Calgary: Intensification vs. Extensification

[freeweed]

I live in the boonies because it's close to my house. Which is in the boonies.

My cat's breath smells like catfood.

[manny]

My partner and I are thinking very seriously of selling our suburban house and buying a Condo. One of the new ones coming up in the Beltline or Eau Claire area.

The excitement of dt living, being within walking distance to work, clubs, restuarants, hussle and bussle of the downtown is very appealing.

The drawback is giving up the quiet sub-urban life, backyard, and downsizing just to live in a condo

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by manny

The drawback is giving up the quiet sub-urban life, backyard, and downsizing just to live in a condo

And no more fires.

[tdurden5573]

There are parks, and quiet places in the inner city you know, of course you'd have to actually walk a block to get there. Now if the city would just let you have a beer there we'd be in business!

[Doug]

Biggest reason: inner city Calgary is very small partly due to the city's late development and partly due to geographic barriers. That being said, inner city housing is ridiculously expensive, as high as the desirable areas in much larger cities like Toronto and Vancouver. Only a very small subset of the population is sufficiently wealthy or willing to make the sacrifices (large mortgage, low disposible income) to live inner city.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by Doug

Biggest reason: inner city Calgary is very small partly due to the city's late development and partly due to geographic barriers. That being said, inner city housing is ridiculously expensive, as high as the desirable areas in much larger cities like Toronto and Vancouver. Only a very small subset of the population is sufficiently wealthy or willing to make the sacrifices (large mortgage, low disposible income) to live inner city.

Not that small of a percentage...

[Rusty van Reddick]

manny, my inner-city life is VERY quiet. Eau Claire would be very peaceful- no garden, but peaceful.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Doug

Biggest reason: inner city Calgary is very small partly due to the city's late development and partly due to geographic barriers. That being said, inner city housing is ridiculously expensive, as high as the desirable areas in much larger cities like Toronto and Vancouver. Only a very small subset of the population is sufficiently wealthy or willing to make the sacrifices (large mortgage, low disposible income) to live inner city.

That really depends on ones definition of inner city. Old housing stock in the inner city is often competitively priced when compared to else where. Seventies condos in inner city communities like Bankview are pretty much even with those in communities that stradle the line like Windsor Park, or ones in inner suburbs like Haysboro. New communities lack a point of comparison since they just don't have condos that are thirty plus years old, but I'd personally prefer a unit in an old concrete biuldings to one in a new woodframe.

Likewise, as soon as you get out of a few very desirable communities, single family homes quickly approach a point of comparison. Hell, it wasn't that long ago that alot of inner city communities were relative bargains, think Inglewood and Ramsay ten to twenty years ago. This doesn't go for new construction in the inner city, but that makes sense, you're paying for both the old bungalow that was demolished and the construction of the new infill. Which is why rezoning the inner city won't lead to affordability.

About the whole personal choice debate. Living in a society means sacrificing certain freedoms to the will of the group. Some of those freedoms would involve "personal choice" about living arrangements, big houses on a lot of land would not come cheap; other freedoms lost would involve freedom from certain annoyances, like fires. If you want to live around alot of people, there are just certain things you might have to put up with, music before 11:00 and firepits being among them. It really isn't a health concern, second hand smoke in bars was pervasive, you could see the thick clouds of smoke, and it caused harm to those (particularly staff) that spent a great deal of time in it. Being able to smell a fire is entirely different, and merely an annoyance. This is part of a disturbingly elitist track I've noticed at times, where people desire to take away others freedoms not for the good of society, but merely because they think they know better than the uncultured mob. That crosses a threshold into fascist town, somewhere I'd prefer to stay away from.

Personally I think we should change the nature of development levies. We should concentrate less on a fee per lot, and more on a total fee per area, to promote density. We should also improve the connectivity of our suburbs, as opposed to allowing each to remain a pod with only one way in or out. Beyond that I think that Calgary is generally on the right track, we should strive to improve matters further but we're going in the right direction. As long as our population grows I don't have a major problem with outwardly growth, it should be dense to the point where overall population density increases instead of decreases, but we'd have too many problems if we tried to add thirty thousand people a year to the current footprint. We should of course strive to increase the number we do add to the current footprint, but we must be practical.

