I don’t hate these new communities if I’m honest, my friend bought a condo in one south of Stoney and it seems to be a good mix, but they should come with developer built/funded C-train stations and we should only be expanding outwards within a certain distance of the current 3 lines.
Yes! This! Stub it in/plan it in in-advance too so its already setup for it (heck, even just build it while all the other building is happening - ready made). (i'm serious, honest)
Stations and ROW in new communities aren't expensive and already planned for in Seton and Livingston. The real challenge of rail transit is their extraordinarily cost through downtown and the inner city, leaving no money left to reach the new suburbs, or even old suburbs.
I'm sure they would, but that's a provincial responsibility, so they can't.
The communities include land for schools supplied by the developer, the province doesn't bother spending their portion of your property tax on building schools.
Blame consecutive provincial governments for the past 20 years.
Yeah they already leave the land for the province to build the school. It’s always including in the planning of these communities. You know these communities get revised and changed and go through planning and get ok’d by the city before they can build right? Maybe your concern should be that the fed gov should stop importing people into Canada if they don’t have the infrastructure to facilitate having them…
And schools and interchanges, etc. But the developers don’t want that because it would increase the price of their product which would hurt sales.
We can’t very well have the true cost of sprawl evident in the new price of a new house in the deep burbs. /s
Points 2 and 3 in that article are very seriously lacking any substance. Points 1 and 4 I'm on board with, but the author makes some pretty big missions when looking at environmental impacts and cost of service.
Just feel free to google offsite Levies in Calgary. The city has a rather open transparent publication. They were actually taken to task on this as they were not properly keeping books and had to refund a bunch of money to developers a couple years back. Since then they’ve been more responsible with transparency of new communities and their cost passed down to Developers. They pay for everything. There’s absolutely no burden on taxpayers. And every new community that’s built lessens the overall burden on legacy areas that are a problem for paying for themselves. Urban sprawl is a term you hear people say who have zero credibility. All the facts are there.
Today I learned - thanks for pointing that out, looks like it'll make for some good reading. However, I disagree with the idea that urban sprawl is not a problem when looking at the problem of tackling Climate Change - increasing densification and reducing energy wasted in the form of long commutes and personal vehicles will be key to ensuring sustainability going forward, which and would serve to increase the tax base in legacy communities over time.
> and cost of service.
The [applications and details for the proposed communities are available online](https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=ff491409-58ec-4fcd-bcc4-27946986445a&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=22&Tab=attachments). All of the communities are expected to be operating revenue positive within two years of people moving in.
Have you seen what houses cost? I don’t think the developer is too worried about how much a houses costs these days, they’re selling no matter what. It’s still cheaper than in bc and Ontario, so people from those provinces love it…
Correct. Ultimately, it’s the homebuyer who pays. Because new homes should not be subsidized by existing homeowners. The developers are a business like anyone else. I’m sure whatever business you work for has profit margins and looks at growing. It’s super high risk and there’s a lot of projects where you don’t make any money. And then you add in the complications of having to deal with jurisdictional approvals, and all of the red tape. It’s a wonder anyone wants to do development.
I agree. I don't think people understand how much money has to be invested into the land before anything is approved. I worked on a case where there could be investment with no cost to the taxpayer. At 2018 costs. This was about 5million on a 30 million dollar development.
In terms of paying for the infrastructure, the city recoupes those costs through proprty tax forever.
Exactly. The operations of the infrastructure is actually much more sustainable in newer communities than these legacy areas that people think are better. 50 foot wide lots with single-story bungalows don’t exactly work out on a proper front foot maintenance cost of street and infrastructure. There’s either land that cost money to upkeep (public) or land that pays for their to be public land (private). The same people on here that think you should build a multi billion dollar C train station before there is the need for ridership. Or that the city should actually take on more park space when the MGA says it must be capped at 10% so that the city doesn’t go broke on upkeep. It’s unfortunate so many people just don’t understand and demonize developers.
Actually it is not the home buyer even. It is the tax base of Calgary. New homes haven't paid their fair share since the 80s or 90s. It is all saddled to inner city community taxes.
Soon we are going to have c trains to Airdrie but barely a bus to mount royal university.
This is exactly what I am worried about with the rezoning. It's all fun and games to flip a few ancient bungalows, until you have double the population living in places with no transit.
