No it was Chima Nkemasdbauisf schooling the campaign manager's of the other campaigns. If I had a dollar for every racist Nenshi thing I have heard....
The campaign was remarkable, no doubt, including its manager Chima Nkemdirim. But let's be honest race nor religion never even played as a factor in the election. Of course there are a minority of bigoted people in Calgary like any place, but the fact is that he was elected and the city really is one of the most welcoming (of all kinds of people) on the planet - and that certainly makes it more liveable overall.
__________________
Trust the snake.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
Idiot drivers, tons of traffic, rent is insanely high, ICBC rips you off, the government rips you off and Kits beach/ White Rock are a home away from home for Jersey Shore lovers.
I'm always surprised Vancouver is so high.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jake For This Useful Post:
Yeah, the problem is until we are forced to build up there will always be people who prefer to be away from the city centre.
I, for one, do not support a ban on suburban growth. I just want them to pay for themselves. People should be able to live where they want at a fair price that reflects the costs of their lifestyle. The thing is, we have to apply that to people who want to live in the inner city as well, and we can't do that if we let the suburbs pay less than their fair share. It's not a zero-sum game... it's actually worse because shifting the burden to the inner city creates a city where the average per citizen cost for a given level of service is higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJester
Although I agree that Calgary needs to stop it's sprawl outwards, it's not really a trend that is easily fixed or reversed. Calgary is one of the most family-centric cities in Canada, and those families want to live in big houses with garages and big back yards.
I'm not saying it's practical, but that's just the reality of living here.
Plus, developers aren't going to start building condos and multi-storied housing projects halfway out to Okotoks. They're left to pick and choose areas in the already developed parts of the city, and those are pretty hard to come by.
Compare that to Vancouver where the closer you get to downtown, the denser the housing gets. It's night and day.
Development downtown is slower than it should be because the unfair tax burden drives down demand. Fix that and we'll grow more up and less out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reaper
So, you want to tax people more because they opted to live in an area where they could actually afford to buy a house in an effort to convince people to buy houses in a more expensive part of town?
The alternative is taxing people more beause they opted to live an in area where the cost of their lifestyle to the city is less. Generally, you don't want to discourage desirable actions, but that's what were doing.
People generally want to live in the inner city, that's why the prices are higher. Right now there are people who want to live in the inner city but can't afford to because suburban taxes aren't high enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertuzzied
Now we just need a politician with enough balls to implement that. As much as I'm a Nenshi fan i don't think he will do it.
Nenshi voted against the city's new developer fees because they weren't high enough. It's the council that doesn't have the balls.
Not to mention the undesirable social and environmental impacts of suburbs that aren't captured in the cost of living there.
Greenfield development, carbon emissions are the two big environmental issues. The social issues stem from auto dependency and its well documented health impacts. (The most suburban cities in the U.S. are also the fattest) Problems with transit and interconnections for people, and just the generally higher costs of servicing a city that is less dense.
I'm not arguing for a ban on suburbs either. I'm just saying that the costs of living there should be paid by the people who live there. When that happens there will be alot less suburbs. Until then, enjoy the free lunch.
Rank City / Urban area Land area
(in sqKm)
1 New York Metro 8,683
2 Tokyo/Yokohama 6,993
3 Chicago 5,498
4 Atlanta 5,083
5 Philadelphia 4,661
6 Boston 4,497
7 Los Angeles 4,320
8 Dallas/Fort Worth 3,644
9 Houston 3,355
10 Detroit 3,267
11 Washington 2,996
12 Miami 2,891
13 Nagoya 2,875
14 Paris 2,723
15 Essen/Düsseldorf 2,642
16 Osaka/Kobe/Kyoto 2,564
17 Seattle 2,470
18 Johannesburg/East Rand 2,396
19 Minneapolis/St. Paul 2,316
20 San Juan 2,309
21 Buenos Aires 2,266
22 Pittsburgh 2,208
23 Moscow 2,150
24 St. Louis 2,147
25 Melbourne 2,080
26 Tampa//St. Petersburg 2,078
27 Mexico City 2,072
28 Phoenix/Mesa 2,069
....
