Calgary Civic Census 2015

[Spring2008]

I don't have the excel in front of me, but I calculated City Centre growth at 880 net positive residents totalling a population of 39,950. Not a great yr for growth in the core but only 2 towers completed this past census cycle though. Next census should see at least 9 res tower completions in the core.

Outlook
First
Fuze
Portfolio
Park
Guardian 1
Met
Aura 2
Mark

[Surrealplaces]

Also, even though Aura I is completed, I think it's only half full.

Exciting times for the core, as the next two years will be banner years for growth. Aside from the 9 towers next year the year after next, will see yet another 8 new towers (Avenue, Maple Projects, Royal View east, Smith, Vogue, WAM West, WAM East, 6th and 10th.. Some really good population growth for the core. After that will be slow.... Concorde Pacific, and The Royal so far will be the only ones in year 3....well that and I guess 6th and 10th might be in that group.

Originally Posted by Spring2008

I don't have the excel in front of me, but I calculated City Centre growth at 880 net positive residents totalling a population of 39,950. Not a great yr for growth in the core but only 2 towers completed this past census cycle though. Next census should see at least 9 res tower completions in the core.

Outlook
First
Fuze
Portfolio
Park
Guardian 1
Met
Aura 2
Mark

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Not bad for a neighbourhood that has needed no new roads in the past century (except cycle tracks).

Yeah - but man a lot of money has been spent upgrading utilities to deal with the shit density.

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Yeah - but man a lot of money has been spent upgrading utilities to deal with the shit density.

Just a drop in the bucket compared to all the roads and interchanges, light standards, garbage truck, and snow plough routes, etc from the burbs. Oh and course all the extra shit from the burbs

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Yeah - but man a lot of money has been spent upgrading utilities to deal with the shit density.

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

Just a drop in the bucket compared to all the roads and interchanges, light standards, garbage truck, and snow plough routes, etc from the burbs. Oh and course all the extra shit from the burbs

People often forget that a lot of utilities in the burbs go through the inner city to get to pump stations, treatment plants, power stations etc.

Case in point, West Memorial Sanitary trunk line. The line had to be upgraded through Bowness (that is the construction you see happening on 16th avenue by the Bow River) as the line was hitting capacity. But Bowness hasn't been growing for 10 years- it was actually increased usage from places like Valley Ridge and Crestmont (and Cochrane IIRC) that were adding to the capacity. A utility upgrade in the inner city was entirely due to increased usage from the suburbs.

Same goes for roads, power lines, water lines, storm water, fire stations, etc

If we add 10K people to the inner city we have to upgrade infrastructure in the inner city to serve them (generally). If we add 10K people to the suburbs we have to add the infrastructure in the suburbs AND the inner city to serve them. That is the fundamental reason why density makes sense, it requires less infrastructure per person than low-density areas.

This concept isn't hard.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by fusili

People often forget that a lot of utilities in the burbs go through the inner city to get to pump stations, treatment plants, power stations etc.

Case in point, West Memorial Sanitary trunk line. The line had to be upgraded through Bowness (that is the construction you see happening on 16th avenue by the Bow River) as the line was hitting capacity. But Bowness hasn't been growing for 10 years- it was actually increased usage from places like Valley Ridge and Crestmont (and Cochrane IIRC) that were adding to the capacity. A utility upgrade in the inner city was entirely due to increased usage from the suburbs.

Same goes for roads, power lines, water lines, storm water, fire stations, etc

If we add 10K people to the inner city we have to upgrade infrastructure in the inner city to serve them (generally). If we add 10K people to the suburbs we have to add the infrastructure in the suburbs AND the inner city to serve them. That is the fundamental reason why density makes sense, it requires less infrastructure per person than low-density areas.

This concept isn't hard.

Most of the infrastructure dealing with utilities is not in the inner city. And frankly, your whole thesis is rather silly. It would be like me pointing out that water comes from the mountains through the suburbs to get to the inner city. A ridiculous point.

By the way, for all of your continuous claims of having me on ignore, you certainly do respond to a lot of my posts. I'm flattered.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Most of the infrastructure dealing with utilities is not in the inner city. And frankly, your whole thesis is rather silly. It would be like me pointing out that water comes from the mountains through the suburbs to get to the inner city. A ridiculous point.

By the way, for all of your continuous claims of having me on ignore, you certainly do respond to a lot of my posts. I'm flattered.

Swing and a miss.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

Also, even though Aura I is completed, I think it's only half full.

Exciting times for the core, as the next two years will be banner years for growth. Aside from the 9 towers next year the year after next, will see yet another 8 new towers (Avenue, Maple Projects, Royal View east, Smith, Vogue, WAM West, WAM East, 6th and 10th.. Some really good population growth for the core. After that will be slow.... Concorde Pacific, and The Royal so far will be the only ones in year 3....well that and I guess 6th and 10th might be in that group.

