Urban vs Suburban - 2 styles enter, one style leaves!

[kw5150]

Well why is guy so goddam angry about Calgary. Figure that one out. So, you are saying that this guy can say anything he wants about urban people, small interesting shops, places we all love and you will just sit there and take a non-position as usual?

Im just sick of his negativity towards some of the FRIENDLIEST and most interesting places in Calgary. It sounds like he has never actually walked anywhere in kensington and he sounds like he is some kind of bully towards certain types of people.

and yes! I AM the opposite of Suburbia. I am damn proud to be that. You've heard it here first.

The urban people of Calgary are harmless. Even the drugged up "freaks".

Unsustainable business models? Gimme a break. These are real people with big hearts trying their best to build a community and I wont have someone shit all over that.

Originally Posted by Calgarian

You have to ease up on this stuff guy, people are allowed to have a different opinion than yours. You are the exact opposite of Suburbia in that your posts are urbanism or bust.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Urban or suburban, levies aren't really expected to. The public contribution to servicing new development is an investment in the tax base.

[...]

Calgary's debt load is a result of two things. One is decades of severe mismanagement by morons budgeting around windfalls from Edmonton that never came and the other is this city is badly under-taxed.

The important connection eh?

It should be noted that reducing the operating costs would help lower the necessary tax burden.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Urban or suburban, levies aren't really expected to. The public contribution to servicing new development is an investment in the tax base.

But the problem is, very often density doesn't have lower operating costs, public or private. The point of diminishing returns is very, very, low as density creates costs and complexity where there isn't otherwise. Density also does little to address the labour side of the equation. Most civil human resources are distributed by population.

Not all though:

-Fire stations (AFAIK) are more about response time than population served. So stations in higher density areas serve more population per unit of cost.
-Police in higher density areas may be more likely walking, so costs of vehicles decreases.
-Schools, yes, but bus operating costs are inverse to density.
- Sanitary and water capacity (pipe size essentially) is determined on a total population basis, but more pumping stations and lift stations will be needed (as well as longer pipes) as density increases. A sewer line that serves 10K people that is 1km long is a lot cheaper to maintain than one that is 10 km long and needs 2 lift stations.
- Storm water ponds and facilities definitely increase in cost drastically as density increases, as the utility is concerned with the amount of impermeable surface. In fact, stormwater has absolutely no relation to population whatsoever. As well, in terms of acreage assessments in Calgary, in some areas (Shepard stormwater basin), stormwater is usually the largest line item.
-Transportation- Definitely decreases in cost as density increases.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It is simple, you complain about the way urbanism is perceived at large, then you launch into alienating rants that remind people why they believe their perceptions to be correct. You can propose any solutions you wish, but if people find them aloof and alienating they're irrelevant.

No. This is your reoccuring error at large and based on your continuous assumption that you've somehow labelled me correctly. I'm an "urbanist" or argue for "urbanism" only because the ideal aligns with objective rationale - prudent economics, environmental responsibility, and often (and obviously harder to quantify) social well-being. I care little for fancy, luxury condos, retail differentiation or hip clothing, etc.

The suburb just so happens to be the epitome of poor resource allocation in its current form. If true costs were properly accounted for, then a) they wouldn't exist to the level they do, and b) this converstation or "war" would never have had to occur. But you are right, people rarely like hearing that their way of life and way of enjoying life is perhaps detrimental, even if marginally, to some other aspect of our living environment. I don't either. That doesn't make it any less true or any less a conversation worth having. If anything, the opposite.

Btw, if I'm going to be an -ist, then let it be a transportationist. But please refrain from applying labels.

The potential problem with density is simple, particularly at the middle of the scale, it creates complexity and it creates costs but doesn't necessarily distribute them terribly well. Just because something functions doesn't mean it is in a state of equilibrium. Density works really well in isolation where everything was planned around it. When the discussion becomes raising density and dramatically it is a lot more complicated and political.

I agree, but that doesn't mean the mathematics are any less true. These complexities would have to exhibit incredible non-linearity as utilization increases to negate itself. In fact, complexities such as network effects may also have positive extranalaties.

But I don't think i'm too inclined to going down this road with you again as at the end of any discussion we will both remain 100% confident that one another are fucktards while having irritated everyone else.

This is really the only issue I have with you. I don't actually think that. If we were to apply labels, it to me seems you are very knowledgeable on a local scale and have insight and first-hand experience into things probably a lot of others on this forum don't have. Nevertheless, this same thing seems to have made you very averse to factual outside information beyond what you currently know (perhaps often correctly) to be true. You can continue to think that of me and if you openly show so, that's where we'll inevitably continue this cycle.

I'm sure other forumers have learned to skip over these posts by now.

[kw5150]

Even the city I grew up in (Fort St John BC) has problems with a low tax base because there were so many empty lots or badly used spaces within the city limits. Since I moved away from there they have been busy increasing density everywhere and now can afford more infrastructure.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Because I dont know any great cities that want to be like that.

Any that is where it gets subjective, my neighbours from Hong Kong and London don't describe their former homes as "great cities". They describe them as expensive hellholes they dreamed of leaving from the time they were children.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

No. This is your reoccuring error at large and based on your continuous assumption that you've somehow labelled me correctly. I'm an "urbanist" or argue for "urbanism" ...

Not playing, thank you.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Not all though:

I'm talking about human salaries for the bureaucracy and public services, not storm water ponds or whether or not the police are driving or walking.