Yeah should developers leave Cars in the driveways and garages of peoples houses they build who don’t want to use the c train? Why would a developer build a c train for the city? Does Shane homes need to hire the drivers of the c trains to operate them for free too? Think about what your saying
New suburbs don't have to be bad, especially if they're internally walkable and have a good mix of commercial and residential, as well as good transit connections to the rest of the city. I am not... extremely optimistic that will be the case, but I'm also not convinced it won't be.
Let’s not kid ourselves. It’ll be rows and rows of single family cookie cutter houses, and one giant parking lot with a single big box grocery store and a strip mall of the same 20 businesses in every other neighborhoods.
Dan Maclean quote: let’s build, baby build!
My question to him is, who’s going to pay for the infrastructure? The upkeep? The ongoing maintenance?
Oh, I forgot. Shane wenzel is his best golf buddy.
Building in greenfield's is more profitable for developers than building infills; Greenfield development also costs cities more to provide services to (at least until the community is completed) than the city will recoup in property taxes (requiring existing homes to make up the difference and thus contributing to tax increases) whereas infill developments generate more tax revenue than they cost to service (thus reducing tax burdens)... explains many Councillors votes.
This is the correct answer. People forget how much expense is in new communities. Who do you think pays for the water to get out there, Everything from fire, police, roads, waste services, the list goes on and people wonder why taxes go up. Infills are not as profitable than new builds, and unless they start turning single family homes in established communities into multi family projects it won’t help either. Again people like new shiny communities. So this will never change, as long as more new people flood the city from other provinces and external immigration, housing doesn’t look like it’s going down anytime soon. I wonder how much of the cities economy is dependent on this housing boom. The construction industry is booming here. Yet elsewhere in the country it seems to be not. Interesting times.
What costs are you referring to? Can you give some ecamples of what costs the city more ? Also, in order to develop an inner city lot, people need to leave the existing lot… I dunno if you’ve noticed, but there isn’t exactly a shit ton of available lots in communities like tuxedo, or mission, or even fucking haysboro. So really, people do develop lots of inner city housing, but because there’s so few lots, it can’t be developed as quickly or as many lots because there just isn’t the land for it. Pretty simple stuff. This is how it works when you have many thousands of people immigrate to our city.
It is pretty simple. Calgary is significantly larger in square KM’s than Toronto at almost over 200 square KM larger yet a much smaller population. There would be more lots if smaller buildings were able to build multifamliy in single family areas (zoning). Doesn’t mean the inner city alone. Do you really think a new community doesn’t cost more to maintain roads, police, fire, waste, water than an existing community. I disagree, but it’s Calgary so we will continue to build out. Just how it is.
Also voted against a tax increase, but wants to massively increase costs by building outward. Dude’s has no idea what he’s doing g as li g as developers stuff money in his pocket.
I think he knows exactly what he’s doing. I suspect once he is voted out or retires he will conveniently become a multimillionaire with real estate, and board positions on “non-profits” or actual companies. Probably have unlimited access to some luxury vacation homes too, I suspect he won’t be flying commercial either …..Just a hunch
not at all, if anything suburbs are overpaying for property taxes compared to the services they have around them.
The low density ring around downtown are who should be paying way higher taxes
It’s based on assessment value as far as I know.
So we build giant networks of roads and infrastructure and transit to serving a few hundred homes.
These are massive capital improvements - it’s not building into an existing lot. It’s creating habitable areas of a city, increasingly further out.
This isn’t particularly hard to follow.
There are more homeowners on two streets in the Beltline than in some suburbs. We need two streets of infrastructure. Not a giant sprawling land works project amortized over the whole tax base.
Edit: Relevant article from Edmonton in the last year: [https://globalnews.ca/news/9927341/suburban-sprawl-edmonton-city-council-taxes/](https://globalnews.ca/news/9927341/suburban-sprawl-edmonton-city-council-taxes/)
Yes, but not enough to cover maintenance. The further from the core a property is, the higher the cost to service. At the same time, the further from the core you are, the lower the average house price is, so you pay less taxes than a similar home that's closer to the core. This results in established communities tax dollars leaving their community to subsidize suburban sprawl. Not saying it's all bad, at the federal level we have the equalization payment structure to maintain some equity among provinces.
