The problem isn't big homes on big lots vs small condos.
The problem is that suburban developers no longer build multiuse developments. Instead you get big areas devoted to houses, retail is isolated somewhere else and employment centers are in yet another location. Because of the distances, driving is the most logical form of transportation. You have big box developments that can be dangerous for pedestrians.
Unfortunately, developers no longer build traditional main street developments where everything is within walking distance. They can include single family homes and apartments over the businesses on the main street. The odd part is that the old developments like this are in huge demand, probably because they aren't being developed any more.
This is what i find funny..and this my honest assesment as well as being my preception..People like to rag on Calgary and than point to Vancouver as the example...When i lived in Vancouver...i lived in 3 different areas of the city (Fir/6th,12th/16th,Dunbar/19th)...I remember, my biggest compliant was that nothing was ever close to where i lived in any case compared to the places i lived in Calgary....and the traffic in Vancouver between 9am-7pm on throughfares through the communities was always a nightmare....
The biggest thing I see is how developers don't seem to integrate what they are building with what is already there. I live in an area that has been around for 20+ years. On the other side of the boundary road it was built in the last 5 years. The roads out of the new area don't line up with the ones in the old area, so there are 2 'T' intersections 20' away from each other. It is stupid, and there are things like that all over. New stuff doesn't need to be the same as old stuff, but it should at least segue between them.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
Hmm, what I don't really get is, if traffic is such a problem, couldn't there be mini business districts incorporated in the middle of a bunch of suburban sprawl? Kind of like mini cities I guess. That way, people move to communities that's relatively close to where they work (hopefully), and you get less congestion going to and from the main downtown core. They have access to all the main needs, and only really travel during the weekend, if they want to go somewhere else. Wouldn't that solve part of the traffic problem? But then, what do I know. I'm an accountant, not a civil engineer.
My big complaint about Calgary, and spralling cities in general, is over the subdivisions and their circular streets. I want things on a grid dang nabbit!
But to compound on the problem of circular sub division streets, the developers go and name everything with the same first word, example: Woodbend, Woodblend, Woodglenn, Woodridge...
Last edited by tripin_billie; 12-21-2007 at 11:57 AM.
I dont get that? What is the alternative for most.living in a condo? arent condos even more like dormatory...
Just ad libbing from what I remember of the film.
My point is that there is very little interaction between people within the suburbs. Even in a condo building you will run into your neighbours, or have a decent chance of being involved on the board, etc. This dehumanizes the community and does not create a desirable place to live.
Townhouses, or having a single family home in an area that has more mixed zoning are two other alternatives to the current suburban development plans that are being used. Condos aren't the only choice.
Of course, economics and affordability come into play. Yet you'd have to think that if more houses were on the market in mixed use communities, the price would be more reasonable (supply vs demand - demand for these types of residences are very high but the supply is very low).
A success story that gets trotted out in forum type discussions about growth in the city of Calgary is the Garrison Woods development in Marda Loop. McKenzie Towne to a lesser extent, with the caveat being that McKenzie Towne is pretty good within itself, it is getting to other areas of the city that presents a problem. Quarry Park will be sure to be another "success story" when it is complete.
When Garrison Woods was opened to the public, the prices were relatively reasonable, but the area has quickly shot up in value and is considered one of the most desirable places to live in Calgary. Good luck getting in now. The message to developers is clear: people want this type of lifestyle. Yet the question that remains for me is why more of these developments are not being built, yet areas like Cranston, Silverado, Evergreen, Royal Oak, etc are going up in droves.
After some more research and discussion with people very active in this area, it is pretty much the result of an unresponsive civic development plan in a boom time, restrictive zoning, and a lack of effective processes in place to review and allow such developments.
"Old" 20 year plans for the city do have some good ideas that are finally being implemented (i.e. The West Leg of the LRT and the whole concept of developing around LRT stations - as outlined in 1995's GoPlan), but they are not really designed with the unpredictable boom and bust nature of Calgary's development in mind. We have a good idea how big we are going to be in 50 years, and understand that it is likely that 90% of the growth is going to happen in 5 - 10 "short" bursts, but our planning does not really have a way to absorb this.
