[tdurden5573]

Im pleased to see the City of Calgary's attempt to slow the urban sprawl which has afflicted many North American cities. Im amazed that there is not more of a push to encourage people to actually live in the city -

Is Calgarys sprawl due to people wanting a "house in the burbs" or just the economics of living costs being too high in the core? Should the city do more to encourage better use of the existing space within the limits and especially around the stations?

This article is the reason i got thinking this: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=fbc0e4f0-bae6-4534-be28-9b871fb73fae&k=926

[Mid1]

Im pleased to see the City of Calgary's attempt to slow the urban sprawl which has afflicted many North American cities. Im amazed that there is not more of a push to encourage people to actually live in the city -

Is Calgarys sprawl due to people wanting a "house in the burbs" or just the economics of living costs being too high in the core? Should the city do more to encourage better use of the existing space within the limits and especially around the stations?

This article is the reason i got thinking this: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=fbc0e4f0-bae6-4534-be28-9b871fb73fae&k=926

Somewhat agree with you and the article, but when you have several hostile community associations around Calgary it'll never happen no matter what the city does. Perhaps a new suburb levy could help the situation.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

Somewhat agree with you and the article, but when you have several hostile community associations around Calgary it'll never happen no matter what the city does. Perhaps a new suburb levy could help the situation.

The development levy is already plenty high, much higher than many anti suburbs people realize. In Bronco's first term, he raised the levies substantially.

[Riise]

Is Calgarys sprawl due to people wanting a "house in the burbs" or just the economics of living costs being too high in the core? Should the city do more to encourage better use of the existing space within the limits and especially around the stations?

I'd love to answer your question in detail but with it being exam week I'm short on time. So, to give you the short answer: Calgary's sprawl is due to many factors and the downtown not being "attractive/competitive" enough is one of the reasons. However, that in itself is a complex issue with many factors, one being what I'm hinting at below.


The development levy is already plenty high, much higher than many anti-sprawl people realize.

Fixed.


In Bronco's first term, he raised the levies substantially.

Since Calgary continues to sprawl it's obviously not high enough.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

Since Calgary continues to sprawl it's obviously not high enough.

If the goal is to stop outward expansion, the city could just stop approving new ASPs. No need for any levies at all.;)

Given that the newest ASP (Mahogany) approved is being built at 11.5 units per acre, what is the target density needed for you to not consider a development sprawl?

There are over 3400 multi family units under construction with close to 5000 more units approved (and a fair number of the approved column have moved to the U/C column since that graphic was made) [not counting the close to 15,000 proposed]. While not enough, does the industry have the capacity to build more units that are of a reasonable quality (not wood framed)?

[manny]

Im pleased to see the City of Calgary's attempt to slow the urban sprawl which has afflicted many North American cities. Im amazed that there is not more of a push to encourage people to actually live in the city -

Is Calgarys sprawl due to people wanting a "house in the burbs" or just the economics of living costs being too high in the core? Should the city do more to encourage better use of the existing space within the limits and especially around the stations?

This article is the reason i got thinking this: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=fbc0e4f0-bae6-4534-be28-9b871fb73fae&k=926


This boils down to a phylosophical dicotomy. Intensification at one extreme and extensification on the other. There are sound arguements to be made at both extremes and there really is no right or wrong.

What I DO believe is wrong is one side forcing its view on the other by claiming some sort of "moral high ground". It is up to the individual or familiy to "CHOSE" how to live. In that light, I believe both extremes should be available and let the free market provide it.

For those who believe in intensification, build complexes and developments that cater to those folks that want it. If you really want to push your view, make your complexes and developments so attractive that they might even convert those who might consider the other extreme.

Personally, the latter sentiment is the key. Make high density complexes and developments in such a way they cater to a wide spectrum of 'life style' choices. But don't take away choice or force people because "you" feel this is "best".

Absolutely, the city should do more to encourage better use of the existing space within the limits and especially around the stations? But make them good quality developments that cater to a wide variety of 'life styles' choices. Ultimately people will go there base on what it has to offer and where they are at their stage in life.


For those who desire extensification, let them understand the cost of that lifestyle choice. There is a price to pay, perhaps in higher taxes, long comutes, whatever. I think its wrong to make this price so high you are literally forcing them to do something against their will. That's wrong.

What I really have a problem with, is people or governments, playing 'god' and pushing their values on others. There is a seems to be a movement to a 'paternalistic' phsyche in Canada where govenments, environmentalists, health care providers, etc. know best at the cost of individual civil rights and freedoms, and that bothers me. Last I heard, we still live in a democratic and free market society.

Let the market provide "good quality" developments of both types and let the people decide what they want to do!! Good government should not intervene in this but facilitate it, provide incentives or desincentives. At the end of the day, people are smart enough to make their own choices.

[Sacamano]

It is up to the individual or familiy to "CHOSE" how to live.

Let the market provide "good quality" developments of both types and let the people decide what they want to do!!

Sorry, but the market hasn't a clue and free choice is no longer relevant. We need the enlightened, paternal influence as long as every hero continues to drive a SUV and the devil incarnate rides the subway.

[Sacamano]

Given that the newest ASP (Mahogany) approved is being built at 11.5 units per acre, what is the target density needed for you to not consider a development sprawl?


I detest the term "sprawl" as it relates to outward growth and I've seen more of my share of poor planning within the built-out City of Toronto as industry shifts outward. Likewise, I find density to be rather minor in building beter communities

[manny]

Sorry, but the market hasn't a clue and free choice is no longer relevant. We need the enlightened, paternal influence as long as every hero continues to drive a SUV and the devil incarnate rides the subway.

I live way out in the 'burbs' because I like having a backyard to grow a garden, and have a fire pit around which I have an occasional beer with a friend. I live in a fairly well planned community that offers a centralized retail core so I don't have to drive far too get what I need for my day to day life. I drive me 4 cylinder hyundai to the neerest LRT station and commute to the downtown core Mon to Fri. I believe I am smart enough to make my own choices.

I concede there are those that need a bit of a kick in the butt. Please don't put us all in that category.

[ScottFromCalgary]

...and have a fire pit...

Prepare for a shit storm my friend, especially if Boris sees this.

[240glt]

I probably shouldn't mention the huge pallet fires we used to have at my friends' old house in Bankview back in the day... I'm honestly suprised that the fire department never showed up

[freeweed]

Prepare for a shit storm my friend, especially if Boris sees this.

Our lungs that have recently recovered from secondhand smoke thank you all for continuing to exercise them!

[Rusty van Reddick]

I live way out in the 'burbs' because I like having a backyard to grow a garden, and have a fire pit around which I have an occasional beer with a friend. I live in a fairly well planned community that offers a centralized retail core so I don't have to drive far too get what I need for my day to day life. I drive me 4 cylinder hyundai to the neerest LRT station and commute to the downtown core Mon to Fri. I believe I am smart enough to make my own choices.

I concede there are those that need a bit of a kick in the butt. Please don't put us all in that category.

There are bigger "gardens" in older suburbs. We have too much garden are we're in Bankview.

