David Suzuki calls Calgary an "ecological disaster"

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Does that not say to the world that you know better for all people's living desires/needs and that 'Proper research' ( Research on what exactly?) suggets living inner-city would be the only logical conclusion?

Wow, jump to conclusions much? That's quite the leap of faith to believe that comes across as being 'arrogant'. You're making quite the inference by suggesting that. My comment does not in any way 'say to the world that (I) know better for all people's living desires/needs and that 'Proper research' suggests living inner-city would be the only logical conclusion.' You came to that conclusion yourself.

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

How is moon arrogant in suggesting that in a perfect world he can live in his 2000 sq. house in the burbs and you can live in your inner city condo and that striving to satisfy both of your needs/desires is probably a better compromise than forcing a good number of unwilling people to scale down their lifestyles?

He`s saying that he has the choice to live out there, for which we have all agreed he has the choice to do, and without question. Try to keep up.

If you`re also implying that living inner-city is `scaling` down one`s lifestyle, I`d say you you`re making quite the generalization. QUITE the generalization.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Muta

Wow, jump to conclusions much? That's quite the leap of faith to believe that comes across as being 'arrogant'. You're making quite the inference by suggesting that. My comment does not in any way 'say to the world that (I) know better for all people's living desires/needs and that 'Proper research' suggests living inner-city would be the only logical conclusion.' You came to that conclusion yourself.



He`s saying that he has the choice to live out there, for which we have all agreed he has the choice to do, and without question. Try to keep up.

If you`re also implying that living inner-city is `scaling` down one`s lifestyle, I`d say you you`re making quite the generalization. QUITE the generalization.

What did you mean by the 'proper research' comment then?

Maybe force was the wrong phrase to describe what you were meaning, maybe you really meant 'provide financial and social disincentive against living in the suburbs."

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Muta

If you`re also implying that living inner-city is `scaling` down one`s lifestyle, I`d say you you`re making quite the generalization. QUITE the generalization.

But it's true. Assume for a second you were living in a high-rise condo downtown. Assuming you pay full condo fees in a well-run building, scaling down includes not worrying about home security, not worrying about mowing grass, not worrying about shoveling walks, not worrying about sewage/electrical/piping (condo does it), not worrying about landscaping, and many more. Not to mention not worrying about having to drive (much), spend money on gas, and sit in traffic. I've instantly scaled down on household and daily chores by having this.

I'd say that's scaling down, wouldn't you?

My life has drastically improved since I moved to a condo. I've scaled down on material goods, time spent getting places, and spending money on otherwise suburbanite issues such as spending money on gas.

I'm not saying im RIGHT, but I am saying I have scaled down, and so has almost everyone else I know in my high-rise complex.

[RougeUnderoos]

What a weird conversation. A lot of "nobody has the right to tell us what kind of house we can live in".

Well, the city has that right. They have it right now. They have a mandate to make sure the city actually works, and doesn't just cater to "what someone wants". To make it work, they are going to have to stop building freeways and sending garbage trucks and pipes out past the horsey-jumping place one way and Airdrie the other. It just can't go on like this. It doesn't make sense to just build out and out and out and out. When does it end?

I have enjoyed the numerous suggestions along the lines of "they aren't going to force me and my family to live in an apartment downtown, I want a yard".

It's like saying "nobody's going to force me to wear women's clothes".

That's true, but I don't think anyone out there is considering it, so don't worry about it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well, the city has that right. They have it right now. They have a mandate to make sure the city actually works, and doesn't just cater to "what someone wants". To make it work, they are going to have to stop building freeways and sending garbage trucks and pipes out past the horsey-jumping place one way and Airdrie the other. It just can't go on like this. It doesn't make sense to just build out and out and out and out. When does it end?

The city has the right to stop developing itself outward, but the city can't stop sprawl either. If the city stops, then people who want the suburban lifestyle just move to Airdrie, Okotoks, Cochrane, Chestermere and Strathmore. The city can't stop it, and the city can't stop people from commuting into Calgary. Highways are provincially controlled. If the city stops growing out, all it will find is that the above mentioned cities will grow into it instead. And instead of Calgary getting the tax money from those residents, the cities and the MDs get it.

