Urban vs Suburban - 2 styles enter, one style leaves!

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Wow, that post is a real breakthrough around here.

Yup, while I do appreciate the debate sometimes, I think at some point we should just let each other live the lives we want to live. Freeweed, for example, would never want to live in my 850 ft2 condo downtown with very little storage space, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere where I can't walk to a ton of shops in 5 minutes. And I have no idea why that is a bad thing.

[SpongeG]

ewww thats what passes for a house in calgary? vinyl siding and ugly?

[polishavenger]

I think the point that is lost in these discussions is that we should all pay for the choices we make, and this city provides one type of lifestyle with a subsidy on the backs of people who chose another. Thats simply not fair and should be corrected.

[Policy Wonk]

That is not a road that goes where you think it does... the costs of upgrading and maintaining infrastructure in dense urban areas are catastrophic. Running roads and utilities across virgin prairie is a bargain in comparison.

[polishavenger]

I'm glad you can enjoy the lifestyle you do, but does it have to be subsidized by myself and my neighbours? I accept the higher purchase price of my townhouse and smaller space as the price I have to pay to live where I want to, but i find it obsene that I have to pay 50% more in property tax to someone who takes up three times more space than I do (not necessarily referring to you specifically, more of a generalization).

Originally Posted by suburb

I've never lived in a house that is older than 15 years. Had I been in a condo for each of those three houses, I would have contributed many thousands for repairs that would not have been required at all within the period of my stay. I did have one hot water tank go on me once - I paid the $800 and moved on.



I've got a very low maintenance yard - between an 18'x27' deck (complete with hot tub electrical in case I ever get the urge) and a large stone patio complete with fire pit, I've got about 1,000sf of outdoor living space. This is critical space for me when I have many people over - it is one of three entertainment areas that can each manage about 25 people. One is the living and dining area, which is open with high ceilings. Second is our basement with large rec room and an HD theatre room. The outside is number three. With friends and family that total a lot of people, I do use that space - and the basement is otherwise littered with my child's toys (which are larger than they look on TV).






Elconsulto - my place in Harvest Hills, 5 houses from the 301 express to DT (22 minutes with no transfers), and close to loads of shopping, restaurants, grocery stores including the T&T, recreation centre including ice-rinks, public library, gymnasium, golf courses including country hills and harvest hills, and half a block form a K-9 school - is on sale. Rear attached garage to preserve the street scape and open the south facing front with many windows. Here is a map to should you the areas close by:

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by fusili

Freeweed, for example, would never want to live in my 850 ft2 condo downtown with very little storage space, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere where I can't walk to a ton of shops in 5 minutes. And I have no idea why that is a bad thing.

Actually, I wouldn't mind it if I was 10 years younger, and/or single, and/or didn't have quite the same lifestyle I do right now. 850 sq ft isn't exactly a small condo in my books and back when I wanted to be downtown every evening, it would have been phenomenal.

Unfortunately I could never afford it back then. As they say, youth is wasted on the young, and money is wasted on the old.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

I'm glad you can enjoy the lifestyle you do, but does it have to be subsidized by myself and my neighbours? I accept the higher purchase price of my townhouse and smaller space as the price I have to pay to live where I want to, but i find it obsene that I have to pay 50% more in property tax to someone who takes up three times more space than I do (not necessarily referring to you specifically, more of a generalization).

And you imagine that the perceived discrepancy in your taxes is alone subsidizing sprawl?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That is not a road that goes where you think it does... the costs of upgrading infrastructure in dense urban areas and maintaining infrastructure in low density areas are catastrophic. Running roads and utilities across virgin prairie is a bargain in comparison.

Fixed for you.

[Policy Wonk]

The costs of maintaining low-density infrastructure just aren't really that burdensome. Once it is there - it is there. Wear and tear is minimal, upgrades are rarely required unless there is an extraordinary change in land-use. When work is required it is a fraction of the trouble relative to a denser area.

Most people don't have a commercial fibreobtic backbone running beneath their street or 750mm water mains that need to be installed or removed with a crane. It just isn't that big of a problem.

[elconsulto]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

ewww thats what passes for a house in calgary? vinyl siding and ugly?

for serious? i mean, it's not fine classical architecture by any means, but I thought the house he posted looked quite handsome.

we are reconsidering the idea of condo fees. one point we keep coming back to is that we live in a large house with like three living rooms, two dining rooms, a foyer, four bedrooms, an office, and a family room... we only ever use the family room and one of the dining rooms, even with two dozen guests over, but we're not so sure we could get used to less space.

condos sound nice on paper, but we lived in a tiny bungalow for years that works out to be about the same square footage of many of the condos we are looking at, and we always felt like we were in each others space.... bearing in mind there are no children anymore.

is space less important to more mature families? and how do heating, and other utilities compare when you compare a house to a building of multiple units?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The costs of maintaining low-density infrastructure just aren't really that burdensome. Once it is there - it is there. Wear and tear is minimal, upgrades are rarely required unless there is an extraordinary change in land-use. When work is required it is a fraction of the trouble relative to a denser area.

Most people don't have a commercial fibreobtic backbone running beneath their street or 750mm water mains that need to be installed or removed with a crane. It just isn't that big of a problem.

Ah, but what is the cost per resident of that area? Sure the costs per unit of sidewalk are cheaper, but the amount of sidewalk per resident is higher. What exactly are we measuring and why?

