Urban vs Suburban - 2 styles enter, one style leaves!

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Me&You

Lot size alone does not equal density. There's also mix of housing stock and general area design (grid vs. curvilinear, etc)...

Of course. But that doesn't stop a lot of people bemoaning suburbanites for living in "McMansions" on "acreages" as if that's the real problem.

Density is pretty easy to calculate (people per given land size). People should stop obsessing on all these other factors. If I can make a dense neighbourhood with curvilinear streets and only SFH (on 10' lots), then STFU.

[jeffwhit]

Originally Posted by suburb

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):

Bowness really shouldn't be in there. I understand why, I'm guessing because of age, but Ranchlands and Silver Springs and even Scenic Acres are a lot closer to the core in terms of travel time by either car or transit.

[polishavenger]

I think the problem with the inner city definition being used here is purely (and the problem with the Urban vs suburban discussion all together) that it is defined by distance from the physical center of the city. This is irrelevant, the discussion is about built form. The urban areas of Calgary are all centered in the geographic middle of the city, but not all of the geographic center is urban. For example, the majority of hillhurst, sunnyside and bridgeland are not urban.

[DizzyEdge]

^^ If you think of it in built form an exceedingly small amount of the city is urban. Downtown, Eau Claire, Beltline, Lower mount royal, 1/2 of Sunalta, 1/2 of Bankview and 1/2 of Erlton. I think that's about it.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

^^ If you think of it in built form an exceedingly small amount of the city is urban. Downtown, Eau Claire, Beltline, Lower mount royal, 1/2 of Sunalta, 1/2 of Bankview and 1/2 of Erlton. I think that's about it.

Thats the problem with the city. I would also add Marda Loop, and parts of Mackenzie towne.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

^^ If you think of it in built form an exceedingly small amount of the city is urban. Downtown, Eau Claire, Beltline, Lower mount royal, 1/2 of Sunalta, 1/2 of Bankview and 1/2 of Erlton. I think that's about it.

Looking at it that way, while we slowly curb land usage at the fringes, don't the 'suburban inner city' neighborhoods present the biggest opportunities? The real land wasters like suburban upper mount royal, suburban cliff bungalow, suburban roxboro, suburban cresent heights, etc.?

[btw - I'm intentionally "disturbing the peace" to fuel the discussion]

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by suburb

Looking at it that way, while we slowly curb land usage at the fringes, don't the 'suburban inner city' neighborhoods present the biggest opportunities? The real land wasters like suburban upper mount royal, suburban cliff bungalow, suburban roxboro, suburban cresent heights, etc.?

[btw - I'm intentionally "disturbing the peace" to fuel the discussion]

Upper mount royal is not your typical single family area, its for the ultra rich and has a good reason for being what it is, and I would be against upzoning it. Make em pay their fair share of property taxes of course.

I agree with the others you have identified, they are great areas for urbanization, and allow for it because of the grid system. You will see a great deal of infill already going on in Crescent heights. The problem with new suburbs is they dont really allow for repurposing in the future due to the screwy road patterns.

I still think we need to radically change how we build new neighbourhoods to fit with more of a marda loop model as a minimum.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Thats the problem with the city. I would also add Marda Loop, and parts of Mackenzie towne.

Most of Sunnyside Hillhurst is suburban but parts of McKenzie Towne are urban? What is your definition of urban?

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Upper mount royal is not your typical single family area, its for the ultra rich and has a good reason for being what it is, and I would be against upzoning it. Make em pay their fair share of property taxes of course.

I'm assuming these 2 statements were not intended to be quite as related as I'm reading them, but if so... mind explaining?

Is ultra-sprawl-worthy development somehow justified so long as the residents are "ultra rich"?

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I'm assuming these 2 statements were not intended to be quite as related as I'm reading them, but if so... mind explaining?

Is ultra-sprawl-worthy development somehow justified so long as the residents are "ultra rich"?

Mount Royal has been an enclave of estates since it's inception. Many of the other urban areas that are seeing infill have always been for "normal" people, it's just now land values and proximity are dictating what types of housing those "normal" people live in.

(Insert obligatory, SSP-mandated, "the rich are evil" statement)

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Most of Sunnyside Hillhurst is suburban but parts of McKenzie Towne are urban? What is your definition of urban?

It comes down to built form and mixed uses. If you look at the core of Mackenzie town (and thats the only place that qualifies), they have medium density housing adjacent to retail. Its a less than ideally executed version of Marda Loop, whereas sunnyside is just single family homes (or at least a vast majority of it is). The only reason anyone would even consider sunnyside urban is its proximity to the core, not because of its built form.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I'm assuming these 2 statements were not intended to be quite as related as I'm reading them, but if so... mind explaining?

Is ultra-sprawl-worthy development somehow justified so long as the residents are "ultra rich"?

Every city needs a variety of housing, so long as everyone pays their fair share. Mount Royal can justify its existance because the residents are more than capable of paying for their excessive use of space. A neighbourhood like that is one of a kind, or at least rare, its not the standard model. No subsidies needed. The average person in calgary would have a much tougher time affording their mcmansions if they had to pay the full freight, and that type of housing dominates this city.

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by Me&You

I'd like to know how most forumers define "urban" living.

I live in South Calgary which is most definitely "inner-city", but I would be hard pressed to call it very "urban". I can walk to the heart of Marda Loop in less than 5 minutes, but I rarely do, as the the retail mix just isn't that interesting to me. So, despite my inner-city location, I still often drive for my day-to-day needs and general recreation. Other than being a shorter and cheaper cab ride when I'm out on weekends, I don't see how living where I currently do is all that much different than living in some far-flung suburb.

