Pedestrianization of City Centres

[lrt's friend]

I thought I would throw this in here. To make something like this work, we need a reliable transit system that we are willing to invest in to make better, as well as better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. Are we willing to do this? I doubt it.

• Video Link

[skyscraperaccount]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I thought I would throw this in here. To make something like this work, we need a reliable transit system that we are willing to invest in to make better, as well as better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. Are we willing to do this? I doubt it.

• Video Link

Voter's just explicitly rejected exactly those things...

[Richard Eade]

Copied from the Confederation Line East LRT Extension (Stage 2) [Blair to Trim] thread in hopes to continue the discussion in a more appropriate thread:

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I think your first point is the key that that anti car folks overlook. To make cities denser you need to change people's housing choices and probably the size of their housing at least at the same cost. For suburban life to continue we need a road network. Arguably the loss of suburban affordability which is shaking our society to its core is the lack of development of our road network. In Toronto how many lanes of freeways have they added since the 1970s? It is not feasible to serve white picket fences SFHs with transit. Switzerland does a bit but they are twice as rich as us. Lots of wealthier than us European states live in housing half the size of us with only communal outside space.
The 15 minute conspiracy folks aren't that wrong if this thread was policy its exactly what they are worried about. We had an election the car centric suburban folks one. I live downtown so personally I'd love to see a congestion charge totally pedestrianised Byward market through parliament and up Elgin. But it's not going to happen unless people don't just say they want to fight climate change and use transit but actually make the sacrifices necessary to do it.

I agree. Density is a good thing in some cases. Although it is not the best thing for ALL cases.

Ottawa’s downtown had a high density of jobs. The highest in the city. But it had little in the way of residences so that people could easily access those jobs with a very short commute.

Obviously, this is a strong argument for dense Mixed-Use areas – with residences, retail, jobs, and recreation all within a 15-minute walk. Why can’t everyone see that the only way forward is to raze the downtown, the suburbs, and the exurbs and replace them with 15-minute neighbourhoods? (OK, there was a bit of sarcasm in that last line.)

Well, maybe those “car-centric suburban folks” can see a different possibility. One with more options.

Let’s look at the idea of a 15-minute neighbourhood. In our imaginary neighbourhood, we have 7 small rows of attached-housing, 4 low- and medium-rise residential buildings, 2 of which share a podium with small shops. There are 2 high-rise residential towers, each with retail at their base – one housing the small grocery store. And, there are also 2 medium-height office towers, with each having outward-facing businesses on the ground floor. Rounding out the neighbourhood is a multi-purpose sports field and a single-ice-sheet arena. You need to walk fast, but you can walk to the main road, which borders the neighbourhood, in 15 minutes to catch a bus. Cycling or driving to the main road is less convenient because all of the roads – and accompanying bike lanes – are one-way only. This allows for a sidewalk on each side, a bike lane and a traffic lane to be squeezed into the narrowest space – but it does mean that you will drive around the blocks to go anywhere.

OK, so how many jobs are there within that 15-minute neighbourhood? One for everyone who wants one? Is every type of job available to everyone?

Well, there are plenty of retail jobs available, but, maybe, not so many nursing jobs. You will notice that our neighbourhood did not have a hospital. Although there is one dentist in office 503 of one of the towers. (If you don’t like that dentist – tough. She is your option, if you stay within your community.)

I think that most people can see that there will still be a need to leave the 15-minute neighbourhood for many reasons – even if SOME of the needs can be met within the neighbourhood.

And just because the local grocery store sells bananas, it is possible that you don’t want to pay $1.19 per pound for them. You would rather drive to the large, regional, grocery store that buys an entire truckload of bananas at a time and can sell them for $0.69/lb.

Stores that are primarily supported by the local neighbourhood are usually smaller, necessitating them to charge more for what they sell. Are people willing to spend a lot more for everything they buy, just so that they can walk 10 minutes to that store?

I doubt it. Otherwise, Mac’s, Quickie, Circle-K, Wink’s, and etc. would be packed with neighbours – and carry a lot more perishable goods. These convenience stores tend to be the store that you quickly run to when you suddenly realize that you are out of cream, but your mother-in-law is coming and she always uses cream in her tea, but your spouse has taken the car to work so you can’t ‘nip over’ to the Super Store – panic – just pay the extra at the local convenience store, this once! There is a price for 'convenience'.