[niwell]

Part of the problem is that due to various reasons, intensification can really only take place in the inner city, which in Calgary's case is quite small. That's great and all, but it's making an unaffordable inner city, as most infill projects are geared to the upper class. What needs to happen concurrently are more sustainable suburbs (lets get modified grids to start, no more collecter/feeder/pods) and intensification of older suburbs. Also, allowing things such as basement suites can help a great deal. In Toronto this allows many people to own expensive central houses and pay the mortgage.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Living in a society means sacrificing certain freedoms to the will of the group. Some of those freedoms would involve "personal choice" about living arrangements, big houses on a lot of land would not come cheap; other freedoms lost would involve freedom from certain annoyances, like fires.

Or the freedom lost could be the ability to have fires. Or did you only think it appropriate to keep the freedoms YOU wanted? Should we just go with the tyranny of the majority?

Repeat after me: your freedom ends at the end of my nose.

In a society where we're banning foods from schools because stupid kids *might* ingest them, don't sit there and try to tell me that fire smoke is just an annoyance. At least the kids can avoid each other's foods. I can't get away from your fires, period. And I'm walking proof that they have health effects.

This is part of a disturbingly elitist track I've noticed at times, where people desire to take away others freedoms not for the good of society, but merely because they think they know better than the uncultured mob.

I know exactly what you mean. There's a tiny elitist minority in Calgary who are trying very hard to impose their ideas of forced density on everyone else, and when you try to argue with them, you're essentially wrong because they know better than you, "the uncultured mob".

(Insert irony tags here and above as required)

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Or the freedom lost could be the ability to have fires. Or did you only think it appropriate to keep the freedoms YOU wanted? Should we just go with the tyranny of the majority?

Repeat after me: your freedom ends at the end of my nose.

In a society where we're banning foods from schools because stupid kids *might* ingest them, don't sit there and try to tell me that fire smoke is just an annoyance. At least the kids can avoid each other's foods. I can't get away from your fires, period. And I'm walking proof that they have health effects.



I know exactly what you mean. There's a tiny elitist minority in Calgary who are trying very hard to impose their ideas of forced density on everyone else, and when you try to argue with them, you're essentially wrong because they know better than you, "the uncultured mob".

(Insert irony tags here and above as required)

Really, you're walking proof that backyard fires have health effects? I have asthma, I've been told it's from growing up around second hand smoke, I beleive that, my parents feel bad. I don't think camp fires atleast fifty feet away from me ever had any thing to do with it. Firepits are a smell that some find unpleasant, the concentrations of toxins and rarity of exposure ensure it isn't a health problem, atleast not one comparable to any number of things that are allowed. There are all kinds of things that smell bad in cities, it is something you have to deal with if you want to live in one.

By the way, they're not my fires, I don't have fires, I'm just not the kind of person that accuses those who do of being the devil. I do things that are worse for the air quality of those around me, like driving a car, so I'm not going to judge.

You can try to throw what I said about elites back at me all you want, it won't stick, I've never said I want to force people to do any thing. I don't go around saying look at the stupid suburbanites, they don't know how stupid they are, I'll solve the problem for them and make them all live in 200 sq foot condos. If people want to have five acres and a mansion, power to them, I just think they should have to pay substantially more than they currently do for the priveledge. That increase would cover various costs associated with the practice, and curtail it to the point that we would have less of an impact on our surroundings.

[Lee_Haber8]

Interesting thread. There are many factors that drive sprawl. A lot of people say that people want sprawl - believe a lot of this 'demand' is the result of market distortions and poor policy.

1) Perverse subsidies. Many cities subsidize sprawl by paying for the costs of the new infrastructure required. Also, unbelievably, in the United States you are paid farmer's aid even if you aren't farming the land.

2) Implicit automobile subsidies. All taxpayers regardless of how much they use roadways pay for them equally. That means if you walk everywhere you are subsidizing the lifestyle of someone who commutes 30 km. Who pays for new roads and highways? - pedestrians and SUV drivers equally do. It is a result of our tax system. To solve this you would need to implement gas taxes which fully pay the cost of road maintenance or some sort of electronic road-tolling system.

3) Poor Planning. Part of sprawl is that no care has been taken into how people well people of all ages and incomes will function in that neighbourhood. Poor city planning focuses growth at the periphery instead of in the city using existing infrastructure. I think a successful planning strategy in combating sprawl involves planning growth inside the city and setting up a greenbelt to protect farmland and natural habitats. No matter how orderly growth is, at some point the city needs to end.

In some jurisdictions (e.g. Manitoba), residential developments are not required to have proper sewage system and can rely on septic pools. This poses serious environmental issues as septic pools are usually located near rivers and can overflow into them after a heavy rainfall.

