[gilpel]

Look at this......



http://corporateknightsforum.com/index.php/CKtemplates/CKcomments/97/

[crooked rain]

Surely the presence of Calgary on this list renders the list irrelevant.

I love my city, but it is hardly a model of sustainability. (Although I give it credit for trying sometimes) Even the comments they included do not discuss sustainability in the context most people assume it means (environmental).

[Boris2k7]

Surely the presence of Calgary on this list renders the list irrelevant.

I love my city, but it is hardly a model of sustainability. (Although I give it credit for trying sometimes) Even the comments they included do not discuss sustainability in the context most people assume it means (environmental).

I have to agree. It's stuff like this that give local politicians the ammunition to completely ignore problems associated with urban sprawl and resource depletion.

Calgary is becoming more sustainable... environmentally, economically, and socially... but it is hardly there yet.

[raggedy13]

I don't really get that list at all. I'm not ragging on any of the cities, I just think the logic used by whoever wrote those paragraphs is somewhat flawed. Calgary's for example...

5. CALGARY
Heart of the New West
The oil boom boosted employment and wages in the burgeoning city of Calgary, vaulting it to the top of our Labour Index and into fifth place over-all. Calgarians are enjoying high wages, the lowest unemployment rate in our ranking at 3.9 per cent, and the biggest drop in the incidence of low income--5.7 per cent from 1995 to 2005. It’s reasonable to expect unemployment is even lower these days, and rumours of fast-food chains doling out hefty pay-checques abound. Calgary’s biggest challenge is to transform its exploding city into a sustainable one. The opportunity to provide an example of profitable, sustainable growth is unprecedented, but already sprawl is becoming a problem and the cost of housing is climbing. Minimizing Calgary’s large environmental footprint will be pivotal, but hopefully with the third highest percentage of university graduates at its disposal, innovation will rule the day.

It is an interesting read and all but I don't see any mention of what Calgary is currently doing that is sustainable (at least in the green sense). In fact it only brings up one way in which it is not being sustainable. It also seems to support the idea that Calgary should use its wealth to become sustainable. Does the financial ability to be sustainable make Calgary worthy of the 5th most sustainable city in Canada? I'm not saying it isn't worthy of the title based on other facts not mentioned, but based on what they wrote, it doesn't make any sense at all. It almost seems like the description was written for a completely different and unrelated ranking topic.

[Mille Sabords]

This is a bit of a surprise too:

2. OTTAWA
Bytown
Our nation’s capital scored well in almost every index, coming in 0.9 points behind the former capital of New France. Ottawa is the most educated city in our ranking--a good thing considering many of its citizens run the country. Over a quarter of Ottawa residents hold a university degree, and only 22.7 per cent lack a high-school diploma. All that higher education seems to have motivated Ottawaians to take an interest in the fate of our country. The city had the highest percentage of its population vote in the 2006 Federal Election. Only Calgary had more green space per 1000 people in 2002, though one might speculate Calgary has slipped behind Ottawa since then considering its massive, rapid population expansion. Tourists and residents can easily explore the many parks and other attractions of the National Capital Region by bike on its 610 kilometres of paths and lanes--the second-highest number in our ranking.

As one of the comments said just after the rankings, too many people in this city are suburban - by residence and by mentality, I'm afraid. Lots of pseudo-greenies road-raging to the Home Depot in their SUV's to buy their composters and twisty light bulbs. Oh, and they'll make it back home just in time for an early supper, tonight they have to go to the community meeting to oppose a new intensification project. Sheesh! Another 3-storey building?

[jeremy_haak]

Granted most people talk about sustainable development ( :yuck: ) within the context of the environment, but really, it aims to look at the bigger picture - economic, environmental and social sustainability. I expect this ranking was probably looking at the bigger picture. That said, it is such a broad concept that any scoring system could be devised to vault whoever you want to the top.

