Regina Construction III - Page 470

skphc08 · #**9381** Posted **Jun 12, 2019, 1:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Walker

Developers pay for everything in new neighborhoods.

As they rightfully should.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Walker

So when people say that new growth is subsidized by the rest of the city, this is completely false.

New suburban growth is most certainly subsidized by existing city. This is a fact.

If a new unit [house or entire area] of residential does not pay enough taxes to cover the current and future costs [financial and otherwise] of maintaining that unit, the net effect is that tax dollars from more efficient units are paying those costs. This is the definition of a subsidy.

J-Walker · #**9382** Posted **Jun 12, 2019, 4:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skphc08

As they rightfully should.

New suburban growth is most certainly subsidized by existing city. This is a fact.

If a new unit [house or entire area] of residential does not pay enough taxes to cover the current and future costs [financial and otherwise] of maintaining that unit, the net effect is that tax dollars from more efficient units are paying those costs. This is the definition of a subsidy.

No, it's not a fact. It's just something you are saying that's partially correct, but also partially wrong. Why? Because ALL residential development in Regina (new or old) is subsidized.

1) Non residential development pays a disproportionate amount of the city's total tax bill. For example, the downtown pays almost 10 - 15 times the amount of taxes per acre than any residential neighbourhood. This means even existing residential neighbourhoods (with the exception of the transition area) are highly subsidized. The reality is that the new growth areas are far more dense than many of the older neighbourhoods like Cathedral and actually pay more in taxes per acre.

2) The city is running a massive unfunded infrastructure liability. And any time a city does this it means all taxpayers of the present are being subsidized at the expense of future taxpayers.

So basically, it's not as simple as what you stated. I can get on board with the fact that new developments are car-oriented nightmares. I can get on board with the fact that non-drivers subsidize drivers in far too many ways economically. I can get on board with recognizing that this City Council tends to prioritize drivers and cars over people and places. But I can't get on board with saying existing areas like Whitmore Park (where the roads are lined with small single-family houses sitting on 70 foot wide lots with on-street parking on both sides of the street) are somehow subsidizing new areas like harbour landing. And the reason I can't get on board with saying that is simply because it's not true.

skphc08 · #**9383** Posted **Jun 12, 2019, 6:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Walker

Because ALL residential development in Regina (new or old) is subsidized.

Nobody is talking about how non-residential development subsidizes residential development. This is irrelevant in this particular discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Walker

The reality is that the new growth areas are far more dense than many of the older neighbourhoods like Cathedral and actually pay more in taxes per acre.

There is nothing absolutely dense about any new suburban development in this city. Yours is a relative comparison and is distracting from the crux of the discussion. All suburban greenfield are absolutely low density.

Most of the rest of what you said I agree with. However, you seem to be preoccupied with semantics. I think the crux of this discussion is that if a city is growing at its periphery via development that is a lower density than existing areas, it will require a disproportionately high amount of tax dollars to service it. I think most people can agree on this.

What we certainly cannot agree on is politics and what the role of government or free market should be. And that is to be expected.

jigglysquishy · #**9384** Posted **Jun 12, 2019, 1:41 PM**

Harbour Landing is actually the second or third most dense neighbourhood in the city. Transition is easily first. Cathedral can be second depending how you define its borders (particularly when it comes to park space). Then HL.

Whitmore Park is arguably the sprawliest neighborhood in the city.

StealthGirl · #**9385** Posted **Jun 12, 2019, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Harbour Landing is actually the second or third most dense neighbourhood in the city. Transition is easily first. Cathedral can be second depending how you define its borders (particularly when it comes to park space). Then HL.

Whitmore Park is arguably the sprawliest neighborhood in the city.

At least in Whitmore Park you can walk to services and there are schools. The Creeks has no school and you have to go to Greens for any kind of services.

Stormer · #**9386** Posted **Jun 12, 2019, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StealthGirl

At least in Whitmore Park you can walk to services and there are schools. The Creeks has no school and you have to go to Greens for any kind of services.

All of Wascana View and The Creeks has no schools or services. I don't think it even has transit.

cityboy · #**9387** Posted **Jun 12, 2019, 9:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormer

All of Wascana View and The Creeks has no schools or services. I don't think it even has transit.

The 22 University Express cuts through the Creeks and Wascana View to pick up U of R and Campbell kids but that's it and only in the morning/afternoon. The Greens/Towns is serviced with the 22 and 60. Not great but could be worse and the hub at Sandra Schmirler is arguably within walking distance. Transit for the Greens and The Towns will improve further as the neighborhood expands towards Costco. I recently moved to the Southern edge of the Towns and the area is surprisingly walkable.

cityboy · #**9388** Posted **Jun 13, 2019, 2:52 PM**

Slightly off topic but I'm curious if anyone has any podcasts on planning/design/urbanism/cities that they would recommend? I have listened to former Toronto Chief Planner Jennifer Keesmaat's Invisible City, Citylab, Slate Magazine's Placemakers and one called Third Wave Urbanism. All are good in different ways.

yveseluj · #**9389** Posted **Jun 13, 2019, 4:16 PM**

99% Invisible isn't an urban planning podcast, though they have several episodes on the subject.

cityboy · #**9390** Posted **Jun 13, 2019, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yveseluj

99% Invisible isn't an urban planning podcast, though they have several episodes on the subject.

