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

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Well, in the case of the couple from London, their frustration was despite having a combined income the equivalent of $200,000 Canadian they were sick of their austere lifestyle in London. Their combined income in Calgary is lower but they say that for the first time in their lives they're living comfortably. The only thing they say their miss about the UK is the cheap airfares to just about anywhere in Europe. Shortly after getting settled in they decided they would go to San Diego for the weekend and couldn't believe it would cost $1200 just for airfare.

I'm sure the lifestyle they considered hell would be considered the height of urban life by some here. It is all subjective.

On the whole, England's quality of life is much less than Canadians and that has more to do with GDP per capita. In England, GDP per capita is about $35K, in Alberta, GDP per capita is about $80K.

In both cases it still doesn't mean you shouldn't build a city around not having options that include sustainable transit or transit orientated development.

Developers end up pitching a pipe dream to many newcomers based on naivety, same as dot-com bubble or the mortgage meltdown. The development industry has formed an entire marketing industry around selling to "greater fools."

[Spring2008]

I don't know if it's been already mentioned, but I'd be happy if most of the new suburbs look more like a Seton, Mackenzie Town, Garrison Woods.

Some of the main things that are important to me and probably lots of people here, are to build good density around main commercial streets/districts that are also very walkable and easy to access by foot for residents in the neighborhood. I'd also like to see these neighborhoods centered around rapid transit, rather than the other way around. It really blows, when it becomes a necessity for every person in a household to own a vehicle.

[patm]

Here is my opinon

Suburbs Pro's:
- WAY MORE BANG FOR YOUR BUCK SQFT-WISE
- Quiet
- Sepertation between neighbours
- Tend to be cleaner
- Bigger lots
- Parks, Pathways and Fields are every where
- Minimal traffic in the community (especially if you don't live on a main drive)
- Feeling Safer
- Driveways/Garages
- "One Stop" Shopping (I.E. I can hit up Wal-Mart, Superstore, Homedepot, Futureshop and Sportcheck with minimal to no driving once I get to a shopping area)
- Driving within the suburbs is a lot easier and more relaxed than the inner city
- More sports/recreational facilities (obviously depending on which suburb you reside in).

Suburb Cons:
- Commute if you work in the core or far from home
- Less bars and resturants (there are more then enough for me though, I can name at least 10 different pubs within a couple minute drive/cab ride of my house)
- No clubs nearby (well Ranchmans... no)
- Depending on where you live, lack of transit. (I've lived near a c-train line my whole life though)

Thats it. That's how I personally view it.

I tried to avoid stuff that could be cancelled out if you lived in a suburban condo or a inner-city SFH.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

I don't know if it's been already mentioned, but I'd be happy if most of the new suburbs look more like a Seton, Mackenzie Town, Garrison Woods.

Some of the main things that are important to me and probably lots of people here, are to build good density around main commercial streets/districts that are also very walkable and easy to access by foot for residents in the neighborhood. I'd also like to see these neighborhoods centered around rapid transit, rather than the other way around. It really blows, when it becomes a necessity for every person in a household to own a vehicle.

100% agreed. A lot of suburbs could have more commercial/retail activity nodes near the light rail stations with bike paths that connect. People might still drive to Wal-mart but if want to build some resiliency into our urban fabric we need more car optional communities.

The small town I grew up in died as a result of not investing in public or community facilities. When things start going downhill like roads not being repaired or inadequate policing, there is a negative feedback loop that is ruinous. People start noticing that the civic accounts are broke, and the roads are crumbling, pipes are bursting constantly, and the transit doesn't run on time and then people start leaving.

With municipal debt levels approaching 80% of the limit, we will have to change from status quo or die.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Well, in the case of the couple from London, their frustration was despite having a combined income the equivalent of $200,000 Canadian they were sick of their austere lifestyle in London. Their combined income in Calgary is lower but they say that for the first time in their lives they're living comfortably. The only thing they say their miss about the UK is the cheap airfares to just about anywhere in Europe. Shortly after getting settled in they decided they would go to San Diego for the weekend and couldn't believe it would cost $1200 just for airfare.

I'm sure the lifestyle they considered hell would be considered the height of urban life by some here. It is all subjective.

Did they consider the London-lifestyle hell or not being able to live their preferred London-lifestyle hell? My dad absolutely loved life in Londontown but moved to Canada because he thought my sisters and I would have more opportunities, which is funny as the opportunity we are all looking for now is to make a return to the U.K.. I’m hearing more and more British expats saying that if they could make as much as they do here back in the U.K. they'd go back in a heartbeat. Even a lot of my friends in Uni told me that although they would like to move over here, it would be like a smash and grab where they would return home once they felt they made enough.

With that being said, a lot of expats do prefer the lifestyle over here.

