Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I heard the guy a few years ago on the radio that wrote that book, and I just strongly disagree with so mcuh of his thinking. We are already running into issues like the Toronto green belt where housing takes over farmland and green space. In Calgary we are going to develop a new community on valuable wetlands. More people everywhere means more stress on every part of the environment, from forestry to farming, increased forest fires, decreased water resources, more power demands, more pollution, more trash, more consumption, just more of everything. We need to leave places wild.
I look back to Calgary int he 90's and it was much more pleasant. Rush hour was completely over by 6, so getting around was easier, particularity on weekends. Bigger cities mean bigger city problems. Going to the mountains was easy. You really want to deal with double, triple the people? No thanks. I'd gladly go back to Calgary of a city of 750k, and not feel like I had lost anything of value. Hell, even bars and nightclubs were better then.
Can Canada hold more people? Sure, dense countries show you can do it, but I wouldn't want to live in any of them.
|
In some places in Asia, you build more cities and connect them via high speed rail. Imagine living in Cochrane, Okotoks, Chestermere, Airdrie etc. and getting from your station to Calgary station in 10-20 minutes because it's an uninterrupted high speed rail going 150-200 kmph... and technically that's a slow train. Imagine Canmore being 30 minutes away via train but more like 45 minutes door to door. There are options to avoid ultra densification of an urban environment.
I wonder if high speed rails into Vancouver or Toronto could help alleviate those pricing issues. It would allow for building denser in other areas that can still service the main hubs.