IanO
Superstar
They really aren't... yet.
Most of the cost of 'sprawl' is downloaded to the developers through offsite levies by way of the MGA and 'handed over' to the city post-development.
|
|
|
Edmonton Real Estate Market
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
They really aren't... yet.
Most of the cost of 'sprawl' is downloaded to the developers through offsite levies by way of the MGA and 'handed over' to the city post-development.
Kosy123
Active Member
As BIPOC myself, I genuinely get really mad about the whole "white urbanist" argument regarding curbing sprawl. The main reason many parents of BIPOC Gen Z's like me moved to the suburbs is because they were cheap. There's also the factor of multigenerational housing being not as available in the core of the city. And this only includes a certain segment of immigrant communities, notably wealthier ones. Like you said, it completely ignores the massive East African communities in the core, and the slowly increasing immigrant populations in the centre of the city, regardless of ethnicity.You might have some insights on this, would love your take if you’re comfortable sharingno pressure if not.
BILD advocating for more new suburbs instead of filling in the massive underused sites within the henday…but then also publicly complaining about the taxes, strikes me as confusing. Was pretty disappointed to hear Kalen on Edify’s podcast. Lots of false equivalences and exaggerations/dismissals of those who raise legitimate and fact based concerns on sprawl. She gave 0 numbers or data and instead played on identity politics suggesting “white urbanists” not wanting sprawl is pretty much racist to BIPOCs because many new suburbs are highly diverse (conveniently ignoring the many bipoc communities in central areas that experience worse transit and neighborhood disinvestment thanks to sprawl. As well as the fact that even though the new suburbs might be more racially diverse, many of those families are also higher income, see census data (funny to care about the high earning Indian doctors in windemere and not the indigenous or somali populations closer to DT, no?) And also a lame argument because so much of that is age based too. Central communities with lots of 60 year olds who have been in their homes 30 years vs new residents who have been here 5 years).
Sorry for the rant. That podcast just frustrated me so much and then it’s hard to hear that and then see BILD also frustrated by tax increases.
Are there areas BILD sees as where expenses and revenues can be changed? Seems like sprawl is sorta one of the best to reduce taxes…. But they want the opposite.
Really just annoyed by that, because I saw an article on Urban Affairs where the "white urbanist" got used as an argument by a South Asian developer and that pissed me off to no end. Don't use race/ethnicity as an excuse for this, because I will clap back as an immigrant kid who grew up in the suburbs and can't wait to get out.
No one gets to use race as an argument for your continued cheap development that is a detriment to the city in the long run, gtfo of here.
Greenspace
Senior Member
I haven't had the chance to listen to that podcast yet, but Kalen represents a lobbying group who's majority of developers bread and butter is suburban development. In fact that's probably one of the biggest industries in Edmonton. That said, she's a smart person and has been a strong advocate for Downtown.
The reality is City Council could stop approving new neighbourhoods tomorrow and there'd still be 30 years of areas left to develop. People would be crying about how it will affect Edmonton's affordability, and we'd get no where in terms of curbing sprawl. I don't think there's an easy answer for this, and all cities in the world has tones of sprawl, we just don't have an urban core developed in a way like other cities, so much land still available or underdeveloped and it feels like such an uphill battle. Adding more density to zoning won't fix this issue. It's an issue the market has to resolve, all government can do is make areas more attractive but if people don't want to develop there what are the solutions?
I know some like Janz talk a lot about curbing sprawl but neither have the big ideas nor political consensus to do anything about it. For example, he could be advancing 109 Street corridor in his ward and encouraging more development there by advancing that plan.
I'm not sure how much the current property tax increases have to do with sprawl. I'd have to see more data on that. The issue is falling assessments, increase costs (like wage increases), and inflation. If Downtown fails for instance to grow assessments, we will all pay as a city.
The reality is City Council could stop approving new neighbourhoods tomorrow and there'd still be 30 years of areas left to develop. People would be crying about how it will affect Edmonton's affordability, and we'd get no where in terms of curbing sprawl. I don't think there's an easy answer for this, and all cities in the world has tones of sprawl, we just don't have an urban core developed in a way like other cities, so much land still available or underdeveloped and it feels like such an uphill battle. Adding more density to zoning won't fix this issue. It's an issue the market has to resolve, all government can do is make areas more attractive but if people don't want to develop there what are the solutions?
I know some like Janz talk a lot about curbing sprawl but neither have the big ideas nor political consensus to do anything about it. For example, he could be advancing 109 Street corridor in his ward and encouraging more development there by advancing that plan.
I'm not sure how much the current property tax increases have to do with sprawl. I'd have to see more data on that. The issue is falling assessments, increase costs (like wage increases), and inflation. If Downtown fails for instance to grow assessments, we will all pay as a city.
Out of Towner
New Member
Urban sprawl also uses up good farm land. There could and maybe should be a levy applied to development on farmland to compensate for the economic loss of taking food out of production.
