Sprawl In Calgary/Edmonton

[cre8ivjay]

There seems to be so much talk specifically about sprawl in Alberta I thought I'd start a thread.

Ok, so there's sprawl.. there are rows upon rows of ultra low density communities in Edmonton and Calgary (and Red Deer and Lethbridge etc..). People live too far out, developers don't build enough high density housing, we need more roads and services to reach outlying areas, we can't build efficient transit quick enough.. we don't have the money.

So does anyone know what's being done about this? Are the developers getting the incentives they need to develop inner city, or higher density developments anywhere for that matter (although with house prices the way they are, a sold out condo complex is incentive enough for a developer)?

Are there incentives to build near train and bus routes? Are we diverting funds towards transit and less roads? Could the cities ever say no more growth (geographically speaking)? Would it simply spawn new satellite communities? Has a city ever stopped this type of growth?

What about starting to creat more high density commercial districts outside of the core. It seems to me that (In Calgary anyhow) it's very Downtown focused, which is fine but I'm thinking that having 2-3 major city centres (as odd as that sounds) is perhaps a better fit than expecting everyone in the city to live in high density housing near the ONE core. People are still going to want yards etc.. so I'm not sure what the answer is.

Anyways, just thought this would be a good topic for conversation that deserved it's own thread.

[Coldrsx]

have land, will use it.....our provincial motto.

There are no real formal incentives to develop in the core, other than Edmonton's late 90's $4500/unit grant, but informal incentives are there.

But we have seen a significant reduction in lot size and significantly more intense burbs.

What we do need is a federal,provincial or municipal grant program to say give $1000 a unit for anything multifamily within say 5km of the core.

[e909]

most urban suburbs are way more denser than a lot of inner communities..

BUT THEY HAVE WINDY ROADS!!!

Are there incentives to build near train and bus routes? Are we diverting funds towards transit and less roads? Could the cities ever say no more growth (geographically speaking)? Would it simply spawn new satellite communities? Has a city ever stopped this type of growth?

Yes, some people like that sort of thing for going downtown, their children, etc..
Not really diverting funds into anything.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by e909

most urban suburbs are way more denser than a lot of inner communities..

BUT THEY HAVE WINDY ROADS!!!

AAAAND your point is? With well placed pedestrian connections and higher density land uses, one can achieve a very well planned neighbourhood that optimizes the amount of developable land.

[e909]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

AAAAND your point is? With well placed pedestrian connections and higher density land uses, one can achieve a very well planned neighbourhood that optimized the amount of developable land.

This can be done in suburbs and urban areas.. I'm not sure what your point is.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by cre8ivjay

There seems to be so much talk specifically about sprawl in Alberta I thought I'd start a thread.

Ok, so there's sprawl.. there are rows upon rows of ultra low density communities in Edmonton and Calgary (and Red Deer and Lethbridge etc..). People live too far out, developers don't build enough high density housing, we need more roads and services to reach outlying areas, we can't build efficient transit quick enough.. we don't have the money.

Fact of reality is that we can't accommodate growth, while catering to different consumer trends, within existing built-up neighbourhoods. Nor does the entire market want to live in highrises.

So does anyone know what's being done about this? Are the developers getting the incentives they need to develop inner city, or higher density developments anywhere for that matter (although with house prices the way they are, a sold out condo complex is incentive enough for a developer)?

Are there incentives to build near train and bus routes? Are we diverting funds towards transit and less roads? Could the cities ever say no more growth (geographically speaking)? Would it simply spawn new satellite communities? Has a city ever stopped this type of growth?

They don't need incentives, the market is dictating this. Developers are already increasing the proportion of medium and high density land uses in newer suburban neighbourhoods. We are witnessing a higher demand for semi-detached, townhomes, low rise apartments and highrises.

Once again, developers don't need incentives to build downtown / inner cities. The market is their incentive.

What about starting to creat more high density commercial districts outside of the core. It seems to me that (In Calgary anyhow) it's very Downtown focused, which is fine but I'm thinking that having 2-3 major city centres (as odd as that sounds) is perhaps a better fit than expecting everyone in the city to live in high density housing near the ONE core. People are still going to want yards etc.. so I'm not sure what the answer is.

Anyways, just thought this would be a good topic for conversation that deserved it's own thread.

There are a few new neighbourhoods that are being planned in Edmonton that will have high-density mixed-use nodes. These are being planned around future LRT and BRT stations.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by e909

This can be done in suburbs and urban areas.. I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that using curvlinear roads does not mean a neighbourhood is designed inefficiently.

One could design a neighbourhood using a gridlinear roadway network and fill it with 60 foot estate lots....not very efficient.

[e909]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

My point is that using curvlinear roads does not mean a neighbourhood is designed inefficiently.

One could design a neighbourhood using a gridlinear roadway network and fill it with 60 foot estate lots....not very efficient.

i was just making fun of people who get their panties in a bunch when roads aren't drawn at 90 degree angles to each other.

[Rusty van Reddick]

what are these "ultra low density" neighbourhoods that OP speaks of? The new communities in Calgary are not "ultra low density," or even "LOW density." Low densities exist in rural exurbs just as they do in every part of Canada, but they're hardly "row upon row."

[e909]

Originally Posted by furrycanuck

what are these "ultra low density" neighbourhoods that OP speaks of? The new communities in Calgary are not "ultra low density," or even "LOW density." Low densities exist in rural exurbs just as they do in every part of Canada, but they're hardly "row upon row."

Most likely ones 40 minutes out of town in some "estates" that has about 12 houses with 3 acres each... but that really isn't a problem because it's cost prohibitive.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by e909

Most likely ones 40 minutes out of town in some "estates" that has about 12 houses with 3 acres each... but that really isn't a problem because it's cost prohibitive.