How do your neighbours like your neighbourly firepit? How do they like having to sleep with all of their windows closed on the hottest days of the year? Those aren't rhetorical questions either. Answer them.

[Innersoul1]

Tough one....I have a vested interest in this as my next project is to be in Providence, which may now be slashed :(

[manny]

There are bigger "gardens" in older suburbs. We have too much garden are we're in Bankview.

How do your neighbours like your neighbourly firepit? How do they like having to sleep with all of their windows closed on the hottest days of the year? Those aren't rhetorical questions either. Answer them.

The neighbours have fire pits themselves. The ones that don't all seem to have positive comments on the fire and garden as they walk by - city path way along the back yard. Seem to be more fire pits year after year as well. Folks like the idea. Its no worse than having a wood burning fire place in the house. Its its a small fire pit not a huge bon fire (lol). Fire pit conforms to city by-laws and we have a permit. Relax folks, its all good.

[Riise]

What I DO believe is wrong is one side forcing its view on the other by claiming some sort of "moral high ground". It is up to the individual or familiy to "CHOSE" how to live. In that light, I believe both extremes should be available and let the free market provide it.

Not when those choices impact others, and especially not when the true costs of those decisions are not reflected in the market price and are instead shifted onto others.

[wild wild west]

Im pleased to see the City of Calgary's attempt to slow the urban sprawl which has afflicted many North American cities. Im amazed that there is not more of a push to encourage people to actually live in the city -

Is Calgarys sprawl due to people wanting a "house in the burbs" or just the economics of living costs being too high in the core? Should the city do more to encourage better use of the existing space within the limits and especially around the stations?


Calgary's sprawl is due to the same reasons as sprawl has occurred in other large cities. That said I think this city has made tremendous progress in addressing sprawl in recent years - everything from the massive residential boom in the inner city, to encouraging higher densities in new communities to putting the annexation areas on the policy backburner and concentrating on TOD instead, indicates that this city "gets it". Things may not be happening as quickly as some of us would like - but I really feel strongly that Calgary is one of the few North American cities that is on the right track when it comes to tackling sprawl.

[manny]

Prepare for a shit storm my friend, especially if Boris sees this.

I guess I'm somewhat surprised by all the controversy. I very much have a 'Live and Let Live' attitude. All I'm trying to say is a city should provide for all types of activities so long as no one is significantly negatively impacted. While you may not agree with me, or I with you, freedom of expression and lifestyle should be allowed - within reason of course.

Its a small fire pit. It conforms to city by-laws. I have a permit. Is it any worse than a house with a wood burning fire place? Yes, my water hose is easily accessible. Its all good folks.

I almost feel like saying "Sorry for having a lifestyle different than yours". I guess I should not tell any one I'm GAY because you might complain about that as well.

Oh my god a gay man that has a fire pit in his back yard - whats next? :cheers:

[Riise]

If the goal is to stop outward expansion, the city could just stop approving new ASPs. No need for any levies at all.;)

Given that the newest ASP (Mahogany) approved is being built at 11.5 units per acre, what is the target density needed for you to not consider a development sprawl?

Urban planners and theorists are often criticized for trying to dictate the market, when we are actually just pointing out its flaws and showing how we can achieve sustainability, which is an equilibrium of of social, environmental, and economic factors. That's why I like the levy idea as it tries to correct the market and allows the city to encourage SmartGrowth through economic means in addition to planning regulations. Regarding those regulations and demands, I believe we need to be aiming for developments of at least 15upa (12upa is the bare minimum but does a World Class city aim low?). However, density alone won't get us out of our problem as we also need proper design as well. Density and design my friends, density and design.

[Bigtime]

Oh my god a gay man that has a fire pit in his back yard - whats next? :cheers:

I'll tell you what's next, another gay man on here that is anti fire pit! Let the games begin! :D

I'm getting some popcorn to watch this go down.

[Boris2k7]

Prepare for a shit storm my friend, especially if Boris sees this.

Oh yes, very much seen. I HATE fucking fire pits, and the motherfuckers who must light them up during the summer for their entertainment. There's no way to reconcile that one. I hate having my room smell smokey and to get into a fit of coughing because of my dumbass suburban neighbours.

As for sprawl... Riise already covered this. No need to add redundancy. Well, except to point out that I place very limited value on what people consider "choice." I don't give a rats ass about this bullshit faux-libertarianism. If your choice harms me, or society, then you are going to have to pay for it (in extreme cases, it should be taken away). Transportation should be fully charged based on carbon taxes, gas taxes, tolls, fees, registrations, etc. If you own a house you should pay for every damn square inch of land you use, plus the cost of construction, the cost of utilities and maintenance, throw a carbon tax on that too, etc (hey, you can even throw on a tax deduction based on occupancy). The full cost, no more no less.

Cities would very well come around if people had to pay the full cost for what they use. <--- This is where "the market" comes in, after the regulatory infrastructure is in place. It's just sad that the United States has much tougher environmental regulations than we do and has a much stronger stance, in spite of Kyoto.

EDIT: Oops, I guess I was redundant after all.

[manny]

I'll tell you what's next, another gay man on here that is anti fire pit! Let the games begin! :D

I'm getting some popcorn to watch this go down.

Well I guess we have one thing in common. :haha:

[freeweed]

I guess I'm somewhat surprised by all the controversy. I very much have a 'Live and Let Live' attitude. All I'm trying to say is a city should provide for all types of activities so long as no one is significantly negatively impacted. While you may not agree with me, or I with you, freedom of expression and lifestyle should be allowed - within reason of course.

Its a small fire pit. It conforms to city by-laws. I have a permit. Is it any worse than a house with a wood burning fire place? Yes, my water hose is easily accessible. Its all good folks.

I almost feel like saying "Sorry for having a lifestyle different than yours". I guess I should not tell any one I'm GAY because you might complain about that as well.

Oh my god a gay man that has a fire pit in his back yard - whats next? :cheers:

Well, your being gay doesn't affect my lungs. Nor any other part of me. At least not without a couple of drinks first. Your bedroom lifestyle has no impact on other people, but your firepit may.

Fireplaces have chimneys for a reason. Hint: the smoke generally stays above ground level. Firepits, on the other hand, typically waft their smoke pretty much right at the level of your neighbours' windows. If they're all cool with that, hey, go for it. Thing is, if one of them wasn't, and asked you politely to stop, would you? I suspect your answer might be "no, because I'm not doing anything wrong and I have the permit, etc". I suspect this because I've already been down this route. Fortunately I've since moved away from the rednecks.

Lastly, just because something is legal doesn't make it a nice thing to do. Legally, I can walk down a busy sidewalk smoking a cigar and blowing smoke around children. But should I? A firepit is no different.

Anyway, the fact that you seem completely unaware of the possibility of a negative effect on other people is why you'll see folks like myself and furry get a bit uppity on this issue. I'm not about to lynch you for doing something that you find enjoyable (and perfectly legal), I'm just trying to raise awareness that many so-called "harmless" things often aren't. I'm not exaggerating when I say that I developed a minor form of asthma as a direct result of someone's firepit. Thankfully it's going away now that I'm not breathing in smoke every night from April through October.

