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

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

It would be ideal if they could figure out a way to keep communities vibrant all of the time. Maybe they need to have much more flexible zoning. What I'm getting at is new communities from the start would be designed to allow for various types of housing and businesses from Day 1 to prevent people from complaining about changes to the neighborhood. For example, SFH and 20+ story condo towers could be allowed to coexist if that's the way the market moved. If someone didn't like that they could move to an existing community that had more strict zoning laws. I don't think this would result in planning "disasters." Market forces and demographics would likely result in orderly transitions within neighborhoods.

Yeah I think earmarking a portion (1/4?) of a new community as 'high density', even if the initial build is low density so that there's no surprises, similar to when 'parks' are actually earmarked for future schools.

Or maybe splitting the community into 4 numbered quarters, each for future high density but for example quarter #2 would only become eligible for high density once quarter #1 is 75% redeveloped or something. Either way, the idea is to have focused quick and intense redevelopment in bite sized chunks rather than over a large area over a long period of time.

[Bad Grizzly]

No surprise whatsoever. Who wants to pay 500K for a 500sq ft apartment when you can pay 500K for a 1500sq ft dwelling where you own all four walls in a neighborhood where you don't have to sidestep needles and suffer the smell of sidewalk urine in the mornings.

Originally Posted by jawagord

Suburbs win again. No surprise here, you can't build new accomodations on urban land that has already has been built on without first tearing down what is there.

Despite efforts to curtail suburban residential growth in favour of long-established Calgary communities, a city draft report released this month forecasts an overwhelming concentration of Calgary’s population growth over the next five years will flock to the city’s fringes.

The draft report, titled Suburban Residential Growth 2018-2022 and authored by its planning, development and assessment department, predicts that 89 per cent of Calgary’s population growth during that period will be in the suburbs, compared with just 11 per cent in developed communities closer to the city centre.

The city expects to gain 76,700 new residents by 2022, with three sectors — the southeast (18,480 added residents), north (17,510) and northeast (15,750) — experiencing the most population growth.

These forecasts, if proven accurate, would continue a trend over the past five years. From 2013-17, 84 per cent Calgary’s population gain went to new suburban communities, according to the report. Last year, the city grew by more than 11,000 people, with new suburbs gaining about 16,000 residents and the remainder of the city losing 5,000.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ext-five-years

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

No surprise whatsoever. Who wants to pay 500K for a 500sq ft apartment when you can pay 500K for a 1500sq ft dwelling where you own all four walls in a neighborhood where you don't have to sidestep needles and suffer the smell of sidewalk urine in the mornings.

This does not need to be an either or and should not be a debate. You could just as easily say 'who wants to pay 500K for a vinyl sided shitbox in a soulless suburb with nothing interesting for miles nearby, when they could rent a nice place in the inner city in a vibrant neighbourhood for much less'.

Living in either the inner city, middle ring or suburbs have advantages and disadvantages depending on your need. We need to encourage all form of development, not discourage them all equally.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Yeah I think earmarking a portion (1/4?) of a new community as 'high density', even if the initial build is low density so that there's no surprises, similar to when 'parks' are actually earmarked for future schools.

Doesn't even stuff like this go wrong? NIMBYism is strong, and if I remember correctly wasn't there opposition recently to one of these 'parks' actually being used for its intended ultimate purpose - a school?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Doesn't even stuff like this go wrong? NIMBYism is strong, and if I remember correctly wasn't there opposition recently to one of these 'parks' actually being used for its intended ultimate purpose - a school?

There was. I can't recall off the top of my head which community it was but I think it was probably about 10 years ago. There's been other examples as well of people playing stupid claiming they didn't know land was set aside for parks, schools, etc. and then getting all pissed off when the land was to be used for its intended purpose. I don't think that qualifies as NIBMYism but it's definitely something related to it.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Yeah I think earmarking a portion (1/4?) of a new community as 'high density', even if the initial build is low density so that there's no surprises, similar to when 'parks' are actually earmarked for future schools.

Or maybe splitting the community into 4 numbered quarters, each for future high density but for example quarter #2 would only become eligible for high density once quarter #1 is 75% redeveloped or something. Either way, the idea is to have focused quick and intense redevelopment in bite sized chunks rather than over a large area over a long period of time.

The problem is once property is built on and most "urban/suburban" property is/will be built on, those structures last 70-80 years or more, there can be no quick and intense redevelopment of properties and areas which are occupied. Suburban greenfield development is fast and intense, urban brownfield redevelopment is slow, expensive and limited. City growth will always default to the undeveloped suburbs.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by jawagord

The problem is once property is built on and most "urban/suburban" property is/will be built on, those structures last 70-80 years or more, there can be no quick and intense redevelopment of properties and areas which are occupied. Suburban greenfield development is fast and intense, urban brownfield redevelopment is slow, expensive and limited. City growth will always default to the undeveloped suburbs.

Absolutely, but if one would agree that most inner city redevelopment is fueled by the density of the existing structure being significantly less than the density the parcel is now zoned for, some intense 'upzoning' should spur redevelopment in short order.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Northern

this is from the Beltline.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Calgary/com...njection_site/

While that image of the Beltline was immediately shocking to me, I just now read some of the thread, and it is pretty powerful. I guess not enough places with three bedrooms is not the only reasons families stay clear of the Beltline!