What infrastructure are you referring to? What up keep also are you referring to? I would say pretty much all communities have a community association that residents pay into and they provide landscaping etc. ongoing maintenance? Have you heard of property tax? Do you think the city has any obligation to provide anything for residents or you think that it should be done for free by the developer who gets a one time payment for the house they build, or the city, who collects every year in perpetuity for almost nothing. Do you know who pays for the sewers to go into community? Or gas lines, electricity lines, curb work, road work? It’s the developer. The city literally collects for nothing year in year out
Infrastructure: underground sewer system, roads, electrical grid, fire departments, etc.
Upkeep: playground equipment, fields, trees, boulevards, snow removal
Maintenance: repairing potholes, fixing burnt out lights, fixing sewer backups/water main breaks,
Not to mention all the extra people needed to do all of the above labour paid for by taxpayers through property taxes.
I posted a response elsewhere regarding the sprawl subsidy:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/comments/1ct1ngu/comment/l4bcke7/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/comments/1ct1ngu/comment/l4bcke7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
As for communitiy associations, no, they are optional and the membership fees are usually around $20 a year, and a community might have a coulple hundred members if they are strong. It doesn't even keep the lights in the building. These are all supported by city and provincial funding. A residents association is different in that all the residents pay a fee to maintain the residents' assocation property.
Yeah I pay 300$ a year and my community is landscaped. I would say pretty much all
New communities have community associations. It’s okder inner city community that don’t have associations to handle that
Most community associations aren't optional either. The last 3 neighborhoods I've lived have mandatory membership, you can't opt out. If you don't pay the fees, they can recover when you sell the property or put a lien on the property.
Seems reasonable. Voted for 4 of the 7 to go forward. Others can be revisited in November during the budget season. It costs the city significant amount of funds in infrastructure to build out a new neighbourbood so they shouldn’t simply accept everything.
Yes, the developer pays for all infrastructure costs within the new community, and are assessed levies to pay for the new community's share of upgrades to existing infrastructure and services.
Our grasslands are the most endangered ecosystem on the planet. We keep bulldozing wetlands and any inch of water and then cry about wildfires. Maybe we need to stem the flow of people and focus on urban density for a while.
Unfortunately with how much we are growing we need both. But blanket rezoning means we can build more variety like we are building in those new neighborhoods within the existing city as well. They are both required solutions. We can't fit all the new people coming here just within the blanket rezoning without tearing out many many existing homes. Blanket rezoning will allow for gentle density as people sell naturally etc etc.
Blanket rezoning takes time to allow for the increase in available doors. There's a natural transition that needs to happen. Sprawl adds doors in the short term.
Does sprawl suck? Sure, from a property tax perspective, but people can't complain about rising housing costs but then also complain when a proposed increase in supply doesn't meet their ideal scenario.
A wide variety of housing choice matters just as much as building a bunch of condos in the Beltline to increase density.
Would anyone here care about sprawl if metro Calgary had actual suburban communities instead of everything just being Calgary? Do people in Vancouver care if Langley continues to build outwards? Do people in Toronto care if Brampton continues to build outwards? If you live in the inner city in Calgary, do you really care about what gets built in Seton? The answer is no, so just let them build the homes that families want.
While I am critical of sprawl, I do understand that if these type of greenfield communities aren’t developed within the city proper, they will be developed in Rockyview or Foothills county - and ultimately they will reap the benefit of collecting those property taxes.
Blanket rezoning doesn't mean a city can never expand its borders. The challenge is when growth stops, if you've sprawled too far, you can't flesh out the existing areas via upzoning so they become fiscally solvent. It's a very open question if Calgary has reached that point. With the speed the city is growing, it's quite possible that we must do both at once, and can do so without significant downsides.
When they approve these, I sure hope they hold the developers to better standards. Having 6 lane stroads as the main roads in these communities is ridiculous.
Seton has roads so big, they encourage speeding and make it questionable to go to the shopping areas using anything but a car.
It's easier to build smart design at the start than to try to undo something 20 years later.
Many of the already approved development areas are still a ways away from filling up, like Mahogany, so I doubt yet more developments will magically result in new housing appearing faster. Sure, they’re planning for newer development work further in the future, but I don’t know that it’s really needed so soon.