117 Dubai 712
118 Harare 712
119 Budapest 702 120 Calgary 702
121 Sarasota//Bradenton 700
122 Columbia 697
123 Cape Town 686
124 Poughkeepsie 686
125 Tehran 686
I'll try and find where I saw the stat, but I remember reading recently that Calgary was near the top if population density (lack of) is added to the equation. I believe Calgary was top 5.
That's obviously not the same as his original statement, but Calgary certainly is way up there in space per person, and is very large for it's population.
I'll try and find where I saw the stat, but I remember reading recently that Calgary was near the top if population density (lack of) is added to the equation. I believe Calgary was top 5.
That's obviously not the same as his original statement, but Calgary certainly is way up there in space per person, and is very large for it's population.
Same link has that info as well, plugged it into excel and sorted it for you.
I guess 62nd is pretty close to 5th...
Some of the notables that are worse that Calgary, some of which have little more than 2/3 our population density:
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Louisville, Dayton, Boston, Kansas City, Edmonton, Oklahoma City, San Juan, St. Louis, Brisbane, Memphis, Tampa//St. Petersburg, Orlando, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Seattle
Spoiler!
Rank City / Urban area Density
(people per sqKm)
1 Barnstable Town 350
2 Chattanooga 450
3 Knoxville 500
4 Poughkeepsie 500
5 Columbia 600
6 Charlotte 650
7 Nashville 650
8 Birmingham 650
9 Raleigh 650
10 McAllen 650
11 Baton Rouge 650
12 Atlanta 700
13 Hartford 700
14 Richmond 700
15 Bordeaux 700
16 Springfield 700
17 Akron 700
18 Abu Dhabi 700
19 New Haven 700
20 Bridgeport//Stamford 750
21 Allentown/Bethlehem 750
22 Albany 750
23 Toulon 750
24 Pittsburgh 800
25 Sarasota//Bradenton 800
26 Cincinnati 850
27 Indianapolis 850
28 Jacksonville 850
29 Louisville 850
30 Dayton 850
31 Boston 900
32 Kansas City 900
33 Providence 900
34 Edmonton 900
35 Oklahoma City 900
36 Rochester 900
37 San Juan 950
38 St. Louis 950
39 Brisbane 950
40 Memphis 950
41 Toulouse 950
42 Tucson 950
43 Tampa//St. Petersburg 1,000
44 Virginia Beach 1,000
45 Orlando 1,000
46 Minneapolis/St. Paul 1,050
47 Cleveland 1,050
48 Milwaukee 1,050
49 Buffalo 1,050
50 Philadelphia 1,100
51 Seattle 1,100
52 Marseille 1,100
53 Columbus 1,100
54 Austin 1,100
55 Dallas/Fort Worth 1,150
56 Houston 1,150
57 Baltimore 1,150
58 Detroit 1,200
59 Perth 1,200
60 San Antonio 1,250
61 Nice 1,250 62 Calgary 1,250
63 Washington 1,300
64 San Diego 1,300
65 Portland 1,300
66 Riverside/San Bernardino 1,350
67 Adelaide 1,350
68 Phoenix/Mesa 1,400
69 Lyon 1,400
70 Sacramento 1,450
71 Chicago 1,500
72 Melbourne 1,500
73 Denver 1,550
74 Vancouver 1,650
75 Miami 1,700
76 Las Vegas 1,750
77 Montreal. 1,850
78 Copenhagen 1,850
79 New York Metro 2,050
80 Sydney 2,100
81 Brussels 2,200
82 Frankfurt 2,300
83 Hamburg 2,300
84 San Francisco//Oakland 2,350
85 Cologne/Bonn 2,400
86 Harare 2,450
87 Johannesburg/East Rand 2,500
88 Lisbon 2,550
89 Budapest 2,550
90 Toronto 2,650
91 Dubai 2,650
92 Los Angeles 2,750
93 Kuala Lumpur 2,750
94 Milan 2,750
95 Essen/Düsseldorf 2,800
96 Rome 2,950
97 Nagoya 3,150
98 Durban 3,500
99 Paris 3,550
100 Jeddah 3,550
101 Riyadh 3,650
102 Berlin 3,750
103 Cape Town 3,950
104 Belo Horizonte 4,600
105 Tokyo/Yokohama 4,750
106 Barcelona 4,850
107 Moscow 4,900
108 Buenos Aires 4,950
109 London 5,100
110 Madrid 5,200
111 Osaka/Kobe/Kyoto 6,400
112 Bangkok 6,450
113 Rio de Janeiro 6,850
114 Istanbul 7,700
115 Mexico City 8,400
116 Sao Paulo 9,000
117 Cairo 9,400
118 Jakarta 10,500
119 Manila 10,550
120 Tehran 10,550
121 Delhi 11,050
122 Beijing 11,500
123 Shanghai 13,400
124 Seoul/Incheon 16,700
125 Lagos 18,150
I will certainly give you that we are not a Manila, Tehran, Delhi, Beijing, Shanghai, Seoul/Incheon, Lagos though, and personally I am not crying over that one.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Same link has that info as well, plugged it into excel and sorted it for you.