Calgary grows out because that is what the residents want. And the residents are willing to pay the associated tax burdens to support it. Calgary is going to continue to grow out until it bumps into other communities. I guess the midly good thing about that is that it is already happening. The city is walled off to the SW by the T'suu Tina reserve, and is rapidly connecting with Airdrie, Chestermere and Okotoks.

The city is starting to do good things about growing up rather than out, especially with the mandate of high density around all C-train stations, but there is no point in complaining about the city growing out, because it isn't the city that's responsible. It's the people.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The city has the right to stop developing itself outward, but the city can't stop sprawl either. If the city stops, then people who want the suburban lifestyle just move to Airdrie, Okotoks, Cochrane, Chestermere and Strathmore. The city can't stop it, and the city can't stop people from commuting into Calgary. Highways are provincially controlled. If the city stops growing out, all it will find is that the above mentioned cities will grow into it instead. And instead of Calgary getting the tax money from those residents, the cities and the MDs get it.

Calgary grows out because that is what the residents want. And the residents are willing to pay the associated tax burdens to support it. Calgary is going to continue to grow out until it bumps into other communities. I guess the midly good thing about that is that it is already happening. The city is walled off to the SW by the T'suu Tina reserve, and is rapidly connecting with Airdrie, Chestermere and Okotoks.

The city is starting to do good things about growing up rather than out, especially with the mandate of high density around all C-train stations, but there is no point in complaining about the city growing out, because it isn't the city that's responsible. It's the people.

This isn't directed at you, Resolute. You seem to present a neutral stance and logical/objective explanation of the facts. Its just that the facts in this case are striking and I am using the bold text to illustrate a point.

Does not this sense of entitlement simply because we have dollars to pay for it coupled with the idea that somehow that justifies a complete disregard/lack of sense of environmental responsibility just a little bit effin' scary?

[Nancy]

Part of the mythology of Calgary is that this is a white collar town where most people have downtown office jobs. In fact, less than 25% of Calgary's workforce works downtown. Calgary is not, in fact, Manhattan, nor is it Vancouver. I work nowhere near downtown. I go downtown only a handful of times per year. It would take me 30 minutes to commute to work if I lived there. Currently, it takes me 15-20 mins to get to work from the suburb where I live. I can also get downtown in 15 minutes in the evening. And you know what... I live on the very edge of the city. If this is such a sprawling city, how in fact is this possible?

[Bunk]

IF you want to see how Calgary is beginning to retrofit itself to a more sustainable future, look at the Brentwood Station Area Plan - currently in circulation. Basically all the text in it is mine (I'm one of the planners on the job)

Taking the existing low scale suburban mall and parking lots:



Current lack of real streets or blocks:


New network of streets and blocks:




Introducing parks and open spaces


Land Use precincts and development parcels:



Built form






The massing of buildings


Read the full draft plan here:

http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/...ntwood_sap.pdf

We also did Banff Trail and Lions Park.

http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server....nning+Area.htm

[Traditional_Ale]

^ Thanks for that killer post. Also, if you don't mind me saying...nice work man!

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by moon

And why would all those that support the idea care if it was "forced"? Isn't that what you want? The city to step in and "force" the public to have a bit more balance in the development of the city?

Personally I don't want it to be forced, just aided. I think as Calgary changes and the demographic of people living there changes, it will be desired change by much of the population anyway, and it won't be forced. This change is already happening IMO.
Perhaps I misunderstood your position, but the point I'm trying to address is that no matter how much urban density becomes a part of Calgary, the suburbs will always also be a part of Calgary and those who love the suburbs don't have much to worry about, nothing is being forced on them.
I don't have anything against those who want 3000 sq foot homes and 1 hour commutes, I just personally wish Calgary had more of the opposite, and more people who desired that.

[Muta]

Wicked post, josh white. This is exactly what needs to be happening. EXACTLY.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by josh white

IF you want to see how Calgary is beginning to retrofit itself to a more sustainable future, look at the Brentwood Station Area Plan - currently in circulation. Basically all the text in it is mine (I'm one of the planners on the job)

Taking the existing low scale suburban mall and parking lots:

(snip)

We also did Banff Trail and Lions Park.

