David Suzuki calls Calgary an "ecological disaster"

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Privelage, not a right.

Not picking on you personally here, 4X4.

In Canada, 3 people per square kilometer. Divorce rate at 48%.
http://www.divorcerate.org/divorce-rates-in-canada.html

In Japan, 138 people people per square kilometer. Divorce rate at 27%.
http://www.divorcerate.org/divorce-rate-japan.html

You do not need a backyard to raise kids. Based on most data, I would argue that a much denser population with shared backyards, or no yards but more parks/greenspace is directly correlated to the quality of family and community relationships.

And yes, I have been to Japan.

I'm not sure why the kids thing is being harped on. There are many uses for back yards. I don't even have a back yard, but I'm defending them because there are people in this world that like to have guests over for barbecues, there are also people that like to have gardens, and there are people that like to pull their trucks in and work on them. Yes, it is a privilege.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Where cities like Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal etc have a clearly defined city proper and clearly defined external suburbs... Calgary does not. Calgary is one gigantic city proper.

Calgary is a self-contained metro but Ottawa is truly one gigantic city proper (with the exception of the Quebec side) considering that the city limits stretch way out so much that Scotiabank Place is over 25 km east of the western city limit. A Calgary equivalent would include places like Chestermere and Airdrie in the city proper.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Marshall McLuhan was speaking about technological mediums, not advocating argumentum ad hominem.

I'm aware of that, yes. That does not mean that the statement can not be true beyond the technological sphere.

The message may be lost on some, but only because it is easier to attack the man and effectively change the subject than to attack the argument itself.

As we see every time PETA does anything, the intended message is lost because they are such a circus side-show that one cannot help but to focus on PETA themselves rather than the message that, in theory, is trying to be pushed.

Suzuki acts in much the same vein. Certainly not to remotely the same degree of extremism, but his statements and arguments are worded specifically to draw headlines to himself. As a result, the topic of ubran sprawl becomes David Suzuki's views on urban sprawl.

Ad hominem or not, when David Suzuki attaches his name to a statement, he becomes at as important as the statement itself. David Suzuki is perhaps the finest attention whore Canada has ever produced. Regardless of whether the message has merit when presented by a less fanatical individual, Suzuki himself has cultivated the response he gets.

"Look at me! I'm saving the world! LOOOOK AAAATT MEEEEEE!!!!!"

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Cactus Jack

I agree with both of you 100%. Calgary has a vibrant downtown core until 5/6pm when everyone goes to the suburbs. It's partially because few people live downtown but the sprawl encourage mini-metro centre like Deerfoot Meadows, Market Mall, Chinook and Shawnessey so there is no reason to have a vibrant night or cultural vibe. Kids don't even play on the streets like they used to when I was a wee lad.

That's why I love cities like Vancouver, TO and Montreal so much. You can walk around almost any reasonable time of day, any day off the week and with any weather, and there's a vibe. People are out shopping, go to packed streets with bars, cafes and restaurants and there is lots to do. Calgary severely lacks that and I think its not caused by but rather encouraged by the sprawl.

I think you'll see Calgary over the years become more like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal where you'll see more people living downtown particularly the core. People are sick of commuting to and from work and want more culture, entertainment etc.. The advantages of yards etc. in the suburbs aren't worthwhile anymore.

I read an interesting article not too long away (cannot remember the source but if I find I'll link) about more low income people are moving to the suburbs and more wealthy people are moving back to the innner city. Therefore, changing innner city slums into viable areas and turning sleepy suburbs into more diverse areas. The main reason they said is that people are sick of commuting. Calgary is following that trend. Many people cannot afford to live downtown so they are stuck in the suburbs. Areas of downtown that used to be slums filled with low income families are now affluent, viable areas.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Muta, from what I hear there is also one or two other Foster projects in the works for Calgary as well....

Library??!

oh please oh please oh please...

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Muta

Just for comparison's sake... here's some population densities of similar-sized cities (in terms of population), and their city area (just the city; not any metro areas and densities):

Area:

1. Ottawa: 2,778.64 km²
2. Jacksonville: 2,264.5 km²
3. Phoenix: 1,334.1 km²
4. San Antonio: 1,067.3 km²
5. Dallas: 997.1 km²
6. San Diego: 963.6 km²
7. Calgary: 726.50 km²
8. Edmonton: 684.37 km²
9. San Jose: 461.5 km²
10. Detroit: 370.2 km²

Population Density:

1. Detroit: 2,647/km²
2. San Jose: 2,014.4/km²
3. San Diego: 1,494.7/km²
4. Dallas: 1,391.9/km²
5. Calgary: 1,360.2/km²
6. Phoenix: 1,188.4/km²
7. Edmonton: 1,099.4/km²
8. San Antonio: 1,084.4/km²
9. Jacksonville: 409.89/km²
10. Ottawa: 219.8/km²

Keep in mind, the only thing similar about these cities are their populations.

