HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2009, 6:12 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
The way you can separate true believers in the free market from those who just bandy the term about is to suggest that all roads - yes, all - be privatized and that road owners would be allowed to charge road users in vehicles whatever the market could bear (pedestrians would be unencumbered, so as to maintain traditional mobility rights). The revenue from the sale/lease would be used to pay down municipal debt. New roads would be private from the outset. Collection would soon regularize into one system or another to avoid excessive administration costs. Naturally, the city would be able to collect property tax on roads as well, thereby lowering all other property taxes. And if they think that's absurd, just tell them that that's the way the railways have been forced to operate so it's not without precedent.

Anyone else figure that properties near CTrain stations and the CTrain corridor itself would suddenly become quite valuable? With an incentive to minimize the use of roads for anything, land near anything useful will become more valuable and land uses will also begin to change to both provide more useful things in more places and to better use land.

Of course a simpler solution than privatizing roads would be to toll all roads instead (putting them into the hands of a toll operator under contract), but talking about privatizing first drives home the point - we can't expect a true free market outcome in land use when we don't have a true free market in transportation.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2009, 5:49 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Just a quick calculation:

Infrastructure gap: 150 000K/hectare = approximately 60K /acre
Average units per acre = approximately 8
Infrastructure subsidy per unit = $7500

Of course, this is not a huge cost, but it adds up. Essentially we are subsidizing greenfield housing at a price of $7500/house. I wonder how much infill development is paying to subsidize this cost?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2009, 5:57 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,689
Great article, thanks for posting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2009, 6:22 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,727
I think you just blew my mind Dado.

Very interesting points, and a unique way of looking at the situation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2009, 9:03 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Great points Dado. The free market does not operate when it comes to transportation. Toll roads are just way to inefficient to operate for the whole city. Changes need to be made to make sure that market externalities are somehow internalized. I am not sure if development levies are the best way. Any other ideas?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2009, 12:50 AM
Ferreth Ferreth is offline
IMHO
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
Great points Dado. The free market does not operate when it comes to transportation. Toll roads are just way to inefficient to operate for the whole city. Changes need to be made to make sure that market externalities are somehow internalized. I am not sure if development levies are the best way. Any other ideas?
We have the technology today to make it happen - GPS in every car tracking every mile driven, wherever it might be. Charges billed to the car owner monthly. I would say that major roads only would be charged - anything internal to your neighborhood would be covered by your property taxes. Personally, I'd be all for user-pay roads, if I could trust the government to give me back the tax money they no longer would need.
__________________
---
My Flickr account
My Ratsofrass blog
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2009, 9:09 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,689
Quote:
Greetings,

Plan It Calgary goes back to City Council on Monday September 28. This is not a public hearing, but you can contact your Alderman. Administration has responded to dozens of recommended changes put forward by Council in June, and put forward a few of their own, resulting in changes and clarifications n some areas.

Many communities will be interested to learn that Airport Trail (i.e. the tunnel) has been included in the transportation plan. The river crossings at 50th Avenue SW and at Edworthy Park have been removed, although it is noted that river crossings will likely be needed in the future. Language that improves sections on community participation in local planning has been included at the Federation's urging. Definitions of density "targets" and intensity "thresholds" have been clarified - industry members have been concerned about these. A follow-up implementation plan, including an ongoing Sustainment Committee that includes stakeholders (presumably the Federation, industry and other groups...) is promised by January 2010. And there is more...

Council will debate these recommendations, and many others that have been proposed by City Council members but were not supported by the Administration, so it could be an interesting couple of days. All the documents, including summaries, red-lined versions of Plan It, and lists of
proposals that were/were not supported by Administration, are available on the City website - I have listed them below. Here is a direct link to the
Plan It documents:

http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_780_237_0_43/http;
/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City%20Hall/Business%20Units/Development%20and%20Bui
lding%20Approvals%20and%20Land%20Use%20Planning%20and%20Policy/Land%20Use%20
Planning/Plan%20It/Plan%20It.htm

If that link doesn't work, go to www.calgary.ca and look under News and
Events.