I didn't read any of the links, but I am REALLY hoping that some kind of LRT parking is being kept in the picture. Brentwood is an insanely busy Park and Ride and eliminating the parking lots is going to seriously affect the LRT ridership, even with the Crowfoot (etc) park and rides being developed.

Banff Trail and Lions Park have virtually no parking at them, and it affect the usage of the LRT platforms greatly.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Banff Trail and Lions Park have virtually no parking at them, and it affect the usage of the LRT platforms greatly.

McMahon?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

This isn't directed at you, Resolute. You seem to present a neutral stance and logical/objective explanation of the facts. Its just that the facts in this case are striking and I am using the bold text to illustrate a point.

Does not this sense of entitlement simply because we have dollars to pay for it coupled with the idea that somehow that justifies a complete disregard/lack of sense of environmental responsibility just a little bit effin' scary?

Depends on how you look at it. For most, if not all of us, either our next car or the car after it will be a hybrid. As even Suzuki mentioned, the city is helping to develop wind power to help cut down on the need for fossil fuels to generate. From an environmental standpoint, emerging technologies are helping to reduce the environmental impact. Obviously there are other issues that aren't really being addressed yet, so far as I know, i.e.: sustainable water resources.

In the last decade, I've lived all three major lifestyles argued in this thread. I grew up in Airdrie, and commuted from there to south-central Calgary for work for three years. I then spent nearly six years living two blocks from work in an apartment. I now live in Cranston, and drive.

My personal taste leans towards living close to work and condo living. I only live in the suburbs now to help a friend. But in all three cases, I can see the positives for people, and I can see the negatives.

The ultimate sustainability of sprawled metropolises will be determined by the technologies we develop in the future. Hamstringing people in Calgary today for being like every single other metro in the world isn't fair to the people here. Cities grow until they hit an impassable block. As much as Suzuki calls Calgary an ecological disaster, we're really no different than his own back yard.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As much as Suzuki calls Calgary an ecological disaster, we're really no different than his own back yard.

I think there's 2 major differences from his backyard (Vancouver), but neither are the fault of Calgarians.
1) Greater Vancouver is made up of many municipalities who have to pay their own taxes. Therefore people living in Whiterock, don't have the economical impart on this in DT Vancouver, the same way Calgarians do on each other.
2)Vancouverites desire high density living much more then Calgarians, but Calgary is smaller and younger than Van, with different geographical elements, and will also change with time.

[Phanuthier]

Now I understand Calgary for the culture it is, its a city of single family homes where kids can play in the backyard and so on. But as Calgary transforms into a big city, it just isn't feasible to keep on having these 2500 sq ft lots. Hey, Calgary might have been that way for years, but the city and its population is changing, and the suburban sprawl just isn't going to work. I agree with DS here, but man did he ever present it in a pretencious manner.

Calgary expanding out rather then up will be Detriot. The old attitudes of those thinking they can do whatever the hell they want without consequence - whether they care about it or not - is a little dumb founding. And these are probably the same attitudes that don't like to see a $25M spent on a bridge; instead, they want to see $25M highways going out to there 2500 sq ft lots. The end result is we're going to see Calgary be one big, boring, ugly POS city.

I have to agree with Muta here, build communities more efficient. I've read alot of Mutas posts the past month, and his idea (not exactly revolutionizing or anything) of building a more beutiful, efficient city is exactly what Calgary needs. We need to see a certain % of people in the downtown. We need to have more efficient communities to cut down on the among of car usage. We need to try and find ways to be more efficient with how we burn up fuels, ref: Deerfoot flood of SUV's and 2 ton trucks. With better proportioned population density, hopefully we can start seeing a more effectively used, efficiently run, and increased frequency of public transit. I remember years ago, idaes were thrown out there to shut down the traffic in the downtown - in some way shape or form, I would love to see the downtown lighten the amount of traffic and supplemented by public transportation in some way.

What I would like to see is property taxes go up to help compensate for all these major roads. People who think they have some sort of fundamental right toown 3000 sq ft of land and pay low taxes just dumbfounds me. Since services have to go out of their way to cater to these spatial-needy sprawlers, then they should have to cover the cost of it.

