[Greenspace]

^Densities are already high, as prescribed in zoning. For example, HA is mostly FAR of 14. That's similar to Manhattan.

My question was really about the even higher zoned projects that might be pushed for as a result of taxes purely based on density, which isn't a very good measure of good urban planning.

 

[EtoV]

^Densities are already high, as prescribed in zoning. For example, HA is mostly FAR of 14. That's similar to Manhattan.

My question was really about the even higher zoned projects that might be pushed for as a result of taxes purely based on density, which isn't a very good measure of good urban planning.

You seem to be looking at this as an all or nothing approach. I don't believe anyone is looking to rewrite the tax code in such a way that FARs of 14 are the only attractive option. If the formula is written so poorly that you start getting densities that are too high, you can always modify the weighting so that medium density development becomes an attractive option again

 

[ChazYEG]

^Densities are already high, as prescribed in zoning. For example, HA is mostly FAR of 14. That's similar to Manhattan.

My question was really about the even higher zoned projects that might be pushed for as a result of taxes purely based on density, which isn't a very good measure of good urban planning.

My first big issue with your general line of thought, here, is that you seem to believe that what is in the zoning and the current plan is good and should be followed to the letter, to which I disagree. Until we're able to see every single surface lot or low density commercial in our core become a high density building, either commercial or residential, we'll be nowhere close to taking full advantage from the high level of infrastructure serving the area.

That doesn't mean that we necessarily want to see skyscrapers popping out on every corner of the city, and we'll do very well in keeping neighbourhoods like Westmount, Old Strathcona, Rossdale, Queen Mary Park, Alberta Avenue, for example, for missing middle developments, such as low and mid-rise condos/apartments, row houses, etc...

What is imperative is that we slow, or stop, the sprawl, which is financially, environmentally and I dare say socially harmful.

 

[Greenspace]

^^Agreed. Just posing the question about possible negative effects but perhaps they can be mitigated. I'm not confident in a suburban city like Edmonotn's Council will go for this plan anyways, but who knows.

^I don't think we're very far off in our thoughts on this. Very much agree on the last point.

 

[CplKlinger]

Fort Saskatchewan's City Council will debate the first reading of a proposed bylaw on April 12, which would "provide tax-based incentives to eligible properties within the downtown area to support multi-unit and mixed-use development". As you can see from this map, a significant number of properties would be eligible for such an incentive. Here's context about the affordable housing proposal which led to this motion. This is in addition to a "Downtown Development Grant Incentive" which is coming to Council on May 10.

"The eligibility criteria for projects within the Bylaw includes:

1. projects must be located on a brownfield site as identified within the Bylaw and presented in Appendix B [the map I linked above];

2. projects must be a new construction of mixed-use or multi-unit residential development;

4. projects must be at least 2 stories;

5. projects must create a minimum of:
a. 3 new residential units above ground-floor commercial use for a mixed-use development; or
b. 6 residential units;

6. for mixed-use developments, the residential use must comprise a minimum of 50% of total project area"

 

[TAS]

A consultant’s report produced for the city of Ottawa revealed that it costs the municipality $465 annually per person to service low-density homes on the periphery. But for homes in infill areas, the city takes in $606 more each year per person than it costs to service them.

Edmonton mulls tough-sell property tax shakeup to encourage density - The Globe and Mail

Potential revamp of property tax regime in Alberta’s capital would levy more from owners of single-family homes

www.google.com

I wish the city would publicly outline the costs for Edmontonians of low density homes in newer neighbiurhoods in the suburbs versus how neighbourhoods in the core are subsidizing them.

 

[BASE]

A consultant’s report produced for the city of Ottawa revealed that it costs the municipality $465 annually per person to service low-density homes on the periphery. But for homes in infill areas, the city takes in $606 more each year per person than it costs to service them.

Edmonton mulls tough-sell property tax shakeup to encourage density - The Globe and Mail

Potential revamp of property tax regime in Alberta’s capital would levy more from owners of single-family homes

www.google.com

I wish the city would publicly outline the costs for Edmontonians of low density homes in newer neighbiurhoods in the suburbs versus how neighbourhoods in the core are subsidizing them.

cost to service would be a good one. I think some might be surprised at the costs of some mid-late 20th century neighborhoods vs. Some of the newer areas in the last couple decades that have been built much more densely.

