Our citizens having things as big as they do is less about 'need' and a lot more about their preference for those things.
When you say 'mature suburbs', can you give an example of a neighbourhood you're thinking of?
Oakridge. Palliser. Braeside. Woodlands. A lot of my friends grew up in those communities, and their parents, who are in their 80s, are still living in the same homes. In my parent’s crescent, there are half-dozen couples who bought their homes in the late 70s and still live there. I walk through Oakridge a lot, and I’d guess a third to half of homes are owned by retirees. You can see it just by the grocery stores in the area - they’re busy at 1 pm on a Wednesday, and the majority of shoppers have grey hair.
Quote:
Mr. Cortellino said that in many of Canada’s large cities, seniors living alone or couples over age 75 are more likely than young families to live in single-family homes with three or more bedrooms. (A Globe and Mail analysis of 2021 census data found the percentage of singles and couples who live in homes that have a minimum of three bedrooms increased to 29 per cent that year, from 26 per cent in 2006.)
He said he’s found anecdotally that many people are instead “downsizing from the inside” – only using a small part of their house, often the ground floor, and often closing off or limiting heating in the rest.
Several other reports confirm parts of his findings. Real estate and mortgage company Redfin published a report in January that found that in the United States, “empty-nest baby boomers own 28 per cent of the nation’s large homes [with three or more bedrooms], while millennials with kids own just 14 per cent.”
We're gonna have an awesome selection of $1m+ executive townhomes in the inner city once everything is said and done, though, let me tell you.
If your preposition holds, no one will want these, and thus they won't sell for $1m and we'll end up with some affordable housing stock.
That's the thing, the developers aren't dumb, they build the maximum intersection of what people want and what makes them money.
We have two problems - things that limit what can be built have unintended consequences and we end up with some janky housing options emerging, and people very frequently want dumb things that don't actually make them happy. Humans typically optimize for themselves only and not anything around them, despite things around them (like the fabric of the community they live in) being big drivers of their happiness.
I understand what you're saying, and I'm not disagreeing with your points, but I work in Ogden and deal with a lot of the locals frequently and they are vocal locals. They are incredible passionate about their community...just the way it is.
The City already did the Land Expropriation scheme for the original Green Line Plan and it was like WWIII between them and the locals and the City eventually gave up and did something else.
And if you really, really want to go Nuclear? Change a Bus Route. The amount of anger and vitriol I've heard from the changing of Bus Routes? You genuinely wouldn't believe it.
As for CPKC, again, I dont disagree with you that maybe as a merged entity they should cede some of their protections, but its not going to happen...ain't nobody gonna fight the Railroad. They have what they have and they're damned well going to keep it. Come Hell or High Water.
They think its still the 1880s where if anyone messes with them or their stuff they release the Railyard Bulls to crack skulls.
And now that they're the single largest Railway Concern in the Western Hemisphere nobody is going to take on the Railroad.
As I recall during the Flood when the City needed Rail cars moved it was a borderline miracle that Nenshi managed to get them to do it and it was a polite request followed by a 'Pretty Please' and even then they largely only complied to protect their own assets.
You'd have better luck relocating the Brooklyn Bridge across the river.
Understood and really, that is why I mentioned the potential profits they could generate through selling the high-value inner city land and replacing it with the cheap land outside of the city. The city would need to show them that they would ultimately win big $$$ in the transaction.
Looking at the Alberta rail network map, they could drop the new yard down a bit southeast of Airdrie and easily tie all 6 tracks that currently come into Calgary.
Aside from the absurd land sale profits one could argue a few benefits:
- They would be able to build a bigger, more advanced rail yard than what they currently have.
- Their trains would gain some travel efficiency by not having to slow down when they come into the city limits.
- Whatever convenience they lose by having the yard in the middle of the city they could gain back by being closer to the ring road. If they can buy land between Hwy566 and the ring road behind Balzac then that would probably be the most effective for deploying product from the train to the ring road to wherever it may need to go.
- Getting the trains away from the bow river would be a win. As you mentioned, that was its own gong show back in 2013 and right now they need to maintain 4 or 5 bridges crossing over that river.
The city could not only buy the rail yard land but also all of the tracks in the city. Those tracks could either go to developing additional C-Train lines or Bike traffic or enable other housing development opportunities.
Then it would be on the city to develop the inner city land that they just acquired into enough housing and retail space to make their money back from acquiring and developing the land... the scope would be monumental. You could be building from the east edge of Ramsay (11st & 17th Ave SE) all the way down to the where the Bow river meets 42nd Ave SE. Once the rail yard conversion is complete then the opportunity would be to develop the commercial/industrial area between Ramsay and Inglewood and then develop south from there.
