HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2012, 8:33 PM
Rusty van Reddick's Avatar
Rusty van Reddick Rusty van Reddick is offline
formerly-furry flâneur
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bankview, Calgary
Posts: 6,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
It is... (in comparison)
In comparison to what? Do you even understand what the expression "in comparison" means?

Calgary is about average for density- so what exactly is your fucking criticism? Or your fucking point?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 6:42 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Speaking as a planner, I've been reading through this thread with great interest. A point I want to make from something Ryejay mentions is that CIP (the Canadian Institute of Planners) is pushing planners in private and public practice to consider their actions in relation to the environment. This is a recent initiative, so I can't see it being that strong right now - but certainly something will come of it (I hope).

Someone123's photo is a great shot of where my mom lives now in Bedford. She's actually in the shorter building third one up from the water. But this community she lives in is very car oriented, it's not easy to walk up to the sobeys (that hill isn't fun sometimes).

I'm not surprised by the growth of the suburban areas, it's not hard to see population rising in these areas at double digit rates. Keep in mind that these places are starting from zero and working up - so as new homes/multi come on stream, they fill up quick. But many cities are pushing redevelopment and infill in their centres, so the population numbers will start trending up in many places. Calgary for example saw a lot of projects get approved but never built because of the economy - now they are coming on stream. After 3-4 years of building, you'll see the Beltine take a notable increase for them. The same is true for HRM - it's regional centre initiative will help with increasing numbers in that area.

Thing to keep in mind about changing cities like Calgary (where people equate it with sprawl) is that it took roughly 30 years for the city to sprawl out, it can't change in a day. Plan It (the new municipal development Plan) took how many years to develop? It recognized that as we start to turn the corner, it will still take 5-10 years of typical thinking before the train slowed down and switched tracks. It may not be something which you may see right away, but it's happening and I've been noticing it. The a typical suburban developments aren't getting an easy ride through planning commission and council anymore...but things take time. Plan It looked at Calgary over 60+ years and we're only 2 years in!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 7:22 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
Thing to keep in mind about changing cities like Calgary (where people equate it with sprawl) is that it took roughly 30 years for the city to sprawl out, it can't change in a day.
It is a really hard problem, because it is hard to modify the existing sprawl and it is hard to build better development outside of the sprawl belts of cities like Calgary.

In the 905 area of Markham there are some developments that are a bit better, with small blocks, garages in behind, small lots, etc., but everybody still drives because they mostly work in office parks or have long commutes that generally don't work with transit. In Toronto there isn't even good rapid transit coverage of the core, let alone suburban areas.

Halifax doesn't really have anything like that out in a genuinely suburban area but there have been a couple of proposals. One was for the Papermill Lake area of Bedford and the other is for the Motherhouse lands by MSVU. Regardless of how well-designed those neighbourhoods could be, I don't think many people would choose to live in them without regularly using a car to get around.

For now the best solution seems to be to encourage urban infill and to invest in rapid transit lines with transit-oriented development near the stations. Suburban Vancouver has many "town centre" areas that are reasonable places to live without a car. That would not be possible at all without transit.

For a city like Halifax a "best case" type of situation would involve some LRT or streetcar-like transit system and a 30-40% market share for new urban infill. A worst case 100% sprawl type of scenario would probably result in chronic budget problems, escalating tax rates, and economic problems. People need to accept that this is an economic and environmental issue, not something that comes down to personal taste.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 9:28 AM
armorand93's Avatar
armorand93 armorand93 is offline
Transit Nerd
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Calgary (former Winnipegger)
Posts: 2,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
It is a really hard problem, because it is hard to modify the existing sprawl and it is hard to build better development outside of the sprawl belts of cities like Calgary.

In the 905 area of Markham there are some developments that are a bit better, with small blocks, garages in behind, small lots, etc., but everybody still drives because they mostly work in office parks or have long commutes that generally don't work with transit. In Toronto there isn't even good rapid transit coverage of the core, let alone suburban areas.

