[calculoso]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

C'mon Calculoso, look at a row of houses and a row of townhouses and tell me that there's not a higher number of people on the same patch of land. You're calling a backyard greenspace but that's PRIVATE greenspace, that doesn't do joe citizen much good when he's not allowed on it. An open park has communal benefits, not just for the immediate homeowner. Townhouses also have a bit of backyard/greenspace, just less of it.
You keep using Garrison Woods, head down to River Run / Erlton behind Talisman center as an example of medium high density has fit a lot more people into a given area. Garrison Woods and the issue of "greenspace" is bound as there are restrictions on what can be built where.

Garrison Woods wasn't my example, but I was running with it anyway.

Take a look at that one row of townhouses and then the amount of green space in front of it. Take that whole area and build two rows of houses, with small yards (found in many new area developments).

I think the amount of people would be similar, if not the same, in both instances.

If you want to take the area of green space in Garrison Woods and build another row of townhouses, then of course you can fit more people in there... but then there isn't the green space to compensate.

Sure backyard green space is Private land... but if everyone has their own private land then it's more of a moot point. Most of the time, I find that backyards get used a lot more than those typical ajoining public lawns, unless it's a big park like Edworthy Park.

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

As for Stampede Station, prelim plans do have a rather large parkade planned. The City's strategy is to limit parking spaces to discourage people from driving in, as there are not enough roads to support it. Makes sense to me, but I'll be the 1st to admit that the transit system is woefully inadequate.

That's great that they have the parkade planned! Too bad they have to let everyone get frustrated with the lack of parking and lack of transport in the meantime. Nothing like testing to see how mad people get, hey?

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

My belief is that they should be prepared to pay a hefty premium if you choose to want a brand new single detached house in a new suburb.

If the inner city was more affordable, people wouldn't be living in the suburbs. It's not always a choice. I'd much rather live closer to the inner city... I just can't afford it.

As people move here from elsewhere in the country/world, the city will need to expand. Unless all the current buildings in the city are to expand, new ones will need to be built... and unless there's room in the inner city, they'll have to be built outside of that.

This new hefty premium for, really, having no choice as to where you live would just make people move to Airdrie and Strathmore, then commute to Calgary. If this were to happen, you'd still have the expenses of the roads and overpasses, only you'd have absolutely NO tax revenue from these folks. Which is the better solution? A little bit or none?

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Not saying this is a perfect proposal by anymeans - affordability becomes a concern, but this raises an interesting question - at what point in a city's growth should the "dream" of single detached houses for all families not be a reality? Your average New Yorker doesn't run for the burbs when they have kids, nor does the average Vancouverite as it's just not possible. Should there always be an expectation that single family detached housing be available for all?

It's not an option in New York and Vancouver because they don't have the land, and the commute from those areas would be hellish. Eventually, this question will answer itself. If trying to commute downtown from Canmore every day is the only option you have to get a single family detached house, it will make the decision a lot more comparable to those that New Yorkers and Vancouverites have to deal with. We're not at that point. It's apples and oranges.