Therefore, development is allowed to be 'fast tracked' in order to play "catch up" (which isn't really correct, it is more like "keep up") to accomodate new growth. It sort of disgusts me how a great provincial park like Fish Creek has been more or less decimated by suburban growth when planning for and allowing re-development in specific areas (see East Village, Ramsay, etc) could have easily absorbed a large portion of our recent growth.
It is a huge problem to overcome as there is no way that a developer will put money into building a mixed use community when the demand isn't there, but wouldn't it be nice to have a city that could respond to a boom situation and re-zone an area in short time so that a developer could get an application in to do so, as opposed to having the same cookie cutter development approved on precedent on the latest batch of annexed land between here and Chestermere?
Sprawl has been our only answer, and it has hurt us in more ways than most people care to think about. Another sad thing to think about for me is what sort of legacy this is leaving on our city.
My house was built in 1918 and is still solid. I don't know if I will be able to say that for the vinyl and particle board houses that are being put up in the satellite communities today. What about public buildings? Recently, an old sandstone school in my community was sold by the CBE to they could probably build a faux brick and corregated steel P.O.S. in Arbour Lake that will likely be ready to scrap before the sandstone school is a quarter way through its lifetime.
The other sad thing is the cultural segregation that is occuring in the city. The NE is a catch-all for immigrants who move here, and the city as a whole is missing out on a huge opportunity to develop more of an international appeal and image.
It just ticks me off that people think that the way we have been growing is the only way, or that the only alternatives are not appealing. Not so.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
If the NHL ever needs an enema, Edmonton is where they'll insert it.
Last edited by SeeGeeWhy; 12-21-2007 at 12:00 PM.
Reason: added part about segregation of culture
Hmm, what I don't really get is, if traffic is such a problem, couldn't there be mini business districts incorporated in the middle of a bunch of suburban sprawl? Kind of like mini cities I guess. That way, people move to communities that's relatively close to where they work (hopefully), and you get less congestion going to and from the main downtown core. They have access to all the main needs, and only really travel during the weekend, if they want to go somewhere else. Wouldn't that solve part of the traffic problem? But then, what do I know. I'm an accountant, not a civil engineer.
There some of that in Calgary...not enough...but corporations still want to move there...but i think it also could be a natural progression..if lease rates downtown stay high then some companies will relocate
My point is that there is very little interaction between people within the suburbs. Even in a condo building you will run into your neighbours, or have a decent chance of being involved on the board, etc. This dehumanizes the community and does not create a desirable place to live.
Townhouses, or having a single family home in an area that has more mixed zoning are two other alternatives to the current suburban development plans that are being used. Condos aren't the only choice.
Of course, economics and affordability come into play. Yet you'd have to think that if more houses were on the market in mixed use communities, the price would be more reasonable (supply vs demand - demand for these types of residences are very high but the supply is very low).
A success story that gets trotted out in forum type discussions about growth in the city of Calgary is the Garrison Woods development in Marda Loop. McKenzie Towne to a lesser extent, with the caveat being that McKenzie Towne is pretty good within itself, it is getting to other areas of the city that presents a problem. Quarry Park will be sure to be another "success story" when it is complete.
When Garrison Woods was opened to the public, the prices were relatively reasonable, but the area has quickly shot up in value and is considered one of the most desirable places to live in Calgary. Good luck getting in now. The message to developers is clear: people want this type of lifestyle. Yet the question that remains for me is why more of these developments are not being built, yet areas like Cranston, Silverado, Evergreen, Royal Oak, etc are going up in droves.
After some more research and discussion with people very active in this area, it is pretty much the result of an unresponsive civic development plan in a boom time, restrictive zoning, and a lack of effective processes in place to review and allow such developments.
"Old" 20 year plans for the city do have some good ideas that are finally being implemented (i.e. The West Leg of the LRT and the whole concept of developing around LRT stations - as outlined in 1995's GoPlan), but they are not really designed with the unpredictable boom and bust nature of Calgary's development in mind. We have a good idea how big we are going to be in 50 years, and understand that it is likely that 90% of the growth is going to happen in 5 - 10 "short" bursts, but our planning does not really have a way to absorb this.
