What would make Calgary more livable?

[toonmaster]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Here's my list:

1. A ton of well planned density in the beltline, Eau Claire and around Kensigton.

2. More LRT spurs

3. Subsidize arts. Calgarians will like the arts ... I think it just needs to be shoved in their face.

4. increase taxes

5. Bury the freaking LRT downtown.

1. I dont agree with increasing the density in the beltline, Kensington & Eau Claire. I think the city needs to increase the density around the LRT hubs/stations that are out away from the core. Have a bunch of high density pockets throughout the city where residents can walk to the station in 10-15 minutes. Not low rise apartment buildings, but along the size of the London towers at Heritage, larger if possible and more then 2 or 3 towers at each station, 10-15 would be a more appropriate number.

2. The LRT needs to be upgraded. 4 car trains, and expansion of the platorms (the majority of the stations can already handle this expansion, there are a few platforms that can't). More lines are needed but more lines = more problems downtown = more delays

3. Arts? Shovel all you want, they just better not come at the expense of more pressing issues (infrastructure)

4. not touching it

5. A downtown tunnel would be nice, but for the next 50 years it wont happen. Unless they are going to bury it in the bedrock that is 30-40 meters deep, the soil wont handle it. The deeper you go, the more expensive it gets. They also have to integrate it with the current system which has a standards at the slopes these trains can handle, so you cant bury it too deep. It is one heck of a problem to get this downtown tunnel to become a reality.

[McMack]

I think we all mostly love this city so our first response is to rush to its defense; but start by thinking about the following things:

1) Does the city have enough hockey ice surface and other rec facilities? If a town of 500 in Saskatchewan can afford to have its own hockey rink, why can't every neighbourhood of 10,000 in Calgary have its own ice surface? There is a reason why so few kids get to play hockey today and more kids are playing soccer than hockey.

2) Do you have everything you need within walking distance of your house? (Parks, groceries, medical/professional services, coffee, restaurants, banks, etc.) It's no accident that developers don't set aside much space for commercial development in new communities, it's more profitable and quicker to sell everything as residential lots.

3) Are the roadways in your community adequate? I can tell you that in my community, the developer didn't put up a single street, yield, or stop sign. Even though it is clear as day to everyone that lights will eventually be needed in at least 5 intersections in my area, the city didn't make the developer put these in. Instead, the city has waited until the situation has reached crisis points at some of these intersections and then installed 4 way stops (at the city's expense) as as emergency measure. In my opinion, before a single excavator breaks ground in one of these new communities, the city should draft a full build-out roadway and transporatation plan and ensure that each developer contributes their fair share to the cost of building all of the roadways and other infrastructure that will be required within 10 years.

4) If you were to lose your car for some reason, would you be able to survive?

5) Outside of your house, do you enjoy your neighbourhood?

6) Is there enough in your neighbourhood for your kids to do, even when they are older?

7) When you have out of town visitors, where do you take them to show off your city?

8) How are the schools in your area?

I live in a new suburb and I mostly love my neighbourhood, but I honestly can't answer yes to all of the above questions.

I think there are some pretty great works of city planning within Calgary. Fish Creek park is fantastic. But most of the things that are great are from thirty years ago. To me, it just seems like everything is done on the cheap these days.

[Hack&Lube]

A zoning law that stopped the damn city from expanding and thusly adding to traffic congestion and infrastructure problems. You wonder why they have trouble clearing roads in winter? Because we add like 300 gazillion miles every summer for more tasteless moribund suburbs.

A law that forces people to stop building out and start building up. That's what this city needs but nobody has the cash or guts to do it.

[Thunderball]

Simply put:

1. A transport system that works... not a halfassed clusterfata. The city makes it hard to use anything but the LRT to go Downtown, yet capacity is a distant memory. The road system is simply inadequate to make up the difference. The solution isn't more stations, its new lines, more cars, bigger stations, and better road systems. Not more roads... just better ones. Take this "ultimate phase" crap and make it the only phase. Traffic lights on a ring road = stupid and cheaping out.

2. Mixed density... build up and out, but do it responsibly. Why can't we build a bunch of Garrison Woods and Mackenzie Townes? Why only condo towers and TOD. Variety is needed as to not artificially drive up living costs. The average joe wants a single detached dwelling, and that's not too much to ask for. Do they need a sprawling backyward? no... but they don't need to be squished like insects... most of the land east of Calgary is worthless anyway.

