City of Ottawa

[Truenorth00]

This single apartment building on just 1.6 acres of land in Centretown brings in more property tax revenue than this entire 36.3 acre subdivision in Barrhaven. More than 50X the property tax revenue per acre.

Same scale:

https://twitter.com/SjamieIt/status/1753386202869174725?t=8fny8homRyYtpxLFXwMuCA&s=19

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What's the point of building transit in the burbs when this is what they approve beside multi billion dollar investments?

https://twitter.com/SjamieIt/status/1749829766008463613?t=mT-1ZFoPlqWLaVSAdfj7aA&s=19

Votes.

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

https://twitter.com/SjamieIt/status/1753386202869174725?t=8fny8homRyYtpxLFXwMuCA&s=19

Suburbs are expensive, but this is a little disingenuous.

The suburban picture is from a neighborhood built 30-40 years ago and was in a completely different City (Nepean). The City of Ottawa has made progress in densifying the suburbs.

[lrt's friend]

Hmmm. So, we want everybody living in commie blocks.

Of course, in the process, urban land prices escalate even further and the price of land in the suburbs plummets.

Where is affordable housing going to be? Or do we subsidize the construction of all urban commie blocks?

I think that this does not respect traditional Canadian ambitions to live in their own home, while the commie block mazes struggle because of lack of local amenities. You can't add parks, sports facilities etc. after everything is built over. There are also limits on all urban infrastructure as well. It is not infinite. And high rises beyond a certain height, need extra expensive infrastructure for pipes to reach upper floors. This can only be justified if unit prices are high enough.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Suburbs are expensive, but this is a little disingenuous.

The suburban picture is from a neighborhood built 30-40 years ago and was in a completely different City (Nepean). The City of Ottawa has made progress in densifying the suburbs.

What's disingenuous about pointing out that these places don't pay for themselves? The problem here is that they don't pay enough and consume more.

[J.OT13]

We just need more a mix. Build mid and high rises along stroads (that should be improved with narrower lanes, wider sidewalks and bike lanes, you know, streets) and at every big box super centre. Make it easier for people to get to those retail centres with pedestrian and cycling paths going straight through.

We can make suburbs with sfh more sustainable and walkable.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

https://twitter.com/SjamieIt/status/1753386202869174725?t=8fny8homRyYtpxLFXwMuCA&s=19

Look at a city budget. Guaranteed more city $ are spent on that Centretown block than the suburb. There are probably dozens of kids getting daycare subsidy in the block as little as none in the suburb. The police get probably 10X as many calls to that block as does the fire dept. In my high rise we get 5 or 6 calls a year. The fire dept came to my suburb once in 18 years growing up for a small kitchen fire. Social services which is a larger budget item than roads same story.

Regardless it doesn't matter we don't have a poll tax we are a democracy and everyone has an equal voice.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Hmmm. So, we want everybody living in commie blocks.
...

Where is affordable housing going to be? Or do we subsidize the construction of all urban commie blocks?

First, that is quite a nice building with all sorts of amenities within walking distance. Not quite a "commie block".

Second, it is much cheaper to provide affordable housing in apartments, and much more practical to provide it in walkable areas where residents don't need to use a car to live their lives. There is really no such thing as affordable single family homes, at least in Canada.

Third, no one is saying that everyone has to live in apartments. What we are saying is that tax policy should no longer subsidize the people who want the big single family home, and we shouldn't be decimating well-used urban transit so we can continue to run inefficient and lightly used routes through low density suburbs. If suburbanites want that service, they shouldn't be asking others to pay for it.

Your replies on this topic often resort to hyperbole and dubious factual statements. This is really about rebalancing and recognizing that we have subsidized unsustainable development patterns for decades. Any objective analysis from a financial or environmental perspective supports that. The question isn't whether changes have to be made, it is how we should go about it.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Look at a city budget. Guaranteed more city $ are spent on that Centretown block than the suburb. There are probably dozens of kids getting daycare subsidy in the block as little as none in the suburb. The police get probably 10X as many calls to that block as does the fire dept. In my high rise we get 5 or 6 calls a year. The fire dept came to my suburb once in 18 years growing up for a small kitchen fire. Social services which is a larger budget item than roads same story.

I don't believe that any of this is factual. You are looking at a high-end rental aimed at young professionals. I don't see why you would conclude that they are heavier users of police, fire and social services than a suburban neighbourhood.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Suburbs are expensive, but this is a little disingenuous.

The suburban picture is from a neighborhood built 30-40 years ago and was in a completely different City (Nepean). The City of Ottawa has made progress in densifying the suburbs.

What's disingenuous about pointing out that these places don't pay for themselves? The problem here is that they don't pay enough and consume a disproportionate share of services. Either their taxes should be raised or their services should be cut.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Look at a city budget. Guaranteed more city $ are spent on that Centretown block than the suburb.

Prove it. With more than just your feelings. At least I have the Halifax study showing how density correlates to cost for various services.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Hmmm. So, we want everybody living in commie blocks.

You can have density without commie blocks. You realize that right?

But no this isn't about making anybody live in a certain way. I couldn't care less how you live. I just want to stop subsidizing the suburbs.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You can have density without commie blocks. You realize that right?

