MissingMiddle
Active Member
The above succinctly states the obvious.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Chowda7
Active Member
Alberta government settles on Ghost River for site of future flood mitigation reservoir
The Alberta government has chosen the Ghost River location for its future Bow River Reservoir project, the province said Wednesday.
calgaryherald.com
DiscoStu
Active Member
I wonder if the people who deride these community meetings for being too white, go to a community meeting in a neighbourhood like Temple and complain about everyone being too brown...or go to Richmond BC and complain that its too asian. Something tells me no. Homogenous white neighbourhoods = must be racist. Homogenous non-white neighbourhoods = beautiful multiculturalism!?
It should not be a surprise to anyone that people who share cultures/backgrounds/values congregate together....it's an inherent human trait that happens across all races and cultures, all around the world. In a place like Canada, where our overall national culture and shared history is already quite shallow (and even that seems to be getting diluted), I wouldn't be surprised to see more of this type of cultural/racial segregation as our populations grow.
It should not be a surprise to anyone that people who share cultures/backgrounds/values congregate together....it's an inherent human trait that happens across all races and cultures, all around the world. In a place like Canada, where our overall national culture and shared history is already quite shallow (and even that seems to be getting diluted), I wouldn't be surprised to see more of this type of cultural/racial segregation as our populations grow.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
There is a history of forced segregation that shouldn't be overlooked. Is this that? Probably not. Those people are likely afraid of one thing: Change. There's comfort in having aspects of your culture outside of your country of origin. That likely does attract people to, at least initially, gravitate towards those comforts.
Now, is it just the fear of change... Or is there a little bit of classism in there too? I think that may be closer to the truth. Are rental properties as well taken care of as occupant owned properties, not always. Don't blames the occupant, who likely isn't responsible for property maintenance anyways. Blame the developer and hold them accountable (not actually sure how if poor design of the exterior and landscape are the issue).
Quick aside, I mention this because there is a new townhome rental near me in Marda Loop that was not very well executed. You'd think the developer, making a long term play, would make a better investment in the overall design of the exterior and landscaping but no.
DiscoStu
Active Member
Not Lake Bonavista...but I live in Rosedale, another neighborhood which is basically all single family units, where I'm hearing way more discussion about covenants. Why? Because of the blanket rezoning, currently there is an 8-unit development being proposed now (replacing one house on a street of single houses). Im not old (well, relatively speaking) or mortified of change...but even to me this feels wildly jarring for this street and community. So I'm not surprised that older people with more time/money are losing their shit and looking at restrictive covenants. When all nuance is lost, people go for the sledgehammer.
I'm sure the blanket rezoning will makes things easier for development, but to me it does seem to disregard context too much. I don't think every neighborhood needs to be the same, or cater to the same goals. It's ok to have ones that are really dense (Beltline/Mission/EV), some cater to younger families or 20 somethings (ie Bridgeland), some that are weird (woo Inglewood/Ramsay!) and some that maintain a more quite/car-centric presence. Choice is good. Not everything needs to be the wet dream of an urban planner.
Here in Rosedale, this is a neighborhood where added density should be done through contextually designed garage suites, or higher-end duplexes that fit in with the more traditional heritage aesthetic. You'll still add that density, but in a way where the character of the neighborhood is preserved. Many curmudgeons would hate that too, but I think generally you would get buy in, especially from the younger people here. Talking amongst all the parents at school, the last thing that most of us want is the for the neighborhood to turn into Hillhurst where the older houses are torn down and replaced by 3 story "modern" shitboxes (I should know, I lived in one). I'm sure that makes us racist/classist, but hey, such is life.
