[DizzyEdge]

How politically deadly would drawing a line in the sand as far as permanent city limits be, along with maybe a 100 km green belt around it so development doesn't just go on outside the city limits?

I would support it being set where the city borders would abut the limits of Lake Chestermere, Airdrie, Cochrane, and Okotoks. This way those cities wouldn't be swallowed by Calgary, and the build out wouldn't be for many many years, allowing the city to deal with this eventuality in an orderly fashion without worrying that property values will skyrocket upon the news.
As well, they are already part of the Calgary region so it only makes sense.

I would also politically not announce it as 'we want to limit the city limits', and more 'we are creating a farming reserve around the city' or something of that nature, ie focus on the WHY, rather than the WHAT.

Is there no alternative than infinite growth?

What about something similar, but no greenbelt to the north (so a U shaped green belt) so that any exurban expansion occurs in the Calgary/Red Deer/Edmonton transportation corridor?

Now even a 100 km greenbelt might still cause town outside of it to start growing as they otherwise would not. However I would assume that
a) more people would choose to live in Calgary (ie densify it) than live 100km outside of the city b) even if it did cause growth to far away towns, Calgary itself would still densify faster than if it had been allowed infinite sprawl, achieving one of the two goals (densification and sprawl abatement)


Thoughts?

[kw5150]

How politically deadly would drawing a line in the sand as far as permanent city limits be, along with maybe a 100 km green belt around it so development doesn't just go on outside the city limits?

I would support it being set where the city borders would abut the limits of Lake Chestermere, Airdrie, Cochrane, and Okotoks. This way those cities wouldn't be swallowed by Calgary, and the build out wouldn't be for many many years, allowing the city to deal with this eventuality in an orderly fashion without worrying that property values will skyrocket upon the news.
As well, they are already part of the Calgary region so it only makes sense.

I would also politically not announce it as 'we want to limit the city limits', and more 'we are creating a farming reserve around the city' or something of that nature, ie focus on the WHY, rather than the WHAT.

Is there no alternative than infinite growth?

What about something similar, but no greenbelt to the north (so a U shaped green belt) so that any exurban expansion occurs in the Calgary/Red Deer/Edmonton transportation corridor?

Now even a 100 km greenbelt might still cause town outside of it to start growing as they otherwise would not. However I would assume that
a) more people would choose to live in Calgary (ie densify it) than live 100km outside of the city b) even if it did cause growth to far away towns, Calgary itself would still densify faster than if it had been allowed infinite sprawl, achieving one of the two goals (densification and sprawl abatement)


Thoughts?

Yes, no question. Many other cities have done this based on the fact that most cities are located on some of the most prime arable land. Im sure we will get the usual responses about "this is canada, we have excellent farmland everywhere" but that is false. The best land is always in the valleys and near rivers, lowlands etc......right where cities are built.

Yes, they have to be extremely careful not to upset the disneyland vision of todays city as so many people see it when they announce the greenbelt.

[DizzyEdge]

Well also, my idea of a 100 km green belt isn't based on science.
What should be done take a map grading the quality of extant farmland, and then use that to create your belt in a more logical manner.

[O-tacular]

Freedom! Democracy! No social engineering! Forefathers.... Rights.... Blah blahblah...

[DizzyEdge]

Freedom! Democracy! No social engineering! Forefathers.... Rights.... Blah blahblah...

It's funny, because this is also against my normal stance, which is let everything have a true cost and charge it.

But one flaw to that is it doesn't guarantee that people won't pay a premium to end up ruining things.

[Doug]

Total waste of time. It is nearly impossible to develop land without connecting to City of Calgary water and sewer, so there is already a limit to geographic expansion. Increasing the cost of new connections could impose an additional limit.

[DizzyEdge]

Total waste of time. It is nearly impossible to develop land without connecting to City of Calgary water and sewer, so there is already a limit to geographic expansion. Increasing the cost of new connections could impose an additional limit.

Good point, and related to my point above.

I suppose that if new development is charged it's actual cost, as new communities get further and further away, eventually the business case for building them might evaporate.

[Radley77]

How politically deadly would drawing a line in the sand as far as permanent city limits be, along with maybe a 100 km green belt around it so development doesn't just go on outside the city limits?

I would support it being set where the city borders would abut the limits of Lake Chestermere, Airdrie, Cochrane, and Okotoks. This way those cities wouldn't be swallowed by Calgary, and the build out wouldn't be for many many years, allowing the city to deal with this eventuality in an orderly fashion without worrying that property values will skyrocket upon the news.
As well, they are already part of the Calgary region so it only makes sense.

I would also politically not announce it as 'we want to limit the city limits', and more 'we are creating a farming reserve around the city' or something of that nature, ie focus on the WHY, rather than the WHAT.

Is there no alternative than infinite growth?

What about something similar, but no greenbelt to the north (so a U shaped green belt) so that any exurban expansion occurs in the Calgary/Red Deer/Edmonton transportation corridor?

