Edmonton Construction 12 (December 2013)

[Landlocked]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Westmount mid-rises



http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/cache/2/d20m2lhiecgeeunnxfpc2j3m/34983508112014084908397.PDF

It looks like it's meant to appeal to the Minecraft Generation.

[ScottieA]

^ If the elevators are powered by redstone, then yes.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Infill roadmap

http://edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/Infill_Roadmap.pdf

City hall expects $3B bill for new Edmonton neighbourhoods, makes plans for more infill housing


BY ELISE STOLTE, EDMONTON JOURNAL

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmo...onton+infill+housing/10097588/story.html

not to argue the arithmetic but sometimes the math gets lost by focusing just on the arithmetic...

yes, the city may have a 3 billion dollar bill for those new neighborhoods. but assuming those new neighborhoods represent approximately 100,000 lots, that represents about 350,000,000 in residential property taxes. as it stands presently, commercial taxes represent approximately 2.5 times those recovered from residential property so it would appear that the city could expect to receive another 875,000,000 per annum in commercial property taxes from the employers and providers of those new residents for a total of 1,225,000,000 per annum in new tax revenue. in perpetuity. at just over 40% per annum, that's a pretty good return on that 3 billion dollar infrastructure investment. even deducting the education tax component from the above math still leaves a pretty enviable return.


this isn't intended to be a detailed financial analysis, i'm just pointing out that totaling up your expenses without paying attention to the resulting impact on income isn't a very good financial analysis to determine whether or not to make an investment.

[Black Star]

Well said......

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by cdnklc

not to argue the arithmetic but sometimes the math gets lost by focusing just on the arithmetic...

yes, the city may have a 3 billion dollar bill for those new neighborhoods. but assuming those new neighborhoods represent approximately 100,000 lots, that represents about 350,000,000 in residential property taxes. as it stands presently, commercial taxes represent approximately 2.5 times those recovered from residential property so it would appear that the city could expect to receive another 875,000,000 per annum in commercial property taxes from the employers and providers of those new residents for a total of 1,225,000,000 per annum in new tax revenue. in perpetuity. at just over 40% per annum, that's a pretty good return on that 3 billion dollar infrastructure investment. even deducting the education tax component from the above math still leaves a pretty enviable return.


this isn't intended to be a detailed financial analysis, i'm just pointing out that totaling up your expenses without paying attention to the resulting impact on income isn't a very good financial analysis to determine whether or not to make an investment.

Doesn't the city have recreation levies (in addition to road/water etc) to pay for rec centers and libraries in new neighborhoods?

All of my projects are in surrounding municipalities so I'm not to familiar with the specifics of how the COE operates.

The more you know about suburban development the more you realize that it isn't the boogeyman some people claim it is.

[ScottieA]

I live in a new neighbourhood. We also pay a fee on our taxes meant to go towards improvements in established neighbourhoods. So it's not like we aren't chipping in to help the older areas of the city..

[feepa]

Edmonton's new suburbs are not the problem. I think they for the most part are built with a great mix of zoning, so its not all secular, and also with much more density than prior iterations of suburban planning. Today, it's the mature areas that provide the most challenge to edmonton to provide increased density, with many of these people that live in these mature neighbourhoods that outright refuse to allow any sort of change to occur.

[Albicaulis]

Originally Posted by feepa

Edmonton's new suburbs are not the problem. I think they for the most part are built with a great mix of zoning, so its not all secular, and also with much more density than prior iterations of suburban planning. Today, it's the mature areas that provide the most challenge to edmonton to provide increased density, with many of these people that live in these mature neighbourhoods that outright refuse to allow any sort of change to occur.

I live in one of the new suburbs in Edmonton and can safely say there is no mix of zoning. Monoculture of housing, and housing forms (single detached, semi-detached, townhouse, condo) are generally segregated into blocks. Commercial is often built in proximity to the neighbourhoods (along arterials), but is generally not walkable for 75% of the neighbourhood.

In addition, commercial business is not a viable option within the neighbourhoods because the road networks are not conducive.

[rapid_business]

Originally Posted by Albicaulis

I live in one of the new suburbs in Edmonton and can safely say there is no mix of zoning. Monoculture of housing, and housing forms (single detached, semi-detached, townhouse, condo) are generally segregated into blocks. Commercial is often built in proximity to the neighbourhoods (along arterials), but is generally not walkable for 75% of the neighbourhood.

In addition, commercial business is not a viable option within the neighbourhoods because the road networks are not conducive.