[WaterlooInvestor]

4. KITCHENER
K-Dub
The southern Ontario town of Kitchener offers every one of its citizens sewage and waste-water treatment. Pair that with low water consumption at 390 litres/person/day and Kitchener finds itself at the top of our Water and Waste Index. That achievement plus high rankings in the Household and Labour Indexes helped land it in fourth place over-all. Kitchener residents are the least likely to earn a low income--only 11.3 per cent suffer from poor wages--and Kitchener has the second-highest workforce participation rate in our ranking at 72.8 per cent. All this cash helps residents get in the real-estate game. Kitchener’s 66.7 per cent home ownership rate is the highest in our ranking. It’s weakness? Air pollution--the Achilles heel of municipalities in the Golden Horseshoe. If the July air was sweeter, maybe there’d be some indignation about the lack of bike paths--Kitchener has only 125 km of them.

[SpongeG]

Canada really doesn't have that many cities to choose from perhaps

[trueviking]

calgary still doesnt have a city wide recylcing programme does it?....ten years later than everyone else...

none of the descriptions explain anything about sustainibility at all....what does unemployment rates, the number of teachers and education levels have to do with sustainibility?

maybe they dont really know what sustainible means....

[jawagord]

I don't really get that list at all. I'm not ragging on any of the cities, I just think the logic used by whoever wrote those paragraphs is somewhat flawed. Calgary's for example...

There is no definition for a sustainable city, it is a concept. And the best you can expect is a vague macro concept. That doesn't prevent people from trying to use it as a tool to predict/influence or judge the micro development of a city, it just makes it a very subjective tool. Unless you are a deciple of Kuntsler et al, for which all modern cities are doomed, I suspect only acts of god or war are going to make a city unsustainable. Sustainability doesn't preclude a city going through up and down periods. Look at New Orleans and New York, 25 years ago NO hosted a worlds fair and was the model for inner city revitalization while NYC was going bankrupt, today New Orleans is a wreck and New York despite 9/11 is flying high (at least on this forum). What will the next 25 years bring?

"It has been recognized that the concept of sustainable development is an evolving, debatable term."

1. "The most widely known definition of sustainable development comes from the Brundtland Commission, which defined sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

2. "Improving the quality of life in a city, including ecological, cultural, political, institutional, social and economic components without leaving a burden on the future generations. A burden which is the result of a reduced natural capital and an excessive local debt. Our aim is that the flow principle, that is based on an equilibrium of material and energy and also financial input/output, plays a crucial role in all future decisions upon the development of urban areas."

3. "A sustainable community uses its resources to meet current needs while ensuring that adequate resources are available for future generations. It seeks improved public health and a better quality of life for all its residents by limiting waste, preventing pollution, maximizing conservation and promoting efficiency, and developing local resources to revitalize the local economy."

4.........????"

[Doug]

calgary still doesnt have a city wide recylcing programme does it?....ten years later than everyone else...

none of the descriptions explain anything about sustainibility at all....what does unemployment rates, the number of teachers and education levels have to do with sustainibility?

maybe they dont really know what sustainible means....

No it just doesn't have a government run, curbside recycling program. There are several private curbside recycling services that are cheaper than anything proposed by the City, plus the City run depots.

Calgary had tertiary sewage treatment for 20 years before everyone else. All large Canadian cities except Calgary still have some combined sanitary and stormwater systems that are prone to overflow during storms. Envionmental sustainability has a far wider scope (i.e. greenhouse gas emissions and recycling) than that defined by celebrity activists and politicians.

Sustainability means more than environmental sustainability. A city that can't maintain employment for its citizens or retain highly skilled, and therefore adaptible, individuals is not sustainable. Nor is one that is losing its tax base to surrounding municipalities or is dependent on employment from higher levels of government.

[trueviking]

No it just doesn't have a government run, curbside recycling program. There are several private curbside recycling services that are cheaper than anything proposed by the City, plus the City run depots.

Calgary had tertiary sewage treatment for 20 years before everyone else. All large Canadian cities except Calgary still have some combined sanitary and stormwater systems that are prone to overflow during storms. Envionmental sustainability has a far wider scope (i.e. greenhouse gas emissions and recycling) than that defined by celebrity activists and politicians.