Halifax doesn't really have anything like that out in a genuinely suburban area but there have been a couple of proposals. One was for the Papermill Lake area of Bedford and the other is for the Motherhouse lands by MSVU. Regardless of how well-designed those neighbourhoods could be, I don't think many people would choose to live in them without regularly using a car to get around.

For now the best solution seems to be to encourage urban infill and to invest in rapid transit lines with transit-oriented development near the stations. Suburban Vancouver has many "town centre" areas that are reasonable places to live without a car. That would not be possible at all without transit.

For a city like Halifax a "best case" type of situation would involve some LRT or streetcar-like transit system and a 30-40% market share for new urban infill. A worst case 100% sprawl type of scenario would probably result in chronic budget problems, escalating tax rates, and economic problems. People need to accept that this is an economic and environmental issue, not something that comes down to personal taste.
Don't forget the ferry system!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 5:01 PM
Mister F Mister F is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick View Post
In comparison to what? Do you even understand hat the expression "in comparison" means?

Calgary is about average for density- so what exactly is your fucking criticism? Or your fucking point?
No need to get so defensive there, champ. It was in comparison to Toronto, in response to a post that implied the opposite. Even though the satellite pics look bad, the Toronto population centre is the most densely populated in the country by a significant margin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 5:26 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick View Post
In comparison to what? Do you even understand what the expression "in comparison" means?

Calgary is about average for density- so what exactly is your fucking criticism? Or your fucking point?
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 6:08 PM
kw5150's Avatar
kw5150 kw5150 is offline
Here and There
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,807
Once again, people need to get their facts straight! Calgary may seem sprawling in pure number comparisons.....but


1. Calgary has a few massive parks within city limits. One is large provincial park. Fish creek Provincial is 13.5 km2 and nose hill park is 11.3 km2

2. Calgary also has many large parks especially around the 2 rivers.

3. Calgary also has many area that cannot be developed because of the slopes and escarpments.

4. We make up for it with the good LRT transit that connects to many important amenities and a fairly dense urban core that you really dont need to leave and you can still live well.

5. Almost forgot the glenmore reservoir, the weaselhead and glenmore park......very large as well.
__________________
Renfrew, Calgary, Alberta.

Last edited by kw5150; Feb 21, 2012 at 6:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 6:26 PM
dleung's Avatar
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,952
The density numbers monkeyronin quoted are misleading anyway. It includes a huge amont of farmland and unusable land. Most density numbers put the largest 3 metros in the 3500/km2 range, and they're all much closer than currently portrayed. Montreal is supposedly the densest of the 3 cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 6:48 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by kw5150 View Post
Once again, people need to get their facts straight! Calgary may seem sprawling in pure number comparisons.....but


1. Calgary has a few massive parks within city limits. One is large provincial park. Fish creek Provincial is 13.5 km2 and nose hill park is 11.3 km2

2. Calgary also has many large parks especially around the 2 rivers.

3. Calgary also has many area that cannot be developed because of the slopes and escarpments.

4. We make up for it with the good LRT transit that connects to many important amenities and a fairly dense urban core that you really dont need to leave and you can still live well.

5. Almost forgot the glenmore reservoir, the weaselhead and glenmore park......very large as well.

All very good points and very true. My point was that when people think of Sprawl, they often point to the suburbs of Toronto and Calgary. Calgary 'seems' like sprawl central - but I'd love to see the numbers, it may not be as bad as people think.

One thing that I've been thinking about in terms of sprawl is the upcoming demographic shift, so I'm going to pose this question to everyone. With the boomer generation now beginning to retire and I'd guess about 20% (so far) moving into condos or senior's housing, it makes me wonder how this is going to hit the suburban single family house market?