As I see it, the only truly urban living available in Calgary is the Beltline and Kensington. Everything is merely inner-city. To the urbanists on this forum, am I one of you? Is it based on location only?

It depends on one's commuting habits. I choose not to live in the suburbs because on work days, I rely fully on public transit, which means frequent bus routes within walking distance is an absolute must. Do most suburbs have such an offer? Also, most inner city neighbourhoods are retaining population density or getting denser due to continuous infill construction-and there will be more infill construction activity in the near future as the inner city becomes more desirable while Calgary grows and traffic gets worse (Route 3 to become a 24/7 service is a fantastic start!). This, in turn, can potentially enhance transit service. The suburbs like Edgemont, on the other hand, are more difficult to subdivide due to lots that are generally narrower than 50ft, unless they get replaced by multi-family units or townhomes.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Me&You

Mount Royal has been an enclave of estates since it's inception. Many of the other urban areas that are seeing infill have always been for "normal" people, it's just now land values and proximity are dictating what types of housing those "normal" people live in.

So what you are saying is that Mount Royal was to the past as Bearspaw and the like are now - and because they've used land in a certain fashion from inception, they should be protected and not be commented on. Additionally, you've highlighted that this is appropriate because the area is inhabited by abnormal people.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by RicoLance21

It depends on one's commuting habits. I choose not to live in the suburbs because on work days, I rely fully on public transit, which means frequent bus routes within walking distance is an absolute must. Do most suburbs have such an offer? Also, most inner cities are retaining population density or getting denser due to continuous infill construction-and there will be more infill construction activity in the near future as the inner city becomes more desirable while Calgary grows and traffic gets worse. This, in turn, can potentially enhance transit service. The suburbs like Edgemont, on the other hand, are more difficult to subdivide due to lots that are generally narrower than 50ft, unless they get replaced by multi-family units or townhomes.

Your comment is really convoluted. Inner cities are getting denser due to infills (yeah - that's because there are 2 bedroom houses on 50' frontage lots) and newer areas are bad because they start with 28' lots in the first place.

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by suburb

Your comment is really convoluted. Inner cities are getting denser due to infills (yeah - that's because there are 2 bedroom houses on 50' frontage lots) and newer areas are bad because they start with 28' lots in the first place.

While some suburbs have 28' lots, what are the feeder buses ridership like compare to buses serving inner city neighborhoods? Unless condos are being built, I don't think there would be any bus ridership increases in the suburbs on a per-capita basis. There are tons of potential for increased bus ridership in inner city neighbourhoods, and the existing major bus routes are pretty frequent already.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

It comes down to built form and mixed uses. If you look at the core of Mackenzie town (and thats the only place that qualifies), they have medium density housing adjacent to retail. Its a less than ideally executed version of Marda Loop, whereas sunnyside is just single family homes (or at least a vast majority of it is). The only reason anyone would even consider sunnyside urban is its proximity to the core, not because of its built form.

Okay, it makes sense if that is where you are coming from. I have to disagree with your last statement though. To me an urban built form means a lot more than the difference between SFHs and apartment buildings. For one thing, the area actually has a pretty good mix of smaller apartment buildings strewn about. That said, the main point I would make is that houses on 25 foot lots are very much urban when situated on a grid and no more than a couple blocks from real main street style retail. McKenzie Towne's apartments are, by comparison, very much suburban despite the density and it's retail is a pale imitation of what a real urban area looks like.

[DizzyEdge]

I would argue that if Mount Royal, or portions of it are preserved as-is, it might be reasonable for heritage reasons, but not for any other such as the wealth of the residents.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by RicoLance21

While some suburbs have 28' lots, what are the feeder buses ridership like compare to buses serving inner city neighborhoods? Unless condos are being built, I don't think there would be any bus ridership increases in the suburbs on a per-capita basis. There are tons of potential for increased bus ridership in inner city neighbourhoods, and the existing major bus routes are pretty frequent already.

I haven't seen the numbers that show an increase to the per-capita rider rate in the inner city. I'm assuming you do have this given your statement above - could you share?

Generally speaking, creating proper nodes outside of downtown does not necessarily increase the per-capita bus ridership numbers all that much the way the transit network is right now, because most people do not work downtown. Additionally, feeder bus ridership is not a good measure as many people don't take feeder buses to get to the transit backbone - in cases when indeed they do need to come to the core or points in between.

In general, to split out bus ridership based on home address is extremely difficult. If someone takes an express bus and then transfers to a different bus closer to DT, the numbers won't tell you that the second leg was completed by someone who lives 12km from the core. Given this reality, I suspect your assumptions about increased per capita ridership for inner city to be based on dubious analysis - but I can't conclude till you have presented your conclusive (or not) data.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

To me an urban built form means a lot more than the difference between SFHs and apartment buildings. For one thing, the area actually has a pretty good mix of smaller apartment buildings strewn about. That said, the main point I would make is that houses on 25 foot lots are very much urban when situated on a grid and no more than a couple blocks from real main street style retail.

So North Pointe, with ~25 multi-family buildings and numerous row and semi-detached, surrounding numerous services, shops, restaurants, recreation, entertainment, and a major transportation node, would be urban? Yes there are a couple fields there too - one for the high school and one a reserve for the health care system's north diagnostic centre right beside the assisted and continuing care living complex.

I think the point I'm making is that there are varying levels of what makes a particular area urban - and so we should get off the 'this versus that' and focus on intensifying those underlying elements that make things better.