Councillors green light public engagement on lowering city speed limits

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

That was part of the point. LA is a hell hole because they planned the whole thing around the car. Luckily NYC already had some critical mass in sanity because it was developed earlier.

But people in Calgary, and like, almost anywhere else in Canada outside of a small handful of major metropolitan centres, like a house with a yard. Is that because the car-centric planning made it possible?

I mean, you can easily spend 20 minutes walking through a neighbourhood and pass nothing but houses.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In fact, it's going to be difficult to impossible to enforce any new speed limits on most residential streets. They're not going to park a photo radar in front of Mr. and Mrs. Grundy's house in a suburban crescent or drive.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In fact, it's going to be difficult to impossible to enforce any new speed limits on most residential streets. They're not going to park a photo radar in front of Mr. and Mrs. Grundy's house in a suburban crescent or drive.

Is it the residential streets where they can make some money writing tickets though, or all those streets which are currently 50, and significant arteries that are suddenly 10km/hr less? They're not going to sit on my street and target people, partly because people are already driving ~30km/hr (due to the nature and design of the road), but they could have a field day "around the corner" on the more major streets that have been 50km/hr for decades.

I think this is going to result in a lot of fine revenue for the police force. I'm not cynical enough to think that this is why they're doing it, but it's a nice bonus for "keeping the streets safe".

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by 81MC

But people in Calgary, and like, almost anywhere else in Canada outside of a small handful of major metropolitan centres, like a house with a yard. Is that because the car-centric planning made it possible?

It's more accurate to say people in Calgary like the idea of having a house with a yard. In reality, those types of properties barely exist at all in this city. Go look at any random Calgary suburb of your choice on Google Maps satellite view and all you'll see is houses packed together to the minimum distance the building code allows with tiny "yards" that consist of a patch of grass that's barely larger than a typical home's living room. These yards don't even allow for an outdoor activity as quintessential as a father playing catch with his son.

I grew up in the suburbs, so I get the appeal for parents with young children. Here's my childhood neighbourhood in suburban New Brunswick. Homeowners had yards large enough where their kids could play tag and hide & seek and kick around a soccer ball and toss a frisbee or do any number of other outdoor activities. Many of the adults owned ride-on lawnmowers, and this was seen as completely justified given the amount of mowing required to maintain their yards.



Now contrast that with any random Calgary suburb, like this one for example:



What a blighted eyesore of a community. It's nothing but cookie-cutter houses packed tightly together in every direction. Anyone who lives in a neighbourhood like that is a prisoner in their community unless they have access to a vehicle. That's no way to live. I can't imagine what it's like for teenagers and pre-teens growing up in a place like that. When you're still too young to drive, what do you do for fun? Where do you go to hang out with your friends? It's just house after house after house as far as the eye can see. For decades we've allowed our city to be built for the purpose of maximizing profit for housing developers instead of prioritizing the quality of life for the people who actually live in those homes.

And it's not like every Calgarian wants this lifestyle. We've created economic incentives where this is pretty much the only possible housing choice for most families. I personally know no fewer than three different Calgary couples who wanted to stay living in high-density urban communities but had no choice but to move to the suburbs (with regret) after they had kids because there wasn't available/affordable housing stock in the inner city that is suitable for families with children. It's assumed that everyone who wants to live in a high-density urban area is either a childfree adult in their 20s or an older empty-nester, and every family with kids naturally wants to move to the suburbs. That simply isn't the case.

I mean, you can easily spend 20 minutes walking through a neighbourhood and pass nothing but houses.

The fact that you can spend 20 minutes walking past nothing but houses is terrible urban planning. We've spent 60+ years building a city to be virtually 100% car-dependent for the vast majority of the population, then people complain about the taxes they have to pay to service this low-density suburban housing model, the most non-economical form of municipal design there is.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It's more accurate to say people in Calgary like the idea of having a house with a yard. In reality, those types of properties barely exist at all in this city. Go look at any random Calgary suburb of your choice on Google Maps satellite view and all you'll see is houses packed together to the minimum distance the building code allows with tiny "yards" that consist of a patch of grass that's barely larger than a typical home's living room. These yards don't even allow for an outdoor activity as quintessential as a father playing catch with his son.

