Sprawl - What sprawl? Bronco speaks...

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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?

Won't argue with that specific example, but it's not generally that cut and dried.

The family in Tuscany pays for their house and lot, plus part of their street, the connecting streets, road signs, street lights, water lines, sewer lines, green spaces, educational reserves, recreational facilities, fire, police etc etc etc.

All that is built into the development. Basically everything from the overpass out gets passed on to the consumer, and the shiny new low maintenance, high efficiency infrastructure that now belongs to the city.

As you get closer to downtown, the infrastructure gets older and more costly, and less 'funded'.

On the revenue side, the taxes paid on a $300,000 condo in tuscany are exactly the same as the taxes paid on a $300,000 condo in bridgeland. The sq footage changes, but the taxes are no different, and many cases the densities are no higher in the inner city than in the new burbs.

Part of the issue though is what's inner city and whats suburbs. Things get muddier along those borders.

The worst offenders are the communities built in the 70s (see points above). Old expensive infrastructure and no density to pay for it.

A city guy commented the other day that many really new communties - Simon's Valley for example - exceed any densities the city wanted and are into the 'transit oriented development' range (as in the Bridges). It seems the high cost of housing may stop 'sprawl' all by itself.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

All that is built into the development. Basically everything from the overpass out gets passed on to the consumer, and the shiny new low maintenance, high efficiency infrastructure that now belongs to the city.

As you get closer to downtown, the infrastructure gets older and more costly, and less 'funded'.

And who do you think pays for the roads to this magical place of yours? All the roads and traffic infrastructure that has to be built in order to support a suburban community stretches out the traffic budget and we are left with low quality roads. If we had a higher density city, we could all be enjoying more overpasses, less traffic lights, more C-Train legs etc.

The thing is inner city roads have to be maintained, but the chances are most of the citizens are using those roads anyway, even if you live in the burbs. These roads are vital to everyone, not just the people who live in those areas. However, only a very small percentage of the population uses the roads that are built in a place like Cougar Ridge, yet they still too have to be mantained.

The worst part of sprawl for a guy like me is not even the money factor. Suburban homes these days are just downright ugly, and it seems like the newer communities are getting even worse. Rows and rows of plastic siding and stucco, barren tree-less streets, and no variety whatsoever from one new community to another. The fact that they name these places Tuscany and Cougar Ridge is laughable. If they atleast had character in any way whatsoever, the suburbs could be bearable. But we don't even get that.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by fotze

I agree. I think the newest communities are doing a better job with Townhouses, condos, more business centres and commercial zones. I really like the Garrison Woods area of density and development.[/I][/B]

Garrisson Woods is a great example of what the city should be encouraging, as it is a higher-density, character community that fills and reuses a giant whole already within the city limits. There are tons of holes around town that could produce the same results...

Only problem with Garrison Woods is that its a luxury development, and not really affordable for many people on average salaries. Athough getting an affordable house these days is impossible anyway, care should be taken that not all of these types of developments have a massive premium.

[Shazam]

The city needs to reassess their property taxation timing. When I bought my house, I paid something like $200 for property tax for my first year. The way they tax new houses is totally messed up. They should charge for a full year's taxes right away - right now they pro-rate the tax year from the date your possessed your house, and then use that value for next year's taxes (you don't pay property tax your first tax year, go figure).

This leaves them in a huge cash flow crunch - they're building infrastructure for houses that won't give them any appreciable taxes for usually 1-2 years.

[calculoso]

Today's sprawl is definitely being mitigated by the smaller city lots, lesser distance between houses, etc.

Not everyone enjoys high density housing. I absolutely hated the high-rise apartment building that I lived in and will never live in one again. I much prefer my house, even though it's not even as big or spacious as I'd like.

There are many high-rise apartment / condo buildings being built in Calgary. The sprawl is decreasing.

Originally Posted by Table 5

The worst part of sprawl for a guy like me is not even the money factor. Suburban homes these days are just downright ugly, and it seems like the newer communities are getting even worse. Rows and rows of plastic siding and stucco, barren tree-less streets, and no variety whatsoever from one new community to another.