You forgot about Pulse and Guardian South for the year after next, and Verve, N3, Telus Sky, and Waterfront Parkside (and potentially Park Point) for the year after that.

The inner ring will also see great growth during these years as well. Inglewood, Lower Mount Royal, Mission, Sunnyside/Hillhurst, and Bridgeland.

[Chadillaccc]

So that will be...

2016 - 9 towers
2017 - 11 towers
2018 - 9 towers (if both Concord Towers are built, and counting the 4 midrise towers of Parkside as equivalent to 1 highrise)

These numbers also don't include Cidex West Village or The Hat, both of which have potential to go through even in a down cycle, as well as the first phase residential tower of the RicoCan Embassy Bosa East Village Gateway project. All three of these have potential to be included in the 2018 numbers, or 2019.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by fusili

People often forget that a lot of utilities in the burbs go through the inner city to get to pump stations, treatment plants, power stations etc.

Case in point, West Memorial Sanitary trunk line. The line had to be upgraded through Bowness (that is the construction you see happening on 16th avenue by the Bow River) as the line was hitting capacity. But Bowness hasn't been growing for 10 years- it was actually increased usage from places like Valley Ridge and Crestmont (and Cochrane IIRC) that were adding to the capacity. A utility upgrade in the inner city was entirely due to increased usage from the suburbs.

Same goes for roads, power lines, water lines, storm water, fire stations, etc

If we add 10K people to the inner city we have to upgrade infrastructure in the inner city to serve them (generally). If we add 10K people to the suburbs we have to add the infrastructure in the suburbs AND the inner city to serve them. That is the fundamental reason why density makes sense, it requires less infrastructure per person than low-density areas.

This concept isn't hard.

So let get this straight, adding 10,000 people in the Bridlewood area is going to require increased infrastructure in the inner city? How so?

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by speedog

So let get this straight, adding 10,000 people in the Bridlewood area is going to require increased infrastructure in the inner city? How so?

Because of the system design, most if not all main trunk lines for services generally radiate from the inner city, particularly water & sewer.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by speedog

So let get this straight, adding 10,000 people in the Bridlewood area is going to require increased infrastructure in the inner city? How so?

How do these people drive to downtown?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Most of the infrastructure dealing with utilities is not in the inner city. And frankly, your whole thesis is rather silly. It would be like me pointing out that water comes from the mountains through the suburbs to get to the inner city. A ridiculous point.

By the way, for all of your continuous claims of having me on ignore, you certainly do respond to a lot of my posts. I'm flattered.

The comparison is a non sequitur. Water that comes from the mountains travels by gravity along a river channel. There is no infrastructure required and thus no cost that has to be borne by taxpayers. There is no differentiation of cost burden if there is no cost.

When that water is pumped through a pump station along a force main to your home, there is a cost. That cost is the capital for the pump station, the operational costs of the pump station, the capital for the force main and smaller feeders and the maintenance for the entire system.

Imagine a simple linear system that consists of a pump station, 1km of 300mm force main (I don't know my water servicing standards, so these dimensions are is just made up), then another pump station and another 1km of 150mm feeder pipe. Imagine every component of the system is at capacity. Now imagine we add 5000 people to this system. If we add them to the end of the line, we have to upgrade the first pump station, the 300mm force main, the second pump station and the 150mm feeder pipe. But if we add those people in the area before the second pump station, we only have to upgrade the first pump station and the 300mm force main. Adding those people closer to the pump station is cheaper than the alternative. This is the crux of the argument.

Upgrading inner city infrastructure is akin (although more complicated) to the example above. So yes, while we have to upgrade infrastructure to accommodate additional growth in the inner city, it is a hell of a lot less than doing so in the outskirts of the city, because we only have to upgrade a part of the system. With greenfield growth, we have to upgrade the entire system (in reference to the simplified example above). This is mostly true for water and sewer systems (especially those using Bonnybrook as a destination for sanitary sewer) and especially for transportation, our largest capital and operational budget item in our city (after police) (Wooster- can you confirm?).

This is why arguments that greenfield infrastructure is cheaper are perverse. Yes, digging sewer lines in virgin fields is cheaper than ripping up asphalt, but in most cases, that greenfield development requires us to do both. Infrastructure has to tie into an existing system. The problem is we think of infrastructure only as the stuff in the immediate vicinity of a development, but we forget that the water that comes to our homes travels through kilometers of existing pipe before it gets to the border of our new development or that when we flush the toilet, it doesn't just travel down a pipe to the edge of our subdivision and then get teleported to the treatment plant.

Compact development is cheaper than spread out development because it requires less infrastructure. Less kilometres of pipe, less pump stations, less lift stations, less storm ponds, less roads, less transit, less distance for garbage trucks to travel. Saying the opposite is not a matter of values, it is a matter of being unable to understand math.