I guess 62nd is pretty close to 5th...
Some of the notables that are worse that Calgary, some of which have little more than 2/3 our population density:
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Louisville, Dayton, Boston, Kansas City, Edmonton, Oklahoma City, San Juan, St. Louis, Brisbane, Memphis, Tampa//St. Petersburg, Orlando, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Seattle
I will certainly give you that we are not a Manila, Tehran, Delhi, Beijing, Shanghai, Seoul/Incheon, Lagos though, and personally I am not crying over that one.
I'm not sure I agree with that site's methodology. For New York, they're including the entire metro area which includes New York City, Newark, Jersey City, Yonkers, Bridgeport, New Haven, and about 10 other cities across 4 states. It's similar with a lot of other US cities where they include huge areas that aren't really part of the core city. Heavily populated regions lead to cities' urban areas being treated as ridiculously large blocks even if those areas aren't really part of the city at all. Using that chart, Chicago is sized at about 125km by 45km which is ridiculous. Gary, Indiana and Kenosha, Wisconsin are not part of Chicago.
Meanwhile, Calgary's numbers only include only the City of Calgary. If you do the metro area of Calgary, it is 5,107 sq. km and has a population density of 227.5 people per sq. km. Obviously that isn't really accurate either since Calgary's metro area includes large areas of unused land.
Ultimately though, it really comes down to the fact that any study which suggests that New York City has only twice the population density of Calgary isn't really reliable when talking about the actual appearance and makeup of a city.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
I think the big difference between east hastings and ghettos is that trouble isn't likely going to find me in east hastings where in bad neighborhood the trouble finds you.
I do think the health problems in that area are embarassing for this country but I don't think that it makes vancouver a cesspool. Actually, if it didn't rain so much I'd consider moving there. It's also the only other Canadian city that I'd consider living in.
How is that insane? Commuters who live in those bedroom communities use City of Calgary infrastructure daily but don't pay a cent to fund it. A toll road for out-of-towners who commute into the city would ensure they pay their share for the infrastructure they use.
I agree that certain costs for infrastructure and services should somehow share the cost. How that is accomplished in a fair way is not my field of expertise.
How is a toll road into Calgary insane? It's like saying "If things were fair then my penis would be made of chocolate and my seed would be legal currency." Both are never going to happen so let's come back from Candyland.
So, you want to tax people more because they opted to live in an area where they could actually afford to buy a house in an effort to convince people to buy houses in a more expensive part of town?
Pretty normal in most of the world.
That's a very selfish way to look at it. The reality is the cost per capita skyrockets for infrastructure as cities sprawl out. That's why the outer edges should be taxed higher. Right now central communities are financing infrastructure used by the sprawlers.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames in 07 For This Useful Post:
I'm not sure I agree with that site's methodology. For New York, they're including the entire metro area which includes New York City, Newark, Jersey City, Yonkers, Bridgeport, New Haven, and about 10 other cities across 4 states. It's similar with a lot of other US cities where they include huge areas that aren't really part of the core city. Heavily populated regions lead to cities' urban areas being treated as ridiculously large blocks even if those areas aren't really part of the city at all. Using that chart, Chicago is sized at about 125km by 45km which is ridiculous. Gary, Indiana and Kenosha, Wisconsin are not part of Chicago.