Sustainability means more than environmental sustainability. A city that can't maintain employment for its citizens or retain highly skilled, and therefore adaptible, individuals is not sustainable. Nor is one that is losing its tax base to surrounding municipalities or is dependent on employment from higher levels of government.

not sure i buy your expanded definition of sustainability.

private curbside recycling may be cheaper but nowhere near as effective.

sewage treatement eh?.....how about these categories?

air quality
consuption levels
energy sources (50% coal 40% natural gas for calgary)
energy footprint
average home sizes
urban sprawl
development footprint
commuting distances
automobile ownership
rates of recycling
water usage and resources

some interesting numbers regarding ecological footprint of canadian cities:

http://www.anielski.com/Documents/EFA%20Report%20FINAL%20Feb%202.pdf

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/2376/untitled1ck6.jpg



some more interesting statistics:


sprawl chart from 2001 (population growth of existing city compared to outlying areas):

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/8871/untitled1bh2.jpg


http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/5462/untitled2wp9.jpg

[keninhalifax]

All that higher education seems to have motivated Ottawaians to take an interest in the fate of our country. (emphasis mine)

:no:

[caltrane74]

Ottawa'ers??

[You Need A Thneed]

calgary still doesnt have a city wide recylcing programme does it?....ten years later than everyone else...


Ten years ago, curbside recycling wasn't exactly "sustainable" - being that the cost was absurdly high for the results it got. I don't think something is sustainable when it would have driven cities into bankruptcy. I'm sure that it's a little bit more reasonable now, but I still think the money would be better spent getting manufacterers to produce less packaging and also to encourage people to reduce and reuse (the other 2 R's - the more important ones - considering the limited efficiency of recycling and the usefulness of recycled materials).

[240glt]

^Sorry, but Calgary IS behind the times wrt recycling.

Eight years ago, My apartment in Vancouver had blue bins in the u/g parkade for recycling. My condo in Calgary STILL does not have this ammenity even though I've brought it up to the board several times.

I've been doing the curbside thing here in Edmonton since '05. LOVE IT!

IMO the people who bitch about the cost of curbside recycling are the same folks who aren't going to sort their trash anyways

[You Need A Thneed]

^Sorry, but Calgary IS behind the times wrt recycling.

Eight years ago, My apartment in Vancouver had blue bins in the u/g parkade for recycling. My condo in Calgary STILL does not have this ammenity even though I've brought it up to the board several times.

I've been doing the curbside thing here in Edmonton since '05. LOVE IT!

IMO the people who bitch about the cost of curbside recycling are the same folks who aren't going to sort their trash anyways

I never said Calgary was on par with anyone else in terms of recycling. I'm just saying it's not as big an issue as many people make it out to be - that the money to implement it probobly could be used more wisely somewhere else that would make a greater difference to the environment.

Of course, that's not saying that a good recycling program isn't a part of a good overall strategy.

[240glt]

The most difficult part is getting people to change their habits, and making recycling easier may be an integral key.

As you noted, another worthy initiative is to get manufacturers to use less packaging. That could be another key, although in the end it's still the consumer that needs to take responsibility for where that amount of packaging ends up, or to make environmentally wise purchasing decisions.

[DrJoe]

I am kind of shocked that there are places that still don't recycle. Ontario started the blue-box program in the late 80s.

[habsfan]

I am kind of shocked that there are places that still don't recycle. Ontario started the blue-box program in the late 80s.

Same here, except our boxes are green instead of Blue!

[zooropa]

I am kind of shocked that there are places that still don't recycle. Ontario started the blue-box program in the late 80s.

I'm not sure if your referring to Calgary, because there were some misleading statements made earlier in this thread. Just to clear them up - Calgary has had a recycling program since the mid to late 80's that consists of large recycling depots scattered throughout the city, usually in grocery store or shopping centre parking lots. When you go to buy your groceries or run your errands, you take your recyclables with you once a week or, in my case let it pile up and take it once a month. Not as convenient as curb side pick up and useless for apartment dwellers who don't drive. But still very popular and busy. Curbside pick up will start in 2009 (though still unclear what will happen for the ever growing apartment residents).

Having said that, I still don't understand the point of this Sustainable Cities list and question if all of Calgary's green initiatives can counter the one huge negative of ever increasing sprawl.

[WhipperSnapper]

Same here, except our boxes are green instead of Blue!


green in Toronto is compostable waste

that the money to implement it probobly could be used more wisely somewhere else that would make a greater difference to the environment.


actually the implementation costs are negligible - bins aren't that expensive and recycle pickup simply replaces garbage pickup

the stuff also has market value unlike garbage

[Reesonov]

*sigh* Calgary sucks. Like, sorry for ruining your planet, guys.