I grew up in the suburbs, so I get the appeal for parents with young children. Here's my childhood neighbourhood in suburban New Brunswick. Homeowners had yards large enough where their kids could play tag and hide & seek and kick around a soccer ball and toss a frisbee or do any number of other outdoor activities. Many of the adults owned ride-on lawnmowers, and this was seen as completely justified given the amount of mowing required to maintain their yards.

Now contrast that with any random Calgary suburb, like this one for example:

What a blighted eyesore of a community. It's nothing but cookie-cutter houses packed tightly together in every direction. Anyone who lives in a neighbourhood like that is a prisoner in their community unless they have access to a vehicle. That's no way to live. I can't imagine what it's like for teenagers and pre-teens growing up in a place like that. When you're still too young to drive, what do you do for fun? Where do you go to hang out with your friends? It's just house after house after house as far as the eye can see. For decades we've allowed our city to be built for the purpose of maximizing profit for housing developers instead of prioritizing the quality of life for the people who actually live in those homes.

And it's not like every Calgarian wants this lifestyle. We've created economic incentives where this is pretty much the only possible housing choice for most families. I personally know no fewer than three different Calgary couples who wanted to stay living in high-density urban communities but had no choice but to move to the suburbs (with regret) after they had kids because there wasn't available/affordable housing stock in the inner city that is suitable for families with children. It's assumed that everyone who wants to live in a high-density urban area is either a childfree adult in their 20s or an older empty-nester, and every family with kids naturally wants to move to the suburbs. That simply isn't the case.

The fact that you can spend 20 minutes walking past nothing but houses is terrible urban planning. We've spent 60+ years building a city to be virtually 100% car-dependent for the vast majority of the population, then people complain about the taxes they have to pay to service this low-density suburban housing model, the most non-economical form of municipal design there is.

I think this is a modern disconnect. Looking at your New Brunswick photo, all those houses look to be similar size to most inner city Calgary bungalows that cost the same as the new ones you posted of Calgary. They are perfectly fine for families, except that people decided they needed 2400 sq ft instead of 1000 sq ft. This is the choice they are making, but we all grew up in homes of that size, and it was fine. Now suddenly it isn't?

[GGG]

Your New Brunswick neighbourhood is far less sustainable the 2nd burb. The disconnect isn’t the 1000 square foot house vs the 2400 square foot house. It’s the 7500 square foot lot versus a 3500 square foot lot of a modern burb.

The modern burbs have done a good job at increasing density to levels comparable with the non-condo tower areas of the inner city. I think you pictures ignores parks. As a person who lives in a suburban cookie cutter neighbourhood I disagree with this sentiment that there is no place for kids to play.

And there is certainly more room to play then compared to a cookie cutter condo in a concrete jungle. I find the cookie cutter and packed house complaint very weird. Condos are the ultimate in cookie cutter design and we want more density. Putting up a picture of the worst urban design in the 50s of large lots and low density as something good seems like the opposite of what is desired.

The key is making the burb style neighbourhood more walk friendly. Evergreen is a good example of putting pathways through most of the back yards creating a network of shared recreation space connecting every house.

You can’t complain about car infrastructure dominating and then claim the 1st photo is better than the 2nd photo.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think this is a modern disconnect. Looking at your New Brunswick photo, all those houses look to be similar size to most inner city Calgary bungalows that cost the same as the new ones you posted of Calgary. They are perfectly fine for families, except that people decided they needed 2400 sq ft instead of 1000 sq ft. This is the choice they are making, but we all grew up in homes of that size, and it was fine. Now suddenly it isn't?

Yah you can find a ton of places that are affordable inner city, but they aren't big or modern.