Just another PSA rant from freeweed. :haha:

[Bigtime]

Well I guess we have one thing in common. :haha:

Not I my friend, I'll let who I speak of come on out if he so wishes.

As for the whole firepit thing, I stay away from that argument with a ten foot pole!

[manny]

Oh yes, very much seen. I HATE fucking fire pits, and the motherfuckers who must light them up during the summer for their entertainment. There's no way to reconcile that one. I hate having my room smell smokey and to get into a fit of coughing because of my dumbass suburban neighbours.

As for sprawl... Riise already covered this. No need to add redundancy. Well, except to point out that I place very limited value on what people consider "choice." I don't give a rats ass about this bullshit faux-libertarianism. If your choice harms me, or society, then you are going to have to pay for it (in extreme cases, it should be taken away). Transportation should be fully charged based on carbon taxes, gas taxes, tolls, fees, registrations, etc. If you own a house you should pay for every damn square inch of land you use, plus the cost of construction, the cost of utilities and maintenance, throw a carbon tax on that too, etc (hey, you can even throw on a tax deduction based on occupancy). The full cost, no more no less.

Cities would very well come around if people had to pay the full cost for what they use. <--- This is where "the market" comes in, after the regulatory infrastructure is in place. It's just sad that the United States has much tougher environmental regulations than we do and has a much stronger stance, in spite of Kyoto.

EDIT: Oops, I guess I was redundant after all.

I just looked at your profile and it all makes sense to me now. You are a 20 year old PUNK who thinks he knows it all. With a Bachelors Degree in Geography, a Masters Degree in Environmental Design (Urban Planning by the way), a Diploma in Computer Programming, 20 years as a professional and now a president of my own company, I've forgotten more than you'll EVER know or learn.

Punks like you should grow up and get a better sense of reality. If you think that calling people "MotherFuckers" makes you a real Man, think twice cuz your an imponent piece of shit to me and as a young 20 year old, what you have to say means very little.

By the way your mentality is better suited to places like Russia or China - you should try moving there!!!!!

[ScottFromCalgary]

^Yes you are certainly the mature one on the forum. Thanks for proving us all wrong with your intelligent and insightful comments.:rolleyes:

[Boris2k7]

LOL, I don't give a shit who you are or that you own a company. My air is worth more than your sense of entitlement.

The fact that your response says nothing about firepits and is all about bashing me really is quite telling. :rolleyes:

[Mid1]

Wow this thread has really grown but we are getting into the endless debate of suburbs vs inner city living. But I wonder how many people on this forum who say they live in the suburbs and have a garden actually have a garden rather than just grass like so many house in suburbs do.

[Beltliner]

Oh yes, very much seen. I HATE fucking fire pits, and the motherfuckers who must light them up during the summer for their entertainment. There's no way to reconcile that one. I hate having my room smell smokey and to get into a fit of coughing because of my dumbass suburban neighbours. As for sprawl... Riise already covered this. No need to add redundancy. Well, except to point out that I place very limited value on what people consider "choice." I don't give a rats ass about this bullshit faux-libertarianism. If your choice harms me, or society, then you are going to have to pay for it (in extreme cases, it should be taken away). Transportation should be fully charged based on carbon taxes, gas taxes, tolls, fees, registrations, etc. If you own a house you should pay for every damn square inch of land you use, plus the cost of construction, the cost of utilities and maintenance, throw a carbon tax on that too, etc (hey, you can even throw on a tax deduction based on occupancy). The full cost, no more no less. Cities would very well come around if people had to pay the full cost for what they use. <--- This is where "the market" comes in, after the regulatory infrastructure is in place. It's just sad that the United States has much tougher environmental regulations than we do and has a much stronger stance, in spite of Kyoto. EDIT: Oops, I guess I was redundant after all.

I just looked at your profile and it all makes sense to me now. You are a 20 year old PUNK who thinks he knows it all. With a Bachelors Degree in Geography, a Masters Degree in Environmental Design (Urban Planning by the way), a Diploma in Computer Programming, 20 years as a professional and now a president of my own company, I've forgotten more than you'll EVER know or learn. Punks like you should grow up and get a better sense of reality. If you think that calling people "MotherFuckers" makes you a real Man, think twice cuz your an imponent piece of shit to me and as a young 20 year old, what you have to say means very little. By the way your mentality is better suited to places like Russia or China - you should try moving there!!!!!

LOL, I don't give a shit who you are or that you own a company. My air is worth more than your sense of entitlement. The fact that your response says nothing about firepits and is all about bashing me really is quite telling. :rolleyes:

All right, you two--kiss and make the frak up. Now. Even by board standards this discussion is most unseemly.

Boris--you've got a great track record of vision and ideas, but you're young and chock full of piss and vinegar, and it strikes me as a disappointment that you're lashing out at your elders.

Manny--nice to hear you've got the background in geography and urban planning. We'd all be pleased as punch to keep you here if you can keep these young little whippersnappers from getting your goat the way Boris seems to have done. These kids could learn a lot from you--so teach them instead of slapping them down.

Offsetting fouls--replay the down.

[/flag]

[Bigtime]

All right, you two--kiss and make the frak up. Now.

Whatsup BSG fan? :cool:

Also I couldn't agree more with what you said, let's all play nice and respect each others viewpoint and perhaps calm down a little.

You know I've forgotten a lot over the years as well, like that time I took the home winemaking course and forgot how to drive.

[h0twired]

Boris--you've got a great track record of vision and ideas, but you're young and chock full of piss and vinegar, and it strikes me as a disappointment that you're lashing out at your elders.

I can remember when I was a 20 year old idealist that thought everyone around me was wrong...

[h0twired]

Whatsup BSG fan? :cool:

Also I couldn't agree more with what you said, let's all play nice and respect each others viewpoint and perhaps calm down a little.

Agreed. You would think that Boris has 50 dead relatives as a result of campfire related inhaling.

[Boris2k7]

Beltliner, in all honesty, I cannot stand this "lifestyle choices" trend. It is the excuse for EVERYTHING nowadays...

Wanna buy a big house? Lifestyle choices!
Wanna drive a gas-guzzling truck? Lifestyle choices!
Don't wanna to discipline your kids? Lifestyle choices!
Wanna light up a firepit? Lifestyle choices!

And then continue this line of thinking ad infinitum.

On the other hand... you can put something next door that somehow renders a person's lifestyle obsolete. People have a "right" not to want a halfway house next door. People have a "right" to not have to live near a noisy train. People have a "right" to live in a community with less traffic. And thus the NIMBYism starts. What people don't realize is that "lifestyle" and "choice" doesn't really mean much. In any city, in any society, your "choice" is highly structured, predetermined by society but also dynamically effected by it. While maximizing choice is one direction, limiting choice is another. These HAVE to be in balance. I don't think that excusing fire pits because of CHOICE is acceptable. This is simply a matter of redrawing where the line ends. Leave it for the country folks, that is, if you can afford the land.

