|
we have one of those places it's called southern Ontario.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
--io-io ~~~ I wonder how much fruit and such that was/is imported from California is doing thanks to the drought there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Baudin posted:I'm guessing you're both in Ontario/BC where apparently there's a very firm delineation between arable and non-arable land, and due to ~reasons~ when the majority of the cities were built they ended up in the best land available for farming? Where I live, again, there's a lot of land and most of it is fairly flat - being next to the city doesn't instantly make it the best for producing food. Not arable land, but Class 1 farmland. The largest chunks of Class 1 farmland between Ontario and the east coast left are actually both airport sites for Toronto and Montreal. Ontario's losing about 351/acres of farmland a day which is a problem. I'm glad Alberta is different. That's good. Bip Roberts posted:Just import food from places that aren't abject garbage to grow anything. We have been doing that for a while, but climate change is going to shift where it's not garbage to grow anything and then it'd be good to have farmland to grow our own food.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Ontario's losing about 351/acres of farmland a day which is a problem. I'm glad Alberta is different. That's good. How is this happening?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:How is this happening? Researchers are still trying to figure out the specifics. Now it's not all permanent -- at least some of that is people buying farms and turning them into hobby horse farms which don't get counted as farmland in the census anymore, but in the future the land could be ploughed again and it'd be back to growing more soy bean or whatever. But a lot of it is getting chewed up in suburban development by municipalities around the GTA and in south-western Ontario. A new development gets approved by city council, the land is sold by farmers who can finally retire, or in some cases buy a farm further north where land is marginal but much cheaper, or it's already owned by speculators and sold to the developers and the whole area is stripped of topsoil and the houses go in. Although having talked to some urban and rural planners, the biggest culprit in creating huge amounts of sprawl these days are light industrial developments. New suburban developments are packed in pretty tightly these days, but you swear that anyone designing an new light industrial park has never heard of an elevator. Giant flat building and a few acres of grass.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Not arable land, but Class 1 farmland. The largest chunks of Class 1 farmland between Ontario and the east coast left are actually both airport sites for Toronto and Montreal. Ontario's losing about 351/acres of farmland a day which is a problem. I'm glad Alberta is different. That's good. A lot of people are rabidly opposed to Edmonton expanding south by annexing a fairly sizeable chunk of the County of Leduc (mostly people inside the County who don't want to lose out on the income industrial land generates for the county) and one of their main arguments against it is "think of the arable land" - thus my disdain for the argument. e: though I do see your point that's just over two quarter sections of land (so two 1/4 by 1/4 mile parcels) per day which is conceivable in your hustle-bustle east portion of the country. Dreylad posted:Although having talked to some urban and rural planners, the biggest culprit in creating huge amounts of sprawl these days are light industrial developments. New suburban developments are packed in pretty tightly these days, but you swear that anyone designing an new light industrial park has never heard of an elevator. Giant flat building and a few acres of grass. Light industrial parks generally need flat buildings to function efficiently. Multi-storey industrial buildings, even of the light variety, are a lot more expensive to build, which means the lease rate is higher per square foot, which means no one wants to move in compared to a flat building with grass which is cheap and does the job well (moving between floors for some of these uses creates functional problems). e: kudos for the good posting Baudin fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:
multi floor factories are a Bad Idea because you'll have to transport some unfinished product up and down stairs and that quickly causes lots of pileups.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Why were so many old factories big huge tall things? I've been in older industrial buildings that were multi-level and they just had hoists and elevators and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why were so many old factories big huge tall things? I've been in older industrial buildings that were multi-level and they just had hoists and elevators and poo poo. They were not operating according to modern industrial flow techniques. The amount of product they put out was probably not terribly high either so they probably didn't notice. In those days you could just brute force it with more machines and you'd get enough sales for it to not matter; these days you refine your process so you don't add any machines but you can still increase your output by a significant percent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why were so many old factories big huge tall things? I've been in older industrial buildings that were multi-level and they just had hoists and elevators and poo poo. They're also immensely inefficient - as an example the company I work for did an appraisal in Winnipeg of an old factory building built in that style. Current use: storage. It's very difficult to use a forklift or install a modern crane in that kind of building.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Well I guess we're stuck with huge warehouse-like industrial buildings. Good thing every other use stacks up really nice so we can save all our flat land for farming and industry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Well I guess we're stuck with huge warehouse-like industrial buildings. Good thing every other use stacks up really nice so we can save all our flat land for farming and industry. Move out to the prairies, all* our land is flat land! *most