If I look at Halifax, I would guess that a good portion of the inner city market is probably boomers and that many of them are moving into condos to enjoy more ability to travel and not have to shovel or rake leaves, etc. Makes you wonder how suburban growth will be effected in say 30 years, when 50+% of the boomers put their homes up for sale? Considering they could be living anywhere from the inner city to 60's suburban communities to even new greenfield areas - what the housing market will be like?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 1:22 AM
catkat catkat is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 42
This article is an outright lie

Sprawl does not reign supreme in Canada at all. In fact only 32% of all housing starts in 2011 were classified as "single family" dwellings. The other 68% came from "multi-family" dwellings such as condos and townhomes. No matter which way you slice it, thats not sprawl.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 2:10 AM
Boris2k7's Avatar
Boris2k7 Boris2k7 is offline
Majestic
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 12,010
I'm not going to try to make excuses for Calgary. Our sprawl is fucking horrible. Is it the worst? I don't know, and I don't really care anymore. Already been through enough such arguments about that on this forum.

That said, things are changing, if agonizingly slowly and only in certain areas. In my current line of work I've been all over the city and in both older, established communities as well as areas currently populated only by dirt and excavators.

Some developing communities are your typical ho-hum, auto-oriented, single use schlock (Sherwood, Sage Hill, Nolan Hill, Evanston, Valley Ridge, Aspen, Evergreen, Silverado, Copperfield, Cranston, Chaparral, Mahogany, and Auburn Bay to name a few). A few of (like New Brighton) have some condos wedged in, but overall it's the same old crap that's been built for the last twenty years.

The only new suburb in Calgary (not talking about McKenzie Towne here) that I've seen where there is a noticeable increase in density and building types over the old stuff is Walden, which was approved only a few years back.
__________________
"The only thing that gets me through our winters is the knowledge that they're the only thing keeping us free of giant ass spiders." -MonkeyRonin

Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 3:50 AM
MichaelS's Avatar
MichaelS MichaelS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,402
Mahogany has an "urban village" that is located next to a future c-train stop, that allows for heights of 14 storeys I believe (map doesn't show land use, but gives an idea of the layout):
http://www.mahoganyliving.com/the-community.html

Also, don't discount Sage Hill, as this is planned for a portion of the community as well:
http://www.gibbsgage.com/index.php/g...esign_374.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 3:57 AM
miketoronto miketoronto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,978
It would be interesting to find out how Toronto pulled off building so many non single family housing types in the 1950-80s in the then new suburbs, and now older suburbs.
It could be argued that time was the most popular for the single family auto suburb, yet Toronto managed to build countless high-rise apartments, condos, townhouses, etc. The result is that even in the suburban districts, single family homes are often the minority housing type.

How did we pull it off, and why can't other Canadian cities do the same?

While not perfect by any means, the old Metro Toronto style of suburban building has left us with some good bones to work with.
__________________
Miketoronto
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 4:14 AM
yaletown_fella yaletown_fella is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,326
^^ The only suburban areas where single family homes were the minority type housing were in poor public/co-op housing projects. Toronto was and still is the dominant magnet in Canada for immigrants from 3rd world countries. Obviously they need somewhere reasonably affordable for a fresh start.
__________________
Supporter of Bill 23
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 5:23 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,700
I'm pretty sure that the overwhelmingly vast majority of multi-family housing built in Toronto during that time were private ventures. And it was more of a Ontario thing than a Toronto thing.

You can see a lot of 50-70s multi-family housing in other Ontario cities as well. Just look at the literally hundred or so 50s/60s/70s apartment buildings along Hurontario Street in Mississauga for example, or the Kaneff buildings surrounding Bramalea City Centre.

This phenomenon was not Toronto-specific, nor was it the result of any government policy, let alone affordable housing policy. In fact, it can be argued that it was the Ontario government, desiring to make housing more affordable, that effectively killed apartment construction in the province in the 70s by introducing rent control. Apartments have only recently made a comeback, but new apartments are now almost all under condominium tenure instead of rental.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 6:20 PM
kw5150's Avatar
kw5150 kw5150 is offline
Here and There
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,807
When oil reaches 200.00+ per barrel, electric gets more expensive, and natural gas goes up a bit, we will see what happens to all of these people who think the got a "great deal." When you have to drive everywhere to do anything, you are destined to have a crappy life. If it is not the expense of driving that kills you, it will be the expense of heating and lighting 1600+ square feet. People who live in more responsible, walkable developments also live a healthier lifestyle.

