Quote:
Originally Posted by you&me
I really do think it would cost hundreds of billions to build a nation wide high speed rail network if we're talking about connecting places like Okotoks, but that's irrelevant because it will just never happen.
I do agree with the basic concept though, that growth needs to be distributed throughout the country... I just don't know how that can be achieved, as many immigrants, after coming from across the world, rightfully seek out a sense of community, which is far easier to do in the big cities... The same cities with the worst affordability, so again, more self-perpetuating problems inflicted by poorly conceived government policy.
Your other point touches on what I was saying early about the blanket upzoning and why I don't think we need to do that (yet). Your example of Chinook is great, as there are acres of under-utilized land that could be redeveloped into a higher density multi-use node. I know that's an existing strategy for the city, but it would be nice to see some of those come to fruition before, again, rezoning Sliver's house to a 4-plex... I just don't feel like that's necessary with where Calgary is in its current built form.
|
Oh, I wasn't suggesting a nationwide high speed rail network, unless you mean across the nation? I just meant that a rail network to attempt to decentralize urban populations while allowing for more "bedroom community" options in areas that aren't as densely populated. You might be right that such a project would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. But curious if such an investment could aid acceleration of immigration and construction projects elsewhere that would also add to the tax basis.
I agree we don't have to do stuff like this yet, but it is worth investigating and doing pro and con analysis in advance. Such commercial and government projects would have amplified effects from interest rate moreso than for the average individual's inflation etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
But why??? That's a miserable existence. That stretch of BC is my idea of hell. So is living on top of a train station. They do that becuase they have to, not becuase they want to.
I get there are ways to densify Canada(and no shortage of examples around the world), my point is it doesn't provide benefits to happy living. Is the point to stretch every resource and ecosystem to the limit? Why? Who's life improves from that? How is that good for the planet?
Any dense city or country is going to rely on imports from elsewhere to function. If those resources are already stretched, how does adding more people fix that?
|
Because people are coming regardless of our sentiments. Addressing it in a similar but improved way could in theory help to ensure we aren't repeating the same issues that BC has.
It's a little bit give and take. If public transportation was made easier and more convenient as it is in Asia (yes, I know it's a little grating to keep saying Asia), then maybe the density won't automatically go insane like it does in other major cities over 1.5 million.
Maybe we promote cycling, individual e-transport etc. more which benefits keeping the current vibe. Maybe we develop more night life in these surrounding cities so the traffic doesn't automatically rush towards Calgary city centre for all events etc.
Resources are stretched, yes. But limiting people coming doesn't completely address that and waiting to the last moment to address the issues creates other ones that aren't as easy to navigate. The government could incentivize many businesses to do things that benefit the society in a more sustainable way, and with higher rates, perhaps the government can collect that from local and international companies rather than let private lenders benefit.