First off, completely disregard Ottawa, as it is the capital city of Canada and due to the sheer number of federal and government buildings, it understandably is a large area in size; however, it is the exception and not the rule.

Other than that, it appears that Calgary is middle of the pack when it comes to area and density; metro area and desnity, however, may be another story.

calgary's actual built up area is about 430 sq km. That number is just the municipal boundary - Calgary keeps a 30 year land reserve. Same with Ottawa - not an actual reflection of population density - its boundary is many times its actual built up area through amalgomation.

Interestingly, in terms of the design of subdivisions in Calgary, as poor as they are, they are much, much better in many ways than subdivisions in most north american cities including Canadian ones.


================================

I was looking at live maps birdseye images of places like Richmond, Coquiltlam and Surrey. Most of the subdivisions don't have any sidewalks on most streets! Similar with the suburbs of Montreal. Sidewalks seem very rare.

Surrey

Richmond

Coquitlam

Missisauga

Montreal



That situation is extremely rare in any Calgary subdivision - most streets have at minimum a sidewalk on one side of the street. Residential densities, housing mix and inclusion of commercial uses (although they're still in strip mall or big box form like in Tuscany) makes Calgary's subdivisions relatively well planned. Most areas of the city have or are slated to be served by LRT. There is also no leapfrog development in Calgary.

The thing I dislike about Suzuki's comments are, as is pointed out he needlessly singles our Calgary, when in Edmonton - why not point out that Edmonton's pidly transit system gets hardly any use, while Calgary's C-Train gets more ridership than Vancouver's Skytrain - despite serving only half the population!!!!!

Also Calgary's getting pretty agressive with intensification and sustainability initiatives:

Downtown growth - thousands of condo units and office space (calgary has the most concentrated - ie least sprawled employment pattern in North America

Transit oriented development projects like Bridges, Brentwood, Chinook, Anderson, Lions Park, Banff Trail.

Brownfield redevelopment like East village, Railton, Ramsay Exchange, Quarry Park

LRT expansions on WLRT, NWLRT, NELRT and in a few years the SE LRT

More dense suburbs like Garrison Woods and Mohogany, both of which are well over 10 upa (very high by any north american standard for a subdivision).

Some of the highest proportion of new LEED certified buildings anywhere.

Plan it Calgary initiative

The list goes on. The fruits of all this current labour will become much more apparent in 5-10 years once a lot of this stuff is built out. Calgary's early in its reurbanization process.

So while Calgary has had a history of sprawly, unsustainable development, arguably it is actually DOING more than most to turn it around. That should be acknowledged.

[someguy51]

At the end of the article Suzuki did say a couple of nice things about Calgary:

But it wasn't all criticism for Calgary. Suzuki said there are some very good things about the city including its use of wind power to run the LRT and helping to fund the largest wind farm in Canada.

[Bunk]

As for the Bridges - the one for East Village for Bridgeland will be done through an architectural competition, according the CMLC, the development agency for East Village that will be responsible for building it. Also, I've heard that the one for Prince's Island may NOT be Calatrava, but another "starchitect" instead.

And yes there are rumours about another MAJOR Foster project.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by josh white

That situation is extremely rare in any Calgary subdivision - most streets have at minimum a sidewalk on one side of the street. Residential densities, housing mix and inclusion of commercial uses (although they're still in strip mall or big box form like in Tuscany) makes Calgary's subdivisions relatively well planned. Most areas of the city have or are slated to be served by LRT. There is also no leapfrog development in Calgary.

The thing I dislike about Suzuki's comments are, as is pointed out he needlessly singles our Calgary, when in Edmonton - why not point out that Edmonton's pidly transit system gets hardly any use, while Calgary's C-Train gets more ridership than Vancouver's Skytrain - despite serving only half the population!!!!!

Also Calgary's getting pretty agressive with intensification and sustainability initiatives:

Downtown growth - thousands of condo units and office space (calgary has the most concentrated - ie least sprawled employment pattern in North America

Transit oriented development projects like Bridges, Brentwood, Chinook, Anderson, Lions Park, Banff Trail.

