I think a major part of the picture that the article misses out on is the way that Calgary's growth plays into it: it honestly makes a lot more sense to have the most affluent citizens moving into the new suburbs (as long as they're paying their actual development costs, which I believe they finally are now). Let the high income households be the ones shouldering the weight of suburban expansion. You want to keep your low income households relatively close to the center of the city where their own costs will stay down and where they're close to most of the low-income jobs.
I can't imagine how much worse off a typical Forest Lawn low income family would be living in the far northwest, needing to commute halfway across the city, buying groceries at overpriced suburban supermarkets, and surrounded by services that they can't afford because they're priced for their more affluent neighbours. The city needs to continue to be proactive in making sure there's low income housing available, but making sure the location makes sense. Homogeny for its own sake doesn't do anyone any good, but if you let it happen somewhat organically, you'll ensure that neighbourhoods are always well suited to the people who live there.
(And in case this post sounds NIMBYish, I'm actually very much in favour of more low income housing in my own neighbourhood because its excellent transit situation makes it an appropriate fit.)
|