[cre8ivjay]

There seems to be so much talk specifically about sprawl in Alberta I thought I'd start a thread.

Ok, so there's sprawl.. there are rows upon rows of ultra low density communities in Edmonton and Calgary (and Red Deer and Lethbridge etc..). People live too far out, developers don't build enough high density housing, we need more roads and services to reach outlying areas, we can't build efficient transit quick enough.. we don't have the money.

So does anyone know what's being done about this? Are the developers getting the incentives they need to develop inner city, or higher density developments anywhere for that matter (although with house prices the way they are, a sold out condo complex is incentive enough for a developer)?

Are there incentives to build near train and bus routes? Are we diverting funds towards transit and less roads? Could the cities ever say no more growth (geographically speaking)? Would it simply spawn new satellite communities? Has a city ever stopped this type of growth?

What about starting to creat more high density commercial districts outside of the core. It seems to me that (In Calgary anyhow) it's very Downtown focused, which is fine but I'm thinking that having 2-3 major city centres (as odd as that sounds) is perhaps a better fit than expecting everyone in the city to live in high density housing near the ONE core. People are still going to want yards etc.. so I'm not sure what the answer is.

Anyways, just thought this would be a good topic for conversation that deserved it's own thread.

[Coldrsx]

have land, will use it.....our provincial motto.

There are no real formal incentives to develop in the core, other than Edmonton's late 90's $4500/unit grant, but informal incentives are there.

But we have seen a significant reduction in lot size and significantly more intense burbs.

What we do need is a federal,provincial or municipal grant program to say give $1000 a unit for anything multifamily within say 5km of the core.

[e909]

most urban suburbs are way more denser than a lot of inner communities..

BUT THEY HAVE WINDY ROADS!!! :shrug:


Are there incentives to build near train and bus routes? Are we diverting funds towards transit and less roads? Could the cities ever say no more growth (geographically speaking)? Would it simply spawn new satellite communities? Has a city ever stopped this type of growth?

Yes, some people like that sort of thing for going downtown, their children, etc..
Not really diverting funds into anything.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

[CMD UW]

most urban suburbs are way more denser than a lot of inner communities..

BUT THEY HAVE WINDY ROADS!!! :shrug:
AAAAND your point is? With well placed pedestrian connections and higher density land uses, one can achieve a very well planned neighbourhood that optimizes the amount of developable land.

[e909]

AAAAND your point is? With well placed pedestrian connections and higher density land uses, one can achieve a very well planned neighbourhood that optimized the amount of developable land.
This can be done in suburbs and urban areas.. I'm not sure what your point is.

[CMD UW]

There seems to be so much talk specifically about sprawl in Alberta I thought I'd start a thread.

Ok, so there's sprawl.. there are rows upon rows of ultra low density communities in Edmonton and Calgary (and Red Deer and Lethbridge etc..). People live too far out, developers don't build enough high density housing, we need more roads and services to reach outlying areas, we can't build efficient transit quick enough.. we don't have the money.
Fact of reality is that we can't accommodate growth, while catering to different consumer trends, within existing built-up neighbourhoods. Nor does the entire market want to live in highrises.

So does anyone know what's being done about this? Are the developers getting the incentives they need to develop inner city, or higher density developments anywhere for that matter (although with house prices the way they are, a sold out condo complex is incentive enough for a developer)?

Are there incentives to build near train and bus routes? Are we diverting funds towards transit and less roads? Could the cities ever say no more growth (geographically speaking)? Would it simply spawn new satellite communities? Has a city ever stopped this type of growth?
They don't need incentives, the market is dictating this. Developers are already increasing the proportion of medium and high density land uses in newer suburban neighbourhoods. We are witnessing a higher demand for semi-detached, townhomes, low rise apartments and highrises.

Once again, developers don't need incentives to build downtown / inner cities. The market is their incentive.

What about starting to creat more high density commercial districts outside of the core. It seems to me that (In Calgary anyhow) it's very Downtown focused, which is fine but I'm thinking that having 2-3 major city centres (as odd as that sounds) is perhaps a better fit than expecting everyone in the city to live in high density housing near the ONE core. People are still going to want yards etc.. so I'm not sure what the answer is.

Anyways, just thought this would be a good topic for conversation that deserved it's own thread.
There are a few new neighbourhoods that are being planned in Edmonton that will have high-density mixed-use nodes. These are being planned around future LRT and BRT stations.

[CMD UW]

This can be done in suburbs and urban areas.. I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that using curvlinear roads does not mean a neighbourhood is designed inefficiently.