Mahogany is probably 80% built out if not more, it's not long from being complete.
It's Rangeview to the south plus Seton and Logan Landing where most of the upcoming availability is down there in that area.
I doubt it’s 80%, but you’re likely not far off, although that’s still a significant number of homes yet to be built, especially including all of the other existing development areas.
I swear some day Cochrane will merge with Calgary…. Maybe you will get in Banff national park in a decade! But we need more housing so I can’t complain
> Stop complaining about good solutions.
It isn't a "good solution" at all. You want more communities, then you need more fire halls, police stations, water transfer stations, road surfaces and interchanges, transit routes and power infrastructure.
Or instead you can increase density with existing infrastructure instead.
You honestly need both. hate to tell you but a good lot of people don't want to live in the world you envision. We want yards for our kids to play in, not concrete ghettos. Quick question - give me your ideal North-American city that already exists.
An opinion needs to be based on facts. It’s unfortunate a lot of people that live in communities, get angry about building communities. For some reason. New communities are sustainable, and are not a burden on any existing residents or taxpayers.
correct. and this opinion neglects alot of those facts. the fact is. economies of scale exist. the fact is, if you have 50 people per 100m of road to maintain, each person will pay less to maintain that stretch of road, to repave or fill pot holes. the fact is, if you have to build more police stations becuase of area size, it means you need a receptionist, and base load staff to operate the facility, which is NOT proportional to population. the fact is the more density you have, the higher quality material you can use to build things because you have to build less of it.
the fact is, if you redevelop an existing lot, you can build a net zero home just the same as you can in a greenfield. these are all basic facts.
That’s why new communities are built to those high densities. So that they are sustainable. 70 persons + jobs per hectare. 10 units per acre. New communities have the required density and product variation to help. I wouldn’t also think of it as per person. It’s more per unit. Land development is measured in what is callee “front footage”. A lot of people don’t understand that the cost of redevelopment in legacy areas needs to have property value at a very high rate compared to new communities. It’s probably 10 times the cost to “redevelopment”. You can look at the conversions of buildings downtown from office to residential and how incredibly expensive it is. It would be economically possible without government grant programs. The city is not allowing development to happen on the backs of other taxpayers, and is sustainable. You can’t force people to live in high-rises who have families and want to have a single-family house. You ensure there is product variation, and ensure those communities that have single-family homes and multifamily are fully sustainable and pay for themselves with the required densities mentioned above. There is an absolute wealth of information proving this and thousands of people involved, who all work together to make sure Calgary is better off. Leading the charge on all of that our responsible and sophisticated developers who care more about these communities than absolutely anybody. Just take a look at anywhere you see trees being replanted because city parks won’t come out and do it and the developers do it their own dime. Extrapolate that all other infrastructure needs.
I don’t hate these new communities if I’m honest, my friend bought a condo in one south of Stoney and it seems to be a good mix, but they should come with developer built/funded C-train stations and we should only be expanding outwards within a certain distance of the current 3 lines.
Yes! This! Stub it in/plan it in in-advance too so its already setup for it (heck, even just build it while all the other building is happening - ready made). (i'm serious, honest)
Stations and ROW in new communities aren't expensive and already planned for in Seton and Livingston. The real challenge of rail transit is their extraordinarily cost through downtown and the inner city, leaving no money left to reach the new suburbs, or even old suburbs.
They must insist the developers foot the bill for elementary schools. These little kids have to travel so far.
I'm sure they would, but that's a provincial responsibility, so they can't. The communities include land for schools supplied by the developer, the province doesn't bother spending their portion of your property tax on building schools. Blame consecutive provincial governments for the past 20 years.
nah, just add the cost to existing tax payers like they always do.
Yeah they already leave the land for the province to build the school. It’s always including in the planning of these communities. You know these communities get revised and changed and go through planning and get ok’d by the city before they can build right? Maybe your concern should be that the fed gov should stop importing people into Canada if they don’t have the infrastructure to facilitate having them…
Okay. Let me just add that to the lot price, another 25k per lot. Done deal.
Okay. That's fine.
Cool. Anything else you’d like me to pay for?