And yes, most of the infrastructure dealing with utilities is in fact in the inner city, because that is where the city was when those key pieces of infrastructure were built. Pump stations are all along the river, not in Evanston. The sewage treatment plants are in Bonnybrook and Pine Creek. The sanitary mains travel through the inner city to get to them.



I took you off ignore because someone quoted some ridiculous thing you posted and I needed to take you off ignore to quote your post to respond. There is a reason you are ignored by myself and several others on this forum. Perhaps it is because you argue things like water flowing from the mountains past Tuscany to the inner city is somehow akin to actual infrastructure that we have to build, operate and maintain.

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

You forgot about Pulse and Guardian South for the year after next, and Verve, N3, Telus Sky, and Waterfront Parkside (and potentially Park Point) for the year after that.

The inner ring will also see great growth during these years as well. Inglewood, Lower Mount Royal, Mission, Sunnyside/Hillhurst, and Bridgeland.

Ooops, totally forgot about all of those.

[Fuzz]

Fusili, I am amazed you typed all that up, and that it was actually necessary. It is such an obvious point I can't see how someone wouldn't understand it.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Fusili, I am amazed you typed all that up, and that it was actually necessary. It is such an obvious point I can't see how someone wouldn't understand it.

I have a hard time telling if he is just trolling with comments like that or if he just genuinely doesn't understand these concepts. I wrote it more for the others on the forum really.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Thomas Mawson, 1914

Thanks for that quote 5seconds; perfectly worded and timeless advice. It's a shame no one listened back then, and continued to disregard such advice for 100 years (and even now the city is only barely starting to react to the financial disaster created by ignoring such advice).

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by fusili

The comparison is a non sequitur. Water that comes from the mountains travels by gravity along a river channel. There is no infrastructure required and thus no cost that has to be borne by taxpayers. There is no differentiation of cost burden if there is no cost.

When that water is pumped through a pump station along a force main to your home, there is a cost. That cost is the capital for the pump station, the operational costs of the pump station, the capital for the force main and smaller feeders and the maintenance for the entire system.

Imagine a simple linear system that consists of a pump station, 1km of 300mm force main (I don't know my water servicing standards, so these dimensions are is just made up), then another pump station and another 1km of 150mm feeder pipe. Imagine every component of the system is at capacity. Now imagine we add 5000 people to this system. If we add them to the end of the line, we have to upgrade the first pump station, the 300mm force main, the second pump station and the 150mm feeder pipe. But if we add those people in the area before the second pump station, we only have to upgrade the first pump station and the 300mm force main. Adding those people closer to the pump station is cheaper than the alternative. This is the crux of the argument.

Upgrading inner city infrastructure is akin (although more complicated) to the example above. So yes, while we have to upgrade infrastructure to accommodate additional growth in the inner city, it is a hell of a lot less than doing so in the outskirts of the city, because we only have to upgrade a part of the system. With greenfield growth, we have to upgrade the entire system (in reference to the simplified example above). This is mostly true for water and sewer systems (especially those using Bonnybrook as a destination for sanitary sewer) and especially for transportation, our largest capital and operational budget item in our city (after police) (Wooster- can you confirm?).

This is why arguments that greenfield infrastructure is cheaper are perverse. Yes, digging sewer lines in virgin fields is cheaper than ripping up asphalt, but in most cases, that greenfield development requires us to do both. Infrastructure has to tie into an existing system. The problem is we think of infrastructure only as the stuff in the immediate vicinity of a development, but we forget that the water that comes to our homes travels through kilometers of existing pipe before it gets to the border of our new development or that when we flush the toilet, it doesn't just travel down a pipe to the edge of our subdivision and then get teleported to the treatment plant.

Compact development is cheaper than spread out development because it requires less infrastructure. Less kilometres of pipe, less pump stations, less lift stations, less storm ponds, less roads, less transit, less distance for garbage trucks to travel. Saying the opposite is not a matter of values, it is a matter of being unable to understand math.

And yes, most of the infrastructure dealing with utilities is in fact in the inner city, because that is where the city was when those key pieces of infrastructure were built. Pump stations are all along the river, not in Evanston. The sewage treatment plants are in Bonnybrook and Pine Creek. The sanitary mains travel through the inner city to get to them.

I took you off ignore because someone quoted some ridiculous thing you posted and I needed to take you off ignore to quote your post to respond. There is a reason you are ignored by myself and several others on this forum. Perhaps it is because you argue things like water flowing from the mountains past Tuscany to the inner city is somehow akin to actual infrastructure that we have to build, operate and maintain.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Is electricity a utility and does it also require pumping from the inner city out?

BTW - I was not arguing that water coming from the mountains is a gift from the suburbs to the innercity, rather, was demonstrating that some of the points people make are as ridiculous.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Is electricity a utility and does it also require pumping from the inner city out?

