Calgary Census 2011

[Wentworth]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

We self-medicate with Applebees and swinger parties.

This seems to have become a standard suburban legend in Calgary. Every neighborhood I've lived in so far there's been rumours of a swinger's group "on the other block."

I guess we're not particularly attractive, as we've never been invited to join in.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I don't see how redeveloping the east village without dispersing the poverty industry is going to reduce the need for policing in the area.

Do you have any comprehension as to just how much money has been spent on the East Village already - just to get where it is now? I am pretty comfortable predicting that the East Village will never be anything other than a financial black hole for the city.

And I would bet everything I own the city could have serviced an equivalent number of dwellings somewhere in the proximity of 144th Ave N.E. and realized a superior tax yield for a fraction of what has been spent on the East Village.

Do you really believe that every post-war planner was mentally retarded and set out to develop in the most impractical and costly way possible? Digging up cities is really, really expensive.

Once again, you are missing the point of inner city redevelopment........ahem.....Detroit....... Calgary was absolutley brilliant in developing this land. Have you taken an afternoon to walk around the area? There are people all over the place soaking up the sun and putting their feet in the river. We dont need to "disperse" the poor people or homeless, we need to help them realize their potential. People moving into the area know what they are getting before they buy. Anyway, having a now community near the banks of the beautiful bow river is much more appealing than the mass produced, banality in the NE that you have to own a car to get around. The inner city is the heart of the city like i have said before. Without it there would be no Calgary.

[Policy Wonk]

I have encountered a number of swingers over the years, mostly through work and each and every one of them was disgusting. Overweight smokers with bad boob jobs rocking out the worst hairstyles of the early 1980's

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I have encountered a number of swingers over the years, mostly through work and each and every one of them was disgusting.

I have only 'encountered' one.

And she was pretty cute.

Then again she doesn't live in Calgary.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Once again, you are missing the point of inner city redevelopment........ahem.....Detroit....... Calgary was absolutley brilliant in developing this land. Have you taken an afternoon to walk around the area? There are people all over the place soaking up the sun and putting their feet in the river. We dont need to "disperse" the poor people or homeless, we need to help them realize their potential. People moving into the area know what they are getting before they buy. Anyway, having a now community near the banks of the beautiful bow river is much more appealing than the mass produced, banality in the NE that you have to own a car to get around. The inner city is the heart of the city like i have said before. Without it there would be no Calgary.

I don't miss the point and I am certainly not opposed to intercity development. I just get a little irritable when people suggest that this type of development represents a windfall of savings over the supposed albatross that is suburbia.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Once again, you are missing the point of inner city redevelopment........ahem.....Detroit....... Calgary was absolutley brilliant in developing this land. Have you taken an afternoon to walk around the area? There are people all over the place soaking up the sun and putting their feet in the river. We dont need to "disperse" the poor people or homeless, we need to help them realize their potential. People moving into the area know what they are getting before they buy. Anyway, having a now community near the banks of the beautiful bow river is much more appealing than the mass produced, banality in the NE that you have to own a car to get around. The inner city is the heart of the city like i have said before. Without it there would be no Calgary.

KY - I think you should move to Kawloon Walled City. In 1987, the Walled City contained 33,000 residents within its 6.5-acre (0.03 km2; 0.01 sq mi) borders giving it a population density of approximately 1,255,000/km2.







You'd feel right at home in this inner city heaven!

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I don't miss the point and I am certainly not opposed to intercity development. I just get a little irritable when people suggest that this type of development represents a windfall of savings over the supposed albatross that is suburbia.

You do bring up some good points, especially concerning the cost of new infrastructure in greenfields as opposed to upgrades of existing infrastructure (putting a water main underneath farm land is much cheaper than digging up a road and all that). I think we can agree that a good balance of growth between brownfield and greenfield areas is desirable, as is the need to plan new development for densification in the future and to ensure it is of a sufficient density to start. A city undergoing growth that either never intensifies or never expands is not a good thing.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburb

KY - I think you should move to Kawloon Walled City. In 1987, the Walled City contained 33,000 residents within its 6.5-acre (0.03 km2; 0.01 sq mi) borders giving it a population density of approximately 1,255,000/km2.




