Sprawl - What sprawl? Bronco speaks...

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I did back it up read my post. That guy just decided to make a statement and not back it up. You should be talking to him.

whatever you say kid.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by fotze

Well the other inner city neighborhoods also probably payed their initial infrastructure costs, so could we take the initial outlay of costs out of the equation because it can be assumed that those are a wash?

Depends on the equation. The usual charge is that people in the inner city pay more taxes right now to cover high costs in new neighbourhoods right now. The just aren't there. But it sure makes for great politics for Bronco to constantly say so.

But that infrastructure is alot of the time shared by the entire city whereas the street in Tuscany is not so much. i.e. half the city drives down my street every day but I have been to Tuscany once. i.e. we should both pay for its maintenance. Older stuff is more costly but roads will always need to be replaced every 20 years everywhere and they are designed to accomodate their predicted loads..

I'm not sure there's anymore traffic on a residential street in tuxedo than a residential street in Tuscany. You're right thouh that at the end of the day we all pay for everything. It's just that our city has a great excuse for tax hikes every year because we have to pay for the other guy. If only we could screw the other guy for once.

Maybe if people payed a road tax according to their odometer would be the more fair.

or..say ...5 cents a litre

[300spartans]

Some thoughts:


It's not that having suburbs is a bad thing, it is the fact that these suburbs lack the completeness of true communities that is the issue. Consider the original garden suburb designs (Howard) and how they were built as complete communities with strong transit links to the cores. They incorporated BOTH residential and commercial functions which allowed for live/work scenarios to happen. Our suburbs are completely residential with very little commercial sprinkled in here and there. What kind of community exists when everyone exits it during the day only to return home in the evening?

Calgary's growth has been guided by the UniCity concept which has unfortunately not allowed edge cities to develop. The formation of edge cities would alleviate alot of problems especially traffic congestion. The massive amount of people travelling to the central business district would be drastically reduced. The establishment of commercial centres is modification of this concept. Think of the proposed commercial centre in the SE sector near Copperfield/Mahogany. A good thing but is it enough?

Someone mentioned Transit Oriented Development which the City adopted a couple of years ago. Hillhurst-Sunnyside will be the first community to implement these guidelines into policy and the planning process with public participation has just begun. So it's nice to see this happening but I question the attempt to implement these policies in an extremely active and sometimes combative community. May the Dalhousie station have been a better candidate?

Calgarians love their cars and we want lots of roads for them. But look at all that congestion! Just build more and bigger roads! Sadly, this is the fallacy of modernistic rationalism, let's build more roads to solve the problem even though there are countless studies that show that INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF ROADS WILL INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF USERS. Your roads will be congested again in a few years. What are you going to do then? The engineers and politicians will say BUILD MORE ROADS OF COURSE! Now I love cars, I'm definetly not anti-car, but I question the wisdom of addressing transportation and traffic issues by simply addressing one area. Any solution that tries to fix our transportation issues has to be holistic. Don't just focus on roads, focus on public transit as well. The LRT system is a GREAT thing but it could be ALOT better. All those earlier garden suburbs were serviced by amazing rail links, why cant we do that?

Someone mentioned the trees in Calgary. One really funny thing is that every new subdivion that goes up involves scrapping off a huge layer of topsoil and shipping it away. And once your house is built, they SELL BACK some of it to you. Unfortunately, it's nowhere near enough topsoil and trees being planted in newer communities may actually have issues in the future.

Things ARE changing... seeing Council approve something like the TOD guidelines is great to see. But policy is policy, how you implement it is where it counts. It's nice to see developers talking about sustainability and new urbanist principles but can it work if we cherry-pick the nice elements, say, such as front porches? Look at the new concept plan for Mahogany all the way out in the SE, it's actually a really progressive plan given the context, multi-family housing, lots of public amenities, why, it could be a very nice and almost complete community. But how does it work in the Citywide context? The proposed LRT station won't be arriving for another 15-20 years. People still have to drive from Mahogany to get around thanks to sprawl. Seems like another of those times when the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Circa89]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Calgary has a definate urban sprawl problem. Urban Paris has a population of over 9 million people and a total city proper land area of just over 1000 sq miles. Calgary on the other hand only has 1 million people and a land area of 450 sq miles. Quite the difference.

According to this almanac http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108570.html
New York City is 303 sq miles and has 8 million inhabitants in 2004.

