Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Spaghetti
Whether the term inner city means geographical location or it's a term to describe a low income, densely populated area makes no difference in Calgary's case is both situations apply.
|
I'm largely in agreement with you, but this is precisely why I was suggesting breaking it out into two terms - though I've never pointed to low income in particular.
Inner city, I'm suggesting, should need to include high density. Other areas that are dilapidated but are particularly low density, should be split out from Inner city and termed Inner sprawl.
The reason I'm suggesting the above is that people, including forumers here, apply blanket statements, suggesting all Inner city is dense, and that sprawl is a result of what is referred to as suburbs. The worst offenders of sprawl / low intensity development is actually within what currently people call inner city, and when you point that out, people will provide the Beltline as an example - which makes no sense. When crime and drug use issues are highlighted in the inner city, people will point out the large lots of Mount Royal and say there are no needles there.
So let us be more precise. Beltline (plus a select additional group) are absolutely traditional inner city, with high density, and when we say inner city, that's what we should be talking about.
Many of the other areas are actually inner sprawl. When we accept this reality, we can thoughtfully and intelligently look at that inner sprawl and think through specific ways to intensify development.
At a foundational level, I'm not meaning to be offensive with this, rather, am trying to be precise, and thus wanting to create a base from which we can further improve the city. We need to call a spade a spade.