[burn_this_city]

Newer neighborhoods are packed tightly because urban planners decreed that density was the most important thing. The photo of Elgin that MarchHare posted is also misleading, at the top of the photo is my old townhouse, and across from that is a huge park and pond that extends through the entire community. I'd rather live in Elgin than any condo tower in the city. Comparing it to somewhat rural NB is kind of ridiculous as well, I wish everywhere had a 1/4 acre lot but social engineers want the serfs packed tightly.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by GGG

Your New Brunswick neighbourhood is far less sustainable the 2nd burb

Oh, no question. I wasn't posting my childhood neighbourhood as a paragon of sustainable development, but rather as an example of a community where people would actually like to live because the homes have yards large enough for their kids to play. This is what people envision when they say they want to move to a house with a yard, but neighbourhoods like that just don't exist in Calgary. Instead what we have is the worst of all worlds: all the drawbacks of low-density suburban development without any of the perks of having large yards with room to live and play.

I think you pictures ignores parks. As a person who lives in a suburban cookie cutter neighbourhood I disagree with this sentiment that there is no place for kids to play.

I didn't purposely go fishing on Google Maps for a community with no nearby parks. I just chose that photo at random as being typical of a Calgary suburb. Suppose you lived in one of those homes from the second image. Would you let a six or seven year old go to the nearest park (not pictured off-screen) to play without adult supervision?

Also, high-density neighbourhoods have parks too. In fact, through economies of scale, inner city residents likely have more park space near their homes than most suburbanites have. My condo in the Beltline has two parks (one with a playground) and a large schoolyard within a three minute walk of my front door.

Putting up a picture of the worst urban design in the 50s of large lots and low density as something good seems like the opposite of what is desired.

[...]

You can’t complain about car infrastructure dominating and then claim the 1st photo is better than the 2nd photo.

I'm not saying it was good. I'm just saying it was desirable and represents the idyllic image people have in their heads when they picture living in a home with a yard. Personally, I think both example communities represent unsustainable urban planning that leads to high municipal taxes and car dependency. But at least the first one also offers a decent quality-of-life for families with children.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by GGG

Your New Brunswick neighbourhood is far less sustainable the 2nd burb. The disconnect isn’t the 1000 square foot house vs the 2400 square foot house. It’s the 7500 square foot lot versus a 3500 square foot lot of a modern burb.

The modern burbs have done a good job at increasing density to levels comparable with the non-condo tower areas of the inner city. I think you pictures ignores parks. As a person who lives in a suburban cookie cutter neighbourhood I disagree with this sentiment that there is no place for kids to play.

And there is certainly more room to play then compared to a cookie cutter condo in a concrete jungle. I find the cookie cutter and packed house complaint very weird. Condos are the ultimate in cookie cutter design and we want more density. Putting up a picture of the worst urban design in the 50s of large lots and low density as something good seems like the opposite of what is desired.

The key is making the burb style neighbourhood more walk friendly. Evergreen is a good example of putting pathways through most of the back yards creating a network of shared recreation space connecting every house.

You can’t complain about car infrastructure dominating and then claim the 1st photo is better than the 2nd photo.

We just moved to Panorama in the NW. There's an elementary and middle school within a few minutes walk each with large open areas for kids to play, several playgrounds in the area, and lots of pathways. When my kids are older they can bike down to the theater if they want to catch a movie or go to that big recreational center, and there's always the option of hopping on a bus if they want to go to the mall or downtown. We had access to none of that at our old condo in Chestermere, so I'm quite happy with our choice of where to live

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

And it's not like every Calgarian wants this lifestyle. We've created economic incentives where this is pretty much the only possible housing choice for most families. I personally know no fewer than three different Calgary couples who wanted to stay living in high-density urban communities but had no choice but to move to the suburbs (with regret) after they had kids because there wasn't available/affordable housing stock in the inner city that is suitable for families with children.

I agree with most of your post. But the notion of what's 'suitable for families with children' has changed substantially. You can still find affordable houses with space and yards and parks. In the Southwest alone there's Fairview, Acadia, Southwood, Willow Park, Haysboro, Canyon Meadows, Oakridge, Braeside, Cedarbrae.

But those houses, built in the 50s to 70s, are regarded by many couples today as too small and too old to raise a family in. People who choose a new 2300 sq foot home with a tiny yard further out from the centre are making a choice of what they value. They could take that same money and put it into a 1500 sq ft home in a more inner neighbourhood. But they'd be giving up all that space indoors, the bonus room, the marbletop counters, the modern bathrooms, etc. It's all a matter of tradeoffs.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In the Southwest alone there's Fairview, Acadia, Willow Park,...