4) NIMBYism. Preventing development in the city drives the demand for sprawl since sprawl only has a few neighbours at most to deal with. Better planning and education can help reduce NIMBYism, but I think what is also needed is a clearer understanding of property rights.

Many people just don't realize that we have so much sprawl because poor planning and policy has tilted the playing field overwhelming in its favor for so long. I believe that if these distortions are corrected, that much of this 'desire' for a suburban lifestyle will disappear. The market as it should, would be more inclined to a more sustainable and efficient use of existing infrastructure as well higher-density mixed-use neighbourhoods.

[salvius]

Originally Posted by niwell

Part of the problem is that due to various reasons, intensification can really only take place in the inner city, which in Calgary's case is quite small. That's great and all, but it's making an unaffordable inner city, as most infill projects are geared to the upper class. What needs to happen concurrently are more sustainable suburbs (lets get modified grids to start, no more collecter/feeder/pods) and intensification of older suburbs. Also, allowing things such as basement suites can help a great deal. In Toronto this allows many people to own expensive central houses and pay the mortgage.

Well... Toronto's inner city is large, true, but similarly completely unaffordable, unless a 1 br condo is good enough forever (which for some people it might be... but not all).

[niwell]

^This is true yes. But my landlord is 30 and owns the house I live in. My house is probably worth $700000 plus, but with rent from the basement apartment (mine) and the main floor apartment it probably covers a lot of the mortgage. Granted, you need the down payment, but it's good to have the option of tenants.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Really, you're walking proof that backyard fires have health effects? I have asthma, I've been told it's from growing up around second hand smoke, I beleive that, my parents feel bad. I don't think camp fires atleast fifty feet away from me ever had any thing to do with it. Firepits are a smell that some find unpleasant

If you truly have asthma, and you've never had it triggered by smoke... you either have very mild asthma, or you're incredibly lucky. You keep talking about the "smell" - the smell isn't what makes people sick. It's the particulate matter in the smoke itself. No different than cigarette smoke. Car exhaust, while unpleasant, is nothing compared to breathing smoke. There's a reason firefighters have a much higher rate of lung disease of all types compared to the general populace, and we ALL breathe car exhaust.

I used to wake up in the middle of the night coughing my lungs out, every time the neighbours had a fire in their back yard. During the summers, any time it was remotely warm out, I had 2 choices: shut my windows, enjoy stale air, and suffer through warm periods with my house at 30C - or I could wake up every hour coughing until the idiots finally put the thing out at 2am. It's been nearly 18 months and I can still trigger an asthmatic reaction from heavy exercise. This is something that I'd never experienced before in my life. Needless to say it's cut my hiking endurance literally in half. I'm now where I would have been in maybe 10-15 years. It's almost like premature aging. Oh, and one of my favourite OCCASIONAL summer activities, sitting around a campfire? For 2 years I almost couldn't. Nightly exposure to smoke is not healthy for anyone.

Maybe you've lived on abnormally large lots. In a city like Calgary, especially in newer more dense areas, people can easily have a firepit 20' or less from a your bedroom window. With the right prevailing winds, you're fucked. I ended up sleeping on a couch in the basement for much of the summer after I started going 2-3 hours every morning unable to breathe.

Anyway, much like with smoking, any attempt to get people to curb this behaviour voluntarily is generally useless. The exact same argument is used - hey, it's not REALLY affecting your health, just look at how much other bad stuff is around. Besides, it's not hurting me, so how can it possibly hurt you?

I don't leave rotting garbage out in my yard. I don't crank music all day long until the noise bylaw kicks in. Hell, my neighbours would hardly ever know I'm home for the most part. I don't see why it's so difficult for people to use a modicum of common courtesy and respect for their fellow human beings, and try to at least pretend to consider the effects of their actions on others. But I also don't hold an attitude of "hey, it's legal, so fuck you". Which is really the only defense for this sort of thing. (Not that I'm claiming you're saying that, but believe me, I've been down this road many times)

I'm not worried in the long term. Society stopped smoking in public, and given enough time we'll see and end to this nonsense as well.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by manny

Enough said, Boris, I was very much like you at your age. I guess I have not changed much in my temperment but in terms of my understanding of the complexity and dynamics of the world we live in, I have learned a lot. I hope your journey is as fruitful as mine.

Cheers.

Well said...well said.