The houses are all the same... but those high-density buildings are boring and ugly as well.

You can live in your designor high-rise apartment/condo if you choose. It's not for me and, as shown by the amount and type of construction, for most.

[Eagle Eye]

what about maintenance of parks and other green spaces? Most new communities pay fees, do any older communities have fees to pay for such things?


There are a lot of things that need to be taken into account before you can call the 'burbs' an evil place to live, that suck the life blood out of the city. I actually agree with Bronco (who whoulda guessed) that like posters above me mentioned the true sprawl problem was caused in and around the 70's when you could buy a 70X120' lot (with back lane).

[jolinar of malkshor]

Calgary has a definate urban sprawl problem. Urban Paris has a population of over 9 million people and a total city proper land area of just over 1000 sq miles. Calgary on the other hand only has 1 million people and a land area of 450 sq miles. Quite the difference.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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?

He can't, the guy who posted that remark is on crack.

Just like people think their dogs mouths are cleaner than humans.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

the guy who posted that remark is on crack.

Would you care to back that up? It's one thing to disagree- that's the whole point of a discussion forum. It's another to say somebody is on crack and not offer a contrary opinion.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by calculoso

The houses are all the same... but those high-density buildings are boring and ugly as well.

You can live in your designor high-rise apartment/condo if you choose. It's not for me and, as shown by the amount and type of construction, for most.

Who said you have to live in a fancy high-rise condo to be a proponent of urban living?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Who said you have to live in a fancy high-rise condo to be a proponent of urban living?

If you don't choose to live in a high-density complex (high-rise condo is one type) and yet argue that more of those should be around, doesn't that strike you as a bit two-faced (for lack of a better term)?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Would you care to back that up? It's one thing to disagree- that's the whole point of a discussion forum. It's another to say somebody is on crack and not offer a contrary opinion.

I did back it up read my post. That guy just decided to make a statement and not back it up. You should be talking to him.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by calculoso

If you don't choose to live in a high-density complex (high-rise condo is one type) and yet argue that more of those should be around, doesn't that strike you as a bit two-faced (for lack of a better term)?

No, because I'm not arguing for everyone to live in a condo tower.

Im arguing for the city to support smarter growth, ie. by building in areas that are already within city limits (ie, Garrison Woods) so there is a reduced need for new roads and infrastructure, and in a manner that is more condusive for people to use public transit (TODs, or Transit Oriented Development) which focus development around public transit cores, so more of us have easier access to LRT's and buses. I am for creating communities with a better mix of high and medium density, retail, offices all together, so people don't have to drive as far (or drive at all!) to their jobs and stores.

There are ways to reduce our footprint and still enjoy privacy and gardens and our chunk of land. It's not about herding people into massive towers.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Im arguing for the city to support smarter growth, ie. by building in areas that are already within city limits (ie, Garrison Woods)

So, you don't like the row upon row of stucco houses because they look the same, yet like Garrison Woods (which all looks the same)?



Obviously I'm not going to be as dumb as this. There are other reasons why you like it... but this one sure stands out.

Originally Posted by Table 5

so there is a reduced need for new roads and infrastructure, and in a manner that is more condusive for people to use public transit (TODs, or Transit Oriented Development) which focus development around public transit cores, so more of us have easier access to LRT's and buses.

Building inside the current boundaries of the city obviously needs the city or developers to buy out current home owners and rebuild. This is insanely expensive in today's day and age, and why they are trying to get more land at the borders of the city instead.

If the city changes their policy (which we are seeing), then they'll have no choice... but don't expect prices to go anywhere but up when it happens.

Originally Posted by Table 5

I am for creating communities with a better mix of high and medium density, retail, offices all together, so people don't have to drive as far (or drive at all!) to their jobs and stores.

I'll agree with this also. I chose where I live because it's relatively close to where I work. Unfortunately, there isn't the wide variety of employers for me to choose where I work based on where I live.. so the opposite has to happen.

