policyenthusiast
Senior Member
I mean I certainly could try to fight LPRT on it, but the market value reflects a comparable change. It's not that they're incorrect, it's just that the level of assessment volatility is a bummer.
|
|
|
Edmonton Real Estate Market
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Tropical
Active Member
I'm going through this as well. I have a 30% increase in assessed value after a 10% decline last year. The volatility is major.
IanO
Superstar
Jesus Is King
New Member
Exact same as me....Yet my services in my neighborhood seem to be worse ....Mmmmmm.
Avenuer
Senior Member
Yup, mine actually decreased 2% after jumping 31% last year, after we bought the place.
Benefits of living in a 'shady' neighbourhood I guess (it's not actually shady, just the perception that keeps values lower, to the benefit of residents that are not looking to sell in the near future).
wormwood
Active Member
Looked this up on copilot, no wonder our taxes are nuts.
≈ 0.00613 km of roadway per person
(= 6.13 metres per person)
≈ 0.000839 km of roadway per person
(= 0.839 metres per person)
The mature neighbourhoods are paying for these new fire stations and rec centres, infrastructure in these soulless sprawling developments.
Roadway per Person (km/person)
Edmonton
Using 10,000 lane‑km ÷ 1,631,614 people:≈ 0.00613 km of roadway per person
(= 6.13 metres per person)
Toronto
Using 5,397 km ÷ 6,431,000 people:≈ 0.000839 km of roadway per person
(= 0.839 metres per person)
The mature neighbourhoods are paying for these new fire stations and rec centres, infrastructure in these soulless sprawling developments.
thommyjo
Senior Member
A few notes:
It’s more like 12,000, and then it’s also more like 1.2mil residents. St. Albert pays for their own roads, etc.
Toronto population should also be the city, 6mil includes huge suburbs like Durham I believe.
But yes, we often have 3-5x the amount of road, pipeline, sqkm of land of other big cities. Part of that is a lack of geographic constraints forcing in building, a lack of traffic forcing TOD, and just development history. It’s why our infill target being 50% of new units is so key though.
It’s also why substantial completion is needed, and nothing south of 41ave for years still.
bodsbods9090
Senior Member
Prepare yourself because that land south of 41 Ave is for sale. They're starting to sell off pieces of it.
Last edited:
thommyjo
Senior Member
Does that mean it’s allowed to be built on yet? I know the time is coming…but delaying it 10-15 years would make a lot of sense I think. We shouldn’t be building new suburbs faster than we can service them with police, transit, schools, and recreation facilities.
bodsbods9090
Senior Member
I don't think they'd be selling the land to have a restriction of time built into the sale, especially in that part of the City, to be honest.
Kosy123
Senior Member
Isn't south of 41 supposed to be purely industrial land or am I dreaming here?
IanO
Superstar
^along QE2 I believe, but it is going to be THE. most attractive parcels for the next 25-50 years and so I expect a lot being re-positioned for residential.
yeggator
Active Member
From 41st Ave to Township Road 510 (73rd Ave SW) is slated for residential development. South of that, they want to maintain it as agricultural land west of Whitemud Creek, while east of the creek would be industrial areas tied in to the airport (including space for a 3rd runway and realigned Highway 19).
Seamusmuldrew
Active Member
There is no area structure plan (therefore no neighbourhood structure plans) in effect for anywhere south of 41 Ave SW, and no plan applications at the moment either (as far as I know). I think the hope is that Kendal (the final SW neighbourhood to reach 41 Ave, see first screenshot) and the remaining Decoteau neighborhoods (see second screenshot) are built out to 41 Ave SW before going any further south.
wormwood
Active Member
Maybe don't show people that this exists and is undeveloped. Someone might develop it.