[CBBarnett]

I agree. Changes are needed for sure. The city has their mind in the right place, and they've done some good things, but obviously not enough. Usually money is the one thing that people respond to.

The city's options are:
1) increase the new development levy some more. I know they increased it from something like 7K to 15K, maybe it needs to be up around 30K?
2) incentives for inner city development, whether, that means a tax break for owners, or a break for the developer, I don't know, but that's a possibility.
3) third possibility would be to change zoning in many areas to allow higher density.

4) Limit roads budget to maintenance only and reduce right-of-way easements to make all future lane-kilometre additions prohibitively expensive. Road expansion helps make suburban sprawl commuting affordable (roads are "free" to use) while helping reinforce the things that make it unsustainable (low-density car-oriented land uses can proliferate). As the network effects pile on, the "need" to expand inner city road capacity emerges which helps restrict redevelopment by reducing attractiveness of the areas nearby, through creating barriers and numerous negative effects. Noise, pollution, access issues and easements all discourage redevelopment in areas that otherwise would have great location advantages over the burbs.

This is a good example of Calgary trying to have it's cake and eat it too. Perhaps surprisingly, this has been done quite successfully so far. Transit projects are always paired with road expansion, capacity and travel time improvements, thus undermining the competitiveness of the very transit project that triggered the infrastructure investment in the first place. T. Crowchild's LRT, NE LRT and the West LRT are all examples of this. For the billions we have spent on LRT, we have spent nearly as much on road capacity in direct competition to that LRT option. This is good politics (everyone wins) and results in both more traffic and transit riders, but exacerbating the problems in the future as costs increase (restricting TODs as all adjacent land to the LRT is take up by highway infrastructure, plus auto-oriented landscape stretches out distances that increase the costs of all linear infrastructure).

In cities without an out-sized roads department and budget, the only cost would be the transit project (which would have been comparably more effective due to driving times remaining the same while transit improves). In conclusion, our road expansion projects not only directly increases the cost of serving sprawl, it undermines the investment in transit and helps support the restriction of land uses in both the burbs and the inner city.

 

[Silence&Motion]

I think Calgary is going to reach a critical point in the not too distant future where our outward growth will start to cause major infrastructure issues. Crowchild is a good example of the kind of work that needs to be done when adding onto the demand at the end of the line overwhelms the existing infrastructure. Not sure what the solution will be...

One solution will be to aggressively fight any attempt to compromise the livability of the inner-city for the sake of adding road capacity to accommodate commuters. I will gladly don the mantle of NIMBY if it means fighting expressways (in the Jane Jacobs tradition).

 

[gsunnyg]

I know everyone has some great ideas but is the city even listening? I mean only thing we ever hear on the news are NIMBY activists, i guarantee if a city wide poll was held today, a very large majority would vote for increasing density with limited opposition to building heights but we're no where to be heard. I mean im happy that issues like the Olympics and economic development fund are being discussed as of late but not one person addressed the recent city PDF Suburban residential growth projections that the Calgary herald addressed in the media or city hall. Other than a few tweets from some of our councillors no one else really seems to care enough to do something about it. I mean do these councillors even realize how many of their problems can be solved through densification?lowered property taxes, lowered expenditures for services, businesses can also run more optimally. If neighbourhood traffic was increased around existing shops drastically, their revenues would increase without a doubt. If downtown property values and revenue for shops can fall due to higher vacancy/lower foot traffic, then why cant the same theory apply to businesses around the inner city affected by low density? If we were to increase the foot traffic, revenue generated per sq.ft would rocket up as well. So when i see densification i don't just see reducing our sprawl and taxes, I see the potential for highest best use of our city. If Calgary was planned by business men, we wouldn't be here today talking about sprawl. I was just reading the Fraser institutes journal on city densities for developed cities around the world. Mississauga has a higher density than Calgary and its practically a neighbouring city for Toronto like Airdrie is for Calgary, I didn't know whether to be surprised or embarrassed. Someone needs to get our voices across or I hope at least some of the councillors are reading our suggestions.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

Mississauga is one of the largest cities in the country in its own right, and the entire geographic area of Mississauga is built out save for about 100 acres that a farmer is still holding out to sell. Contrast that to Calgary where around 250 square kilometres of our city's territory is completely undeveloped, leading to a vastly different population density for the municipality than the reality is in the actual built-up area, also known as the urban area. This is why there are metrics both for population densities of municipalities, and population densities for urban areas. Calgary, I believe, is the only city in the country that has an urban area that is smaller than the actual municipality itself, as most also include other nearby cities. Even Edmonton's includes several suburban municipalities, because they are directly physically linked to the city of Edmonton.