What seems to be a bigger problem is inner city neighbourhoods get filled with empty nesters, no kids, so the schools close, and so it goes, so new families due to housing cost, and lack of schools are forced to keep moving into the outskirts of the city, growing and growing those outskirts. What would be better would be to immediately upzone portions, and these can be very well thought out in advance portions, of existing communities as soon as the schools get to a certain percentage of capacity, to ensure the neighbourhoods can at least have the bare minimum kids to keep the schools going before the empty nesters are gone and the cycle can repeat.
I wouldn't have a problem if a neighbourhood built as single family residential, get's partitioned so as the need arises it eventually becomes 1/4 SFR, 1/4 townhousing, 1/4 low rise apt, and 1/4 highrise, creating living opportunities for all economic portions of society*. If this had always been done, then in even 100 yr old neighbourhoods right near downtown, one could live in a stately old house, townhouse, or apartment, depending on what they can afford**, and have a sustained school in the neighbourhood as well.

I actually kinda just made that all up on the fly, but I'd appreciate comments.

* including as well a percentage of affordable housing in all 4 types (included as part of the last 3 types, and the city could buy a few big SFR and partition into apartments)

** And the partitions would be zoned as such and therefore would be priced according to what is built, not what *can* be built, Ie the single family quarter of the neighbourhood would remain zoned R1, where as the other portions would be zoned to what they're intended to have built upon them.

This way you'd have neighbourhood after neighbourhood on the way from downtown with a very varied and interesting built landscape.

[Riise]

A lot of focus has been placed on alternative types of planning and development but the focus needs to shift onto how to get cities and regions to adopt those planning methods and policies. I believe that two things are necessary for the adoption of sustainable development and Smart Growth to occur:

1. Political will leading towards a commitment to Smart Growth and sustainability.
2. An enlightened public that is aware of the consequences of current forms of planning and development as well as the benefits and myths about alternative forms.

Edit: In regard to point #2, all citizens should be given a copy of "Toward Smart Growth in Calgary" to read.

[CMD UW]

/\ Riise, you're right. The policies and laws need to be in place and the general public must be educated.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

My point is that using curvlinear roads does not mean a neighbourhood is designed inefficiently.

One could design a neighbourhood using a gridlinear roadway network and fill it with 60 foot estate lots....not very efficient.

Of course they are inefficient. A grid allows for the maximization of routing options and ease of walkability, while a combination of curvilinear and irregular roads forces arterials and low numbers of routing options. We could look at it as a scale:

Irregular roads + Low Density-------------Semi-regular roads + Medium Density---------------Grid + High Density

[RWin]

Originally Posted by e909

BUT THEY HAVE WINDY ROADS!!!

Like English cities.

[0773|=\]

While our cities are starting to see some sprawl, our problem is still quite enviable compared to most US cities. Most every new residential/commercial development out here happens immediately adjacent to existing developments or freeway R/W. It's far better than the patchwork of suburbs that surround farmland in places like Denver, Minneapolis, Seattle, and even the GVRD.

It's ironic that homes in new subdivisions appear to be crammed in like sardines, yet the planning of neighbourhood arterials and streets results in a lower population density than street-grid neighbourhoods.

Doesn't hurt to start thinking about solutions now though...

[0773|=\]

Originally Posted by Boris550

Of course they are inefficient. A grid allows for the maximization of routing options and ease of walkability, while a combination of curvilinear and irregular roads forces arterials and low numbers of routing options. We could look at it as a scale:

Irregular roads + Low Density-------------Semi-regular roads + Medium Density---------------Grid + High Density

Unfortunately it opens the door to crime as well (the break-and-enter variety), the one thing that new subdivisions have going for them is typically only one way in and out. If a house alarm is triggered by a burgler, cops can usually park themselves at a neighbourhood's entrance and catch the culprit.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by RWin

Like English cities.

However those roads are grid-like, just not rectangles, but the number of intersections is likely similar... the issue I believe is windy roads that don't go anywhere.. really if you took any such community and kept the windy roads but made them rectilinear, they won't be any better.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by 0773|=\

Unfortunately it opens the door to crime as well (the break-and-enter variety), the one thing that new subdivisions have going for them is typically only one way in and out. If a house alarm is triggered by a burgler, cops can usually park themselves at a neighbourhood's entrance and catch the culprit.

As well talking to friends who have kids, they LOVE the multitude of cul-de-sacs in newer neighbourhoods because they perceive them as a safe, almost no traffic, area for kids to walk and bike and such, I believe the purpose of the windy go no where road neighbourhoods is to restrict through traffic to almost nothing, and to restrict local traffic within the community to very specific roads, however what would make them much better would be to recreate addition rectilinear type routes throughout, but as pedestrian/bike paths, vs roads... so cars have no incentive to cut through the community, but pedestrians and cyclists can with ease.

[0773|=\]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

As well talking to friends who have kids, they LOVE the multitude of cul-de-sacs in newer neighbourhoods because they perceive them as a safe, almost no traffic, area for kids to walk and bike and such, I believe the purpose of the windy go no where road neighbourhoods is to restrict through traffic to almost nothing, and to restrict local traffic within the community to very specific roads, however what would make them much better would be to recreate addition rectilinear type routes throughout, but as pedestrian/bike paths, vs roads... so cars have no incentive to cut through the community, but pedestrians and cyclists can with ease.

Agreed. Some of Edmonton's middle-aged neighbourhoods (including the one I live in) have bike paths cutting through the neighbourhood as you mentioned. They build a less windy street grid around 2 or 3 cul-de-sacs, and while that may not be as simple as a standard grid, it's fairly manageable to get around in.

I guess you tackle one residential issue at a time... I'm glad new developments are going back to alleyways again. I've always thought front-attached garages make a house look ugly as sin.