And isn't minimal wear and tear a bad thing? Doesn't that just mean it is not getting used? That is like saying: "maintaining my car is really cheap, because I never drive it."

[Policy Wonk]

That would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, many of the costs and impacts simply wouldn't apply in a lower density area. ∅/x=∅.

Minimal wear and tear of a utility asset is a good thing, utilities don't look for opportunities to prematurely dig up city streets. It is called the "optimal replacement interval" - longer is better

[mersar]

Originally Posted by elconsulto

and how do heating, and other utilities compare when you compare a house to a building of multiple units?

Generally less if we are considering a stacked building. Especially on the heating side of the equation, since what heat might normally escape from the roof instead is trapped in the building (of course except the top floor). Though for most multi-unit type buildings, especially condos, the heating costs are built into your condo fees at a set rate, typically leaving only power (and sometimes its even included, depending on the building). Multi-unit buildings also traditionally employ a radiant type of heating system (in floor or baseboard) rather then a forced air or gravity heating system, mainly as the costs of scaling a forced air type system to multi-units gets quite expensive in terms of the space needed.

[kw5150]

My building is only 7 stories high and has 30 residents. On the same amount of space that my condo takes up, you can only fit 3 single family homes (or 3 units). That is called wasted space.

Also, when all of the utilities in the srawling suburbs finally need upgrading (we're talking years down the road) Calgary will feel the headache.

It takes about 10 times the resources to build suburbia doesn't it?

10 times more roads
10 times more sidewalks
10 times more electrical lines
10 times more sewer lines
10 times more storm lines
10 times more gas lines
10 times more water lines

also more fire halls,
more signage,
more area to patrol,
more potholes to fix,
more lines to paint,
more landscaping,
more utilities to repair.

I could go on....................

[DizzyEdge]

There really needs to be some concrete #'s as far as the costs about denser redevelopment vs sprawl, since in general it's always been a somewhat fuzzy concept of "sprawl is bad, and also more expensive". I'm sure those concrete #'s exist, I just haven't really heard them from city hall.
More specific one-line facts is what city hall needs if they want to get buyin from the public.

[floobie]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

There really needs to be some concrete #'s as far as the costs about denser redevelopment vs sprawl, since in general it's always been a somewhat fuzzy concept of "sprawl is bad, and also more expensive". I'm sure those concrete #'s exist, I just haven't really heard them from city hall.
More specific one-line facts is what city hall needs if they want to get buyin from the public.

Agreed. I'm sure everyone here can argue about it, coming up with completely reasonable counterexample after completely reasonable counterexample.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by fusili

Yup, while I do appreciate the debate sometimes, I think at some point we should just let each other live the lives we want to live. Freeweed, for example, would never want to live in my 850 ft2 condo downtown with very little storage space, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere where I can't walk to a ton of shops in 5 minutes. And I have no idea why that is a bad thing.

I agree that no one needs to convince others, but at the same time we need to be fair and honest. The low ball in your post above is the suggestion that anywhere outside of the inner city cannot have a ton of shops within a five minutes walk.

Good planning does not ask the question urban versus suburban, rather, it tries to have good plans for both types - meaning there needs to be very good nodes that are outside of the inner city. You may recall my prior comments on the construction thread that highlighted that only about 20% of Calgary's workforce, about 150,000, work in downtown. A vast majority work away from the core - and thus good design in suburban areas is what we should be after, instead of after all suburbanites. Consider the hospitals, schools, post secondary institutions, industrial parks and airport - mostly outside of the inner city. That is the reality. We can never have 50% of Calgary have a love in by living in the inner city - as that is not where they work or need to be.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The costs of maintaining low-density infrastructure just aren't really that burdensome. Once it is there - it is there. Wear and tear is minimal, upgrades are rarely required unless there is an extraordinary change in land-use. When work is required it is a fraction of the trouble relative to a denser area.

Most people don't have a commercial fibreobtic backbone running beneath their street or 750mm water mains that need to be installed or removed with a crane. It just isn't that big of a problem.

Absolutely - there are many myths about these things, and fact is, the actual amount spent on a per person basis in the inner city is a higher proportion than most of the inner city fans believe.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by elconsulto

we are reconsidering the idea of condo fees. one point we keep coming back to is that we live in a large house with like three living rooms, two dining rooms, a foyer, four bedrooms, an office, and a family room... we only ever use the family room and one of the dining rooms, even with two dozen guests over, but we're not so sure we could get used to less space.


.... bearing in mind there are no children anymore.

I'm going to make a wild prediction that a condo just might not be enough space for you, fees and every single other pro/con aside. We live in probably half the living space you do and a condo seems cramped to us. Maybe try downsizing to a more modest house first, and see if it bothers you.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by kw5150

My building is only 7 stories high and has 30 residents. On the same amount of space that my condo takes up, you can only fit 3 single family homes (or 3 units). That is called wasted space.

Space is 100%, absolutely, positively free. We have so much of it in this country that we could have a billion people here living in SFH and still have plenty of space left over.

Roads, utilities, water resources, and a thousand other things - those ain't free. Those can be done wastefully.

But space? How can you possibly waste something that is for all practical purposes unlimited? It's like claiming I waste too much air when I breathe.

Maybe I'm just being a pedant here.