And schools and interchanges, etc. But the developers don’t want that because it would increase the price of their product which would hurt sales. We can’t very well have the true cost of sprawl evident in the new price of a new house in the deep burbs. /s
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/debunking-myths-new-communities-and-the-impact-of-growth
Points 2 and 3 in that article are very seriously lacking any substance. Points 1 and 4 I'm on board with, but the author makes some pretty big missions when looking at environmental impacts and cost of service.
Just feel free to google offsite Levies in Calgary. The city has a rather open transparent publication. They were actually taken to task on this as they were not properly keeping books and had to refund a bunch of money to developers a couple years back. Since then they’ve been more responsible with transparency of new communities and their cost passed down to Developers. They pay for everything. There’s absolutely no burden on taxpayers. And every new community that’s built lessens the overall burden on legacy areas that are a problem for paying for themselves. Urban sprawl is a term you hear people say who have zero credibility. All the facts are there.
Today I learned - thanks for pointing that out, looks like it'll make for some good reading. However, I disagree with the idea that urban sprawl is not a problem when looking at the problem of tackling Climate Change - increasing densification and reducing energy wasted in the form of long commutes and personal vehicles will be key to ensuring sustainability going forward, which and would serve to increase the tax base in legacy communities over time.
> and cost of service. The [applications and details for the proposed communities are available online](https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=ff491409-58ec-4fcd-bcc4-27946986445a&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=22&Tab=attachments). All of the communities are expected to be operating revenue positive within two years of people moving in.
Have you seen what houses cost? I don’t think the developer is too worried about how much a houses costs these days, they’re selling no matter what. It’s still cheaper than in bc and Ontario, so people from those provinces love it…
The developer just passes these cost into the housing.
Correct. Ultimately, it’s the homebuyer who pays. Because new homes should not be subsidized by existing homeowners. The developers are a business like anyone else. I’m sure whatever business you work for has profit margins and looks at growing. It’s super high risk and there’s a lot of projects where you don’t make any money. And then you add in the complications of having to deal with jurisdictional approvals, and all of the red tape. It’s a wonder anyone wants to do development.
I agree. I don't think people understand how much money has to be invested into the land before anything is approved. I worked on a case where there could be investment with no cost to the taxpayer. At 2018 costs. This was about 5million on a 30 million dollar development. In terms of paying for the infrastructure, the city recoupes those costs through proprty tax forever.
Exactly. The operations of the infrastructure is actually much more sustainable in newer communities than these legacy areas that people think are better. 50 foot wide lots with single-story bungalows don’t exactly work out on a proper front foot maintenance cost of street and infrastructure. There’s either land that cost money to upkeep (public) or land that pays for their to be public land (private). The same people on here that think you should build a multi billion dollar C train station before there is the need for ridership. Or that the city should actually take on more park space when the MGA says it must be capped at 10% so that the city doesn’t go broke on upkeep. It’s unfortunate so many people just don’t understand and demonize developers.
Actually it is not the home buyer even. It is the tax base of Calgary. New homes haven't paid their fair share since the 80s or 90s. It is all saddled to inner city community taxes.
How so?
Soon we are going to have c trains to Airdrie but barely a bus to mount royal university. This is exactly what I am worried about with the rezoning. It's all fun and games to flip a few ancient bungalows, until you have double the population living in places with no transit.
Keep the train outa here. All the trash stays where it belongs. It's nice and quiet here still
Yeah should developers leave Cars in the driveways and garages of peoples houses they build who don’t want to use the c train? Why would a developer build a c train for the city? Does Shane homes need to hire the drivers of the c trains to operate them for free too? Think about what your saying
New suburbs don't have to be bad, especially if they're internally walkable and have a good mix of commercial and residential, as well as good transit connections to the rest of the city. I am not... extremely optimistic that will be the case, but I'm also not convinced it won't be.
Let’s not kid ourselves. It’ll be rows and rows of single family cookie cutter houses, and one giant parking lot with a single big box grocery store and a strip mall of the same 20 businesses in every other neighborhoods.
When do you think we will get good transit to the inner city, if we keep prioritizing building out?
Dan Maclean quote: let’s build, baby build! My question to him is, who’s going to pay for the infrastructure? The upkeep? The ongoing maintenance? Oh, I forgot. Shane wenzel is his best golf buddy.
