Limiting Calgary's expansion

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Doug

Probably to avoid contamination of well water along the lines of what has happened in Bragg Creek.

Didn't hear about that. Wouldn't a communal system run less of a risk of contamination than septic fields though? I am no sanitation expert, so I am just guessing here.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Doug

I live in Bellevue, Washington but go down to Portland lots. Vancouver, Wa is one of the fastest growing cities in the NW. It used to have a reputation as a semi-rural, backwater aka "Vantucky", but since the late 80s has exploded with new housing and commercial development as developers increasingly avoid the restrictions on the Oregon side of the river.

I'm surprised they ever thought that would work. You can't try to limit sprawl via a greenbelt with a non-greenbelted city right next door.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'm surprised they ever thought that would work. You can't try to limit sprawl via a greenbelt with a non-greenbelted city right next door.

It certainly doesn't help that that city is in a different state either.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'm surprised they ever thought that would work. You can't try to limit sprawl via a greenbelt with a non-greenbelted city right next door.

Any growth limit strategy has to be done regionally, or there has to be some sort of compliance mechanism in place. In the Calgary region, Calgary uses control of water licenses (and sewer infrastructure to a lesser extent) to enforce compliance with the strategy (which is why Rocky View doesn't get water from Calgary). Prior to this it was regional planning boards that enforced growth strategies. Other jurisdictions use things like toll roads to try and control growth. Either way there has to be some sort of mechanism to ensure cooperation, either sticks or carrots. Regional planning is very complicated, very political and very difficult, but also very interesting.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Toronto has a green belt as well.

Toronto is quite possibly the WORST example of suburban (and much worse, ex-urban) sprawl in North America. In my experience only Los Angeles is more of a joke. The GTA (and the entire horseshoe, really) is nothing more than hundreds of remote suburbs - technically other cities/municipalities - surrounding a precious few dozen blocks of well-designed city.

Greenbelts are almost impossible to make work.

And yeah, while Portland is an amazing urban experience, for a city of its size it's ridiculously sprawly and heavily car dependent. It's phenomenal how much freeway exists there. Although as always, US sprawl vs Canadian sprawl is like comparing apples to geography.

Calgary's handling its growth amazingly well. We're getting denser all the time in existing neighbourhoods (except NIMBY strongholds like Mount Royal, Kensington, etc), newer neighbourhoods are far more dense than anything built in the past 50 years, our water usage (really the biggest environmental impact in a semi-arid climate) is remarkable stable given the population growth, transit usage continues to rise... really the only negative is the physical footprint. Which by itself is almost irrelevant. It's the actual environmental effects we need to mitigate. About my only fear in my lifetime is air quality. We're seeing far too many smog days in my opinion. We need some serious clean air legislation here.

[kw5150]

Well we better figure it out soon. I dont think the world baby count is getting any lower is it? I really hope that my (hypothetical) kids, kids.....etc still have plenty of clean water to swim in around calgary.

I trust in the scientists that warn us about global warming and I have adjusted my lifestyle accordingly. Every bit helps.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Toronto is quite possibly the WORST example of suburban (and much worse, ex-urban) sprawl in North America. In my experience only Los Angeles is more of a joke. The GTA (and the entire horseshoe, really) is nothing more than hundreds of remote suburbs - technically other cities/municipalities - surrounding a precious few dozen blocks of well-designed city.

Greenbelts are almost impossible to make work.

And yeah, while Portland is an amazing urban experience, for a city of its size it's ridiculously sprawly and heavily car dependent. It's phenomenal how much freeway exists there. Although as always, US sprawl vs Canadian sprawl is like comparing apples to geography.

Calgary's handling its growth amazingly well. We're getting denser all the time in existing neighbourhoods (except NIMBY strongholds like Mount Royal, Kensington, etc), newer neighbourhoods are far more dense than anything built in the past 50 years, our water usage (really the biggest environmental impact in a semi-arid climate) is remarkable stable given the population growth, transit usage continues to rise... really the only negative is the physical footprint. Which by itself is almost irrelevant. It's the actual environmental effects we need to mitigate. About my only fear in my lifetime is air quality. We're seeing far too many smog days in my opinion. We need some serious clean air legislation here.

I have to agree 100% with everything you said. When I went to Toronto, I was like "this City is awesome" and then I got on the 401 to go out to Oshawa and was like "this is the worst sprawling horrdenous mess I have ever seen!" Calgary may have some bad sprawl, but Toronto is much, much worse.

