Quote:
Originally Posted by rohara66
Where can I find specific information on what Nenshi and/or the City is proposing to change with how new developments happen?
All I read anywhere is "no more sprawl" and "make the suburbs pay"... blah blah blah. Somehow I think stopping any further development is a terrible idea.
|
There is not any notion of stopping further development.
The single most important initiative is the Growth Management Framework
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Pages/...anagement.aspx
It's a complex project, but essentially what it's doing is figuring out the best sequence to grow communities to optimize infrastructure and operating costs. It uses agreed to principles, and ranking criteria to prioritize growth areas, both established and greenfield. In the old way, it was basically a bit of a free-for-all. If you were effective at lobbying, if you had a strong Alderman, you could get your new community built, whether it made sense to go ahead with that community now or not (from an efficiency perspective). Case in point, Silverado had to truck its sewage out because it was detached from servicing - or Skyview Ranch, which is contiguous with the existing built up area.
Some in the industry may be nervous because it picks winners and losers. Well, yes that's true, but the old system picked winners and losers too - but did so in an opaque way. Growth Management makes the whole decision making process very, very transparent. In a sense, it neutralizes political power with regard to growth, which I think some out there are perhaps nervous about.
The Municipal Development Plan (Our city-wide plan) is the other key piece of policy. It sets out the pattern of desired growth - to intensify particular areas (usually next to transit infrastructure) and to grow new communities with more thoughtful design, greater mixes of uses, more variety in housing types, easier choices to walk or take transit, lower operating costs to provide services etc. Some have categorized these directions as "social engineering", which is silly. It could be argued that it's social engineering to build communities where driving is the
only realistic choice, or where it's difficult or impossible to stay in your community as you age if you need a different housing type. I think this is where some of the deep philosophical differences lie between
some in the building industry (I emphasize some because I'd say many don't align with the points of view of the Cal Wenzel's of the industry), various members of Council, and many in the public.