Pedestrianization of City Centres

[Williamoforange]

Why are determined facts being argued again & again....

The suburbs are subsidized at the density they exist at for the amount of services they receive. Only specific suburbs get close to the density to which they begin to equal out and the suburban areas in Ottawa include areas inside the greenbelt. To which again adding density to them will result in a net positive to the city as multiple studies have shown.

and just because Social services are concentrated in the core & thus the people that use them, does in no way exclude the suburbs, exurbs or etc from bearing the cost of such services.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Why are determined facts being argued again & again....

The suburbs are subsidized at the density they exist at for the amount of services they receive. Only specific suburbs get close to the density to which they begin to equal out and the suburban areas in Ottawa include areas inside the greenbelt. To which again adding density to them will result in a net positive to the city as multiple studies have shown.

and just because Social services are concentrated in the core & thus the people that use them, does in no way exclude the suburbs, exurbs or etc from bearing the cost of such services.

Density is not the only determinant of cost of providing services, but even if it were, “urban” areas of Ottawa are not particularly dense (except Centretown and parts of Lowertown). Policing, fire and likely paramedics are more costly in urban areas, as are library and community facilities (no economies of scale). Snow in urban areas must be removed from the side of the road after almost every snowfall, greatly increasing cost. The only obvious way urban services are cheaper to deliver is transit, but it is hard to make an apples to apples to apples comparison because service levels are so much lower.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Density is not the only determinant of cost of providing services, but even if it were, “urban” areas of Ottawa are not particularly dense (except Centretown and parts of Lowertown). Policing, fire and likely paramedics are more costly in urban areas, as are library and community facilities (no economies of scale). Snow in urban areas must be removed from the side of the road after almost every snowfall, greatly increasing cost. The only obvious way urban services are cheaper to deliver is transit, but it is hard to make an apples to apples to apples comparison because service levels are so much lower.

You're really going to argue that Police, Fire, & paramedic are more expensive with density.........The coverage of all of those is an equation of both population & area covered....

As for snow, when was the last time you actually visited an urban area in winter....

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

You're really going to argue that Police, Fire, & paramedic are more expensive with density.........The coverage of all of those is an equation of both population & area covered....

As for snow, when was the last time you actually visited an urban area in winter....

I guess efficiency is somewhat related to the average distance between the station and the call, but it is also related to average speed (emergency vehicles struggle with streets like Laurier and Somerset compared to suburban streets), the number of incidents (much higher in urban areas) the need for specialized equipment (like ladder trucks).

Yes, all last winter I frequently saw red signs in snow indicating planned snow removal, and on several occasions was kept awake by the all night effort to remove it. In contrast, when we lived in Gloucester they would maybe remove the snow once a year. Urban snowploughs also have to deal with cars that are for some reason exempt from the parking ban during snow storms, whereas in the suburbs they just zip through.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

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.



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.

Do you have a citation for your claim that poor urban people use more social services?

No one is saying that we should prohibit building outside the core, just that people should pay something reflecting the real costs of their choices. Right now the tax system distorts the costs and actually incentivizes those choices. This isn’t opinion or conjecture - it’s been studied extensively.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

Do you have a citation for your claim that poor urban people use more social services?

Seriously? You imagine subsidized daycare and social housing is used by the wealthy as much as the poor? If we are going to be silly and deny facts we can't have a real discussion

Originally Posted by phil235

No one is saying that we should prohibit building outside the core, just that people should pay something reflecting the real costs of their choices. Right now the tax system distorts the costs and actually incentivizes those choices. This isn’t opinion or conjecture - it’s been studied extensively.

As I said charging them more for say fire service sounds fair in theory but what about when they say I have a car why should I have to pay for transit but it's your choice to live an urban car free lifestyle. You can cite studies about greenfield investment assuming the same use of services but the real world shows very different results. We have amalgamation because somewhere like Nepean could lower taxes and live without a lot of services if it was allowed to. The US cities with multiple municipalities show this. The urban ones despite having corporate tax bases need to charge higher taxes. If we made any kind of tax change that would actually change behaviour away from suburbs we could see a revolt and it would backfire.