Regardless, the point is that Calgary has a very competitive density in our urban area at 2,112/km2.

This is in comparison to the Edmonton urban area at 1,856/km2, and Ottawa at 1860/km2. These are two cities virtually identical in size to Calgary by population. Just for fun, we will also include Vancouver (including Burnaby, North Van, etc.) at 2,584/km2, and Toronto (obviously including Mississauga, Vaughan, etc.) at 2,931/km2. Then contrast with smaller cities like Winnipeg at 1,429/km2, Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge at 1705/km2. Those are the six largest cities in the country that I could easily find the data for.

To put it in perspective, the difference between Calgary and Edmonton is 256, while the difference between Calgary and Vancouver is 472.


Calgary is doing juuuuuuust fine on this front for a city our size




To do more exploring, here is the link to the Vancouver data, the rest can easily be found on the respective city pages on wikipedia or, on the link here... http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=1

 

[gsunnyg]

Well actually the study used the urban land developed with rural land removed, the parts excluded city limits that were not developed. Cities of Toronto and Vancouver are double the density of Calgary when including the urban area, I think your mixing the concept of metro density with urban density. Sure areas of industrial tend to skew the overall density but even Calgarys densest populated areas lack considerably to any of these large cities. Burnaby is half the population and they are only getting denser more denser with their condo boom. If your population gets larger it doesn't mean you start make your city larger, thats practically urban sprawl. Calgary continues expanding into agricultural land. Just because we have the space doesn't mean we need to use it. The fact we're at only 1.3 million people or so and we are about 20 km wide and and 35 km from North to south (not excluding the airport here) over developed land is actually quite worrying, if you think that our size is fine for such a small populated city then im sorry my friend thats quite appalling. The ever expanding size of our city only promotes more vehicular usage, no wonder you never see anyone walking outside unlike any of the above cities. Burnaby feels more lively than Calgary does even though its smaller in population. We'll soon be hitting 40km from North to South in developed land, I suggest you try out the measurement tool on google maps and compare us to other cities, particularly ones we should be looking up to, its quite scary how big we really are in area.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I think the city (or at least some people in the city) have been listening to the issue of sprawl and has been for a few years now, but it take a while to turn the tide, and to change the way we've always done things, change what's easy for the developer, etc.. but I think the change is still happening. 20 years ago cities boasted about how spacious they were, in fact on the city of Edmonton website years back they boasted that they had the most space per capita of the major Canadian cities. Fast forward to 20 years later and the mentality has changed, particularly among young people. A guy like Nenshi wouldn't have gotten voted in 20 years ago.

Still lots to be done, and we also have a different geography situation which makes it easier for sprawl. Toronto is on a lake so essentially it can only grow in a 180 degree direction, which automatically makes land closer to downtown more valuable. Same for Vancouver, being a city half surrounded by water and mountains, makes land close to downtown less plentiful and more valuable. Not that Calgary should use plentiful land as an excuse, but it a factor.

I know everyone has some great ideas but is the city even listening? I mean only thing we ever hear on the news are NIMBY activists, i guarantee if a city wide poll was held today, a very large majority would vote for increasing density with limited opposition to building heights but we're no where to be heard. I mean im happy that issues like the Olympics and economic development fund are being discussed as of late but not one person addressed the recent city PDF Suburban residential growth projections that the Calgary herald addressed in the media or city hall. Other than a few tweets from some of our councillors no one else really seems to care enough to do something about it. I mean do these councillors even realize how many of their problems can be solved through densification?lowered property taxes, lowered expenditures for services, businesses can also run more optimally. If neighbourhood traffic was increased around existing shops drastically, their revenues would increase without a doubt. If downtown property values and revenue for shops can fall due to higher vacancy/lower foot traffic, then why cant the same theory apply to businesses around the inner city affected by low density? If we were to increase the foot traffic, revenue generated per sq.ft would rocket up as well. So when i see densification i don't just see reducing our sprawl and taxes, I see the potential for highest best use of our city. If Calgary was planned by business men, we wouldn't be here today talking about sprawl. I was just reading the Fraser institutes journal on city densities for developed cities around the world. Mississauga has a higher density than Calgary and its practically a neighbouring city for Toronto like Airdrie is for Calgary, I didn't know whether to be surprised or embarrassed. Someone needs to get our voices across or I hope at least some of the councillors are reading our suggestions.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

