The top city in Canada? Calgary

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by troutman

Outside of rush hour, anybody could drive from any part of CGY to downtown in 20-25 minutes. You could not say the same for people that live in Surrey or Port Moody.

That's actually by design. Vancouver city planners have purposely limited the number of freeways and bridges in the city in order to persuade people to live in the areas that they work in to try and avoid urban sprawl.

Portland, Oregon apparently does the same thing.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Just because you know your neighbours doesn't mean it's an actual community. Kensington, Mission, Bridgeland...those neighbourhoods have character. Country Hills, Evergreen, Chaparral, etc...not so much. They're nothing more than bland, identical homes built two feet away from each other on bland, identical cul-de-sacs.

Don't get me wrong, if you like living in that kind of neighbourhood, lucky you, because Calgary has plenty to choose from. That kind of lifestyle is certainly not for me, though.

It's not houses looking different that gives the inner city character (ever been to London? - all the homes/flats in the center look the same). I think the attraction of the inner city is the ability to walk to the grocer, the restaurants, etc.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's actually by design. Vancouver city planner have purposely limited the number of freeway and bridges in the city in order to persuade people to live in the areas that they work in to try and avoid urban sprawl.

Portland, Oregon apparently does the same thing.

Which is another problem in Calgary - the 'power centres' created in the suburbs are not working as they were originally intended. Most of these areas (such as Crowfoot Crossing and Southcentre) were designed to provide people with a "mini-city" in which all of their needs were met, eliminating the need to drive downtown at all. However, this has not been the case, because of poor development choices made in these power centres. There are supposed to be commercial and office properties, but these have not happened.

Conversely though, if Vancouver has limited travel efficiency into the core, then that another problem if people are still trying to get to downtown.

The Cities need to work with planners and developers to spread out the concentration of white-collar work.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's actually by design. Vancouver city planners have purposely limited the number of freeway and bridges in the city in order to persuade people to live in the areas that they work in to try and avoid urban sprawl.

Portland, Oregon apparently does the same thing.

Vancouver is more limited by geography, than design - it is spread out along a river valley, inlet, and mountain range. CGY can grow out in a circle.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

I'm confused. What does the "ratio" mean? Are the units of the ratio not 1/(km^4).... what is that?

If I want space per person, can I not invert the density to get:

CAL: 1/1360.2 = 0.000735 km^2/person
VAN: 1/5039 = 0.000198 km^2/person

The ratio between these two is 3.70. I would interpret that as each Calgarian having 3.7046 times the space of a Vancouverite, not 24x.

For each square kilometre, Calgary has 1.87 people. Vancouver has 44 people.

44/1.87 = apprx. 24

There are 24x less people per square kilometre in Calgary than there is in Vancouver. How that sized is used depends on the person.

Your calculation is accurate, but that's assuming everyone has EXACTLY the same amount of space and uses so accordingly.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Just because you know your neighbours doesn't mean it's an actual community. Kensington, Mission, Bridgeland...those neighbourhoods have character. .

seems like this is a slightly separate issue though. Calgary is a young city that has grown quickly. whether the city had grown with more or less sprawl you would still have people living in newer places...you seem to be defining character and by extension community in part by the age of the area

perhaps we have a different definition of community

again, I'm not denying sprawl as an issue in Calgary, it is...and I'm looking at things differently now that I have kids...when we first moved back to Calgary we were more inner city in a post-war neighbourhood. There were no children there, almost all original owners. nice place, but everyone was inside their house, not visiting much and little life on the street. we 've moved to what people would call the suburbs (admittedly we put alot of time and research into our choices). there are active parks, neighbourhood parties (probably the most community spirit I've ever seen on Hallowe'en was this year, and i"ve lived in all kinds of communities in several different Canadian cities over the years)

I guess I would just caution against generalizing

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by troutman

Vancouver is more limited by geography, than design - it is spread out along a river valley, inlet, and mountain range. CGY can grow out in a circle.

But if Vancouver wanted, they could build a freeway system that would remove some of the density from Vancouver, Burnaby, and Richmond; and increase the sprawl towards Chilliwack and Abbotford. There's still a lot room to expand into the valley.

I agree that geography is a major contributing factor to Vancouver's design, but there is more to it than just that.

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by Muta

For each square kilometre, Calgary has 1.87 people. Vancouver has 44 people.

44/1.87 = apprx. 24

There are 24x less people per square kilometre in Calgary than there is in Vancouver. How that sized is used depends on the person.

Your calculation is accurate, but that's assuming everyone has EXACTLY the same amount of space and uses so accordingly.

Doesn't a population density of 1360.2/km^2 mean there's 1360.2 people/km^2?

i.e. For each square kilometer, Calgary has 1360.2 people.

