Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Calgary developer’s caught with pants down

Titan · 03-02-2013, 09:37 AM

Thanks. I appreciate that response. It must have taken an hour to do. I went through the posts you referenced again and I think I have a better understanding of the arguments for density. My comment would be that so much of the pro-density points are just that, "Density is good, sprawl is bad. So there." I see, or at least understand, fewer arguments about how to "make it so" in Calgary. One of the posts you referenced seemed to be on the right track with the encouragement to in fill inner city neighborhoods. Also, more creative "single family" residences would perhaps make me consider something other than my house in the burbs.

It would seem that from the examples of other cities given that McKenzie Towne is actually an attempt to become more dense. On my street there are several townhomes 2, 4 or 5 story condos, two old folks multistory condos, a sobeys, a business district and lots of single family homes. I can walk to my bank, groceries, restaurants, a gym, dentist, doctor, chiro, optomotrist, barber etc. This seems to be a good start is it not? If not, why not?

There are still a couple things that are unclear to me. What is "inner city" What is the definition you use? Why is "downtown" the ultimate goal? Is it? It would seem that mixed use areas like Quarry park could meet a lot of the same goals and reduce the traffic on Deerfoot. Am I off base on this?

Finally, I am unclear on the inputs that go into the economic subsidy argument.
I don't think it is as simple as a house in Sunnyside pays 20% highe taxes than I do so they say they are subsidizing me. I'm not sure that is what they are saying but obviously it is far too simplistic. Also, the comment I have made a few times about the roadway being an essential part of our economic system and not solely for commuters seems to have not been addressed. The fact that the province pays to maintain the Deerfoot would seem to argue that the cost of the Deerfoot should be taken out of the equation. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks again for the response.

03-02-2013, 09:37 AM	#315
Titan First Line Centre Join Date: Dec 2006 Exp:	Thanks. I appreciate that response. It must have taken an hour to do. I went through the posts you referenced again and I think I have a better understanding of the arguments for density. My comment would be that so much of the pro-density points are just that, "Density is good, sprawl is bad. So there." I see, or at least understand, fewer arguments about how to "make it so" in Calgary. One of the posts you referenced seemed to be on the right track with the encouragement to in fill inner city neighborhoods. Also, more creative "single family" residences would perhaps make me consider something other than my house in the burbs. It would seem that from the examples of other cities given that McKenzie Towne is actually an attempt to become more dense. On my street there are several townhomes 2, 4 or 5 story condos, two old folks multistory condos, a sobeys, a business district and lots of single family homes. I can walk to my bank, groceries, restaurants, a gym, dentist, doctor, chiro, optomotrist, barber etc. This seems to be a good start is it not? If not, why not? There are still a couple things that are unclear to me. What is "inner city" What is the definition you use? Why is "downtown" the ultimate goal? Is it? It would seem that mixed use areas like Quarry park could meet a lot of the same goals and reduce the traffic on Deerfoot. Am I off base on this? Finally, I am unclear on the inputs that go into the economic subsidy argument. I don't think it is as simple as a house in Sunnyside pays 20% highe taxes than I do so they say they are subsidizing me. I'm not sure that is what they are saying but obviously it is far too simplistic. Also, the comment I have made a few times about the roadway being an essential part of our economic system and not solely for commuters seems to have not been addressed. The fact that the province pays to maintain the Deerfoot would seem to argue that the cost of the Deerfoot should be taken out of the equation. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks again for the response.