HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2010, 10:24 PM
kw5150's Avatar
kw5150 kw5150 is offline
Here and There
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,807
I think that anyone working downtown should consider living inner city..... as for the rest of the people, live as close to work as possible and hopefully those neighborhoods are walkable and have amenities close by.

Wouldn't it be nice if 300 homes were demolished in a place like ranchlands....and then a condo community could spring up complete with an urban grocery store and a small urban strip? I am just using Ranchlands as an example and i realize that there is a safeway kind of close by......but would I attempt to walk there if I lived 15 blocks away? Maybe not.

I have really grown to appreciate how close people in the beltline are to the grocery stores.

If my mom relocates to Calgary, and works at the new south hospital, I would suggest that she lives in Seton or one of those neighborhoods......basically whatever minimized her commute time. The problem I still see, many of those suburban neighborhoods do not have the walkability factor yet and the clients who hire the architects still dont plan very well for it. I hope there are many condos right beside the new south hospital and it becomes more walkable than some neighborhoods.
__________________
Renfrew, Calgary, Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2010, 6:01 AM
Policy Wonk's Avatar
Policy Wonk Policy Wonk is offline
Inflatable Hippo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Suburban Las Vegas
Posts: 4,015
So just how often do you propose one moves?

In the time I have lived in my current house I have worked both downtown and in various suburban and industrial locations.
__________________
Public Administration 101: Keep your mouth shut until obligated otherwise and don't get in public debates with housewives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2010, 4:36 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Policy Wonk View Post
So just how often do you propose one moves?

In the time I have lived in my current house I have worked both downtown and in various suburban and industrial locations.
Great point. This is why I advocate for employment to concentrate around rapid transit lines. If you moved work locations several times, the only change in your commute should be what transfers you make. Of course this will not be the preference for everyone, but concentrating employment on rapid transit stations at least gives people the choice to use transit that adapts to their changing location of work.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2010, 6:53 PM
suburb suburb is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Policy Wonk View Post
So just how often do you propose one moves?

In the time I have lived in my current house I have worked both downtown and in various suburban and industrial locations.
Clearly your choice of work locations - which are choices - form your entire methodology of choosing where you live. Most professionals can manage these things - particularly after the first ten years of your working life.

You will find that most people who live in or close to suburban nodes have not moved from there for many years - and they do that by ensuring when they change jobs the work is accessible for them.

I recall when I graduated I had three job offers. One in the North, one in DT and one in the South. I live North-Central and based my selection not only on the quality of the job but also on location and accessibility - ended up being in the North close to me. That allowed me to also remain close to other family and in the vicinity of schools and services that we require. It is those underlying considerations that we should all be ensuring people consider when deciding where to live, instead of assuming it must be X or Y. Many of the singles in the smallish inner city rental units don't have those additional considerations as all they require is pay-per-view and a bottle of lotion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
Great point. This is why I advocate for employment to concentrate around rapid transit lines. If you moved work locations several times, the only change in your commute should be what transfers you make. Of course this will not be the preference for everyone, but concentrating employment on rapid transit stations at least gives people the choice to use transit that adapts to their changing location of work.
Agreed in that any decent location, urban or suburban, needs to be in or extremely close to a TOD node.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2010, 7:40 PM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Home of Hyperchange
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 17,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburb View Post
Clearly your choice of work locations - which are choices - form your entire methodology of choosing where you live. Most professionals can manage these things - particularly after the first ten years of your working life.

You will find that most people who live in or close to suburban nodes have not moved from there for many years - and they do that by ensuring when they change jobs the work is accessible for them.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say in your post, but in my experience the majority of people (suburbanites especially) do not move, in that you are correct. However they do not "ensure work is accessible" for the most part - they take the best/highest paying job available, and then bitch about their now longer commute.

Having 3 job offers of similar benefits at the same time is an extremely rare occurrence for most people. Granted, that may be due to poor planning (having to take the first job that comes along due to low savings), but it's the reality in my experience. Not a lot of people turn down a job just because it's "too far away". Instead, they just drive further.

There's a huge contingent in Calgary that can safely assume downtown work forever, but there's an even larger group who could end up anywhere. The NE is a common employment node for these folks but their jobs really end up scattered anywhere around the city. It's impossible to have any sort of work-home geographic balance for these people unless they move every few years, or are exceedingly lucky when it comes to job prospects.

Of course, all of this is a fairly silly discussion because it ignores one essential point - Calgary is a city full of 2 income families (because it's so damned expensive to live here). Everything said above is multiplied tenfold when you try to balance work location with home. It's a rare couple that both work in similar parts of the city, or both consistently get so many job offers that they can line up employment conveniently.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2010, 7:43 PM
Policy Wonk's Avatar
Policy Wonk Policy Wonk is offline
Inflatable Hippo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Suburban Las Vegas
Posts: 4,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
Great point. This is why I advocate for employment to concentrate around rapid transit lines. If you moved work locations several times, the only change in your commute should be what transfers you make. Of course this will not be the preference for everyone, but concentrating employment on rapid transit stations at least gives people the choice to use transit that adapts to their changing location of work.
Okay, and in 2045 when Calgary has such a landscape and I have been dead for a decade or more that should work nicely - but for the moment what do you propose?