Now even a 100 km greenbelt might still cause town outside of it to start growing as they otherwise would not. However I would assume that
a) more people would choose to live in Calgary (ie densify it) than live 100km outside of the city b) even if it did cause growth to far away towns, Calgary itself would still densify faster than if it had been allowed infinite sprawl, achieving one of the two goals (densification and sprawl abatement)


Thoughts?

I think by drawing those boundaries would cause an explosion in growth for Airdrie, Okotoks et al. I think the goal should be such that suburban development would occur in a more intelligent and sustainable form with more mixed use areas, higher street connectivity, with access to TOD, and greater densities near TOD. The City of Calgary has the option to stop approving the kinds of development that are not sustainable. For example, the City of Calgary recently put the brakes on the Winsport development for not having residential or office uses within the project. First off, I think it's important that the City communicates it's intentions about the kinds of development it wants, second I think it's important that it is discerning about the kinds of developments that gets approved. I think this is a better strategy than have an urban growth boundary.

I don't like the idea of precluding that new suburbs could not be built to a higher level of sustainability than older communities.

[O-tacular]

It's funny, because this is also against my normal stance, which is let everything have a true cost and charge it.

But one flaw to that is it doesn't guarantee that people won't pay a premium to end up ruining things.

Obviously I was being sarcastic. The thing I find funniest about people who oppose density is that they claim to not want to live in a "concrete jungle", but at the expense of replacing natural areas around the city with uglier, more conrete-e development.

[DizzyEdge]

Obviously I was being sarcastic. The thing I find funniest about people who oppose density is that they claim to not want to live in a "concrete jungle", but at the expense of replacing natural areas around the city with uglier, more conrete-e development.

Oh I know you were, but the reason I like the 'true cost' method is then it's all just laid out and those who want less sustainable things will have to pay a premium, vs being "told" what is "right", and hopefully reduces the social engineering cries.

[kw5150]

I think by drawing those boundaries would cause an explosion in growth for Airdrie, Okotoks et al. I think the goal should be such that suburban development would occur in a more intelligent and sustainable form with more mixed use areas, higher street connectivity, with access to TOD, and greater densities near TOD. The City of Calgary has the option to stop approving the kinds of development that are not sustainable. For example, the City of Calgary recently put the brakes on the Winsport development for not having residential or office uses within the project. First off, I think it's important that the City communicates it's intentions about the kinds of development it wants, second I think it's important that it is discerning about the kinds of developments that gets approved. I think this is a better strategy than have an urban growth boundary.

I don't like the idea of precluding that new suburbs could not be built to a higher level of sustainability than older communities.

Except, they have done this in other cities with success and it did not result in the outlying cities stealing all of the growth. People are acting like the world is ending in 10 years and that we dont have to worry about farmland......or anything for that matter.

[fusili]

I think by drawing those boundaries would cause an explosion in growth for Airdrie, Okotoks et al.

Where would they get their water? Not kidding. Calgary controls the water licenses in the region. Rockyview County is currently turning down, or significantly delaying any applications for residential projects, unless they have a ground water source, because they can't afford a municipal system. Waste water is its own bag of cats as well. Try getting anything approved in Rockyview that isn't septic fields or without a connection to the Rockyview Sewer line. Foothills County, Okotoks, et al are all facing the same problems.

Those who say residential development will simply move to Airdrie or Rockyview County have no idea what development constraints those jurisdictions are facing.

[DizzyEdge]

Where would they get their water? Not kidding. Calgary controls the water licenses in the region. Rockyview County is currently turning down, or significantly delaying any applications for residential projects, unless they have a ground water source, because they can't afford a municipal system. Waste water is its own bag of cats as well. Try getting anything approved in Rockyview that isn't septic fields or without a connection to the Rockyview Sewer line. Foothills County, Okotoks, et al are all facing the same problems.

Those who say residential development will simply move to Airdrie or Rockyview County have no idea what development constraints those jurisdictions are facing.

My assumption has been that those city of calgary regional towns/cities would eventually need to buy water or licenses from Calgary, making the 3M city of calgary water licence more of a 3M region of calgary water licence.

[fusili]

My assumption has been that those city of calgary regional towns/cities would eventually need to buy water or licenses from Calgary, making the 3M city of calgary water licence more of a 3M region of calgary water licence.

Not eventually. Now. IIRC, Airdrie, Strathmore, Cochrane already buy water from Calgary. Calgary won't sell to Rocky View because they really don't like each other.

[ue]

IIRC, greenbelts rarely work. See: Ottawa.

Eventually, when the city gets close to it's "permanent" borders, seeing as how the city would likely not have learned to grow sustainably, it would either have suburbia grow on the other side of the greenbelt if it isn't far out or the borders would end up being extended.