Wow, that looks really cool. Kind of design and architecture meets Malcolm Gladwell. Thanks, I'll check it out.

CoR East · #**9391** Posted **Jun 13, 2019, 6:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Even more so than Uplands? There are far more multifamily units in Whitmore Park, in my estimate.

City of regina open data site has the following maps relevant to this discussion

http://open.regina.ca/dataset/non-taxabl...rce/18298185-e2b5-41b6-9c9e-f7b38b683abe

http://open.regina.ca/dataset/municipal-...rce/77388404-ba93-49cc-9cef-b1c66a4ea968

Downtown parts of cathedral and parts of Heritage return the most tax revenue per hectare back to the city with the lowest amounts of open space. Whitmore park is low especially for a wealthier part of the city that includes some pretty high value commercial along Albert Street and a chunk of medium density by the University. Hard to tell how the new suburbs will contribute as the data includes undeveloped lands which skews values lower.

CoR East · #**9392** Posted **Jun 14, 2019, 3:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoR East

City of regina open data site has the following maps relevant to this discussion

http://open.regina.ca/dataset/non-taxabl...rce/18298185-e2b5-41b6-9c9e-f7b38b683abe

http://open.regina.ca/dataset/municipal-...rce/77388404-ba93-49cc-9cef-b1c66a4ea968

Downtown parts of cathedral and parts of Heritage return the most tax revenue per hectare back to the city with the lowest amounts of open space. Whitmore park is low especially for a wealthier part of the city that includes some pretty high value commercial along Albert Street and a chunk of medium density by the University. Hard to tell how the new suburbs will contribute as the data includes undeveloped lands which skews values lower.

And centre square too of course

UPP · #**9393** Posted **Jun 14, 2019, 8:09 PM**

this may have been posted but, what's going on with the Leaderpost building on Park Street/Vic? It's getting redeveloped, is there something going in there?

ceedub1170 · #**9394** Posted **Jun 15, 2019, 7:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPP

this may have been posted but, what's going on with the Leaderpost building on Park Street/Vic? It's getting redeveloped, is there something going in there?

Mini golf and aerial park

blacktrojan3921 · #**9395** Posted **Jun 17, 2019, 7:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Cooperstown is also the last "easy" suburban land to be developed. Anything new will have to deal with immense traffic problems, nine figure servicing concerns, and swamp land.

Swampland? There's swampland in the surrounding areas of the city?

Tyler19944 · #**9396** Posted **Jun 17, 2019, 3:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921

Swampland? There's swampland in the surrounding areas of the city?

I believe to the south of the city it isn't really suitable for residential development (don't quote me though)

Draftsman · #**9397** Posted **Jun 17, 2019, 3:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler19944

I believe to the south of the city it isn't really suitable for residential development (don't quote me though)

You're correct. The City hasn't expanded south of the Trans-Canada bypass that runs along the southern edge of Whitmore Park. My parents built their house on Marsh Crescent in the late 50's. The street name says it all. Before the cloverleaf was built at Trans-Canada and No. 6 highways, my brothers and I would go down there to catch frogs. Not much of a swamp now that we get very little precipitation, but it is low land (south of the bypass) and is prone to flooding. This is why so many homes and roads in Whitmore Park have structural problems.

jigglysquishy · #**9398** Posted **Jun 17, 2019, 3:38 PM**

The land is lower quality south of the number 1 than in Whitmore Park.

It'll eventually get developed, but it's at least 20 years away and will be expensive to raise the land.

Dan0myte · #**9399** Posted **Jun 17, 2019, 3:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

The land is lower quality south of the number 1 than in Whitmore Park.

It'll eventually get developed, but it's at least 20 years away and will be expensive to raise the land.

I think you've summed it up well. All land is developable with enough time and money, but the land south of the #1 will be EXPENSIVE to remediate. By far the worst land in the city. Probably last on the list of expansion areas in Regina. Which, if you live in the south, plays to your favour as the south will remain fairly low in population and traffic congestion for a very long time. Good quality of life down here.

Stormer · #**9400** Posted **Jun 20, 2019, 7:04 PM**

Phase I of Western's Milestone Project to start construction with 100 workers 35 km SE of Regina.

http://www.canadianminingjournal.com/new...ash-awards-milestone-phase-one-contract/