Actual Costs of Urbanity.

[hipster duck]

Skyscrapers aren't built because they offer the highest density neighbourhoods, but for other reasons.

There is a "theory" of densification which only exists as an academic/economic exercise and then there are two separate "realities".

The theory goes something like this: as cities expand outward, the value of land closer to the centre of the city rises and it becomes advantageous to replace lower density homes with higher and higher density buildings until you finally get an exclusive area of highrise apartments and condominiums tapering out to midrises, ground-oriented attached homes and finally single family homes as you move outwards.

The reality is something different. In Canada, you have a lot of highrise development surrounding historic single family homes. You also see a lot of demolition and rebuilding of single family homes for larger single family homes. Why is that? There are a lot of factors, but it comes down to the fact that redevelopment is only permissible in small areas, and when a neighbourhood is "upzoned" to permit higher densities, the land cost rises dramatically and the most efficient way to capture the value of that land is to build as high as possible. Similarly, in areas that are not heritage protected that are inner city single family homes, you can't take advantage of upzoning, but you can take advantage of the fact that a larger home on an expensive lot commands a greater value than a small bungalow. Down comes the bungalow and up goes the monster home.

In already-dense global cities, skyscrapers are built because they offer more luxurious housing than the older housing units that already exist. The official line in cities like Paris and London is that skyscrapers are needed to handle population growth. That's baloney. Skyscrapers are demanded by a very wealthy global elite who want to live in the centre of those cities, but find the existing historic apartments to lack modern amenities and space. Building skyscrapers in these cities does not raise the population density beyond the already high levels that exist. However, if you want to make money as a developer while still selling giant units in the middle of some of the most expensive real estate in the world, you invariably have to go high. You're not going to buy a lot in central London for $50 million only to build a 6 floor building with a handful of units (then again, given how stratospheric the wealth of those people is, maybe you can!).

You also see this in the Chinese cities that have demolished historic areas en masse and replaced the old urban fabric with skyscrapers. Again, this is to raise living standards rather than to accommodate more people in the same unit of area. However, in the Chinese case, at least this involves bringing a lot of homes to what would be considered middle class standards, although there are a lot of super-luxury units as well. What you see is that Chinese cities have "sprawled" - the rate of built up area growth exceeds the rate of population growth (although both are off the charts high). Even though the newly-built areas are highrise neighbourhoods of very high densities, they are still lower in density than the teeming old neighbourhoods they replaced.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

dense urban areas are in shorter supply than there is demand for them, and are thus expensive.

high density areas that are not in demand tend to be very affordable.

I think the real question though is why newly constructed neighbourhoods aren't more urban and tend to waste a lot of land and be configured in a very auto centric manner. Dense urban areas are only in short supply since most new construction is low density.

Part of that is because many greenfield development sites are far from good transit options, and any plan to live without good transit requires good automobile infrastructure. But creating new subdivisions requires a great deal of infrastructure to be built in the form of road capacity. So why isn't more of this funneled into more efficient transportation options so that the development can be denser and not dependent on cars?

[Beedok]

High Rise wins.

[Hali87]

I think that the idea that suburbs are inherently low-density and 99% auto-oriented, and that the "urban" parts of the city are inherently more efficient holds the most weight out east, particularly in Halifax and St. John's, and likely in Montreal and QC as well (Victoria is probably an outlier out west). However this is not necessarily true everywhere - many areas along the SkyTrain corridor outside of Vancouver proper are denser and more walkable/transit oriented then much of Vancouver proper. Markham is likely more walkable than many parts of Toronto proper. From what I've heard, Calgary's newest suburbs are denser and more walkable/transit-friendly than older parts of the city, and the type of urban fabric that would be considered "inner-city" in Edmonton and Calgary would largely be considered 1st-or-2nd-ring suburban in Halifax or St. John's. Burnaby is nothing like Hammonds Plains or Fall River, but those seem to be the normal "suburban" reference points for people from Halifax.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think the real question though is why newly constructed neighbourhoods aren't more urban and tend to waste a lot of land and be configured in a very auto centric manner. Dense urban areas are only in short supply since most new construction is low density.