[suburb]

This may sound silly, but given that economic viability for a province the size of Alberta likely requires 10M people, it might be worthwhile to consider how that could happen at a provincial level. It my turn out that focused development in Red Deer is the way to go. You'd need to have a thoughtful plan that considers all the subtleties, including finding ways to direct folks heading this way to specific locations where there are jobs and opportunities. If you simply put an arbitrary jail fence around Calgary, the knock on effects could be not so nice.

The idea is, instead of a police state, create policies and an enabling environment that gets new people to where you'd like them to be. Police states (and it isn't the best word, but the best I can think of now) don't work in the long run.

[fusili]

One idea is to do what BC has done with their Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). Basically any land classified as agriculturally productive land is protected, and any application for subdivision on ALR land has to go through the provincial agency, who will most likely turn the application down. If Alberta were to do something similar, I could see it having some political clout.

[Doug]

Except, they have done this in other cities with success and it did not result in the outlying cities stealing all of the growth.

Go to Portland. A disproportionate amount of new development occurs on the Vancouver site, where the urban growth boundary does not apply.

[Doug]

One idea is to do what BC has done with their Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). Basically any land classified as agriculturally productive land is protected, and any application for subdivision on ALR land has to go through the provincial agency, who will most likely turn the application down. If Alberta were to do something similar, I could see it having some political clout.

BC's ALRs worked better in theory than in practice:

1) They encourage stop-start development. Look at Richmond, the Fraser Valley or Kelowna from the air. They look like checker boards. This actually contributes more to sprawl.

2) Whether or not one's land is included or exempted from the ALR is political. It is highly lucrative to donate to a politician's campaign if you happen to own farmland adjacent to an urban area.

[DizzyEdge]

^^ might also be more politically palatable in BC where something like less than 5% of the provinces land is arable.

[Doug]

Not eventually. Now. IIRC, Airdrie, Strathmore, Cochrane already buy water from Calgary. Calgary won't sell to Rocky View because they really don't like each other.

I think Cochrane has its own water license, but relies on Calgary for sewage treatment. I'm unsure how much additional growth Cochrane could sustain before having to look elsewhere for water.

The City of Calgary holds the only remaining unused water licenses south of the Red Deer river. No other individual, municipality or irrigation district can draw more water than current. This gives Calgary incredible leverage. Existing water users could choose to reallocate their current allotments. For example, the Eastern Irrigation District agreed to sell water to Cross Iron Mills. Other irrigation water could also be redirected towards urban growth outside Calgary. The City of Calgary could try to outbid Rockyview etc. on this water or it could be really slimy and lobby the Province to restrict this practice.

[MalcolmTucker]

As long as Calgary controls the water, and the Land Stewardship Act plans doesn't remove that, there is little need. Look at all the hoops Cross Iron Mills had to jump through to get built.

Inevitable compromises that would come in a boundary implemented by the province would seriously weaken Calgary's hand.

As long as developments are dense enough and in logical places for transit (along rail lines or near highways with extra capacity) then let the market do its work. That doesn't mean the Calgary region shouldn't have a supplemental gas tax to move the needle towards better outcomes however.

[Ferreth]

I don't think an arbitrary limit would work either, although it is something that perhaps could be set as a goal, without making it a rule. For example, I'd set the N-S size at 20km each direction from downtown. Likely Airdrie would grow out the the Calgary limit, but not Okotoks. I'd set E-W at 15km, owing partly to Calgary's poor E-W road network. These limits would correspond to reasonable commutes to downtown from end of line LRT lines. Commuter rail would eventually service Cochrane, Airdrie, Chestermere, and Okotoks.

How to encourage this? First, the province would have to force the MDs on side. No more development <2 ac parcel, outside of towns, no new towns. Towns/cities outside of Calgary would get geographic limits as well. Next, within the limits, prices to service land need to be set accordingly. 'Burb pricing needs to get more expensive further out, as in the city should first charge the FULL cost of any development, then start tacking on as needed to encourage more inner city build. This will eventually force standard income families into townhouses/apartments rather than detached residential on a 30' lot. Also, more people will choose to live in redevelopment closer in as there is no longer a price advantage to being further out.

I think you guys over-estimate the limitations of water licenses. The CrossIron deal is the first of a trend that will result in less water going to farming and more going to towns/cities over time, similar to southern California. It will not be as easy as just taking more from an available supply, but eventually whomever is willing to pay the highest price wins - that will not be the farmers.

I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon - this province is in the stone ages in terms of progressive environmental thinking. Current developers would resist too, even though they could make just as much money at the end of the day building townhouses and small apartments. Of course, people would resist as well; lots of people want what their parents had - a 50' lot with a big backyard in a bungalow - they will buy whatever is closest to that.

[MalcolmTucker]

whomever is willing to pay the highest price wins - that will not be the farmers.
Since the farmers own the irrigation districts, and they have a fundamental mandate to supply irrigation, can't happen without the province onside. Cross Iron Mills did not buy rights that displaced farmers, they bought the water that evaporated from a certain number of kilometers of canals, then funded the conversion of the canal to a pipeline (or possibly other efficiency measures, but at the time I remember the pipeline was the main source of efficiency cited in the media).