Well actually the study used the urban land developed with rural land removed, the parts excluded city limits that were not developed. Cities of Toronto and Vancouver are double the density of Calgary when including the urban area, I think your mixing the concept of metro density with urban density. Sure areas of industrial tend to skew the overall density but even Calgarys densest populated areas lack considerably to any of these large cities. Burnaby is half the population and they are only getting denser more denser with their condo boom. If your population gets larger it doesn't mean you start make your city larger, thats practically urban sprawl. Calgary continues expanding into agricultural land. Just because we have the space doesn't mean we need to use it. The fact we're at only 1.3 million people or so and we are about 20 km wide and and 35 km from North to south (not excluding the airport here) over developed land is actually quite worrying, if you think that our size is fine for such a small populated city then im sorry my friend thats quite appalling. The ever expanding size of our city only promotes more vehicular usage, no wonder you never see anyone walking outside unlike any of the above cities. Burnaby feels more lively than Calgary does even though its smaller in population. We'll soon be hitting 40km from North to South in developed land, I suggest you try out the measurement tool on google maps and compare us to other cities, particularly ones we should be looking up to, its quite scary how big we really are in area.

I'm actually certain that it's you mixing up the concepts. I got my information from Statistics Canada, and have been studying this stuff for a long time, thank you though.


Calgary - Metro Density 273/km2, Urban Density 2112/km2, Municipal Density 1501/km2

Edmonton - Metro Density 140/km2, Urban Density 1856/km2, Municipal Density 1361/km2

Ottawa - Metro Density 196/km2, Urban Density 1860/km2, Municipal Density 335/km2


I would suggest looking up what I'm talking about next time, before claiming I don't know what I'm talking about. I've already posted one source, so please refer to that in my last post.

To me, urban density is the only density measure that matters because it is the only metric that measures the built up area for a metropolitan area while disregarding greenfield and farmland. As previously mentioned, Calgary is the only major city in the country with an urban area smaller than our actual municipality, and one of only a couple that doesn't include other municipalities.


A few more corrections:
- Burnaby is way less than half our population, it is approximately 18% of Calgary's population
- You haven't linked the study you're referring to, so how would any of us be able to know what you're even talking about?
- You, again, are ignoring the fact that Calgary have an area the size of the city of Kitchener (roughly 250km2) of greenfield land within municipal border, which obviously this study you're talking about has disregarded as well
- Edmonton is most certainly not more lively than Calgary. Whyte Ave is fantastic, but outside of that and Jasper Ave, there is not much else. Calgary has Stephen, 17th, 4th, 1st, Kensington, Marda Loop, Inglewood, EV, Bridgeland, Centre Street, and a few other areas which have significant amounts of street retail which generates high concentrations of pedestrian activity
- The dimensions of the city have nothing to do with pedestrian activity, when again, we have the area of an entire major city within our municipal borders which is greenfield
- Calgary has two of the largest urban parks in the world (combined totalling ~25 km2) along with an uncharacteristically large number of other public parks dispersed throughout the city (though of course Edmonton has this much-appreciated phenomenon as well)



No one is claiming that Calgary doesn't need improvement. I am just providing empirical data that is widely available, as well as providing my very informed opinion on the differences between Calgary, Ottawa, and Edmonton as I've spent a lot of time in all three cities. Calgary does extremely well in all the metrics you've mentioned - including vibrancy - for a city, urban area, and metropolitan area of our size, as one can easily see when visiting or comparing to Ottawa or Edmonton (two cities with municipal, metro, and urban area populations near-identical to Calgary).

 

[UrbanWarrior]

It is. I reported on that in the Office Conversion thread. It is one of (3) buildings that Strategic Group are going to convert to residential.

YESSSS! So glad to hear that!

Edit: maybe that's where I got my "hunch" from I guess?

I work in Eighth Avenue Place, and would LOVE that commute...

Looks like you'll get your wish, my friend!

 

[gsunnyg]

I'm actually certain that it's you mixing up the concepts. I got my information from Statistics Canada, and have been studying this stuff for a long time, thank you though.


Calgary - Metro Density 273/km2, Urban Density 2112/km2, Municipal Density 1501/km2

Edmonton - Metro Density 140/km2, Urban Density 1856/km2, Municipal Density 1361/km2

Ottawa - Metro Density 196/km2, Urban Density 1860/km2, Municipal Density 335/km2


I would suggest looking up what I'm talking about next time, before claiming I don't know what I'm talking about. I've already posted one source, so please refer to that in my last post.

