HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 7:58 PM
wild wild west wild wild west is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dynamic City
Posts: 6,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wentworth View Post
Is putting density on the edge of the city really a smart strategy? Do you not end up with way more vehicle miles travelled this way?
Well, I think the goal should be at least somewhat higher density throughout the city. But if we keep densities low on the edge of the city, then theoretically the city will sprawl out even further, thus further increasing vehicle miles. Plus, higher density improves the viability of transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 8:08 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,731
According to Twitter updates Plan It is next up on the agenda. They got rid off all the other items first.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 9:11 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,731
The twitter feeds from City Council make it sound like things are getting ugly. Apparently a bunch of the new targets have been set after meetings with the city and the folks at the UDI and CHBA. Funny, I could have sworn that there were all of us other citizens that have a stake in this plan? You know the whole part about having to LIVE in the city that is built.

Naheed Nenshi is tweeting that the "Better Calgary Campaign" could no longer support Plan It if council allows some of these ammendments to pass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 10:26 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,731
Apparently a member in the public seating has placed a paper bag over their head to protest what is going on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2009, 11:10 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
So there's a new amendment on the table for 60 rather than 70 persons/jobs per hectare for greenfield development. For sake of comparison, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Ontario) has a standard of 50 persons/jobs per hectare on greenfield lands.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 12:05 AM
ByeByeBaby's Avatar
ByeByeBaby ByeByeBaby is offline
Crunchin' the numbers.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: T2R, YYC, 403, CA-AB.
Posts: 791
So that's what, 9.7 units per acre at 2.5 people per unit. And currently we're at 7 UPA, I think. Maybe 8. But that doesn't include this really nebulous jobs criteria. What are the rules for jobs? How much floorspace equals a job? Can you count the urban reserve (i.e. 'future school') as employment?

Plus the switch from units to persons encourages larger houses presumably (you could argue a house holds 4 or 5 people, but an apartment holds 2).

Give the industry credit, though; if this passes, they've managed to make the plan weaker than current rules. Money well spent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 12:27 AM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby View Post
Give the industry credit, though; if this passes, they've managed to make the plan weaker than current rules. Money well spent.
They can pat themselves on their backs all day long for all I care. They will NEVER get a dime out of me in my lifetime.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 2:05 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
City OKs controversial urban design blueprint

Critic says late change 'guts' Plan It Calgary

By Kim Guttormson, Calgary HeraldSeptember 29, 2009 7:51 AM

CALGARY - After lengthy debate, city council approved its ambitious long-term planning and transportation documents Monday, detailing how Calgary will grow in the future -- from the suburbs to major roads and bridges to transit.

"It's a 60-year document," Mayor Dave Bronconnier said of the plans council backed unanimously. "They will live a long time, be refined over time."

Even last week, unanimous approval of the often-contentious proposals seemed impossible.

A last-minute amendment worked up over the weekend allayed concerns of the development industry and some aldermen around targets for how many people would be living and working per hectare in new areas.

Mike Flynn, of the Urban Development Institute, said the change will allow a better mix of single-family and multi-family homes.

But that same move led some longtime proponents of Plan It Calgary to say it makes the document worthless.

"I believe this one amendment guts that whole thing," said Naheed Nenshi, with the Better Calgary Campaign. "It's no longer worth the paper it's printed on now.

"For everything else in Plan It to work, you need that kind of density on the edges."


The revised Plan It document before council Monday called for a target of 70 people either living or working per developable hectare in new communities, a change from the original recommendation of 70 people living there.

The amendment alters that so initial plans for areas would see a minimum floor of 60, with a goal of 70 by the time it's built out.


Ald. Brian Pincott, who has been involved with the Plan It process even before he was elected to council, said it waters down the document's intent.

"We're (already)doing more than that, doing better than that," he said of the new density targets. "It's hardly, in my mind, moving forward."

Council was told some new communities are already in the range just approved, including Mahogany at 66 and Skyview at 77.

