David Suzuki calls Calgary an "ecological disaster"

[Ozy_Flame]

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ub=CalgaryHome

I will agree, it is a community of cars, but that's what happens when you build outward with reckless abandon. Is anyone else surprised? I'm not. What would be surprising is if David Suzuki said that urban sprawl wasn't a problem.

[arob1]

This is nothing new. Typical North American cities (for the most part) always grow out instead of up.

[pepper24]

He's dead-on. City council has had backwards thinking about urban sprawl for decades. We have such a vibrant downtown core during the day due to being the energy capital of Canada that you think they'd try to replicate that in the evenings with entertainment, condos etc. We're only now starting to bump that trend.

I'll take New York/Chicago over LA/Houston any day.

[FanIn80]

It must keep him awake for long hours at a time to know that he shares his name with a motorcycle.

[MarchHare]

City council has had backwards thinking about urban sprawl for decades.

The city's (unelected) planners are aware of the problem and are trying to design and zone for "walkable" communities where inhabitants can get to work and run most/all of their errands without having to use a car. The problem is that a majority of Calgarians (and people in most other North American cities -- this isn't a uniquely Calgary problem) want their single-family detached home in the suburbs, and few -- if any -- local politicians have the willpower to do the right thing for long-term sustainability and build the city upwards instead of outwards.

[llama64]

"Disaster"? I'd say he's grandstanding, but overall I agree with him. Calgary is a very poorly designed city with a heavy emphasis on suburban development.

Want to see everything wrong with Calgary in one spot? Try walking from store to store in Deerfoot Meadows. The whole place is designed under the presumption that consumers don't want to walk anywhere. The "power center" needs to be rethought... it's a weak solution.

[burn_this_city]

The majority of hot air emissions in this country come from that windbag..

[Russic]

I may receive a finely crafted oragami letter bomb from mr. Suzuki for this one, but if I couldn't buy my single-family detached home in the suburbs I wouldn't even have stayed in Calgary. Ironically my move from the centre of Calgary to the outskirts has contributed to me almost completely parking my car and using transit for everything.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Russic

I may receive a finely crafted oragami letter bomb from mr. Suzuki for this one, but if I couldn't buy my single-family detached home in the suburbs I wouldn't even have stayed in Calgary. Ironically my move from the centre of Calgary to the outskirts has contributed to me almost completely parking my car and using transit for everything.

Has it? Or has high gas prices done that for you? Just curious to know. I bet you'd be driving if gas was back to $.70/litre...

[babs]

Originally Posted by llama64

Want to see everything wrong with Calgary in one spot? Try walking from store to store in Deerfoot Meadows. The whole place is designed under the presumption that consumers don't want to walk anywhere. The "power center" needs to be rethought... it's a weak solution.

I completely agree! I tried walking from Best Buy to Futureshop once as I thought it would be an easy enough walk, but boy was I wrong. Deerfoot Meadows is so bad that you almost have to get into your car to go to the store next door.

[octothorp]

Hmmm, despite my left-wing leanings, I'm going to disagree with Suzuki here, at least in terms of calling it an ecological disaster. I'm just going by the article rather than the full interview so maybe I'm taking things out of context, but Calgary's impact on the ecology of the prairie region is minimal: it's expanding outward predominantly into agricultural land, not sensitive ecosystems; it doesn't seriously alter migration routes of animals, who can safely travel through the valley for the most part, or get around the city easily enough; it's effect on local water resources is acceptable, both in terms of levels of consumption and pollution; between Nose Hill and Fish Creek, it's got some of the greatest amounts of in-city natural parkland of any city in North America; while greenhouse gas emissions are greater than they could be, greenhouse gases do not affect the ecology of the region nearly as much as smog, which is negligible in Calgary. It's one thing to criticize urban sprawl and rampant automotive use, and I'd support him on that; but to call the city an ecological disaster is playing loose with scientific terminology, and his propensity for that is one of the reasons he has difficulty gaining widespread acceptance.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by llama64

"Disaster"? I'd say he's grandstanding, but overall I agree with him. Calgary is a very poorly designed city with a heavy emphasis on suburban development.

