Mountain Man
Senior Member
I think the cost of new infrastructure in greenfield subdivisions should be included in the cost of housing, but that's all I would add.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
darwink
Senior Member
It is. Plus the offsite infrastructure.
Patrick.1980
Active Member
The initial cost, yes, The problem is in maintaining that infrastructure in perpetuity.
Patrick.1980
Active Member
I have no issues with people wanting to live in the suburbs or new greenfield developments as long as the long term costs for those neighbourhoods is paid for by the people living there.
I live in an outer subdivision myself, and have my own personal reasons for doing so, but I also understand the implications of these new subdivisions and the long-term costs involved.
I live in an outer subdivision myself, and have my own personal reasons for doing so, but I also understand the implications of these new subdivisions and the long-term costs involved.
MichaelS
Senior Member
One of the challenges is we have a lot of policies to try and prevent this "cost of new growth" problem, but they have lead to many unintended consequences. For instance, per the bolder part, there are no longer "maximum densities", but rather minimums. And it is 8-9 units per acre I think (can't remember the exact policy off the top of my head, and I am not going to dig through the MDP to find it). How this can reasonably be achieved is with a LOT of multi-family sites within new communities (go check out the far NE for example). So, we get a lot of density in these new communities. Does the city fund the proper infrastructure to meet this density on time? The developers now pay the full cost of off-site levies required. However, there is still a lag. Any guesses on when the Blue Line will reach Skyview Ranch? As a result, City policy has forced the creation of an even greater amount of units, and hence people, further away from things like LRT stations and other existing infrastructure, putting an even greater strain on our existing and newly expanded infrastructure. Newly built stuff has to be larger to handle this greater, outer edge density.
Another unintended consequence? These policies have saturated the multi-family land market. Condo sites in the suburbs are very plentiful, and as a result very cheap. Which means, condos can be built and sold out there for very cheap. This means that inner city condos, which still face massive infrastructure costs (upgrade a sewer, pay for a signal, etc..), engagement delays, etc..., can't really compete. That is one of the reasons why so few new inner city condo projects have actually launched sales in the last 2 years (Minto's Annex, anyone else?....). As a result, there is a big slowdown on inner city densification, which delays putting people on our existing infrastructure, which reduces the capital costs to society and helps build a stronger tax base.
If greenfield development didn't have to be so dense, it would reduce the cost of the new infrastructure as it would reduce the overall size (smaller roads for instance), and it may encourage more innercity redevelopment. Density is great in the right location with the correct supporting infrastructure. Blanket density, all the time everywhere, not so much.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Great points. The perverse incentives in development are a big challenge. Complicating matters is the difficulty in redevelopment which needs to be looked at simultaneously as greenfield policy. In some areas we seem to have done better on redeveloping the inner SFH belt than other Canadian cities (e.g. Vancouver and Toronto's "yellow belt"), but struggle to bend the curve to truly transformative densification apart from a few regular suspect neighbourhoods. The newer infill ground-oriented and mixed use land uses will be interesting to see how widely they are adopted.
Calgcouver
Active Member
That is a good point. In Metro Van price has dictated that unit mix in greenfield in Surrey/Langley/Coquitlam needs to be multi-family due to the fact so few can qualify for a SFH mortgage that is well over $1m. All the while it is a struggle to find a 3.0 FSR development site anywhere in the City. My sister bought a house on the east side of Mahogany, and the site across the alley from her is a 3.0 FAR multi-family site. I struggle to find sites in Vancouver I can get that kind of density, they are literally giving away density in Calgary suburbs. Quarter acre development are still commonplace in many of the municipalities South of Fraser here, and townhouse sites are much more challenging to find.