One could design a neighbourhood using a gridlinear roadway network and fill it with 60 foot estate lots....not very efficient.

[e909]

My point is that using curvlinear roads does not mean a neighbourhood is designed inefficiently.

One could design a neighbourhood using a gridlinear roadway network and fill it with 60 foot estate lots....not very efficient.
:D i was just making fun of people who get their panties in a bunch when roads aren't drawn at 90 degree angles to each other.

[Rusty van Reddick]

what are these "ultra low density" neighbourhoods that OP speaks of? The new communities in Calgary are not "ultra low density," or even "LOW density." Low densities exist in rural exurbs just as they do in every part of Canada, but they're hardly "row upon row."

[e909]

what are these "ultra low density" neighbourhoods that OP speaks of? The new communities in Calgary are not "ultra low density," or even "LOW density." Low densities exist in rural exurbs just as they do in every part of Canada, but they're hardly "row upon row."

Most likely ones 40 minutes out of town in some "estates" that has about 12 houses with 3 acres each... but that really isn't a problem because it's cost prohibitive.

[DizzyEdge]

Most likely ones 40 minutes out of town in some "estates" that has about 12 houses with 3 acres each... but that really isn't a problem because it's cost prohibitive.

What seems to be a bigger problem is inner city neighbourhoods get filled with empty nesters, no kids, so the schools close, and so it goes, so new families due to housing cost, and lack of schools are forced to keep moving into the outskirts of the city, growing and growing those outskirts. What would be better would be to immediately upzone portions, and these can be very well thought out in advance portions, of existing communities as soon as the schools get to a certain percentage of capacity, to ensure the neighbourhoods can at least have the bare minimum kids to keep the schools going before the empty nesters are gone and the cycle can repeat.
I wouldn't have a problem if a neighbourhood built as single family residential, get's partitioned so as the need arises it eventually becomes 1/4 SFR, 1/4 townhousing, 1/4 low rise apt, and 1/4 highrise, creating living opportunities for all economic portions of society*. If this had always been done, then in even 100 yr old neighbourhoods right near downtown, one could live in a stately old house, townhouse, or apartment, depending on what they can afford**, and have a sustained school in the neighbourhood as well.

I actually kinda just made that all up on the fly, but I'd appreciate comments.

* including as well a percentage of affordable housing in all 4 types (included as part of the last 3 types, and the city could buy a few big SFR and partition into apartments)

** And the partitions would be zoned as such and therefore would be priced according to what is built, not what *can* be built, Ie the single family quarter of the neighbourhood would remain zoned R1, where as the other portions would be zoned to what they're intended to have built upon them.

This way you'd have neighbourhood after neighbourhood on the way from downtown with a very varied and interesting built landscape.

[Riise]

A lot of focus has been placed on alternative types of planning and development but the focus needs to shift onto how to get cities and regions to adopt those planning methods and policies. I believe that two things are necessary for the adoption of sustainable development and Smart Growth to occur:

1. Political will leading towards a commitment to Smart Growth and sustainability.
2. An enlightened public that is aware of the consequences of current forms of planning and development as well as the benefits and myths about alternative forms.

Edit: In regard to point #2, all citizens should be given a copy of "Toward Smart Growth in Calgary (http://www.sustainablecalgary.ca/documents/SmartGrowth.pdf)" to read.

[CMD UW]

/\ Riise, you're right. The policies and laws need to be in place and the general public must be educated.

[Boris2k7]

My point is that using curvlinear roads does not mean a neighbourhood is designed inefficiently.

One could design a neighbourhood using a gridlinear roadway network and fill it with 60 foot estate lots....not very efficient.

Of course they are inefficient. A grid allows for the maximization of routing options and ease of walkability, while a combination of curvilinear and irregular roads forces arterials and low numbers of routing options. We could look at it as a scale:

Irregular roads + Low Density-------------Semi-regular roads + Medium Density---------------Grid + High Density

[RWin]

BUT THEY HAVE WINDY ROADS!!! :shrug:


Like English cities.

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/15023-1/norfolk+aerial+ba06567.jpg

[0773|=\]

While our cities are starting to see some sprawl, our problem is still quite enviable compared to most US cities. Most every new residential/commercial development out here happens immediately adjacent to existing developments or freeway R/W. It's far better than the patchwork of suburbs that surround farmland in places like Denver, Minneapolis, Seattle, and even the GVRD.

It's ironic that homes in new subdivisions appear to be crammed in like sardines, yet the planning of neighbourhood arterials and streets results in a lower population density than street-grid neighbourhoods.

Doesn't hurt to start thinking about solutions now though...