Calgary is getting much better, but still has a long way to go. While the Beltline has densified dramatically recently, it is really the potetnial for medium density neighbourhoods that we need to foster. Bridgeland, Killarney, South Calgary, Altadore, Bankview, Sunalta, Inglewood, Crescent Heights, Rosedale, Tuxedo etc are all good candidates to evolve into medium density communities consisting of a mix of townhouses, 4-6 storey grade-oriented multifamily and commercial corridors. To me, that will be the greatest challenge for our city in the next 20 years.

[bigcanuck]

With respect to Ontario, read up on the Places to Grow Act 2005 and the Greenbelt Act 2005 to see what steps they are trying to take.

[albertantraingeek]

Same, try to be as eco-friendly as possible . My family recently moved into Panorama Hills and I must say they know what they're doing. Until the construction debris is considered

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Toronto is quite possibly the WORST example of suburban (and much worse, ex-urban) sprawl in North America. In my experience only Los Angeles is more of a joke. The GTA (and the entire horseshoe, really) is nothing more than hundreds of remote suburbs - technically other cities/municipalities - surrounding a precious few dozen blocks of well-designed city.....

replace Toronto with Houston

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by WIGS

replace Toronto with Houston

If were not careful, WE will be the next Houston!

Wait, we already have more urban living than they do........

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by albertantraingeek

Same, try to be as eco-friendly as possible . My family recently moved into Panorama Hills and I must say they know what they're doing. Until the construction debris is considered

Im scratching my head trying to figure out if you are being sarcastic.

[Ferreth]

In comparison to other Canadian cities, I agree Calgary is doing quite well in terms of sprawl. My impression of the cities I've been to in Canada:

Edmonton - the city is not that much different than Calgary - it falls down on the numerous bedroom communities that increase its effective sprawl. Calgary was lucky it didn't have a bunch of small towns Airdrie distance out, or we could be in the same boat.

Winnipeg has a ring road issue - new growth has occurred around the ring road; leaving large gaps of no or under-utilized land between it and the city proper. On top of it, the slow growth of the city overall seems to have resulted in a parasitic effect of new 'burbs stealing wealth from some central older areas, turning some of them into run down areas.

Vancouver sprawls partly due to it's geography. It also has some pretty good density thanks to its geography. Constraining the growth with ocean to the west, mountains to the north, and river jump to the south helps a lot to get some density going. The Skytrain is helping too, with new high density being built where ever there is Skytrain service. Calgary needs to push more of that with LRT (but LRT capacity needs to be there too).

Ottawa - I didn't spend a lot of time here - but I get the impression, backed up by looking at maps, that the city is a quilt work of development and greenfield extending way further out than it needs to. I seem to recall an issue with multi-city governance and greenbelt attempts resulting in this patchwork of leapfrogging to the next possible development area. I give it my vote as the worst sprawl.

Toronto - it's so huge. I didn't appreciate it's size until I was stuck on on the 401. Since I had time, I'm trying to see the DT skyline. Never did through the haze. My understanding is that it's similar to looking at the Calgary skyline from the 22X. Trying to compare TO's sprawl is like comparing Saskatoon to Calgary - sure, it can be done, but what's the point?

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

Toronto - it's so huge. I didn't appreciate it's size until I was stuck on on the 401.

Don't want to turn this into a Toronto-bash, but... if you were "stuck" on the 401, in traffic - you only saw half the fun.

Try driving their freeways at 2 or 3 in the morning, when traffic is incredibly light and you can set the cruise at 130 and just fly around. It still takes FOREVER to go places. I once drove from Hamilton to Markham in the middle of the night and it felt like I was driving all the way to Banff.

Calgary driving at night is hilarious. 30 mins to completely cross the city on our freeways, max. And there's so little traffic by comparison. I suspect that will change muchly over the next 20 years though.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

In comparison to other Canadian cities, I agree Calgary is doing quite well in terms of sprawl. My impression of the cities I've been to in Canada:

Edmonton - the city is not that much different than Calgary - it falls down on the numerous bedroom communities that increase its effective sprawl. Calgary was lucky it didn't have a bunch of small towns Airdrie distance out, or we could be in the same boat.

Winnipeg has a ring road issue - new growth has occurred around the ring road; leaving large gaps of no or under-utilized land between it and the city proper. On top of it, the slow growth of the city overall seems to have resulted in a parasitic effect of new 'burbs stealing wealth from some central older areas, turning some of them into run down areas.

Vancouver sprawls partly due to it's geography. It also has some pretty good density thanks to its geography. Constraining the growth with ocean to the west, mountains to the north, and river jump to the south helps a lot to get some density going. The Skytrain is helping too, with new high density being built where ever there is Skytrain service. Calgary needs to push more of that with LRT (but LRT capacity needs to be there too).

