Silence&Motion
Senior Member
No matter what their ideological posturing, they can never say no to more sprawl. It's really disheartening.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
smart_development
New Member
Restricting greenfield development is an incredibly bad idea.
1. Ample greenfield development is why Calgary is cheaper than Toronto and Vancouver.
2. Upzoning/density is NOT contingent on banning greenfield development. It's a false dilemma.
3. New greenfield developments today are not like they were in the 1980's. You can build relatively dense mixed use communities.
In many ways the "anti-sprawl" arguments today are just masquerading as anti-growth arguments.
1. Ample greenfield development is why Calgary is cheaper than Toronto and Vancouver.
2. Upzoning/density is NOT contingent on banning greenfield development. It's a false dilemma.
3. New greenfield developments today are not like they were in the 1980's. You can build relatively dense mixed use communities.
In many ways the "anti-sprawl" arguments today are just masquerading as anti-growth arguments.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Not to mention at some point, you need to ask if all of your aspirational policies are REALLY what your electorate wants. When 90%+ of all new residents move to the suburbs, well, at some point, give the people what they want. And million dollar skinny infills are not an option for new families.
Meanwhile, despite all the claims of wanting to intensify and promote inner city growth, how often do we see the City's existing bylaws, design specifications, and just general overall process, make developing affordable, family oriented housing in the established area extremely difficult, if not downright impossible?
Meanwhile, despite all the claims of wanting to intensify and promote inner city growth, how often do we see the City's existing bylaws, design specifications, and just general overall process, make developing affordable, family oriented housing in the established area extremely difficult, if not downright impossible?
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Actually, the public is very much against subsidizing more sprawl. But of course people like to move to artificially discounted housing on the fringes of the city. But then they demand additional subsidies in the form of new schools, new and expanded highways, etc.
darwink
Senior Member
Given our Mayor believes sprawl does not exist in Calgary, they would reject the premise of the question!
darwink
Senior Member
I would say that our regulatory process has induced market participants to supply the market in a certain way. We should not assume that: it is a free market; and that if the market is free, that the free market only has one stable equilibrium and we are at it now (and that we can't change to another one).
You hit the nail on the head in the second part--the cost burden of infill development per unit may be similar fee wise, but it is much larger cost wise, in both time needed to prepare applications, regulatory risk, and land assembly risk per unit.
To be on equal footing, PER UNIT, the table likely will have to be heavily tilted towards redevelopment to achieve anything close to a 'free market' outcome in a highly regulated system.
Last edited:
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
I have a family of five and we're living in a skinny inner-city infill (which cost us much less than a million). Not everyone needs a McMansion, especially when you have amenities close by. More generally, the average household size in Calgary is something like 2.5. And yet SFHs make up the majority of household units in this city - much, much higher than other large cities in Canada.
Can't argue with you there. I don't think people in general aspire to live on the exurban fringes of the city. I think over the past half century, North American cities have built housing markets that incentive sprawl and restrict densification, as well as placing addition costs on households in terms of transportation, etc.
artvandelay
Active Member
There's nothing wrong with greenfield development as long as new communities are being designed with densities and street layouts to be efficiently serviced by utilities, transit, and other city services (which they largely are).
A balanced market has a good breadth of options. We need to improve our existing infrastructure (mainly utilities) in inner city areas to enable further growth in developed areas, but limiting growth at the edges is foolish (and a significant reason why the GTA housing market is so screwed up).
A balanced market has a good breadth of options. We need to improve our existing infrastructure (mainly utilities) in inner city areas to enable further growth in developed areas, but limiting growth at the edges is foolish (and a significant reason why the GTA housing market is so screwed up).
smart_development
New Member
I guess the people who would potentially live in one of the new edge communities could go live in the Stephen Avenue project....oh wait that's also "bad".
Precisely why Calgary shouldn't fall into this trap of restricting greenfield development. It just gives even more say to incumbent owners/NIMBYs/neighborhood associations on what inevitably gets built.
If a new community being built on the edges is relatively dense and mixed use you should not be against that. If you are it isn't an "urban design" argument it's an anti growth/anti-newcomer argument.
Precisely why Calgary shouldn't fall into this trap of restricting greenfield development. It just gives even more say to incumbent owners/NIMBYs/neighborhood associations on what inevitably gets built.
If a new community being built on the edges is relatively dense and mixed use you should not be against that. If you are it isn't an "urban design" argument it's an anti growth/anti-newcomer argument.
YourBoy007
Active Member
Absolutely! Better than thinning out our tax dollars even more. Instead, we could use those saved tax dollars to invest in inner-city development and create a nicer city overall.
To what extent do we push Calgary's borders?
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Except that all those people living in Airdrie will still drive into Calgary for work, the difference is that their tax dollars stay in Airdrie. Not sure if there is any sort of cost sharing initiative for the Calgary region to help with infrastructure costs...
YourBoy007
Active Member
I think that's the problem. With our current policies in place, most of who we attract are people wanting a suburban home. Whereas people who enjoy the convenience of a denser city or downtown and like vibrancy don't often move here or realize that Calgary can't satisfy them and end up moving.
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
We are already in a "trap". It's a treadmill of subsidizing new greenfield developments to make up for shrinking tax base and aging infrastructure in older greenfield developments. Right now almost every CTrain station in this city is surrounded by parking lots and underutilized land. 46 public schools are at lower than 70% capacity and dozens are at risk of closure. We need to change the rules of the game so that it is more economical to build higher densities around existing infrastructure and services than constantly expanding outward.
Yes, demolishing heritage commercial buildings to build another massive city block-sized office building is a bad idea. I'm not sure how this is relevant to the current discussion.
Golfing guy
Active Member
I personally would love to have a 100 condo development’s in the inner city right now. But that isn’t going to happen. Only rental projects seem to catch any steam right now. The market is driven by greenfield projects. With up to 90,000 new faces coming to calgary in the next 4 years we better start planning and have properties ready for them. I’m sure downtown will get their share of the newbies. That life just isn’t for everyone