[0773|=\]

Of course they are inefficient. A grid allows for the maximization of routing options and ease of walkability, while a combination of curvilinear and irregular roads forces arterials and low numbers of routing options. We could look at it as a scale:

Irregular roads + Low Density-------------Semi-regular roads + Medium Density---------------Grid + High Density

Unfortunately it opens the door to crime as well (the break-and-enter variety), the one thing that new subdivisions have going for them is typically only one way in and out. If a house alarm is triggered by a burgler, cops can usually park themselves at a neighbourhood's entrance and catch the culprit.

[DizzyEdge]

Like English cities.

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/15023-1/norfolk+aerial+ba06567.jpg

However those roads are grid-like, just not rectangles, but the number of intersections is likely similar... the issue I believe is windy roads that don't go anywhere.. really if you took any such community and kept the windy roads but made them rectilinear, they won't be any better.

[DizzyEdge]

Unfortunately it opens the door to crime as well (the break-and-enter variety), the one thing that new subdivisions have going for them is typically only one way in and out. If a house alarm is triggered by a burgler, cops can usually park themselves at a neighbourhood's entrance and catch the culprit.

As well talking to friends who have kids, they LOVE the multitude of cul-de-sacs in newer neighbourhoods because they perceive them as a safe, almost no traffic, area for kids to walk and bike and such, I believe the purpose of the windy go no where road neighbourhoods is to restrict through traffic to almost nothing, and to restrict local traffic within the community to very specific roads, however what would make them much better would be to recreate addition rectilinear type routes throughout, but as pedestrian/bike paths, vs roads... so cars have no incentive to cut through the community, but pedestrians and cyclists can with ease.

[0773|=\]

As well talking to friends who have kids, they LOVE the multitude of cul-de-sacs in newer neighbourhoods because they perceive them as a safe, almost no traffic, area for kids to walk and bike and such, I believe the purpose of the windy go no where road neighbourhoods is to restrict through traffic to almost nothing, and to restrict local traffic within the community to very specific roads, however what would make them much better would be to recreate addition rectilinear type routes throughout, but as pedestrian/bike paths, vs roads... so cars have no incentive to cut through the community, but pedestrians and cyclists can with ease.

Agreed. Some of Edmonton's middle-aged neighbourhoods (including the one I live in) have bike paths cutting through the neighbourhood as you mentioned. They build a less windy street grid around 2 or 3 cul-de-sacs, and while that may not be as simple as a standard grid, it's fairly manageable to get around in.

I guess you tackle one residential issue at a time... I'm glad new developments are going back to alleyways again. I've always thought front-attached garages make a house look ugly as sin.

[Boris2k7]

By restricting the through traffic to almost zilch, not only are you creating choke points for residents and less walkable communities (as in, it takes much longer to get from point a to point b) but you do immense damage to public transit. In most communities, transit service is very poor and underutilized as a result.

[Xelebes]

Only walkways need to be built, it seems.

[Riise]

Unfortunately it opens the door to crime as well (the break-and-enter variety), the one thing that new subdivisions have going for them is typically only one way in and out. If a house alarm is triggered by a burgler, cops can usually park themselves at a neighbourhood's entrance and catch the culprit.

They can do that like construction workers can be seen doing things other having lunch... With grid-iron streets and higher densities there are "eyes on the street" which is far better than limited access, which is rarely utilized.

[0773|=\]

By restricting the through traffic to almost zilch, not only are you creating choke points for residents and less walkable communities (as in, it takes much longer to get from point a to point b) but you do immense damage to public transit. In most communities, transit service is very poor and underutilized as a result.

It doesn't have to hurt transit if it's designed right.

We all agree walkways are important, but what we really need to see is an update to the center of a neighbourhood. These days it's usually a park, some soccer fields, and a school. Why couldn't it also have a community grocery store, and a public transit hub?

I know a lot of people oppose the node-based public transit design (at least in Edmonton), but if residents see the center of their own neighbourhood as a useful place to get food, maybe a haircut, go for a beer, etc., they'll start thinking about that hub when they want to get somewhere else in town because they'll see a bus station there too. Why couldn't we have five of these neighbourhood hubs centered around a major intra-city transportation hub that included an LRT R/W?

At least then, a neighbourhood could have the security that one vehicle entrance provides, and be a little more self-sufficient when it comes to transportation and consumer options.

[0773|=\]

They can do that like construction workers can be seen doing things other having lunch... With grid-iron streets and higher densities there are "eyes on the street" which is far better than limited access, which is rarely utilized.