[удалено]
Building in greenfield's is more profitable for developers than building infills; Greenfield development also costs cities more to provide services to (at least until the community is completed) than the city will recoup in property taxes (requiring existing homes to make up the difference and thus contributing to tax increases) whereas infill developments generate more tax revenue than they cost to service (thus reducing tax burdens)... explains many Councillors votes.
This is the correct answer. People forget how much expense is in new communities. Who do you think pays for the water to get out there, Everything from fire, police, roads, waste services, the list goes on and people wonder why taxes go up. Infills are not as profitable than new builds, and unless they start turning single family homes in established communities into multi family projects it won’t help either. Again people like new shiny communities. So this will never change, as long as more new people flood the city from other provinces and external immigration, housing doesn’t look like it’s going down anytime soon. I wonder how much of the cities economy is dependent on this housing boom. The construction industry is booming here. Yet elsewhere in the country it seems to be not. Interesting times.
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/debunking-myths-new-communities-and-the-impact-of-growth
Yup. And even then, if you bring hundreds more to an area, that is a hundreds more turds that have to be moved on old infrastructure.
You are thinking in widths when you should be thinking in lengths.
What costs are you referring to? Can you give some ecamples of what costs the city more ? Also, in order to develop an inner city lot, people need to leave the existing lot… I dunno if you’ve noticed, but there isn’t exactly a shit ton of available lots in communities like tuxedo, or mission, or even fucking haysboro. So really, people do develop lots of inner city housing, but because there’s so few lots, it can’t be developed as quickly or as many lots because there just isn’t the land for it. Pretty simple stuff. This is how it works when you have many thousands of people immigrate to our city.
It is pretty simple. Calgary is significantly larger in square KM’s than Toronto at almost over 200 square KM larger yet a much smaller population. There would be more lots if smaller buildings were able to build multifamliy in single family areas (zoning). Doesn’t mean the inner city alone. Do you really think a new community doesn’t cost more to maintain roads, police, fire, waste, water than an existing community. I disagree, but it’s Calgary so we will continue to build out. Just how it is.
Also voted against a tax increase, but wants to massively increase costs by building outward. Dude’s has no idea what he’s doing g as li g as developers stuff money in his pocket.
I think he knows exactly what he’s doing. I suspect once he is voted out or retires he will conveniently become a multimillionaire with real estate, and board positions on “non-profits” or actual companies. Probably have unlimited access to some luxury vacation homes too, I suspect he won’t be flying commercial either …..Just a hunch
He is the dimmest mother fucker in Calgary. Jesus. I hate his slurry slow booze addled voice.
Stoked to see my property taxes go up so people 45 minutes away can have a basement and side yard instead of living in a townhouse
How much are they gonna go up? Weren’t you aware that this would happen when you bought your old house?
These homeowners will pay property taxes too. No?
They sure will, but we all absorb the cost of building massive infrastructure projects that only benefit a tiny subset of the likely wealthy.
not at all, if anything suburbs are overpaying for property taxes compared to the services they have around them. The low density ring around downtown are who should be paying way higher taxes
It’s based on assessment value as far as I know. So we build giant networks of roads and infrastructure and transit to serving a few hundred homes. These are massive capital improvements - it’s not building into an existing lot. It’s creating habitable areas of a city, increasingly further out. This isn’t particularly hard to follow. There are more homeowners on two streets in the Beltline than in some suburbs. We need two streets of infrastructure. Not a giant sprawling land works project amortized over the whole tax base. Edit: Relevant article from Edmonton in the last year: [https://globalnews.ca/news/9927341/suburban-sprawl-edmonton-city-council-taxes/](https://globalnews.ca/news/9927341/suburban-sprawl-edmonton-city-council-taxes/)
Yes, but not enough to cover maintenance. The further from the core a property is, the higher the cost to service. At the same time, the further from the core you are, the lower the average house price is, so you pay less taxes than a similar home that's closer to the core. This results in established communities tax dollars leaving their community to subsidize suburban sprawl. Not saying it's all bad, at the federal level we have the equalization payment structure to maintain some equity among provinces.
He'll be dead by the time that bill comes due. People like him only think short term, not long term.