Last edited:
Albertasaurus
Active Member
All fair points, and as a Mount Pleasant guy I can relate. My biggest gripe with the new infills happening is that none of them pay any respect towards context or aesthetic, they are all white/beige/grey/black stucco boxes that the designers don't make even a token effort to fit into our mostly WW2 era and post-war housing stock. I suppose my particular gripes are much more design-related than density related, but I do lament the gradual erosion of the character that drew us to this neighbourhood in the first place. I'd actually prefer larger projects like Catalyst and Trail 19 permitted along strategic corridors like 20 Av and 4 St, and rowhouses at the corners (but at least try to fit in - less stucco FAAS and Tricor crap please) than the huge and ugly mid block infills we are seeing. In fact it's the mid-block infills that I hate the most, because they are eroding the look and feel of the community without even helping our housing crisis (if anything, they're making it worse by replacing small post-war rentals with ginormous semis at a million bucks a side).
Anyways, that's a bit of a ramble but the lack of "nuance" you speak of is exactly what is turning me off about out approach to housing.
Not to take this too far off topic, but I sometimes wonder if culture is more the separator than skin color. My inner-city-ish neighborhood was 99.9% white when I moved into it 20 years ago, but now has a mix of varying ethnic groups. The most noticeable change is the amount of people of Indian descent, for example all of the 4 most recent house sales on my street were purchased by people of Indian heritage. An interesting observation I've noticed is that they are all Calgary born and raised who grew up in the NE, but are fairly similar to myself from a cultural point of view.
I haven't dug into it much, but found it to be an interesting observation.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Speaking of blanket rezoning, the City has started engagement on their new zoning bylaw. If you want to take part, there is a link here:
Unknown User
New Member
The erosion in character in Rosedale was occurring well before the blanket rezoning restrictions but the discussion around restrictive covenants has only picked up since then?
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.ca
If you limit zoning to SFH, you're not preventing gentrification of the neighborhood, only limiting it to folks who can afford to do this. An RC for SFH does not prevent older houses from being torn down and replaced by a 3 story modern SFH.
DiscoStu
Active Member
You're right, a good chunk of the new single family homes that are replacing the older homes, are almost as bad as generic infills. Money often does not equate to taste, as plenty of monstrosities on Crescent Road demonstrate...
trtcttc
Active Member
While I understand people hoping to preserve their neighborhoods, and I don't disagree that should be possible if all neighbors agree. But if that is allowed, we also need to fundamentally redesign our property tax system. In this case, if property owners buy into a system where they pay the full cost of them having a car centric-close to downtown neighborhood then I'm all for it. But without it, it's essentially a subsidization scheme.
trtcttc
Active Member
Unknown User
New Member
Someone taking design cues from the Tank Library I see.
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
A few thoughts:
And if this is what is protected and preserved by restrictive covenants, then it's pretty clear that "neighbourhood character" can't really be a shorthand for a certain type of housing or look or feel, but must be a code for something else.
- The census tract containing Lake Bonavista (bordered by Macleod, Anderson, Acadia and Fish Creek) is 27.7% people over 65, and 14.6% visible minority; a representative community meeting would have one person with brown skin for every two heads of grey hair, and more than two heads of non-grey hair for every head of grey hair. Look at the picture of the community meeting again.
- The article notes that the residents "have agreed to allow secondary suites in basements and garages." It was only a few years ago that secondary suites were the density monster that would destroy peaceful single-family communities, now the most aggressive SFD supporters accept them completely to the point of writing them in. By 2035, will there be a movement in a rich neighbourhood to have restrictive covenants that still permit 4 storey midrise at 80 UPA?
- Here's the kind of redevelopment that's not "disruptive to the fabric of the community", from Inglewood. The house in the middle is certainly not disrupted; this is the sort of thing that would be completely protected by restrictive covenants.
And if this is what is protected and preserved by restrictive covenants, then it's pretty clear that "neighbourhood character" can't really be a shorthand for a certain type of housing or look or feel, but must be a code for something else.
badc0ffee
Active Member
They'd probably counter that, like what it replaced, this building still has 1 family with 4 people, needs 2 parking spots and contributes 2 cars to traffic, or something like that. And faces its own front and back yard.
Why don't you spell it out for us.