3/4 the size of Calgary and 8 times the population. Now thats high density.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Table 5

oh please, now your just reaching.



Calgary is one of the least green cities in Canada when it comes to trees, so Im not quite sure what you're talking about. Virtually every tree in this city was planted (take a look at old shots of Mount Royal, it was practically prairie). Besides, all the great green spaces are in already developed communities, no?

The problem with new suburban neighborhoods is that instead of working with the available natural beauty and adding to it, we just bulldoze the crap out of it (and then promply rename the community with whatever we destroyed) and then sprinkle in some new sapplings and call it a day.

One of my biggest desires for the city is that we all plant more trees on our lots....its great for character for the city, good for the environment, and increases your property value. what's not to like?

And don't play dumb, I wasn't suggesting we go develop Fish Creek Park (or anything even resembling a park). There are tons of concrete parking lots and wasteland out there that are begging to be developed.

Besides, ff you love your greenspace so much, why are you advocating new communities being built on the existing greenery around the city? You would think that if you loved your greenspaces so much you would be for a lesser footprint of concrete, not a bigger one.

well so thats what you think. who are you to decide what is ok for the city. i happen to have no problem with the way the houses look in the suburbs and dont care much for your "character" housing look and tree's.

just because you want to be a snob and think everyone has to live in a Kensington type neighborhood, not all of us want to. i like driving my 2 SUV's to go and get a video from the strip mall or to take my kids to their soccer game.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I did back it up read my post. That guy just decided to make a statement and not back it up. You should be talking to him.

If you are not able to make a point without suggesting that someone is on crack then maybe you should post somewhere else.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Table 5

oh please, now your just reaching.

Am I? I'm assuming that you like them because they are different. How many different designs are there possible? If the city was full of these kind of neighborhoods, how different would these be?

Originally Posted by Table 5

Calgary is one of the least green cities in Canada when it comes to trees, so Im not quite sure what you're talking about. Virtually every tree in this city was planted (take a look at old shots of Mount Royal, it was practically prairie). Besides, all the great green spaces are in already developed communities, no?

Of course there aren't the natural trees around. We're in the prairie. News to me that only trees are green.

There are lots of green spaces around - lots of GRASS. The parks, the back yards, etc, They're all green. There is lots of green in Calgary.

Originally Posted by Table 5

And don't play dumb, I wasn't suggesting we go develop Fish Creek Park (or anything even resembling a park). There are tons of concrete parking lots and wasteland out there that are begging to be developed.

Sure there are lots of parking lots. People need places to park.

I just don't understand the planning of our Downtown right now. Across from Stampede Park, they're doing exactly what you are proposing. They're building high rise apartments/condos where a former parking lot existed.

What there does not appear to be a plan for... where are all those people and those that used to park in that lot going to park now? There's a reason why it was a parking lot to start with. Unless a huge parkade is going to be built (fat chance of that), it's just increasing the huge downtown parking issue.


Putting words in your mouth: You want higher density with more green space (sorry.. tree space), and designed around public transit.

On the surface they appear fine, but until the public transit is there, it isn't possible to take away the parking that we have. If not taking away the parking, it has to be green spaces that are taken away.

Take Garrison Woods as an example. In the picture above, there is lots of green space... and medium density condos/townhouses. The same space with that could house the same number of people, each with their own house and yard. Same end result, different building concept. How is that helping anything? Because it looks different? Because we can later build more medium density condos/townhouses where that green space was before?

I don't get your point apparently.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by 300spartans

Calgarians love their cars and we want lots of roads for them. But look at all that congestion! Just build more and bigger roads! Sadly, this is the fallacy of modernistic rationalism, let's build more roads to solve the problem even though there are countless studies that show that INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF ROADS WILL INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF USERS. Your roads will be congested again in a few years. What are you going to do then? The engineers and politicians will say BUILD MORE ROADS OF COURSE! Now I love cars, I'm definetly not anti-car, but I question the wisdom of addressing transportation and traffic issues by simply addressing one area. Any solution that tries to fix our transportation issues has to be holistic. Don't just focus on roads, focus on public transit as well. The LRT system is a GREAT thing but it could be ALOT better. All those earlier garden suburbs were serviced by amazing rail links, why cant we do that?

Unless transit is built, roads will continue to be needed. My brother used to take the express bus from my house in Coventry. Unfortunately, the hours for it meant that he would usually just catch the last bus. If he missed it (slept in an extra 5 minutes), he'd have to wait for a huge amount of time and then spend another huge amount of time on a regular bus, or drive himself. If there was LRT, or more express busses, he'd still be using them.