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why were so many old factories big huge tall things? I've been in older industrial buildings that were multi-level and they just had hoists and elevators and poo poo. They pre-date the rise of full automation, which requires vast swathes of uninterrupted space to operate efficiently. Moving parts between floors costs money and manpower.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:And I'm quoting this from like 5 pages ago, but I wonder how much it would help if agricultural easements were placed on agricultural land. I have to imagine that a good chunk of farms aren't going to be farmed after they sell to whoever, given the rate at which we're losing farmland in this country. Not letting people completely redevelop the farmland they bought might help keep prices down, although from the sounds of it, if rural Ontario prices are finally blowing up that might not be as much of a barrier to young people farming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Also i'd like to point out that global climate change doesn't forecast arable zones moving north, it forecasts arable zones moving north along nutrient rich zones - which are thise along banks of rivers that have a history of flooding or areas flooded and churned by glaciation. lovely nutrient poor areas will remain crappy farmland regardless of temperature (also climate change doesn't affect hours of sunlight). This is kind if a problem for the exceedingly stable geologic zones of the Canadian shield of Ontario and Quebec.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:I was recently driving up to a friend's cottage and the gridlock extended to Barrie which is apparently now a suburb of Toronto. What the gently caress? poo poo like this is why when my wife and I decided we were sick of the golden horseshoe we moved all the way to Winnipeg so we could be sure we wouldn't be sucked back in to the ever expanding black hole that is the GTA. Living anywhere within 200km of Toronto these days means endless traffic, at least on long weekends. When people asked us why not Alberta or at least Saskatoon I said it was because if either oil or potash prices dropped those two provinces would be hosed. I'm a god damned psychic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:poo poo like this is why when my wife and I decided we were sick of the golden horseshoe we moved all the way to Winnipeg so we could be sure we wouldn't be sucked back in to the ever expanding black hole that is the GTA. Living anywhere within 200km of Toronto these days means endless traffic, at least on long weekends. good move, the mosquitoes were getting tired of feeding on the locals
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Hahaha I grew up in Northern Ontario and spend a ton of time outdoors and only a few months after moving to Winnipeg I end up literally being chased out of the woods and back to my car by insects. First time that's ever happened to me. Now I own a full bug suit. gently caress Manitoba mosquitoes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:poo poo like this is why when my wife and I decided we were sick of the golden horseshoe we moved all the way to Winnipeg so we could be sure we wouldn't be sucked back in to the ever expanding black hole that is the GTA. Living anywhere within 200km of Toronto these days means endless traffic, at least on long weekends. Oh yeah because Winnipeg has so much going for it 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
cougar cub posted:Oh yeah because Winnipeg has so much going for it Montreal is basically the best low cost city in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
etalian posted:Montreal is basically the best low cost city in Canada. Really the only downside to Montreal is the strain of getting a job without speaking quebecois. Otherwise, it's pretty much the best city in Canada to live in by every metric.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Rime posted:Really the only downside to Montreal is the strain of getting a job without speaking quebecois. Otherwise, it's pretty much the best city in Canada to live in by every metric. It also has a a somewhat weak economy but still pretty much the only metropolitan area in Canada that doesn't have ripoff housing prices while having good transit/poo poo to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Rime posted:Really the only downside to Montreal is the strain of getting a job without speaking quebecois. Weather, taxes
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:multi floor factories are a Bad Idea because you'll have to transport some unfinished product up and down stairs and that quickly causes lots of pileups. Oh I get that, but it's still an issue on how much space they use up. Not sure there's an obvious solution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Oh I get that, but it's still an issue on how much space they use up. Not sure there's an obvious solution. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:Weather, taxes risk of spending life savings at pussy corp