Want to see everything wrong with Calgary in one spot? Try walking from store to store in Deerfoot Meadows. The whole place is designed under the presumption that consumers don't want to walk anywhere. The "power center" needs to be rethought... it's a weak solution.

So? You need a car to get to Deerfoot Meadows, so why wouldn't they design the place accordingly?

As for urban sprawl, not everyone wants to live in an apartment downtown. Some people, believe it or not, like having a backyard for their kids to play in. I know it's totally unreasonable to you, Mr. Suzuki, but it's true.

[Ozy_Flame]

Funny comment from that article...

"Ok David. How about explaining why commuting from Abbotsford every day is so great. Vancouver transit system is a joke and those clean electric buses are powered by that huge gas fired plant east of the 2nd narrows bridge. How long does it take for you to drive your car from that 3 million dollar mansion in Kitsilano (suburb) to downtown. Hybrid still uses gas. I live in Calgary and I live closer to work than him."

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by octothorp

It's one thing to criticize urban sprawl and rampant automotive use, and I'd support him on that; but to call the city an ecological disaster is playing loose with scientific terminology, and his propensity for that is one of the reasons he has difficulty gaining widespread acceptance.

Agreed. Not the best example of urban design/planning but far from a disaster.

Just doesn't fit in the list.

1. Exxon Valdez oil spill
2. Amazon deforestation
3. Drying up of the Aral sea.
4. Calgary

[Table 5]

The Oil Sands development up in Northern Alberta could be on your list....

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The Oil Sands development up in Northern Alberta could be on your list....

The Suncor Oil Sands tailing pond is the second biggest dam in the world (by volume) next to the Three Gorges Dam.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by 4X4

So? You need a car to get to Deerfoot Meadows, so why wouldn't they design the place accordingly?

As for urban sprawl, not everyone wants to live in an apartment downtown. Some people, believe it or not, like having a backyard for their kids to play in. I know it's totally unreasonable to you, Mr. Suzuki, but it's true.

Agreed, and that is what makes Suzuki an extremist, rather than a rational authority.

Deerfoot Meadows is a jungle, and would have been much better made as an outdoor mall, with all the stores together, and the lot surrounding it.

There are better ways to design suburbs to make them more walkable... such as a town design. People want their single detached home with a yard and there's nothing wrong with that. If Calgary won't provide it, the satellites will, and that will only bring in new and greater problems.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

The Suncor Oil Sands tailing pond is the second biggest dam in the world (by volume) next to the Three Gorges Dam.

really? Dam!

[MarchHare]

people, believe it or not, like having a backyard for their kids to play in.

Is that really so, though? Calgarians always say they need to move to the suburbs so they can have a yard for their kids, but how many Calgary backyards are actually large enough to accomodate childs' play? Where I grew up in the Maritimes, you actually could make the argument that suburban backyards gave kids and teenagers a place to play. My parents' yard was large enough to play soccer or even baseball in, and we lived in a modest, middle-class home similiar to thousands of others in the area.

Photo evidence:

This is a Google Maps satellite view of a typical suburban neighbourhood in South Calgary. The houses are packed as tightly together as sardines in a can, and none of them have a backyard sizable enough for kids to play in:



For comparison, this is the street I grew up on in the suburbs of Saint John, New Brunswick:



Of course, that latter picture shows a very inefficient use of space, and zoning residential properties that size wouldn't be sustainable in a city with Calgary's population. My point though, is that the argument that a single family detached home in the suburbs is necessary so "the kids have a backyard to play in" is a complete red herring.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Is that really so, though? Calgarians always say they need to move to the suburbs so they can have a yard for their kids, but how many Calgary backyards are actually large enough to accomodate childs' play? Where I grew up in the Maritimes, you actually could make the argument that suburban backyards gave kids and teenagers a place to play. My parents' yard was large enough to play soccer or even baseball in, and we lived in a modest, middle-class home similiar to thousands of others in the area.

My point though, is that the argument that a single family detached home in the suburbs is necessary so "the kids have a backyard to play in" is a complete red herring.

But even a 20 square foot backyard is bigger than a patio hanging off the side of an apartment suite.