It costs a hell of a lot to move water. The Balzac deal was 1,800 acre-feet (2,220,265,800 liters) of water annually in return for $15 million in capital funding, plus the infrastructure to actually extract and move the water, along with storing it for when the canals are dry. The average Calgarian according to the city uses 84,000 liters of water a year. So if the Balzac deal is considered a fair rate (it is incredibly likely to be low since it was first out of the gate, only accounted for the cost to secure the water not any market value since the deal was of benefit to another nominal farmer's group, the United Horsemen), $15 milllion could support a city of 26,4000 people.

[fusili]

Water is only half of it. Sewer is the other. Without large industrial customers to pay for it, sanitation systems are too expensive to build that far out.

[Boris2k7]

I'm not sure if this is a particular problem in Alberta, but back in Nova Scotia smaller municipalities and rural districts have had issues with paying for new water treatment facilities to meet raised provincial standards.

[Ferreth]

Since the farmers own the irrigation districts, and they have a fundamental mandate to supply irrigation, can't happen without the province onside. Cross Iron Mills did not buy rights that displaced farmers, they bought the water that evaporated from a certain number of kilometers of canals, then funded the conversion of the canal to a pipeline (or possibly other efficiency measures, but at the time I remember the pipeline was the main source of efficiency cited in the media).

It costs a hell of a lot to move water. The Balzac deal was 1,800 acre-feet (2,220,265,800 liters) of water annually in return for $15 million in capital funding, plus the infrastructure to actually extract and move the water, along with storing it for when the canals are dry. The average Calgarian according to the city uses 84,000 liters of water a year. So if the Balzac deal is considered a fair rate (it is incredibly likely to be low since it was first out of the gate, only accounted for the cost to secure the water not any market value since the deal was of benefit to another nominal farmer's group, the United Horsemen), $15 milllion could support a city of 26,4000 people.

Yes, I'd say the Balzac deal was of the "low hanging fruit" variety - invest money to make the irrigation transport loose less, and we'll transfer X amount of water to you in return is the essence of the deal. At this point, no one has less water. In the future it might not be so easy, and there will be a net loss. That being said, I can't see it being a large issue in the next 20 years or so, unless the Calgary area doubles in population in that time, which might happen depending on how things shake out energy wise.

[Jay in Cowtown]

I'm unsure how much additional growth Cochrane could sustain before having to look elsewhere for water.


Forget water... they out grew their highways and major streets 10 years ago!

[mersar]

I think Cochrane has its own water license, but relies on Calgary for sewage treatment. I'm unsure how much additional growth Cochrane could sustain before having to look elsewhere for water.

Last numbers I'd heard was Cochrane's license will limit them to around 30-35k population (currently about 18k), which was forecast around 2021. They did look at the pipeline option from Calgary already and decided against it for various reasons. They were told by the province that there might be the appetite to allow transferring licenses but no guarantees (some of the farmers around Cochrane have huge licenses that are mostly unused. One I believe holds a license bigger then the town's current license)

[fusili]

Last numbers I'd heard was Cochrane's license will limit them to around 30-35k population (currently about 18k), which was forecast around 2021. They did look at the pipeline option from Calgary already and decided against it for various reasons. They were told by the province that there might be the appetite to allow transferring licenses but no guarantees (some of the farmers around Cochrane have huge licenses that are mostly unused. One I believe holds a license bigger then the town's current license)

I for one, would be against transferring an agricultural license to a residential license. I believe the need to grow food outweigh the need for development in a particular area.

[Doug]

I for one, would be against transferring an agricultural license to a residential license. I believe the need to grow food outweigh the need for development in a particular area.


It's not that simple. If agricultural licenses can't be sold, there is no incentive to pursue more efficient use of water for agricultural purpose. Few people realize that agriculture accounts for something like 65-70% of the water use in Alberta. The oilsands receive lots of press for their water use, but they are sub 10%.

I think there is a statistic somewhere that Calgary's total water consumption has remained largely static over the past 20 years, despite massive population growth.

[fusili]

It's not that simple. If agricultural licenses can't be sold, there is no incentive to pursue more efficient use of water for agricultural purpose. Few people realize that agriculture accounts for something like 65-70% of the water use in Alberta. The oilsands receive lots of press for their water use, but they are sub 10%.

I think there is a statistic somewhere that Calgary's total water consumption has remained largely static over the past 20 years, despite massive population growth.

Good point. Water use is dominated by agricultural and industrial uses. Reducing their consumption goes a long way to conserving our water. The largest single user of water is one of the oilsands projects, the second is Canada Malting in Calgary.

