Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[timun]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Aren’t those neighbourhoods already being densified? Most of the properties in Altadore today are infills and new builds. It’s actually pretty rare to see an original home. Same thing is happening in Killarney, etc.

Yes, they are being densified. I didn't mean to insinuate it wasn't already happening, but it will need to continue.

Originally Posted by you&me

But neither of those areas follows much of an easily redevelopable grid pattern. They can be considered problematic when we start running low on parcels in those areas.

True, they don't have the grid pattern, and that makes redevelopment more difficult, but the problematic part is having this seemingly immutable covenant that says "these neighbourhoods shall always be very low-density, single-family homes." From an urban planning standpoint it's super dumb to have these neighbourhoods immediately adjacent to dense parts of our core. Scarboro is less of an issue because it kind of dead-ends at Crowchild Trail anyway, but Mount Royal covers a huge swath at the south end of the Beltline and is a barrier to making the neighbourhoods to the south and southwest of that—places like Altadore—more accessible to the core. Transit, for instance, would be a lot better for neighbourhoods like Altadore if Mount Royal was denser as it would justify more buses/shorter headways.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

It would be great if Calgary focused on building up, and making more compact neighborhoods. but I think the suburban dream is just too pervasive.

The great majority of people wind up having kids.

The great majority of people who have kids want to raise them in a detached home.

With two incomes, and often parents who are willing to shell out a lot of money to ensure their grandkids are raised in a house with a yard, many couples have the means to pay through the nose to upgrade from multi-unit to detached home.

And Calgary will increasingly be a destination for young families that can’t afford detached homes in other regions.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

It would be great if Calgary focused on building up, and making more compact neighborhoods. but I think the suburban dream is just too pervasive.

And easy. We have the available land and largely the available wages.

Until the costs start spiraling out of control.

[Party Elephant]

Originally Posted by Locke

And easy. We have the available land and largely the available wages.



Until the costs start spiraling out of control.

Building sprawl is easier and cheaper, but maintaining it is not. More roads, pipes, sewers spread out over a greater area with a smaller tax base, which I guess is what you were saying with "until the costs start spiraling out of control".

[Party Elephant]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Thanks for this.



Curious on some of your thoughts. Would a neighborhood like Altadore here in Calgary be something similar to the ideal neighborhood?

I'm not overly familiar with Altadore although I did bike down 20 st the other day and thought it seemed like a nice place. Is there a good amount of townhouses/apartments? And mixed use ie some stores and businesses scattered around the neighbourhood and not just concentrated on a commercial strip? I know it's a part of the city that is far from ctrain access so thats not ideal. How are the busses there?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Party Elephant

Building sprawl is easier and cheaper, but maintaining it is not. More roads, pipes, sewers spread out over a greater area with a smaller tax base, which I guess is what you were saying with "until the costs start spiraling out of control".

Right, the thing is we're on prairie, we dont have a natural physical barrier to stop us from building out.

The only barriers will be practicality and sustainability.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by timun

True, they don't have the grid pattern, and that makes redevelopment more difficult, but the problematic part is having this seemingly immutable covenant that says "these neighbourhoods shall always be very low-density, single-family homes." From an urban planning standpoint it's super dumb to have these neighbourhoods immediately adjacent to dense parts of our core. Scarboro is less of an issue because it kind of dead-ends at Crowchild Trail anyway, but Mount Royal covers a huge swath at the south end of the Beltline and is a barrier to making the neighbourhoods to the south and southwest of that—places like Altadore—more accessible to the core. Transit, for instance, would be a lot better for neighbourhoods like Altadore if Mount Royal was denser as it would justify more buses/shorter headways.

I guess I just don't see the urgency in worrying about the covenants protecting these areas as SFHs while there is absolutely no shortage of other areas of the inner city that are already zoned for higher density while also being in a more appropriate grid layout.

Once we've exhausted those options, I'd argue there are more egregious wastes of inner city land than the homes in Mount Royal... such as the Stampede grounds. It's not like having SFH neighbourhoods close to the city centre is unique to "Sprawlgary".

[#-3]

Correct me if I am wrong, but is Montreal not unlike Calgary. A sprawling suburban city with relatively low population density by urban standards.