<sigh> I guess my thoughts sound a bit better on paper than they do in actual fact. I've just noticed from observation... I used to live in a street-grid neighbourhood and had a few break-ins in less than five years. In contrast the neighbourhood I live in now which has only two ways into it, has almost non-existent crime. I'm also not living in a far-flung suburb, in case you were wondering.

[freeweed]

I guess you tackle one residential issue at a time... I'm glad new developments are going back to alleyways again. I've always thought front-attached garages make a house look ugly as sin.

And I've always thought the back lane style of housing is just more pointless concrete per square kilometre (as you already have a perfectly servicable road in the front anyway). Within a decade or two those lanes are generally abhorrent. People just don't take care of that part of their property, so they end up being filled with rusting cars, falling down fences, and trash.

Different strokes for different folks, eh? I still massively enjoy being able to unload groceries out of the rain. ;)

[CMD UW]

Of course they are inefficient. A grid allows for the maximization of routing options and ease of walkability, while a combination of curvilinear and irregular roads forces arterials and low numbers of routing options. We could look at it as a scale:

Irregular roads + Low Density-------------Semi-regular roads + Medium Density---------------Grid + High Density
No, they are not. Roadway configuration is only 1 part of the overall design puzzle. Land uses, topography, pedestrian / walkway linkages, location of transit routes, etc are the others.

[Boris2k7]

Even if they are only one part of an entire design (which is glaringly obvious) road setups can be more or less efficient. And a grid of any sort is more efficient than a standard, suburban, curvilinear setup. You can't just excuse a shitty road design because the rest of the factors are poor as well. With the exception of topography, all those factors in fact are influenced by your road design, so it is entirely the other way around. A shitty road network more often than not makes for shitty communities.

Like, this is very basic stuff. Anyone who has taken a first-year transportation studies or urban studies course knows it back and forth. If you don't feel like believing it, than I suggest you take a walk around your own downtown, and then a walk around Millwoods. See which street patterns allows for better land use opportunities, which one is easier to walk around in, etc.

[m0nkyman]

Comes down to one thing. When you need to buy a pint of milk, do you walk to the corner store, or drive to the gas station that has a 7-11 in it?

[ssiguy]

I went to the Calgary communities site. It states that between 200 to 2005 the Beltline actually lost population and the whole inner city area didn't really grow at all with the exception of the West End.-

[The Geographer]

Of course they are inefficient. A grid allows for the maximization of routing options and ease of walkability, while a combination of curvilinear and irregular roads forces arterials and low numbers of routing options. We could look at it as a scale:

Irregular roads + Low Density-------------Semi-regular roads + Medium Density---------------Grid + High Density

Another way to really improve the grid is to have some well placed diagonals cutting through the it. This can significantly facilitate connections between significant nodes. The intersection of a diagonals is also a great place for a central plaza/square/market.

[freeweed]

Comes down to one thing. When you need to buy a pint of milk, do you walk to the corner store, or drive to the gas station that has a 7-11 in it?

Or on the flip side, especially for those people with families: when you're buying a week's worth of groceries, 10-15-20 bags worth, do you haul all that somehow on your back, or do you fill your trunk?

I know you young single types who like visiting the grocery store daily have this romantic ideal of daily trips to the market just to pick up one or three items, but some of us have better things to do than spend our lives walking to and from retail establishments. (I exaggerate for comic effect).

Oh, and I've been living in horrible unwalkable suburbs for 20 years now. Before that it was horrible unwalkable winding small town roads. I'm willing to put good money down that I walk more than 99% of the population, gridded neighbourhoods or not. And I *still* see far more people on average out walking in the evenings in my neighbourhood than I do in older areas. Might have something to do with the fact that EVERYONE around me has a dog. :haha:

[MichaelS]

Or on the flip side, especially for those people with families: when you're buying a week's worth of groceries, 10-15-20 bags worth, do you haul all that somehow on your back, or do you fill your trunk?

I know you young single types who like visiting the grocery store daily have this romantic ideal of daily trips to the market just to pick up one or three items, but some of us have better things to do than spend our lives walking to and from retail establishments. (I exaggerate for comic effect).

Oh, and I've been living in horrible unwalkable suburbs for 20 years now. Before that it was horrible unwalkable winding small town roads. I'm willing to put good money down that I walk more than 99% of the population, gridded neighbourhoods or not. And I *still* see far more people on average out walking in the evenings in my neighbourhood than I do in older areas. Might have something to do with the fact that EVERYONE around me has a dog. :haha:


Very good points. A few months ago I moved from an apartment right in the middle of downtown to a house in Haysboro. I see way more people out on the sidewalks walking around the neighborhood, or out working in their front yards than I did on the streets downtown. And most people out walking usually have a dog with them.