You'd feel right at home in this inner city heaven!

Oddly, this does hold some appeal for me. As long as I got a decent sized apartment (let's say 800ft2) with good sun exposure in that area, I would actually enjoy it. Different strokes.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by suburb

KY - I think you should move to Kawloon Walled City. In 1987, the Walled City contained 33,000 residents within its 6.5-acre (0.03 km2; 0.01 sq mi) borders giving it a population density of approximately 1,255,000/km2.







You'd feel right at home in this inner city heaven!

Yeah, im hoping the east village (and the rest of calgary) look like that some day!! Kidding. Although, as weird as this seems, I would probably rather live there than segregated suburbia. There is probably a real, crazy sense of community in kowloon city

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by fusili

Oddly, this does hold some appeal for me. As long as I got a decent sized apartment (let's say 800ft2) with good sun exposure in that area, I would actually enjoy it. Different strokes.

There wouldn't be any 'decent' sized apartments in a place like that - you'd be lucky to get 250ft2, and be sharing it with 5 other people.

[DizzyEdge]

While we're posting pics of other cities, I thought you guys would enjoy this historicist ...creation:

my pic

[whiteford]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Yeah, im hoping the east village (and the rest of calgary) look like that some day!! Kidding. Although, as weird as this seems, I would probably rather live there than segregated suburbia. There is probably a real, crazy sense of community in kowloon city

that is disgusting and you are kidding yourself haha

[Ayreonaut]

Originally Posted by whiteford

that is disgusting and you are kidding yourself haha

I'm sure it wouldn't be for me, but some SSPers have spent time in both KWC and Chungking Mansions and really enjoyed it. As fusili said, different strokes...

[suburb]

Originally Posted by suburb

KY - I think you should move to Kawloon Walled City. In 1987, the Walled City contained 33,000 residents within its 6.5-acre (0.03 km2; 0.01 sq mi) borders giving it a population density of approximately 1,255,000/km2.



You'd feel right at home in this inner city heaven!

Originally Posted by kw5150

Yeah, im hoping the east village (and the rest of calgary) look like that some day!! Kidding. Although, as weird as this seems, I would probably rather live there than segregated suburbia. There is probably a real, crazy sense of community in kowloon city

33,000 people in a plot measuring 700' by 400' with 350 buildings. Think about it. And by the way, some estimates of population just before it was demolished put it at 50,000! Here is an attempted cross-section attempted by a Japanese team:

http://www.deconcrete.org/wp-content...ection-low.jpg

If that is your vision for Calgary, when you run for Mayor I will not be voting for you.

Originally Posted by fusili

Oddly, this does hold some appeal for me. As long as I got a decent sized apartment (let's say 800ft2) with good sun exposure in that area, I would actually enjoy it. Different strokes.

LOL 800sf! There was 1 person per 8sf of land, and that included the roads and central low-rise area. Also, there was a height restriction of not much more than a hundred feet. To put it into real perspective, with this density, ALL of the people of China would fit into Calgary.

[Vascilli]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

While we're posting pics of other cities, I thought you guys would enjoy this historicist ...creation:

my pic

Good lord where is that... thing?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburb

LOL 800sf! There was 1 person per 8sf of land, and that included the roads and central low-rise area. Also, there was a height restriction of not much more than a hundred feet. To put it into real perspective, with this density, ALL of the people of China would fit into Calgary.

Ok, so maybe asking for 800ft2 in that location may be a bit much. But there are a lot of very high density areas that I would love to live in. For example:

Recoleta in Buenos Aires:

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Do you have any comprehension as to just how much money has been spent on the East Village already - just to get where it is now? I am pretty comfortable predicting that the East Village will never be anything other than a financial black hole for the city.