It's a constant trade-off. Time is becoming more and more valueable as our city becomes more and more busy. The transit has to be built, not just planned... and for all parts of the city, not just to and from downtown... and it doesn't seem like it'll come any time soon.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Urban sprawl affects more than just the pocket book and the environment. It affects your health aswell.

Interesting article from Florida

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...owth-headlines

I use to take me an hour to drive to work every day and then an hour to drive back, and that was on the highway. Now it only takes me 15 mins. I cant tell you how much less stress there is for me, not to mention the extra time I have to sleep, do hobbies, or anything else that I couldn't do before because I spent 2 hours a day driving.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Of course there aren't the natural trees around. We're in the prairie. News to me that only trees are green.

There are lots of green spaces around - lots of GRASS. The parks, the back yards, etc, They're all green. There is lots of green in Calgary.

I'm with Table 5 on this. The biggest reason I find our city aesthetically unattractive is the lack of trees. If you go west on 17th avenue you will find an area full of natural forest. Oh wait... that was a year ago, they bulldozed it now. Why can't they leave backyards full of trees? Sure knock down the trees for the streets and houses, but leave the back yards! I would pay so much to have a yard full of natural forest. Oh well.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I'm with Table 5 on this. The biggest reason I find our city aesthetically unattractive is the lack of trees. If you go west on 17th avenue you will find an area full of natural forest. Oh wait... that was a year ago, they bulldozed it now. Why can't they leave backyards full of trees? Sure knock down the trees for the streets and houses, but leave the back yards! I would pay so much to have a yard full of natural forest. Oh well.

It's much cheaper to build houses with all the bare land, and with no tree roots to fight with.

Buy the trees, plant them and wait a few years. It may not be 100% natural, but once they grow you won't know the difference... and it'll safe you money too.

[sclitheroe]

I think urban sprawl might also be indicative of the demographics of a city. Young families with small children don't want to live in condos and downtown high density neighborhoods. They want smaller streets, local parks and playing fields, and the feeling of safety associated with a suburb community, and knowing all the neighbors, mostly for the sake of the kids.

I used to live downtown (Bromley Square, FWIW), now I live in the farthest flung reaches of the sprawl (Evanston), and to be frank, it's great. It's quiet, it's away from the core, my kids can run around safely, and yes, there is lots of green space (mostly cause we almost fall off the map of Calgary...for now). I can remember when we didn't even have transit, and I had to walk 20 minutes to catch the first of two busses, including the dreaded #3, and it was still worth it back then.

So the burbs and sprawl definitely aren't a bad thing for everyone.

-Scott

[jolinar of malkshor]

I will be the first to say that I want my own piece of grass and a backyard. But it is starting to get carried away. I think something needs to be done, not sure what tho

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Take Garrison Woods as an example. In the picture above, there is lots of green space... and medium density condos/townhouses. The same space with that could house the same number of people, each with their own house and yard. Same end result, different building concept. How is that helping anything? Because it looks different? Because we can later build more medium density condos/townhouses where that green space was before?

C'mon Calculoso, look at a row of houses and a row of townhouses and tell me that there's not a higher number of people on the same patch of land. You're calling a backyard greenspace but that's PRIVATE greenspace, that doesn't do joe citizen much good when he's not allowed on it. An open park has communal benefits, not just for the immediate homeowner. Townhouses also have a bit of backyard/greenspace, just less of it.

You keep using Garrison Woods, head down to River Run / Erlton behind Talisman center as an example of medium high density has fit a lot more people into a given area. Garrison Woods and the issue of "greenspace" is bound as there are restrictions on what can be built where.

As for Stampede Station, prelim plans do have a rather large parkade planned. The City's strategy is to limit parking spaces to discourage people from driving in, as there are not enough roads to support it. Makes sense to me, but I'll be the 1st to admit that the transit system is woefully inadequate.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that the townhouse/high rise condo lifestyle is not for everyone. I lived 2 blocks from Bromley Square and I certainly wouldn't want to raise kids there. However, I think our culture and traditions tells us that "Kids & Family = Suburbia" and we instinctively look towards single family detached when the time comes a calling. That's a decision made by the individual - and understandable if they do so.

