Latte Sipping, YOP Gobbling Urban Planning Megathread

[Maccalus]

On Saturday I went to the information session regarding the area south of SETON. Yes, this is south of the new hospital. They had presentation boards of 3 proposed community plans to draw ideas from.

I apologize for some of the poor pictures. I didn't look at them after I took them till later.

Civitas

Spoiler!

P + A

Spoiler!

Awful curvy road design

Spoiler!

[Clarkey]

I think that now that the city has seemed to start to get a grasp on managing development on the perimeter it is time to manage sprawl on the interior. Sunnyside, West Hillhurst, Briar Hill, Banff Trail and all the other similar 'inner city' neighbourhoods I'm too vanilla/suburban to know about need to start rezoning for 3 story, 4 plexes or bigger, secondary suites, and multiplexes. Single detached homes in Bridgeland on 50x120' lots make less sense than 50x120' lots in Dalhousie or Varsity (so called inner city now but was sprall of the 70's) or even farther for that matter.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

I think that now that the city has seemed to start to get a grasp on managing development on the perimeter it is time to manage sprawl on the interior. Sunnyside, West Hillhurst, Briar Hill, Banff Trail and all the other similar 'inner city' neighbourhoods I'm too vanilla/suburban to know about need to start rezoning for 3 story, 4 plexes or bigger, secondary suites, and multiplexes. Single detached homes in Bridgeland on 50x120' lots make less sense than 50x120' lots in Dalhousie or Varsity (so called inner city now but was sprall of the 70's) or even farther for that matter.

To me this is so mey in fighting growth outwards. A portion of taxation should be based on the land you occupy. And possibly additional fees for occupying premium land that sits under-densified. Reshaping the innercity should be a priority and current property owners should be incentivised and penalized for their development choices.

There should be no 50 foot lots with SFHs in the Latte district.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

To me this is so mey in fighting growth outwards. A portion of taxation should be based on the land you occupy. And possibly additional fees for occupying premium land that sits under-densified. Reshaping the innercity should be a priority and current property owners should be incentivised and penalized for their development choices.

There should be no 50 foot lots with SFHs in the Latte district.

There's really no need to start bulldozing houses in Sunnyside (or to incentivize that) with so much undeveloped inner city land available for growth.

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by SebC

There's really no need to start bulldozing houses in Sunnyside (or to incentivize that) with so much undeveloped inner city land available for growth.

I would argue for some need for it to provide greater variety of density. The undeveloped inner city land (aka parking lots) is good for midrise to highrise apartments. The SFH sunnyside style lots can be used for Duplexes, fourplexes, row houses and townhouses. Uses that increase density, but still preserve the yards that many people want.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

I think that now that the city has seemed to start to get a grasp on managing development on the perimeter it is time to manage sprawl on the interior. Sunnyside, West Hillhurst, Briar Hill, Banff Trail and all the other similar 'inner city' neighbourhoods I'm too vanilla/suburban to know about need to start rezoning for 3 story, 4 plexes or bigger, secondary suites, and multiplexes. Single detached homes in Bridgeland on 50x120' lots make less sense than 50x120' lots in Dalhousie or Varsity (so called inner city now but was sprall of the 70's) or even farther for that matter.

City of Calgary density is 1,329/km2 (2011).
Sunnyside density is 3,700/km2 (2012).

Plus there is plenty of infill development, and 3 midrise condo projects under construction or breaking ground soon (Pixel, Lido, Ven). The current ARP allows plenty of room for extra density, so I think Sunnyside is doing a very good job of what you believe it isn't doing.

Once again it isn't just about building high-density buildings, it is about creating communities that have ALL the housing options available to residents (SFH, townhome, 4 plexes, apartments, mid-rise, high-rise, and all the other options in between) and hopefully at all price points, to encourage good diversity of residents.

[Bigtime]

What do you all think of this, a 10' x 10', 2 floor micro-home:

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2013/10/2...er-micro-home/

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

There's really no need to start bulldozing houses in Sunnyside (or to incentivize that) with so much undeveloped inner city land available for growth.

There is undeveloped land for Condos, not so much for small lot SFHs or town homes. I think a real need in the inner city is more family friendly housing. The demand for sprawl is because people aren't willing to make the sacrifice of Two Car garage SFH for Condo. I think a lot more people would be willing to make the sacrifice for a small yard town house with a garage.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by GGG

There is undeveloped land for Condos, not so much for small lot SFHs or town homes. I think a real need in the inner city is more family friendly housing. The demand for sprawl is because people aren't willing to make the sacrifice of Two Car garage SFH for Condo. I think a lot more people would be willing to make the sacrifice for a small yard town house with a garage.

I'm not even sure if it's the two car garage that inner-city people want. When they're not trapped in the unwalkable suburbs, families can easily get by with one (or even zero) vehicles. The real problem is the section I bolded: nobody is building three bedroom condos at a price affordable for most families. I know of at least one couple who stayed in their 2BR inner city condo after having their first child but left for the suburbs -- out of necessity, not by preference -- when baby #2 was on the way. Young families who would like to live near the core have no viable housing option except to contribute to suburban sprawl once they have two or more children.

[tete]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm not even sure if it's the two car garage that inner-city people want. When they're not trapped in the unwalkable suburbs, families can easily get by with one (or even zero) vehicles. The real problem is the section I bolded: nobody is building three bedroom condos at a price affordable for most families. I know of at least one couple who stayed in their 2BR inner city condo after having their first child but left for the suburbs -- out of necessity, not by preference -- when baby #2 was on the way. Young families who would like to live near the core have no viable housing option except to contribute to suburban sprawl once they have two or more children.

