[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Muta

Just for comparison's sake... here's some population densities of similar-sized cities (in terms of population), and their city area (just the city; not any metro areas and densities):

Area:

1. Ottawa: 2,778.64 km²
2. Jacksonville: 2,264.5 km²
3. Phoenix: 1,334.1 km²
4. San Antonio: 1,067.3 km²
5. Dallas: 997.1 km²
6. San Diego: 963.6 km²
7. Calgary: 726.50 km²
8. Edmonton: 684.37 km²
9. San Jose: 461.5 km²
10. Detroit: 370.2 km²

Population Density:

1. Detroit: 2,647/km²
2. San Jose: 2,014.4/km²
3. San Diego: 1,494.7/km²
4. Dallas: 1,391.9/km²
5. Calgary: 1,360.2/km²
6. Phoenix: 1,188.4/km²
7. Edmonton: 1,099.4/km²
8. San Antonio: 1,084.4/km²
9. Jacksonville: 409.89/km²
10. Ottawa: 219.8/km²

Keep in mind, the only thing similar about these cities are their populations.

First off, completely disregard Ottawa, as it is the capital city of Canada and due to the sheer number of federal and government buildings, it understandably is a large area in size; however, it is the exception and not the rule.

Other than that, it appears that Calgary is middle of the pack when it comes to area and density; metro area and desnity, however, may be another story.

calgary's actual built up area is about 430 sq km. That number is just the municipal boundary - Calgary keeps a 30 year land reserve. Same with Ottawa - not an actual reflection of population density - its boundary is many times its actual built up area through amalgomation.

Interestingly, in terms of the design of subdivisions in Calgary, as poor as they are, they are much, much better in many ways than subdivisions in most north american cities including Canadian ones.


================================

I was looking at live maps birdseye images of places like Richmond, Coquiltlam and Surrey. Most of the subdivisions don't have any sidewalks on most streets! Similar with the suburbs of Montreal. Sidewalks seem very rare.

Surrey

Richmond

Coquitlam

Missisauga

Montreal



That situation is extremely rare in any Calgary subdivision - most streets have at minimum a sidewalk on one side of the street. Residential densities, housing mix and inclusion of commercial uses (although they're still in strip mall or big box form like in Tuscany) makes Calgary's subdivisions relatively well planned. Most areas of the city have or are slated to be served by LRT. There is also no leapfrog development in Calgary.

The thing I dislike about Suzuki's comments are, as is pointed out he needlessly singles our Calgary, when in Edmonton - why not point out that Edmonton's pidly transit system gets hardly any use, while Calgary's C-Train gets more ridership than Vancouver's Skytrain - despite serving only half the population!!!!!

Also Calgary's getting pretty agressive with intensification and sustainability initiatives:

Downtown growth - thousands of condo units and office space (calgary has the most concentrated - ie least sprawled employment pattern in North America

Transit oriented development projects like Bridges, Brentwood, Chinook, Anderson, Lions Park, Banff Trail.

Brownfield redevelopment like East village, Railton, Ramsay Exchange, Quarry Park

LRT expansions on WLRT, NWLRT, NELRT and in a few years the SE LRT

More dense suburbs like Garrison Woods and Mohogany, both of which are well over 10 upa (very high by any north american standard for a subdivision).

Some of the highest proportion of new LEED certified buildings anywhere.

Plan it Calgary initiative

The list goes on. The fruits of all this current labour will become much more apparent in 5-10 years once a lot of this stuff is built out. Calgary's early in its reurbanization process.

So while Calgary has had a history of sprawly, unsustainable development, arguably it is actually DOING more than most to turn it around. That should be acknowledged.