Is Ottawa the City that Fun Forgot?

[DEWLine]

That would indeed be a public good. Let's be clear that we're doing this for all our sakes. It's not charity, it's practicality.

[McDonald's Racoon]

Originally Posted by silvergate

I guess it all depends on your definition of fun, but many "fun" places around the world are hubs for arts and culture.

I think Ottawa actually has a pretty solid foundation to turn into a fun city. Government jobs + the professional services jobs that inevitably follow mean we have a lot of people with disposable income.
What we have in limited quantities is good places to spend that money, and more and more it's going into housing.
The housing market in Canada is punishing. Home prices and rents are high in most major cities now. This reduces people's ability to take risks. The risk takers - entrepreneurs, artists, musicians, are the people who could bring the fun.

How do we solve it? Well if the root of the problem is unaffordable housing, then the fix is cheaper housing. We've already seen the private sector fail at this. The only group that could build affordable housing at scale is government. Public housing available to all, a true safety net, is one way we can encourage risk takers to do their thing.

If the feds wanted to try their hand at public housing again, or at least contribute, I think Tunney's presents a wonderful opportunity to mix public and private housing developments.

Very well put, I never thought about it like that.

[Nowhere]

People love to claim that building subsidized housing for the poor is too expensive and yet, we've spent endless amounts of money building subsidized housing for the rich since WW2. Far-flung sprawling suburbs only exist because of generous subsidies from the 3 levels of government. Sprawl doesn't pay for itself.

Quite ironic to see people living in remote corners of Leitrim or Cumberland looking down on people living in public housing without realizing that all the infrastructure, services and transit needed to serve these kinds of low density neighbourhoods have to be paid by someone.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

People love to claim that building subsidized housing for the poor is too expensive and yet, we've spent endless amounts of money building subsidized housing for the rich since WW2. Far-flung sprawling suburbs only exist because of generous subsidies from the 3 levels of government. Sprawl doesn't pay for itself.

Quite ironic to see people living in remote corners of Leitrim or Cumberland looking down on people living in public housing without realizing that all the infrastructure, services and transit needed to serve these kinds of low density neighbourhoods have to be paid by someone.

Out of curiosity, how much government money is spent developing a suburb's infrastructure, per household? Say a fully serviced new suburb?

[Nowhere]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Out of curiosity, how much government money is spent developing a suburb's infrastructure, per household? Say a fully serviced new suburb?

It's gonna depend of how far and sprawling the suburb is, but sprawl isn't profitable long term for cities. Here's a good video explaining the issue.

[mykl]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Out of curiosity, how much government money is spent developing a suburb's infrastructure, per household? Say a fully serviced new suburb?

When I started university in 2005, I learned that in Ottawa, constructing a suburban street costs about 4x as much as a street in a more urban area. I can only assume this has gotten even worse over time.

[Nowhere]

CBC just made an article about the cost of sprawl. Each year, the city looses $465 for every person living in newly built suburbs, while the city makes a profit of $606 each year for every person living in a newly built infill development.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...memo-1.6193429

EDIT. Also, this doesn't include what the provincial government spends on the 416 and the 417.

[Tesladom]

I really question the methodology of that study. Looks to me like a study that wanted a specific outcome to be true, and you set up the variables and methodology to support that outcome
While I agree that infill developments may be more cost effective, I seriously doubt that the city loses money on suburban developments.
If we look back at the old cities of Kanata, Nepean & Gloucester, they all were faring much better than Ottawa. Obviously there are a lot of factors at play here but overall we need to strike a balance between expansion and intensification. We need both for the city to grow and prosper
As a parent with 2 kids and a large dog, I do not want to live in a 26 story tower

Still no mention of the elephant in this city - that Greenbelt!!