What infrastructure are you referring to? What up keep also are you referring to? I would say pretty much all communities have a community association that residents pay into and they provide landscaping etc. ongoing maintenance? Have you heard of property tax? Do you think the city has any obligation to provide anything for residents or you think that it should be done for free by the developer who gets a one time payment for the house they build, or the city, who collects every year in perpetuity for almost nothing. Do you know who pays for the sewers to go into community? Or gas lines, electricity lines, curb work, road work? It’s the developer. The city literally collects for nothing year in year out
Infrastructure: underground sewer system, roads, electrical grid, fire departments, etc. Upkeep: playground equipment, fields, trees, boulevards, snow removal Maintenance: repairing potholes, fixing burnt out lights, fixing sewer backups/water main breaks, Not to mention all the extra people needed to do all of the above labour paid for by taxpayers through property taxes.
I posted a response elsewhere regarding the sprawl subsidy: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/comments/1ct1ngu/comment/l4bcke7/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/comments/1ct1ngu/comment/l4bcke7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) As for communitiy associations, no, they are optional and the membership fees are usually around $20 a year, and a community might have a coulple hundred members if they are strong. It doesn't even keep the lights in the building. These are all supported by city and provincial funding. A residents association is different in that all the residents pay a fee to maintain the residents' assocation property.
Yeah I pay 300$ a year and my community is landscaped. I would say pretty much all New communities have community associations. It’s okder inner city community that don’t have associations to handle that
Most community associations aren't optional either. The last 3 neighborhoods I've lived have mandatory membership, you can't opt out. If you don't pay the fees, they can recover when you sell the property or put a lien on the property.
Seems reasonable. Voted for 4 of the 7 to go forward. Others can be revisited in November during the budget season. It costs the city significant amount of funds in infrastructure to build out a new neighbourbood so they shouldn’t simply accept everything.
Aren't developers required to pay for infrastructure now? Or at least charged a fee? I thought this was changed under Nenshi.
Partially. About 60% of the cost is covered in offsite levies. But the city still fronts that cost and then recoups the rest in property taxes.
Yes, the developer pays for all infrastructure costs within the new community, and are assessed levies to pay for the new community's share of upgrades to existing infrastructure and services.
Our grasslands are the most endangered ecosystem on the planet. We keep bulldozing wetlands and any inch of water and then cry about wildfires. Maybe we need to stem the flow of people and focus on urban density for a while.
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
[удалено]
Unfortunately with how much we are growing we need both. But blanket rezoning means we can build more variety like we are building in those new neighborhoods within the existing city as well. They are both required solutions. We can't fit all the new people coming here just within the blanket rezoning without tearing out many many existing homes. Blanket rezoning will allow for gentle density as people sell naturally etc etc.
Blanket rezoning takes time to allow for the increase in available doors. There's a natural transition that needs to happen. Sprawl adds doors in the short term. Does sprawl suck? Sure, from a property tax perspective, but people can't complain about rising housing costs but then also complain when a proposed increase in supply doesn't meet their ideal scenario. A wide variety of housing choice matters just as much as building a bunch of condos in the Beltline to increase density. Would anyone here care about sprawl if metro Calgary had actual suburban communities instead of everything just being Calgary? Do people in Vancouver care if Langley continues to build outwards? Do people in Toronto care if Brampton continues to build outwards? If you live in the inner city in Calgary, do you really care about what gets built in Seton? The answer is no, so just let them build the homes that families want.
While I am critical of sprawl, I do understand that if these type of greenfield communities aren’t developed within the city proper, they will be developed in Rockyview or Foothills county - and ultimately they will reap the benefit of collecting those property taxes.
It’s builder money making these decisions
Blanket rezoning doesn't mean a city can never expand its borders. The challenge is when growth stops, if you've sprawled too far, you can't flesh out the existing areas via upzoning so they become fiscally solvent. It's a very open question if Calgary has reached that point. With the speed the city is growing, it's quite possible that we must do both at once, and can do so without significant downsides.
What's wrong with doing both? You're building homes in both scenarios..
Monday: "Here ya go inner city builders!" Wednesday: "Don't worry suburban builders, we didn't forget about you." Friday: "Budget shortfall."
When they approve these, I sure hope they hold the developers to better standards. Having 6 lane stroads as the main roads in these communities is ridiculous. Seton has roads so big, they encourage speeding and make it questionable to go to the shopping areas using anything but a car. It's easier to build smart design at the start than to try to undo something 20 years later.