Very true. We're currently living in a 2 bdrm Beltline condo with our 22 month old and we figure we can have one more kid and stay for at least a few years after in this condo. However, when the kids get older, we'll have to look for something else. And right now, most 3 bdrm condos in Beltline are going for over a million, which is crazy. We love the area we live in and I just can't imagine having to move out to the burbs and become a commuter family simply because we have more than one kid. We don't need a yard, (though we'd need one parking spot, I'm not giving up my car TYVM), but 2 bedrooms just isn't practical for many families. I just pray that by the time we're contemplating moving, there'll be more family-oriented development in the core - and I mean CORE, easy walking distance to downtown, not this "if you're inside Glenmore Trail you're considered inner city and we'll build all the family stuff out there" crap.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm not even sure if it's the two car garage that inner-city people want. When they're not trapped in the unwalkable suburbs, families can easily get by with one (or even zero) vehicles. The real problem is the section I bolded: nobody is building three bedroom condos at a price affordable for most families. I know of at least one couple who stayed in their 2BR inner city condo after having their first child but left for the suburbs -- out of necessity, not by preference -- when baby #2 was on the way. Young families who would like to live near the core have no viable housing option except to contribute to suburban sprawl once they have two or more children.

This is my situation essentially, the time 6 years ago we looked in the inner city and didn't find anything in the single car garage, attached, enough grass to put a small swing set in / kick around a soccer ball that fit in the price range so off to the burbs it was. The only options were Condos or 100 year old fixers/bulldozers. I also moved my job south so I don't have to commute but I miss the food. 1 car is very feasable in the burbs as long as one person doesn't have to commute.

I was okay with attached housing just not Condos. I looked recently and there were a few developments that were getting closer in that range but not really.

Raising the price of the suburbs by offsetting the costs will only increase all housing price so still doesn't address the situation. I'm not sure how to get better family housing into the inner city but to me thats the bottleneck to reducing sprawl.

[Maccalus]

It sounds like we need to get together and start our own CP inner city family housing development company. There could be a business opening for it.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

What do you all think of this, a 10' x 10', 2 floor micro-home:]

As a college student or single person living on an extremely tight budget, I think that would be totally fine. Definitely not ideal, but you get the most important thing....privacy. Id rather live in something like that than a dorm, or share space with a room-mate (hey polak?!). At that age you don't spend that much time at home anyway.

[burn_this_city]

I wouldn't be too keen to live in a shed or a shipping container, the tree fort is enticing, but I doubt my wife would be on board.

[Knalus]

That microhome actually looks like a viable guest house. Also, it's small enough that it meets calgary bylaw to register as a shed. Place it beside a garage, and bam, extra living space for a decent price.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Pages/...e-or-Shed.aspx

Garages and sheds

A Building Permit is required for all residential garages and all yard sheds including garden sheds over 10 square metres in area. This information covers requirements for garages and/or sheds that are not attached to a house. For garages attached to a residence, see Additions.

Plumbing could be an issue, though. Looks like they have a model with no plumbing in it.

[GGG]

That is almost the perfect live in Nanny suite and it in theory only costs what developing your basement would.

[Ozy_Flame]

I don't want to give the Sun anymore attention, but I had to post this. Not sure whether to laugh or to cry:

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/11/09...t-city-council

What a way to start the column too:

"One of the cool things about politics is that often everybody’s wrong.

Conventional wisdom in the municipal election was pretty clear.

It was a victory for what my colleague Rick Bell calls the latte lifters.

The urbanists.

Urbanists, in case you don’t recognize the term, are pretentious faddists who hate the suburbs where 87% of city dwelling Canadians reside.

But they like public art and woonerfs.

They like bicycle-share programs and public transit and mistake their esthetic preferences for morality.

They love high-density housing so much that they have a long-term strategy to force you to live in it, too."

[GGG]

I also like how they say the urbanists support transit instead of cars when by far mos of the transit users carry their yops on the train with them. Outside of roads billion dollar train lines are probably the next biggest enabler of the burbs.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I don't want to give the Sun anymore attention, but I had to post this. Not sure whether to laugh or to cry:

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/11/09...t-city-council

What a way to start the column too:

"One of the cool things about politics is that often everybody’s wrong.

Conventional wisdom in the municipal election was pretty clear.

It was a victory for what my colleague Rick Bell calls the latte lifters.

The urbanists.

Urbanists, in case you don’t recognize the term, are pretentious faddists who hate the suburbs where 87% of city dwelling Canadians reside.

But they like public art and woonerfs.

They like bicycle-share programs and public transit and mistake their esthetic preferences for morality.

They love high-density housing so much that they have a long-term strategy to force you to live in it, too."

I like this author's bio. He should work for FOX news.

"He worked as a reporter and editor for seven Ontario newspapers before fleeing to Alberta after the NDP formed a government in his home province." He makes himself sound like a suffering refugee who has escaped a bloody civil war in his home country.

[HOWITZER]

Came across this tonight, thought it would be nice to share. At least it's the desert, but I'd love to see this type of gif for Calgary over the last 50 years. What a poor choice of use of 1000s of acres of prime fertile land.



EDIT: Further to that, here's a link to a few more cities with 30 years of sprawl captured in photos.

YOP Gobbler Paradise

EDIT2:What do you know, found the site. This is quite a powerful site, encourage all of you to explore and spend some time looking.

TIME World Timelapse