As for condo's being crappy, small places. Laugh. Ok I understand why young families would want homes, and thats fine. But lets not pretend living in a condo is like suffering under some sort of communist regime. I have friends living in condo's that are living like kings. Their gated community has a common clubhouse area with 2 BBQs, granite tabes, a patio with 3 pool table rec rooms beside a swimming pool and hot tub on one side of the rec room, and a showhome-type kitchen-bar on the other. Upstairs is a private theator tenants can rent for a small group, with 25 leather recliners and a mini bar to dine at while watching movies on (guess, approx) 15 ft x 25 ft screen and surround sound.
http://www.forrent.com/apartment-com...1000051684.php

[Daradon]

^^^ I think that's all anyone is saying. No one is begrudging anyone their acreage, only that if they are going to live so far away and take up so many resources WHILE still using the communities infrastructure and essentially costing the city more than the average person, their costs should be higher. And as resources dwindle, land use gets more populated, environmental cost and reclamation is increased, and costs increase, this luxury (luxury, not lifestyle) should also increase in cost at a rate that is fair for those costing the municipality less.

There would probably be less discussion if taxes or 'user fees' had a better system for sprawl.

Everyone likes to use the environment as a reason, but really it comes down to money and lifestyle.

It doesn't seem fair cause it's a relatively new idea, especially to these parts, but in it's essence all anyone is asking is that those who use the most, pay the most. Especially if there are environmental concerns which are being abused or can at the least, be prevented.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I have enjoyed the numerous suggestions along the lines of "they aren't going to force me and my family to live in an apartment downtown, I want a yard".

It's like saying "nobody's going to force me to wear women's clothes".

That's true, but I don't think anyone out there is considering it, so don't worry about it.

The city is absolutely considering it. They have looked at scenarios like 100% of development on exisiting lands with something like 80%+ being condos and the like.

They absolutely want people walking, living in condos, and staying in their neighbourhoods.

My concern is that this is all based on what one group of people 'knows' our ideal life ought to be. Historically that has not gone very well. and no one really knows the full implications.

[Bunk]

^You've been misinformed. You're probably referring to the "Plan-it" Calgary scenarios. One shows the one extreme of the status quo, the other extreme of growing completely within the existing built up area and the third is a hybrid, which contemplates slowing outward growth, encouraging intensification and designing subdivisions more efficiently to slow down outward growth.

No one realistically is contemplating either extreme - and if you read the plans you'd know that - they are simply meant to be illustrative of two extremes. The status quo is simply unsustainable, the no-outward growth scenario is neither realistic nor desirable (it acknowledges that 40% of the existing housing stock would have to be replaced). The answer HAS to be somewhere in the middle.

So, don't simply listen to the fear mongering from people about this plan. Investigate yourself what it REALLY says and then you'll not come off as so misinformed when you state such things.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by josh white

So, don't simply listen to the fear mongering from people about this plan. Investigate yourself what it REALLY says and then you'll not come off as so misinformed when you state such things.

I'm not sure if you were being patronizing or not but your characterization is unfair. I've read it, or should say versions of it, and was familiar with some discussions that preceded it. I don't pretend to be an expert and would obviously know less than you.

I'm not so much mis-informed as cynical. I know a bit about how city hall works, and have seen this movie before. Administration controls the options of council in the options provided and angles toward outcomes. Nothing nefarious in that, but you can see where things are headed by what's being presented.

The city DID look at extreme scenarios, and the goals IS to get more people living in higher densities. A lot more. Am I wrong about that?

Maybe you can tell me where it landed. 50% less single family housing? 30%? 70%? 50% less outward development? 30%? 70%? I'm not sure.

I'm not sugestting the world will change tomorrow or that some change isn't appropriate. I'm concerned with 2 things:
- most of what people call 'sprawl' in calgary is simply growth. Most characterizations like suzuki's are the ones that are misinformed or political.
- whatever the reponse it shoudl be driven by what people want, not by a very small isolated group making decisions for everyone.

'Sustainability' issues go way beyond the planning process. Trying to solve that global problem through the planning process is like trying to make your fat kid thin by buying him smaller shoes.