 

[soupcrate]

cost to service would be a good one. I think some might be surprised at the costs of some mid-late 20th century neighborhoods vs. Some of the newer areas in the last couple decades that have been built much more densely.

Yep. The new suburbs are honestly way better than the "og" suburbs in terms of density and bike paths. Just take a look at the cycle path mode on Google maps. The old suburbs are slowly getting better with infill and renewal projects, but it will take a long time yet.

The trouble is the new suburbs are so far out that they are car dependent by necessity, and the lacking infrastructure in the inner neighborhoods prevents people from making safe bike commutes.

If our old (mid-late 20th century) neighborhoods were built to the same spec as our new ones, we would have a fairly solid bike network and respectable density.

 

[EtoV]

New suburbs are denser and more connected, but they still have the same issues of car dependency not only because of their location, but also the location of amenities and commercial areas. Commercial spaces are still hardly ever integrated into the community, restricted to power centers and strip malls on the periphery of developments. Rec Centres are large spaces meant to serve a wide community, most of whom are not within walking or easy biking distance, and have insufficient transit options to get them there in a reasonable timeframe.

Edmonton is not at a density where cars could not be needed for any trips, but we could be building in a way to make them unnecessary for far more local trips in new suburbs, without substantially changing how we develop. For example treating each new suburb like a town with a "Town Centre" form of development where commercial areas and amenities are at the center of the development rather than the peripheries can help reduce the distance for residence, and also help remove barriers of large arterials that can make it daunting to walk or bike even if amenities are close. Many small towns (at least in my experience in BC) tend to be walkable, not because of good design, but by virtue of needing amenities to be local. The town centre has a barber shop, a grocery store, a dentist, a pharmacy etc. because the other option would be having to drive to the next town over for those things. We need to treat our suburbs the same way, planning in a way so that you can meet the majority of your needs within your own community. If we plan our suburbs right, then it doesn't matter where they are located in relation to the city centre, they'll still have access to most of their needs within their own community.

 

[Gronk!]

I think you just described the "15 minute city"

 

[EtoV]

I suppose I did. Still, we're a far way off from creating any 15 minute communities outside the core.

 

[TravellingChris]

The problem with pushing density on a community and criticizing suburban neighbourhoods as "sprawl" is that it necessarily involves imposing one person's set of values on another: "I think density is good for X, Y, Z reasons, therefore YOU should want it as well. The fact that you don't is bad, very bad."

The reason that outlying neighbourhoods get built--with all their deficiencies, such as car dependence, longer commutes and higher costs of servicing--is because residents WANT what they have to offer. Not everyone wants to live in a high rise, an infill row house or a redevelopment that sees three houses jammed onto a single lot in the city core. Many people WANT bigger backyards, more distance from their neighbours, a feeling of space.

I've been to plenty of places around the world--the Chungking Mansions come to mind--where space is used ultra-efficiently to house a maximum number of families in a very small footprint. These places are nowhere I would want to live. I do not like the idea of living on top of and underneath a bunch of other people. I like my kids having space. If it means that we have to put up with some of the drawbacks, like growing commutes and anemic public transit, so be it. It's a lifestyle choice.

Residents living in outlying neighbourhoods DO pay for the costs of so-called sprawl, in taxes which seem to be ever rising (not just property but also fuel taxes). If taxes do not fully cover the higher costs of servicing, I would point out that there are plenty of services that are subsidized by outlying areas that only benefit the older neighbourhoods of a city. LRT is an example: homeowners in Glenridding and Schonsee are paying for LRT expansion to Mill Woods, West Edmonton Mall and Blatchford, but when will they ever see stations in their own neighbourhoods?

I would also strongly caution against judging one's fellow citizens whose personal choices are not fully "covered" by the taxes they pay. I have a neighbour who has five kids--it is highly unlikely the education portion of her property taxes come close to the costs of educating five children in the public school system, which means some of my taxes and some of our neighbour's (who has no kids) help cover that cost. It's called living in a society.