The true costs of suburbia will rear its little ugly head in the next ten year. Thankfully, people are starting to demand better suburbs so at least that is a good thing.

People in irrisponsible suburban developments never seem to talk about their living choice and it affects sustainability; and, the choice is usually based on greedy, self indulging wants and needs. Each to their own I guess.

My lifestyle choice is so affordable. I have already paid off 5.2% of my condo in under two years, and plenty of extra money in the bank. I do have a car, but it rarely goes anywhere.
__________________
Renfrew, Calgary, Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 7:15 PM
Mister F Mister F is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by kw5150 View Post
Once again, people need to get their facts straight! Calgary may seem sprawling in pure number comparisons.....but


1. Calgary has a few massive parks within city limits. One is large provincial park. Fish creek Provincial is 13.5 km2 and nose hill park is 11.3 km2

2. Calgary also has many large parks especially around the 2 rivers.

3. Calgary also has many area that cannot be developed because of the slopes and escarpments.

4. We make up for it with the good LRT transit that connects to many important amenities and a fairly dense urban core that you really dont need to leave and you can still live well.

5. Almost forgot the glenmore reservoir, the weaselhead and glenmore park......very large as well.
All true I'm sure, but you could make a list like that for any city. Toronto's Rouge Park is bigger than those first two you mention put together, for example, and there's a friggin' mountain right in the middle of Montreal. So Calgary isn't as densely populated as some other cities, is that really a big deal?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 7:30 PM
feepa's Avatar
feepa feepa is offline
Change is good
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,335
I think every city has exceptions, and even include some areas of farms. I don't put too much stock in those density numbers.
For example, all this green space is included in Edmonton's number, when its farms/green space or the river valley park system



map from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Me...monton_Map.png
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 8:00 PM
You Need A Thneed's Avatar
You Need A Thneed You Need A Thneed is offline
Construction Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Castleridge, NE Calgary
Posts: 5,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris2k7 View Post
I'm not going to try to make excuses for Calgary. Our sprawl is fucking horrible. Is it the worst? I don't know, and I don't really care anymore. Already been through enough such arguments about that on this forum.

That said, things are changing, if agonizingly slowly and only in certain areas. In my current line of work I've been all over the city and in both older, established communities as well as areas currently populated only by dirt and excavators.

Some developing communities are your typical ho-hum, auto-oriented, single use schlock (Sherwood, Sage Hill, Nolan Hill, Evanston, Valley Ridge, Aspen, Evergreen, Silverado, Copperfield, Cranston, Chaparral, Mahogany, and Auburn Bay to name a few). A few of (like New Brighton) have some condos wedged in, but overall it's the same old crap that's been built for the last twenty years.

The only new suburb in Calgary (not talking about McKenzie Towne here) that I've seen where there is a noticeable increase in density and building types over the old stuff is Walden, which was approved only a few years back.
The only reason why the newest communities only have single family houses yet, is that the multi family construction hasn't started yet.

Really, the mostly developed communties are ones that were approved before the land use changes. The communities that are affected by the new land use changes have really only started developing, and what is started,is really only the single family parts. Mahogany, Skyview Ranch, Sage Hill, Seton etc are planned to have density like has not been seen in a new community in Calgary for quite some time. Once those communties are developed out, then we can judge them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 8:06 PM
kw5150's Avatar
kw5150 kw5150 is offline
Here and There
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister F View Post
All true I'm sure, but you could make a list like that for any city. Toronto's Rouge Park is bigger than those first two you mention put together, for example, and there's a friggin' mountain right in the middle of Montreal. So Calgary isn't as densely populated as some other cities, is that really a big deal?
Its a big deal to me and others that care about the sustainability of a city. There is a tipping point to where a city can really go sideways, and it is difficult to revive some cities after that. Density is key.
__________________
Renfrew, Calgary, Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:55 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.