Calgary Public Transit II

[suburbia]

Great posts and discussion.

Originally Posted by MasterG

This way of thinking always seems to forget that homes are 2 - 3x more expensive than 1982 as a measure of average income. So even if I wanted to live like my parent's generation, all evidence points to it being much more costly and difficult.

While true, we need to be completely eyes open as to why this is the case. The biggest contributor to price inflation by far is densification. The irony is, most of the people who point out that homes are 2-3x more expensive than 1982 when normalized to income, lose sight of the fact that it is because the planners have responded to the densification lobby, put forth by the same complainers. The second reason for increases, beyond desification which has made land so much more expensive, are the wages demanded by trades. Swinging a hammer nets more than curing cancer in cases, and the trades and associated unions have not budged an inch when economy slows down or contracts. Still, this is outweighed by densification by far.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Great posts and discussion.



While true, we need to be completely eyes open as to why this is the case. The biggest contributor to price inflation by far is densification. The irony is, most of the people who point out that homes are 2-3x more expensive than 1982 when normalized to income, lose sight of the fact that it is because the planners have responded to the densification lobby, put forth by the same complainers. The second reason for increases, beyond desification which has made land so much more expensive, are the wages demanded by trades. Swinging a hammer nets more than curing cancer in cases, and the trades and associated unions have not budged an inch when economy slows down or contracts. Still, this is outweighed by densification by far.

Your argument is entirely backwards. Densification being the cause of high housing prices makes no sense. If it were the problem we wouldn't have seen the sharp increase in prices until after we stopped having greenfield communities absorb more than 100% of our growth which only occured after 2010.



Other factors are at play like increases in square footage of single detached home for one.

[Ferreth]

Could high house prices have something to do with historically low interest rates?

Seriously, my advise to young people in Calgary is to live in the cheapest rental they can stomach for now and wait to buy until the inevitable price crash comes. Vancouver is the worst - that will be where the bubble bursts and takes the rest of the country down with it.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by andasen

Your argument is entirely backwards. Densification being the cause of high housing prices makes no sense.

The more density, the higher the price per square foot of land. Pretty simple actually. See where it is most expensive to get a comparable home on a set sized lot.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

Could high house prices have something to do with historically low interest rates?

Interest rates going lower follows downtrends in the economy, such as to maintain prices, not the other way around. Interest rates have been lower the last six months than 18 months ago, yet prices are lower. The causal relationship you've drawn is incorrect.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The more density, the higher the price per square foot of land. Pretty simple actually. See where it is most expensive to get a comparable home on a set sized lot.

Yes it is simple, but to say densification is the cause of high housing prices rather than a symptom is misleading.

In fairness, it is probably true that allowing uncontrolled suburban sprawl to happen may result in lower average housing costs, but there will be indirect costs as a result of this due to the need for more, less efficient infrastructure.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yes it is simple, but to say densification is the cause of high housing prices rather than a symptom is misleading.

It's also off-topic.

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Interest rates going lower follows downtrends in the economy, such as to maintain prices, not the other way around. Interest rates have been lower the last six months than 18 months ago, yet prices are lower. The causal relationship you've drawn is incorrect.

One point in time in one city is no way to analyze a relationship. House prices are strongly correlated with two things: affordability (ie relation to mean incomes) and interest rates. In Calgary right now affordability is collapsing as the oil industry contracts, hence prices are falling while interest rates are relatively stable. Should interest rates start to rise, we are likely to see another leg down.
Bottom line is people will end up paying for the "biggest best" property they can afford, what they can afford is set by mortgage rates and their salary.
Now Vancouver is completely disconnected from local economic factors, and is driven by geopolitical factors that will eventually change - and more wealth will vanish in a blink of an eye than you can imagine.

[lineman]

Holy thread derail.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by lineman

Holy thread derail.

Agreed. I should not have responded to MasterG's bait (IE his discussion RyLucky about house prices).

Let's get back to talking public transit.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Agreed. I should not have responded to MasterG's bait (IE his discussion RyLucky about house prices).

Let's get back to talking public transit.

Don't really think it's bait, it was relevant comment as part of a broader discussion. It was your choice to derail, you could have easily focused on the majority of my post regarding accessibility of transit and car-dependency of the older suburbs which is very much on point.

[RyLucky]

I'm not sure it's FARE to say our TRAIN of discussion on PUBLIC TRANSIT was deRAILed, but if you'd like to STOP and TRANSPORT it back on TRACK RIGHT-OF-WAY, it would be a TRAMendous help. HOVewer, I feel we made HEADWAY in this BUSiness about PUBLIC consulSTATION. It's interesting to see what DRIVEs PASSionate discussion, and I think you have to TICKET when you can get it. Then again, sometimes going off ROUTE bugs METRO me too.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I'm not sure it's FARE to say our TRAIN of discussion on PUBLIC TRANSIT was deRAILed, but if you'd like to STOP and TRANSPORT it back on TRACK RIGHT-OF-WAY, it would be a TRAMendous help. HOVewer, I feel we made HEADWAY in this BUSiness about PUBLIC consulSTATION. It's interesting to see what DRIVEs PASSionate discussion, and I think you have to TICKET when you can get it. Then again, sometimes going off ROUTE bugs METRO me too.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The more density, the higher the price per square foot of land. Pretty simple actually. See where it is most expensive to get a comparable home on a set sized lot.