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

I really question the methodology of that study. Looks to me like a study that wanted a specific outcome to be true, and you set up the variables and methodology to support that outcome
While I agree that infill developments may be more cost effective, I seriously doubt that the city loses money on suburban developments.
If we look back at the old cities of Kanata, Nepean & Gloucester, they all were faring much better than Ottawa. Obviously there are a lot of factors at play here but overall we need to strike a balance between expansion and intensification. We need both for the city to grow and prosper
As a parent with 2 kids and a large dog, I do not want to live in a 26 story tower

Still no mention of the elephant in this city - that Greenbelt!!

Agreed on the greenbelt - not so green.

As for the comments on Kanata, Nepean and Gloucester, what do you mean that they were doing better? If you are talking about municipal finances, you have to remember that most of the expensive services like police and transit were regional, and Ottawa bore the brunt of the region’s social services costs. In addition, almost all of the infrastructure in those places was relatively new, whereas Ottawa had much older infrastructure. As the infrastructure in the suburban areas hits end of life, that’s where the real cost escalation occurs.

[Tesladom]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

Obviously there are a lot of factors at play here

Hence why I said this

Here is how the methodology can be skewed, just one way to look at it

A similar new townhouse is available in Wateridge (let's call this an infill) and Orleans
Orleans one is a relatively "no so affordable $650k" for a your starting family and the Wateridge is a not affordable $950k. Taking the affordability question aside, if you just look at the municipal taxes, you will see that they would be around $5000 vs $7000 for each one. So from a tax perspective the same house in an infill is worth $2k more in taxes (municipal % is around 70% of that), so that's how they can say loss of $400 vs profit of $600. This is why this styudy is likely BS because the their methodology is likely questionable.
Also they don't factor at affordability.
We are now simply creating Greenbelt 2.0 pushing development to neighbouring bedroom communities like Rockland, Embrun, Limoges, Carleton Place etc... I don't blame young families for moving out there, its a question of affordability

[Nowhere]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

Hence why I said this

Here is how the methodology can be skewed, just one way to look at it

A similar new townhouse is available in Wateridge (let's call this an infill) and Orleans
Orleans one is a relatively "no so affordable $650k" for a your starting family and the Wateridge is a not affordable $950k. Taking the affordability question aside, if you just look at the municipal taxes, you will see that they would be around $5000 vs $7000 for each one. So from a tax perspective the same house in an infill is worth $2k more in taxes (municipal % is around 70% of that), so that's how they can say loss of $400 vs profit of $600. This is why this styudy is likely BS because the their methodology is likely questionable.
Also they don't factor at affordability.
We are now simply creating Greenbelt 2.0 pushing development to neighbouring bedroom communities like Rockland, Embrun, Limoges, Carleton Place etc... I don't blame young families for moving out there, its a question of affordability

It's not just how matter of how much tax revenue is generated, it's also a matter of spending. High-rises along transit stations need far less spending from the city when it comes to infrastructure, services and transit than a new neighbourhood in Cumberland would.

We need to rethink the way municipal taxes work entirely. Right now, people living in the core or along transit stations are subsidizing the construction of new far flung suburbs. People should pay a municipal tax rate that represents how expensive their neighbourhood is to the city. Those living in remote suburbs should pay more municipal taxes than people living in the core, not the other way around.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

It's not just how matter of how much tax revenue is generated, it's also a matter of spending. High-rises along transit stations need far less spending from the city when it comes to infrastructure, services and transit than a new neighbourhood in Cumberland would.

We need to rethink the way municipal taxes work entirely. Right now, people living in the core or along transit stations are subsidizing the construction of new far flung suburbs. People should pay a municipal tax rate that represents how expensive their neighbourhood is to the city. Those living in remote suburbs should pay more municipal taxes than people living in the core, not the other way around.

So a LVT?

unless you don't think that underusing the land should be costly as well...

[Tesladom]

What makes you assume that someone living in Cumberland ever needs or uses public transit? Maybe that person works from home or is retired.
I get the point that your making, but you are not 100% correct. There isn't a on size fits all solution, each solution has its pro & cons

[Ottawa Champ]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

As a parent with 2 kids and a large dog, I do not want to live in a 26 story tower

I would say there there are options in between a single home and a 26 story tower but there is not enough of those in between options being built in Ottawa.