But no this isn't about making anybody live in a certain way. I couldn't care less how you live. I just want to stop subsidizing the suburbs.

We need to design better cities. That is not happening.

Amalgamation was supposedly going to improve efficiency. It didn't.

Amalgamation was going to solve Ottawa urban financial issues. It didn't.

Building all these enormous bureaucracies that amalgamation brought us, has given us an unresponsive civic administration.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

We just need more a mix. Build mid and high rises along stroads (that should be improved with narrower lanes, wider sidewalks and bike lanes, you know, streets) and at every big box super centre. Make it easier for people to get to those retail centres with pedestrian and cycling paths going straight through.

We can make suburbs with sfh more sustainable and walkable.

I agree. We have haphazard planning especially when it comes to pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, and it also applies to transit. We plan neighbourhood road patterns for buses to run on certain streets, then we change our transit plans. The only thing that remains workable are for cars.

Do even the newest neighbourhoods include continuous safe cycling routes?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

First, that is quite a nice building with all sorts of amenities within walking distance. Not quite a "commie block".

Second, it is much cheaper to provide affordable housing in apartments, and much more practical to provide it in walkable areas where residents don't need to use a car to live their lives. There is really no such thing as affordable single family homes, at least in Canada.

Third, no one is saying that everyone has to live in apartments. What we are saying is that tax policy should no longer subsidize the people who want the big single family home, and we shouldn't be decimating well-used urban transit so we can continue to run inefficient and lightly used routes through low density suburbs. If suburbanites want that service, they shouldn't be asking others to pay for it.

Your replies on this topic often resort to hyperbole and dubious factual statements. This is really about rebalancing and recognizing that we have subsidized unsustainable development patterns for decades. Any objective analysis from a financial or environmental perspective supports that. The question isn't whether changes have to be made, it is how we should go about it.

I know, but a fundamental change in tax policy will cause real estate upheaval. If we implement a 25% tax increase for all suburban areas to give a similar tax break for the other half of the city. What happens?

How many people are forced out of their homes as a result of the tax increase? Where do they go? They have to downgrade homes, that don't exist.

This will drive up real estate prices in urban areas (where taxes are supposedly lower), because the housing does not exist. Simple supply and demand. So, the gains from lower property taxes only apply to existing residents who get a windfall when they sell their homes at higher prices. But all newcomers have to pay more. So any gains are lost. This is why I brought up commie blocks. In order to compensate for the increase in urban housing prices, the only possibility is to build cheaper buildings.

Also, regarding amenities, there is a limit as I pointed out. If you put apartment buildings up on every block, do those public amenities get maxed out?

I believe any fundamental changes in tax policy will lead to overall higher housing costs for everybody. It will also drive more people out to satellite communities.

I find this discussion a little odd. Before amalgamation, Nepean and Gloucester were fiscally well run.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We need to design better cities. That is not happening.

Amalgamation was supposedly going to improve efficiency. It didn't.

Amalgamation was going to solve Ottawa urban financial issues. It didn't.

Building all these enormous bureaucracies that amalgamation brought us, has given us an unresponsive civic administration.

There's no need to build more enormous bureaucracies. Just cut their services instead of always making urban areas eat it. It should be really simple. Every time the suburban dominated council wants to cut, they should be forced to aim the cuts at the least efficient and most expensive places to deliver services.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

We just need more a mix. Build mid and high rises along stroads (that should be improved with narrower lanes, wider sidewalks and bike lanes, you know, streets) and at every big box super centre. Make it easier for people to get to those retail centres with pedestrian and cycling paths going straight through.

We can make suburbs with sfh more sustainable and walkable.

Can we though?

Let's be honest. These places aren't changing in any substantial way. It's not like in 20 years, Barrhaven will have the walkability of Westboro.
This wouldn't be a huge problem if we weren't sharing a large municipal government with them. Unfortunately we are. So we can't stop the mooching. But we can stop it from getting worse. No more of this "Spread the pain" nonsense everytime council proposes service cuts. Aim them at all the places that are the least efficient to serve.

And where we offer services in the burbs? Only in the densest corridor. Save the bus on the stroad with apartments. Cut the meandering subdivision bus route. Etc.

[Truenorth00]

Anybody who doubts how inefficient the suburbs are should look at the GTA and the massive difference in taxes between the 416 and 905. And then compare the difference in services between the 416 and 905. Having Orleans in the same municipality as Vanier and Barrhaven in the same municipality as Centrepoint massively hurts the communities inside the Greenbelt. But it's a great deal for the burbs.

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What's disingenuous about pointing out that these places don't pay for themselves? The problem here is that they don't pay enough and consume a disproportionate share of services. Either their taxes should be raised or their services should be cut.

Because it’s not how the Ottawa is building its suburbs anymore.

The comparison used a housing development constructed 30-40 years ago by an entirely different city.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Because it’s not how the Ottawa is building its suburbs anymore.

The comparison used a housing development constructed 30-40 years ago by an entirely different city.

Throwing in a few townhouses in a new subdivision doesn't substantially change the cost of servicing these suburbs who have a massive amount of legacy cost built in.