On the left side of the Plan It page you will find:

Council Report E2009-13
Attachments:
1. MDP Key Issues Summary
2. CTP Key Issues Summary
3. Administration Recommended Amendments to the MDP
4. List of Council-proposed MDP Amendments Not Recommended by Administration
5. Red-line Amendments of the MDP (as per Attachment 3)
6. Administration Recommended Amendments to the CTP
7. List of Council-proposed CTP Amendments Not Recommended by Administration
8. Red-line Amendments of the CTP (as per Attachment 6)

Note: This email has been sent to Presidents, Planning/Development/Civic
Affairs directors, Transportation/Traffic directors, and Environment
directors in our database, but feel free to share it with other board and
committee members. You may get more than one email if you're on more than
one list. Please let us know if your email is changing.

Regards,

Bob van Wegen
FCC Community Planner
244-4111 - extension 203
I'm really glad there will be a follow up implementation plan. I hope it talks about capital spending reallocation to reflect the goals of intensification and transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2009, 10:50 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster View Post
I'm really glad there will be a follow up implementation plan. I hope it talks about capital spending reallocation to reflect the goals of intensification and transit.
For me, this is the most important aspect of the document. Forget density targets for greenfield development or things like that- if you change infrastructure spending, you change development patterns, transit especially. Parks etc helps as well, but putting in public transit to support density will go a long way to change development patterns in this city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2009, 9:20 PM
bob1954 bob1954 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 869
I don't know if the $11.2 billion is correct, but it can't be too far off. It's so simple that the more things are spread out it becomes increasingly more expensive to produce this infrasructure, ect. I beleive some of these people in government and elswere should spend some time in th LA area! Plan-it, sounds to be a good plan... I just wonder how much "Flexibility" their "really" consisidering.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 4:29 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,727
CivicCamp is "tweeting" the action down at council today:

http://twitter.com/civiccampyyc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 8:08 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,727
According to Twitter updates Plan It is next up on the agenda. They got rid off all the other items first.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 9:11 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,727
The twitter feeds from City Council make it sound like things are getting ugly. Apparently a bunch of the new targets have been set after meetings with the city and the folks at the UDI and CHBA. Funny, I could have sworn that there were all of us other citizens that have a stake in this plan? You know the whole part about having to LIVE in the city that is built.

Naheed Nenshi is tweeting that the "Better Calgary Campaign" could no longer support Plan It if council allows some of these ammendments to pass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 10:26 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,727
Apparently a member in the public seating has placed a paper bag over their head to protest what is going on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 11:10 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,689
So there's a new amendment on the table for 60 rather than 70 persons/jobs per hectare for greenfield development. For sake of comparison, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Ontario) has a standard of 50 persons/jobs per hectare on greenfield lands.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 12:05 AM
ByeByeBaby's Avatar
ByeByeBaby ByeByeBaby is offline
Crunchin' the numbers.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: T2R, YYC, 403, CA-AB.
Posts: 791
So that's what, 9.7 units per acre at 2.5 people per unit. And currently we're at 7 UPA, I think. Maybe 8. But that doesn't include this really nebulous jobs criteria. What are the rules for jobs? How much floorspace equals a job? Can you count the urban reserve (i.e. 'future school') as employment?

Plus the switch from units to persons encourages larger houses presumably (you could argue a house holds 4 or 5 people, but an apartment holds 2).

Give the industry credit, though; if this passes, they've managed to make the plan weaker than current rules. Money well spent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 12:27 AM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby View Post
Give the industry credit, though; if this passes, they've managed to make the plan weaker than current rules. Money well spent.
They can pat themselves on their backs all day long for all I care. They will NEVER get a dime out of me in my lifetime.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 2:05 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,689
City OKs controversial urban design blueprint

Critic says late change 'guts' Plan It Calgary

By Kim Guttormson, Calgary HeraldSeptember 29, 2009 7:51 AM

CALGARY - After lengthy debate, city council approved its ambitious long-term planning and transportation documents Monday, detailing how Calgary will grow in the future -- from the suburbs to major roads and bridges to transit.

"It's a 60-year document," Mayor Dave Bronconnier said of the plans council backed unanimously. "They will live a long time, be refined over time."

Even last week, unanimous approval of the often-contentious proposals seemed impossible.

