Calgary: Intensification vs. Extensification

[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/...1fb73fae&k=926

[Mid1]

Originally Posted by 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/...1fb73fae&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.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Mid1

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]

Originally Posted by tdurden5573

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.

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

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

Fixed.

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

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

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

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Riise

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]

Originally Posted by 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/...1fb73fae&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.

[WhipperSnapper]

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.

[WhipperSnapper]

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]

Originally Posted by goodlookin'

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]

Originally Posted by manny

...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]

Originally Posted by ScottFromCalgary

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]

Originally Posted by manny

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]

Originally Posted by furrycanuck

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]

Originally Posted by manny

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by ScottFromCalgary

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?

[Riise]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

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]

Originally Posted by manny

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

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

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