Sprawl - What sprawl? Bronco speaks...

[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?

[Superflyer]

No sprawl is a joke. I remmeber when I moved here about 8 years ago the north stopped at Country Hills (and even that was just being built) and the south stopped at Fish Creek ish. That is huge sprawl just in those few years.

[teamchachi]

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...

[habernac]

"What you're seeing is sprawl that's occurred primarily from rapid growth in the 1960s, '70s and '80s."

Denial can be fun. I moved here in 95, not the 60s, 70s and 80s. Sprawl has been EXPONENTIAL since then. Every time I hear this guy speak, I wonder if he isn't hanging around the crack heads by the Cecil.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by teamchachi

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.

I haven't been to Denver so I can't comment specifically on that, but urban sprawl generally isn't characterized by mixed land usage. The term refers to large tracts of land designated to one sector, without any real attempt to integrate commercial and residential. It's also characterized by everything being significantly larger than in older neighbourhoods: bigger lots, bigger houses, wider roads, bigger stores, bigger parking lots. Largely identical residential designs are another symptom. So are communities where car travel is necessary not only to get to other communities, but also to ammenities within the community.

[arsenal]

I read an article on the weekend from a guy in calgary that works specifically with urban sprawl. He did a study, and his prediction is by the time 2050 comes around, if nothing is done to curtail the current development there will be developments reaching out to Kananaskis.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by arsenal

I read an article on the weekend from a guy in calgary that works specifically with urban sprawl. He did a study, and his prediction is by the time 2050 comes around, if nothing is done to curtail the current development there will be developments reaching out to Kananaskis.

(emphasis mine)

Just wondering, what is wrong with sprawl? I live in Copperfield myself, and yes it takes a good amount of time to get home after work, but I find my weekends relaxing knowing those little dots on the horizon represent my work being far away.

For me it's like living in a small city outside of Calgary. Why would anybody want to curtail it?

[oldschoolcalgary]

^^Ditto to that, so long as inner city residents aren't the ones footing the bill for others to buy cheaper houses in the burbs.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by ken0042

(emphasis mine)

Just wondering, what is wrong with sprawl?

are you joking? do you not realize the bigger the city is land wise, the more money and effort it takes to keep it running? Building and mantaining all that infrustructure that go out to the burbs are infinitely more expensive than if the city had a smaller footprint. Why do you think Calgary has such a crappy road network? If this city was smaller, we could have better quality roads, not the strained ones we experience now.

The worst thing is, its the suburbs that pay the least taxes, when THEY are the ones that cost the most for the city to mantain and provide services for. The inner city here should have the cheapest taxes, as they have the smallest drain on our budget. But just like the asinine smoking bylaw in this city, it's completely backwards.

[ken0042]

I wasn't joking, just asking the question as it was something I had never considered before.

Perhaps the issue is how the city is going about doing things. Growing up in Winnipeg maybe that's one thing they had right. Because Winnipeg formed from ~13 cities and towns there was already seperate things in place for infastructure, and a lot of it is still controlled at the community level. (most notably the school divisions, but I know there's others.)

Or if it's a matter of making us suburbanites pay our fare share, so be it.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Here's the thing, growth does not equal sprawl. I don't think it's fair to compare New York to Calgary even if their land mass is similar. The characteristics of the cities and what's around them is completely different. Manhattan is an island for example, you can't build on water (yet) so it's more confined, whereas Calgary is on prarie ... I *think* you can build on land

Now, I'm not framiliar with Calgary, I've been there twice. Once was in the winter when it was cold, and once was for less than 24 hours on this date 2 years ago (the planning of the city, while I paid minor attention wasn't my focus... hmmm wonder why?).

Sprawl is outward growth without the planning and foresight to keep the downtown core in tact. It's like dropping a rock in a pool of water, and not having a ripple effect of the wave moving outward, but all the water period so the rock ends up dry with a moat of water surrounding it.

It's hard to gague sprawl in booming cities, as well they're booming, that can skew the perception. From what I understand (based on the two threads on skyscrapers in Calgary) that the downtown core is booming. As long as the high density boom can equate for the low density suburb boom then that's ok. A city will naturally be high density in the middle and shrink outward.

Halifax is booming right now, they have development like Bayers Lake, and the new Dartmouth Crossing, that I'm not a fan of, however the downtown is still vibrant, and new buildings are constantly going up. I don't see sprawl being a problem in Halifax... well... ever, unless the universities (5 on the Halifax peninsula) die or something.

