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

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Actually - no. I'm amazed at how quickly you all forget that only 1/6th of all jobs in Calgary are in the CBD, and the rest are outside of it. I am extremely happy that I do not work or need to go through the CBD. Much better to live close to one's work.

I'm convinced many of the posters here are not capable of higher level math and won't get your point. Throw in that people will change jobs 10-12 times in their career and at some point they will have a spouse with a career, and a family, and want to own a home, the probability that a person will be living downtown after turning 30 are pretty slim.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by jawagord

I'm convinced many of the posters here are not capable of higher level math and won't get your point. Throw in that people will change jobs 10-12 times in their career and at some point they will have a spouse with a career, and a family, and want to own a home, the probability that a person will be living downtown after turning 30 are pretty slim.

Most- the vast, vast majority- of my neighbours are over 30. I'm 50. Sorry for the higher order math.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

Most- the vast, vast majority- of my neighbours are over 30. I'm 50. Sorry for the higher order math.

You're reading the context of my message wrong Rusty, the vast majority of Calgarians do not live downtown, why? I given my reasons, I think they are sound. it is easy for a young single person to rent and live downtown but as people get older work, marriage, home ownership affordability, family reasons, move people to live elsewhere in the city. The population distribution and demographics are clear, but largely ignored in the forum discussions.

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Docum...f?noredirect=1

http://dev.calgarycondoguys.com/wp-c...tline-demo.pdf

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Actually - no. I'm amazed at how quickly you all forget that only 1/6th of all jobs in Calgary are in the CBD, and the rest are outside of it. I am extremely happy that I do not work or need to go through the CBD. Much better to live close to one's work.

Originally Posted by jawagord

I'm convinced many of the posters here are not capable of higher level math and won't get your point. Throw in that people will change jobs 10-12 times in their career and at some point they will have a spouse with a career, and a family, and want to own a home, the probability that a person will be living downtown after turning 30 are pretty slim.

Traffic jams don't just happen in the CBD. When you work downtown, at least there are other options that are efficient.

By the way. I live as suburban as anyone, always have. I see the issues with the inner city, but I see many similar issues in the suburbs. Let's agree to try to build both better then they have been in the past. We are going to have to, anyway. It's simply not possible as a society to rely on the private automobile to the same extent as we have in the past.

Either way, I find this whole argument (of this thread) a little silly. It shouldn't be an us vs them. Everyone likes urbanity - that is, they would rather be closer to services that they use, than further away. The suburbs can certainly do better in that.

I've argued it on this very board, that there is a significant percentage of the population that must drive to work, or drive as part of work. Thus it makes no sense to be anti-car. However, at the same time, the percentage of people taking alternate methods of transportation to work is going to have to drastically increase. We can't afford not to. We don't have the space to continue widening roads. I don't know why we'd want to anyway. I love to drive, but driving for commuting can't be a positive experience for many people. It costs a lot of money to drive.

Thankfully, when I changed jobs for the first time in my life a couple of months ago, and basically HAD to get a second family car (any other method of travel for either myself or my wife was a nonstarter), I got a vehicle allowance from my new job. I really love the area I live in, and I like my new job, unfortunately, it's a drive that averages 35 minutes each way. I could move closer to work, except that houses in the area I work cost at least 100,000k more to get the same thing, to live in an area that I don't think is as nice.

I understand the arguments on both sides, but I don't understand the dislike for urbanity. Not that people can't say that living in the bustle isn't for them. However, like I said, everyone wants the things they like to go to regularly to be closer to them.

And anyone who question my higher level math ability should simply ask my former grade twelve math teacher.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Traffic jams don't just happen in the CBD. When you work downtown, at least there are other options that are efficient.

The epic ones only happen in the CBD. Getting out of them could almost qualify one to be canonized in the Francis era. Only in the CBD is traffic or an LRT delay acceptable for not getting to work.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Thankfully, when I changed jobs for the first time in my life a couple of months ago, and basically HAD to get a second family car (any other method of travel for either myself or my wife was a nonstarter), I got a vehicle allowance from my new job. I really love the area I live in, and I like my new job, unfortunately, it's a drive that averages 35 minutes each way.

You guys should really live closer to where you work. And always try to live close to arterial transit when possible. One can live in the suburbs and still have a brain. Just sayin'.

[Jimby]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The epic ones only happen in the CBD. Getting out of them could almost qualify one to be canonized in the Francis era. Only in the CBD is traffic or an LRT delay acceptable for not getting to work.



You guys should really live closer to where you work. And always try to live close to arterial transit when possible. One can live in the suburbs and still have a brain. Just sayin'.

The epic ones happen on Deerfoot. Just sayin' you're wrong.

[WhipperSnapper]

The epic jams don't happen on streets. They happen in suburban big box malls.

[You Need A Thneed]

Also, epic traffic jams in the core are mostly the worry of suburbanites, not people living in the core.

