While videos like this are fun to watch, be careful of painting all suburbs with the same brush. All of the new communities proposed in Calgary are designed in a way to conform with our MDP policies, and the more recent area structure plans in which they are located. Administration's review of the proposed business cases give a good financial analysis of their long term costs to The City. The 5 recommended yes do not require any new capital expenditures, and actually show them becoming revenue positive for The City in pretty short order. See this document:There's also the issue of suburbia being subsidised by the inner city neighborhoods because suburban areas aren't nearly as profitable.
One thing to note about any suburban community in Calgary built in the last 4 years or so. Almost all lots are zoned to a minimum of R-G (similar to RC-G in the inner city). This means that the developer, and any future owners, can build up to 4 units (depending on lot size) plus secondary suites, without a land use change. So we are not really building R-1 neighbourhoods any more.
Densify Calgay's current urban footprint to about 3000 people/sq.km and I'll fully get behind more greenfield development. We under utilize so much of our current land that all these Greenfield developments just don't make sense. Us Calgarians have fooled ourselves into believing everyone needs to own a double garage detached home with a full sized back yard. But then we also complain about our city being so void of street life and taxes continuously rising. Plus with interest rates showing no sign of peaking, we'll eventually face a similar situation like we did post-2014 and 2008, where a glut of dirt cheap new homes in newer communities will have a negative impact on demand for inner-city homes. Many inner city communities will once again decline and then we'll all be back here complaining about the hollowing of our city and the tax burden we'll likely face. This pattern has been proven decade after decade now. Does a short housing boom, after so many years of talk about densification, make our city hall this short sighted?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.
This is precisely my problem as well. I can screenshot so many streets off of Google maps in older communities where redevelopment is restricted and many single lots can accommodate 2-3 units of attached homes. I don't even want to get started with how much space we waste on dead grass that is supposedly meant to serve as some sort of divider between roads and homes, or beautification of a road, or some potential 2070 lane expansion. We can easily stick up thousands of homes along such strips of grass and even wide off-roads in many of our 1970-90's era designed communities.
City administration recommends removing Calgary's last remaining bus traps: https://calgaryherald.com/news/loca...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1656801788
The other thing to add is that a good portion of inner city residential areas not coloured orange that you see on that map are still zoned for low density, semi-detatched R-2 and R-C2. This is not that big of an improvement over single family zoning, especially with how small households are nowadays. So infill neighbourhoods like West Hillhurst with potential to become higher density mixed use neighbourhoods are being relegated to duplexes of varying quality with the occasional high density development on arterial roads. I think a baseline for infill neighbourhoods should be R-2M which would give the market more flexibility for adding row house type developments to these areas.