A last-minute amendment worked up over the weekend allayed concerns of the development industry and some aldermen around targets for how many people would be living and working per hectare in new areas.

Mike Flynn, of the Urban Development Institute, said the change will allow a better mix of single-family and multi-family homes.

But that same move led some longtime proponents of Plan It Calgary to say it makes the document worthless.

"I believe this one amendment guts that whole thing," said Naheed Nenshi, with the Better Calgary Campaign. "It's no longer worth the paper it's printed on now.

"For everything else in Plan It to work, you need that kind of density on the edges."


The revised Plan It document before council Monday called for a target of 70 people either living or working per developable hectare in new communities, a change from the original recommendation of 70 people living there.

The amendment alters that so initial plans for areas would see a minimum floor of 60, with a goal of 70 by the time it's built out.


Ald. Brian Pincott, who has been involved with the Plan It process even before he was elected to council, said it waters down the document's intent.

"We're (already)doing more than that, doing better than that," he said of the new density targets. "It's hardly, in my mind, moving forward."

Council was told some new communities are already in the range just approved, including Mahogany at 66 and Skyview at 77.

Bronconnier said Plan It still raises the current minimum from seven units per acre to nine.

"It's a new floor and there's no ceiling," he added. "It is a number, but you have to look at the fundamental foundation of the plan, which links in density, diversity of housing type, access to public transit and distance travelled, which is why it's important to link planning and transportation infrastructure."

Pincott said the overall document has a larger impact than just that one component, such as the density targets.

"What's important in the grand scheme of things is to pass a document that talks about growth in our city in total, in a different way," he said. "The important thing is to look at the entire document."

Bronconnier said Calgary will still grow smarter and reduce sprawl under the plans approved Monday.

After public hearings in June, council made almost 100 amendments to the plan, some of which were incorporated into the revised document. Those included removing a call for two specific transit bridges over the rivers and the addition of a tunnel under a future airport runway in the long-term plans.

While those items and the density number drew most of the attention, many pieces--a network of carpool lanes, quadrupling transit service, more trees, more people living close to hospitals, universities and transit stations and improved cycling routes --were embraced.

The long-term plans call for increasing the city's population density by 35 per cent and putting half of new Calgarians into existing neighbourhoods.

kguttormson@theherald. canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/City+controversial+urban+design+blueprint/2044849/story.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 3:06 PM
Riise's Avatar
Riise Riise is offline
City Maker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary | London
Posts: 3,195
At first, I wasn't that bothered with the density reduction but the more I think about it the more I don't like it. I'm moving into the school of thought that places a larger emphasis on design than density but I don't feel confident with Plan It's emphasis, or lack thereof, on design. I'm starting to think that the original density targets in the Plan would have forced developers to re-think the designs of future neighbourhoods. I'm not sure that Plan It in its approved form will be able to do so. To be honest, I'm kind of gutted.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 3:21 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,689
But if developers are already proposing 12 upa or about 75 people/hectare, how would a threshold of 70 force developers to re-think design?

Plan It should not be the venue for detailed design guidelines for subdivisions. It should (and I think does) set out the broader design principles, and empasis on links to transportation - the overeall structure of the city. It's a city-wide municipal development plan. The MDP is also not the appropriate venue for detailed design of TOD sites, corridors or centre city design - subdivisions are no different. These details are rightly deferred to area plans. What's really needed for subdivisions is a better detailed set of design guidelines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 3:40 PM
Riise's Avatar
Riise Riise is offline
City Maker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary | London
Posts: 3,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster View Post
But if developers are already proposing 12 upa or about 75 people/hectare, how would a threshold of 70 force developers to re-think design?

[...]

These details are rightly deferred to area plans. What's really needed for subdivisions is a better detailed set of design guidelines.
That's a good point. I guess I'm in favour of an even high threshold because I'm not confident that these densities (new and old) will force developers to re-think design. Additionally, I do have some reservations with the communities that are being built at 12upa.

Design guidelines are a must and I want something to be done, not just talked about being done. That is what leads to my lack of faith in the design portion of Plan It. How many times have we heard the City say that they should do something that will contribute to the sustainability of Calgary yet it is never done?
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:02 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.