually get in terms of sq. ft. in comparison to a smaller sized lot/home in a denser urban area and the suburban homes proximity to amenities, ie: malls, strip malls and the services they provide... pure convenience....built to accommodate the masses in every far flung region of a city, but who can actually tell them it's wrong, personal choice right?

It doesn't mean it's a sustainable and long term strategy for jurisdictions to prosper and follow in the future does it? Land is plentiful on the Praries so lets follow the path of least resistance, and at what cost? The doughnut comes to mind.

I'm enjoying the discussion in the Saskatoon Construction thread. I hope it continues. Just wanted to add your question here as well as most posters on the forum have a great deal of thoughts and opinions on the subject...