To me, urban density is the only density measure that matters because it is the only metric that measures the built up area for a metropolitan area while disregarding greenfield and farmland. As previously mentioned, Calgary is the only major city in the country with an urban area smaller than our actual municipality, and one of only a couple that doesn't include other municipalities.


A few more corrections:
- Burnaby is way less than half our population, it is approximately 18% of Calgary's population
- You haven't linked the study you're referring to, so how would any of us be able to know what you're even talking about?
- You, again, are ignoring the fact that Calgary have an area the size of the city of Kitchener (roughly 250km2) of greenfield land within municipal border, which obviously this study you're talking about has disregarded as well
- Edmonton is most certainly not more lively than Calgary. Whyte Ave is fantastic, but outside of that and Jasper Ave, there is not much else. Calgary has Stephen, 17th, 4th, 1st, Kensington, Marda Loop, Inglewood, EV, Bridgeland, Centre Street, and a few other areas which have significant amounts of street retail which generates high concentrations of pedestrian activity
- The dimensions of the city have nothing to do with pedestrian activity, when again, we have the area of an entire major city within our municipal borders which is greenfield
- Calgary has two of the largest urban parks in the world (combined totalling ~25 km2) along with an uncharacteristically large number of other public parks dispersed throughout the city (though of course Edmonton has this much-appreciated phenomenon as well)



No one is claiming that Calgary doesn't need improvement. I am just providing empirical data that is widely available, as well as providing my very informed opinion on the differences between Calgary, Ottawa, and Edmonton as I've spent a lot of time in all three cities. Calgary does extremely well in all the metrics you've mentioned - including vibrancy - for a city, urban area, and metropolitan area of our size, as one can easily see when visiting or comparing to Ottawa or Edmonton (two cities with municipal, metro, and urban area populations near-identical to Calgary).

Sorry the Burnaby population was a mistake, i posted off my phone in a hurry and didn't proof read. But my point was obvious with burnaby, a smaller population but higher density because they only have room to grow up but Calgary keeps purging into greenfield development. And i don't think we should even be comparing our city with edmonton and ottawa, thats not the kind of cities we should be looking up to for density standards because they are horrendous compared to standards world wide. We need to consider we're significantly below average compared to other developed nations.

Plus heres my link to Fraser journal, it was in the news recently. On page 2 and 3 they clearly mention adjusting the area for rural land and setting a density criteria, there criteria also mentions the problem the way Stats Canada measures urban density for some cities because they haven't been fully urbanized. The point of the journal was that all Canadian cities can still significantly increase their density without sacrificing their quality of life, I mean if they're saying that for a city like Vancouver thats already dense for Canadian standards, it just goes to show how much trouble we are in. It doesn't take much of a google search to find a bunch forums of complainers claiming Calgary to be lifeless and boring to live in. Im just trying to show some tough love so we can fix the problem. I really encourage everyone in engaged on this topic to read the journal to see why I believe theres a serious issue. Please don't be comparing us to other urban sprawled cities.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sit...paring-urban-density-in-canada-and-abroad.pdf

 

[darwink]

From the OECD, trying to create a comparator:

The maps of the larger ones:

Spoiler

Vancouver:

Calgary:

Edmonton:

Winnipeg:

Toronto and Hamilton:

Capital Region and Montreal:

Quebec City:

 

[maestro]

There's a minimum density to build walkable, urban neighborhoods and my guess is that it is lower than the suburbs being built. Design is paramount. With that said, you can get a little too wrapped up in density figures.

 

[CBBarnett]

There's a minimum density to build walkable, urban neighborhoods and my guess is that it is lower than the suburbs being built. Design is paramount. With that said, you can get a little too wrapped up in density figures.

Agreed. The endless debate on the geographies we use to count things is always facinating; but also endless. Certain blocks in the Beltine have as high density as downtown Toronto or inner Montreal, but that doesn't mean much without context and applying the appropriate framework in which to make the information meaningful.

You raise a good point on design being important to create vibrancy in walkable and "urban" areas. Design probably is more important than density itself. For every walkable street in inner Toronto, there is a high-density tower apartment development in the burbs with similar (or sometimes higher) density. But it's land uses, built form, connections and car-orientation all prevent a more traditional urban pedestrian area from forming.

