Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
...
A growth perimeter does artificially increase inner city prices, but subsidizing sprawl also decreases inner city affordability (through artificially high taxes). I don't know of any serious push to implement a growth boundary for Calgary. What has been suggested is merely to stop artificially lowering costs of new homes on the periphery, and thus make the rest of the city (which is more desireable) more affordable.
|
Detroit suburbs at 3-4 upa with a water tower sticking up every few miles – that's sprawl. At 10-12 upa, Calgary is not sprawling, it's just been growing fast to keep up with the people that want to live and work here. The argument of the rest of the city subsidizing growth is old but holds little merit. Woodbine and Varsity used to be suburbs too. Did Mount Royal and Inglewood residents subsidize their growth?
Sensible intensification of the inner-city is great, as it makes the city more interesting. But so is sensible suburban growth, as it makes the city more affordable. Nenshi and a few aldermen (Farrell, Pinchott) have been pushing the former over the latter as an ultimate growth policy through the PlanIt Calgary document. This is where the problem is. Developers don't like it because they could loose some business over it. Guess what, they will refocus and start building more highrises eventually. But the real issue here is, will Calgary remain an attractive city to live doing so? I doubt it.