Part of that is because many greenfield development sites are far from good transit options, and any plan to live without good transit requires good automobile infrastructure. But creating new subdivisions requires a great deal of infrastructure to be built in the form of road capacity. So why isn't more of this funneled into more efficient transportation options so that the development can be denser and not dependent on cars?

Because that's what people want. And people are willing to live this way despite the transportation costs passed on to them by the developer, so what does it matter.

I think that the idea that suburbs are inherently low-density and 99% auto-oriented, and that the "urban" parts of the city are inherently more efficient holds the most weight out east, particularly in Halifax and St. John's, and likely in Montreal and QC as well (Victoria is probably an outlier out west). However this is not necessarily true everywhere - many areas along the SkyTrain corridor outside of Vancouver proper are denser and more walkable/transit oriented then much of Vancouver proper. Markham is likely more walkable than many parts of Toronto proper. From what I've heard, Calgary's newest suburbs are denser and more walkable/transit-friendly than older parts of the city, and the type of urban fabric that would be considered "inner-city" in Edmonton and Calgary would largely be considered 1st-or-2nd-ring suburban in Halifax or St. John's. Burnaby is nothing like Hammonds Plains or Fall River, but those seem to be the normal "suburban" reference points for people from Halifax.

Yes. There is nothing low density about suburban growth in Edmonton. I doubt you see more than 25% of the developable land serviced for front drive single family homes. Row homes, duplexes, multi story apartment buildings etc cover a large percentage of land. Auto centric...sure. not very dense...wrong.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Because that's what people want. And people are willing to live this way despite the transportation costs passed on to them by the developer, so what does it matter.

On the other hand, I happen to think this is one of the biggest myths in modern North American society. When something is widespread, advocates often present the fact that so many people do it as evidence that these prefer it over some alternative. But without the people having equal access to both options, it's impossible to say what people really prefer.

Even if the actual living style was appealing to people, if they were fully aware of the consequences such as the extra long term cost, it is likely to alter their affinity for it. Many people are extremely monetary minded, and this is part of why suburban housing is so popular as it's seen as being a better value (more square foot for the price). If this was revealed to be untrue, the so-called popularity which is so interwoven with the financial side would collapse.

[Drybrain]

The suburbs in prairie cities tend to be quite dense, for suburbs. Some are probably about as dense as the central Halifax neighbourhood I live in now.

The problem is that they're still filled with cul-de-sacs and feeder roads and loopy street networks and giant arterials, and use-separation is still quite rigid, for the most part. There are a couple of new-urbanist experiments, but so far they're pretty limited in scope and kitschy. (MacKenzie Towne is the go-to reference point for this, but it's A: Basically a cartoon of a real town, and B: Mostly pretty car-dependent, still.)

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

On the other hand, I happen to think this is one of the biggest myths in modern North American society. When something is widespread, advocates often present the fact that so many people do it as evidence that these prefer it over some alternative. But without the people having equal access to both options, it's impossible to say what people really prefer.

Even if the actual living style was appealing to people, if they were fully aware of the consequences such as the extra long term cost, it is likely to alter their affinity for it. Many people are extremely monetary minded, and this is part of why suburban housing is so popular as it's seen as being a better value (more square foot for the price). If this was revealed to be untrue, the so-called popularity which is so interwoven with the financial side would collapse.

It's easy to buy a new suburban house. Shit, I'm looking at moving from our downtown condo and buy a house in a mature area.....then you start realizing what you can afford in a mature community (and the risks of a 35 year or older house) and then you realize you can buy EXACTLY the house you want in a new neighborhood and not have to worry about any renovations or major issues for decades. I could never see myself living in a new neighborhood......but this process has educated me on why the vast majority of people go that route.

If people want this, and they pay the associated levies to support the offsite costs, what does it matter?