The best part being that the effort would be to push out corporations to make this redevelopment happen instead of pushing out the citizen home owners. Most corporations will align if the $$ makes sense.
The density opportunity there, in the middle of the city, is bigger than any other option.
I'm in Ward 14 now (phew, no more Dan McLean) so I did a review of my thoughts on all the councilor candidates' websites. Like the Oilers, it was no good.
Spoiler!
Chima Akuchie
Pros: Independent, seems to have a community focused background
Cons: Wants to repeal rezoning (but also wants more affordable housing), generic platitudes about improving things without explaining how he would achieve them, and the website is a mess
A Quote: "Asbestos in water may be an invisible risk, but it’s one we can’t afford to ignore."
Erin Averbukh
Pros: Independent, has more detailed breakdowns of what she wants to do
Cons: Wants to repeal rezoning, wants plebiscites for any large expenditures, wants to can environmental measures, claims to have no political agenda (lol)
A Quote: "If I am the only City Councillor without a political agenda, I believe that would make me the Leader."
Devin Elkin
Pros: Independent, has experience in politics and council
Cons: Worked for Demong so probably shares all his views, isn't critical of his boss at all, wants to further complicate council hearings
A Quote: "Having strong personal relationships with current MLA for Calgary Fish Creek, Minister Myles McDougal and Calgary Shaw MLA Minister Rebecca Schultz" (emphasis mine )
Keener Hachey
Pros: The website loads quickly
Cons: Is a full-on UCP shill, parrots all the UCP talking points on his website, signed his name in Comic Sans font
A Quote: "The bureaucrats appear to run the show and there are arguably only 3 conservatives on council."
Landon Johnson
Pros: Independent, has the most complete website compared to the others
Cons: It's the Recall Gondek guy, wants to repeal rezoning, wants endless plebiscites on everything
A Quote: "We will focus on priority items that you can see and feel every day like properly aligned traffic lights"
Sunjiv Raval
Pros: Independent, has a big focus on volunteering throughout his life
Cons: The only things talked about on the site are a road interchange study that's already underway and a LRT extension, and the website is pretty rough
A Quote: "WORKING HOURS: Monday – Sat 09:00 am – 09:00 pm, Sunday – Closed"
Ryan Stutt
Pros: Nicest looking website of them all, talks a lot about communication
Cons: Says so little with so many words, full of generic platitudes about improving things without explaining how he would achieve them
A Quote: "We need to fix what’s broken."
After reading that, I still have no idea who to vote for.
I'm still in ward 14 with McLean. I'd vote for a head of cabbage instead of him, but unfortunately one isn't running. That guy is an embarrassment to city council.
Oakridge. Palliser. Braeside. Woodlands. A lot of my friends grew up in those communities, and their parents, who are in their 80s, are still living in the same homes. In my parent’s crescent, there are half-dozen couples who bought their homes in the late 70s and still live there. I walk through Oakridge a lot, and I’d guess a third to half of homes are owned by retirees. You can see it just by the grocery stores in the area - they’re busy at 1 pm on a Wednesday, and the majority of shoppers have grey hair.
I grew up in that part of town, still have parents in the area, knows friends' parents in the area and now have friends raising their families in the area, so I'm familiar with the communities and their amenities & layouts.
I think the point Wolven and TD are making - which is my biggest issue with the blanket rezoning - is why not fill up the arterial roads and redevelop some of the underutilized strip malls before zoning for mid-block 8-plexes amongst blocks and blocks (or cul-de-sacs and cul-de-sacs) of SFHs.
Redevelopment in this manner makes changes more consistent and easier to establish new neightbourhood nodes that, you know, encourage neighbourhoodly things. There's a lot of density that could be established by adding density along Elbow drive, 24th street, Southland drive, etc, both by redveloping the SFH and the various plazas and strip malls that line those arteries.
Once you've achieved a meaningful build up along those roads, then move in to the community... I'm sure community buy-in would be a lot easier if there was a more gradual, step-change approach.
The Following User Says Thank You to you&me For This Useful Post:
I’d never assumed the 8-plexes would be built mid-block. That would be pretty hard to pull off anyway, as a developer would need to acquire at least two adjacent properties. Arterial roads, underutilized strips malls, etc is where densification of the suburbs would naturally happen. The blanket re-zoning just makes it much easier to make applications on those spaces.
And unless I misread him, Wolven was not calling for that kind of redevelopment. He wants densification kept out of the suburbs full-stop.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Ward 11 looks awful. Incumbent Penner has been terrible but the only other choice seems to be Rob Ward, who is cozy with Danielle Smith (has an interview with her on his website). Sigh....