[Doug]

On the topic of water usage:

Alberta water project hopes to quench parched farms’ thirst
RENATA D’ALIESIO

Last updated Monday, Jul. 25, 2011 6:12AM EDT
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies/alberta-water-project-hopes-to-quench-parched-farms-thirst/article2107353/?service=mobile

Now the Alberta government is resurrecting a divisive proposal to take large volumes of water from the Red Deer River near Nevis, a hamlet about 170 kilometres southeast of Edmonton, and divert the resource 120 kilometres through a canal and pipeline to the parched prairie. The government will spend $1-million to start an environmental assessment of the plan. The project’s price tag isn’t being revealed, but the most recent estimate pegged the cost at $250-million.

The province contends the ambitious water-diversion scheme would drought-proof the Dry Belt and deliver economic stability to a vast southern region nearly four times the size of Prince Edward Island. Additional water would be used in homes and for livestock, to support municipalities and new agri-businesses, to irrigate crops and stabilize 415 kilometres of creeks that run dry many summers.

[kw5150]

Go to Portland. A disproportionate amount of new development occurs on the Vancouver site, where the urban growth boundary does not apply.

Did you live there or something or have stats on that? I would like to read up on that. Toronto has a green belt as well.

[You Need A Thneed]

Will Calgary eventually have to build another water reservoir?

The province, as well as organizations like the Eastern Irrigation District have been putting millions of dollars a year into upgrading irrigation canals the last several years.

[You Need A Thneed]

Will Calgary eventually have to build another water reservoir?

The province, as well as organizations like the Eastern Irrigation District have been putting millions of dollars a year into upgrading irrigation canals the last several years.

[Policy Wonk]

Water is only half of it. Sewer is the other. Without large industrial customers to pay for it, sanitation systems are too expensive to build that far out.

As thoroughly disgusting as it is, high-density use of septic tanks isn't unusual in a lot of places.

[fusili]

As thoroughly disgusting as it is, high-density use of septic tanks isn't unusual in a lot of places.

I know. But Rocky View is very hesitant about communal septic systems. Don't know why, but they are.

[Doug]

Did you live there or something or have stats on that? I would like to read up on that. Toronto has a green belt as well.

I live in Bellevue, Washington but go down to Portland lots. Vancouver, Wa is one of the fastest growing cities in the NW. It used to have a reputation as a semi-rural, backwater aka "Vantucky", but since the late 80s has exploded with new housing and commercial development as developers increasingly avoid the restrictions on the Oregon side of the river.

[Doug]

I know. But Rocky View is very hesitant about communal septic systems. Don't know why, but they are.

Probably to avoid contamination of well water along the lines of what has happened in Bragg Creek.

[fusili]

Probably to avoid contamination of well water along the lines of what has happened in Bragg Creek.

Didn't hear about that. Wouldn't a communal system run less of a risk of contamination than septic fields though? I am no sanitation expert, so I am just guessing here.

[DizzyEdge]

I live in Bellevue, Washington but go down to Portland lots. Vancouver, Wa is one of the fastest growing cities in the NW. It used to have a reputation as a semi-rural, backwater aka "Vantucky", but since the late 80s has exploded with new housing and commercial development as developers increasingly avoid the restrictions on the Oregon side of the river.

I'm surprised they ever thought that would work. You can't try to limit sprawl via a greenbelt with a non-greenbelted city right next door.

[You Need A Thneed]

I'm surprised they ever thought that would work. You can't try to limit sprawl via a greenbelt with a non-greenbelted city right next door.
It certainly doesn't help that that city is in a different state either.

[fusili]

I'm surprised they ever thought that would work. You can't try to limit sprawl via a greenbelt with a non-greenbelted city right next door.

Any growth limit strategy has to be done regionally, or there has to be some sort of compliance mechanism in place. In the Calgary region, Calgary uses control of water licenses (and sewer infrastructure to a lesser extent) to enforce compliance with the strategy (which is why Rocky View doesn't get water from Calgary). Prior to this it was regional planning boards that enforced growth strategies. Other jurisdictions use things like toll roads to try and control growth. Either way there has to be some sort of mechanism to ensure cooperation, either sticks or carrots. Regional planning is very complicated, very political and very difficult, but also very interesting.

[freeweed]

Toronto has a green belt as well.

Toronto is quite possibly the WORST example of suburban (and much worse, ex-urban) sprawl in North America. In my experience only Los Angeles is more of a joke. The GTA (and the entire horseshoe, really) is nothing more than hundreds of remote suburbs - technically other cities/municipalities - surrounding a precious few dozen blocks of well-designed city.

Greenbelts are almost impossible to make work.

And yeah, while Portland is an amazing urban experience, for a city of its size it's ridiculously sprawly and heavily car dependent. It's phenomenal how much freeway exists there. Although as always, US sprawl vs Canadian sprawl is like comparing apples to geography.