As I said let's not try and ban cars from the QED in winter but focus on Byward Market maybe Elgin on weekends and the like. Build success and go from there.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Seriously? You imagine subsidized daycare and social housing is used by the wealthy as much as the poor? If we are going to be silly and deny facts we can't have a real discussion



As I said charging them more for say fire service sounds fair in theory but what about when they say I have a car why should I have to pay for transit but it's your choice to live an urban car free lifestyle. You can cite studies about greenfield investment assuming the same use of services but the real world shows very different results. We have amalgamation because somewhere like Nepean could lower taxes and live without a lot of services if it was allowed to. The US cities with multiple municipalities show this. The urban ones despite having corporate tax bases need to charge higher taxes. If we made any kind of tax change that would actually change behaviour away from suburbs we could see a revolt and it would backfire.

As I said let's not try and ban cars from the QED in winter but focus on Byward Market maybe Elgin on weekends and the like. Build success and go from there.

Something isn’t a « fact » because you claim it is. I’ve shown you clear evidence to support what I am saying. Do you have anything at all to support your claims? Should be easy to find if it’s so obvious.

I’m also puzzled by your comment on subsidized daycare. There is more subsidized daycare in the urban core? If so, that’s news to me.

[DogsWithJobs]

There is nothing to say poor people in the core use more services. I would argue we have poor people in the core because that is where the city put all the social housing, so it is policy stating someone must be poor to live in that housing. Otherwise the saying is "drive until you qualify" implying people have to live farther from the core before they can afford to live there.
So in reality the city would be better off selling all their urban social housing and use the cash to build more social housing in the suburbs where land in cheaper.

Or you could thank those urban neighbourhoods for housing the city's low income individuals so the suburbs can sit on their subsidized high horse. Neighbourhoods with social housing should actually get a discount on their property tax to account for the social costs they are carrying.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

Something isn’t a « fact » because you claim it is. I’ve shown you clear evidence to support what I am saying. Do you have anything at all to support your claims? Should be easy to find if it’s so obvious.

I’m also puzzled by your comment on subsidized daycare. There is more subsidized daycare in the urban core? If so, that’s news to me.

It is based on income. As is of course subsidized housing and frankly a lot of police expenses too. Even fire is probably more expensive to provide to a high rise with regular alarms wtih 100 units than 100 suburban houses that have a call every 5 years.

https://neighbourhoodequity.ca/economic-maps/

As I said look at US cities with multiple municipalities. Look at pre-amalgamation Ottawa. Though the region was providing many services and municipalities were forced to pay.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Seriously? You imagine subsidized daycare and social housing is used by the wealthy as much as the poor? If we are going to be silly and deny facts we can't have a real discussion



As I said charging them more for say fire service sounds fair in theory but what about when they say I have a car why should I have to pay for transit but it's your choice to live an urban car free lifestyle. You can cite studies about greenfield investment assuming the same use of services but the real world shows very different results. We have amalgamation because somewhere like Nepean could lower taxes and live without a lot of services if it was allowed to. The US cities with multiple municipalities show this. The urban ones despite having corporate tax bases need to charge higher taxes. If we made any kind of tax change that would actually change behaviour away from suburbs we could see a revolt and it would backfire.

As I said let's not try and ban cars from the QED in winter but focus on Byward Market maybe Elgin on weekends and the like. Build success and go from there.

Do you really think the poor only live in the core? sure more live in the core but again thats because its denser, and thanks to the density and the fact that social housing really hasn't been built for decades so the only decades old suburbs such as Barhaven/Kanata/Orleans have little to none of it.

So while you talk about a fair comparison, you straight out call for the cost of social programs to not be born by those in low density areas, sorry but these costs just don't disappear because you personally happen to live in a suburb, they are a cost you must bear as well.