Now: On the other hand, urban planners like myself really want to open up the number of choices people have. Currently you are very limited without a car as to where and how you can live in Calgary. Designing denser, better designed communities opens up the number of choices on the market while limiting a few others. Developers would still be able to build single family homes, but they would have to work within higher densities and much tougher regulations.

[Zilla]

Here’s an email news service that might interest you… (To subscribe: http://www.creatingcalgary.ca/register).

[manny]

All right, you two--kiss and make the frak up. Now. Even by board standards this discussion is most unseemly.

Boris--you've got a great track record of vision and ideas, but you're young and chock full of piss and vinegar, and it strikes me as a disappointment that you're lashing out at your elders.

Manny--nice to hear you've got the background in geography and urban planning. We'd all be pleased as punch to keep you here if you can keep these young little whippersnappers from getting your goat the way Boris seems to have done. These kids could learn a lot from you--so teach them instead of slapping them down.

Offsetting fouls--replay the down.

[/flag]

Your absolutely right. In recent note I wrote to another member, I said I did not appreciate "either directly or indirectly being called a 'motherfucker' and 'dumbass'." Borris if youre gonna dish it out, learn to take it as well.

As for the real thread, my initial comments were intended to spur discussion. That it did. As a former planner for the City of Calgary, I know what good planning is supposed to be all about and I think its happening in this city. I just feel there is too much of an attitude that sprawl, in and of itself is 'a bad thing'. Like it or not, there are those whose lifestyle, sprawl caters to and people should not be so quick to judge that.

Enough said, Boris, I was very much like you at your age. I guess I have not changed much in my temperment but in terms of my understanding of the complexity and dynamics of the world we live in, I have learned a lot. I hope your journey is as fruitful as mine.

Cheers.

[Boris2k7]

Fair enough, I stepped over the line. I should mention that one of my best friends has a small fire pit, but he is very discriminate of his neighbours. I still have problems with it however. Let's just say that I very much do not want to develop problems related to my lungs such as asthma, my family has a bad track record for that and so far I've avoided it...

I've also never argued to be a realist... I'm an idealist and I have no problems being called out on it. I've had some experience with community planning already and I can see how quickly jaded one can become. I don't want that to happen to me quite yet.

[reflexzero]

I live on the NE edge of town because:

1. I can't afford the cost of housing closer to downtown.
2. Most of the druggies are in their basements being quiet, instead of running around the streets causing commotion and damage.
3. It's quiet.
4. It's close to a movie theatre, hardware stores, and propane filling stations.
5. It doesn't smell like the corner of 8th street and 7th Ave downtown.
6. it's easier to evacuate the city in case of disaster.

I'd love to live closer to downtown, or closer to where I work, but the economics make that quite impossible. Where I am now, my mortgage will be gone before I am 40, I'll have financial freedom and can enjoy life before I'm too old and crippled to have any fun.

I dunno, I'm certainly not living in the boonies to have a lawn, because it is about 100 square feet. I can hear my neighbor sneezing, and the people across the street are a bunch of weirdos who take up 7 parking spaces. Sure they are disadvantages, but I feel safer in the boonies too.

:koko:

[Bigtime]

6. it's easier to evacuate the city in case of disaster.

I'm just planning to go out in a blaze of glory in a situation like this! Hopefully manning a machine gun of some sort and firing blindly while giving my best war cry! :cool:

Edit: Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6l_WGFAyac

Yup, but I guess not in space...unless

[ScottFromCalgary]

4. It's close to a movie theatre, hardware stores, and propane filling stations.


I understand the first two, but propane filling stations? :shrug:


6. it's easier to evacuate the city in case of disaster.


Wow, that's a first. Funny because most of the sour gas wells in Calgary are much closer to you than downtown. I'd say it sounds like Bush has gotten to you. Doesn't it say "Idealist" under your name?

[Boris2k7]

Question:

If were able to clear up some of these points, for example, the ones bolded, would you consider moving back closer to downtown?

I live on the NE edge of town because:

1. I can't afford the cost of housing closer to downtown.
2. Most of the druggies are in their basements being quiet, instead of running around the streets causing commotion and damage.
3. It's quiet.
4. It's close to a movie theatre, hardware stores, and propane filling stations.
5. It doesn't smell like the corner of 8th street and 7th Ave downtown.
6. it's easier to evacuate the city in case of disaster.


Because I think, except for the first one, the bolded points are all do-able in a short-medium run. The first one is obviously a lot more involving... and will require both changes in property taxation and assessment as well as the market opening up more types of development.

Additionally, what if we threw in the bonuses of more public greenspace and parks in the innercity?

(JFYI: I see druggies around the innercity, but I don't often seeing them cause commotion or even more rarely causing damage...)

[freeweed]

I live in the boonies because it's close to my house. Which is in the boonies.

My cat's breath smells like catfood.

[manny]

My partner and I are thinking very seriously of selling our suburban house and buying a Condo. One of the new ones coming up in the Beltline or Eau Claire area.

The excitement of dt living, being within walking distance to work, clubs, restuarants, hussle and bussle of the downtown is very appealing.

The drawback is giving up the quiet sub-urban life, backyard, and downsizing just to live in a condo

[freeweed]

The drawback is giving up the quiet sub-urban life, backyard, and downsizing just to live in a condo

And no more fires. :D

[tdurden5573]

There are parks, and quiet places in the inner city you know, of course you'd have to actually walk a block to get there. Now if the city would just let you have a beer there we'd be in business!

[Doug]

Biggest reason: inner city Calgary is very small partly due to the city's late development and partly due to geographic barriers. That being said, inner city housing is ridiculously expensive, as high as the desirable areas in much larger cities like Toronto and Vancouver. Only a very small subset of the population is sufficiently wealthy or willing to make the sacrifices (large mortgage, low disposible income) to live inner city.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Biggest reason: inner city Calgary is very small partly due to the city's late development and partly due to geographic barriers. That being said, inner city housing is ridiculously expensive, as high as the desirable areas in much larger cities like Toronto and Vancouver. Only a very small subset of the population is sufficiently wealthy or willing to make the sacrifices (large mortgage, low disposible income) to live inner city.

Not that small of a percentage...

[Rusty van Reddick]

manny, my inner-city life is VERY quiet. Eau Claire would be very peaceful- no garden, but peaceful.

[Bassic Lab]

Biggest reason: inner city Calgary is very small partly due to the city's late development and partly due to geographic barriers. That being said, inner city housing is ridiculously expensive, as high as the desirable areas in much larger cities like Toronto and Vancouver. Only a very small subset of the population is sufficiently wealthy or willing to make the sacrifices (large mortgage, low disposible income) to live inner city.

That really depends on ones definition of inner city. Old housing stock in the inner city is often competitively priced when compared to else where. Seventies condos in inner city communities like Bankview are pretty much even with those in communities that stradle the line like Windsor Park, or ones in inner suburbs like Haysboro. New communities lack a point of comparison since they just don't have condos that are thirty plus years old, but I'd personally prefer a unit in an old concrete biuldings to one in a new woodframe.

