Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili
Let's actually discuss this. I think it raises some good points.
Many middle-ring suburbs are facing decline due to where they are in the growth curve. Because they were built almost entirely with single-family homes, they tend to exacerbate the growth cycle. Problem is, how do we mitigate this and foster regrowth? Thoughts?
|
Another interesting part of this is that the family size that moves in after a generation is much smaller than the one that moved in originally, though it's hard to tell if this is specific to these kinds of neighbourhood which are common all over North America, or if family size is decreasing everywhere. I suspect it's a bit of both.
There are a few elements here that are forcing us to rethink everything. The average number of children per family decreased from 2.7 in 1961 to 1.9 in 2011. Divorce, single-parent families, and common law arrangements have also risen significantly. In 1961, 8.6% of the total population in private households did not live in a census family (i.e. were not counted as a family). By 2011, this share had increased to 17.1%. Throughout the entire period, the majority of people who did not live in census families were living alone,Footnote 3 with smaller proportions living with relatives or with non-relatives. Over time, living alone has grown steadily in prevalence among the population aged 15 and over, from 3.5% in 1961 to 13.5% in 2011, at least partially as a result of population aging.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011003_1-eng.cfm
So, more people live alone, start families later, marry and don't have kids, divorce, live alone in their old age, have dual income, and those who do have kids are only having 1.9 (about 2.2 is required to maintain the population) instead of 2.7 like in the 60s when many of these neighbourhoods were built.
The population is only growing at all because of immigrants, who have larger families than the Canadian average and often live with older relatives in the same house.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/research/census2001/canada/partc.asp
Education and Mobility are hit the hardest.
Schools. Schools in communities built 30-60 years ago struggle to meet enrolment requirements to justify programs and staff of previous levels. Meanwhile, new communities wait impatiently for a school to open nearby that will be overcrowded for 20 years, then eventually depopulated like the schools before it. There is also a major shift towards ESL and the challenges that come from building a diverse community. First Nations populations in Calgary schools are also still growing at a faster rate than non-Aboriginal Canadian-born population.
Transportation/Mobility. There's nothing I can say everyone doesn't already know. It's sprawl.
I think better, more flexible land use is one of the best solutions. In Calgary a lot of problems can be solved without even disrupting existing neighbourhoods, because we have so much wasted land in the form of strip malls, crazy big setbacks, and gaps formed by curvilinear roads dispersed across nearly every part of the city. There are a few obstacles and problems though:
-NIMBYs don't want change to the neighbourhoods they've grown to love over decades
-rezoning and repurposing land is cumbersome and time-consuming, especially when the solution is unique or situational
-both renting and condo arrangements unequally benefit the rich and poor, widening income disparity in society. Something has to be done to counter this.
-New Canadians often lack the means to move into established communities with existing (though empty) schools.
How do we make it cheap and non-disruptive to move into a quality, safe dwelling in an existing community with established social infrastructure, and is there a way to do this that could lead to homeownership? Is there a way to incentivize this without the quiver-inducing label of "social housing"?
On a philosphical note, what's the role of democratic government on this regard anyway? I've always thought of the government to protect the weak from those who might oppress them unchecked. Justice, I guess. But, sometimes it seems government feels it its place to protect existing residents (who in my view are more advantaged) from potential residents and outsiders (renters, immigrants, non-traditional families) with the backing of financially invested third parties (homebuilders who might prefer the government subsidize their industry and allow more suburban greenfield to be developed). The whole thing gets skewed. It takes on a nasty oligarchic flavour. I'd rather the government step back and let property owners do what they like with their land, whether than means selling it to a condo developer, renting a secondary suite, or even - god forbid - selling greenfield to a developer. I think we put "consultation" where really there ought to be transparency and communication. The result is "study"s without methodology and angry people letting their feelings be heard at what is no more than an info-session. Meanwhile, all these delays add to the time and cost of what could be a good solution.
Prev
Linear Mode