[Spring2008]

Sounds like the next 7 will be real big:

Calgary's urban character hotly debated at new festival
By Chris Nelson, For the Calgary Herald April 27, 2014 9:57 AM

Speaking at a Saturday talk on the future of urban development in Calgary, the city’s general manager of planning and development, Rollin Stanley said he hopes Calgarians will get involved in the process of deciding what type of city they want to see in future years.


"We are what we build" was the message at a highly anticipated discussion held Saturday about what Calgary will be like in seven years time.


The city’s general manager of planning and development, Rollin Stanley, and award-winning US author and journalist, Daniel Brook, debated the hot topic of urban reform as part of this weekend’s Spur Festival in downtown Calgary.

Stanley, speaking before an audience at the Glenbow Museum, made an impassioned plea for Calgarians to get involved in the process of deciding what type of city they want to see in future years.

"We have a city that has largely looked at itself as suburban in its character and we are now struggling with some of the issues we see in other cities," he said.

Calgary will see a shift in the next seven years, and it’s time for the city to re-evaluate a lot of things, Stanley noted.

"This might take a push, a groundswell of support for the way forward, which is to bring people back in, to give them the opportunity for different types of homes, increase the affordability. For those things to happen we need participation to open up new opportunities," he said.

Brook, whose book A History of Future Cities looks at how many of the world’s great metropolises, such as Shanghai, St Petersburg and Mumbai, were imposed by autocratic regimes, said his first impression of Calgary was of a "Texas in the Arctic."

"That said there is clearly a groundswell for a more urbanized, less suburban, environment," he said.

He added that to become a great city two things are essential.

"One is great ambition. None of these cities became a major world city except for the fact that someone decided they would be. The second is you need input from the people in the city," Brook said.

"In autocracies, I worry there is going to be too much top down and in democracies, too much disagreement with no leader then able to provide vision. But my understanding is in Calgary, at least until the next mayoral election, we do have some of that vision set," added Brook.

Stanley told the audience that the number of young people killed in car crashes is frightening. One of the reasons is that North American cities have been designed to make driving essential.

"One of the great things about Calgary is that transit goes way out into the ‘burbs. When you think about that, then that is the sort of discussion we need to have.

"We are what we build. It is critical that we have that conversation. If you want to see this city evolve, move forward and change, then you need to get involved," added Stanley.

The discussion was part of a weekend Spur festival staged in Calgary for the first time.

Sixteen events are taking place across the city at venues that include the Glenbow, the National Music Centre, the University of Calgary’s downtown campus, The River Cafe and Shelf Life Books

Spur, in its second year, is a cross-country touring festival of ideas. Last year, it hit three Canadian cities for weekends full of panel discussions, conversations and performances. This year, it visits five different cities, including Calgary for the first time.

This year’s theme is about trying to find the signal in the noise — what really matters to people in a word overrun with all forms of messaging.

The event continues Sunday with a discussion on political branding moderated by Charles Adler at the Glenbow at 1 p.m.

Details can be found at www.spurfestival.ca


© Copyright (c) canada.com

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Calgary...503/story.html

[sim]

Originally Posted by jawagord

I'm convinced many of the posters here are not capable of higher level math and won't get your point. Throw in that people will change jobs 10-12 times in their career and at some point they will have a spouse with a career, and a family, and want to own a home, the probability that a person will be living downtown after turning 30 are pretty slim.

What's even more disconcerting is that you only need low level math to see how patently incorrect your or the previous poster's assertions are. It's actually called geometry. Think about it. In fact, using your argument above about changing jobs 10 - 12 times and you can chalk another win up for centrality - or you know, living approximately in the middle of where all those jobs might be (spatially) over time, unless of course many of those jobs might all be highly concentrated in one relatively small area within a city. Then I guess his argument has validity. I'm just trying to see if I can think of where such an area in this city exists.... Where oh where.

His point isn't worth getting because it has absolutely no basis in anything except personal ideology.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Also, epic traffic jams in the core are mostly the worry of suburbanites, not people living in the core.

That's actually an extremely valid point. I'm also always amazed at how much people living in such areas are oblivious to noise such as that of sirens and screaming drunks. I guess if you've never known any better, you'd think that was normal!

[Jimby]

For someone who is far too clever to ever go downtown, you seem to know everything bad about it, or perhaps since you don't ever go there you have created a fear-based fantasy world.

[RWin]

Hey guys, take it to the Canada forum.

[RyLucky]

I just wanted to express something that I realized recently. One thing I love about inner-city Calgary is that pretty well every day and night of the year I can walk out of my home and find entertainment, live music, and other events for <$20-30 including a drink or three all within walking distance, and usually without cover. And, not just at the same 2-3 places every night, but at 10+ places that together produce a strong music scene. I'm sure there are other neighbourhoods in Canada where this kind of lifestyle is possible, but in my experience, cover charges and long distances make this difficult in some places like Toronto for example. I've heard Halifax, St John's, and Winnipeg have good music scenes but I've never spent much time in these cities. If you are someone who is into exploring the music, inner-city Calgary might be the place for you. At first, I thought it was a little surprising that Calgary deserved the NATIONAL Music Centre, but I'm beginning to realize that there is something special here. Have a good Sled everyone!