Calgary's handling its growth amazingly well. We're getting denser all the time in existing neighbourhoods (except NIMBY strongholds like Mount Royal, Kensington, etc), newer neighbourhoods are far more dense than anything built in the past 50 years, our water usage (really the biggest environmental impact in a semi-arid climate) is remarkable stable given the population growth, transit usage continues to rise... really the only negative is the physical footprint. Which by itself is almost irrelevant. It's the actual environmental effects we need to mitigate. About my only fear in my lifetime is air quality. We're seeing far too many smog days in my opinion. We need some serious clean air legislation here.

[kw5150]

:previous:

Well we better figure it out soon. I dont think the world baby count is getting any lower is it? I really hope that my (hypothetical) kids, kids.....etc still have plenty of clean water to swim in around calgary.

I trust in the scientists that warn us about global warming and I have adjusted my lifestyle accordingly. Every bit helps. :tup:

[fusili]

Toronto is quite possibly the WORST example of suburban (and much worse, ex-urban) sprawl in North America. In my experience only Los Angeles is more of a joke. The GTA (and the entire horseshoe, really) is nothing more than hundreds of remote suburbs - technically other cities/municipalities - surrounding a precious few dozen blocks of well-designed city.

Greenbelts are almost impossible to make work.

And yeah, while Portland is an amazing urban experience, for a city of its size it's ridiculously sprawly and heavily car dependent. It's phenomenal how much freeway exists there. Although as always, US sprawl vs Canadian sprawl is like comparing apples to geography.

Calgary's handling its growth amazingly well. We're getting denser all the time in existing neighbourhoods (except NIMBY strongholds like Mount Royal, Kensington, etc), newer neighbourhoods are far more dense than anything built in the past 50 years, our water usage (really the biggest environmental impact in a semi-arid climate) is remarkable stable given the population growth, transit usage continues to rise... really the only negative is the physical footprint. Which by itself is almost irrelevant. It's the actual environmental effects we need to mitigate. About my only fear in my lifetime is air quality. We're seeing far too many smog days in my opinion. We need some serious clean air legislation here.

I have to agree 100% with everything you said. When I went to Toronto, I was like "this City is awesome" and then I got on the 401 to go out to Oshawa and was like "this is the worst sprawling horrdenous mess I have ever seen!" Calgary may have some bad sprawl, but Toronto is much, much worse.

Calgary is getting much better, but still has a long way to go. While the Beltline has densified dramatically recently, it is really the potetnial for medium density neighbourhoods that we need to foster. Bridgeland, Killarney, South Calgary, Altadore, Bankview, Sunalta, Inglewood, Crescent Heights, Rosedale, Tuxedo etc are all good candidates to evolve into medium density communities consisting of a mix of townhouses, 4-6 storey grade-oriented multifamily and commercial corridors. To me, that will be the greatest challenge for our city in the next 20 years.

[bigcanuck]

With respect to Ontario, read up on the Places to Grow Act 2005 and the Greenbelt Act 2005 to see what steps they are trying to take.

[albertantraingeek]

Same, try to be as eco-friendly as possible :cool:. My family recently moved into Panorama Hills and I must say they know what they're doing:tup:. Until the construction debris is considered :haha:

[WIGS]

Toronto is quite possibly the WORST example of suburban (and much worse, ex-urban) sprawl in North America. In my experience only Los Angeles is more of a joke. The GTA (and the entire horseshoe, really) is nothing more than hundreds of remote suburbs - technically other cities/municipalities - surrounding a precious few dozen blocks of well-designed city.....

replace Toronto with Houston :D

[kw5150]

replace Toronto with Houston :D

If were not careful, WE will be the next Houston!

Wait, we already have more urban living than they do........

[kw5150]

Same, try to be as eco-friendly as possible :cool:. My family recently moved into Panorama Hills and I must say they know what they're doing:tup:. Until the construction debris is considered :haha:


Im scratching my head trying to figure out if you are being sarcastic.

[Ferreth]

In comparison to other Canadian cities, I agree Calgary is doing quite well in terms of sprawl. My impression of the cities I've been to in Canada:

Edmonton - the city is not that much different than Calgary - it falls down on the numerous bedroom communities that increase its effective sprawl. Calgary was lucky it didn't have a bunch of small towns Airdrie distance out, or we could be in the same boat.

Winnipeg has a ring road issue - new growth has occurred around the ring road; leaving large gaps of no or under-utilized land between it and the city proper. On top of it, the slow growth of the city overall seems to have resulted in a parasitic effect of new 'burbs stealing wealth from some central older areas, turning some of them into run down areas.

Vancouver sprawls partly due to it's geography. It also has some pretty good density thanks to its geography. Constraining the growth with ocean to the west, mountains to the north, and river jump to the south helps a lot to get some density going. The Skytrain is helping too, with new high density being built where ever there is Skytrain service. Calgary needs to push more of that with LRT (but LRT capacity needs to be there too).

Ottawa - I didn't spend a lot of time here - but I get the impression, backed up by looking at maps, that the city is a quilt work of development and greenfield extending way further out than it needs to. I seem to recall an issue with multi-city governance and greenbelt attempts resulting in this patchwork of leapfrogging to the next possible development area. I give it my vote as the worst sprawl.