Likewise, as soon as you get out of a few very desirable communities, single family homes quickly approach a point of comparison. Hell, it wasn't that long ago that alot of inner city communities were relative bargains, think Inglewood and Ramsay ten to twenty years ago. This doesn't go for new construction in the inner city, but that makes sense, you're paying for both the old bungalow that was demolished and the construction of the new infill. Which is why rezoning the inner city won't lead to affordability.

About the whole personal choice debate. Living in a society means sacrificing certain freedoms to the will of the group. Some of those freedoms would involve "personal choice" about living arrangements, big houses on a lot of land would not come cheap; other freedoms lost would involve freedom from certain annoyances, like fires. If you want to live around alot of people, there are just certain things you might have to put up with, music before 11:00 and firepits being among them. It really isn't a health concern, second hand smoke in bars was pervasive, you could see the thick clouds of smoke, and it caused harm to those (particularly staff) that spent a great deal of time in it. Being able to smell a fire is entirely different, and merely an annoyance. This is part of a disturbingly elitist track I've noticed at times, where people desire to take away others freedoms not for the good of society, but merely because they think they know better than the uncultured mob. That crosses a threshold into fascist town, somewhere I'd prefer to stay away from.

Personally I think we should change the nature of development levies. We should concentrate less on a fee per lot, and more on a total fee per area, to promote density. We should also improve the connectivity of our suburbs, as opposed to allowing each to remain a pod with only one way in or out. Beyond that I think that Calgary is generally on the right track, we should strive to improve matters further but we're going in the right direction. As long as our population grows I don't have a major problem with outwardly growth, it should be dense to the point where overall population density increases instead of decreases, but we'd have too many problems if we tried to add thirty thousand people a year to the current footprint. We should of course strive to increase the number we do add to the current footprint, but we must be practical.

[niwell]

Part of the problem is that due to various reasons, intensification can really only take place in the inner city, which in Calgary's case is quite small. That's great and all, but it's making an unaffordable inner city, as most infill projects are geared to the upper class. What needs to happen concurrently are more sustainable suburbs (lets get modified grids to start, no more collecter/feeder/pods) and intensification of older suburbs. Also, allowing things such as basement suites can help a great deal. In Toronto this allows many people to own expensive central houses and pay the mortgage.

[freeweed]

Living in a society means sacrificing certain freedoms to the will of the group. Some of those freedoms would involve "personal choice" about living arrangements, big houses on a lot of land would not come cheap; other freedoms lost would involve freedom from certain annoyances, like fires.

Or the freedom lost could be the ability to have fires. Or did you only think it appropriate to keep the freedoms YOU wanted? Should we just go with the tyranny of the majority?

Repeat after me: your freedom ends at the end of my nose.

In a society where we're banning foods from schools because stupid kids *might* ingest them, don't sit there and try to tell me that fire smoke is just an annoyance. At least the kids can avoid each other's foods. I can't get away from your fires, period. And I'm walking proof that they have health effects.

This is part of a disturbingly elitist track I've noticed at times, where people desire to take away others freedoms not for the good of society, but merely because they think they know better than the uncultured mob.

I know exactly what you mean. There's a tiny elitist minority in Calgary who are trying very hard to impose their ideas of forced density on everyone else, and when you try to argue with them, you're essentially wrong because they know better than you, "the uncultured mob".

(Insert irony tags here and above as required)

[Bassic Lab]

Or the freedom lost could be the ability to have fires. Or did you only think it appropriate to keep the freedoms YOU wanted? Should we just go with the tyranny of the majority?

Repeat after me: your freedom ends at the end of my nose.

In a society where we're banning foods from schools because stupid kids *might* ingest them, don't sit there and try to tell me that fire smoke is just an annoyance. At least the kids can avoid each other's foods. I can't get away from your fires, period. And I'm walking proof that they have health effects.



I know exactly what you mean. There's a tiny elitist minority in Calgary who are trying very hard to impose their ideas of forced density on everyone else, and when you try to argue with them, you're essentially wrong because they know better than you, "the uncultured mob".

(Insert irony tags here and above as required)

Really, you're walking proof that backyard fires have health effects? I have asthma, I've been told it's from growing up around second hand smoke, I beleive that, my parents feel bad. I don't think camp fires atleast fifty feet away from me ever had any thing to do with it. Firepits are a smell that some find unpleasant, the concentrations of toxins and rarity of exposure ensure it isn't a health problem, atleast not one comparable to any number of things that are allowed. There are all kinds of things that smell bad in cities, it is something you have to deal with if you want to live in one.

By the way, they're not my fires, I don't have fires, I'm just not the kind of person that accuses those who do of being the devil. I do things that are worse for the air quality of those around me, like driving a car, so I'm not going to judge.

You can try to throw what I said about elites back at me all you want, it won't stick, I've never said I want to force people to do any thing. I don't go around saying look at the stupid suburbanites, they don't know how stupid they are, I'll solve the problem for them and make them all live in 200 sq foot condos. If people want to have five acres and a mansion, power to them, I just think they should have to pay substantially more than they currently do for the priveledge. That increase would cover various costs associated with the practice, and curtail it to the point that we would have less of an impact on our surroundings.

[Lee_Haber8]

Interesting thread. There are many factors that drive sprawl. A lot of people say that people want sprawl - believe a lot of this 'demand' is the result of market distortions and poor policy.

1) Perverse subsidies. Many cities subsidize sprawl by paying for the costs of the new infrastructure required. Also, unbelievably, in the United States you are paid farmer's aid even if you aren't farming the land.

2) Implicit automobile subsidies. All taxpayers regardless of how much they use roadways pay for them equally. That means if you walk everywhere you are subsidizing the lifestyle of someone who commutes 30 km. Who pays for new roads and highways? - pedestrians and SUV drivers equally do. It is a result of our tax system. To solve this you would need to implement gas taxes which fully pay the cost of road maintenance or some sort of electronic road-tolling system.

3) Poor Planning. Part of sprawl is that no care has been taken into how people well people of all ages and incomes will function in that neighbourhood. Poor city planning focuses growth at the periphery instead of in the city using existing infrastructure. I think a successful planning strategy in combating sprawl involves planning growth inside the city and setting up a greenbelt to protect farmland and natural habitats. No matter how orderly growth is, at some point the city needs to end.

In some jurisdictions (e.g. Manitoba), residential developments are not required to have proper sewage system and can rely on septic pools. This poses serious environmental issues as septic pools are usually located near rivers and can overflow into them after a heavy rainfall.

4) NIMBYism. Preventing development in the city drives the demand for sprawl since sprawl only has a few neighbours at most to deal with. Better planning and education can help reduce NIMBYism, but I think what is also needed is a clearer understanding of property rights.

Many people just don't realize that we have so much sprawl because poor planning and policy has tilted the playing field overwhelming in its favor for so long. I believe that if these distortions are corrected, that much of this 'desire' for a suburban lifestyle will disappear. The market as it should, would be more inclined to a more sustainable and efficient use of existing infrastructure as well higher-density mixed-use neighbourhoods.