Ottawa - I didn't spend a lot of time here - but I get the impression, backed up by looking at maps, that the city is a quilt work of development and greenfield extending way further out than it needs to. I seem to recall an issue with multi-city governance and greenbelt attempts resulting in this patchwork of leapfrogging to the next possible development area. I give it my vote as the worst sprawl.

Toronto - it's so huge. I didn't appreciate it's size until I was stuck on on the 401. Since I had time, I'm trying to see the DT skyline. Never did through the haze. My understanding is that it's similar to looking at the Calgary skyline from the 22X. Trying to compare TO's sprawl is like comparing Saskatoon to Calgary - sure, it can be done, but what's the point?

I agree mostly except:

1. Winnipeg does not have much development outside of the Ring Road at all, and I find the downtown is improving. The roads in the burbs are not nearly as wide as the roads in Calgary, come to think of it, most roads in winnipeg are much more narrow than ours.

2. Toronto may have been having wildfires? Or is the smog really that bad?

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by freeweed

... I once drove from Hamilton to Markham in the middle of the night and it felt like I was driving all the way to Banff...

BINGO!

The GTA sprawl along the 401 runs from Milton to Bowmanville - a distance of 120kms - which is the same distance from downtown Calgary to the Banff park gates!!

Next time someone bitches about sprawl in Calgary, imagine what it would be like to drive to Banff with SFH the entire way - and that's what it would be like to live in the GTA.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by kw5150

1. Winnipeg does not have much development outside of the Ring Road at all, and I find the downtown is improving.

Winnipeg has a ton of development outside of the Perimeter (their "Ring Road"). Much of it is in ex-urban communities like Oakbank, the St. Pauls, etc. There are thousands upon thousands of people who live just outside of city limits for the specific purpose of avoiding City property taxes. Winnipeg proper has very high property taxes compared to its surrounding communities and this has been a trend for my entire adult life. Calgary's annexation policies have prevented this for the most part. But just imagine if Cranston residents paid half the property taxes Calgarians did, but everything else was the same (land values, services, etc). The neighbourhood would grow insanely quick.

The roads in the burbs are not nearly as wide as the roads in Calgary, come to think of it, most roads in winnipeg are much more narrow than ours.

Absolutely true, although not as narrow as Vancouver's roads. Calgary's lanes themselves are wider in general, not sure if this is a provincial HTA thing or what. One thing worth mentioning is that Winnipeg's roads seem narrower because so much of it is older. With 90% of Calgary being built in the last 20 minutes, every road is built to modern safe standards. Winnipeg, not so much.

2. Toronto may have been having wildfires? Or is the smog really that bad?

The first time I truly saw blue sky in Toronto (I'd seen plenty of cloudless days before), people were remarking about how insanely blue the sky was (and making me laugh very hard inside). That day looked like a minorly hazy day in Calgary. It almost never truly is clear outside in Toronto. Most of the time the sky seems to be a dull, faded blue - or worse, almost grey. Again, I'm talking when it's completely cloudless.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Winnipeg has a ton of development outside of the Perimeter (their "Ring Road"). Much of it is in ex-urban communities like Oakbank, the St. Pauls, etc. There are thousands upon thousands of people who live just outside of city limits for the specific purpose of avoiding City property taxes. Winnipeg proper has very high property taxes compared to its surrounding communities and this has been a trend for my entire adult life. Calgary's annexation policies have prevented this for the most part. But just imagine if Cranston residents paid half the property taxes Calgarians did, but everything else was the same (land values, services, etc). The neighbourhood would grow insanely quick.



Absolutely true, although not as narrow as Vancouver's roads. Calgary's lanes themselves are wider in general, not sure if this is a provincial HTA thing or what. One thing worth mentioning is that Winnipeg's roads seem narrower because so much of it is older. With 90% of Calgary being built in the last 20 minutes, every road is built to modern safe standards. Winnipeg, not so much.



The first time I truly saw blue sky in Toronto (I'd seen plenty of cloudless days before), people were remarking about how insanely blue the sky was (and making me laugh very hard inside). That day looked like a minorly hazy day in Calgary. It almost never truly is clear outside in Toronto. Most of the time the sky seems to be a dull, faded blue - or worse, almost grey. Again, I'm talking when it's completely cloudless.

Come on, there isn't that much development outside the ring road....most of those places were there before the ring road anyway. There hasn't really been any large-scale suburban developments "created" outside the ring road in a while.....right?

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by freeweed

With 90% of Calgary being built in the last 20 minutes, every road is built to modern safe standards

Nice

[kw5150]

Winnipeg and the ring road. Some parts of the ring road are SO far out of the city, that it does not even makes sense to develop. Note the fact that there is hardly any development outside of the ring road.


By kw5150 at 2011-08-18