One should be careful about trying to impose one's own personal set of values on everyone else: "I believe urban density/monogamy/religious adherence is important. If you do not agree, I support using the tax system to punish your differing choices."

 

[soupcrate]

The problem with pushing density on a community and criticizing suburban neighbourhoods as "sprawl" is that it necessarily involves imposing one person's set of values on another: "I think density is good for X, Y, Z reasons, therefore YOU should want it as well. The fact that you don't is bad, very bad."

Ignore values, because you're right, that's a wash. Different people value different things.

Consider the hard figures: dollars and CO2. Suburbs don't support themselves financially (unless we massively increase property taxes) and their carbon emissions per capita are way higher.

You're right that people are free to have their preferences and make trade offs, but we as a city shouldn't be subsidizing urban forms that leave us worse off. If you want to live in a suburb, fill your boots, but don't expect the rest of us to pay for it.

Also, keep in mind that until not that long ago, Edmonton's zoning laws very strictly limited where dense housing could be built. It's not just that people preferred car dependent suburbia, it's also that it was legally the only thing you could build a lot of the time.

Residents living in outlying neighbourhoods DO pay for the costs of so-called sprawl, in taxes which seem to be ever rising (not just property but also fuel taxes). If taxes do not fully cover the higher costs of servicing, I would point out that there are plenty of services that are subsidized by outlying areas that only benefit the older neighbourhoods of a city. LRT is an example: homeowners in Glenridding and Schonsee are paying for LRT expansion to Mill Woods, West Edmonton Mall and Blatchford, but when will they ever see stations in their own neighbourhoods?

They might not use the LRT, but we won't be using their endless roads and new rec centers. We'll also be making less use of the expensive highway expansions required to facilitate a suburban lifestyle.

Higher utility distribution fees from the new water/gas pipes, new schools that have to be built (even though there's plenty of space in core schools, new fire stations. Suburbs are mega expensive and don't generate enough revenue to actually replace their infrastructure.

In conclusion:
Suburbia is objectively worse financially and environmentally - I'm not imposing my values on anyone unless you don't value money or the planet. Given that, why should we be subsidizing it?

 

[TravellingChris]

Ignore values, because you're right, that's a wash. Different people value different things.

Consider the hard figures: dollars and CO2. Suburbs don't support themselves financially (unless we massively increase property taxes) and their carbon emissions per capita are way higher.

You're right that people are free to have their preferences and make trade offs, but we as a city shouldn't be subsidizing urban forms that leave us worse off. If you want to live in a suburb, fill your boots, but don't expect the rest of us to pay for it.

Also, keep in mind that until not that long ago, Edmonton's zoning laws very strictly limited where dense housing could be built. It's not just that people preferred car dependent suburbia, it's also that it was legally the only thing you could build a lot of the time.



They might not use the LRT, but we won't be using their endless roads and new rec centers. We'll also be making less use of the expensive highway expansions required to facilitate a suburban lifestyle.

Higher utility distribution fees from the new water/gas pipes, new schools that have to be built (even though there's plenty of space in core schools, new fire stations. Suburbs are mega expensive and don't generate enough revenue to actually replace their infrastructure.

In conclusion:
Suburbia is objectively worse financially and environmentally - I'm not imposing my values on anyone unless you don't value money or the planet. Given that, why should we be subsidizing it?

I don't use schools or hospitals in Medicine Hat or Grande Prairie and never will. Why should my provincial taxes go towards paying for facilities that benefit communities where I don't live? Let the people in those cities pay all their own costs.

Why should someone who has no kids pay education taxes? They're funding a service they'll never use again. Make the family with five kids cover the true cost of educating all those brats. The parents were the ones who made the choice to have so much sex.

Why don't we follow the American model and move health care costs onto the sickest people? They're the ones actually using the services and clogging up beds and emergency wards. Give people who never or rarely use the system a discount (this will give them a financial incentive to ignore symptoms until it's too late) and ramp up the costs on people with poor health. Make them pull their weight in society, financially if not in other ways.

See where this leads us?

 

[roe_]

^ There's a difference between funding healthcare and subsidizing lifestyle choices. You might get a lung transplant, but we don't buy your cigarettes!