[salvius]

Part of the problem is that due to various reasons, intensification can really only take place in the inner city, which in Calgary's case is quite small. That's great and all, but it's making an unaffordable inner city, as most infill projects are geared to the upper class. What needs to happen concurrently are more sustainable suburbs (lets get modified grids to start, no more collecter/feeder/pods) and intensification of older suburbs. Also, allowing things such as basement suites can help a great deal. In Toronto this allows many people to own expensive central houses and pay the mortgage.

Well... Toronto's inner city is large, true, but similarly completely unaffordable, unless a 1 br condo is good enough forever (which for some people it might be... but not all).

[niwell]

^This is true yes. But my landlord is 30 and owns the house I live in. My house is probably worth $700000 plus, but with rent from the basement apartment (mine) and the main floor apartment it probably covers a lot of the mortgage. Granted, you need the down payment, but it's good to have the option of tenants.

[freeweed]

Really, you're walking proof that backyard fires have health effects? I have asthma, I've been told it's from growing up around second hand smoke, I beleive that, my parents feel bad. I don't think camp fires atleast fifty feet away from me ever had any thing to do with it. Firepits are a smell that some find unpleasant

If you truly have asthma, and you've never had it triggered by smoke... you either have very mild asthma, or you're incredibly lucky. You keep talking about the "smell" - the smell isn't what makes people sick. It's the particulate matter in the smoke itself. No different than cigarette smoke. Car exhaust, while unpleasant, is nothing compared to breathing smoke. There's a reason firefighters have a much higher rate of lung disease of all types compared to the general populace, and we ALL breathe car exhaust.

I used to wake up in the middle of the night coughing my lungs out, every time the neighbours had a fire in their back yard. During the summers, any time it was remotely warm out, I had 2 choices: shut my windows, enjoy stale air, and suffer through warm periods with my house at 30C - or I could wake up every hour coughing until the idiots finally put the thing out at 2am. It's been nearly 18 months and I can still trigger an asthmatic reaction from heavy exercise. This is something that I'd never experienced before in my life. Needless to say it's cut my hiking endurance literally in half. I'm now where I would have been in maybe 10-15 years. It's almost like premature aging. Oh, and one of my favourite OCCASIONAL summer activities, sitting around a campfire? For 2 years I almost couldn't. Nightly exposure to smoke is not healthy for anyone.

Maybe you've lived on abnormally large lots. In a city like Calgary, especially in newer more dense areas, people can easily have a firepit 20' or less from a your bedroom window. With the right prevailing winds, you're fucked. I ended up sleeping on a couch in the basement for much of the summer after I started going 2-3 hours every morning unable to breathe.

Anyway, much like with smoking, any attempt to get people to curb this behaviour voluntarily is generally useless. The exact same argument is used - hey, it's not REALLY affecting your health, just look at how much other bad stuff is around. Besides, it's not hurting me, so how can it possibly hurt you?

I don't leave rotting garbage out in my yard. I don't crank music all day long until the noise bylaw kicks in. Hell, my neighbours would hardly ever know I'm home for the most part. I don't see why it's so difficult for people to use a modicum of common courtesy and respect for their fellow human beings, and try to at least pretend to consider the effects of their actions on others. But I also don't hold an attitude of "hey, it's legal, so fuck you". Which is really the only defense for this sort of thing. (Not that I'm claiming you're saying that, but believe me, I've been down this road many times)

I'm not worried in the long term. Society stopped smoking in public, and given enough time we'll see and end to this nonsense as well.

[CMD UW]

Enough said, Boris, I was very much like you at your age. I guess I have not changed much in my temperment but in terms of my understanding of the complexity and dynamics of the world we live in, I have learned a lot. I hope your journey is as fruitful as mine.

Cheers.

Well said...well said.

[KrisYYC]

Manny,

I'm not sure if where i live would be considered inner city (69th ave SW, 3 blocks south of Chinook Centre). It's not right in the core, but I can walk to Chinook station in 10 mins, Chinook Centre obviously, tons of restaurants around on MacLeod, easy access to Deerfoot via Glenmore, same for Crowchild. 4 bus routes within a 5 min walk. And guess what? It ain't no apartment! I have a half-duplex with 3 bedrooms, and a yard that's bigger than most of the new cookie cutters going up these days. Even with the big shed and deck there's still a lot of grass space. It's not as quiet as the burbs, but it beats living in a condo or apartment.

I'd consider something like that over a condo considering they sell for about the same price. You just gotta look in the older areas.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

Interesting thread. There are many factors that drive sprawl. A lot of people say that people want sprawl - believe a lot of this 'demand' is the result of market distortions and poor policy.


1) Perverse subsidies. Many cities subsidize sprawl by paying for the costs of the new infrastructure required. Also, unbelievably, in the United States you are paid farmer's aid even if you aren't farming the land.

Calgary is not one of those cities, or rather not as much as you would expect. All infrastructure within the subdivision itself is paid for directly by the developer. Cost for police, fire, library and recreation facilities is somewhat covered by the additional development levies developers pay to the city above the cost recovery basis for planning services.

Oh, and paying farmers not to farm is a solution to a problem created by subsidies in the first place (over supply). If you want to have family farmer income support without destroying the world agricultural economy, this is a better way to do it.


2) Implicit automobile subsidies. All taxpayers regardless of how much they use roadways pay for them equally. That means if you walk everywhere you are subsidizing the lifestyle of someone who commutes 30 km. Who pays for new roads and highways? - pedestrians and SUV drivers equally do. It is a result of our tax system. To solve this you would need to implement gas taxes which fully pay the cost of road maintenance or some sort of electronic road-tolling system.

In Calgary, the amount we get from the province and federal government in refunds for the gas tax is pretty close to equal the amount the city spends on roads (capital and operational a year).

Before Al Duerr secured the transfer from the provincial government, your subsidization argument would have been 100% correct for Calgary.


3) Poor Planning. Part of sprawl is that no care has been taken into how people well people of all ages and incomes will function in that neighbourhood. Poor city planning focuses growth at the periphery instead of in the city using existing infrastructure. I think a successful planning strategy in combating sprawl involves planning growth inside the city and setting up a greenbelt to protect farmland and natural habitats. No matter how orderly growth is, at some point the city needs to end.

In some jurisdictions (e.g. Manitoba), residential developments are not required to have proper sewage system and can rely on septic pools. This poses serious environmental issues as septic pools are usually located near rivers and can overflow into them after a heavy rainfall.

No argument there. However Calgary lacks much of the industrial brown field sites perfect for re-purposing that other older cities have. The C-Train system is for all intensive purposes at capacity during rush hour, negating at least some redevelopment activity for now.

The massive rise in per square foot cost of multifamily housing that is close to any existing infrastructure tells me there is so much demand, that we are close to maximum capacity for building anything that isn't wood framed.

There is a place for managed smart growth balanced between new subdivisions, brown field, and pure intensification. Unless we decide as a society to stop the growth in the population of course.