The idea of a 15-minute neighbourhood that supplies all of (well, maybe just ‘most of’) your needs within a 15-minute walk is cute. And it will work for some. (In England, I met folks who had lived their entire life - thus far anyway - within a half-mile radius of the pub.) I think that most people, however, who have grown up with the ability to make choices about what they want will want more than what a 15-minute neighbourhood can offer.

So, I’m not sure that suburbanites see the idea of having more services closer as a bad idea. I just think that they want to be able to still have their choices available, too.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Copied from the Confederation Line East LRT Extension (Stage 2) [Blair to Trim] thread in hopes to continue the discussion in a more appropriate thread:




I agree. Density is a good thing in some cases. Although it is not the best thing for ALL cases.

Ottawa’s downtown had a high density of jobs. The highest in the city. But it had little in the way of residences so that people could easily access those jobs with a very short commute.

Obviously, this is a strong argument for dense Mixed-Use areas – with residences, retail, jobs, and recreation all within a 15-minute walk. Why can’t everyone see that the only way forward is to raze the downtown, the suburbs, and the exurbs and replace them with 15-minute neighbourhoods? (OK, there was a bit of sarcasm in that last line.)

Well, maybe those “car-centric suburban folks” can see a different possibility. One with more options.

Let’s look at the idea of a 15-minute neighbourhood. In our imaginary neighbourhood, we have 7 small rows of attached-housing, 4 low- and medium-rise residential buildings, 2 of which share a podium with small shops. There are 2 high-rise residential towers, each with retail at their base – one housing the small grocery store. And, there are also 2 medium-height office towers, with each having outward-facing businesses on the ground floor. Rounding out the neighbourhood is a multi-purpose sports field and a single-ice-sheet arena. You need to walk fast, but you can walk to the main road, which borders the neighbourhood, in 15 minutes to catch a bus. Cycling or driving to the main road is less convenient because all of the roads – and accompanying bike lanes – are one-way only. This allows for a sidewalk on each side, a bike lane and a traffic lane to be squeezed into the narrowest space – but it does mean that you will drive around the blocks to go anywhere.

OK, so how many jobs are there within that 15-minute neighbourhood? One for everyone who wants one? Is every type of job available to everyone?

Well, there are plenty of retail jobs available, but, maybe, not so many nursing jobs. You will notice that our neighbourhood did not have a hospital. Although there is one dentist in office 503 of one of the towers. (If you don’t like that dentist – tough. She is your option, if you stay within your community.)

I think that most people can see that there will still be a need to leave the 15-minute neighbourhood for many reasons – even if SOME of the needs can be met within the neighbourhood.

And just because the local grocery store sells bananas, it is possible that you don’t want to pay $1.19 per pound for them. You would rather drive to the large, regional, grocery store that buys an entire truckload of bananas at a time and can sell them for $0.69/lb.

Stores that are primarily supported by the local neighbourhood are usually smaller, necessitating them to charge more for what they sell. Are people willing to spend a lot more for everything they buy, just so that they can walk 10 minutes to that store?

I doubt it. Otherwise, Mac’s, Quickie, Circle-K, Wink’s, and etc. would be packed with neighbours – and carry a lot more perishable goods. These convenience stores tend to be the store that you quickly run to when you suddenly realize that you are out of cream, but your mother-in-law is coming and she always uses cream in her tea, but your spouse has taken the car to work so you can’t ‘nip over’ to the Super Store – panic – just pay the extra at the local convenience store, this once! There is a price for 'convenience'.

The idea of a 15-minute neighbourhood that supplies all of (well, maybe just ‘most of’) your needs within a 15-minute walk is cute. And it will work for some. (In England, I met folks who had lived their entire life - thus far anyway - within a half-mile radius of the pub.) I think that most people, however, who have grown up with the ability to make choices about what they want will want more than what a 15-minute neighbourhood can offer.

So, I’m not sure that suburbanites see the idea of having more services closer as a bad idea. I just think that they want to be able to still have their choices available, too.

The only statement to that rambling nonsense is that there are functioning 15 minutes neighborhoods all over the world in all types of cities including Ottawa

To which they are some of the most popular locations in the city to live in this city.

Also is not a requirement or a need of a 15 minutes neighborhood for your job to be local to it, just accessible by a variety of transportation methods other then a car.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Of course cars provide better access than other modes. That's just physics. What you seemed to have missed (did you actually read the tweet and look at the graphs?) is that the cars themselves perform better in cities not designed for cars. So while cars provide better access to employment than transit, the cars in the Netherlands provide even better access than cities of similar size elsewhere. The irony is that trying to cater to drivers actually makes things worse for them.

