Quote:
Originally Posted by Surrealplaces
That's really the whole argument the Urbanists are presenting. It's not that 10,000 new people in the burbs are affecting existing infrastructure, it's that they are creating completely new infrastructure, whereas an existing neighbourhood like the Beltline isn't, at least as far as roads, transit, water, light posts, side-walks, etc.. and not near the same amount of sewer. No matter how you look at it, adding 10,000 people to the Beltline is far cheaper than developing a new area for 10,000 people.
Just for the record, I'm not opposed to new development. I understand that it needs to happen and will happen, and that many choose those locations for varying reasons. I'm just happy to see inner city neighborhoods like the Beltline having strong growth. It's good for the city.
|
Exactly. I am not anti-suburb at all. I am just anti-ridiculous arguments against density. Inner city growth does not require more infrastructure, on the whole, as suburban development. That isn't to say that suburban development is bad, just that it isn't true that it's cheaper from a infrastructure perspective than inner city growth. Sadly, the sentiment that suburbia expresses is shared by many: politicians, lay people, even some in industry (less now as more and more developers and builders are diversifying and building in both greenfield and inner city markets and understand the implications of slagging inner city growth on their own business). Many think building towers in the Beltline or in Brentwood, or mid rise in the inner city, is a huge strain on infrastructure. It isn't. On the whole, it requires less to service that type of development than the alternative.
There is a very real possibility that such arguments will have a strong influence on policy. We could see an inner city development levy implemented that bears a disproportionate share of infrastructure costs. Asking for development to share costs to upgrade infrastructure only in it's immediate vicinity isn't just about asking greenfield to pay for downstream effects, it is also recognizing that 50 unit condo in Crescent Heights shouldn't have to pay full cost of upgrading a sewer line if that line is also serving other upstream growth. The west memorial sanitary trunk line is a perfect example of this. Imagine if we asked only new developments in Bowness (where the line is being upgraded) to pay for this. It would effectively freeze development in that community.
I have no doubt in my mind that certain councillors will bring up similar arguments during the negotiations on off-site levies and hopefully administration, industry and more reasonable members of council will coherently make the case that inner city growth is desirable and we shouldn't unfairly punish it. I am not super optimistic about this though.
All I think we need is a system that fairly accounts for the burden on infrastructure to be accounted for in the levy calculations. I think some sort of "catchment" system is the best way to do this. As those in the development industry know, there are massive variances to acreage assessments for storm water (Elbow catchment vs Shepard- crazy!). I just think we should have similar ones for transportation (i.e. are some areas less expensive to serve than others) and sewer and water (as much as is reasonable).