HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2015, 10:21 PM
SHOFEAR's Avatar
SHOFEAR SHOFEAR is offline
DRINK
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: City Of Champions
Posts: 8,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
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.
I'm a project manager with a large land development firm. I actually deal with these costs daily. I'm not some idealistic internet social justice warrior.
__________________
Lana. Lana. Lana? LANA! Danger Zone
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2015, 10:26 PM
Xelebes's Avatar
Xelebes Xelebes is offline
Sawmill Billowtoker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rockin' in Edmonton
Posts: 13,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOFEAR View Post
I'm a project manager with a large land development firm. I actually deal with these costs daily. I'm not some idealistic internet social justice warrior.
Project managers don't necessarily get to see all the costs. You don't get to negotiate what gets taken off your bill to be paid by the municipality.
__________________
The Colour Green
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2015, 10:27 PM
SHOFEAR's Avatar
SHOFEAR SHOFEAR is offline
DRINK
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: City Of Champions
Posts: 8,219
Guy's, seriously. Land Development has ALWAYS cost the existing tax base. New development now less costs to the existing tax payer then at any other point.

It's absolutely mind-blowing that people who live in old mature neighbourhoods that were developed and upgraded over the years with a massive costs to the taxpayer and now complaining about new development that costs the existing tax base a fraction of what older neighborhoods have.
__________________
Lana. Lana. Lana? LANA! Danger Zone
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2015, 10:36 PM
SHOFEAR's Avatar
SHOFEAR SHOFEAR is offline
DRINK
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: City Of Champions
Posts: 8,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelebes View Post
Project managers don't necessarily get to see all the costs. You don't get to negotiate what gets taken off your bill to be paid by the municipality.
I should clarify, Land development project manager with a consulting firm.
__________________
Lana. Lana. Lana? LANA! Danger Zone
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2015, 12:01 AM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOFEAR View Post
Guy's, seriously. Land Development has ALWAYS cost the existing tax base. New development now less costs to the existing tax payer then at any other point.

It's absolutely mind-blowing that people who live in old mature neighbourhoods that were developed and upgraded over the years with a massive costs to the taxpayer and now complaining about new development that costs the existing tax base a fraction of what older neighborhoods have.
If those old mature neighbourhoods were built on the 40s or later, maybe, but anything predating the Second World War is likely to be built to a significantly higher density than a modern subdivision, with more of the total land area covered by residences (as opposed to huge roads and parking areas, etc) than what came later.

I guarantee that my city centre neighbourhood, if replicated today on the outskirts of town (even in its original form, without modern highrises, etc) would be denser than most of today's greenfield development.

This may not be as much the case out west, where even historic neighbourhoods tend to be individual homes on relatively big lots, but it's certainly true of anywhere east of Manitoba. New developments may be dense, relative to the suburbs of the 70s and 80s, but they're not even remotely as urban-scaled as the pre-20th century parts of our cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2015, 1:38 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOFEAR View Post
Guy's, seriously. Land Development has ALWAYS cost the existing tax base. New development now less costs to the existing tax payer then at any other point.
So what you're saying is that not only is our assertion currently true, but that it has always been true and throughout history, it's been even more true than it is now?

Well um... ok then.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2015, 2:58 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
I was recently enjoying the Cities Alive podcast which is one that I've been following for awhile now, and one of the guests on this particular episode (an author) goes into detail about this specific issue. The most relevant discussion starts at about the 16 minute mark.

http://pdcentre.ca/blog/podcast/plan...-cents-part-1/

I also just went to the library website and reserved her book "Perverse cities : hidden subsidies, wonky policy, and urban sprawl / Pamela Blais"

Sounds like a very interesting read.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2015, 10:57 AM
miketoronto miketoronto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,978
One thing to keep in mind, is that higher density housing does not always mean lower costs for utilities.

Yes there can be cost savings. But once you hit a certain number of units, you have to increase the water capacity, hydro capacity, etc. So the savings can be smaller than expected.

That was one thing we were taught in finance class for urban planning. You really have to dig into all the numbers, because it does not automatically mean high density housing costs less to service.
__________________
Miketoronto
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2015, 2:01 PM
SHOFEAR's Avatar
SHOFEAR SHOFEAR is offline
DRINK
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: City Of Champions
Posts: 8,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
So what you're saying is that not only is our assertion currently true, but that it has always been true and throughout history, it's been even more true than it is now?

Well um... ok then.
New development is less costly for the existing tax base (initial servicing and long term maintenance) than ever before. I cant make that much more clear.

Quote:
but anything predating the Second World War is likely to be built to a significantly higher density than a modern subdivision, with more of the total land area covered by residences (as opposed to huge roads and parking areas, etc) than what came later.
most of the pre ww2 neighbourhoods started as single family homes and small retail stores and have evolved over 80 years. Like I said previously, new areas will also evolve and densify if you give them 80 years. Your foolish if you think strip malls and big box commercial areas (and the parking lots that surround them) are not going to change over the next 70 years.