You guy's keep bringing up the long term financial costs...but it's irrelevant. There was much more long term financial costs to older neighborhoods when they were developed. But those are ok now I guess. Same thing is going to happen in 30 years. People will be bitching about new suburban growth and the 30 year old neighborhood that we are arguing about today will be seen as a mature community that isn't the drain to the cities finances like new stuff is.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The suburbs in prairie cities tend to be quite dense, for suburbs. Some are probably about as dense as the central Halifax neighbourhood I live in now.

The problem is that they're still filled with cul-de-sacs and feeder roads and loopy street networks and giant arterials, and use-separation is still quite rigid, for the most part. There are a couple of new-urbanist experiments, but so far they're pretty limited in scope and kitschy. (MacKenzie Towne is the go-to reference point for this, but it's A: Basically a cartoon of a real town, and B: Mostly pretty car-dependent, still.)

Servicing costs. That's your answer.

Grinds are highly inefficient. There is a substantial amount of extra roadway (and other infrastructure) required because you have so many wasted side lots adjacent to roadways.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

It's easy to buy a new suburban house. Shit, I'm looking at moving from our downtown condo and buy a house in a mature area.....then you start realizing what you can afford in a mature community (and the risks of a 35 year or older house) and then you realize you can buy EXACTLY the house you want in a new neighborhood and not have to worry about any renovations or major issues for decades. I could never see myself living in a new neighborhood......but this process has educated me on why the vast majority of people go that route.

If people want this, and they pay the associated levies to support the offsite costs, what does it matter?

You guy's keep bringing up the long term financial costs...but it's irrelevant. There was much more long term financial costs to older neighborhoods when they were developed. But those are ok now I guess. Same thing is going to happen in 30 years. People will be bitching about new suburban growth and the 30 year old neighborhood that we are arguing about today will be seen as a mature community that isn't the drain to the cities finances like new stuff is.

Because people DON'T pay the associated costs. The associated costs are largely externalized and end up being carried (subsidized) by larger society. Things like creating the new streets, sidewalks, water mains, sewer lines, electrical utilities, etc. tend to be covered by the municipality so all the resident is responsible for is the cost of the actual house and land. And equally important and more importantly the fact that auto dependence places much greater strain on the infrastructure like roads and bridges across the whole city. If people did pay for the full off site costs then it wouldn't matter, but it's a moot point because then this type of development wouldn't be very popular because as the initial poster pointed out, it would no longer be cost competitive.

As far as cost involved in old house vs new house, that is not the issue I'm discussing. I'm strictly discussing new development and comparing examples that are built in an auto dependent way compared to those (largely hypothetical in NA) that aren't.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Servicing costs. That's your answer.

Grinds are highly inefficient. There is a substantial amount of extra roadway (and other infrastructure) required because you have so many wasted side lots adjacent to roadways.

A: Grids create simple to understand means of locomoation throughout an urban area. Very efficient.

B: Grids maximize street frontage. Very efficient.

C: Grids result in roadways occupying a lot of space. Not efficient--but as long as the roadways are relatively narrow, this is an acceptable trade-off for all the other benefits.

D: Grids are ideal for transit, providing long, turn routes with few turns.

As for the idea that people purchase new houses and pay "levies" that support the additional costs, well, again, look at this Halifax service-cost analysis Nouvelleecosse posted. (Page 11 specifically.) The cost of servicing suburban areas, even of modestly high density, is far, far, far higher than urban areas. If the true cost of suburban development was reflected in levies, no one would buy suburban houses.

Instead, the cost is borne by the tax base at large, as well as our ever-increasing municipal debt burdens.

Let's break it down: Calgary's New Brighton neighbourhood is a standard Calgary suburb. It's got nearly 10,500 people as of 2014, in a little under 3 square kilometres. That's about 14 people per acre. That places in in "Pattern C" in the service-cost analysis.

Calgary's Mission or Kensington neighbourhood would be more in line with Pattern F, or thereabouts. If this comparison holds up in the Calgary context, their servicing costs are 65% lower than New Brighton's (and that doesn't include the capital cost to install infrastructure).