If the business skyscrapers are compensating for the living quarters that people are living in, if there is interaction, hussel and bussel downtown, and if the city is vibrant after office hours, then I wouldn't worry about Calgary's growth.

However, I've never really been through the city, and am not framiliar with its growth patterns, tax rates, low value, high crime areas.

In short for those framiliar with the term social captial, sprawl causes negative social capital. There's good growth and bad growth, but I can't tell what Caglary had (again being an east coast boy not overly framiliar with the city, on a related topic... what the hell is a kanasis? )

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

what the hell is a kanasis? )

http://www.kananaskis.com/

(Not sure if you were joking or not.... the emoticon could mean you were, or that you thought the name was funny.)

[Circa89]

I have to back up Bronco here a little bit with my own observations. When growing up I lived in Lake Bonavista. Bonavista was built in the early seventies on the edge of the City. The lots are huge and more importantly there were no lots with multi-family dwellings. A duplex wasn't even allowed.
Now I live on the edge of the City in McKenzie Towne. MacTowne has single family lots but it also allows granny suite rentals over the Garages. It has Duplexes, fourplexes,Townhomes, Rowhousing, Brownstones, Multistory Condo developments and Apartment style Condos. It also employs a good mix of Commercial in with the residential. I have no numbers to back this up but I would guess the density of McKenzie towne is at minimum twice that of Bonavista.

To say that urban sprawl doesn't exsist is really putting your head in the sand but at least this is a great start to help reduce it.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

May god strike me down for agreeing with Bronco, but in this case he's right.

Everything built in recent years is built to a much higher density than in the 60s, 70s, and 80s - with mixed use, transit development, and traffic planning in mind.

The worst thing is, its the suburbs that pay the least taxes, when THEY are the ones that cost the most for the city to mantain and provide services for.

Absolutely untrue on both levels. The suburbs pay the most and are the cheapest to maintain. Though I think we've been around that horn before and agreed to disagree.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The worst thing is, its the suburbs that pay the least taxes, when THEY are the ones that cost the most for the city to mantain and provide services for. The inner city here should have the cheapest taxes, as they have the smallest drain on our budget. But just like the asinine smoking bylaw in this city, it's completely backwards.

Well when it becomes cheaper to live in near the core of the city I guess your rant would hold more water.

Average home prices for dwellings that are near the city center are assinine.

I guess those who are on the fringes may not pay as many taxes but instead get hit by higher gas and commuting costs.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Absolutely untrue on both levels. The suburbs pay the most and are the cheapest to maintain.

Now I'm not too versed in all this stuff, but how can that be true? Take fotze's example of the guy living in a penthouse in Eau Claire. How could he be costing the city more than a family in Tuscany?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Take fotze's example of the guy living in a penthouse in Eau Claire. How could he be costing the city more than a family in Tuscany?

This is just a guess but here goes.

Who pays for the infastructure going into Tuscany? Isn't it the developer? If so, the city pays next to nothing to put that infastructure in place. However for the guy living downtown, the city is constantly working on the downtown infastructure because so much of it is old enough that it's due to be replaced.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by ken0042

This is just a guess but here goes.

Who pays for the infastructure going into Tuscany? Isn't it the developer? If so, the city pays next to nothing to put that infastructure in place. However for the guy living downtown, the city is constantly working on the downtown infastructure because so much of it is old enough that it's due to be replaced.

Perhaps, but I'm pretty sure that I read recently that the city was going to start charging a levy of 3500 bucks for new lots to cover the cost of building the infrastructure that goes out there. So I guess the city has been covering it or at least a portion of it. But I really don't know.

As for the infrastructure that has to be replaced, well, umm, the alternative is to abandon downtown.

[Circa89]

It's true that a developer like Carma or Hopewell, put in the new roads and sewer etc. Also each new lot sold has an automatic 1 time "Urban Sprawl" tax of I beleive $8000 or $9000. I paid $4500.

On the flip side what is the cost of lifetime snow removal, street cleaning and pothole patrol? Also firestations, police dept. etc. have to be built and staffed.

It might be pretty even Burbs versus Core

Anyone here work for the City Tax dept?

[ken0042]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to come across as saying downtown should be abandoned. I'm just saying that there are costs with maintaining it.