If we use your value, then the area of Calgary is 534759 km^2.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's actually by design. Vancouver city planners have purposely limited the number of freeways and bridges in the city in order to persuade people to live in the areas that they work in to try and avoid urban sprawl.

Portland, Oregon apparently does the same thing.

Is that true? Or is the city just making an excuse for being cheap and having poor planning?

[FlamesAddiction]

Here's an article that explains Vancouver's innitiatves to stop urban sprawl:

http://www.planetizen.com/node/25322

Basically, it describes how at first building a network of freeways was nixed. This did not completely kill urban growth because many of the outlying communities in Greater Vancouver did not buy in to it.

Later Vancouver started to disallow room for parking vehicles, building new roads, and even widening existing roads all in an attempt to build higher density neighbourhoods that are more pedestrian friendly than commuter friendly.

There is actually a lot on this if you do a google search. Many cities are using Vancouver as a model is how to densify their urban core.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

Doesn't a population density of 1360.2/km^2 mean there's 1360.2 people/km^2?

i.e. For each square kilometer, Calgary has 1360.2 people.

If we use your value, then the area of Calgary is 534759 km^2.

The ratio I used is a comparative ratio showing the extent of density / urban sprawl versus the other city. Don't let that ratio get you confused with the actual density per person in Calgary, which is exactly what you had - 1/1360.2.... same goes for Vancouver.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Here's an article that explains Vancouver's innitiatves to stop urban sprawl:

http://www.planetizen.com/node/25322

Basically, it describes how at first building a network of freeways was nixed. This did not completely kill urban growth because many of the outlying communities in Greater Vancouver did not buy in to it.

Later Vancouver started to disallow room for parking vehicles, building new roads, and even widening existing roads all in an attempt to build higher density neighbourhoods that are more pedestrian friendly than commuter friendly.

There is actually a lot on this if you do a google search. Many cities are using Vancouver as a model is how to densify their urban core.

funny...now you have a city that has 24hr rushhour and a place were your average working family cannot afford to own their own property....A friend of mine who works downtown Vancouver says most of her coworkers have 1.5 hrs commutes because they have to live in Pitt Meadows for affordable place to live...

Just having any sort of event like the Fireworks competition causes a nightmare....in the innercity ...

btw i dont think any city in North America can come close to Calgary's pathway system...in Vancouver the bike paths are on the roads....

You may say Calgary and Vancouver are opposite end of the spectrums..but neither ideal seemed to solve anything...

btw if anyone here has lived in Calgary more than 5 years, you may have noticed a city that is starting to change..many many condo highrises have gone up in the last 10 years...just look at the west end none of that was there in the mid-90's....but at the end of the day its about demand...people still want there house and yard...that may have something to do with the demographics in Calgary being quite different from Vancouver

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

funny...now you have a city that has 24hr rushhour and a place were your average working family cannot afford to own their own property....A friend of mine who works downtown Vancouver says most of her coworkers have 1.5 hrs commutes because they have to live in Pitt Meadows for affordable place to live...

I'm guessing that most of her co-workers COULD choose to rent in Vancouver in they wanted to. I know many people who aren't highly paid but make it work. I am guessing the difference is that they don't want to pay that much when it is cheaper to live in Pitt Meadows, or they want to own a home... which is fine - but it's still a choice.

I agree that the development system Vancouver uses isn't ideal for people that choose to live in the burbs and commute, but that is the point. Besides, the tax payers in Vancouver proper don't owe it to the people in the burbs to make their city easier to get to.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Muta

Is that so?

Directly from StatsCan:

---------------------DENSITY----------LAND AREA (SQ.KM)---------RATIO
Calgary (City): -----1,360.2/km² --------------726.5 ---------------1.87
Vancouver(City): ---5,039.0/km² -------------114.71 ---------------44.0

Calgary's urban sprawl is assumedly MUCH, MUCH bigger. Each Calgarian has approximately 24x as much space as a Vancouverite does, given City boundaries and population.

This is some very bad math.

Originally Posted by MaxPower

I'm confused. What does the "ratio" mean? Are the units of the ratio not 1/(km^4).... what is that?

If I want space per person, can I not invert the density to get:

CAL: 1/1360.2 = 0.000735 km^2/person
VAN: 1/5039 = 0.000198 km^2/person

The ratio between these two is 3.70. I would interpret that as each Calgarian having 3.7046 times the space of a Vancouverite, not 24x.

He has the right answer. your answer is the space multiplied by the city size again which is why your answer is 726.5/114.7 larger then his is. You're double multiplying by city size.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm guessing that most of her co-workers COULD choose to rent in Vancouver in they wanted to. I know many people who aren't highly paid but make it work. I am guessing the difference is that they don't want to pay that much when it is cheaper to live in Pitt Meadows, or they want to own a home... which is fine - but it's still a choice.