That is not what this graph shows. It shows how many employment is "available" which is a function of density. People have one job. If you think you can drive to central Rotterdam from an affordable 3000 Sq FT SFH house as easily as you can in Ottawa you are sorely mistaken.

[DogsWithJobs]

15 minute neighbourhoods don't mean you can't leave or won't have to leave it though, just that most of what you need is reachable within 15 minutes and therefore the need for trips in a vehicle are much less frequent and when they are required they are likely shorter and with less traffic as there are less cars on the road.

Our car oriented neighbourhoods become a prison once someone loses the ability to drive. I personally have an elderly relative who didn't move and can no longer drive and now is entirely dependent on people bringing them things and they are effectively house bound without someone coming to pick them up. This is not unique to the elderly but anyone who can't or does not want to drive.

This really should not be what we are striving for. In Ottawa the 15 minute neighbourhoods we do have still have every housing option available, so to suggest that they don't provide options is actually completely untrue. It is our car oriented suburban neighbourhoods that remove option from the equation. You want to be there the you need a big house and a car, apartments are few and far between and transit is ineffective due to sprawl.

If we aren't going to fix our sprawling development style, we should at least fix our tax scheme to make it financially sustainable even if it is unsustainable in every other way. Just tax those properties in accordance to the cost to service them. We know that suburban expansion costs the city over $400 a year in tax revenue as the cost to service exceeds the increase in tax base. (In 2021, likely worse now)
Infill development on the other hand adds over $600 to city revenue.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6193429

A fixed cost of service on our property taxes would fix that, similar to the approach taken on water bills.

The fact that we prioritize and subsidize 3000 square feet homes being able to drive into the centre of the city as easily as possible is not something to be proud of, not while our public transit is in shambles, homelessness is on the rise, the city finances are a mess, and we have frequent vehicle caused pedestrian/cyclist deaths.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by DogsWithJobs

15 minute neighbourhoods don't mean you can't leave or won't have to leave it though, just that most of what you need is reachable within 15 minutes and therefore the need for trips in a vehicle are much less frequent and when they are required they are likely shorter and with less traffic as there are less cars on the road.

Our car oriented neighbourhoods become a prison once someone loses the ability to drive. I personally have an elderly relative who didn't move and can no longer drive and now is entirely dependent on people bringing them things and they are effectively house bound without someone coming to pick them up. This is not unique to the elderly but anyone who can't or does not want to drive.

This really should not be what we are striving for. In Ottawa the 15 minute neighbourhoods we do have still have every housing option available, so to suggest that they don't provide options is actually completely untrue. It is our car oriented suburban neighbourhoods that remove option from the equation. You want to be there the you need a big house and a car, apartments are few and far between and transit is ineffective due to sprawl.

If we aren't going to fix our sprawling development style, we should at least fix our tax scheme to make it financially sustainable even if it is unsustainable in every other way. Just tax those properties in accordance to the cost to service them. We know that suburban expansion costs the city over $400 a year in tax revenue as the cost to service exceeds the increase in tax base. (In 2021, likely worse now)

A fixed cost of service on our property taxes would fix that, similar to the approach taken on water bills.

The fact that we prioritize and subsidize 3000 square feet homes being able to drive into the centre of the city as easily as possible is not something to be proud of, not while our public transit is in shambles, homelessness is on the rise, the city finances are a mess, and we have frequent vehicle caused pedestrian/cyclist deaths.

A lot to unpack here.
The basic crux is you can make whatever argument you want about what we should do but we live in a democracy. Subsidy or not and that is a judgement only looking at one aspect of costs and benefits to the city. Considering how expensive transit and police costs are in the core you could argue suburbs are owed money. Regardless they aren't voting to increase their costs. Water consumption has a fixed component but really they're shouldn't be a variable cost at all. The cost of metering is more than the marginal cost of providing more water.

Sure suburbanites shouldn't and aren't against providing more services but as you say that requires land use change. They don't want to be jammed together like sardines which is what they think of us urban dwellers. If we actually thought there was a climate or housing crisis and wanted to do something about them sure they'd give up their lifestyle for the greater good. Or at least so China can add a few more coal fired power plants.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

A lot to unpack here.
The basic crux is you can make whatever argument you want about what we should do but we live in a democracy. Subsidy or not and that is a judgement only looking at one aspect of costs and benefits to the city. Considering how expensive transit and police costs are in the core you could argue suburbs are owed money.