[You Need A Thneed]

Leaving whether or not one thinks a certain way is better planning or not out of the discussion for now, the reason the roads are designed in new communities the way they are is to decrease the total amount of space used on roads - ie. a grid roads take up more ultimate space - and to get everyone closer to the bus route.

Whether or not it works, that's a different story, I can't answer that question. I can't remember exactly where I saw the reasoning, but I'm pretty sure it was on the city's website somewhere.

If a developer could fit more lots onto a parcel of land by using grid roads, wouldn't they have figured the out by now? I think that right there should be pretty good evidence.

Other issues aside of course.

[m0nkyman]

Or on the flip side, especially for those people with families: when you're buying a week's worth of groceries, 10-15-20 bags worth, do you haul all that somehow on your back, or do you fill your trunk?


I agree 100%, which is why my example is a pint of milk... it's one of those little things that you run out to get because you run out of it. Could have been a stick of butter. Urban areas have corner stores. Suburbs put them in gas stations....

[Riise]

Or on the flip side, especially for those people with families: when you're buying a week's worth of groceries, 10-15-20 bags worth, do you haul all that somehow on your back, or do you fill your trunk?

I know you young single types who like visiting the grocery store daily have this romantic ideal of daily trips to the market just to pick up one or three items, but some of us have better things to do than spend our lives walking to and from retail establishments. (I exaggerate for comic effect).

Obviously shopping patterns change when you live in non-auto-dependent communities, but how? In Asian and Europe, I'm sure there are tons of people like you that don't want to make daily trips so how do they adapt? I believe one adaptation is increasing the frequency of trips but not to daily levels, maybe once every 3 or 4 days. Also, the trips are different. When I'm in Europe most of my trips to the grocery don't originate from my house but rather from the end of my commute. The supermarket is a block away from my tube stop so on my way home I would stop by and pick up whatever I needed. Like I said before, there are tons of people like yourself in Asia and Europe, take my dad for instance. He loves to spend his free time doing stuff he likes yet he's managed to live in England and love it!

Might have something to do with the fact that EVERYONE around me has a dog. :haha:

Maybe that's where the correlation lays... The relationship between walking and type of urbanity could be spurious, or there are other factors/variables in play when it comes to urban areas.

[0773|=\]

Even if they are only one part of an entire design (which is glaringly obvious) road setups can be more or less efficient. And a grid of any sort is more efficient than a standard, suburban, curvilinear setup. You can't just excuse a shitty road design because the rest of the factors are poor as well. With the exception of topography, all those factors in fact are influenced by your road design, so it is entirely the other way around. A shitty road network more often than not makes for shitty communities.

Like, this is very basic stuff. Anyone who has taken a first-year transportation studies or urban studies course knows it back and forth. If you don't feel like believing it, than I suggest you take a walk around your own downtown, and then a walk around Millwoods. See which street patterns allows for better land use opportunities, which one is easier to walk around in, etc.

I see your point. We might want to seperate the issues we're discussing as curvilinear road setups have different pros and cons compared to limited access to a neighbourhood, which can still be done on a street-grid format (see neighbourhoods in Edmonton like McQueen and Glenora). Then again, is that desirable or practical? Is the argument of neighbourhood security for limited access into a neighbourhood valid or merely a myth?

Also, we haven't much discussed circular designs. If streets revolved in a perfect circle around a hub and had, let's say, three to four roads bisecting the neighbourhood and intersecting at a central service/transportation/recreation hub, could we realistically have the best of both worlds? It would seem we'd have relatively better efficiency of space than random curvy streets, there'd be excellent walkability, but also close access to services, and somewhat of a sense of security. The only thing I could see being a problem is numbering circular streets, which Calgary and Edmonton both like doing.

[0773|=\]

And I've always thought the back lane style of housing is just more pointless concrete per square kilometre (as you already have a perfectly servicable road in the front anyway). Within a decade or two those lanes are generally abhorrent. People just don't take care of that part of their property, so they end up being filled with rusting cars, falling down fences, and trash.

Different strokes for different folks, eh? I still massively enjoy being able to unload groceries out of the rain. ;)

Haha... I guess that's one advantage.

I always hate houses where garages dominate the front of them. They're just ugly IMO. Then again, aside from being the first thing visitors see when they come to your house, the front face of a house (and yard for that matter) really doesn't serve much of a useful purpose.

Without an alley, you also get another neighbour seperated by a fence which can be a good or bad thing, depending on who you are.