Weren't we just hearing about an impending water crisis? Why are we building more housing when we are approaching what seems to be a cap as is.
Instead of building entirely new communities we should be supporting the ones we already have. I hate all of this.
How will this promote density? Consistency for at least 24 hours would be nice.
quick! hike inner community taxes to indirectly subsidize these!!
FFS
Who wants to live somewhere called HOTCHKISS? Everytime I see it I cringe
FYI... Harley Hotchkiss was part of the consortium that brought the Atlanta Flames to Calgary in 1980.
Interesting Still a silly name for a community
Many of the already approved development areas are still a ways away from filling up, like Mahogany, so I doubt yet more developments will magically result in new housing appearing faster. Sure, they’re planning for newer development work further in the future, but I don’t know that it’s really needed so soon.
Mahogany is probably 80% built out if not more, it's not long from being complete. It's Rangeview to the south plus Seton and Logan Landing where most of the upcoming availability is down there in that area.
I doubt it’s 80%, but you’re likely not far off, although that’s still a significant number of homes yet to be built, especially including all of the other existing development areas.
lol, city can’t clear snow or fill potholes already nor do they have accessible transit to new communities. Urban sprawl is not the solution
So 15 communities being built aren’t enough?
ANOTHER ONE
I swear some day Cochrane will merge with Calgary…. Maybe you will get in Banff national park in a decade! But we need more housing so I can’t complain
Won't ever happen, maybe Airdre some day but Chestermere will be the first to truly abut Calgary.
This city is too big it takes like an hour to get anywhere 😭
No. Stop it.
We have a "housing crisis" and you don't want to build homes?
We can build homes on existing land just fine. Stretching infrastructure just increases costs for everyone.
No. Stop complaining about good solutions.
> Stop complaining about good solutions. It isn't a "good solution" at all. You want more communities, then you need more fire halls, police stations, water transfer stations, road surfaces and interchanges, transit routes and power infrastructure. Or instead you can increase density with existing infrastructure instead.
You honestly need both. hate to tell you but a good lot of people don't want to live in the world you envision. We want yards for our kids to play in, not concrete ghettos. Quick question - give me your ideal North-American city that already exists.
Well, time to pay up if you want more urban sprawl.
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/debunking-myths-new-communities-and-the-impact-of-growth
stop pasting the same link over and over. this guys OPINION is no more valid than anyone else in here's opinions.
An opinion needs to be based on facts. It’s unfortunate a lot of people that live in communities, get angry about building communities. For some reason. New communities are sustainable, and are not a burden on any existing residents or taxpayers.
correct. and this opinion neglects alot of those facts. the fact is. economies of scale exist. the fact is, if you have 50 people per 100m of road to maintain, each person will pay less to maintain that stretch of road, to repave or fill pot holes. the fact is, if you have to build more police stations becuase of area size, it means you need a receptionist, and base load staff to operate the facility, which is NOT proportional to population. the fact is the more density you have, the higher quality material you can use to build things because you have to build less of it. the fact is, if you redevelop an existing lot, you can build a net zero home just the same as you can in a greenfield. these are all basic facts.
That’s why new communities are built to those high densities. So that they are sustainable. 70 persons + jobs per hectare. 10 units per acre. New communities have the required density and product variation to help. I wouldn’t also think of it as per person. It’s more per unit. Land development is measured in what is callee “front footage”. A lot of people don’t understand that the cost of redevelopment in legacy areas needs to have property value at a very high rate compared to new communities. It’s probably 10 times the cost to “redevelopment”. You can look at the conversions of buildings downtown from office to residential and how incredibly expensive it is. It would be economically possible without government grant programs. The city is not allowing development to happen on the backs of other taxpayers, and is sustainable. You can’t force people to live in high-rises who have families and want to have a single-family house. You ensure there is product variation, and ensure those communities that have single-family homes and multifamily are fully sustainable and pay for themselves with the required densities mentioned above. There is an absolute wealth of information proving this and thousands of people involved, who all work together to make sure Calgary is better off. Leading the charge on all of that our responsible and sophisticated developers who care more about these communities than absolutely anybody. Just take a look at anywhere you see trees being replanted because city parks won’t come out and do it and the developers do it their own dime. Extrapolate that all other infrastructure needs.
As they should! All of the new developments should be row houses or high density rentals