Bronconnier said Plan It still raises the current minimum from seven units per acre to nine.

"It's a new floor and there's no ceiling," he added. "It is a number, but you have to look at the fundamental foundation of the plan, which links in density, diversity of housing type, access to public transit and distance travelled, which is why it's important to link planning and transportation infrastructure."

Pincott said the overall document has a larger impact than just that one component, such as the density targets.

"What's important in the grand scheme of things is to pass a document that talks about growth in our city in total, in a different way," he said. "The important thing is to look at the entire document."

Bronconnier said Calgary will still grow smarter and reduce sprawl under the plans approved Monday.

After public hearings in June, council made almost 100 amendments to the plan, some of which were incorporated into the revised document. Those included removing a call for two specific transit bridges over the rivers and the addition of a tunnel under a future airport runway in the long-term plans.

While those items and the density number drew most of the attention, many pieces--a network of carpool lanes, quadrupling transit service, more trees, more people living close to hospitals, universities and transit stations and improved cycling routes --were embraced.

The long-term plans call for increasing the city's population density by 35 per cent and putting half of new Calgarians into existing neighbourhoods.

kguttormson@theherald. canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ci...849/story.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 2:09 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
I'm surprised it ended up being passed unanimously. The reduction of minimum densities for greenfields was disappointing but it seems the likes of Farrell and Pincott still like the plan enough to support it.

The proof will be in the pudding when they put together the implementation strategy. The most important thing the plan can do is not simply to increase density and housing mix on the periphery but facilitate and encourage real growth within the existing built up area. They need to reallocate resources to reflect that goal and help make that growth happen. Same with mobility patterns - clearly there will need to be a shift in spending to not only transit but active transportation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 2:36 PM
wild wild west wild wild west is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dynamic City
Posts: 6,076
Biggest challenge will be intensifying the established communities. That's where the community opposition is, and where follow-through will be required in revisiting the ASP's and ARP's. The new communities at the edge of Calgary are already denser than most of the established communities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 2:48 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,458
I was trying to find an old release I wrote attacking Bronco over density targets, and all I could find was the response the attack received in the newspaper. Maybe will be able to dig up the release later today, but it still hits the mark.

Quote:
Kassam's allegations missing the mark
Calgary Herald
Tue Sep 25 2007
Page: B4
Section: City & Region
Byline: Don Braid
Column: Don Braid
Source: Calgary Herald
Mayoral candidate Alnoor Kassam's slam-a-day campaign is tough, lively and certainly well-financed. On billboards and radio, the attacks on Dave Bronconnier are escalating with a fine fury.

In principle, this is good: democracy at work and all that. It would be even better, though, if more of Kassam's allegations had some connection to facts.

We can tolerate a bit of laxity. This is politics, not Bible school. But when the allegations are just wrong, there's really no value to them.

On Monday, for instance, Kassam's team blasted Bronconnier for being in favour of urban sprawl.

The example they used was the new community of Mahogany, which they said will have a density of only seven units per acre (0.4 hectares).

In truth, the community is being planned for a density of 11.2 units per acre. One call to city hall will confirm this; so will a few clicks on the city website.

Seven units is the minimum density for most new development. That used to be the maximum, but a couple of years ago, in a sprawl-fighting mood, council turned this ceiling into the mandatory floor. Now developers voluntarily plan densities higher than seven.

Calgary is often blasted for sprawl by national studies and surveys. It's an easy allegation to make, especially at election time.

But there's something wrong, wouldn't you say, when Toronto seems to have less official sprawl than Calgary?

Calgary is a uni-city that includes every living thing from city hall to the lonely gophers out past Spruce Meadows.

In Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, suburbs and their goat pastures are part of outlying municipalities -- Whitby, Burnaby or Dollard des Ormeaux.

The City of Vancouver itself is a dense central area of about 600,000. This looks great on the surveys. Nobody mentions that the larger metro area, sprawling over vast spaces, is home to more than two million.

