Quote:
|
Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse
"We don't have sprawl today," says Dave Bronconnier. "What you're seeing is sprawl that's occurred primarily from rapid growth in the 1960s, '70s and '80s."
"The public policies are working. They're reversing a trend and seeing it in the form of more multi-family homes, significantly higher densities, more mixed-use projects and more high-rise towers."
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...614318-cp.html
While I would agree we are seeing some new high density projects on the go, I don't see any policies regarding expansion of city limits via annexation. As long as demand for single detached housing exists, it's easier to just go grab more land...
I found his blaming of the 80's & before for sprawl comical - has he not watched the South push from Shawnessy to what is it now, Copperfield in the span of 5 years? |
My understanding of the term "urban sprawl" is that it a negative term which refers to poor or unplanned development which often occurs just outside the legal limits of major urban centres. For an example of urban sprawl, drive around Denver Colorado and check out the gong show mix of land uses that occurs on the north side.
Just because a city is growing, doesn't mean it is sprawling. You can debate the pros/cons of low/medium/high density development, but its difficult to call most of what is seen in Calgary as "urban sprawl".
The fact of the matter is, most people would rather live in low density areas and the lack of geographical barriers to growth (ie mountains, ocean, US border, etc.) allow Calgary to grow outwards. If Calgary puts a cap on growth in an attempt to increase density, then new low density communities will just spring up around Calgary and eventually get annexed...