As for septic systems, they have there place in rural communities, not in ex-urbs that I think your mad about here. Fortunately I've never heard of this as a huge issue, maybe since we get comparatively less rain that southern Manitoba.


4) NIMBYism. Preventing development in the city drives the demand for sprawl since sprawl only has a few neighbours at most to deal with. Better planning and education can help reduce NIMBYism, but I think what is also needed is a clearer understanding of property rights.

Many people just don't realize that we have so much sprawl because poor planning and policy has tilted the playing field overwhelming in its favor for so long. I believe that if these distortions are corrected, that much of this 'desire' for a suburban lifestyle will disappear. The market as it should, would be more inclined to a more sustainable and efficient use of existing infrastructure as well higher-density mixed-use neighbourhoods.

Number one issue for NIMBY's in Calgary is basement/secondary suites, followed closely by infills.

In Calgary the Imagine Calgary document I believe will help bring voice to the silent majority.

IE: Your Nimbyism is against the stated Imagine Calgary goals for reduction of foot print per son.

Sort of like a dogma, but it might work.

[Wooster]

Now: On the other hand, urban planners like myself really want to open up the number of choices people have.

Correction: aspiring urban planner. That is a professional distinction you gain upon graduation of an accredited planning school. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine. :D

[Bigtime]

Correction: aspiring urban planner. That is a professional distinction you gain upon graduation of an accredited planning school. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine. :D

ICEBURN! :D

[MichaelS]

Calgary is not one of those cities, or rather not as much as you would expect. All infrastructure within the subdivision itself is paid for directly by the developer. Cost for police, fire, library and recreation facilities is somewhat covered by the additional development levies developers pay to the city above the cost recovery basis for planning services.




Well said. I don't think many people realize this. And it was mentioned earlier that the development fee has gone up substantially under Mayor Bronconnier to help pay for the services such as police, fire, etc. Developers are also forced to pay for upgrades to roads that are not even part of their subdivision, but are roadways that lead to it. Case in point would be 17th Ave on the west end of town. Originally it was a two lane rural road. Now with all the development out there the capacity of it needed to be increased. This upgrade to the road is fully paid for by developers whose land borders 17th Ave.

There are still problems with the maintenance budgets of it though. All of this new stuff costs money to maintain and the city simply doesn't have the budget to maintain what it currently has, let alone more new stuff. We do our best, but it is tough.

[Me&You]

There sure seems to be alot of idealistic chatter about taxes/levies to eliminate subsidies to the new suburbs and the ever-evil automobile. According to Kyle Olsen's post, new suburb infrastructure is basically paid for by the developer and gas tax is able to cover the cost of other road construction and maintenance.

What about a user fee on autombiles to curb their use, would that help? I have no idea what kind of structure you dreamers would propose, but I hope you're ready for the spin-off costs. Think trucking companies will swallow the increased cost? Nope, they'll pass it on to the consumer. Think the pizza delivery guy won't be charging extra now? What about the student that needs to get to that 8 AM class? They can drive (and apparantly pay through the nose for the priviledge), or get up at 5 AM to work with CT's schedule (that'll be great for the grades!).

Why stop there? What about health care? There sure are a lot of fat people out there and they're sure to be an eventual burden on the system. Fast food is cheap but very unhealthy, so we'll have to tax it heavily to cover the eventual costs... say 100%. Awww that poor family of four's meal just cost them $40.

And hey, what about income taxes in general. If we're taxing things on a per use basis, maybe taxes shouldn't be based on income, but more on the individual's burden on the system. Maybe a single mother of three making $30k a year should pay the same dollar amount in tax as the single guy making $120. Afterall, the single guy doesn't have children in school etc...

You can apply this tax-per-use to everything, but that's not practical. At least, not when it's inconvenient for some of the posters on this forum.

[freeweed]

I'm just surprised that the city doesn't already account for this. I know in some other cities it's not just the property value alone - they use things like postal codes to determine the area a property is in, and modify taxes accordingly.

If it costs more to service a suburb - charge more property tax. Problem solved. I'm all for more user-pay scenarios as I'm also personally sick of subsidizing other people's poor lifestyle choices that I happen to disagree with.

[KrisYYC]

Here's a documentary titled "The End of Suburbia" I found on youtube. It's not bad. 52 mins long but interesting to say the least. It'll give Boris a hard-on that's for sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug

[1ajs]

Here's a documentary titled "The End of Suburbia" I found on youtube. It's not bad. 52 mins long but interesting to say the least. It'll give Boris a hard-on that's for sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug

interesting... is watching it

[1ajs]

aww yes the peak oil issue... were so screwed

[freeweed]

Nuclear.

Discuss.

Oh, and NG prices have been down and flat for a long time since this film was made.

[KrisYYC]

True.

I think the solution for electricity will be Nuclear augmented by Wind and Solar, and perhaps other green trechnologies if they become viable (like tidal power generation etc.)

As far as oil goes, well we'll simply have to learn to consume less of it.

Kris

[freeweed]

Heh. What starts with a decent premise rapidly degrades down to your typical fear-mongering alarmism.

Their "hydrogen can't possibly ever work because it needs methane" and "OMG hydrogen crash tests" are purely laughable.

[freeweed]

Stop breeding.

Growth fuels all of this, folks. I'm not sure why no one ever mentions this anymore. Cities and towns encroached onto farmland LONG before suburbs ever were conceived - where the hell do people think cities came from in the first place? Sorry, but that repeated mentioning of "OMG suburbs are taking over farmland" was a needless appeal to emotion. CITIES ALWAYS HAVE.

It's growth that drives all of this. Growth of the economy. Growth of the population. Growth of our cities. All that higher densities and less use of energy per capita will do is prolong the problem. At some point even the densest of city will still be expanding outwards, and you'll have the exact same problem. Stop making more of us.

The other thing I took from that film is what scares me the most - a return to these "local values" and "closeness with your neighbours" and "hey, in the 30s everyone knew their neighbours" and "globalism will disappear". Yay. Xenophobia and racism return! We can be just like Europe!

Sorry folks, but it's vitally important that we keep communicating with people 3000km away. Whether that's by SUV trip or an email over the Internet, the LAST thing human society needs is to become more insular and more locally-focussed. Tribalism is disgusting. Small little enclaves only worrying about themselves, and having minimal contact with outsiders - yeah, um, no thanks. That's the last thing I want to emulate.

[niwell]

^Speaking from an engineering standpoint, hydrogen is a pretty ridiculous fuel source. Sure, it is possible, and in the future hydrogen will likely provide a component of our energy needs. However, the claim that we can replace our entire oil based system with a hydrogen one is equally laughable.

[freeweed]

^Speaking from an engineering standpoint, hydrogen is a pretty ridiculous fuel source. Sure, it is possible, and in the future hydrogen will likely provide a component of our energy needs. However, the claim that we can replace our entire oil based system with a hydrogen one is equally laughable.

With today's technology, sure. At the current cost of oil-based energy, absolutely.