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
My North Vancouver condo dropped like $10,000 from last year officially. But it's still a $260,000 40 year old suburban condo, lol
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:Weather, taxes lol go choke on bay area fog e: while we're on the subject, I find that taxes in amerikkka are just as high as in Canada and that's with WA having no income tax. What's it like in kkkalifornia? namaste friends fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
etalian posted:It also has a a somewhat weak economy but still pretty much the only metropolitan area in Canada that doesn't have ripoff housing prices while having good transit/poo poo to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
2 + 2 = 5 posted:Quebec City is also extremely great, probably 2nd best quality of life (considering cost of living) after Montreal. Isn't Quebec city a new urbanism hipster's nightmare of strip malls and highways?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Isn't Quebec city a new urbanism hipster's nightmare of strip malls and highways?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:lol go choke on bay area fog California has a top bracket income tax of 12.3%, with a 9.5% sales tax.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
2 + 2 = 5 posted:You can rent a 1 bedroom 3rd floor walkup in Limoilou (10 minute walk to old Quebec/downtown) for 5-600/mo. The priciest accommodations you can find in town are like $800-1000/mo for a ridiculously beautiful 1 bedroom. Steps to great nightlife. Eat pork and veal from Charlevoix. Pay gouge prices for wine. Drink malty rear end beer. J'aime Quebec. Quebec is amazing. If it weren't for the untenable career prospects for my partner given her lack of French fluency, we'd move there permanently, and BC could slide into the ocean for all we'd care. I don't know who you are, 2+2=5, but it's impossible not to like you - with your Nineteen Eighty-Four and The Shawshank Redemption references.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
It's funny that literally all the problems laid out on this page are caused by capitalism and could also be solved by smashing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
No they're caused by innumeracy and rapacious greed. Go re read from page 1.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
I heard neoliberalism was to blame 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Hopefully canada will have a revolution and bury harper alive in a F-35.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:Oh, they've held on, it's just the value is gone -I'm not their financial planner, I don't know the details. Their utmost confidence that they will ever recover what they lost (they are now approaching what they initially put in) without trouble and that the past won't repeat itself scares the crap out of me. I'm glad the house has been paid off for a long time. If that's true it sounds like their investments had ridiculously high fees that benefited whoever sold it to them, and is a symptom of greater financial illiteracy (my parents did something similar  ). A portfolio with maximum exposure at the beginning of 2008 (100% invested in the S&P index) would have lost about 34.84% that year. Assuming reinvested dividends, returns from 2009 were 31.42% (from new baseline levels). 2010 was pretty volatile but returned 12.48%; volatility continued in 2011 (1.31% loss) but trended back up ever since (11.45% in 2012; 24.36% in 2013; 9.63% in 2014)*. With those numbers one would have recouped the original investment in late 2011, been up 12.67% by the end of 2012, and up about 50% from the pre-crash price.*Source is this calculator based on this guy's work. Ceciltron posted:What I don't get is why people are convinced that it makes sense to just throw money at something and assume that these funds will go to work and earn more money for you. Income that can be generated from capital will always make more than income generated from labor. It's true that you shouldn't invest more than you feel comfortable losing, but the corollary is that you can't win if you don't play. If all your investments go bust then society has probably collapsed, money is useless and the only good income is bullets, tinned food and tylenol. Ceciltron posted:CI's gleeful cackling as the whole capitalist system eats itself alive is one of the few things that cheers me up when reading this thread. yes 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
Guest2553 posted:If that's true it sounds like their investments had ridiculously high fees that benefited whoever sold it to them, and is a symptom of greater financial illiteracy (my parents did something similar Yeah most people lose piles of money in investing by buying high and then panic selling in a bear market like the 2009 megacrash. Also making foolish investments like trying to stock pick/buy speculative IPO stocks instead of index investing on a global scale. Which ties back to whole it can go only go up foolish mindset, from stocks to real estate the best time to buy is in a discount market situation. Buying on the rise especially in a bubble situation is a good way to get financially broke especially when you sink all your money into a home mortgage. etalian fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
etalian posted:Montreal is basically the best low cost city in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 07:14
|
|