I agree that the development system Vancouver uses isn't ideal for people that choose to live in the burbs and commute, but that is the point. Besides, the tax payers in Vancouver proper don't owe it to the people in the burbs to make their city easier to get to.

Why would they rent? Rent in Vancouver is pretty reasonable....but dont matter who you are, if you can buy that is the smartest thing you can do...renting is a waste of money..especially if you can buy somewhere.

Vancouver can boast all they want about their eco-density...they happened to forget about the 10 million + who live within an 2 hour drive from the city ..Considering Vancouver is a huge tourist trap..you would of thought they would of considering everything...its great if noone from the burbs or washington state where all trying to get into the city...

[JohnnyB]

Having lived in both Calgary and Vancouver for 5+ years, I can say that I have little to no interest in returning to either of them any time soon. I prefer Calgary for it's weather and it's people, but Vancouver is better for nightlife and entertainment. Both cities suffer from middle-sized city syndrome though. You don't get the nice things about living in a really small place, nor do you get the nice things about living in a really big place. You do get a lot of the negatives of both big and small cities though, such as traffic, indifferent people, pollution, high cost of living etc.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Having lived in both Calgary and Vancouver for 5+ years, I can say that I have little to no interest in returning to either of them any time soon. I prefer Calgary for it's weather and it's people, but Vancouver is better for nightlife and entertainment. Both cities suffer from middle-sized city syndrome though. You don't get the nice things about living in a really small place, nor do you get the nice things about living in a really big place. You do get a lot of the negatives of both big and small cities though, such as traffic, indifferent people, pollution, high cost of living etc.

what i find funny..is people from Vancouver tend to love Calgary nightlife and vice versa...entertainment wise, vancouver has held and edge but i think the gap is closing as calgary population continues to explode....

[psicodude]

I simply cannot believe that posters here are saying that Calgary has an urban sprawl issue. Try driving across any major city in the U.S. and you will laugh at our so called urban sprawl problem. Start with Dallas and Houston, then hit Chicago, Detroit, and Seattle. These cities take HOURS to drive across.

I think a lot of people forget how young Calgary really is compared to most cities in North America, and how much it has changed in the last 15 years. The skyline is completely different, transit is completely different, and the amount of high rise condo's built is staggering.

I also think that the next 10 years will be crucial to the future of this place. The massive growth has really put a strain on the city, and some serious planning needs to be done to keep the city great.

[OracleOfCalgary]

The calculation of Calgary's "metropolitan area" is seriously flawed. This area includes vast, vast tracts of undeveloped land:

The CMA's boundary takes in the City of Calgary along with the Municipal District of Rocky View and all the municipalities enclosed within the MD of Rocky View—these include the City of Airdrie, the Town of Cochrane, the Town of Chestermere and the village of Beiseker. Rocky View also includes a number of unincorporated hamlets such as Springbank and Bragg Creek.

If you were to tell someone from Vancouver that you consider Bragg Creek to be part of Calgary, they would laugh at you.

Look at these numbers

Calgary CMA: Area: 5,083 km2 Population: 1.1 million
Calgary City: Area: 727 km2 Population: 1.0 million

90% of people in the region live within official city limits (an area of only 727 square kms)... this is very different from almost everywhere else in North America where metropolitan areas are broken up into a number of smaller cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary_Region

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Urban Sprawl...

Watch "Radient City" by Calgary director Gary Burns. It shows a disenchanted family in Calgary living in a cookie-cutter house in another superficial suburb.

Urban blight...

Watch "Taxi Driver" by New York director Martin Scorcese. It's a better movie.

I've always been a little mystified by the cliche about the suburbs being full of bored, unhappy (disenchanted) people living in superficial identical houses five feet apart and having nothing to do but watch tv. People simply wouldn't live there if it was the soulless, dull and hopeless existence some people suggest it is. I grew up in the suburbs. It's not the teenage wasteland some of the cool kids believe.

And besides, contrary to the popular myth propagated by the urban sophisticates, the urban sophisticates are not spending every night eating at a Somalian restaurant, sipping espresso at some post-feminist poetry reading or listening to an obscure old blues man bringing the Mississippi Delta into some beltline hole-in-the-wall.

The 'cookie cutter houses 5 feet away from each other' comments don't make any sense. People in a cookie cutter house are still 4'8" further away from the neighbours than a person in a cookie cutter apartment or condo is, so you can't really hack on how close they are together.

Bla bla bla... I don't like the urban sprawl or the direction (literally) this city is going any more than anyone else does, but the whole "downtown people are cultured, people in the suburbs are morons with nothing to do" thing really peels my banana.