[KrisYYC]

Manny,

I'm not sure if where i live would be considered inner city (69th ave SW, 3 blocks south of Chinook Centre). It's not right in the core, but I can walk to Chinook station in 10 mins, Chinook Centre obviously, tons of restaurants around on MacLeod, easy access to Deerfoot via Glenmore, same for Crowchild. 4 bus routes within a 5 min walk. And guess what? It ain't no apartment! I have a half-duplex with 3 bedrooms, and a yard that's bigger than most of the new cookie cutters going up these days. Even with the big shed and deck there's still a lot of grass space. It's not as quiet as the burbs, but it beats living in a condo or apartment.

I'd consider something like that over a condo considering they sell for about the same price. You just gotta look in the older areas.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8

Interesting thread. There are many factors that drive sprawl. A lot of people say that people want sprawl - believe a lot of this 'demand' is the result of market distortions and poor policy.

Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8

1) Perverse subsidies. Many cities subsidize sprawl by paying for the costs of the new infrastructure required. Also, unbelievably, in the United States you are paid farmer's aid even if you aren't farming the land.

Calgary is not one of those cities, or rather not as much as you would expect. All infrastructure within the subdivision itself is paid for directly by the developer. Cost for police, fire, library and recreation facilities is somewhat covered by the additional development levies developers pay to the city above the cost recovery basis for planning services.

Oh, and paying farmers not to farm is a solution to a problem created by subsidies in the first place (over supply). If you want to have family farmer income support without destroying the world agricultural economy, this is a better way to do it.

Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8

2) Implicit automobile subsidies. All taxpayers regardless of how much they use roadways pay for them equally. That means if you walk everywhere you are subsidizing the lifestyle of someone who commutes 30 km. Who pays for new roads and highways? - pedestrians and SUV drivers equally do. It is a result of our tax system. To solve this you would need to implement gas taxes which fully pay the cost of road maintenance or some sort of electronic road-tolling system.

In Calgary, the amount we get from the province and federal government in refunds for the gas tax is pretty close to equal the amount the city spends on roads (capital and operational a year).

Before Al Duerr secured the transfer from the provincial government, your subsidization argument would have been 100% correct for Calgary.

Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8

3) Poor Planning. Part of sprawl is that no care has been taken into how people well people of all ages and incomes will function in that neighbourhood. Poor city planning focuses growth at the periphery instead of in the city using existing infrastructure. I think a successful planning strategy in combating sprawl involves planning growth inside the city and setting up a greenbelt to protect farmland and natural habitats. No matter how orderly growth is, at some point the city needs to end.

In some jurisdictions (e.g. Manitoba), residential developments are not required to have proper sewage system and can rely on septic pools. This poses serious environmental issues as septic pools are usually located near rivers and can overflow into them after a heavy rainfall.

No argument there. However Calgary lacks much of the industrial brown field sites perfect for re-purposing that other older cities have. The C-Train system is for all intensive purposes at capacity during rush hour, negating at least some redevelopment activity for now.

The massive rise in per square foot cost of multifamily housing that is close to any existing infrastructure tells me there is so much demand, that we are close to maximum capacity for building anything that isn't wood framed.

There is a place for managed smart growth balanced between new subdivisions, brown field, and pure intensification. Unless we decide as a society to stop the growth in the population of course.

As for septic systems, they have there place in rural communities, not in ex-urbs that I think your mad about here. Fortunately I've never heard of this as a huge issue, maybe since we get comparatively less rain that southern Manitoba.

Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8

4) NIMBYism. Preventing development in the city drives the demand for sprawl since sprawl only has a few neighbours at most to deal with. Better planning and education can help reduce NIMBYism, but I think what is also needed is a clearer understanding of property rights.

Many people just don't realize that we have so much sprawl because poor planning and policy has tilted the playing field overwhelming in its favor for so long. I believe that if these distortions are corrected, that much of this 'desire' for a suburban lifestyle will disappear. The market as it should, would be more inclined to a more sustainable and efficient use of existing infrastructure as well higher-density mixed-use neighbourhoods.

Number one issue for NIMBY's in Calgary is basement/secondary suites, followed closely by infills.

In Calgary the Imagine Calgary document I believe will help bring voice to the silent majority.

IE: Your Nimbyism is against the stated Imagine Calgary goals for reduction of foot print per son.

Sort of like a dogma, but it might work.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Now: On the other hand, urban planners like myself really want to open up the number of choices people have.

Correction: aspiring urban planner. That is a professional distinction you gain upon graduation of an accredited planning school. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by josh white

Correction: aspiring urban planner. That is a professional distinction you gain upon graduation of an accredited planning school. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

ICEBURN!