PS. So happy that Downtown will soon have separated bike lanes. My life expectancy just doubled.

[lineman]

FYI, The National Music Centre our city "deserved" is the latest evolution of what was originally The Chinook Keyboard Centre, then Cantos. It wasn't awarded to us or anything of the sort. It is the result of dedicated individuals who have built something special and those who have generously donated to this endeavour.

[DizzyEdge]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum, but ..

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/05/10...in-the-suburbs

We're running out of lots in the suburbs

We’ve got land, lots of land, under sunny skies above.

Well, maybe not so sunny skies lately and sure, lots of land, but not a lot of lots.

In the City of Calgary’s annual Suburban Residential Growth report, we’re told 114,000 new Calgarians will make their homes in the suburbs by the end of 2018 and bureaucrats are confident there is enough serviced and zoned land to house them.

Perhaps true, according to the way the city does math, but also akin to looking at 114,000 new cars and thinking that’s enough, until you notice only about 3,200 of them have wheels and, because of bureaucracy, there’s no guarantee when wheels are arriving for the rest.

That’s pretty much the story on available, serviced lots in Calgary.

The development industry estimates it will need about 32,500 serviced lots between now and the end of 2018, but there is no guarantee they will get them.

The difference in confidence is definitions, says an industry insider, who asked for anonymity.

“The information (is) accurate ... but only in conjunction with their definitions, such as planned land, serviced land and readily developable land. “The City’s definition of serviced land doesn’t mean the land is serviced by a developer, it means city services are in place.

“Moreover, the City’s definition of serviced land does not include transportation. If an interchange is not planned, funded or both, that is an issue and will skew the figures.

continued http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/05/10...in-the-suburbs

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Jimby

For someone who is far too clever to ever go downtown, you seem to know everything bad about it, or perhaps since you don't ever go there you have created a fear-based fantasy world.

I've shared previously that I've lived for two stints in the downtown.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'm not sure if this is the right forum, but ..

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/05/10...in-the-suburbs

Brought to you by Excel Homes, Legacy Homes, Brookfield Residential, and Home Depot.

"Our integrity. Now starting in the low 200's"

[Spring2008]

Good to see Calgary build out more like Van and TO. Lots of development continuing basically everywhere across the inner city.

Calgary shaky along new metropolitan path, while Edmonton stays the course: report
By Robson Fletcher Metro

As Alberta’s two largest cities breach the million-resident mark, Calgary is taking a tentative first step towards metropolises like Toronto and Vancouver while Edmonton’s approach to growth remains fundamentally unchanged since the 1950s, according to a new research paper.

The shift in Calgary’s approach mirrors changes that took place in Vancouver in the late 1960s and in Toronto in the 1980s, according to the report, titled “Alberta Cities at the Crossroads” and published Thursday by the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

Author Zack Taylor describes Calgary’s new regime as one of “sustainability-oriented intensification” that puts an emphasis on infill development, mass transit, and higher-density housing.

That’s a departure from the “efficiency-oriented expansion regime” of decades past, in which the city annexed land, serviced it, and encouraged developers to build single-family homes in suburban communities.

“This has been an incredibly efficient way of accommodating population growth for decades,” Taylor said in an interview, adding that the approach begins to lose its effectiveness as cities grow past a certain size and start experiencing congestion problems and mounting infrastructure costs.

Calgary has only “very recently” moved in a new direction, Taylor writes, as “city council has embraced intensification … over the objections of developers and rural municipalities.”

But, he added, the status quo is “deeply entrenched,” as suburban developers remain resistant to changing their already profitable business models and surrounding municipalities see little incentive to cooperate with the city’s growth plans.

While Vancouver achieved inter-municipal cooperation through decades of negotiation and Toronto through the strong arm of the provincial government, Taylor said Calgary has relied largely on using its bulk ownership of water licences as a “bargaining chip” in dealing with its neighbours.

“Indeed, it appears Calgary’s control over water supply is the only glue holding the (Calgary Regional) Partnership together,” he writes.

A third factor, Taylor added, is “inconsistent political support” from city council, itself. Despite adopting intensification principles in its growth plan, he noted that council has repeatedly rejected high-density developments due to opposition from nearby residents and “consistently opposed” the broad legalization of secondary suites.

As such, Taylor writes, “it remains to be seen whether the attempt to establish a new policy regime will become entrenched or, due to resistance from influential actors, collapse.”

Edmonton, by contrast, remains the “outlier” of the four cities in the report.

“Edmonton has maintained a consistent urban development policy regime throughout the postwar period,” Taylor writes. “Growth is expected to occur primarily through fully serviced suburban expansion.”

http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/10...course-report/

[freeweed]

From a purely selfish standpoint, I'm loving the direction this city is headed. The less common SFH becomes (proportionally), the more valuable my house becomes. Those stories you hear of SFH in Vancouver selling for 2, 3 million? Bring it on! It'll make for a sweet retirement bonus.

Folks who own in inner city neighbourhoods like Kensington will make out like bandits.