The real change in Calgary imo is low and mid rise development in the inner-city is really improving the city. I would like to see is RCG be easier to build on mid-block lots not just corner sites. I also think that RCG would be more effective if we further reduced front and side setbacks to reflect a more urban less "infilly" form (would prefer an In Philly form). Screw settinng setback and height guidelines based on ranch-style bungalows, it is not conducive to urban infill and we need more urban form and shape to our inner city blocks. I would like to see 3-storey, street-oriented rowhomes absolutely dominate the inner city as semi-detached infills have since 2000. This coupled with the creation/expansion of cohesive main streets, and you've got yourself a recipe for intensification that could define a Calgary form that emphasizes the building of the 'missing middle' before it becomes a problem later in Calgary's development cycle. Infill's were popular as hell, popularize rowhomes and get average prices into the $500s and people will be buying that shit all day, and you'll be creating a more urban and Calgary solution to intensification of established neighbourhoods, and do it without strata roads.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
But this is not happening. The cost of buying a SFH in a greenfield development does not reflect the long term public costs associated with supporting that development.
Here is a perfect example of how greenfield development is not paying for itself, because it requires huge subsidies to bring things like mass transit to these communities. This is a classic story that has occurred in cities around North America: the idea was that you would build suburbs that had access to transit, but the desire to build as cheaply and quickly as possible prevented governments from keeping up with demand for transit.
Patrick.1980
Active Member
I agree 100%. I should’ve clarified that I believe that is what should be happening and not what is happening now.
I think the city can do a better job of trying to strike a proper balance between inner city development and Greenfield development, and even though I live out in the suburbs I still support this way if thinking .
I think the city can do a better job of trying to strike a proper balance between inner city development and Greenfield development, and even though I live out in the suburbs I still support this way if thinking .
darwink
Senior Member
That is a problem everywhere in the city - I am 100% ok using taxes for maintenance and renewal - otherwise you end up with really crazy equity problems.
It is up to the politicians to not approve developments that have long term maintenance and renewal costs far above the median or average. That is the way to solve this problem, not to try to somehow have differential tax rates or front loaded fees.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Rather than mandate density that would require mass transit to move that amount of people, why not allow lower density, that wouldn't necessarily require an expansion of the mass transit infrastructure? And to ensure we judge things equitably, the future TOD sites on the Greenline, are they considered to be built at a huge subsidy, because the future density is entirely dependent upon the multiple billions being spent to create the green line?
Patrick.1980
Active Member
It’s a problem everywhere in the city, but there are better efficiencies from building densities around the inner city and in the core.
Maybe you are right about the front loaded fees and differential taxes, but I think some sort of monetary incentive is needed for this problem.
One of the problems with inner-city development is higher cost for the land and costlier process compared to Greenfield development. It’s not a level playing field financially for inner-city development.
Maybe you are right about the front loaded fees and differential taxes, but I think some sort of monetary incentive is needed for this problem.
One of the problems with inner-city development is higher cost for the land and costlier process compared to Greenfield development. It’s not a level playing field financially for inner-city development.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Because low density is necessarily car dependent. You cannot effectively serve low density communities with transit, and low density communities cannot support amenities that are within walkable distances from most residents.
retrofiturbanism
Active Member
"Everyone wants steak, we should make steak cheaper."
Cross-subsidization, infrastructure cost escalation and escalating property taxes. That's the reason you are looking for.
And to respond to everyone else's comments, what you are all looking for are marginal cost levies (not average), and property taxes reflective of marginal costs of service. We don't have that here, not by a long shot.
Also agree with Michael in that inner-city density is comparatively very difficult in terms of infrastructure than Greenfield. There is an imbalance and it needs to be addressed.
darwink
Senior Member
Many of these discussions though, you follow it down the road, and the end is result is keeping taxes low for better off owners of more expensive houses who benefit from the infrastructure they use being fully funded and maintained using property taxes while saddling extra fees up front on new housing.
I think that is wrong.
What we should do is raise property taxes, and if we don't need the money to renew infrastructure now, we should save it to renew infrastructure in the future. We could do that by booking the depreciation of assets as an expense (not really sure how the city handles this - but the city budget very much looks like a cash budget in places).
I think that is wrong.
What we should do is raise property taxes, and if we don't need the money to renew infrastructure now, we should save it to renew infrastructure in the future. We could do that by booking the depreciation of assets as an expense (not really sure how the city handles this - but the city budget very much looks like a cash budget in places).