Brownfield redevelopment like East village, Railton, Ramsay Exchange, Quarry Park

LRT expansions on WLRT, NWLRT, NELRT and in a few years the SE LRT

More dense suburbs like Garrison Woods and Mohogany, both of which are well over 10 upa (very high by any north american standard for a subdivision).

Some of the highest proportion of new LEED certified buildings anywhere.

Plan it Calgary initiative

The list goes on.

So while Calgary has had a history of sprawly, unsustainable development, arguably it is actually DOING more than most to turn it around. That should be acknowledged.

Calgary is catching up but still have years of backwards thinking to get ahead. Your points above are good examples of changing this trend.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by josh white

The thing I dislike about Suzuki's comments are, as is pointed out he needlessly singles our Calgary, when in Edmonton - why not point out that Edmonton's pidly transit system gets hardly any use, while Calgary's C-Train gets more ridership than Vancouver's Skytrain - despite serving only half the population!!!!!

First, that was simply an awesome post.

As to this comment, it stems from our being "Toronto West". Calgary becomes an easy target because of its importance to Western Canada, probably the most important city in Western Canada regardless of what Vancouver thinks, and the fact that it is the O&G hub of the country, which makes us an easy target for the environmentalism set.

Trashing Calgary is the easiest thing people like Suzuki can do because the comments will resonate. No other city will generate the same response. How the message is presented is more important than the message itself.

[V]

I live on a 5 acre lot because I just plain hate being around people. The suburbs was almost good enough. I can't imagine having to deal with people in an apartment. Good grief.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by fotze

Good post Josh, where is mahogany?

A new developent south of 22x and east of Deerfoot. South of Copperfield, East of Cranston.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Cactus Jack

I agree with both of you 100%. Calgary has a vibrant downtown core until 5/6pm when everyone goes to the suburbs. It's partially because few people live downtown but the sprawl encourage mini-metro centre like Deerfoot Meadows, Market Mall, Chinook and Shawnessey so there is no reason to have a vibrant night or cultural vibe. Kids don't even play on the streets like they used to when I was a wee lad.

That's why I love cities like Vancouver, TO and Montreal so much. You can walk around almost any reasonable time of day, any day off the week and with any weather, and there's a vibe. People are out shopping, go to packed streets with bars, cafes and restaurants and there is lots to do. Calgary severely lacks that and I think its not caused by but rather encouraged by the sprawl.

So true. I love Calgary to death and it will always be home, but it seriously lacks vibe. And no, not talking about the horrible radio station.

There are a few pockets though, Kensington, and some parts of 17th, that have some vibe. But its largely a suburban mall culture in most of the city, which is how I grew up. Its not bad for families but I find as a young adult that type of community isn't necessarily what I'd want to live in right now.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by fotze

Good post Josh, where is mahogany?

South of Mckenzie towne..

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Do today's kids even know what a backyard is these days?

From where I live, I have an almost top-down view of two whole neighborhoods, and hard EVER do I see kids in a private backyard.

The only kids I ever see playing are the low-income housing families used by immigrants, who are always playing in the central communal park they share in their complex.

I think Nintendo has sucked the will power of kids to do anything physical (other than lace up for minor hockey). But that's a different discussion.

In my neighborhood, both backyards and front yards are used extensively. The street isn't very busy, so kids have a place to play, ride their bikes, etc. With extra density, this is totally impossible. Let's not forget the games of street hockey that used to exist too - with extra density and extra traffic, this is impossible.

Your neighborhood may not have the yards being used, but it isn't necessarily representative of the rest of the city.

[worth]

Calgary has the busiest light rail transit system in North America.

[MelBridgeman]

If Calgary was locked by mountains, ocean, an international border and a much larger river, I am sure that its "backward" planning in response to its boom and bust nature would of played out differently. The city as doubled its population in 20 years.

If people want condos, than more condos will be built. Vancouver has a much different demogrpahic than calgary, or at least on a much larger scale.

No ideology is without it's own issues.

[burn_this_city]

Fata those bridges, you beatnicks can swim across the river.

[ComixZone]

as long as we don't end up like Toronto I'll be happy.....

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by josh white

So while Calgary has had a history of sprawly, unsustainable development, arguably it is actually DOING more than most to turn it around. That should be acknowledged.

I think the only comparison that's reasonable is what are the plans going forward.

Every city has a different history, geography, climate, culture, industry, growth patterns etc. that make general comparisons pretty worthless.

Even to say we have a history of 'sprawly' development. Probably 1/4 of our city was built in the 70s and 80s. Maybe half since that time. It's neither right nor wrong, it just is. What's right or wrong is what we do with the circumstance we have.