3. Arts AND Sports... our stadia are pathetic. Even the Saddledome is mediocre and has poorly designed concourses. Attract international events, invitationals, international friendlies, etc. Arts is a tougher sell, since one man's trash is another man's treasure... but fund the facilities and make it worthwhile to be a philanthropist. Let the patrons decide what is worthy art.

4. Smart taxes... which often means less.

5. Downtown underground LRT is a must, but as mentioned, the water table in downtown is kind of funky... I'm sure its doable, but due process is needed to do it right (read: not cheaply).

6. Deal with the homeless/crackheads... open new sanitariums, ship them to Ottawa, special programmes... whatever. The image of the city, particularly the inner city is rapidly diminishing... its really very sad to see.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by McMack

1) Does the city have enough hockey ice surface and other rec facilities? If a town of 500 in Saskatchewan can afford to have its own hockey rink, why can't every neighbourhood of 10,000 in Calgary have its own ice surface? There is a reason why so few kids get to play hockey today and more kids are playing soccer than hockey.

I'm not disagreeing that more rec facilities are needed... but there's two big reasons why soccer is way more popular than hockey in youth.

1. Immigration. The world plays Soccer, not Hockey. Some new Canadians opt for the national sport... most opt for what they know and love.
2. Expense. A kid can be fully decked out in decent, new soccer equipment for the price of a pair of entry-level skates, let alone a full set of equipment... and heaven forbid he or she wants to be a goalie.

I think Calgary needs a third indoor soccer centre, but with fieldturf and without concrete underlay (again, Calgary on the cheap). But we could also do with a good half dozen new arenas.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

2. Expense. A kid can be fully decked out in decent, new soccer equipment for the price of a pair of entry-level skates, let alone a full set of equipment... and heaven forbid he or she wants to be a goalie.

Exactly, hockey is bloody expensive, especially for growing kids who need new gear every year or two.

[edn88]

For me personally:

1. New hockey stadium
2. More hockey rinks period
3. More golf courses
4. LRT everywhere
5. Better policing - I have had enough of the meth freeks downtown

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by toonmaster

1. I dont agree with increasing the density in the beltline, Kensington & Eau Claire. I think the city needs to increase the density around the LRT hubs/stations that are out away from the core. Have a bunch of high density pockets throughout the city where residents can walk to the station in 10-15 minutes. Not low rise apartment buildings, but along the size of the London towers at Heritage, larger if possible and more then 2 or 3 towers at each station, 10-15 would be a more appropriate number.

2. The LRT needs to be upgraded. 4 car trains, and expansion of the platorms (the majority of the stations can already handle this expansion, there are a few platforms that can't). More lines are needed but more lines = more problems downtown = more delays

3. Arts? Shovel all you want, they just better not come at the expense of more pressing issues (infrastructure)

4. not touching it

5. A downtown tunnel would be nice, but for the next 50 years it wont happen. Unless they are going to bury it in the bedrock that is 30-40 meters deep, the soil wont handle it. The deeper you go, the more expensive it gets. They also have to integrate it with the current system which has a standards at the slopes these trains can handle, so you cant bury it too deep. It is one heck of a problem to get this downtown tunnel to become a reality.

1) well I agree with TOD's as well, but London as an example of a TOD is brutal to me. London is the ugliest residential project in the province bar none. Bonzai was better. I must say I don't get why people would not want density in the beltline? That's my biggest problem with this city is that it is being forced to grow up, but the people of the prairies don't seem to get that.

2) completely agree 4 cars per has to happen ... building a 3 car system proves what small thinkers the city is.

3) agree, it comes after infrastructure

4) people don't get this, I'm not saying more taxes for the city, I'm saying right fit the tax allocation to those who use the services. Like I've said I don't know for sure, but my understanding is that the core pays for the services in the burbs.

5) I'm sure it's been looked at a million times over ... I just don't get why our soil is so bad? does it have to do with the high water table?

[Shazam]

Let's keep one thing clear:

The growth of this city hinged and still hinges on the price of oil.

If anybody thought that oil would be north of $130 right now ten or twenty years ago, they would've put you into the funny farm.

Hell, this city has hit a million people a full decade before even the most optimistic projections I read back in 2002. Hindsight is 20/20.

I do find the disdain towards new suburb development somewhat amusing. The older suburbs (such as Lake Bonavista, Dalhousie and Oakridge, to name a few) have far, far less density than newer suburbs. Mixed land usage is common in new suburbs. They can't even put condos in some established places without the residents having hissy fits.