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

You guy's keep bringing up the long term financial costs...but it's irrelevant. There was much more long term financial costs to older neighborhoods when they were developed. But those are ok now I guess. Same thing is going to happen in 30 years. People will be bitching about new suburban growth and the 30 year old neighborhood that we are arguing about today will be seen as a mature community that isn't the drain to the cities finances like new stuff is.

This is, interestingly, almost exactly rebutted by Calgary planner Rollin Stanley. A few years ago he said that it takes about 30 years for Calgary's new communities to repay even the initial costs of infrastructure provision. Beyond that, the maintenance of said infrastructure, and service-provision, will always be a net liability on the city, unlike in denser communities. It doesn't matter if they're brand new, 30 years old, 60 years old. They'll forever be a drag on city coffers due to operating expenses exceeding tax revenue. Given Edmonton's very similar built form, we can assume the same there. There aren't enough levies in the world to change that.

In fact, as they get older and the infrastructure ages, they probably get even more expensive.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Because people DON'T pay the associated costs. The associated costs are largely externalized and end up being carried (subsidized) by larger society. Things like creating the new streets, sidewalks, water mains, sewer lines, electrical utilities, etc. tend to be covered by the municipality so all the resident is responsible for is the cost of the actual house and land. And equally important and more importantly the fact that auto dependence places much greater strain on the infrastructure like roads and bridges across the whole city. If people did pay for the full off site costs then it wouldn't matter, but it's a moot point because then this type of development wouldn't be very popular because as the initial poster pointed out, it would no longer be cost competitive.

As far as cost involved in old house vs new house, that is not the issue I'm discussing. I'm strictly discussing new development and comparing examples that are built in an auto dependent way compared to those (largely hypothetical in NA) that aren't.

If that's the case then your municipality is fucked. Seriously, what ever area has rules like that must be in such bad of shape that costs like this must be the least of their problems. move. Where does that occur?

Storm system (and downstream capacity), sanitary (and downstream capacity) water (and system upgrades to account for additional volume and capacity), roads (and upgrades throughout the town to account for extra congestion) are all covered by the developer and then past on to the homeowner. And phone/Cable/gas etc are all handled different depending on the franchise utility. Some will cover the entire costs and view it as business development, others will have a fee.

I cant stress this enough. In a properly run municipality (ie everything in the Edmonton region and Calgary (as far as I know) region this is how new development is handled. The existing tax base doesn't pay a god damn cent to cover the cost of this, with the exception of services like fire and schools and stuff....but then those existing residents never paid directly for that service anyways.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

A: Grids create simple to understand means of locomoation throughout an urban area. Very efficient.

B: Grids maximize street frontage. Very efficient.

C: Grids result in roadways occupying a lot of space. Not efficient--but as long as the roadways are relatively narrow, this is an acceptable trade-off for all the other benefits.

D: Grids are ideal for transit, providing long, turn routes with few turns.

As for the idea that people purchase new houses and pay "levies" that support the additional costs, well, again, look at this Halifax service-cost analysis Nouvelleecosse posted. (Page 11 specifically.) The cost of servicing suburban areas, even of modestly high density, is far, far, far higher than urban areas. If the true cost of suburban development was reflected in levies, no one would buy suburban houses.

Instead, the cost is borne by the tax base at large, as well as our ever-increasing municipal debt burdens.

Let's break it down: Calgary's New Brighton neighbourhood is a standard Calgary suburb. It's got nearly 10,500 people as of 2014, in a little under 3 square kilometres. That's about 14 people per acre. That places in in "Pattern C" in the service-cost analysis.

Calgary's Mission or Kensington neighbourhood would be more in line with Pattern F, or thereabouts. If this comparison holds up in the Calgary context, their servicing costs are 65% lower than New Brighton's (and that doesn't include the capital cost to install infrastructure).