Therefore, development is allowed to be 'fast tracked' in order to play "catch up" (which isn't really correct, it is more like "keep up") to accomodate new growth. It sort of disgusts me how a great provincial park like Fish Creek has been more or less decimated by suburban growth when planning for and allowing re-development in specific areas (see East Village, Ramsay, etc) could have easily absorbed a large portion of our recent growth.
It is a huge problem to overcome as there is no way that a developer will put money into building a mixed use community when the demand isn't there, but wouldn't it be nice to have a city that could respond to a boom situation and re-zone an area in short time so that a developer could get an application in to do so, as opposed to having the same cookie cutter development approved on precedent on the latest batch of annexed land between here and Chestermere?
Sprawl has been our only answer, and it has hurt us in more ways than most people care to think about. Another sad thing to think about for me is what sort of legacy this is leaving on our city.
My house was built in 1918 and is still solid. I don't know if I will be able to say that for the vinyl and particle board houses that are being put up in the satellite communities today. What about public buildings? Recently, an old sandstone school in my community was sold by the CBE to they could probably build a faux brick and corregated steel P.O.S. in Arbour Lake that will likely be ready to scrap before the sandstone school is a quarter way through its lifetime.
It just ticks me off that people think that the way we have been growing is the only way, or that the only alternatives are not appealing. Not so.
Maybe that is your experience...but i grew up in the Calgary burbs..and that is farthest from the truth...i knew my neighbors on both sides, across the street and across the alley....numerous community events on saturday, block parties and sporting events....and also through school events....i just dont see how that is even remotely true..
And if thats what the anti-burb groups are telling you...it never ceases to amaze me how somethings these days are just pulled out of people asses to prove a point
Maybe that is your experience...but i grew up in the Calgary burbs..and that is farthest from the truth...i knew my neighbors on both sides, across the street and across the alley....numerous community events on saturday, block parties and sporting events....and also through school events....i just dont see how that is even remotely true..
And if thats what the anti-burb groups are telling you...it never ceases to amaze me how somethings these days are just pulled out of people asses to prove a point
Edit: i should note...i have lived in apartements before...i never once do i know anyone living there, and trust me that isnt completely my fault either..actually i did know one guy and he suckered punch me shortly after meeting....people have different experiences i guess..
I grew up in Queensland and Chaparral, both were probably considered suburbs when I lived in them. Chaparral was definitely worse than Queensland. I would agree with you that QL/Deer Run was reasonable with the amount of interaction I had, but Chaparral was pure sh*t. I am not pulling things out of my ass, I am speaking from my own personal experience.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
If the NHL ever needs an enema, Edmonton is where they'll insert it.
It drives me nuts when they take years to build an interchange, and what does that interchange have... traffic lights! That just seems like poor planning to me, but then again I don't know all the reasons and such.
Depending on the land available to an interchange, one with traffic lights can actually be more efficient than one without.
While I think urban sprawl is a huge problem in Calgary and I am a vehement supporter of inner-city living, I do understand one thing about condos after living in one for some time now - your neighbours are never the same; people come and go so often it's hard to establish a community spirit, even within the same building. Houses provide more long-term living plans, and thus the opportunity to develop community spirit is more available because people live in them longer.
That said, it's how they are setup that creates problems.
One problem I see is the way they name the streets, in particular. A previous poster said they all have similar names like Woodbend, Woodbine, Wood Close, etc. This just makes you fee like your a section of bush in a huge maze, which is both depressing and unoriginal.
This is one of among many problems of suburban development.
While I think urban sprawl is a huge problem in Calgary and I am a vehement supporter of inner-city living, I do understand one thing about condos after living in one for some time now - your neighbours are never the same; people come and go so often it's hard to establish a community spirit, even within the same building. Houses provide more long-term living plans, and thus the opportunity to develop community spirit is more available because people live in them longer.
That said, it's how they are setup that creates problems.