Something that probably looks even worse when you control for region. In the case of Calgary, it's pretty common for interior western cities that are very spread out to have low density Calgary fits right in with SLC, Denver, Phoenix.... But when you compare Montreal other cities in the region of the same age and economic gravity (Boston, Pittsburgh, Toronto...) I'd think there low density is a major outlayer.

[marsplasticeraser]

Originally Posted by #-3

Correct me if I am wrong, but is Montreal not unlike Calgary. A sprawling suburban city with relatively low population density by urban standards.

Something that probably looks even worse when you control for region. In the case of Calgary, it's pretty common for interior western cities that are very spread out to have low density Calgary fits right in with SLC, Denver, Phoenix.... But when you compare Montreal other cities in the region of the same age and economic gravity (Boston, Pittsburgh, Toronto...) I'd think there low density is a major outlayer.

Having lived in Montreal I don’t feel it’s similar to Calgary. Maybe in the far suburbs, but I feel Montreal is closer to London England with attached houses and apartments over shops.

I think the vision for density is not skyscrapers, but more realistic density with attached homes, and a lot more 4-6 level, family-size condos. Think Buenos Aires or Paris. I look at this as livable density where building costs are reasonable, and you get enough density to support having everything you need within a short walk.

And obviously every city has suburbs and exurbs where a garden and more space is available.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

Having lived in Montreal I don’t feel it’s similar to Calgary. Maybe in the far suburbs, but I feel Montreal is closer to London England with attached houses and apartments over shops.

I think the vision for density is not skyscrapers, but more realistic density with attached homes, and a lot more 4-6 level, family-size condos. Think Buenos Aires or Paris. I look at this as livable density where building costs are reasonable, and you get enough density to support having everything you need within a short walk.

And obviously every city has suburbs and exurbs where a garden and more space is available.

I'm not saying it feels similar at all, but I believe Montreal and Calgary metro areas both occupy massive foot prints when considering their population sizes.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Party Elephant

Building sprawl is easier and cheaper, but maintaining it is not. More roads, pipes, sewers spread out over a greater area with a smaller tax base, which I guess is what you were saying with "until the costs start spiraling out of control".

But roads aren't really that expensive, and water is a utility that is self-funded.

The most expensive services for Calgary is policing , fire and transit; things that scale mainly with population, and police and fire incidents are often concentrated in the central core. And these days there is nothing more expensive for a city to build then rail through a built-up area. Calgary has about $10B allocated in its capital budget and over half of that is just the new Green Line LRT, which offers 0 benefits to suburban commuters in the North and just barely gets far enough in the SE to offer modest benefits..

[SebC]

Originally Posted by #-3

Correct me if I am wrong, but is Montreal not unlike Calgary. A sprawling suburban city with relatively low population density by urban standards.

Something that probably looks even worse when you control for region. In the case of Calgary, it's pretty common for interior western cities that are very spread out to have low density Calgary fits right in with SLC, Denver, Phoenix.... But when you compare Montreal other cities in the region of the same age and economic gravity (Boston, Pittsburgh, Toronto...) I'd think there low density is a major outlayer.

Per km^2

Montreal: 3889
Calgary: 1501

Toronto: 4334
Boston: 5143
Pittsburgh: 2112

NYC:10,413
San Fran: 6,659
Chicago: 4,582
Vancouver: 5,492

Other stats:
Montreal area: 431.5 km^2
Calgary area: 825.3 km^2

Looks to me like Montreal is right about where you'd expect in density, lower than bigger cities, higher than smaller ones.

The one that surprises me is Vancouver, given that it's mostly SFH. I guess the downtown density and not having empty space within the city limits is really lifting it up!

You are, however, correct that most of Montreal could be characterized as medium density rather than high density.

[ripTDR]

All the people I know want land to grow thier own s#it and do side hustles(a good friend just started growing specialty mushrooms - not the funny kind)


I would LOVE a huge garden, even if I had a sprawl home

[getbak]

Originally Posted by SebC

Per km^2

Montreal: 3889
Calgary: 1501

Toronto: 4334
Boston: 5143
Pittsburgh: 2112

NYC:10,413
San Fran: 6,659
Chicago: 4,582
Vancouver: 5,492

Other stats:
Montreal area: 431.5 km^2
Calgary area: 825.3 km^2

Looks to me like Montreal is right about where you'd expect in density, lower than bigger cities, higher than smaller ones.