Meanwhile, Calgary's numbers only include only the City of Calgary. If you do the metro area of Calgary, it is 5,107 sq. km and has a population density of 227.5 people per sq. km. Obviously that isn't really accurate either since Calgary's metro area includes large areas of unused land.
Ultimately though, it really comes down to the fact that any study which suggests that New York City has only twice the population density of Calgary isn't really reliable when talking about the actual appearance and makeup of a city.
Obviously when you factor in metro area it really messes with the numbers, however unless you are somehow claiming that this inaccuracy would move Calgary from a middle of the pack at 62, to top of the pack in the top 5, the basic idea is still fairly reasonable.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
I agree that certain costs for infrastructure and services should somehow share the cost. How that is accomplished in a fair way is not my field of expertise.
How is a toll road into Calgary insane? It's like saying "If things were fair then my penis would be made of chocolate and my seed would be legal currency." Both are never going to happen so let's come back from Candyland.
Why wouldn't they happen. Tonnes of cities around the world have tolls, and frankly, it would probably pass a vote at city because parasites wouldn't have a say.
That's a very selfish way to look at it. The reality is the cost per capita skyrockets for infrastructure as cities sprawl out. That's why the outer edges should be taxed higher. Right now central communities are financing infrastructure used by the sprawlers.
So the people who get the benefit of not needing to drive for an hour to get to work, need to pay less tax? How do these 'normal' places all over the world figure this out? By the length of road that you need to drive on to get to the core of a city?
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
So the people who get the benefit of not needing to drive for an hour to get to work, need to pay less tax? How do these 'normal' places all over the world figure this out? By the length of road that you need to drive on to get to the core of a city?
They paid for that benefit. I like Calgary but the 2 things I can't stand are winters and how backwards people can be.
Of course the people who use more of the infrasture should pay more. You think the guy who drives once a week and walks everywhere else should pay for all the roads in cranston?
I dunno seems incredibly obvious to me.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flames in 07 For This Useful Post:
They paid for that benefit. I like Calgary but the 2 things I can't stand are winters and how backwards people can be.
Of course the people who use more of the infrasture should pay more. You think the guy who drives once a week and walks everywhere else should pay for all the roads in cranston?
I dunno seems incredibly obvious to me.
What about the person who lives in Cranston and works out of his home and never leaves the SE?
What about the person who lives in Mission but (will be) working at the new South Calgary hospital?
It really isn't that simple and unfortunately in our society we pay taxes for things we never use all the time.
The difference, I guess, with a toll is that is a pay per use system, so if someone from Okotoks never leaves, no harm no foul. (btw, if Okotoks wants to reciprocate and charge me a toll for going there, i'm all for that too).
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
Why wouldn't they happen. Tonnes of cities around the world have tolls, and frankly, it would probably pass a vote at city because parasites wouldn't have a say.
It won't happen because Canada is a free country. What is being suggested is a no visa/no entry type system where all applicants are approved because the only people who would have to apply would be out of town residents. How would it be enforced? Would units wander around town checking people's papers?
What about the person who lives in Cranston and works out of his home and never leaves the SE?
What about the person who lives in Mission but (will be) working at the new South Calgary hospital?
It really isn't that simple and unfortunately in our society we pay taxes for things we never use all the time.
The difference, I guess, with a toll is that is a pay per use system, so if someone from Okotoks never leaves, no harm no foul. (btw, if Okotoks wants to reciprocate and charge me a toll for going there, i'm all for that too).
Yes it's very simple. You can estimate infrastructure use. Not by house but definitely by community. In your argument above you throw out the baby with the bathwater. Just because you can't get insight on each single household, it doesn't mean you don't move in the general, and very obviously correct direction.