[patm]

This city will never be built as "car optional" in the near future because:

a) The vast majority of people can afford a car and prefer it to mass transit
b) The climate doesn't lend itself to walking
c) Not enough population with a desire to support the necessary transit.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Riise

Did they consider the London-lifestyle hell or not being able to live their preferred London-lifestyle hell? My dad absolutely loved life in Londontown but moved to Canada because he thought my sisters and I would have more opportunities, which is funny as the opportunity we are all looking for now is to make a return to the U.K.. I’m hearing more and more British expats saying that if they could make as much as they do here back in the U.K. they'd go back in a heartbeat. Even a lot of my friends in Uni told me that although they would like to move over here, it would be like a smash and grab where they would return home once they felt they made enough.

With that being said, a lot of expats do prefer the lifestyle over here.

Sounds like they couldn't afford it, which is understandable. Was the lifestyle and the urban structure bad? Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like real estate was expensive.

In other news- desirable places are expensive. I am sure those living on the Upper East Side who aren't both lawyer/doctor/investment bankers think it sucks too.

Just like how I hate how traveling is so expensive. If it was cheaper, I would do it way more. It isn't traveling I hate, it is the cost.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by patm

This city will never be built as "car optional" in the near future because:

a) The vast majority of people can afford a car and prefer it to mass transit
b) The climate doesn't lend itself to walking
c) Not enough population with a desire to support the necessary transit.

Sorry but I don't think that is the case at all and the success of the CTrain shows why. People are going to prefer, or at least use, the easy, cheap, convenient and reliable form of transportation whatever it may be. If people truly loved their cars as much as people say, the CTrain experiment would have failed miserably long ago.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Radley77

On the whole, England's quality of life is much less than Canadians and that has more to do with GDP per capita. In England, GDP per capita is about $35K, in Alberta, GDP per capita is about $80K.

In both cases it still doesn't mean you shouldn't build a city around not having options that include sustainable transit or transit orientated development.

Developers end up pitching a pipe dream to many newcomers based on naivety, same as dot-com bubble or the mortgage meltdown. The development industry has formed an entire marketing industry around selling to "greater fools."

The issue for them boiled down to the cost of housing. Once they paid their mortgage there wasn't much left over of their after-tax income.

And it isn't naivety. They're a professional couple in their early forties. They came to Canada because they wanted a new house with a garage with space for two new cars. Not an apartment built in the 50's where they parked their 1995 Vauxhall equivalent of a Cavalier on the street.

The husband was approached about a job in Edmonton. He found he wasn't interested in the particular position, but it made them sit down and do the math. They started applying for jobs in Calgary, Edmonton and Lethbridge and decided they would go wherever one of them got an offer first.

All I am saying is what many of you hold up as "great cities" have residents who are actively leaving them for our status quo. Not everyone can amuse themselves for a lifetime by being a tourist in their own town or with the sheer novelty of urbanity. "Within a mile of my 300 square foot apartment there are five free museums, ha ha, who needs a home theatre room."

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by patm

This city will never be built as "car optional" in the near future because:

a) The vast majority of people can afford a car and prefer it to mass transit
b) The climate doesn't lend itself to walking
c) Not enough population with a desire to support the necessary transit.

Here's a good study that looks at the affordability of living with a car and without:
http://sustainablecalgary.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/AffordableLivingReport.pdf

Key thing is that that with a $100K income, would go from affording a $360K house to a $530K house. You can buy a LOT more house by being in a car optional neighbourhood. As well there are other health benefits for walking/cycling or that light rail is more reliable than driving on heavy snowfall days.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Riise

Did they consider the London-lifestyle hell or not being able to live their preferred London-lifestyle hell?

They considered the lifestyle available to them in London on what was by global standards a very high income to be miserable.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by patm

This city will never be built as "car optional" in the near future because:

a) The vast majority of people can afford a car and prefer it to mass transit
b) The climate doesn't lend itself to walking
c) Not enough population with a desire to support the necessary transit.

Funny. Most can afford a car, yet 50% of downtown workers take transit. Lots of people walk to work everyday and transit in Calgary is wildly successful (compare our 16% total ridership with cities in the states that are three times larger with barely 5% ridership).

The city is car optional already, just in certain areas. I don't think there is a city in the world where every single residence is "car optional."

Why do we have to discuss everything in such extreme terms. Can't we talk about how much of the city is car optional, rather than if it is or is't? Can't we talk about how much multi-family residential we can build, and not whether every single person should live in a high rise?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

All I am saying is what many of you hold up as "great cities" have residents who are actively leaving them for our status quo. Not everyone can amuse themselves for a lifetime by being a tourist in their own town or with the sheer novelty of urbanity. "Within a mile of my 300 square foot apartment there are five free museums, ha ha, who needs a home theatre room."

Yet, those cities are the fastest growing in the world. Yeah, some people leave them, but that isn't the major trend.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Once they paid their mortgage there wasn't much left over of their after-tax income.