Personally, I only make one transfer - stepping in and out of my car at work.

Personally, unless you want me warping young minds - I really only have half a dozen potential employers in this city and I have already worked for three of them. Three are downtown, one is in the N.E. and two are in the N.W. - all are within a 25 minute drive and a minimum of an hour long bus ride.
__________________
Public Administration 101: Keep your mouth shut until obligated otherwise and don't get in public debates with housewives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Jan 1, 2011, 11:19 PM
suburb suburb is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed View Post
There's a huge contingent in Calgary that can safely assume downtown work forever ...
It is all relative. Only about 18% of Calgarians work in downtown - so the group that will likely only work in downtown is perhaps 12%-15% at the most. Again, over 80% of employees in Calgary do not work in down town.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed View Post
... there's an even larger group who could end up anywhere. The NE is a common employment node for these folks but their jobs really end up scattered anywhere around the city.
I don't know where the NE comes into this - it is not any different from any other quadrant in terms of employment. The biggest employers are A. the hospitals, medical centres and clinics, B. the schools and other grade school related employment, C. the post secondary institutions, in particular UCalgary, SAIT and MRU, D. the service industry including hotels and restaurants, and retail, E. the industrial parks including manufacturing and distribution, and F. transport, including elements ranging from transit to the airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Jan 1, 2011, 11:24 PM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Home of Hyperchange
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 17,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburb View Post
It is all relative. Only about 18% of Calgarians work in downtown - so the group that will likely only work in downtown is perhaps 12%-15% at the most. Again, over 80% of employees in Calgary do not work in down town.
Which is precisely why I continued on to say that many more people do not work downtown.

Quote:
I don't know where the NE comes into this - it is not any different from any other quadrant in terms of employment. The biggest employers are A. the hospitals, medical centres and clinics, B. the schools and other grade school related employment, C. the post secondary institutions, in particular UCalgary, SAIT and MRU, D. the service industry including hotels and restaurants, and retail, E. the industrial parks including manufacturing and distribution, and F. transport, including elements ranging from transit to the airport.
The NE is a huge employment node in Calgary, and it was just used as an example. Which is why I continued on by saying that their jobs could really be anywhere.

My whole point was that employment is scattered throughout the city, so it's virtually impossible for people to live close to work all the time - especially when there are 2 incomes involved. You responded by telling me that ... employment is scattered throughout the city. I'm not really sure what the point of your post was, other than to be argumentative for some reason. Except all you were doing was echoing what I said.

Last edited by freeweed; Jan 1, 2011 at 11:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2011, 6:52 AM
kw5150's Avatar
kw5150 kw5150 is offline
Here and There
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Policy Wonk View Post
So just how often do you propose one moves?

In the time I have lived in my current house I have worked both downtown and in various suburban and industrial locations.


Who knows.
__________________
Renfrew, Calgary, Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2011, 6:18 PM
suburb suburb is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 945
Inner city off to an early lead ...

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Police+continue+homicide+probe/4051007/story.html


I suspect that the higher concentration of violent crime as well as public drug and alcohol abuse may also be a reason that families are more likely to stay outside of the core. The rates on a per person basis may or may not be greater, but certainly the crime density per square kilometer will be of a substantially higher order in the downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2011, 3:43 AM
suburb suburb is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 945
I was looking to possibly invest in an inner city property and realized something that is absolutely contrary to what most often has been said about the inner city. In most of the suburban neighborhoods, lots are in the 30' range. When looking in the inner city, many lots are in the 50' range. The comment that suburban means floating in space seems to be an absolute myth compared to the inner city!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2011, 4:10 AM
frinkprof's Avatar
frinkprof frinkprof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Gary
Posts: 4,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburb View Post
I was looking to possibly invest in an inner city property and realized something that is absolutely contrary to what most often has been said about the inner city. In most of the suburban neighborhoods, lots are in the 30' range. When looking in the inner city, many lots are in the 50' range. The comment that suburban means floating in space seems to be an absolute myth compared to the inner city!
Don't be obtuse. That depends entirely what you classify as "inner city." Also, to the bolded: what comment? Could you please show this supposed comment?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2011, 4:16 AM
frinkprof's Avatar
frinkprof frinkprof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Gary
Posts: 4,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburb View Post
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Police+continue+homicide+probe/4051007/story.html