2) Do you have everything you need within walking distance of your house? (Parks, groceries, medical/professional services, coffee, restaurants, banks, etc.) It's no accident that developers don't set aside much space for commercial development in new communities, it's more profitable and quicker to sell everything as residential lots.

There's a whole swath of condos and townhouses in Royal Oak that are right across the street from the Sobey's and Walmart and other assorted services. Even I can walk there in fifteen minutes from my place. The same sort of thing exists in Tuscany. Same in Rocky Ridge.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Let's keep one thing clear:

The growth of this city hinged and still hinges on the price of oil.

If anybody thought that oil would be north of $130 right now ten or twenty years ago, they would've put you into the funny farm.

Hell, this city has hit a million people a full decade before even the most optimistic projections I read back in 2002. Hindsight is 20/20.

I do find the disdain towards new suburb development somewhat amusing. The older suburbs (such as Lake Bonavista, Dalhousie and Oakridge, to name a few) have far, far less density than newer suburbs. Mixed land usage is common in new suburbs. They can't even put condos in some established places without the residents having hissy fits.

There's a whole swath of condos and townhouses in Royal Oak that are right across the street from the Sobey's and Walmart and other assorted services. Even I can walk there in fifteen minutes from my place. The same sort of thing exists in Tuscany. Same in Rocky Ridge.

But overall, name a city of a million plus that is more sparse than Calgary ... who cares about any individual burb, it's the sheer mass of them that Calgary has.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

But overall, name a city of a million plus that is more sparse than Calgary ... who cares about any individual burb, it's the sheer mass of them that Calgary has.

My point being, the problem with density started in the 70s, not now.

And if you want names of other cities less dense than Calgary, go here:

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/cens...=10&O=A&RPP=33

Note that these are CMAs. Calgary is a giant metropolis, which runs counter to the way most cities areas are run.

[Blaster86]

A better hockey team.




/ducks

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Shazam

My point being, the problem with density started in the 70s, not now.

And if you want names of other cities less dense than Calgary, go here:

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/cens...=10&O=A&RPP=33

Note that these are CMAs. Calgary is a giant metropolis, which runs counter to the way most cities areas are run.

The link isn't very useful as I said cities of a million plus. The density of St Stephen doesn't matter because the sparse population doesn't cause congestion on roads everywhere. The best city I can point to if Calgary keeps going the way it is from a growth and lifestyle perspective is Houston, and for anyone who's driven around there ... nobody wants that.

As for Bonavista being built in the 70's ok, accurate point, but why does that matter. The point is to stop the madness regardless of whenever it started.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

The link isn't very useful as I said cities of a million plus. The density of St Stephen doesn't matter because the sparse population doesn't cause congestion on roads everywhere. The best city I can point to if Calgary keeps going the way it is from a growth and lifestyle perspective is Houston, and for anyone who's driven around there ... nobody wants that.

Ottawa isn't a city of more than a million? Does Edmonton not count either?

As for Bonavista being built in the 70's ok, accurate point, but why does that matter. The point is to stop the madness regardless of whenever it started.

It matters because the only way you're going to get the city's density way up is to nuke Lake Bonavista and put three communities in its place. The problem was put in place nearly fourty years ago. Blame your parents for wanting 100 feet wide lots.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Ottawa isn't a city of more than a million? Does Edmonton not count either?

not really, neither are a million and ottawa in particular isn't growing. I'm thinking world wide, not just Canada.

Originally Posted by Shazam

It matters because the only way you're going to get the city's density way up is to nuke Lake Bonavista and put three communities in its place. The problem was put in place nearly fourty years ago. Blame your parents for wanting 100 feet wide lots.

No, nuking LB is not the only way to help with the problem. I haven't reread every post but I don't think anyone has suggested that we need to nuke neighbourhoods. Deal with what we have, but from here, build smart, and rightfit the tax structure so one area does not subsidize another.

Ironically I grew up on one of those big lots down there.

[Winsor_Pilates]

The changes mentioned in the OP will happen with time. The reality is that most Calgarians don't consider those things "livable". They consider an SUV, Large yard, & 3000 Sq feet livable.

The things the OP desires (as do I) as desired of the minority in Calgary. For now, enjoy the pockets that you have, or move to Vancouver like I did.
Don't expect the city to change too fast when most don't want it to.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

not really, neither are a million and ottawa in particular isn't growing. I'm thinking world wide, not just Canada.