[Doug]

not sure i buy your expanded definition of sustainability.

private curbside recycling may be cheaper but nowhere near as effective.

sewage treatement eh?.....how about these categories?

air quality
consuption levels
energy sources (50% coal 40% natural gas for calgary)
energy footprint
average home sizes
urban sprawl
development footprint
commuting distances
automobile ownership
rates of recycling
water usage and resources

some interesting numbers regarding ecological footprint of canadian cities:

http://www.anielski.com/Documents/EFA%20Report%20FINAL%20Feb%202.pdf

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/2376/untitled1ck6.jpg



some more interesting statistics:


sprawl chart from 2001 (population growth of existing city compared to outlying areas):

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/8871/untitled1bh2.jpg


http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/5462/untitled2wp9.jpg

Per capita stats only paint part of the picture. Cities with higher levels of productivity (as measured by GDP), will obviously consume higher levels of resources. The demographic nature of the population also comes into play. A city with a greater percentage of people in the workforce will also consume more resources.

[trueviking]

Ten years ago, curbside recycling wasn't exactly "sustainable" - being that the cost was absurdly high for the results it got. I don't think something is sustainable when it would have driven cities into bankruptcy. I'm sure that it's a little bit more reasonable now, but I still think the money would be better spent getting manufacterers to produce less packaging and also to encourage people to reduce and reuse (the other 2 R's - the more important ones - considering the limited efficiency of recycling and the usefulness of recycled materials).

so...um...is calgary spending its money on getting manufacturers to produce less packaging then?

there is no reason for not having curbside recycling....my friends in calgary who came from winnipeg are in disbelief that a rich progressive city like that manages to come up with excuse after excuse not to do it...in most cities recycling is second nature....it feels unnatural to throw a pop bottle away here.....that is not the case in calgary.....some people recycle, but the vast majority dont....it is not part of the culture of the city the way it is in cities with curbside recycling for 2 decades.

when i look at my back lane on garbage day at least half the garbage is in a blue box.

[trueviking]

Per capita stats only paint part of the picture. Cities with higher levels of productivity (as measured by GDP), will obviously consume higher levels of resources. The demographic nature of the population also comes into play. A city with a greater percentage of people in the workforce will also consume more resources.

does calgary have a higher percentage of its population in the workforce compared to most other cities?

i certainly wont dispute that rich people consume more....even greater argument against the plausibility of calgary being one of the top 5 most sustainable cities in canada.

even by your own argument, i am not sure that calgary's gowth, both physically and economically can be characterized as 'sustainable' by any measure.

[MolsonExport]

Seems rather a shortsighted view of cities and the their respective orbs of economic activity. Calgary's economy cannot be isolated from the booming oil sands developments. The latter is anything but sustainable. All that recycling adds up to a hill of beans next to the colossal scale of environmental degradation taking place in Northern Alberta.

Not to pick on Calgary. We might also apply this to say, Montreal with the Hydro electric projects in James Bay region.

[You Need A Thneed]

there is no reason for not having curbside recycling.
It's got a lot better over the years I'm sure, but spending exorbitant amounts of money for limited gain would defeinately be one reason.

It's not that curbside pickup is bad, it should just be further down the list of environmental priorities than it is.

[harls]

What's the matter.. I thought Alberta was swimming in exorbitant amounts of money?

[trueviking]

It's got a lot better over the years I'm sure, but spending exorbitant amounts of money for limited gain would defeinately be one reason.

It's not that curbside pickup is bad, it should just be further down the list of environmental priorities than it is.

you call $9 per month exorbitant?...that what it would cost per household in calgary.

winnipeg's costs:

The cost of the recycling program is $9.4 million.

The sale of recyclables provides $3.6 million

The net cost of the program is $5.8 million per year.

that hardly looks exorbitant to me....especially when you think that the city of calgary's operating budget passed $2 billion this year.


do you have any proof that household recyling is not effective?....the statistics i read show that 1/4 of all household waste is diverted away from the landfill in canada because of recycling......as well, it creates a culture of sustainability in the community which can have far reaching benefits.

besides, your argument would make sense if calgary was re-directing the money they save by not having recycling into other sustainable programmes...they are not...people just dont want to pay for it...

you would think with calgary's reputation for being the consumer driven, evil heart of the oil industry, the nominal amount that recycling costs would be worth the investment just for public perception because it is the only city in the country to not have it....