Huh? This question has been studied extensively, including in Ottawa, and it isn't just a matter of opinion. The suburbs are subsidized by the core. It's really quite simple in terms of municipal services - less density means more cost to provide just about every type of service, from water to garbage collection. A few sources:

https://institute.smartprosperity.ca...awa-think-tank

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...memo-1.6193429


So no, one can't reasonably argue that the suburbs are owed money, even if you ignore all of the environment impacts and other externalities that are associated with suburban development.

Why do you think the cost of transit and police are higher in the core? I've never heard that one before.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

Huh? This question has been studied extensively, including in Ottawa, and it isn't just a matter of opinion. The suburbs are subsidized by the core. It's really quite simple in terms of municipal services - less density means more cost to provide just about every type of service, from water to garbage collection. A few sources:

https://institute.smartprosperity.ca...awa-think-tank

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...memo-1.6193429


So no, one can't reasonably argue that the suburbs are owed money, even if you ignore all of the environment impacts and other externalities that are associated with suburban development.

Why do you think the cost of transit and police are higher in the core? I've never heard that one before.

Social services, transit and police are all used at greater rates in the core. You can argue those are citywide issues but nevertheless deamalgamation saves a place like Kanata who would spend a fraction on all of those services.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Social services, transit and police are all used at greater rates in the core. You can argue those are citywide issues but nevertheless deamalgamation saves a place like Kanata who would spend a fraction on all of those services.

I'm not sure that it is actually true that deamalgamation would actually result in savings for Kanata, at least over the long term. For one, transit may be used less there, but that doesn't make it cheaper. Secondly, services like water, sewer, garbage collection etc. are going to be more expensive to provide. But most importantly, Kanata's infrastructure is new-ish now, but it won't be forever. When it comes time to replace it, the cost will be much higher per household than is the case in denser areas. So if Kanata would be "saving" money, it is more like deferring expenses for a generation or two when they will have to pay the piper.

Yes, if Kanata deamalgamated and continued to rely on its neighbouring municipalities to provide social services, then it would save money. But planning to free-load isn't really a tenable position to take either. It's more of an argument for moving those services out of the core to distribute the burden more fairly. And maybe for putting a toll on Kanata residents using Ottawa streets to head to the airport, or the NAC or a new downtown arena.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

I'm not sure that it is actually true that deamalgamation would actually result in savings for Kanata, at least over the long term. For one, transit may be used less there, but that doesn't make it cheaper. Secondly, services like water, sewer, garbage collection etc. are going to be more expensive to provide. But most importantly, Kanata's infrastructure is new-ish now, but it won't be forever. When it comes time to replace it, the cost will be much higher per household than is the case in denser areas. So if Kanata would be "saving" money, it is more like deferring expenses for a generation or two when they will have to pay the piper.

Yes, if Kanata deamalgamated and continued to rely on its neighbouring municipalities to provide social services, then it would save money. But planning to free-load isn't really a tenable position to take either. It's more of an argument for moving those services out of the core to distribute the burden more fairly. And maybe for putting a toll on Kanata residents using Ottawa streets to head to the airport, or the NAC or a new downtown arena.

Yes once services were downloaded amalgamation was necessary or we'd have flight from the centre as taxes soared. My point is it's part of the deal the huge population of relatively wealthy suburbs subsize the downtown services and we let them build their sprawly sprawl.

Even if the city was much smaller when it comes down to it most of the inner suburbs are in favor of sprawl as well. City council is progressive but mostly because people don't pay attention. Every election back to O'Brien the majority has voted for lower taxes and less services.

As such as I said earlier let's try to get an easy win. If we could close Clarence and George streets I believe it would be very successful and could build some momentum. Punishing drivers isn't going to be very successful. a 13 cent tax is likely to be repealed in 2025. Drivers are willing to pay exactly zero to address climate change or reduce sprawl.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes once services were downloaded amalgamation was necessary or we'd have flight from the centre as taxes soared. My point is it's part of the deal the huge population of relatively wealthy suburbs subsize the downtown services and we let them build their sprawly sprawl.