And I would bet everything I own the city could have serviced an equivalent number of dwellings somewhere in the proximity of 144th Ave N.E. and realized a superior tax yield for a fraction of what has been spent on the East Village.

Do you really believe that every post-war planner was mentally retarded and set out to develop in the most impractical and costly way possible? Digging up cities is really, really expensive.

I have a very good idea of what it costs to service greenfield, and it can be relatively cheap to fairly expensive depending on if you can use gravity fed drainage and servicing, or if you need a lift station. Upgrading existing water mains is expensive, which is why you do it to acheive a higher density. What do you think is going to happen to these low density burbs when it comes time to replace their infrastructure? You are also forgetting the fact that a new neighborhood on the edge of town needs far more than just utility services. You need to add their share of additional lane miles to service their trips around town (road widening, intersection upgrades etc), the additional cost on public transit, new police stations, new fire stations, rec centers etc. Low densit Green fields are notoriously inefficient as they have no economies of scale, whereas the East Village adds almost no costs on those points, and some of the up front expense is re-coupped from land sales. The city owns 50% of the land, which is worth millions.

Every planner post world war 2 had a myopic view of the world. They assumed infinite space, infinite cheap fuel, and never anticipated the traffic problems related to the single occupant vehicle model. The fruits of their labours are being realized now with communities which are rapidly aging and depopulating, the first phase of infrastructure replacement is coming and fuel costs are skyrocketing. Post WW2 planners also assumed the economic colonial model would persist, and the first world would continue to rape the rest of the planet to subsidize our living standards, and that is coming to an end as well.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Vascilli

Good lord where is that... thing?

here http://maps.google.com/maps?q=long+b...,63.18,,0,0.42

[Vascilli]

Fantastic. I'm moving to Toronto on the 27th. Now I have to live with the fact that such a place exists in the same general area as me.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

What do you think is going to happen to these low density burbs when it comes time to replace their infrastructure?

You don't need forty men and a crane to replace a 300mm water main buried only 150cm underground in the middle of nowhere.

You are also forgetting the fact that a new neighborhood on the edge of town needs far more than just utility services. You need to add their share of additional lane miles to service their trips around town (road widening, intersection upgrades etc), the additional cost on public transit, new police stations, new fire stations, rec centers etc. Low densit Green fields are notoriously inefficient as they have no economies of scale, whereas the East Village adds almost no costs on those points, and some of the up front expense is re-coupped from land sales. The city owns 50% of the land, which is worth millions.

I'm not forgetting it, it just doesn't matter since a given population will draw equally on many services no matter what their distribution. The physical plant associated with public services is not where the substantial costs are incurred but in manpower. You aren't going to have classes with 150 kids in them just because an area is really dense.

Even if the East Village were to exclusively leverage existing infrastructure there are still not overall savings being realized given the cost thus incurred and will never be recouped by land sales or taxes in the lifetime of anyone here.

Every planner post world war 2 had a myopic view of the world. They assumed infinite space, infinite cheap fuel, and never anticipated the traffic problems related to the single occupant vehicle model. The fruits of their labours are being realized now with communities which are rapidly aging and depopulating, the first phase of infrastructure replacement is coming and fuel costs are skyrocketing. Post WW2 planners also assumed the economic colonial model would persist, and the first world would continue to rape the rest of the planet to subsidize our living standards, and that is coming to an end as well.

That is quite the rant.

The transportation problems of the present day, effecting all forms of transportation come not out of poor post-war planning but thirty years of austerity where funding both public transit and roads are concerned. Infinite space and gasoline aren't really a problem - energy prices are a contemporary challenge coming out of regulators allowing parasites to turn the commodities market into a high-stakes casino. The world is presently drowning in oil - when prices spiked in 2008 they conveniently coincided with the highest levels of midstream inventory ever recorded.