You're right except I think it's the other way around: density is a response to demand, not the driver of it. It might depend whether you mean "density" = the population that desires to live and work in a given area; or "density" = the
population that lives and works in a given area. I tend to think of it as the latter.

Price = demand/supply ~ish, and when a lot costs $8M, the only sensible thing to do sometimes is invest $40M in construction, and sell 200 condo units for $0.5M each (totally pulling these numbers out of my ass but you get the point).

That's the simple version, but in real life there are a lot of externalities and a place that's good for a SFH might not be good for an apartment &vv. For instance, would you want a train or busy road right out your front door? No. But you might not mind it 20 stories up. Maybe you could even find a tenant for the main floor who actually LIKES busy roads, the way some businesses might. There's not a neighbourhood in Calgary that doesn't have room for more people and businesses, and when the density increases, it's not causing property values to rise, it's because of it.

Asterisk: Does density have an effect on property value. Yes, of course it does. Is the effect the same for every use? No, of course it isn't. Ideally, when more condos go into a neighbourhood, they bring with them more retail, better services, and maybe they improve that dead corner that has been a dusty parking lot without sidewalks. If all goes well, this new development will increase the value of the rest of the neighbourhood. BUT, unfortunately, as much as I wish it weren't the case, I think historically, with poor planning, there are plenty of examples of increasing density that had a negative effect on property values of SFHs. Mid-century Eau Claire is a good example where there was inflexible zoning, perceived crime, racist perceptions of China town and FN, increased hegemony of other neighbourhoods on its land use, decreasing nighttime population. Maybe this is actually an example of the effect of decreased density in that case...

Anyway, I think property value affects density, and density might affect property value in different ways. What really matters to city building is the public efficiency to tax and service communities with transit, safety, education, health, and things that make us happy. It's a lot easier to sustain achievement of this goal in a relatively-dense (by Calgary standards), diverse neighbourhood with limited barriers (simple, elemental zoning rules; inclusive social attitudes; accessibility) and more choice (multimodal networks; housing/employment/service options).

Or, we could just subsidize sprawl and pass a gargantuan debt of inefficiencies and social problems to another generation while the cost of living increases and quality of life plateaus.

[MalcolmTucker]

Also important to remember a lot of the SFH zoning and neighbourhood amenities that came with that were based on much larger household sizes. So moving from Strathcona (6-8 units per acre) to the newest south lake communities (12-14+ units per acre) you don't end up with a commensurate growth in population, even if it may seem like it because more people are adults. If has a copy of the Calgary Project they can grab more useful stats on neighbourhood evolution.

This household shrinking continues more slowly today:

Between 2001 and 2031, household size is expected to decrease from 2.6 persons per household to 2.4 persons per household. Household composition is also expected to change over this period, with single and dual-parent families contributing to a decreasing proportion of households (Merrill Cooper, 2006).

[Socguy]

Gian-Carlo Carra wants administration to look at adding more stations along Red Line. More stops equals more TOD nodes. I'm torn on the idea. More nodes would be nice, but more stops would tick me off.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/201...r-pitches-red-line-transit-stations.html

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by Socguy

Gian-Carlo Carra wants administration to look at adding more stations along Red Line. More stops equals more TOD nodes. I'm torn on the idea. More nodes would be nice, but more stops would tick me off.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/201...r-pitches-red-line-transit-stations.html

Interesting that the Councillor says he's looking to bolster ridership on the Red Line, which is already the busiest line on the system (particularly the south leg).

Also interesting that Enmax is looking for an LRT station or 'direct' bus route from the nearest station - the route 81 already drives right past the Enmax building from Chinook station, using one of the most direct routes possible. And the Route 10 also goes within a block and a half on the Enmax building from both 39th Avenue and Chinook stations. If Enmax employees really wanted this service, they'd be riding already.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Socguy

Gian-Carlo Carra wants administration to look at adding more stations along Red Line. More stops equals more TOD nodes. I'm torn on the idea. More nodes would be nice, but more stops would tick me off.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/201...r-pitches-red-line-transit-stations.html

I think we should focus on building out the dozens of TOD nodes we currently have available (see every single park and ride lot for example) before we need to think about adding new ones.....

[Riise]

Originally Posted by CTrainDude

Interesting that the Councillor says he's looking to bolster ridership on the Red Line, which is already the busiest line on the system (particularly the south leg).

Also interesting that Enmax is looking for an LRT station or 'direct' bus route from the nearest station - the route 81 already drives right past the Enmax building from Chinook station, using one of the most direct routes possible. And the Route 10 also goes within a block and a half on the Enmax building from both 39th Avenue and Chinook stations. If Enmax employees really wanted this service, they'd be riding already.

If it were more residential TOD on the north branch of the Red Line, I could see it using any excess commuter capacity the north branch receives due to the higher capacity needed for the south branch of the line. If it were more office TOD toward the end of the south branch of the Red Line, I could see it promoting reverse ridership on the south branch and using any excess commuting capacity on the north branch.

With Enmax looking to consolidate employees at its office, I can see the arrival of additional captive riders helping the case for increased frequency. In turn, this could make the service more attractive to choice riders. It could be the start of a virtuous circle.

[McMurph]

Northland Mall and 50th Ave S seem like obvious candidates for new stations. Someday it would be nice to see that sort of intensification of transit in addition to the inevitable (and much more expensive) line extensions.