Even if the city was much smaller when it comes down to it most of the inner suburbs are in favor of sprawl as well. City council is progressive but mostly because people don't pay attention. Every election back to O'Brien the majority has voted for lower taxes and less services.

As such as I said earlier let's try to get an easy win. If we could close Clarence and George streets I believe it would be very successful and could build some momentum. Punishing drivers isn't going to be very successful. a 13 cent tax is likely to be repealed in 2025. Drivers are willing to pay exactly zero to address climate change or reduce sprawl.

It’s actually the other way around in terms of subsidization. The inner core pays more taxes than the value of services that they receive, and the outer suburbs receive more services than they pay for in taxes. Here’s the study for Ottawa:

https://pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.c...cumentid=86660

I do agree that inner suburbs are in favour of sprawl, or at least they vote that way. I also agree on the easy win. Build some momentum with a couple of streets in the Market.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

It’s actually the other way around in terms of subsidization. The inner core pays more taxes than the value of services that they receive, and the outer suburbs receive more services than they pay for in taxes. Here’s the study for Ottawa:

https://pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.c...cumentid=86660

I do agree that inner suburbs are in favour of sprawl, or at least they vote that way. I also agree on the easy win. Build some momentum with a couple of streets in the Market.

The linked study seems to refer specifically to infill developments vs greenfield development, which is not the same thing as the cost of services to existing downtown areas vs existing suburban areas.

[lrt's friend]

Infill housing cannot possibly satisfy demand in a growing city and will accelerate housing cost increases

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Infill housing cannot possibly satisfy demand in a growing city and will accelerate housing cost increases

Well, it could, but people would have to completely change their expectations, which seems unlikely.

[DogsWithJobs]

I'm not sure how someone can see the statement "suburban sprawl confirmed to lose money for the city" and then say it is actually subsidizing the core? That makes zero sense at all. How would being a net negative on the city make you a positive. It does not.

Definitely we should be spreading around the social services.
If you asked the core if they would give all their social services, shelters, and social housing to the suburbs they would take that offer in a second. The core carrying social burdens as well as financial burdens for the rest of the city is not the argument you think it is.
Why do you think every developer would rather pay money than include affordable housing in their buildings?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The linked study seems to refer specifically to infill developments vs greenfield development, which is not the same thing as the cost of services to existing downtown areas vs existing suburban areas.

I couldn’t find a link to the recent study on taxes paid versus cost of services, but I think that this essentially shows the same thing. Over time, a new development in the urban core pays much more in taxes than the cost of providing services, whereas it’s the opposite for a new suburban development.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Well, it could, but people would have to completely change their expectations, which seems unlikely.

Or we could change the financial proposition. If suburban developments were made to pay the real costs they entail, you may see expectations change pretty fast.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

Or we could change the financial proposition. If suburban developments were made to pay the real costs they entail, you may see expectations change pretty fast.

If we do that for new housing the cost of housing would explode beyond what it already has because the demand for ground based housing wouldn't all but the supply would massively. If 2000 resale homes are put up for sale every year by people downsizing dying, moving to Florida etc and 2000 new homes are built. Now imagine you want to reduce the number of new homes to 1000 you've reduced the supply by 25% and demand holds steady it's obvious what happens.

Originally Posted by DogsWithJobs

I'm not sure how someone can see the statement "suburban sprawl confirmed to lose money for the city" and then say it is actually subsidizing the core? That makes zero sense at all. How would being a net negative on the city make you a positive. It does not.

Definitely we should be spreading around the social services.
If you asked the core if they would give all their social services, shelters, and social housing to the suburbs they would take that offer in a second. The core carrying social burdens as well as financial burdens for the rest of the city is not the argument you think it is.
Why do you think every developer would rather pay money than include affordable housing in their buildings?

It's not about where they are located. Poor urban people use more social services. Amalgamation is set up to overcome this. Now if y'all want to force suburbanites to live in infill the cost might go down fine but my bet is the revolt means they abandon the city go on their merry sprawl way and we are left holding the bag. With current voting dynamics the province might not even care that would lead to collapse of old Ottawa financially.

Broader point let's focus on politically achievable goals.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

I couldn’t find a link to the recent study on taxes paid versus cost of services, but I think that this essentially shows the same thing. Over time, a new development in the urban core pays much more in taxes than the cost of providing services, whereas it’s the opposite for a new suburban development.

That sounds rather speculative, particularly in Ottawa where most of the “urban” areas are mostly low rise housing and use more road dense grid layouts