As for your comments on Nepean, just LMAO, Nepean was only sustainable because it fed off of development charges, fees, and etc to build the infrastructure of the city, it was and is in no way sustainable.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It is based on income. As is of course subsidized housing and frankly a lot of police expenses too. Even fire is probably more expensive to provide to a high rise with regular alarms wtih 100 units than 100 suburban houses that have a call every 5 years.

https://neighbourhoodequity.ca/economic-maps/

As I said look at US cities with multiple municipalities. Look at pre-amalgamation Ottawa. Though the region was providing many services and municipalities were forced to pay.

I really don’t know what this shows. Income is not the only factor related to cost of services, and there is nothing I can see in that link that shows that the core consumes more services than the suburbs. The study I linked considered all of that and concluded the opposite of what you are saying.

The US is quite different for many reasons, but as this video explains, suburbs are far from being net contributors to urban finances over the long term:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

I really don’t know what this shows. Income is not the only factor related to cost of services, and there is nothing I can see in that link that shows that the core consumes more services than the suburbs. The study I linked considered all of that and concluded the opposite of what you are saying.

The US is quite different for many reasons, but as this video explains, suburbs are far from being net contributors to urban finances over the long term:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0

We are veering off topic in an off topic thread.

My only point is you can't increase taxes to dicencintivize sprawl without risks of the whole agreement collapsing. Even if suburbs were a minority of voters in the city and they are not. McKenney lost with a far from ambitious plan.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

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

The road-dense grid layouts is part of what makes the urban area more cost-efficient.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

I really don’t know what this shows. Income is not the only factor related to cost of services, and there is nothing I can see in that link that shows that the core consumes more services than the suburbs. The study I linked considered all of that and concluded the opposite of what you are saying.

The US is quite different for many reasons, but as this video explains, suburbs are far from being net contributors to urban finances over the long term:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0

The problems he is describing are a problem of municipalities overall in North America where municipal governments are not properly managing their long term infrastructure needs and lack enough sources of revenue. It had little to do with the urban or suburban form factor. The property taxes paid by residents of Albert Street couldn’t possibly cover the cost of reconstructing Albert Street.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The road-dense grid layouts is part of what makes the urban area more cost-efficient.

That just isn’t true. A traditional grid is 32% roads, a cul de sac system is 29% roads and a residential quadrant system is 26% roads.

https://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu...017/03/389.pdf

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The property taxes paid by residents of Albert Street couldn’t possibly cover the cost of reconstructing Albert Street.

Maybe not, but they can come a lot closer than a suburban crescent of large single family homes can. Development patterns do matter.

[whatnext]

Pedestrianization killed Vancouver's Granville Street in the Seventies. It has never recovered.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Pedestrianization killed Vancouver's Granville Street in the Seventies. It has never recovered.

Likewise with Sparks Street. And the Rideau Street bus mall destroyed Rideau Street in a few short years. Neither street has really recovered.

Pedestrianization is very risky.

I could not imagine a permanent closure of Wellington Street would have had a positive outcome.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Likewise with Sparks Street. And the Rideau Street bus mall destroyed Rideau Street in a few short years. Neither street has really recovered.

Pedestrianization is very risky.

I could not imagine a permanent closure of Wellington Street would have had a positive outcome.

Yeah Sparks street is the bugaboo but it's not like Laurier or Queen streets are thriving because cars can use them.

Rideau Bus mall doesn't seem like its pedestrian or density focussed so not sure how it's relevant.

I'd close the middle of George, York and Clarence Streets eliminating any through traffic and making north south from LRT to Clarence through the market much more pleasant. This doesn't even lose precious free parking.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yeah Sparks street is the bugaboo but it's not like Laurier or Queen streets are thriving because cars can use them.

Rideau Bus mall doesn't seem like its pedestrian or density focussed so not sure how it's relevant.

I'd close the middle of George, York and Clarence Streets eliminating any through traffic and making north south from LRT to Clarence through the market much more pleasant. This doesn't even lose precious free parking.

I think pedestrian streets work if they connect two destinations people want to go to or are primarily lined with bars and restaurants.. Sparks Street fails on both counts. It is effectively a dead end on either side and has only a handful of bars and restaurants concentrated at intersections. I think Clarence would work. George is questionable.