In Calgary, it's once they have paid for their mortgage AND the car, there wasn't very much left over of after-tax income.

Youth today are becoming increasingly turned off from auto use and this has been dropping in the United States to all time lows recently from as far back as the 1960's.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Sounds like they couldn't afford it, which is understandable. Was the lifestyle and the urban structure bad? Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like real estate was expensive.

But... the prevailing argument around here is people should suck it up and make the sacrifice to live that lifestyle they may not actually want.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Agreed about all your points except for the bolded one. The CHBA is going to do everything in it's power to unseat individual councillors. At the end of the day, Nenshi is only one vote on council, and with Nenshi's skyhigh approval ratings they will spend the political resources elsewhere.

Will it work though? It is not like residents of Wards 4, 7, 8, 9 and 11 (the "urban" wards) are really that sympathetic to housing affordability out in the burbs. The "suburban" wards already pretty much have suburban champions already (wards 2, 3, 6, 12, 13, 14) and the established community wards (1, 5, 10) are pretty in between. So who do you target? It's not like Shane Keating or Peter Demong are anti-suburb. Doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me in a ward system. If this was a proportional representation system, they could drum up support for pro-suburb councilors.

The reason I think we are seeing densification happen is that inner city councillors (Farrell, Carra, Pincott, Mar and Macleod) are generally quite supportive of it, and the suburban councilors are good to support it because it really doesn't affect them. The biggest fights (not between communities and developers but between members of council) come when density is proposed in a "suburban" ward, like Shawnee Slopes in DCU's ward. There were quite a few spats between Colley-Urquhart and Farrell during the Shawnee Slopes deliberations.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by fusili

Funny. Most can afford a car, yet 50% of downtown workers take transit. Lots of people walk to work everyday and transit in Calgary is wildly successful (compare our 16% total ridership with cities in the states that are three times larger with barely 5% ridership).

The city is car optional already, just in certain areas. I don't think there is a city in the world where every single residence is "car optional."

Why do we have to discuss everything in such extreme terms. Can't we talk about how much of the city is car optional, rather than if it is or is't? Can't we talk about how much multi-family residential we can build, and not whether every single person should live in a high rise?

It will be interesting to see how the Beltline evolves. As we all know, it is continuing its trend of a new condo or two per year forever. Density is always increasing, road infrastructure will see growing pressure to meet the needs of the local community versus commuter traffic ( see 8th street redevelopment).

As the inner city is very much pedestrian/transit focused, it is reasonable to see that trend continue as the city densifies. Likely it will expand to inner city communities that are transitioning to higher densities (marda Loop, inner NW, Bridgeland etc.). This will put further pressure on auto-commuters as largely their needs are not nicely aligned with inner city citizens who don't rely or focus on car commuting as much.

The real interest will be when they start changing traffic operations, not necessarily building or removing infrastructure. What happens when too many people get hit by the stream of cars on 10th ave S and the traffic warrants lights for the growing pedestrian base to the south?

Right now the Priority for 10th, 11th, and 12th are all for West -East auto-commuters to the 'burbs (and elsewhere). It is foreseeable that eventually these will be adjusted to reflect the reality that there are more and more people walking N-S to the point they will get the priority and the smooth sailing down 10th Ave will come to an abrupt end.

I see it as one of the pendulum arguments. Largely auto-focused, cars got priority. Car-focused design over-reached and the demographics are changing to a more mixed commuting pattern as density increases. Unfortunately, car commuters will have to give up some space it seems, there just isn't any other group that has space to give.

My thoughts.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

But... the prevailing argument around here is people should suck it up and make the sacrifice to live that lifestyle they may not actually want.

I would recommend to them to live somewhere that is not central London (if that is where they were living).

The other recommendation I would make is for cities to allow for massive increases in housing supply for this type of area so prices come down (or at least secondary areas are created that have a similar feel, but less cost).

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by fusili

I would recommend to them to live somewhere that is not central London (if that is where they were living).

The other recommendation I would make is for cities to allow for massive increases in housing supply for this type of area so prices come down (or at least secondary areas are created that have a similar feel, but less cost).

What is the average density that is required to produce Main-street pedestrian style retail? i.e. Marda Loop.

The design of new suburbs can be filled with as many SFH as people want, just organize them to promote organic growth of these kind of districts. It always amazes me to see the density and amount of 4-story condos in new communities in the suburbs without any services nearby. It can't be that hard to pack all the condos together so they can have retail bays.

That kind of development currently for suburban condos seems to provide the worst of both worlds: no space (density) and no services (suburbs). At least they are cheap I guess

[kw5150]

Wait till gas goes up to 1.75 a litre.

Originally Posted by patm

This city will never be built as "car optional" in the near future because:

a) The vast majority of people can afford a car and prefer it to mass transit
b) The climate doesn't lend itself to walking
c) Not enough population with a desire to support the necessary transit.