Your 1935 equivalent would have been bitching about new neighbourhoods on the edge of the city being built in 1935. Now most urban minded folk would consider those as some of the most prime neighbourhoods in many cities. In 2090 stuff being built now will be viewed the same way.
__________________
Lana. Lana. Lana? LANA! Danger Zone
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2015, 2:03 PM
jthetzel jthetzel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
Halifax did a study about the actual cost to maintain different types of neighbourhoods, from downtown ones, to suburban ones, etc. $X per capita for roads, sewers, water, etc. In an effort to promote density. And lots of organizations here went to council with it... but I've tried and can't find it.
Are you referring to the 2013 Stantec Quantifying the Costs and Benefits to HRM, Residents and the Environment of Alternate Growth Scenarios?

If so, here are the summary tables. The four scenarios being compared are:
  • RMPS (Regional Municipal Planning Strategy): Current growth goal of 25% regional centre, 50% suburban, and 25% rural
  • Post RMPS Trend: Actual observed growth of 16% regional centre, 56% suburban, and 28% rural
  • Scenario A: Hypothetical growth of 40% regional centre, 40% suburban, and 20% rural
  • Scenario B: Hypothetical growth of 50% regional centre, 30% suburban, and 20% rural

The first table compares the projected impact on services in the year 2031. The second table compares the projected cumulative costs for 2009 through 2031. Alas, neither table would receive much praise from Edward Tufte, but the take-home message is, if their models are valid, the pro-urban Scenario B saves Halifax $3 billion over 22 years.



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2015, 2:17 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOFEAR View Post
New development is less costly for the existing tax base (initial servicing and long term maintenance) than ever before. I cant make that much more clear.



most of the pre ww2 neighbourhoods started as single family homes and small retail stores and have evolved over 80 years. Like I said previously, new areas will also evolve and densify if you give them 80 years. Your foolish if you think strip malls and big box commercial areas (and the parking lots that surround them) are not going to change over the next 70 years.

Your 1935 equivalent would have been bitching about new neighbourhoods on the edge of the city being built in 1935. Now most urban minded folk would consider those as some of the most prime neighbourhoods in many cities. In 2090 stuff being built now will be viewed the same way.
What we're complaining about isn't just greenfield development (yes we want less of that and more brownfield) but rather that we want any greenfield development that does occur to be urban in nature with higher densities and without being auto dependent. We want the subsidies that are built into such development to stop. These subsidies are laid out very clearly in the link I posted, just not in print form. If these subsidies have been higher at other points in history it may help explain why the low density greenfield model has become so prevalent in the 20th century, but is still irrelevant to the fact that they should be eliminated now. We don't care that this development type may become more urban in 70 years. We want it to be urban now.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2015, 2:19 PM
Nashe's Avatar
Nashe Nashe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Moncton, NB
Posts: 2,471
I wonder how accurate a 22-year projection is, given all those variables... I know it's necessary to project more than 5 years in advance (decades, for sure) but I really doubt that either of those projected numbers will be proven right, 22 years down the road. We're really crappy at predicting anything beyond a few years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2015, 9:02 PM
jthetzel jthetzel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkuta View Post
I wonder how accurate a 22-year projection is, given all those variables...
True. It would be remarkable if the 22-year projections proved accurate, and impossible to know given the counterfactual scenarios.

However, good on Halifax for making the projections and publicly disclosing the methods. Moving forward, the municipality can compare actual growth and costs to near and mid-term projections to assess confidence in long-term predictions. While the study doesn't prove urban development is more efficient than non-urban development, unless a study of similar or better quality exists reaching an opposing conclusion (or serious methodological flaws are exposed), the Halifax study should weigh in favour of urban development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2015, 11:54 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthetzel View Post
True. It would be remarkable if the 22-year projections proved accurate, and impossible to know given the counterfactual scenarios.

However, good on Halifax for making the projections and publicly disclosing the methods. Moving forward, the municipality can compare actual growth and costs to near and mid-term projections to assess confidence in long-term predictions. While the study doesn't prove urban development is more efficient than non-urban development, unless a study of similar or better quality exists reaching an opposing conclusion (or serious methodological flaws are exposed), the Halifax study should weigh in favour of urban development.
Yes, it's like any other study. This is just some data to take into account. It can always be amended as more information comes to light, but a lot of the differences in cost are pretty much no-brainers, and there will never be perfect information so decision making cannot be delayed until we have it. Government is all about making the best decisions possible with the limited information available. There's a lot of excess infrastructure capacity in the older parts of many cities and a lot of services, like garbage collection, cost more to provide in lower-density settings. Cities need to take these sorts of things into account when planning development so that they can operate more efficiently. The cities that do will have lower operating costs, better sevices, and lower taxes.

Unfortunately I would say that Halifax still does a bad job of connecting the dots because transportation and land use planning are done separately. When it comes to land use planning the city zones for infill but when it comes to transportation there's a huge mess. The province wants to build highways, the bridge commission wants to build bridges, and transit studies don't take the benefits of transit-oriented development into account. Once they hit a certain scale cities need transportation authorities that can make regionally-optimal decisions about allocating funding to different types of transportation solutions, and that planning needs to feed back into the plans that determine where people will live and work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:07 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.