Toronto - it's so huge. I didn't appreciate it's size until I was stuck on on the 401. Since I had time, I'm trying to see the DT skyline. Never did through the haze. My understanding is that it's similar to looking at the Calgary skyline from the 22X. Trying to compare TO's sprawl is like comparing Saskatoon to Calgary - sure, it can be done, but what's the point?

[freeweed]

Toronto - it's so huge. I didn't appreciate it's size until I was stuck on on the 401.

Don't want to turn this into a Toronto-bash, but... if you were "stuck" on the 401, in traffic - you only saw half the fun.

Try driving their freeways at 2 or 3 in the morning, when traffic is incredibly light and you can set the cruise at 130 and just fly around. It still takes FOREVER to go places. I once drove from Hamilton to Markham in the middle of the night and it felt like I was driving all the way to Banff.

Calgary driving at night is hilarious. 30 mins to completely cross the city on our freeways, max. And there's so little traffic by comparison. I suspect that will change muchly over the next 20 years though.

[kw5150]

In comparison to other Canadian cities, I agree Calgary is doing quite well in terms of sprawl. My impression of the cities I've been to in Canada:

Edmonton - the city is not that much different than Calgary - it falls down on the numerous bedroom communities that increase its effective sprawl. Calgary was lucky it didn't have a bunch of small towns Airdrie distance out, or we could be in the same boat.

Winnipeg has a ring road issue - new growth has occurred around the ring road; leaving large gaps of no or under-utilized land between it and the city proper. On top of it, the slow growth of the city overall seems to have resulted in a parasitic effect of new 'burbs stealing wealth from some central older areas, turning some of them into run down areas.

Vancouver sprawls partly due to it's geography. It also has some pretty good density thanks to its geography. Constraining the growth with ocean to the west, mountains to the north, and river jump to the south helps a lot to get some density going. The Skytrain is helping too, with new high density being built where ever there is Skytrain service. Calgary needs to push more of that with LRT (but LRT capacity needs to be there too).

Ottawa - I didn't spend a lot of time here - but I get the impression, backed up by looking at maps, that the city is a quilt work of development and greenfield extending way further out than it needs to. I seem to recall an issue with multi-city governance and greenbelt attempts resulting in this patchwork of leapfrogging to the next possible development area. I give it my vote as the worst sprawl.

Toronto - it's so huge. I didn't appreciate it's size until I was stuck on on the 401. Since I had time, I'm trying to see the DT skyline. Never did through the haze. My understanding is that it's similar to looking at the Calgary skyline from the 22X. Trying to compare TO's sprawl is like comparing Saskatoon to Calgary - sure, it can be done, but what's the point?

I agree mostly except:

1. Winnipeg does not have much development outside of the Ring Road at all, and I find the downtown is improving. The roads in the burbs are not nearly as wide as the roads in Calgary, come to think of it, most roads in winnipeg are much more narrow than ours.

2. Toronto may have been having wildfires? Or is the smog really that bad?

[shreddog]

... I once drove from Hamilton to Markham in the middle of the night and it felt like I was driving all the way to Banff...
BINGO!

The GTA sprawl along the 401 runs from Milton to Bowmanville - a distance of 120kms - which is the same distance from downtown Calgary to the Banff park gates!!

Next time someone bitches about sprawl in Calgary, imagine what it would be like to drive to Banff with SFH the entire way - and that's what it would be like to live in the GTA.

[freeweed]

1. Winnipeg does not have much development outside of the Ring Road at all, and I find the downtown is improving.

Winnipeg has a ton of development outside of the Perimeter (their "Ring Road"). Much of it is in ex-urban communities like Oakbank, the St. Pauls, etc. There are thousands upon thousands of people who live just outside of city limits for the specific purpose of avoiding City property taxes. Winnipeg proper has very high property taxes compared to its surrounding communities and this has been a trend for my entire adult life. Calgary's annexation policies have prevented this for the most part. But just imagine if Cranston residents paid half the property taxes Calgarians did, but everything else was the same (land values, services, etc). The neighbourhood would grow insanely quick.

The roads in the burbs are not nearly as wide as the roads in Calgary, come to think of it, most roads in winnipeg are much more narrow than ours.

Absolutely true, although not as narrow as Vancouver's roads. Calgary's lanes themselves are wider in general, not sure if this is a provincial HTA thing or what. One thing worth mentioning is that Winnipeg's roads seem narrower because so much of it is older. With 90% of Calgary being built in the last 20 minutes, every road is built to modern safe standards. Winnipeg, not so much.

2. Toronto may have been having wildfires? Or is the smog really that bad?

The first time I truly saw blue sky in Toronto (I'd seen plenty of cloudless days before), people were remarking about how insanely blue the sky was (and making me laugh very hard inside). That day looked like a minorly hazy day in Calgary. It almost never truly is clear outside in Toronto. Most of the time the sky seems to be a dull, faded blue - or worse, almost grey. Again, I'm talking when it's completely cloudless.