Nice try, Real Estate agent. They know what side of Macleod Trail they're on.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Oh, no question. I wasn't posting my childhood neighbourhood as a paragon of sustainable development, but rather as an example of a community where people would actually like to live because the homes have yards large enough for their kids to play. This is what people envision when they say they want to move to a house with a yard, but neighbourhoods like that just don't exist in Calgary. Instead what we have is the worst of all worlds: all the drawbacks of low-density suburban development without any of the perks of having large yards with room to live and play.



I didn't purposely go fishing on Google Maps for a community with no nearby parks. I just chose that photo at random as being typical of a Calgary suburb. Suppose you lived in one of those homes from the second image. Would you let a six or seven year old go to the nearest park (not pictured off-screen) to play without adult supervision?

Also, high-density neighbourhoods have parks too. In fact, through economies of scale, inner city residents likely have more park space near their homes than most suburbanites have. My condo in the Beltline has two parks (one with a playground) and a large schoolyard within a three minute walk of my front door.

I'm not saying it was good. I'm just saying it was desirable and represents the idyllic image people have in their heads when they picture living in a home with a yard. Personally, I think both example communities represent unsustainable urban planning that leads to high municipal taxes and car dependency. But at least the first one also offers a decent quality-of-life for families with children.

I read you post a bit wrong. I disagree that people want A bit get b. I think that B provides most of what A offers. A backyard that as a place for a playhouse and a trampoline until the kids are 10 and then safe streets, 30km speed limits, with parks that are walkable for the kids 10 and up. And a garage to store crap. I’m not sure making the backyards bigger gives more places to play.

My kids walked home from school at 7 and could go to parks on their own. But then I am a let kids roam type of parent. In my head I would have more apprehension doing that from a condo in the beltline but that risk is probably in my head rather than real.

I think that if you look at the density of the modern burb you see it is better than all of the mid city communities and equal to most of the inner city. It is not the cause of unsustainable sprawl and in general increases the average density in Calgary.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/da...ity/index.html

For example
Evergreen 4162 people per square km
Lake Bonnevista 2530
West Hilhurst 3346
Sunnyside - 6800
Rose dale - 1800
Ramsay - 3000

Not sure of the dates of that table but the modern burb is in the 3500-4000 range.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It's more accurate to say people in Calgary like the idea of having a house with a yard. In reality, those types of properties barely exist at all in this city. Go look at any random Calgary suburb of your choice on Google Maps satellite view and all you'll see is houses packed together to the minimum distance the building code allows with tiny "yards" that consist of a patch of grass that's barely larger than a typical home's living room. These yards don't even allow for an outdoor activity as quintessential as a father playing catch with his son.

I grew up in the suburbs, so I get the appeal for parents with young children. Here's my childhood neighbourhood in suburban New Brunswick. Homeowners had yards large enough where their kids could play tag and hide & seek and kick around a soccer ball and toss a frisbee or do any number of other outdoor activities. Many of the adults owned ride-on lawnmowers, and this was seen as completely justified given the amount of mowing required to maintain their yards.



Now contrast that with any random Calgary suburb, like this one for example:



What a blighted eyesore of a community. It's nothing but cookie-cutter houses packed tightly together in every direction. Anyone who lives in a neighbourhood like that is a prisoner in their community unless they have access to a vehicle. That's no way to live. I can't imagine what it's like for teenagers and pre-teens growing up in a place like that. When you're still too young to drive, what do you do for fun? Where do you go to hang out with your friends? It's just house after house after house as far as the eye can see. For decades we've allowed our city to be built for the purpose of maximizing profit for housing developers instead of prioritizing the quality of life for the people who actually live in those homes.

And it's not like every Calgarian wants this lifestyle. We've created economic incentives where this is pretty much the only possible housing choice for most families. I personally know no fewer than three different Calgary couples who wanted to stay living in high-density urban communities but had no choice but to move to the suburbs (with regret) after they had kids because there wasn't available/affordable housing stock in the inner city that is suitable for families with children. It's assumed that everyone who wants to live in a high-density urban area is either a childfree adult in their 20s or an older empty-nester, and every family with kids naturally wants to move to the suburbs. That simply isn't the case.