Kassam's second blast Monday was a radio ad saying Bronconnier wants new taxes to make your home more expensive, and raise the price of hockey and movie tickets.

The reality is that municipalities proposed such taxes last spring because they were so short of infrastructure money.

The province rejected the proposal, pending further discussion.

Then the cities and the province finally reached a 10-year infrastructure funding deal. Municipalities, including Calgary, have now dropped the demand for new taxes.

Two provincial sources told me Monday that any thought of enabling new municipal taxes is as dead as last week's caucus pizza. It is not an issue at the civic or provincial level.

Finally, Kassam called last week for five-year dog licences because so many people find annual renewals annoying.

Of course, they do. Renewing is easy to forget and if you fail to do it, a bylaw officer will show up on your doorstep. Fido had better not bark while you're claiming he's dead.

But Kassam's scolding for civic inefficiency is misplaced. Bill Bruce, the city bylaw boss, is already preparing to roll out a plan for one-year, five-year or lifetime licences.

Opposition in this election is great. Spending is fine, too. Anybody who hopes to unhorse Bronconnier had better have plenty of cash in his pocket.

Unfortunately, a credible campaign also needs something more -- accuracy.

dbraid@shaw.ca



Edition: Final
Story Type: Column
Length: 537 words

Tone: Neutral
Ad Value: $2,340.36
Circulation: 127,145
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 3:06 PM
Riise's Avatar
Riise Riise is offline
City Maker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary | London
Posts: 3,195
At first, I wasn't that bothered with the density reduction but the more I think about it the more I don't like it. I'm moving into the school of thought that places a larger emphasis on design than density but I don't feel confident with Plan It's emphasis, or lack thereof, on design. I'm starting to think that the original density targets in the Plan would have forced developers to re-think the designs of future neighbourhoods. I'm not sure that Plan It in its approved form will be able to do so. To be honest, I'm kind of gutted.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 3:21 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
But if developers are already proposing 12 upa or about 75 people/hectare, how would a threshold of 70 force developers to re-think design?

Plan It should not be the venue for detailed design guidelines for subdivisions. It should (and I think does) set out the broader design principles, and empasis on links to transportation - the overeall structure of the city. It's a city-wide municipal development plan. The MDP is also not the appropriate venue for detailed design of TOD sites, corridors or centre city design - subdivisions are no different. These details are rightly deferred to area plans. What's really needed for subdivisions is a better detailed set of design guidelines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 3:22 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,731
I'm crossposting what I said in the Calgary thread about why I am really upset about what occured yesterday:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Wooster, I think what a lot of people are upset about is that regular citizens were clearly not treated as "stakeholders" in this plan. Council admitted as much yesterday by admitting to meeting with the UDI and CHBA and not any other group prior to voting on these amendments.

They gave us fucking lip service, and that pisses me right off. Come 2010 I will spoil my ballot for mayor unless a candidate comes forward that actually cares about ALL citizens in this city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 3:40 PM
Riise's Avatar
Riise Riise is offline
City Maker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary | London
Posts: 3,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster View Post
But if developers are already proposing 12 upa or about 75 people/hectare, how would a threshold of 70 force developers to re-think design?

[...]

These details are rightly deferred to area plans. What's really needed for subdivisions is a better detailed set of design guidelines.
That's a good point. I guess I'm in favour of an even high threshold because I'm not confident that these densities (new and old) will force developers to re-think design. Additionally, I do have some reservations with the communities that are being built at 12upa.

Design guidelines are a must and I want something to be done, not just talked about being done. That is what leads to my lack of faith in the design portion of Plan It. How many times have we heard the City say that they should do something that will contribute to the sustainability of Calgary yet it is never done?
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 5:24 PM
Aegis's Avatar
Aegis Aegis is offline
Analyst, Commercial Mtgs
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bankview
Posts: 1,457
I'm just glad they removed the bridge over Edworthy Park idea. That was totally stupid, and they tried to sell it under the guise of politically correct nonsense.

