[AUM]

This is further discussion to a post from the Construction thread that I felt was more appropriate for this thread. The following are just some points of view and not really a urban vs/ suburban debate. It's more some elements that I think are issues that limit the potential and opportunity for the suburbs to evolve and deviate from their current issues.


There is no changing the fact that the suburbs exist and will continue to exist. What needs to be considered is how they connect with the city to allow people to experience the amenities of a city, ie. Stampede, Hockey Games, Performing Arts, etc. These are all elements that will continue to be placed within the heart of the city. So the challenge is to connect people better. Is that through limiting sprawl? Or improving transit?

Second to that is rethinking SFH developments as a place where people can build a home to stay long term and allow that home to grow as they need. I think what is lost in some new communities is that sense of community because these models create communities of constant change. Due to economics you start in a condo or 'starter' SFH, and you upgrade as the family grows. To me that negates the notion of creating a home. Why can the home not be allowed to change with your family? This to me is where architectural guidelines or regulations are perhaps the underlying problem.

If communities allowed people to purchase land and to build a home with the opportunity to add on as their family grows then they could create a place that suits their lifestyle. Why do all the starter homes have to be clustered together? Why can't some smaller homes be mixed with larger homes?

It is naive to think that everyone lives the exact same and therefore creating SFH that are essentially copies of one another only truly benefits the developer and builders. No offence to developers, they have found a financial model that works and people are not questioning it or willing to challenge it at this time. However, I do feel as a member of the building industry we have a responsibility to look at what is best for the greater community, that being Calgary, and not just the profit. There is no reason to why developments cannot be profitable should the current community models evolve.

Personally, I would like to see the architectural guidelines allow for people to change their home to reflect their personality and lifestyle as they see fit. I think it’s ridiculous that people be restricted to a regulated palette of colors and materials that create these themed communities. I realize the issue for many is they don't want to live next to the purple house because they hate purple or feel it lowers the value of their home. I guess I find it interesting that we don't let people tell us how to dress or what to drive but we allow people who develop these regulations to dictate how we live. Don't get me wrong the suburbs are not the only place that this occurs...many urban neighborhoods are also trying to enforce similar regulations.

My comments are not directed at Calgary solely, I think they would apply to many urban/suburban cities in Canada that are growing and will continue to grow. However, Calgary should not settle to be like any other city. It should be the city that others look to for ideas, understanding and solutions on creating a great city. I think one former said it best that we should demand more if Calgary is continue to grow and become a global city.

This post is not a personal attack at people’s choices. I think debate and the sharing of ideas and opinions are the only way to improve on how we develop our cities further and create long tern sustainable growth.