CaptainBL
Active Member
Let me rephrase the above - "If the city fails to grow assessments downtown, we all pay as a city"
How has the city not already failed to grow assessments downtown? Despite $2B+ of public and private investments in the Ice District, the Valley line, Churchill Square, parks (Alex Decoteau Park and soon to be warehouse park), property values are still down and office vacancies continue to stay above 20%. How come? Well when you have virtually 0 economic development in what is the literal and financial heart that beats your city then the burden continues to remain with individual tax payers, as seen by the insane tax increases that were just proposed. It is simply unsustainable to continue to have individuals foot the tax bill burden while the city remains blind to the fact that the downtown heart pumping for the rest of the body is unhealthy.
I know Sohi and the bunch aren't the most financially savvy bunch but if I go to the doctor complaining about heart problems without considering the fact that I smoke 3 packs per day then that's on me.
Greenspace
Senior Member
^Couldn't agree with you more. Also it's why admin recently sounded the alarm on industrial growth is not happening within the City boundaries and why. Long term the tax burden will continue to shift away from commercial and industrial like you said.
Last edited:
David A
Senior Member
Posthaste: Canadian home prices will experience 'sizable pullbacks' in cities you might not expect
Interestingly, the article does not mention Edmonton as one of the cities expected to have a 'sizable pullback", but I'm not sure if that is just because of the central Canadian media tendency to often ignore us.
However, not good news for Calgary.
TAS
Senior Member
Along with what has been stated in previous posts about the podcast, Kalen described Blatchford as a project that "isn't working" based on the pace of development there vs any other new development, particularly on the southside.
She said "people vote with their dollars and their feet... and it's time to pivot and adjust."
She talked about the need to build smarter public infrastructure in new neighbourhoods to reduce costs such as roads that aren't as wide and combining uses such as a firehall with other uses attached to the building.
Lots of other things to unpack from the podcast. Worth a listen.
TAS
Senior Member
Sorry - i remember this being discussed but I can't remember details - why is more industrial not being built in city boundaries? Too expensive vs surrounding areas? Not enough land? Dealing with the city vs other muncipalities?
Coprolite
Active Member
Okay, maybe I'm missing something here, but has the Valley Line even been running long enough to have any kind of impact on tax assessments? Is the warehouse park supposed to increase assessments before it's complete?
Coprolite
Active Member
thommyjo
Senior Member
Yeah. Felt like there was some good stuff and some concerning stuff in there. I honestly this the philosophy behind our city plan that she had a huge part in makes a ton of sense.
I also think it’s a plan that works better in Toronto where there’s a strong core completed and a new to decentralize employment hubs, density, and transportation. The plan is almost premature for us and risks hurting our core areas.
The public space comments were fascinating. I do wonder if all our massive fields are really needed. They’re empty soooo often. Like literally less than 5 people in a 5+ soccer field space. Is that our best land use?
She made a dismissive comment about “people say sprawl doesn’t pay for itself. Well no community does, it’s all subsidized”. Which of course is true aside from wihkwentowin and garneau we’ve been told. But I think a better approach vs saying “ah, they all lose money who cares”. Is to say, how much money can they lose? What are we comfortable subsidizing? If a community of 10,000 people leads to a certain increase in jobs and work in industrial and commercial and retail…will that be enough to subsidize the net loss of infrastructure vs property taxes. Should we set not just density targets, but taxes per acre type targets?
David A
Senior Member
There is interesting and worthwhile stuff happening in Toronto, but it is also a very different city size wise, history and a concentration of high paying corporate jobs in the core. So obviously, copying it may not always translate well to Edmonton even if the idea is good or sound.
Yeah, the all is subsided comment is not a strong logical argument, kind of like saying lots of people drink booze so lets drink more. It just ignores and dismisses the inherent problems while sounding good.
It seems like she is basically a lobbyist or PR person for an industry that obviously has certain interests, so her comments should be taken in that context, not as completely objective.
Part of the problem here is there are areas more desirable to develop that are growing faster. And it makes sense, people who have money and like to travel may want to be closer to their airport or further from inner city areas with problems and seen as not as desirable. However, despite all the money councillors get from the development industry they should not just be the head waiters for what is requested, they have to consider the overall good of the city and growth throughout.
Yeah, the all is subsided comment is not a strong logical argument, kind of like saying lots of people drink booze so lets drink more. It just ignores and dismisses the inherent problems while sounding good.
It seems like she is basically a lobbyist or PR person for an industry that obviously has certain interests, so her comments should be taken in that context, not as completely objective.
Part of the problem here is there are areas more desirable to develop that are growing faster. And it makes sense, people who have money and like to travel may want to be closer to their airport or further from inner city areas with problems and seen as not as desirable. However, despite all the money councillors get from the development industry they should not just be the head waiters for what is requested, they have to consider the overall good of the city and growth throughout.
BrettB
Active Member
BC has agricultural land reserves around every major centre. That, more than almost anything else, hems in development and forces everything up in Metro Vancouver, Vancouver Island, and the Fraser Valley
Edit: besides mountains and water, that is