"The bridge will only be for emergency vehicles and transit".. thereby making anyone who opposes it look like an inconsiderate ass. We all know that eventually it would be for vehicle traffic as well. Emergency vehicles and transit are also very loud, destroying the peace and quiet that the park provides.

A city is not made more "livable" by damaging some of the few natural areas that have avoided the sprawl that has come with each new wave of development in the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 5:32 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
How do we know this? Bus traps exist. There are ways to prevent regular traffic from using roads, either through design or through enforcement. Maybe there are also legal mechanisms that could be put in place to ensure the restricted use of transit and emergency vehicles. I agree about preserving these natural areas and that there may be alternatives to locating transit and emergency roads to other areas, but assuming that this is a conspiracy to build new regular traffic roads may be a little over the top.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aegis View Post
I'm just glad they removed the bridge over Edworthy Park idea. That was totally stupid, and they tried to sell it under the guise of politically correct nonsense.

"The bridge will only be for emergency vehicles and transit".. thereby making anyone who opposes it look like an inconsiderate ass. We all know that eventually it would be for vehicle traffic as well. Emergency vehicles and transit are also very loud, destroying the peace and quiet that the park provides.

A city is not made more "livable" by damaging some of the few natural areas that have avoided the sprawl that has come with each new wave of development in the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 6:00 PM
ByeByeBaby's Avatar
ByeByeBaby ByeByeBaby is offline
Crunchin' the numbers.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: T2R, YYC, 403, CA-AB.
Posts: 791
Even the higher densities currently being built aren't forcing a change in design. Some new communities are designed at a higher density (like 11 UPA instead of the minimum 7 UPA). But what this means in practice is that the plan is 90% single family detached at 6-8 UPA, with a few apartment buildings tucked in the corner to get the density up.

Of course, once the plan's approved, it doesn't matter if the apartment buildings are ever built or not...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 7:04 PM
Aegis's Avatar
Aegis Aegis is offline
Analyst, Commercial Mtgs
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bankview
Posts: 1,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
How do we know this? Bus traps exist. There are ways to prevent regular traffic from using roads, either through design or through enforcement. Maybe there are also legal mechanisms that could be put in place to ensure the restricted use of transit and emergency vehicles. I agree about preserving these natural areas and that there may be alternatives to locating transit and emergency roads to other areas, but assuming that this is a conspiracy to build new regular traffic roads may be a little over the top.
A plan to build a bridge for regular vehicular traffic has been in the works since at least the GO plan of the 1990s, and probably earliar (but I don't have my sources in front of me, so I can't quote that). Once a bridge is built it opens the door to eventually "only vehicular traffic in rushhour".. and then eventually, at some point down the road, someone like Dianne Colley Urquart or Dr.NO comes along (who doesn't have an appreciation of most of the issues we discuss in this forum) who says "who cares about the park, it's time for the city to evolve, etc"..the same arguments are repeated time and time again.

I hope this idea is dead, buried, and encased in lead!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2009, 7:42 PM
sim sim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 863
This may be a little off topic but I'm wondering if it is a worthwile thought.

Moreso in regards to implementation, would it be possible to basically state and for any new greenfield development to get approved, that the same amount of greenfield density being proposed would then also require that the same density be simaltaneously built in existing neighbourhoods?

Does this make any sense, as I'm not fully in the know, so to speak, on how this stuff really works.

Say a developer wants to phase in so and so many houses out in the burbs, under a certain density, resulting in so and so many more people. However, they would either have to develop something inner city or team up with a developer capable of such things and build something (presumably denser) to accomadate the same amount of new residents in that area.

This would then ensure that they do actually get that 50% (or 35% etc, whatever it actually is) of new residents living in older communities. I feel it might also aid in equalizing true costs of building/developing in greenfield verse existing areas.

It might also give the developers some leeway and freedom and possibly creativity in how they get things done. This, as opposed to something simply being approved or not approved based on where residents are needed to satisfy Plan It targets at any given time.

??
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:35 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.