[kw5150]

Winnipeg has a ton of development outside of the Perimeter (their "Ring Road"). Much of it is in ex-urban communities like Oakbank, the St. Pauls, etc. There are thousands upon thousands of people who live just outside of city limits for the specific purpose of avoiding City property taxes. Winnipeg proper has very high property taxes compared to its surrounding communities and this has been a trend for my entire adult life. Calgary's annexation policies have prevented this for the most part. But just imagine if Cranston residents paid half the property taxes Calgarians did, but everything else was the same (land values, services, etc). The neighbourhood would grow insanely quick.



Absolutely true, although not as narrow as Vancouver's roads. Calgary's lanes themselves are wider in general, not sure if this is a provincial HTA thing or what. One thing worth mentioning is that Winnipeg's roads seem narrower because so much of it is older. With 90% of Calgary being built in the last 20 minutes, every road is built to modern safe standards. Winnipeg, not so much.



The first time I truly saw blue sky in Toronto (I'd seen plenty of cloudless days before), people were remarking about how insanely blue the sky was (and making me laugh very hard inside). That day looked like a minorly hazy day in Calgary. It almost never truly is clear outside in Toronto. Most of the time the sky seems to be a dull, faded blue - or worse, almost grey. Again, I'm talking when it's completely cloudless.

Come on, there isn't that much development outside the ring road....most of those places were there before the ring road anyway. There hasn't really been any large-scale suburban developments "created" outside the ring road in a while.....right?

[5seconds]

With 90% of Calgary being built in the last 20 minutes, every road is built to modern safe standards

Nice :haha:

[kw5150]

Winnipeg and the ring road. Some parts of the ring road are SO far out of the city, that it does not even makes sense to develop. Note the fact that there is hardly any development outside of the ring road.

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/455/winnipegcopy.jpg
By kw5150 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/kw5150) at 2011-08-18

[Calgarian]

I don't think it really matters how much development there is outside the ring road in Winnipeg. That city is fairly compact and doesn't really suffer from urban sprawl. It is growing, so I hope they have a good strategy, but I seriously doubt it will ever reach the geographical area that Calgary currently covers in my lifetime.

[Calgarian]

I really doubt we will see Calgary annex more land in the next 30 or so years, there is a ton of greenfield sites that can and will be developed, and as was stated before, the development going in now is much denser than what was built in the past.

[UofC.engineer]

It's the actual environmental effects we need to mitigate. About my only fear in my lifetime is air quality. We're seeing far too many smog days in my opinion. We need some serious clean air legislation here.

I agree that overall air quality is a big issue. However many American cities have seen an improvment in air quality due to newer technology in automobiles. Newer cars are smaller and much more efficient at burning fuel and get much better gas milage than the cars of the 70's and 80's.

Check out this land yaht: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1978_Lincoln_Town_Car.JPG

Does anyone know the number of smog days Calgary has?

[Ferreth]

Don't want to turn this into a Toronto-bash, but... if you were "stuck" on the 401, in traffic - you only saw half the fun.

Try driving their freeways at 2 or 3 in the morning, when traffic is incredibly light and you can set the cruise at 130 and just fly around. It still takes FOREVER to go places. I once drove from Hamilton to Markham in the middle of the night and it felt like I was driving all the way to Banff.

Calgary driving at night is hilarious. 30 mins to completely cross the city on our freeways, max. And there's so little traffic by comparison. I suspect that will change muchly over the next 20 years though.

I drove the 401 at pretty much all times of the day. It was an interesting driving experience ;) In terms of sprawl, the GTA has a bias to build around the lake. N-S, Toronto doesn't really spread out much further than Calgary N-S. It seems to me more along the lines of towns along the lake with their own economic drivers being sucked up into the general GTA. For example, to me, Hamilton isn't really part of Toronto, it's more like the two have grown together. But I'm not a historian or an expert on why TO has developed the way it has.

What scares me in the long term (assuming Calgary grows to over 2 million) that towns like Strathmore and High River are going to get big. That would lead to the kind of "Toronto sized" sprawl in the Calgary area. I'd like to see Calgary to stay fairly close to the confines of the ring road, with growth limited in all outside 'burbs to +/-50K, with no new 'burbs created. That ain't gonna happen.

Oh, as far as that comments about Winnipeg: Inner-city - I agree it does seem to be getting better in the last while. The main roads seem narrower, but that's because they were all built around the time we got Blackfoot between 17th and 42 St SE - it's pretty much like that.

[5seconds]

I believe this order was more to do with the ring road than limiting expansion or the establishment of a green belt, but I found it interesting anyway

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=fIxkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AoANAAAAIBAJ&dq=calgary%20ring%20road&pg=2754%2C4169508

Alberta Government restrict development around Calgary, 1976