Ward 11 looks awful. Incumbent Penner has been terrible but the only other choice seems to be Rob Ward, who is cozy with Danielle Smith (has an interview with her on his website). Sigh....
Rob Ward is running? Jesus ####ing christ can we all agree not to vote that man into office? Don't disappoint us Ward 11.
Also, 20th ave NW is a pretty fine place for an 8 plex IMO. The majority of the tiny old homes are already boarded up and ready for re-development. Area is going to densify pretty quickly.
Last edited by Torture; 09-03-2025 at 09:45 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Torture For This Useful Post:
I'd like a little more journalism from the Sprawl here. Reprinting every candidate's bio is not helping me to "meet" them. I hope longer form interviews or analysis of incumbent councillors are coming soon.
I'd like a little more journalism from the Sprawl here. Reprinting every candidate's bio is not helping me to "meet" them. I hope longer form interviews or analysis of incumbent councillors are coming soon.
There's 122 people listed on that page I'd say give em a break because 1) I'm sure there's more coming and 2) they're doing a lot more than legacy media with a lot less resources.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Torture For This Useful Post:
Also, 20th ave NW is a pretty fine place for an 8 plex IMO. The majority of the tiny old homes are already boarded up and ready for re-development. Area is going to densify pretty quickly.
Height has never really been the issue. Depth has been one of the major impacts on neighbouring properties.
I’d never assumed the 8-plexes would be built mid-block. That would be pretty hard to pull off anyway, as a developer would need to acquire at least two adjacent properties. Arterial roads, underutilized strips malls, etc is where densification of the suburbs would naturally happen. The blanket re-zoning just makes it much easier to make applications on those spaces.
And unless I misread him, Wolven was not calling for that kind of redevelopment. He wants densification kept out of the suburbs full-stop.
I don't know if "full-stop" is my stance but it shouldn't be step 1 and it should not be implemented as a free-for-all where the private developers are deciding how to build our city. They will not make the right decisions for what Calgary needs, instead they will make the decisions that maximize their profits in each separate build.
I think a more thoughtful approach where neighbourhoods are designed with a bigger strategy in mind is necessary to avoid the pitfalls of other large cities where they let "capitalism take the wheel" or whatever prayer they say. The plan should cover services and infrastructure, like building the "family homes" near the schools and build the seniors homes further away from the schools but closer to other services, etc. Or building a 500 home community with only 1 road to leave the community.
You also need to ensure that when you are upgrading the older communities that you are taking into account their 1950s infrastructure (sewers, overhead electrical wires, etc) and either doing major work to upgrade the infrastructure or slowing down the density in that area to ensure you do not exceed the capacity of the legacy infrastructure. Developers will take care of the one lot they are working on and then let "someone else" deal with the problems that their project put onto the neighbourhood infrastructure.
Main streets made sense because most SFH along a busy road are not very desirable or loved (who wants their kids playing beside a busy road?). So converting those SFH specifically into density with walkable living and some shops would be great. Thus far the main streets program hasn't really delivered anything close to that...
In the end, I would say that that my stance is that developing wasted space should be step 1 before any of the above (but hand in hand with implementing the larger city design strategy). Looking at the other two development opportunities I mentioned before:
- The empty field beside Westbrook is insane. Why are we talking about blanket rezoning when they could be building thousands of homes there??? Unlike the rail yard or west village, there is nothing there and no blocker to development but the city keeps waiting for a private developer to do the work. With those two condo towers next door they could easily add 3-4 more 30-40 floor towers to the westbrook area and gain a huge injection of housing on top of the c-train line.
- The West Village likely just needs a massive lawsuit against Domtar Corp to make the cleanup happen. The longer that is delayed the more expensive it will eventually be. Then build a massive set of towers, shops, maybe even a downtown school?
In either situation, the city should just build it themselves and stop relying on private developers (it would probably still be a developer that is doing the work but it would be under the city oversight).
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Wolven For This Useful Post:
I'm in Ward 8 and there looks to be a few candidates worth looking into.
I don't mind many of the Calgary Party Candidates and Thiessen was the former President of the Alberta Party which would fit my ideological makeup.
However, I do loath political parties in Calgary, and as someone in the inner-city, i would like an independent to stick up for the area rather tha agree with those representing the commuters from the burbs.
Suburbanites sometimes forget that people actually live downtown and surrounding area.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cappy For This Useful Post:
I'm in Ward 2, and, for the most part, I've been pretty satisfied with Jennifer Wyness. I find her very rational, and she more often than not aligns with my views. I have no issues voting for her again, and am glad she's an Independent, and not part of any BS political group.