It'll be interesting to see what impact urban sprawl will have on new development practices.

[freeweed]

I always hate houses where garages dominate the front of them. They're just ugly IMO. Then again, aside from being the first thing visitors see when they come to your house, the front face of a house (and yard for that matter) really doesn't serve much of a useful purpose.

Without an alley, you also get another neighbour seperated by a fence which can be a good or bad thing, depending on who you are.

It'll be interesting to see what impact urban sprawl will have on new development practices.

Near as I can tell from 20 years of debating this with people, the whole back/front garage thing can be boiled down to 2 things:

1. A debate between asthetics and utility

2. People who grew up in back-laned houses seem to have an attachment towards that style of living. Much like a lot of things, people just stick with what they know without really considering their options. Me, I grew up with no garage, so EITHER is an improvement in my eyes. :haha:

We're beginning to see a third issue, which is people who romanticize residential construction from a very narrow time period that generally coincides with back lane style development. Ie: poor and middle class housing from 1900-1950, depending on city, and depending on neighbourhood. Of course, the irony here is that much of that development was the epitome of tract home (sorry, I mean "cookie cutter" in modern parlance) development. Nothing says cookie cutter like those 1920s neighbourhoods where literally 300 houses were built all off the exact same plan. :tup:

[niwell]

Even if they are only one part of an entire design (which is glaringly obvious) road setups can be more or less efficient. And a grid of any sort is more efficient than a standard, suburban, curvilinear setup. You can't just excuse a shitty road design because the rest of the factors are poor as well. With the exception of topography, all those factors in fact are influenced by your road design, so it is entirely the other way around. A shitty road network more often than not makes for shitty communities.

Like, this is very basic stuff. Anyone who has taken a first-year transportation studies or urban studies course knows it back and forth. If you don't feel like believing it, than I suggest you take a walk around your own downtown, and then a walk around Millwoods. See which street patterns allows for better land use opportunities, which one is easier to walk around in, etc.


I agree. While a rigid grid is probably not necessary in the suburbs, a modified grid pattern providing greater access to arterials would be much preferable than what we are seeing. While this won't make for vibrant communities on its own, such a road layout provides greater flexibility for future intensification.

One thing I congratulate Ontario municipalities for is mandating a modified grid for new construction. Also, the roads in new Ottawa subdivisions seem much narrower than those in Calgary. This makes for a slow traffic speed through residential areas.

[davee930]

i like the states interstate system, not one single traffic light on any of the interstates no matter how small the town is, they have interchanges built before new communities are developed, instead of here where they put stupid traffic lights at every new intersection. and the're still putting lights on the ring road. why can't they just do it right from the beginning and think ahead for once

[Kevin_foster]

^ thats not the Canadian way :)

[lubicon]

i like the states interstate system, not one single traffic light on any of the interstates no matter how small the town is, they have interchanges built before new communities are developed, instead of here where they put stupid traffic lights at every new intersection. and the're still putting lights on the ring road. why can't they just do it right from the beginning and think ahead for once

This doesn't just apply to Calgary. The province is spending $millions on new interchanges on Hwy #1 (Medicine Hat, Hwy #36, Hwy #9 etc) and at the same time Strathmore is putting MORE lights along #1 as it goes through town. Completely retarded.

The Interstate system is awesome.

[DizzyEdge]

Near as I can tell from 20 years of debating this with people, the whole back/front garage thing can be boiled down to 2 things:

1. A debate between asthetics and utility

2. People who grew up in back-laned houses seem to have an attachment towards that style of living. Much like a lot of things, people just stick with what they know without really considering their options. Me, I grew up with no garage, so EITHER is an improvement in my eyes. :haha:

We're beginning to see a third issue, which is people who romanticize residential construction from a very narrow time period that generally coincides with back lane style development. Ie: poor and middle class housing from 1900-1950, depending on city, and depending on neighbourhood. Of course, the irony here is that much of that development was the epitome of tract home (sorry, I mean "cookie cutter" in modern parlance) development. Nothing says cookie cutter like those 1920s neighbourhoods where literally 300 houses were built all off the exact same plan. :tup:
That's actually true, although one difference is the colouring was generally paint on wood, so customization of each home happened fairly quickly and easily, whereas vinyl and metal sided homes tend to stay the same colour for a long time..as well as being limited in colour choices, although I'm sure that's always improving. It's also easier to think the architecture of turn of the century homes is more unique when they've had a century of homeowner customization.