You're nitpicking. Why do you find it hard to believe that there exists cities with a comparable population to Calgary that are less dense?

No, nuking LB is not the only way to help with the problem. I haven't reread every post but I don't think anyone has suggested that we need to nuke neighbourhoods.

Don Braid did an analysis of this very issue years ago. He came to the same conclusion - you could build the rest of Calgary like Hong Kong, and unless you did something about the older suburbs, that density simply can't be raised to anything worthwhile.

Deal with what we have, but from here, build smart, and rightfit the tax structure so one area does not subsidize another.

I won't even get into the tax structure. You cannot prove your assertion that the city center somehow subsidizes suburbs. Considering that the infrastructure downtown is ancient, and that those people in Mount Royal mysteriously keep getting new pavement every couple of years, I'd say it's the rich people in Mount Royal stealing all the money.

Ironically I grew up on one of those big lots down there.

And what you should realize is that one of those lots now houses three single family dwellings in new communities.

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

not really, neither are a million and ottawa in particular isn't growing. I'm thinking world wide, not just Canada.



No, nuking LB is not the only way to help with the problem. I haven't reread every post but I don't think anyone has suggested that we need to nuke neighbourhoods. Deal with what we have, but from here, build smart, and rightfit the tax structure so one area does not subsidize another.

Ironically I grew up on one of those big lots down there.

Isn't that a bit difficult to do?
What if say I live in a neighborhood that has much less crime than the beltline? Can I then opt out of taxes that pay for your extra policing?
What if a new stadium/arena gets built centrally, say in Stampede park. Now what if you and I each pay taxes that go towards building this thing that you can walk to. Me? I have to spend $10 in gas to get there and $10 to park there. So, I'm thinking that why should my taxes subsidize the building of an arena so convenient for you?
I am just having a little fun here. I agree with most of what you said. I happen to live off of Glenmore at 69th st sw. I don't think the developers should have been allowed to build all these houses out here without interchanges and at least making Glenmore a bigger road, especially with all the truck traffic.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Shazam

You're nitpicking. Why do you find it hard to believe that there exists cities with a comparable population to Calgary that are less dense?

Because I travel alot and realize the planet is a little bigger than a few cities in Canada. Canada is one of the worst countries in the developed world at zoning cities, and Calgary is a great example.

Originally Posted by Shazam

Don Braid did an analysis of this very issue years ago. He came to the same conclusion - you could build the rest of Calgary like Hong Kong, and unless you did something about the older suburbs, that density simply can't be raised to anything worthwhile.

So just quit and build another 40 Lake bonavistas?!

Originally Posted by Shazam

I won't even get into the tax structure. You cannot prove your assertion that the city center somehow subsidizes suburbs. Considering that the infrastructure downtown is ancient, and that those people in Mount Royal mysteriously keep getting new pavement every couple of years, I'd say it's the rich people in Mount Royal stealing all the money.

Yes Mount royal should be taxed heavily and I believe that it is, by my reasoning noted earlier they would be taxed as heavily as anyone else and likely worse. As for proof you are right ... you might have picked up on any of the 3 previous times that I said that this belief is not based on working for the city but rather hearing from multiple builders. That and I have had property in a few areas around town and am amazing how cheap taxes are in the burbs.

Originally Posted by Shazam

And what you should realize is that one of those lots now houses three single family dwellings in new communities.

ok thanks. Kinda obvious, but thanks. I'm not sure I understand what your point is.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

Isn't that a bit difficult to do?
What if say I live in a neighborhood that has much less crime than the beltline? Can I then opt out of taxes that pay for your extra policing?
What if a new stadium/arena gets built centrally, say in Stampede park. Now what if you and I each pay taxes that go towards building this thing that you can walk to. Me? I have to spend $10 in gas to get there and $10 to park there. So, I'm thinking that why should my taxes subsidize the building of an arena so convenient for you?
I am just having a little fun here. I agree with most of what you said. I happen to live off of Glenmore at 69th st sw. I don't think the developers should have been allowed to build all these houses out here without interchanges and at least making Glenmore a bigger road, especially with all the truck traffic.

obviously you have to darw lines to define how you tax the base ... you have to do that no matter what ... and every city has to decide how to do that.

As for the stadium example by virtue of where anyone decides to live they make a decision about how much they want to pay in gas and parking ... and is irrelvant to how municipal taxes are allocated.