But school bus routes... now that is an interesting subject. Transit planning when you have the home address and schedule of each rider. Bliss. Not much waste there.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Riise

The important connection eh?

It should be noted that reducing the operating costs would help lower the necessary tax burden.

Squeeze the balloon however you like. Where do you think the finances would be with a couple extra east village sized endeavors?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by kw5150

It sounds like he has never actually walked anywhere in kensington.

You might be surprised. I'm in Kensington at least two or three times a week and I walk there door to door.

[kw5150]

Isnt that what everyone says about their own city? And that is also what people say about Phoenix as well. If it weren't for the weather there, no one would want to live in that sprawl. It the end, everything will even out. It always does.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Any that is where it gets subjective, my neighbours from Hong Kong and London don't describe their former homes as "great cities". They describe them as expensive hellholes they dreamed of leaving from the time they were children.

[patm]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Isnt that what everyone says about their own city? And that is also what people say about Phoenix as well. If it weren't for the weather there, no one would want to live in that sprawl. It the end, everything will even out. It always does.

You seem to forget that a lot of people perfer sprawl and want to be far from their neighbours. Especially with telecommuting, shorter work weeks and improvements to fuel economy.

You're right. I can't wait until the end of MFH

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

You are the exact opposite of Suburbia in that your posts are urbanism or bust.

We might seem to be at the opposite ends of the spectrum, but I've always been for a more balanced approach, mid-density centres mainly being ToDs surrounding a vibrant core. Somewhat of a Nenshi smart solutions type instead of "my extreme is the only answer" type. I like the tall buildings with the best of them, and appreciate urban architecture, thoughtful preservation of buildings and historical purposes, etcetera. I've even spoke about some things that can happen in the inner city to get more families out there, such as more 3 bedroom units, etc. KW is anti-anything outside of the core, and some of his posts are really off the rocker IMHO. At least you can debate with me. My biggest error was selecting the "suburbia" handle, which probably doesn't exactly reflect what I'm about. All those folks who talk vinyl as a regular taunt really have little clue.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Squeeze the balloon however you like. Where do you think the finances would be with a couple extra east village sized endeavors?

Considering I'm not a fan of TIF, not where I'd like it to be.

[kw5150]

Im not against "anything outside of the core". I will probably move out of the core one day so I can have a backyard, but it will be in a smart development with good transit, a sense of community and some density. A neighborhood I really like is the Tuxedo / Pleasant heights area around SAIT. Another section I wouldnt mind is anywhere along the new west LRT including Aspen hills, which is actually well done. I just wish more developments incorporated a "Main Street" feel into the middle of the community. It seems like that whole ring around the inner city (Marda Loop, Capitol hill, Brentwood, etc etc) have intensifying main streets which is really nice to see. The biggest thing for me is not worrying about an accident or bad weather and being stuck in traffic for 3 hours.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Isnt that what everyone says about their own city? And that is also what people say about Phoenix as well. If it weren't for the weather there, no one would want to live in that sprawl. It the end, everything will even out. It always does.

Well, in the case of the couple from London, their frustration was despite having a combined income the equivalent of $200,000 Canadian they were sick of their austere lifestyle in London. Their combined income in Calgary is lower but they say that for the first time in their lives they're living comfortably. The only thing they say their miss about the UK is the cheap airfares to just about anywhere in Europe. Shortly after getting settled in they decided they would go to San Diego for the weekend and couldn't believe it would cost $1200 just for airfare.

I'm sure the lifestyle they considered hell would be considered the height of urban life by some here. It is all subjective.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Im not against "anything outside of the core". I will probably move out of the core one day so I can have a backyard, but it will be in a smart development with good transit, a sense of community and some density. A neighborhood I really like is the Tuxedo / Pleasant heights area around SAIT. Another section I wouldnt mind is anywhere along the new west LRT including Aspen hills, which is actually well done. I just wish more developments incorporated a "Main Street" feel into the middle of the community. It seems like that whole ring around the inner city (Marda Loop, Capitol hill, Brentwood, etc etc) have intensifying main streets which is really nice to see. The biggest thing for me is not worrying about an accident or bad weather and being stuck in traffic for 3 hours.

That actually sounds reasonable, and is not far from my line of thinking either.

I don't think I've ever been stuck for 3 hours in traffic, though there is the deep south and then the people who commute from districts outside the City of Calgary. I've still never gotten that.

Anyway, enough about you and I. I'll revert to hibernation before someone jumps on me for something that I haven't done.

[kw5150]

In an accident or snow storm, traffic can be hell. It is a big part of my life to avoid rush hour or be removed from it altogether.

Peace.

Originally Posted by suburbia

That actually sounds reasonable, and is not far from my line of thinking either.

I don't think I've ever been stuck for 3 hours in traffic, though there is the deep south and then the people who commute from districts outside the City of Calgary. I've still never gotten that.

Anyway, enough about you and I. I'll revert to hibernation before someone jumps on me for something that I haven't done.

[RyLucky]

What I liked about life in the burbs was lots of parks and bikepaths. Having a back yard and a garage was nice. Now I have to carry my bike down the stairwell of my apartments, and there aren't as many separated paths in the inner city as there are in the suburbs. That may be changing... Go 7th St, 8th St, 13th Ave, & Riverwalk!

In terms of social life, public transportation, time spent commuting, and food/entertainment, the suburbs don't hold a candle to the inner city. We all know that. That said, every community is a bit different, and everybody has different tastes.

[kw5150]

What I liked about the suburbs was the backyard and quiet-ness. I also liked walks to the corner store and all of the nice yards and privacy.