Taxation and housing choices.
Typically municipalities have way too low density to afford road, boulevard, sidewalk and underground service maintenance so it’s deferred and upgrades when possible are saddled on the small amount of new housing that is built.
When simulation becomes the norm, it weakens the human capacity for discernment. As a result, our social bonds close in upon themselves, forming self-referential circuits that no longer expose us to reality. We thus come to live within bubbles, impermeable to one another. Feeling threatened by anyone who is different, we grow unaccustomed to encounter and dialogue. In this way, polarization, conflict, fear and violence spread. What is at stake is not merely the risk of error, but a transformation in our very relationship with truth.
pope tweets good
Contractors price in risk. Over complicated and often conflicting policies (and personnel) increases risk. Personal preference trickling into design creates risk. Changes, micromanagement and uncertainty increases risk.
This all adds costs.
These aren’t one off examples, but are common expectations based on baked in backward policy, personal preference, unnecessary risk aversion or just straight up power plays.
There are ways to control infrastructure spending but very few municipalities are willing to tackle the actual issues.
Another municipality demanded “multiple” inspections during a three day install of a simple irrigation system which would add 25% to costs for the extra time, delay and potential risk of getting this very low risk item slightly less than perfect.
Another municipality demanded a water service sized for an apartment building five times larger than necessary, and with two times higher ongoing operating costs, because they were unwilling to okay the common alternative, even though an engineer had signed off on it.
Another municipality just spent 30% more on an EV charger install for minor aesthetic benefits, despite being emphatically encouraged to go with the equally safe and much cheaper option. Not performance. Not safety. They just liked it that way more and wanted it done their way.
Is it always justifiable?
I heard from one contractor that an unnamed municipality specified all the exact same colour rocks in their concrete, which tripled the cost. The muni was okay with it for the “standard, despite it providing an absolutely negligible benefit.
I build gentle density. Getting my homes approved attracts louder opposition than much larger buildings—usually from a very vocal minority.
People don’t like change if they feel they have a say—even if the status quo means a loss of children & families in their “family” neighbourhoods.
Here's the wildest part. City staff explicitly stated that downzoning the city would drive up housing prices and hurt younger generations, AND THEY STILL RECOMMENDED IT BE DONE.
Screw the next generation as policy is certainly something.
True. But there are a number of old school environmentalists and zero growth folks that disconnect anti-housing policy locally with sprawl. They see it as out of their control so not their fault. The planning institute is culpable in this too as they regularly give anti-housing munis related awards.
Local municipalities in my city don’t get how their “green” policies that make infill housing really challenging and expensive to build here pushes people and housing into sprawl elsewhere, including in Alberta.
Calgary downtown is great. Has the bones to be sensational.
That sprawl, though. Some of those commutes are pushing an hour each way. Likely because those two cities act as Canada’s attainable housing relief valve since they have relatively low barriers to new housing.
The @victoria.ca does this too. They do it so they can charge new residents additional fees to live in housing without parking.
Municipalities have many ways to make good housing unaffordable.
This is really quite good. Short and to the point.
Building all kinds of things in cities should be easy. The planning profession does not believe this and they need to be stopped.
The current 6-day Jeopardy champion works at a housing tax credit agency in New Jersey and for his banter with Ken he just looked directly at the camera and said "New York, California, shame on you, build more housing" and folks when I say heroes walk among us
If the province doesn’t care enough to prioritize long term affordable housing, why should the federal government bail them out?
If @christineboyle.bsky.social really feels like housing is a priority, match the federal contribution and let’s get more affordable housing built.
I don’t get politics. @christineboyle.bsky.social gut B.C.’s affordable housing program, tells munis they’ve done enough, letting them impose fee upon fee on new housing — and then wants the Feds to step up?
“Boyle would not commit to matching the federal dollars.”
cheknews.ca/rob-shaw-b-c...
Right-NIMBYism is the generally correct belief that you can keep your city exclusive by blocking new housing.
Left-NIMBYism is the mistaken idea that you can keep your city affordable and attainable by blocking new housing.
So-called “inclusionary zoning” is bad policy that worsens the problems it is supposed to address.
If cities want new apartment buildings to include units set aside for poor people, they should pay for the necessary subsidies.
Articles like this always frame taking the keys away as a personal family tragedy. It’s actually a systemic infrastructure failure. We've built a society where losing a driver's license means losing your entire independence and connection to the world. It shouldn't be this way.
You could say that Rock n Roll was born 111 years ago today in Arkansas, but probably not where you'd think. Before there was a Chuck Berry or Little Richard, there was those who wanted to be like her.
Rosetta Nubin better known as Sister Rosetta Tharpe, the godmother of Rock was born on this day
Yes. Possibly. Tough with all the extra requirements that triggers to hit my middle income market at that scale. Maybe a luxury product in the right location, but then the LULA might not fly.
Have you figured out a way to get around the double stair requirement still in part 9 of the code—or just accepting that the building has to be built under the more expensive part 3?
Sounds like province isn’t considering it for part 9 unless it’s done through the 2030 national code process.
Thank you. I do think you need to consider hardscaping the rabbit trail that’s formed from the pathway through to the signal button. Someone is going to slip and hurt themselves going through there. It’s crazy slippery when wet! Appreciate all the work you’re doing to make cycling easier. :)
I just see buildings like this and figure that those upper suites will have to rent at a significant discount when the market is competing to compel someone to do the six storey climb. If someone is saving $200-$500 a month and doesn’t mind the climb, is it all that bad?
The crossing has a specific bike button that controls the pedestrian crossing light as well. (The pathway through Doncaster green here is also super muddy and slippery, so this may be an intersection for a planned formal cycling connection).
Hi folks, thanks for responding to this. At the Hillside crossing connecting northbound Doncaster green with Doncaster road, there’s an elephant foot crossing beside the bike path, but no designated light for bikes and only a pedestrian light to follow. Do you have guidance for this crossing?
If you push your trip out to the summer, and your kiddo likes pinball, the Neon Ranch is a bit of a hidden spot on a farm off the lochside trail with a barn full of pinball machines.
It's going through a big reno but sounds like it should be open in June.
www.neonranchpinball.com