The fact that you can spend 20 minutes walking past nothing but houses is terrible urban planning. We've spent 60+ years building a city to be virtually 100% car-dependent for the vast majority of the population, then people complain about the taxes they have to pay to service this low-density suburban housing model, the most non-economical form of municipal design there is.

Holy misleading picture Batman. I can slide and zoom into an aerial photo literally anywhere and make it look like there are no green spaces or parks too. My family lives on one of the streets in your pic. Literally move the picture North across the street on the top of your pic and there’s a HUGE green space with a large hill for sledding in winter, gazebo, trees, definitely enough room to play frisbee or catch or whatever. Move your pic slightly left (and I mean very slightly) and there is another playground at the end of those streets of Elgin. Move to the north a little ways, school, fields, playgrounds. Move to the right little ways, more green space......

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Holy misleading picture Batman. I can slide and zoom into an aerial photo literally anywhere and make it look like there are no green spaces or parks too. My family lives on one of the streets in your pic. Literally move the picture North across the street on the top of your pic and there’s a HUGE green space with a large hill for sledding in winter, gazebo, trees, definitely enough room to play frisbee or catch or whatever. Move your pic slightly left (and I mean very slightly) and there is another playground at the end of those streets of Elgin. Move to the north a little ways, school, fields, playgrounds. Move to the right little ways, more green space......

None of this has any relevance to the point of my post. People say they want to move to low-density suburban communities because they want a house with a yard, not a house with nearby parks, playgrounds, and other public greenspaces. You can have all of that while living in a high-density neighbourhood too, with the added bonus that you're not restricted by a car-dependent lifestyle.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Holy misleading picture Batman. I can slide and zoom into an aerial photo literally anywhere and make it look like there are no green spaces or parks too. My family lives on one of the streets in your pic. Literally move the picture North across the street on the top of your pic and there’s a HUGE green space with a large hill for sledding in winter, gazebo, trees, definitely enough room to play frisbee or catch or whatever. Move your pic slightly left (and I mean very slightly) and there is another playground at the end of those streets of Elgin. Move to the north a little ways, school, fields, playgrounds. Move to the right little ways, more green space......

I think the point is that there is more individual space and more space, period. You can zoom out on both maps and the above still looks infinitely better and includes public “green spaces” as well.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

None of this has any relevance to the point of my post. People say they want to move to low-density suburban communities because they want a house with a yard, not a house with nearby parks, playgrounds, and other public greenspaces. You can have all of that while living in a high-density neighbourhood too, with the added bonus that you're not restricted by a car-dependent lifestyle.

Well, kinda. I mean I think it’s relevant if having that green space plus all the other desirable amenities of a new house is the trade off between walking into your back yard or walking 5 mins to do the exact same thing- I can see why people make that choice and your characterization of not having that option not entirely true.

[undercoverbrother]

This lower speed doesn't bother me.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It's more accurate to say people in Calgary like the idea of having a house with a yard. In reality, those types of properties barely exist at all in this city. Go look at any random Calgary suburb of your choice on Google Maps satellite view and all you'll see is houses packed together to the minimum distance the building code allows with tiny "yards" that consist of a patch of grass that's barely larger than a typical home's living room. These yards don't even allow for an outdoor activity as quintessential as a father playing catch with his son.

I grew up in the suburbs, so I get the appeal for parents with young children. Here's my childhood neighbourhood in suburban New Brunswick. Homeowners had yards large enough where their kids could play tag and hide & seek and kick around a soccer ball and toss a frisbee or do any number of other outdoor activities. Many of the adults owned ride-on lawnmowers, and this was seen as completely justified given the amount of mowing required to maintain their yards.



.

Where in NB is that?

My neighbourhood in NB growing didn't look like that, but in fairness it wasn't as packed as the photo of YYC that you posted.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Where in NB is that?

My neighbourhood in NB growing didn't look like that, but in fairness it wasn't as packed as the photo of YYC that you posted.

Sherwood Park, 21 km NE of St John.