[DizzyEdge]

Even if they are only one part of an entire design (which is glaringly obvious) road setups can be more or less efficient. And a grid of any sort is more efficient than a standard, suburban, curvilinear setup. You can't just excuse a shitty road design because the rest of the factors are poor as well. With the exception of topography, all those factors in fact are influenced by your road design, so it is entirely the other way around. A shitty road network more often than not makes for shitty communities.

Like, this is very basic stuff. Anyone who has taken a first-year transportation studies or urban studies course knows it back and forth. If you don't feel like believing it, than I suggest you take a walk around your own downtown, and then a walk around Millwoods. See which street patterns allows for better land use opportunities, which one is easier to walk around in, etc.

Unfortunately from talking to my friends with kids, for the average family looking for a place to live, they'd gladly trade all sorts of transportation efficiency for a cul-de-sac where there will be zero through traffic that can hit their kids, and indeed it's hard to blame someone for putting risk-reduction to their kids above a more efficient commute.

[davee930]

This doesn't just apply to Calgary. The province is spending $millions on new interchanges on Hwy #1 (Medicine Hat, Hwy #36, Hwy #9 etc) and at the same time Strathmore is putting MORE lights along #1 as it goes through town. Completely retarded.

The Interstate system is awesome.

the interstate system is amazing, they built the whole system during the depression which gave everyone jobs too. its so annoying how canadas number 1 highway goes through each city and is full of lights. in the states they build flyovers on every major interchange, but here they put lights on top of the interchanges which stops the other major road from moving freely.
like deerfoot and 16th ave, deerfoot and memorial. so many more! they should all have completely freeflowing interchanges.

[feepa]

The Interstate system is awesome.

and very costly....

a limited access freeway in rural areas of ab/sk/mb/northern ont makes no sense..

When it comes through major urban areas, yes, limited access, full fledge freeways should be built (I realize Henday / Stoney are not this yet...)

[Boris2k7]

Unfortunately from talking to my friends with kids, for the average family looking for a place to live, they'd gladly trade all sorts of transportation efficiency for a cul-de-sac where there will be zero through traffic that can hit their kids, and indeed it's hard to blame someone for putting risk-reduction to their kids above a more efficient commute.

IMHO, that's an incredibly lame excuse for poorly designed communities. Chances are your friends have never really looked into the issue and are basing their choices entirely off of perception. I have a hard time believing that there is such any significant risk of collision on most any residential streets. More likely, where most people get involved in accidents would be near major thoroughfare (like 162nd, Macleod Trail, 17th Ave SE, etc.) and not on the side roads (Millrise Hill, etc.)

[freeweed]

That's actually true, although one difference is the colouring was generally paint on wood, so customization of each home happened fairly quickly and easily, whereas vinyl and metal sided homes tend to stay the same colour for a long time..as well as being limited in colour choices, although I'm sure that's always improving. It's also easier to think the architecture of turn of the century homes is more unique when they've had a century of homeowner customization.

You've nailed it exactly on the head. Couldn't have said it better myself.

The young'uns out there don't seem to realize that, with the exception of the ultra-wealthy, or towns that see 5 new houses a year go up, nearly ALL home construction in this century has been cookie-cutter. We just don't see it because 50-100 years later, massive renos, paint jobs, etc have completely changed the look of the house.

Hell, my area of this neighbourhood had something like 60 floor plans to start with (and then there's the colour/exterior customization - not much as they go for a consistent theme, but it's a start). I know of an area in Winnipeg the same size that was built with (I think) 5 basic house plans - and this was in the 30s. Shit, I've found streets in Toronto that have the same house repeated 30 times in a row. The exact same house. Built around 80 years ago, too.

[DizzyEdge]

You've nailed it exactly on the head. Couldn't have said it better myself.

The young'uns out there don't seem to realize that, with the exception of the ultra-wealthy, or towns that see 5 new houses a year go up, nearly ALL home construction in this century has been cookie-cutter. We just don't see it because 50-100 years later, massive renos, paint jobs, etc have completely changed the look of the house.

Hell, my area of this neighbourhood had something like 60 floor plans to start with (and then there's the colour/exterior customization - not much as they go for a consistent theme, but it's a start). I know of an area in Winnipeg the same size that was built with (I think) 5 basic house plans - and this was in the 30s. Shit, I've found streets in Toronto that have the same house repeated 30 times in a row. The exact same house. Built around 80 years ago, too.

I should qualify my statement to say that I do think turn of the century architecture is nicer then most present day, they just had more stylistic details back then, but it's definately *not* because I think they weren't cookie cutter, you can go down to some remaining intact blocks and find only maybe 4 styles on the block, generally grouped in repeating pairs. As well as I indicated before, I think it will take longer for present day cookie cutters to change as much as earlier times due to it taking more than a different colour of paint.