This is, interestingly, almost exactly rebutted by Calgary planner Rollin Stanley. A few years ago he said that it takes about 30 years for Calgary's new communities to repay even the initial costs of infrastructure provision. Beyond that, the maintenance of said infrastructure, and service-provision, will always be a net liability on the city, unlike in denser communities. It doesn't matter if they're brand new, 30 years old, 60 years old. They'll forever be a drag on city coffers due to operating expenses exceeding tax revenue. Given Edmonton's very similar built form, we can assume the same there. There aren't enough levies in the world to change that.

In fact, as they get older and the infrastructure ages, they probably get even more expensive.

The area structure plan for one of my larger projects (commuter city in the Edmonton region) has a Gross population density of 41 people per hectare and a Net population density of 63 people per hectare. This is just your very typical suburban development.

I'm not sure how that Halifax report defined density (gross or Net, but it falls between Pattern F "urban mid density" and Patern G "Urban High Denisty" depending on gross vs net.

Proof right there. That horrible sprawl that everyone likes to shit on Edmonton for....Is actually incredible dense. If where you live isn't like this, that's not my issue. Suburban development when done right is both very dense and cost neutral for existing residents.

[SHOFEAR]

Grids maximize street frontage. Very efficient.

I don't think you understand what frontage is.

You want to maximize frontage in a development. Side lots don't count as frontage.

The more frontage you have within a specified area the more efficient servicing costs are. And obviously, less infrastructure to be maintained by the city later.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

If that's the case then your municipality is fucked. Seriously, what ever area has rules like that must be in such bad of shape that costs like this must be the least of their problems. move. Where does that occur?

Storm system (and downstream capacity), sanitary (and downstream capacity) water (and system upgrades to account for additional volume and capacity), roads (and upgrades throughout the town to account for extra congestion) are all covered by the developer and then past on to the homeowner. And phone/Cable/gas etc are all handled different depending on the franchise utility. Some will cover the entire costs and view it as business development, others will have a fee.

I cant stress this enough. In a properly run municipality (ie everything in the Edmonton region and Calgary (as far as I know) region this is how new development is handled. The existing tax base doesn't pay a god damn cent to cover the cost of this, with the exception of services like fire and schools and stuff....but then those existing residents never paid directly for that service anyways.

Each municipality has its own breakdown of policies and cost structures so for our purposes examining each one isn't practical. But this report summarizes the issues fairly well and mentions a number of municipalities in Canada.

Development charges help municipalities recover some of these costs from developers but not all of them. Municipalities are beginning to understand the burden these costs place on their communities. In Edmonton, for instance, the City picks up all the capital costs of fire and police stations, and portions of some roads and recreation facilities. It also covers all the costs of maintenance, repair and renewal of the infrastructure, including pipes and roads. The costs to Edmonton of new suburban developments will exceed revenues – by a very large margin. Across just 17 of more than 40 new planned developments, costs to the City are expected to exceed revenues by nearly $4 billion over the next 60 years."

In any case, my response to Brandon was to lay out the main reasons why the more efficient living options tend to be more expensive and this is due to the externalized costs factor in that the people choosing the less efficient form of development see it as being the best value fiscally due to many of the cost involved being shouldered by people other than those choosing it. And as mentioned in the report above, this is just as likely behind the perception of "demand" as any physical characteristics of the developments are.

A key factor is price: it’s cheaper to buy a house in the suburbs. In a 2012 survey, 79% of Toronto-area residents said prices influenced their choice of location; the survey concluded that housing affordability, not personal preference, may be driving homebuyers to the suburbs. Likewise, for firms that have a choice of location, the suburbs are generally cheaper.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

The area structure plan for one of my larger projects (commuter city in the Edmonton region) has a Gross population density of 41 people per hectare and a Net population density of 63 people per hectare. This is just your very typical suburban development.

My figures were population per acre, not hectare. They're almost the same as yours.

When I was talking about frontage, I was talking retail mixed-use frontage. Obviously that can't even work in he kind of areas you're talking about.