My belief is that they should be prepared to pay a hefty premium if you choose to want a brand new single detached house in a new suburb. Yep, attached to the purchase price would be a fee to fund a new interchange and roads between you and downtown (so a new Glenmore/Elbow interchange would be directly funded (partly only) by new suburbian residents), capital and operating costs of a new school, capital and operating costs for Police/Fire/EMS. The current city "fee" covers some of the capital costs for items in the immediate neighborhood, but doesn't cover operating costs of new services, or capital costs outside of the immediate area. Would be better for residents of a new community too, as you wouldn't have to wait 5-7 years for a new elementary school, or interchange.

(this also means the City would need to collect this fee and ACTUALLY use it for it's intended purpose, not plow it into general revenues)

To dodge this new "full cost fee", of course you could get a house in an older established areas such as Varsity or Ranchlands/Hawkwood where infrastructure exists. Price will inevitably rise in these areas, but the "full cost" fee should better equalize and incentivize the decision to move to established areas, vs just moving to a new subdivision. As property values rise, you'd also see density increase via more duplexes and infills being built, as you see in Sunnyside/West Hillhurst right now.

Not saying this is a perfect proposal by anymeans - affordability becomes a concern, but this raises an interesting question - at what point in a city's growth should the "dream" of single detached houses for all families not be a reality? Your average New Yorker doesn't run for the burbs when they have kids, nor does the average Vancouverite as it's just not possible. Should there always be an expectation that single family detached housing be available for all?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

C'mon Calculoso, look at a row of houses and a row of townhouses and tell me that there's not a higher number of people on the same patch of land. You're calling a backyard greenspace but that's PRIVATE greenspace, that doesn't do joe citizen much good when he's not allowed on it. An open park has communal benefits, not just for the immediate homeowner. Townhouses also have a bit of backyard/greenspace, just less of it.
You keep using Garrison Woods, head down to River Run / Erlton behind Talisman center as an example of medium high density has fit a lot more people into a given area. Garrison Woods and the issue of "greenspace" is bound as there are restrictions on what can be built where.

Garrison Woods wasn't my example, but I was running with it anyway.

Take a look at that one row of townhouses and then the amount of green space in front of it. Take that whole area and build two rows of houses, with small yards (found in many new area developments).

I think the amount of people would be similar, if not the same, in both instances.

If you want to take the area of green space in Garrison Woods and build another row of townhouses, then of course you can fit more people in there... but then there isn't the green space to compensate.

Sure backyard green space is Private land... but if everyone has their own private land then it's more of a moot point. Most of the time, I find that backyards get used a lot more than those typical ajoining public lawns, unless it's a big park like Edworthy Park.

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

As for Stampede Station, prelim plans do have a rather large parkade planned. The City's strategy is to limit parking spaces to discourage people from driving in, as there are not enough roads to support it. Makes sense to me, but I'll be the 1st to admit that the transit system is woefully inadequate.

That's great that they have the parkade planned! Too bad they have to let everyone get frustrated with the lack of parking and lack of transport in the meantime. Nothing like testing to see how mad people get, hey?

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

My belief is that they should be prepared to pay a hefty premium if you choose to want a brand new single detached house in a new suburb.

If the inner city was more affordable, people wouldn't be living in the suburbs. It's not always a choice. I'd much rather live closer to the inner city... I just can't afford it.

As people move here from elsewhere in the country/world, the city will need to expand. Unless all the current buildings in the city are to expand, new ones will need to be built... and unless there's room in the inner city, they'll have to be built outside of that.

This new hefty premium for, really, having no choice as to where you live would just make people move to Airdrie and Strathmore, then commute to Calgary. If this were to happen, you'd still have the expenses of the roads and overpasses, only you'd have absolutely NO tax revenue from these folks. Which is the better solution? A little bit or none?

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Not saying this is a perfect proposal by anymeans - affordability becomes a concern, but this raises an interesting question - at what point in a city's growth should the "dream" of single detached houses for all families not be a reality? Your average New Yorker doesn't run for the burbs when they have kids, nor does the average Vancouverite as it's just not possible. Should there always be an expectation that single family detached housing be available for all?

It's not an option in New York and Vancouver because they don't have the land, and the commute from those areas would be hellish. Eventually, this question will answer itself. If trying to commute downtown from Canmore every day is the only option you have to get a single family detached house, it will make the decision a lot more comparable to those that New Yorkers and Vancouverites have to deal with. We're not at that point. It's apples and oranges.