BTW - I was not arguing that water coming from the mountains is a gift from the suburbs to the innercity, rather, was demonstrating that some of the points people make are as ridiculous.

Electricity is a utility and it requires transmission from power plants. Electrical generation is not located in a similar manner to water or sewer infrastructure, with plants being located throughout the city, but many being located outside the city. IIRC, electrical and transmission costs (capital, operation and maintenance) are 100% paid for by rate payers and not paid for by municipal taxes. I am not clear on how transmission costs are factored in, whether they are a base rate per kWh or if they are varied based on distance from the plant or substation or whatever.

I assume your point is that electricity costs are a counter argument to the unequal infrastructure costs of water, sewer and transportation vis-à-vis the inner city and suburbs. It isn't. Try again. This time don't just spitball; try and come up with a rational argument. Think it through, figure out if the comparisons you are making are relevant or even coherent, if your argument is logically valid and if your facts and assumptions are correct. Ask yourself "Is this point I am trying to make a well thought out argument? Have I considered whether the comparisons are really valid? Or is this just the first thing that came to my head and I decided to post it without bothering to think?" That might help with some of your other posts.



I think you made your point about some arguments being ridiculous.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

The comparison is a non sequitur. Water that comes from the mountains travels by gravity along a river channel. There is no infrastructure required and thus no cost that has to be borne by taxpayers. There is no differentiation of cost burden if there is no cost.

When that water is pumped through a pump station along a force main to your home, there is a cost. That cost is the capital for the pump station, the operational costs of the pump station, the capital for the force main and smaller feeders and the maintenance for the entire system.

Imagine a simple linear system that consists of a pump station, 1km of 300mm force main (I don't know my water servicing standards, so these dimensions are is just made up), then another pump station and another 1km of 150mm feeder pipe. Imagine every component of the system is at capacity. Now imagine we add 5000 people to this system. If we add them to the end of the line, we have to upgrade the first pump station, the 300mm force main, the second pump station and the 150mm feeder pipe. But if we add those people in the area before the second pump station, we only have to upgrade the first pump station and the 300mm force main. Adding those people closer to the pump station is cheaper than the alternative. This is the crux of the argument.

Upgrading inner city infrastructure is akin (although more complicated) to the example above. So yes, while we have to upgrade infrastructure to accommodate additional growth in the inner city, it is a hell of a lot less than doing so in the outskirts of the city, because we only have to upgrade a part of the system. With greenfield growth, we have to upgrade the entire system (in reference to the simplified example above). This is mostly true for water and sewer systems (especially those using Bonnybrook as a destination for sanitary sewer) and especially for transportation, our largest capital and operational budget item in our city (after police) (Wooster- can you confirm?).

This is why arguments that greenfield infrastructure is cheaper are perverse. Yes, digging sewer lines in virgin fields is cheaper than ripping up asphalt, but in most cases, that greenfield development requires us to do both. Infrastructure has to tie into an existing system. The problem is we think of infrastructure only as the stuff in the immediate vicinity of a development, but we forget that the water that comes to our homes travels through kilometers of existing pipe before it gets to the border of our new development or that when we flush the toilet, it doesn't just travel down a pipe to the edge of our subdivision and then get teleported to the treatment plant.

Compact development is cheaper than spread out development because it requires less infrastructure. Less kilometres of pipe, less pump stations, less lift stations, less storm ponds, less roads, less transit, less distance for garbage trucks to travel. Saying the opposite is not a matter of values, it is a matter of being unable to understand math.

And yes, most of the infrastructure dealing with utilities is in fact in the inner city, because that is where the city was when those key pieces of infrastructure were built. Pump stations are all along the river, not in Evanston. The sewage treatment plants are in Bonnybrook and Pine Creek. The sanitary mains travel through the inner city to get to them.



I took you off ignore because someone quoted some ridiculous thing you posted and I needed to take you off ignore to quote your post to respond. There is a reason you are ignored by myself and several others on this forum. Perhaps it is because you argue things like water flowing from the mountains past Tuscany to the inner city is somehow akin to actual infrastructure that we have to build, operate and maintain.

Water is complicated by various factors. It is sized for fire fighting as opposed to consumption. It operates as a grid to eliminate deadheading, where bacteria could grow. For these reasons, growth elsewhere doesn't really affect the inner city. Really, growth barely affects anywhere unless it is greenfield construction that requires new lines. Sprawl is of course less efficient for distribution, more pipe needing to be laid and maintained, but Kincora isn't putting a direct strain on Hillhurst. Water operates a lot more like the electrical grid than most people think.

For sewage, you're entirely correctSanitary does operate like a tree. The trunks have to support the entire system. So growth in the extremities requires growth all the way down to Bonnybrook. Everything in the north goes to Bonnybrook.