I suspect that the higher concentration of violent crime as well as public drug and alcohol abuse may also be a reason that families are more likely to stay outside of the core. The rates on a per person basis may or may not be greater, but certainly the crime density per square kilometer will be of a substantially higher order in the downtown.
Define "the core," and also "the downtown" please. Naturally they have different definitions, given the distinct words you use. Then please enlighten us as to how the "crime density per square kilometer in the downtown" relates to families staying outside the presumably distinct and different geographical area you refer to as the core.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2011, 4:24 AM
suburb suburb is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof View Post
Don't be obtuse. That depends entirely what you classify as "inner city." Also, to the bolded: what comment? Could you please show this supposed comment?
It has been mentioned several times that surburbs brings the impression of open space - eg in post 116. I didn't quote that and was not actually referring to any particular post. Irrespective, it does seem that the largest lots are in the inner city. Consider Upper Mount Royal, Cliff Bungalow, Roxboro, etc. Even other inner city neighborhoods that are not the most expensive have 50 foot lots galore. The only time the density actually goes up in these places is when a suburbanite plops two suburban sized homes on a single inner city lot!

This is probably a good compromise on what constitutes Calgary's inner city (Real Estate Board's definition I believe):
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2011, 6:01 AM
MichaelS's Avatar
MichaelS MichaelS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburb View Post
It has been mentioned several times that surburbs brings the impression of open space - eg in post 116. I didn't quote that and was not actually referring to any particular post. Irrespective, it does seem that the largest lots are in the inner city. Consider Upper Mount Royal, Cliff Bungalow, Roxboro, etc. Even other inner city neighborhoods that are not the most expensive have 50 foot lots galore. The only time the density actually goes up in these places is when a suburbanite plops two suburban sized homes on a single inner city lot!
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=...2,18.51,,0,7.4

These two single family home lots are currently being turned into this:
http://brunette.battistella.ca/index.php/site

There are many other examples of this occurring, in many neighbourhoods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2011, 9:59 AM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Home of Hyperchange
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 17,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof View Post
Don't be obtuse. That depends entirely what you classify as "inner city." Also, to the bolded: what comment? Could you please show this supposed comment?
"McMansion". Nuff sed.

Come on, don't pretend that we don't see dozens if not hundreds of comments implying that suburban homes are these palatial estates on acres of property (complete with 4 car garage to hold 3 Hummers, natch).

That being said, I think there's a general understanding here that ironically, newer suburbs in Calgary tend to have much smaller lots than older homes. So the original post is a bit misleading.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2011, 5:32 PM
frinkprof's Avatar
frinkprof frinkprof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Gary
Posts: 4,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed View Post
"McMansion". Nuff sed.

Come on, don't pretend that we don't see dozens if not hundreds of comments implying that suburban homes are these palatial estates on acres of property (complete with 4 car garage to hold 3 Hummers, natch).

That being said, I think there's a general understanding here that ironically, newer suburbs in Calgary tend to have much smaller lots than older homes. So the original post is a bit misleading.
Yeah, the bolded is what I was getting at. Suburb (the forum member) is generally being disingenuous, and using arguments and figures which have the flaw of making it easy for him to move the goal posts after the fact.

The general understanding is that lot sizes are larger in residential areas built prior to, say, 1980. No one is under a false impression that they aren't. His argument is a strawman because no one is arguing that "suburban" areas (as per the category given in the title of the thread), in general are bad because of this supposed false impression.

However, I can only blame suburb (the forum member) so much for this. The basis for this entire debate is flawed from the outset. It's a false dichotomy pitting one purportedly discrete category of development vs. another. You can't draw any useful line in the sand (and people have tried, see the above map) and say that the development on one side of the line is at the opposite end of the spectrum than the development on the other.

Last edited by frinkprof; Jan 16, 2011 at 7:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2011, 1:41 AM
suburb suburb is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof View Post
The basis for this entire debate is flawed from the outset. It's a false dichotomy pitting one purportedly discrete category of development vs. another. You can't draw any useful line in the sand (and people have tried, see the above map) and say that the development on one side of the line is at the opposite end of the spectrum than the development on the other.
I certainly agree with this part - and should back off on the other stuff. Somewhere earlier in the thread I had highlighted that it needs to be a hybrid solution involving dense and vibrant inner city with medium to high density TOD nodes in the suburbs. Will stick with that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2011, 1:46 AM
frinkprof's Avatar
frinkprof frinkprof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Gary
Posts: 4,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburb View Post
I certainly agree with this part - and should back off on the other stuff. Somewhere earlier in the thread I had highlighted that it needs to be a hybrid solution involving dense and vibrant inner city with medium to high density TOD nodes in the suburbs. Will stick with that.
Yes. I will agree with this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2011, 3:10 AM
Me&You Me&You is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,760
Lot size alone does not equal density. There's also mix of housing stock and general area design (grid vs. curvilinear, etc)...
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 > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:20 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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