Seriously though, this is the reality. Every morning landlords take tongs and look for needles. It really sucks and am looking to move out of this area.

i live on 15th ave near there and there are needles in my parking spot every day. i'm torn on this issue cause i live down here and i understand that preventing overdoses is important, but i've had 2 friends be mugged in the past 6 months in this neighborhood, I just don't feel really safe. People are going to do drugs either way, and the prevention of needless deaths is important, but we need more police presence down here to deal with the side effects.

As someone who works in building maintenance and has done a lot of work in the Beltline, I can tell you that needles are everywhere, but not in places where people will see them. Mostly around older buildings, and in the rear of the building, around car ports, or older buildings with mature landscaping. Often under coniferous trees, or behind dumpsters, basically anywhere tucked out of sight. It's a problem for maintenance people who are often getting accidentally pricked.

I think things have gotten worse overall . I live in Sunnyside (since 1994) and for the first 10-15 years never saw a bum/bottle picker and never had anyone mess with my car (street parking).

In the last two years we've had: My boyfriend's truck broken into, garage rummaged and bikes stolen, also rummaged through my car and work truck. His work van was broken into and all of his tools stolen. And finally, this fall our house was broken into while we were at work. Stole anything of value, our computers headphone, jewelry all of our cash and bluetooth speakers. They also found the keys to my car and stole that too.

I am preparing to booby trap our house. High intensity flood lights and I'm going to run a hot wire around our fence. I am also looking into ways to do the same to the vehicles. SO over it.

I used to be the sympathetic person to the plight of adicts. We know that it is genetic and a function of circumstance and there is a predisposition, but frankly it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether they can help it or not. The reality is they are harmful. The reason why doesn't matter when you are a victim of their addiction.

[Rollerstud98]

This can probably slide right in here.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...ary/ar-BBSlAyh

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

This can probably slide right in here.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...ary/ar-BBSlAyh

I thought people claimed that didn't happen here?

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

This can probably slide right in here.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...ary/ar-BBSlAyh

Wow, it’s even worse than I thought. I’d like to hear what all those moron Beltline supporters have to say. Suddenly I hear the sound of crickets.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I thought people claimed that didn't happen here?

Idiots in denial were saying that. They weren’t fooling anyone.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I thought people claimed that didn't happen here?

Who said that?

If we built low density housing everywhere instead of the beltline existing would things be any different?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

Idiots in denial were saying that. They weren’t fooling anyone.

I know. I'm in the Beltline quite often. You'd have to be blind not to see this stuff. It used to be worse but it's still there.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Who said that?

If we built low density housing everywhere instead of the beltline existing would things be any different?

Look in the Crime thread and you'll find such comments.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Who said that?

If we built low density housing everywhere instead of the beltline existing would things be any different?

People have been denying the crime situation in the Beltine for years in this forum. It’s not just the Beltline it’s pretty much anywhere in the inner city, but the Beltline the most obvious.
For the record, I’m not complaining. Every city needs to have a crappy area for the poor and homeless, and ours happens to be the Beltline. I don’t live there by choice so I’m not too concerned about it. It wouldn’t matter if it was low density in the Beltline, I would still be a toilet.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Look in the Crime thread and you'll find such comments.

And if you look at all the crime posted in the crime thread, it’s almost always downtown.

[Western Spaghetti]

Apparently the issue is all around downtown but mostly in the Beltline. Some of the comments on Reddit. Makes you wonder why anyone would want to live downtown or in the Beltline. Pay extra money for the privilege of being around the homeless, the drug addicts, needles, and prostitutes.

I've heard the term used before. 15th ave is also called the popcorn stroll, due the the underaged prositutes.

From Chumir to Alpha House is called the Zombie Walk.

I moved downtown a few months back, within 3 days there was a needle in my parkade.
Magical.

No surprise. It was only a week ago a bunch of people saying they never notice them around where as I see them daily. Glad they are getting cleaned

They'd find that many just in one of those L.E.D. benches around East Village.

Countdown until feces on the sidewalks becomes an "unforeseen" issue that arises a la San Francisco

[240glt]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

People have been denying the crime situation in the Beltine for years in this forum. It’s not just the Beltline it’s pretty much anywhere in the inner city, but the Beltline the most obvious.
For the record, I’m not complaining. Every city needs to have a crappy area for the poor and homeless, and ours happens to be the Beltline. I don’t live there by choice so I’m not too concerned about it. It wouldn’t matter if it was low density in the Beltline, I would still be a toilet.

We had some issues at my old condo way in the Beltline back in the early 2000's .. 15th Ave & 10th Street, mostly petty stuff like people sleeping in the laundry room or pooping in the stairwells. We had someone set up a little fort on the roof access interior landing once and from the looks of things they were there for a while.. needed to call in a remediation company to clean it up, it was pretty bad. We had the odd needle scattered around the property but nothing too serious. The biggest issue was being so close to 17th so we had a pretty steady stream of people peeing and puking behind the building. I just chalked it up to living in the center of the city but still pretty unpleasant.

Here in downtown Edmonton it's much, much worse. It's absolutely disgusting.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by Western Spaghetti

Apparently the issue is all around downtown but mostly in the Beltline. Some of the comments on Reddit. Makes you wonder why anyone would want to live downtown or in the Beltline. Pay extra money for the privilege of being around the homeless, the drug addicts, needles, and prostitutes.

Don't forget people vomiting and urinating.