In Calgary's case for vibrancy (or lack there-of, perceived or real), I don't think it has as much to do with density as many claim. Sure, more people are certainly helpful and we have plenty of opportunities to increase density to benefit our vibrancy, but factors like demographics, maturity and type of cultural institutions, amount and type of tourism (suburban, regional, national, international), and local economic drivers all factor in.

Example: as a subset of the vibrancy that I will use the local live music scene. This will probably be controversial to all those that don't listen to much of it, but bear with me: Edmonton's music scene is commonly (and accurately IMO) better, both in overall size as well as the diversity and and quality of acts. Artists will mostly agree, so will most people that frequents the scene regularly.

Why could most people come to this conclusion that Edmonton's music scene is more vibrant? here's some ideas:

• Edmonton has strong, longer-standing institutions that attract and produce young artists (Grant MacEwan's music program for example)
• Edmonton has cheaper rent and more apartments, both currently and historically (important for sustaining traditionally low-paying industries like music)
• Edmonton has a stronger network of venues, with far less displacement pressure due to redevelopment over the past decades (all our countless shiny office towers, high-end restuarants and classy condo towers weren't built over empty fields)
• Edmonton is smaller in almost all age groups (what you would expect from a slightly smaller, but similar city) except for young adults 20-24 years old, the key music playing/watching demographic, which is of similar size to Calgary's cohort of that age. A proportionally higher young-adult demographic helps create and maintain a market for music venues and cheap places rather than be continuously crowded out by the wealthier young professional crowd.

None of this is conclusive of course, nor is any single factor responsible for concepts as nebulous as a music scene or urban vibrancy. All this is to say, we have many factors/methods to measure/create urban vibrancy. Focusing on density is important but isn't enough to create the thing that many people really want; a walkable and vibrant city.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

From the OECD, trying to create a comparator:
View attachment 138169

The maps of the larger ones:

Spoiler

Vancouver:
View attachment 138170

Calgary:
View attachment 138171

Edmonton:
View attachment 138172

Winnipeg:
View attachment 138173

Toronto and Hamilton:
View attachment 138174

Capital Region and Montreal:
View attachment 138175

Quebec City:
View attachment 138176

Oh I see, I was referring to how Statcan defines urban area, not the overwhelmingly rural expanses that the OECD defines it as. I suppose the new terminology that Statcan uses is "population centre" to define the fully urbanized portion of a metropolitan region. My point is pretty clear anyways.

Agreed. The endless debate on the geographies we use to count things is always facinating; but also endless. Certain blocks in the Beltine have as high density as downtown Toronto or inner Montreal, but that doesn't mean much without context and applying the appropriate framework in which to make the information meaningful.

You raise a good point on design being important to create vibrancy in walkable and "urban" areas. Design probably is more important than density itself. For every walkable street in inner Toronto, there is a high-density tower apartment development in the burbs with similar (or sometimes higher) density. But it's land uses, built form, connections and car-orientation all prevent a more traditional urban pedestrian area from forming.

In Calgary's case for vibrancy (or lack there-of, perceived or real), I don't think it has as much to do with density as many claim. Sure, more people are certainly helpful and we have plenty of opportunities to increase density to benefit our vibrancy, but factors like demographics, maturity and type of cultural institutions, amount and type of tourism (suburban, regional, national, international), and local economic drivers all factor in.

Example: as a subset of the vibrancy that I will use the local live music scene. This will probably be controversial to all those that don't listen to much of it, but bear with me: Edmonton's music scene is commonly (and accurately IMO) better, both in overall size as well as the diversity and and quality of acts. Artists will mostly agree, so will most people that frequents the scene regularly.

Why could most people come to this conclusion that Edmonton's music scene is more vibrant? here's some ideas:

• Edmonton has strong, longer-standing institutions that attract and produce young artists (Grant MacEwan's music program for example)
• Edmonton has cheaper rent and more apartments, both currently and historically (important for sustaining traditionally low-paying industries like music)
• Edmonton has a stronger network of venues, with far less displacement pressure due to redevelopment over the past decades (all our countless shiny office towers, high-end restuarants and classy condo towers weren't built over empty fields)
• Edmonton is smaller in almost all age groups (what you would expect from a slightly smaller, but similar city) except for young adults 20-24 years old, the key music playing/watching demographic, which is of similar size to Calgary's cohort of that age. A proportionally higher young-adult demographic helps create and maintain a market for music venues and cheap places rather than be continuously crowded out by the wealthier young professional crowd.

