[Addick]

Originally Posted by 4X4

So what is the solution? Build up instead of out? Do you want calgary to be all highrises with no suburbs?

Not at all.

Denser does not mean high density; there are numerous levels of density and currently Calgary is quite close to the bottom of the scale. Many of the cities that planning literature praises for their urban qualities (e.g. Barcelona and Paris) are considered low cities as they have a uniform 6-7 storey (mid-level density) built form. While this alone will not work for Calgary as we'll need a few high-density buildings to average out the small density contributions from single-detached houses, a lot of the density can come from low and mid-rise buildings like: single-detached houses with secondary suites, row/terraced houses, and 4-7 storey flats.

Originally Posted by 4X4

Here's the thing you people are not thinking about. The people have to live somewhere. It is cheaper to build out rather than up.

Once all of the costs are tallied, no it is most definitely not. Even with redevelopment, you have to remember two things: i) they need to, or at least should, pay for everything; and ii) they need to be increasing the productivity of the inner-city land (i.e. adding additional people and lowering the per capita costs).

Originally Posted by bizaro86

So again, where's the problem? Fire and police? Even if Calgary was concentrated into a smaller area, we'd still want a certain amount of cops per 1000 citizens. As it is, we have satellite stations all around the city.

In denser areas, the costs are lower to provide these services. Take emergency services for example, their service areas are based on response time. In more compact areas, the smallest station they can built will have a larger portion of people in its catchment area than a similar station in a low-density area.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'm pretty sure all the snowplows aren't dispatched from downtown. They're mostly stored on cheaper land outside the core, so they have a longer drive to plow inner city roads than surburban roads.

There are still inner-city bus barns so that is not necessarily true. However, the major issue is the amount of infrastructure needed in 'sprawling' suburbs and how much work needs to be done once the trucks reach these area. Due to their design, the roads that the plows must clear and the pipes that water/sewage needs to travel through are longer. This increases both the capital and operational costs and, to make things worse, there are less people in these areas to pay these larger bills.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Some other services are also provided in a more efficient manner to newer neighbourhoods. For example, Hawkwood Elementary opened in 1993 and serves 429 students. Sunnyside school was built in 1919 and serves 148 students. Does anyone believe it's more efficient to educate children in very small, very old schools?

They believe it is more efficient to create complete community that do not go through lifecycles that create over-crowed and then under-used schools. One way to stop this trend is to turn older communities that have similar facilities and infrastructure into complete communities. It should be noted that many of these older communities are often unsustainable in the current form, however, they are in a much better position to be retrofitted and refurbished into vibrant, sustainable, and complete communities. In the case of Hillhurst/Sunnyside, it already has a some or a bit of these qualities.