[freeweed]

I should qualify my statement to say that I do think turn of the century architecture is nicer then most present day, they just had more stylistic details back then, but it's definately *not* because I think they weren't cookie cutter, you can go down to some remaining intact blocks and find only maybe 4 styles on the block, generally grouped in repeating pairs. As well as I indicated before, I think it will take longer for present day cookie cutters to change as much as earlier times due to it taking more than a different colour of paint.

The other thing, of course, is that most "crap" housing has long since been torn down in many areas. There was a LOT of uninspired architecture back then, just 4 walls, a roof, a door, and 2 windows - and most of that is long gone. What we have left to look at tends to be shining examples of very good construction and architecture - things work keeping.

Go to some places where urban renewal hasn't much taken, and you'll see a lot of complete garbage. The old "they made things better back in the day" only applies because at this point, everything left IS the good stuff.

I agree on the siding, too. Exterior stuff designed to last for decades ("maintenance free") means it won't be replaced in our lifetimes. I wonder if we'll see a mass stucco repainting/removal over the next couple of decades, though. Some of the stucco used in the 60s/70s/80s is starting to look like crap, and fall right off the walls.

[Boris2k7]

To be fair, our first boom puts the current one to shame. In the first decade of the 20th Century, Calgary went from around 4000 to over 40000 (yeah, about a 1000% increase)

[The_Bachelor]

To be fair, our first boom puts the current one to shame. In the first decade of the 20th Century, Calgary went from around 4000 to over 40000 (yeah, about a 1000% increase)

Percentage wise that's big, however now Calgary grows by 30-35k people per year, roughly that decades amount. I think that's more impressive.

[Boris2k7]

Percentage wise that's big, however now Calgary grows by 30-35k people per year, roughly that decades amount. I think that's more impressive.

Not really. If you are a town of 4000, that's how much labour you have available, for example. Is it really that impressive that a city of a million grows by the same amount each year? I certainly don't think so. Let's put it this way. If Calgary grew at the same rate (which is actually 961% over ten years) we would be a city of around 9 610 000 by 2017. Now think of taking the labour shortage in Calgary and making it around 100 times worse. The 1901-1911 boom was just an incredible, though not unique situation.

[DizzyEdge]

The other thing, of course, is that most "crap" housing has long since been torn down in many areas. There was a LOT of uninspired architecture back then, just 4 walls, a roof, a door, and 2 windows - and most of that is long gone. What we have left to look at tends to be shining examples of very good construction and architecture - things work keeping.

Go to some places where urban renewal hasn't much taken, and you'll see a lot of complete garbage. The old "they made things better back in the day" only applies because at this point, everything left IS the good stuff.

I agree on the siding, too. Exterior stuff designed to last for decades ("maintenance free") means it won't be replaced in our lifetimes. I wonder if we'll see a mass stucco repainting/removal over the next couple of decades, though. Some of the stucco used in the 60s/70s/80s is starting to look like crap, and fall right off the walls.


I wonder if after 100 yrs the amount of customization will be the same as in the past, but instead of a gradual change every 5-10 years, it will be a whole sale change every few decades.

[240glt]

agree on the siding, too. Exterior stuff designed to last for decades ("maintenance free") means it won't be replaced in our lifetimes. I wonder if we'll see a mass stucco repainting/removal over the next couple of decades, though. Some of the stucco used in the 60s/70s/80s is starting to look like crap, and fall right off the walls.

There'll be the same dillema in newer neighborhoods clad in a sea of vinyl in 20-30 years.

[IntotheWest]

I thought one of the benefits to going grid-style staight roads vs windy make-it-up-as-you-develop type roads was for future land use? So, as to not have to reconstruct roads?? Any future-planners on here to confirm that?

[Boris2k7]

I thought one of the benefits to going grid-style staight roads vs windy make-it-up-as-you-develop type roads was for future land use? So, as to not have to reconstruct roads?? Any future-planners on here to confirm that?

Basically, yes. A modified grid would work well, as mentioned before in this thread. It spreads out traffic (thus avoiding arterials), allows more options for transit routing, and combined with some smart land use designations ahead of time can allow for the present or future creation of effective neighbourhood centres with mixed uses. You can't do any of that with a standard suburban road setup. Newer communities being proposed (such as the recently approved community south of 22X) have much higher densities and mixed land uses, but awful road networks.

[DizzyEdge]

That avatar creeps me out more than the last one..