smart_development
New Member
I'm always skeptical when things are framed as a zero-sum binary choice instead of an all-of-the-above choice. It's not pragmatic and assumes there needs to be a loser somewhere n order to make "progress".
In this case of prohibiting greenfield development the loss would be maintaining a reasonable cost of housing WHILE SCALING...ie supply elasticity. And I think that's where some people are missing the mark. Population growth rates are a tricky thing and many municipalities can significantly underestimate them.
Calgary might need to be aggressive on both greenfield and existing urban redevelopment if it wants to handle growth while maintaining housing costs somewhat.
And despite ideals the political reality is for every one "pro-density anti-sprawler" there's ten "don't change the character of the neighborhood" types that are a political tour de force and will absolutely kneecap new supply.
In this case of prohibiting greenfield development the loss would be maintaining a reasonable cost of housing WHILE SCALING...ie supply elasticity. And I think that's where some people are missing the mark. Population growth rates are a tricky thing and many municipalities can significantly underestimate them.
Calgary might need to be aggressive on both greenfield and existing urban redevelopment if it wants to handle growth while maintaining housing costs somewhat.
And despite ideals the political reality is for every one "pro-density anti-sprawler" there's ten "don't change the character of the neighborhood" types that are a political tour de force and will absolutely kneecap new supply.