All we need is a storage mechanism for energy (hydrogen is NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE). Hell, our current inefficient batteries would work fine for 99% of people's transportation needs, if documentaries like this are correct (trips to the store, the office, etc being what most people use their cars for).

Long distance electric rail, short distance hydrogen/battery power. Power generation from thorium breeder plants. Shit, if bloody fusion research could ever see some real financing, we could synthesize petroleum from scratch in huge quantities - not that the efficiencies there would make any sense, but we COULD.

It would take at most 10-20 years to migrate 99% of our infrastructure new energy sources and transfer mechanisms, no differently than how cars came in and took over so quickly.

Rumours of doomsday are exaggerated.

[Boris2k7]

Stop breeding.

Growth fuels all of this, folks. I'm not sure why no one ever mentions this anymore. Cities and towns encroached onto farmland LONG before suburbs ever were conceived - where the hell do people think cities came from in the first place? Sorry, but that repeated mentioning of "OMG suburbs are taking over farmland" was a needless appeal to emotion. CITIES ALWAYS HAVE.

It's growth that drives all of this. Growth of the economy. Growth of the population. Growth of our cities. All that higher densities and less use of energy per capita will do is prolong the problem. At some point even the densest of city will still be expanding outwards, and you'll have the exact same problem. Stop making more of us.

Well yes, that's absolutely true. Even high-density expands outwards. But they do so slower... it is prolonging the problem a bit, and you are right, we need to re-think growth. A lot of people think that getting more migrants per year than someone else is a sign of achievement in itself, where it really is just a means to other ends. High-Density does at least have a negative effect on natural growth at least, as less people will have children. I think China's one-child policy will/has certainly help cut down on global overpopulation problems.

The other thing I took from that film is what scares me the most - a return to these "local values" and "closeness with your neighbours" and "hey, in the 30s everyone knew their neighbours" and "globalism will disappear". Yay. Xenophobia and racism return! We can be just like Europe!

Sorry folks, but it's vitally important that we keep communicating with people 3000km away. Whether that's by SUV trip or an email over the Internet, the LAST thing human society needs is to become more insular and more locally-focussed. Tribalism is disgusting. Small little enclaves only worrying about themselves, and having minimal contact with outsiders - yeah, um, no thanks. That's the last thing I want to emulate.

Both of these are big topics in the study of urban areas.

The ideal for the "closeness" is to try and bring back primary face-to-face connections between people that are much closer and personal. However, a lot of people in the field would disagree that this is even the ideal situation, as there are also benefits that people reap from secondary connections and virtual connections, such as increased privacy. Primary relations have a strong effect of increasing social control in the community and thus help cut down on local crime (by pushing it to other areas), but also have an equally exclusionary effect to people with different values and beliefs.

As for globalization, the effect is usually regarding both the political economy and the health of the city economy and community. There should be no doubt that the mom's and pop's stores of the past have declined due to big retailers such as Walmart, and the economic pundits celebrate this as the model is more efficient. Similarly, industries relocate their employees, or at the least threaten to do so. This gives businesses a disproportionate share of political power that supercedes the one-person, one-vote rule. Globalization also eliminates reinvestment into local areas, by funneling out the money and working off a model that is anti-urban in nature. Simply put, the manager at your local Walmart probably doesn't care what the sidewalks are like, what their contributions to the community are, and probably only care about degradation in the area as far as making sure there are no homeless people in the parking lot asking for change...

I think many people realize that we can't escape from the global economy and very much question the merit of such a sentiment. I certainly do, I value the global connections that Calgary is embedded in and wish for them to grow. But at the same time... you have to ask at what point we go too far and totally lose both the political-economic independence and integrity of our cities. If I can get the same job here, the same environment here, the same relations with people here, as I can get anywhere else, what's to stop me from moving?

[1ajs]

Heh. What starts with a decent premise rapidly degrades down to your typical fear-mongering alarmism.

Their "hydrogen can't possibly ever work because it needs methane" and "OMG hydrogen crash tests" are purely laughable.


hydrogen takes energy to make... its just a storeage of it but then so is oil...

not sure why manitoba is not putting money into bilding a hydrogen plant in churchill... take water outa the hudsons bay make it and ship it out on ship and train...

[Just Build It]

^Speaking from an engineering standpoint, hydrogen is a pretty ridiculous fuel source. Sure, it is possible, and in the future hydrogen will likely provide a component of our energy needs. However, the claim that we can replace our entire oil based system with a hydrogen one is equally laughable.

Agreed. I can't see hydrogen being a main source of energy any time soon. Let's first try to improve solar and wind power.

[freeweed]

Agreed. I can't see hydrogen being a main source of energy any time soon. Let's first try to improve solar and wind power.

Hydrogen will never be a source of energy. It's just a storage mechanism. Solar and wind (and nuclear, and geothermal, and tidal, and hydroelectric) are what will be used to PRODUCE hydrogen.

Hydrogen's just basically a battery technology. I don't know why so many people don't understand this. It's a completely non-toxic, non-polluting battery technology, which is why it's so cool and a bit of a holy grail - but that's all it really is.

[freeweed]

Nice comments Boris. Sometimes you and I are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, and sometimes you manage to pull shit right out of my brain. Kooky. :cool:

If I can get the same job here, the same environment here, the same relations with people here, as I can get anywhere else, what's to stop me from moving?

To me this is one of the best advantages, for the individual, of globalism. I know the thought of a mobile workforce seems to only be an advantage for corporations sometimes, but it's incredibly liberating for the individual, too. We just need a generation or two to get back to the old ways where people actually understood the benefits of moving towards opportunities.

It also (in the long term) might finally free us of the shackles of "hey, I was born here, so it MUST be better than anywhere else" - pretty much the root cause of nationalism, bigotry, and by extension most wars. Not counting religion, of course, which is also often about nothing more than cultural roots and ignorance of anything beyond one's own backyard.

[1ajs]

iceland is the worlds only hydrogen econimy...

[Tobyoby]

Hydrogen will never be a source of energy. It's just a storage mechanism. Solar and wind (and nuclear, and geothermal, and tidal, and hydroelectric) are what will be used to PRODUCE hydrogen.

Hydrogen's just basically a battery technology. I don't know why so many people don't understand this. It's a completely non-toxic, non-polluting battery technology, which is why it's so cool and a bit of a holy grail - but that's all it really is.

I thought storage of hydrogen was an issue. Doesn't it leak because the molecules are smaller than those of other materials? Also, I believe there is some danger with handling hydrogen.

[freeweed]

I thought storage of hydrogen was an issue. Doesn't it leak because the molecules are smaller than those of other materials? Also, I believe there is some danger with handling hydrogen.

Yup, and like any new technology that isn't entrenched in the marketplace, there are some technical challenges. There's danger in handling gasoline, too. Hydrogen has storage, handling, and shit, creation issues. This is why we pay engineers and materials scientists so much. ;)

No one really knows what the future may bring, but writing off hydrogen for the usual bullet point reasons is silly - there's a lot of potential here. Especially if this CO2 emissions thing becomes mainstream.