None of this is conclusive of course, nor is any single factor responsible for concepts as nebulous as a music scene or urban vibrancy. All this is to say, we have many factors/methods to measure/create urban vibrancy. Focusing on density is important but isn't enough to create the thing that many people really want; a walkable and vibrant city.

I definitely agree that Edmonton has an objectively superior music and arts scene in general. However, if the conclusion you're inferring from this is that Edmonton is more vibrant in the city-wide pedestrian realm than Calgary, I can not agree.

 

[CBBarnett]

Oh I see, I was referring to how Statcan defines urban area, not the overwhelmingly rural expanses that the OECD defines it as. I suppose the new terminology that Statcan uses is "population centre" to define the fully urbanized portion of a metropolitan region.







I definitely agree that Edmonton has an objectively superior music and arts scene in general. However, if the conclusion you're inferring from this is that Edmonton is more vibrant in the city-wide pedestrian realm than Calgary, I can not agree.

Oh I see, I was referring to how Statcan defines urban area, not the overwhelmingly rural expanses that the OECD defines it as. I suppose the new terminology that Statcan uses is "population centre" to define the fully urbanized portion of a metropolitan region. My point is pretty clear anyways.





I definitely agree that Edmonton has an objectively superior music and arts scene in general. However, if the conclusion you're inferring from this is that Edmonton is more vibrant in the city-wide pedestrian realm than Calgary, I can not agree.

That's not what my conclusion was inferring. My conclusion - as stated - was that vibrancy, pedestrian or otherwise, is not solely an outcome of increased density.

Density is important, but I think too often is discussed without a similar level of attention placed on design, cultural institutions and broader land use and socioeconomic factors that also are levers to influence or improve vibrancy. You might also infer from my statement (which I would agree with) is that vibrancy itself is a problematic definition: what do we really mean? who defines it? In many ways Calgary's city centre is more vibrant that a decade ago (more young professionals, more cocktail bars, better connectivity for pedestrians), in some ways it can be argued it is less vibrant (less downtown office jobs, less students).

In my definition, Calgary is more vibrant than ever with more pedestrian activity spreading further afield (Inglewood, Kensington, Marda Loop being the most defensible examples for a variety of reasons). Still small by our larger competitors of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, but certainly not zero nor shrinking, nor "bad" for our size and age of development. But remember, not all experiences are equal, some can claim the opposite is true about our vibrancy and also can be accurate if they are in a demographic or social circle that isn't benefiting from the changes to our city.

Unfortunately for this reductive world of internet absolutist positioning, reality is complex and multi-faceted is perhaps all I was trying to suggest. I would like to see a similar level of discussion on how these other factors (land-uses, cultural institutions, affordability etc.) that improve vibrancy as much as we throw easy-to-google StatsCan data around.

 

[MJC]

Some really passionate writers in here - I like it. A couple of cents from me (mostly subjective views):

1) Vibrancy can't be fabricated - it tends to be emergent. The burbs generally have very generic shopping, commodity retail, Starbucks, credit tenants but are super boring and have a lifecycle of ~30 years without significant investment. Great streets & areas emerge with a authentic, artisan, or unique, unreplaceable anchors. I like Banyan Tree as the anchor in Lahaina, on their Front Street which used to be a fishmonger's market. I generally find Hawaii retail and streetscapes total dogshit, but this street is very special, and you feel it as soon as you get there. This is why I think we need to focus on ways and reasons people gather, cross, bump into each other. Calgary has this, I think, in Inglewood (love the gun store and convenience store amid upscale furniture) so does 17th ave and Kensington. I'm not convinced about Marda Loop - I think it has a bit more improvement but the nimby-sun-paranoi will basically clip the real growth and resilience of the neighbourhood.

2) At a provincial level, greenfield planning needs a major overhaul. The design laws are consuming 60% of the land area in greenfield before the developer starts carving up residential plots. Density at 40-45 DWPH is too low to have any lasting connectivity or transportation. We need a rallying cry from people to stop sprawl or it will not happen. In Europe, people are legitimately concerned about the environment and the quality of the air they breathe, which informs policy to a major degree. Those forces are not present here to the same extent. Suburban homes are too big and roads are too heavily subsidized, especially by those who live close where they work, play, live.

3) Entitlement areas are not as valuable as they look. Large properties on big lots near downtown are not as expensive as they look - $1.5 million properties on 50'x150' lots - that's only $200 per land SF. Downtown land will sell for $400 - $600 PSF. If we could build real density in those neighbourhoods, there is ample affordable land.