The one that surprises me is Vancouver, given that it's mostly SFH. I guess the downtown density and not having empty space within the city limits is really lifting it up!

You are, however, correct that most of Montreal could be characterized as medium density rather than high density.

For these types of comparisons, it's better to look at urban density, which counts all of the built-up area in and around a city whether it's inside the city limits or not.

Calgary has historically annexed its smaller surrounding communities like Bowness, Forest Lawn, and Midnapore into the larger city. Many other large cities don't annex the surrounding communities, so they end up with a bunch of smaller cities making up the actual urban area.


The city of Vancouver's population is under 700,000, but the urban population is over 2.4 million. In Calgary, the city and urban populations are virtually identical at 1.3 million.

If you compare the urban density of the two cities, Vancouver is 2,661.3/km² and Calgary is 2,099.9/km².

[SebC]

Originally Posted by getbak

For these types of comparisons, it's better to look at urban density, which counts all of the built-up area in and around a city whether it's inside the city limits or not.


[...]

If you compare the urban density of the two cities, Vancouver is 2,661.3/km² and Calgary is 2,099.9/km².

Better depends on your goal. If one wants to see the impact of municipal policies on density, it makes more sense to look at municipalities. Throwing in the suburbs just muddies the waters. I thought Vancouver's was notable because the city proper already has very high density, yet it has some of the least affordable housing and most restrictive zoning.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

Better depends on your goal. If one wants to see the impact of municipal policies on density, it makes more sense to look at municipalities. Throwing in the suburbs just muddies the waters. I thought Vancouver's was notable because the city proper already has very high density, yet it has some of the least affordable housing and most restrictive zoning.

I think the lack of empty space is a factor. While Calgary isn't a very dense place, we have also annexed a bunch of land that isn't developed at all - in fact much of it has a growth management overlap specifically forbidding development. Having thousands of acres where density is effectively 0 skews the calculation.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by SebC

Better depends on your goal. If one wants to see the impact of municipal policies on density, it makes more sense to look at municipalities. Throwing in the suburbs just muddies the waters. I thought Vancouver's was notable because the city proper already has very high density, yet it has some of the least affordable housing and most restrictive zoning.

But Vancouver is the ultimate study in SFH NIMBYism. Other than downtown and a few other spots around False Creek, Vancouver proper is a sea of SFH. Land values suggest it should be exceptionally dense, and it would be but for NIMBYism.

To me, most of Vancouver proper is best thought of as one big Mount Royal or other similar expensive inner-city neighbourhood. Because of the geography, it's also a big step down in time and convenience to move out of Vancouver proper.

[Bunk]

It's not useful to compare just municipal boundaries. Calgary's also includes about 30% of its boundary as just empty land, which dramatically affects a density/land calculation. It's also a unicity vs Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto that are central municipalities that each each are less than half the population of their metros. In Vancouver's case, only about the inner most 25%.

[delayedreflex]

Originally Posted by accord1999

But roads aren't really that expensive, and water is a utility that is self-funded.

The most expensive services for Calgary is policing , fire and transit; things that scale mainly with population, and police and fire incidents are often concentrated in the central core. And these days there is nothing more expensive for a city to build then rail through a built-up area. Calgary has about $10B allocated in its capital budget and over half of that is just the new Green Line LRT, which offers 0 benefits to suburban commuters in the North and just barely gets far enough in the SE to offer modest benefits..

Do these things actually scale more with population, or with area? Policing I could see primarily scaling based on population, however fire services I would think would be a function of both population and area (given that they have to maintain a certain minimum response time, there likely needs to be a certain density of fire stations no matter how densely populated a particular area is), while it seems pretty obvious that transit scales much better the more dense the area is.

[Doctorfever]

As much as I like to call out JT for doing stupid stuff, I think I can give him a pass for singing Queen during his free time.

I am just glad he chose not to sing a song by an African American artist. He might have taken it too far.