Originally Posted by Table 5

There are ways to reduce our footprint and still enjoy privacy and gardens and our chunk of land. It's not about herding people into massive towers.

There are only three ways to expand - up or out or together. If out isn't going to happen, it's all about up or together. Massive towers don't appeal to everyone and we're seeing fire problems with houses built too close together (not to mention other grubles about it). There are issues with every option/solution.

[Red]

The use of existing land hasn't been perfect for sure. There are plenty of green, unmanaged areas within the city limits that could be turned in to high-er density neighbourhoods.

There is one in the south, Fish Creek Park. And do we really need THAT many golf courses?

[droopydrew19]

Speaking of Urban Sprawl, I heard it said a couple years ago that the geograpical space of New York City was smaller than Calgary. I am not sure if that is legit or not but it sure makes you think.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by calculoso

So, you don't like the row upon row of stucco houses because they look the same, yet like Garrison Woods (which all looks the same)

Those row houses look the same for oh, about two blocks. Suburban homes look virtually the same in pretty much every other new suburb in Calgary, and hell, most of of North American. Quiet a difference don't you think?

Building inside the current boundaries of the city obviously needs the city or developers to buy out current home owners and rebuild. This is insanely expensive in today's day and age, and why they are trying to get more land at the borders of the city instead.

Im not looking for developers to rebuild existing communities, i would like them to fill up existing empty spaces that are dotted all over our city. There are vast tracts in this city where land has been sitting empty for decades, yet nothing is done with them. The city should be encouraging owners and developers to do something with these blocks of land.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by droopydrew19

Speaking of Urban Sprawl, I heard it said a couple years ago that the geograpical space of New York City was smaller than Calgary. I am not sure if that is legit or not but it sure makes you think.

The actual city of New York, sure, but not the metro. Metro New York is absolutely massive.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Those row houses look the same for oh, about two blocks. Suburban homes look virtually the same in pretty much every other new suburb in Calgary, and hell, most of of North American. Quiet a difference don't you think?

Sure it is.... until there get to be more and more of those developments around.

Originally Posted by Table 5

Im not looking for developers to rebuild existing communities, i would like them to fill up existing empty spaces that are dotted all over our city. There are vast tracts in this city where land has been sitting empty for decades, yet nothing is done with them. The city should be encouraging owners and developers to do something with these blocks of land.

One of the benefits of living in Calgary is all the green space that we have in the city. I'm assuming these are the "empty spaces" that you're referring to. Sure they could be filled up with housing... but then the city will be more of a concrete wasteland than it is now. I don't think that is an improvement either.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Sure it is.... until there get to be more and more of those developments around.

oh please, now your just reaching.

Originally Posted by calculoso

One of the benefits of living in Calgary is all the green space that we have in the city. I'm assuming these are the "empty spaces" that you're referring to. Sure they could be filled up with housing... but then the city will be more of a concrete wasteland than it is now. I don't think that is an improvement either.

Calgary is one of the least green cities in Canada when it comes to trees, so Im not quite sure what you're talking about. Virtually every tree in this city was planted (take a look at old shots of Mount Royal, it was practically prairie). Besides, all the great green spaces are in already developed communities, no?

The problem with new suburban neighborhoods is that instead of working with the available natural beauty and adding to it, we just bulldoze the crap out of it (and then promply rename the community with whatever we destroyed) and then sprinkle in some new sapplings and call it a day.

One of my biggest desires for the city is that we all plant more trees on our lots....its great for character for the city, good for the environment, and increases your property value. what's not to like?

And don't play dumb, I wasn't suggesting we go develop Fish Creek Park (or anything even resembling a park). There are tons of concrete parking lots and wasteland out there that are begging to be developed.

Besides, ff you love your greenspace so much, why are you advocating new communities being built on the existing greenery around the city? You would think that if you loved your greenspaces so much you would be for a lesser footprint of concrete, not a bigger one.