One problem I see is the way they name the streets, in particular. A previous poster said they all have similar names like Woodbend, Woodbine, Wood Close, etc. This just makes you fee like your a section of bush in a huge maze, which is both depressing and unoriginal.
This is one of among many problems of suburban development.
That is really stretching it...Most people are to preoccupied with life, kids, hockey, community events, work...to even let something like that bother them...
I guess if you cant find anything, bash the naming of the streets...is numbering them any better? What about what Victoria does...just randmonly name your streets and make it difficult to find a location anywhere in the city...heck the streets even change names out of the blue in Victoria
That is really stretching it...Most people are to preoccupied with life, kids, hockey, community events, work...to even let something like that bother them...
I guess if you cant find anything, bash the naming of the streets...is numbering them any better? What about what Victoria does...just randmonly name your streets and make it difficult to find a location anywhere in the city...heck the streets even change names out of the blue in Victoria
Well, to someone who doesn't live in the suburbs, I cringe everytime I have to drive in these sprawling mazes - one wrong turn down Woodcrest Blvd, and I'm completely lost.
If I have to travel into the burbs, I make sure I Google Map where I'm going, because lord knows it's hard enough when you get directions to make turns at 9 different "Wood" locations.
I'll take street and avenue numbers any day of the week, and twice on sundays.
Well, to someone who doesn't live in the suburbs, I cringe everytime I have to drive in these sprawling mazes - one wrong turn down Woodcrest Blvd, and I'm completely lost.
If I have to travel into the burbs, I make sure I Google Map where I'm going, because lord knows it's hard enough when you get directions to make turns at 9 different "Wood" locations.
I'll take street and avenue numbers any day of the week, and twice on sundays.
For all Edmonton's faults, this is one thing that I like about their city over Calgary's. Why can't they stick to numbering rather than names?
That part of the movie turned me off. I fully believe we design our neighborhoods crappily but that angle is bullcrap. I lived inner city then moved a little further out and I know way more people now. Before I knew that geddy lee courier guy, crazy mumbling fat weirdo and octothorp. Never met any of them but that is who my neighbors were an thats all I knew about them. Now I know my neighbors names, where they work, and we take in their mail when they go away.
Exactly, I lived in "trendy" downtown Vancouver in a nice condo, and didn't know a soul, there was no building or community interaction. When I moved back to Calgary and built a house in the suburbs, that's when I got to know my whole street. We built each others fences and have annual block parties, having the lake gets most of our kids together, so I don't buy this downtown inner city community fairytale.
Well, to someone who doesn't live in the suburbs, I cringe everytime I have to drive in these sprawling mazes - one wrong turn down Woodcrest Blvd, and I'm completely lost.
If I have to travel into the burbs, I make sure I Google Map where I'm going, because lord knows it's hard enough when you get directions to make turns at 9 different "Wood" locations.
I'll take street and avenue numbers any day of the week, and twice on sundays.
I suppose, you get used to it, just like everything..its all perception..all i heard in Vancouver was how great it is that the streets for the most part are named and not numbered...Yet try finding anything off the main streets without a map...
Calgary quadrant system is great, for the most part you dont need a map...most streets are tributaries of either Drive or BLVD...so it shouldnt be that hard to find.
The problem is that nobody gives a fata about that. You get a tonnes of room and a brand new house that you kinda designed yourself that nobody has lived in prior. Most people I meet get disgusted if they think that someone else lived in the house before them.
I did love James Howard Kunstler's rants in that movie though. When he is standing by that bench on that path along Deerfoot Trail and ranting about the idiots who decided to put it there. Priceless.
This is the guy I agree with:
James Howard Kunstler is just a theatre major who likes to make stupid predictions about the downfall of society that dont come to fruition..like his fearmongering about Y2K..pretty much a fearmonger and really shouldnt be taken seriously.
LOL, regarding the subarban street names... I went for lunch today with my team and one of them is a Calgarian who moved to Berlin for 15 years and then came back... he pretty much shared the same sentiments that Ozy said.
He said that when he came back, he couldn't believe the cheesy, confusing names and street patterns that are used for suburban roads in Calgary... and he lived in Berlin for frik's sake.