[Wooster]

Here is a bit of 'sustainability' news. Modal split going in the right direction.

There are a lot of environmental initiatives going on in the city right now. Density is going way up (suburban, TOD and downtown), more rapid transit routes being planned, Lots of buses and LRVs are being bought, recycling (finally) being implemented, Massive new parks being built, district energy plants are being built to provide more sustainable energy to the eastern part of the Centre City, lots of other hard infrastructure is being upgraded to be more efficient, new buildings are mostly LEED or Builtgreen certified or are at minimum shadowing the programs etc, etc. Besides the lag on recycling, Calgary really isn't doing anything less than most cities.

=============

Calgarians are walking, rolling and riding to work
Colette Derworiz, Calgary Herald
Published: Thursday, August 09, 2007

More Calgarians are walking, biking and taking the C-Train into downtown on a daily basis, a city survey suggests.

The report, which compiled data from traffic counts during the morning rush hour in the spring and fall of 2006, suggests 55 per cent of commuters are walking, cycling or taking transit into downtown -- up from about 39 per cent in 1996.

The remaining 45 per cent are driving or carpooling into the city core.
Fifty-five per cent of commuters are now walking, cycling or taking transit into downtown.

"We still own a lot of automobiles and we still have a lot of use of those automobiles," said John Hubbell, the city's director of transportation, "but the message to me is that Calgarians are making good choices for particular types of trips.

"They are looking at coming downtown and saying, 'Well, maybe transit is an option, or I can walk.' "

Officials say there are about 15,500 people living downtown and 121,000 Calgarians working in the core -- an increase of nearly 5,000 residents and 30,000 employees in a decade.

Commuters leaving downtown Calgary on Wednesday said they aren't surprised more people are choosing alternative modes of transportation as the roads get more congested.

"I park north and then walk," said Grace Maclean. "I hate transit. It's too expensive for parking (a car). I used to bike all of the time, but half of my time was spent in traffic," said Maclean, a Varsity resident who walks about 25 minutes each way.

Christina Schrauwen, who recently moved closer to the core, said she prefers walking. "It's much easier to walk than drive," she said.

Others said it simply costs too much to park downtown. "I drive and park on the other side of the river," said Duncan Carey, who wouldn't reveal his secret parking spot. "It's too much money to park downtown."

Stacey Ross, who works at a downtown oil and gas company, agreed it's getting costly to park in the core.

"It's $26," she said as she got into her car at an Impark lot near her office in Eau Claire. "Once in a while I do have to drive, and it sucks. The trouble is, the bus isn't always convenient."

Still, the survey shows more Calgarians are turning to transit, with more than 54,000 taking a bus or C-Train into downtown -- up from 29,800 in 1996 and about the same number of people who now drive each day.

Nearly 10,000 people walk and another 2,300 bike into the downtown.

Maggie Schofield, executive director of the Calgary Downtown Association, said while she's unsure how the numbers compare to other cities, they are definitely moving in the right direction.

"It's great strides," she said, noting the transit ridership is likely even higher than the city's survey suggested.

Ald. Diane Colley-Urquhart, a huge proponent of transit use, said the survey shows it takes time for people's attitudes to shift, adding it's a "big step forward" for Calgary.

Another alderman whose ward includes most of the downtown said the survey also shows council's policies -- both on limiting the amount of parking downtown and increasing the focus on transit -- are working.

"It shows the willingness of Calgarians to shift," said Ald. Druh Farrell, "but we need to match that with a renewed commitment. We can't just make it uncomfortable for people by taking away the parts. We need to offer the alternative."

Number of Calgarians commuting downtown during the morning rush:

Automobile: 44.8% (54,208), down from 56,028 in 1996

Transit: 45.1% (54,571) up from 29,808 in 1996

Walking: 7.9% (9,559), up from 4,784 in 1996

Cycling: 1.9% (2,229) up from 1,104 in 1996

Reply With Quote