Exactly. We may have greater density in new neighbourhoods, but they are anything but walkable (aside from a recreational perspective). So density + the need to drive everywhere = traffic pressures far greater than you see in slightly older neighbourhoods.

Work still needs to be done to refine the design and integration of new neighbourhoods IMO.

[Xelebes]

In that respect, I have noticed Millwoods is certainly improving. Smaller grocers are appearing in the neighbourhood strip mall allowing one to walk to them instead of walking and walking and walking to MWTC.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by rapid_business

Exactly. We may have greater density in new neighbourhoods, but they are anything but walkable (aside from a recreational perspective). So density + the need to drive everywhere = traffic pressures far greater than you see in slightly older neighbourhoods.

Work still needs to be done to refine the design and integration of new neighbourhoods IMO.

Bingo.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by rapid_business

Exactly. We may have greater density in new neighbourhoods, but they are anything but walkable (aside from a recreational perspective). So density + the need to drive everywhere = traffic pressures far greater than you see in slightly older neighbourhoods.

Work still needs to be done to refine the design and integration of new neighbourhoods IMO.

This. Bingo.

[Albicaulis]

^
You guys are cute

[ScottieA]

Okay, now I know what they've been doing with the hoarding at Mayfair. They've been prepping it so that they can attach ads for Century Park's new phase on them. Sorry for the picture quality, my cell phone camera has been acting up recently. That's Central Tower and Time Square on the 108 St side.


Mayfair Construction 4 by ScottieA_1982, on Flickr

[GreenSPACE]

I have a friend that is a senior economist with the City. Residential lots do not make money for the City. Industrial does. Because of the all the road infrastructure, required rec centres, police and fire stations, etc there is no way new suburbs are paying for themselves. Nice try though.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by rapid_business

Exactly. We may have greater density in new neighbourhoods, but they are anything but walkable (aside from a recreational perspective). So density + the need to drive everywhere = traffic pressures far greater than you see in slightly older neighbourhoods.

Work still needs to be done to refine the design and integration of new neighbourhoods IMO.

My home in the dreaded low density 60's neighborhood of Goldbar is still remarkably walkable.. I walk to the grocery store, transit access is great, and with a little bit of a longer stroll (<15 mins)I can walk to coffee shops, liquor stores, bars, pharmacies and restaurants. Even a fresh produce store now.

The in-laws whom we bought the house off were horrified when they read my contribution to Stolte's article. They are shocked that someone would want to take one of those huge 60x150 lots and subdivide it. Generational thing I believe. While the old, old neighborhoods like Parkdale seems to have embraced infill for the most part, these newer mature suburbs are going to be a fight with longstanding residents

[Kevin_foster]

Let's see what Blatchford brings as far as a healthy commercial/residential mix and walkability.

Also (unfortunately), don't under estimate the extreme love of local power centers. People move into areas because it's "within a 5 minute drive of save on foods!".

That said, my neighborhood got a whole lot more awesome with the holes redevelopment. I will be within a 4 minute walk of good food, coffee, drinks and fare.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by GreenSPACE

I have a friend that is a senior economist with the City. Residential lots do not make money for the City. Industrial does. Because of the all the road infrastructure, required rec centres, police and fire stations, etc there is no way new suburbs are paying for themselves. Nice try though.

you need to reread what i posted...

i didn't say new suburbs would pay for themselves. i said that new suburbs plus the additional commercial tax revenue that comes hand in hand with what the new residents that move there would pay in their taxes. it's a simple assumption that the city's commercial tax base would increase proportionately with the increased residential tax base.

commercial tax revenue in the city of edmonton pays roughly 2.5 times what residential tax revenue generates and my post recognized that. and my point is simply that that ratio is no higher for suburban development than it is for existing residential neighborhoods. that is a reflection of city of edmonton tax policy, not a reflection of the cost of services.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Even a fresh produce store now.

I'm so happy H&W opened by Capilano. And though I'm disappointed Capilano mall went the way of Yet Another Strip Mall, I'm also happy a pet store opened up there; this end of the city was sorely lacking one.

[240glt]

H&W is a great addition, and I am really happy that Petland moved in as well. The two spoiled rotten dogs are very grateful. The dollarama is a good addition as well.. Hope we see at least a few more good stores in there.. Still quite a few CRU's to fill up.

I am not crazy about the strip mall, but at least now there's some stores that I'd go to, unlike the dying mall. Still think that at some point this whole site could be redeveloped in the same way Brentwood area has been in Burnaby.. But i don't think the demand is there now.