And, just to get all this straight: you are correct, and the chief planner of Calgary is wrong. That's what you're saying?

[waterloowarrior]

Ottawa did a comparison of Higher-Density Urban, Lower- Density Urban Greenfield, Low-Density Rural Village, and Scattered Estate and Low-Density Rural development....

High density urban development had a per capita cost of $1,340, but brought in $1,795 per capita in property tax and rate supported services. So $455 per capita more than expenses. Suburban development cost $1,799 per capita and brought in $1,390, for a loss of $409 per capita. Rural (-$357) and village (-$199) development also cost more than was brought in.

http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public...mmary-march-14

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

If that's the case then your municipality is fucked. Seriously, what ever area has rules like that must be in such bad of shape that costs like this must be the least of their problems. move. Where does that occur?

Storm system (and downstream capacity), sanitary (and downstream capacity) water (and system upgrades to account for additional volume and capacity), roads (and upgrades throughout the town to account for extra congestion) are all covered by the developer and then past on to the homeowner. And phone/Cable/gas etc are all handled different depending on the franchise utility. Some will cover the entire costs and view it as business development, others will have a fee.

I cant stress this enough. In a properly run municipality (ie everything in the Edmonton region and Calgary (as far as I know) region this is how new development is handled. The existing tax base doesn't pay a god damn cent to cover the cost of this, with the exception of services like fire and schools and stuff....but then those existing residents never paid directly for that service anyways.

It actually comes down the province to decide what development levies can be charged.



Ontario is by far the most progressive place in the country for development levies. In Alberta, new development doesn`t pay for parks, recreation facilities, transit, schools, policing, or fire. That`s a HUGE cost picked up by the taxpayer.

Some municipalities also choose not to charge for stuff they`re allowed to. Saskatoon is authorized to charge for water and wastewater, but chooses not to. There`s also the issue that the charge is below the cost. Road cost is something that frequently falls into that category.

The government subsidizes every lot in this country outside of Ontario.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

It actually comes down the province to decide what development levies can be charged.



Ontario is by far the most progressive place in the country for development levies. In Alberta, new development doesn`t pay for parks, recreation facilities, transit, schools, policing, or fire. That`s a HUGE cost picked up by the taxpayer.

Taxpayers also have to pay for downstream impacts on infrastructure, and of course, developers don't pay to maintain infrastructure in new communities forever and ever. After a set period of years, maintenance costs move to the citywide tax base.

I take it that Shofear is a developer, based on his reference to "my projects", and since suburban homebuilders tend to insist that they do pay their way, 100 percent (despite the facts and the general consensus of the entire planning profession) it's not a surprise to hear that insistence. It's still disingenuous at best, though. Once all the accounting is done with, most Canadian greenfield development costs more taxpayer money than it produces. It's a fact and there's no way around.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

It actually comes down the province to decide what development levies can be charged.



Ontario is by far the most progressive place in the country for development levies. In Alberta, new development doesn`t pay for parks, recreation facilities, transit, schools, policing, or fire. That`s a HUGE cost picked up by the taxpayer.

Some municipalities also choose not to charge for stuff they`re allowed to. Saskatoon is authorized to charge for water and wastewater, but chooses not to. There`s also the issue that the charge is below the cost. Road cost is something that frequently falls into that category.

The government subsidizes every lot in this country outside of Ontario.

That's actually a really good chart.

Here's the thing though, lets use Alberta for example, is the existing tax base really subsidizing the recreation through other category when the existing tax base that lives in a home from 1991 or 1971, or 1951, or 1931, etc never paid for it when their lot was serviced. Your merely repaying the favor that was once given to you.

The fact is, levies cover more than ever before and will continue to see the spectrum of what is covers by levies increase incrementally in the future.

We are building more dense new development than ever before, and are doing a better job of ensuring that it is more neutral than ever before to the existing tax base, and building higher quality infrastructure than ever before to minimize maintenance down the road.

By these metrics, it is the best development we have ever seen.