[MichaelS]

I don't have a strong opinion on reducing greenfield neighborhoods more than the recommendations, but I would note that many inner city neighborhoods are creeping up on the max capacity for their infrastructure. Not talking roads - it is water, storm sewer and sewer that is more important and expensive. You can only add so many houses/dwelling units until you reach a tipping point for needing more take away and surge capacity. You can only cover so much land in impermeable surfaces until you need to add more storm water management, and the cheap options have largely already been implemented to try to get areas up to the minimum required for the old build form. We will end up with more projects like the storm water storage tunnel built under\near mount royal which I can't find a convenient google for right now.

It was built in Bankview, along 27th Avenue, in 2005-2006 if I remember my dates correctly. I got to go on a tour of it when it was under construction. Very cool. The only evidence of it on the surface are some of the vent pipes you can see in the street boulevard here:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0294...4!1sJDVxRARj-kDrXgBwTiqfGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

[MichaelS]

I see @gsunnyg's point also. At some point the city needs to be more aggressive on building density in developed areas. We all know greenfield development isn't going anywhere...a good start might be to nudge up the new development levy. Does anyone know what it's at? I thought it was 15K per new home.

It is not really a "per house" cost, that is just what gets portrayed in the media because it is I think easier for most people to understand. It is a per acre charge, and the total charge is a combination of various infrastructure costs. Some are universal across the city (like transportation) and some are geography specific, like storm water. So, it is a varying amount depending on where you are in the city charged on a per acre basis. How many homes you build on your acre determines the per home cost. Here is the best source of information:
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Commercial-development/Off-Site-Levy-bylaw.aspx

 

[Silence&Motion]

Born and raised in Calgary. To be honest with you I was usually out of the city on the weekends hiking, skiing and camping. I have a camper van and it's super easy to jet out every Friday

I'd rather much rather be here:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.2784693,-115.7492409,3a,75y,223.21h,94.19t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNvELSl8ocdBmZShU-WVmw3ZMdIRuriafTbo9Me!2e10!3e11!6shttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipNvELSl8ocdBmZShU-WVmw3ZMdIRuriafTbo9Me=w203-h100-k-no-pi-2.9338646-ya322.5-ro0-fo100!7i7070!8i3535

than here:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6561...4!1sPz0JbgNdlNS0MxIScMlQGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Guess what I'm doing for the long weekend!?

Everyone has a different lifestyle, doesn't make them right, wrong, moral or immoral. Some people like the culture of the inner cities, some people like the quiet burbs. Some people like living in a hot, sticky city of 7 million with over-inflated housing values with a fantastic hockey team. It's all good either way

I never said going to the mountains is wrong or immoral. The issue being discussed is the vibrancy of Calgary. You're really just proving the point that Calgary is seen as the kind of city you want to escape. Whereas in Toronto, Chicago, Montreal, etc. there are thousands of young adults who pour in from the suburbs to spend their evenings in the downtown core.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

I never said going to the mountains is wrong or immoral. The issue being discussed is the vibrancy of Calgary. You're really just proving the point that Calgary is seen as the kind of city you want to escape. Whereas in Toronto, Chicago, Montreal, etc. there are thousands of young adults who pour in from the suburbs to spend their evenings in the downtown core.

I mean, lots of people do that here too. Like a lot. I just feel like maybe the 20-somethings on this forum aren't the type of people who enjoy the club life. I certainly don't enjoy it myself, but I really love going out for some yummy food and drinks with friends around 17th, 4th, Stephen Ave, Kensington, or Inglewood. Just not into the super crowded club life. Plus Calgary has an insaaaahn food scene for a city our size, so might as well take advantage of it

All of that said, I will be working security at Stampede this year, so we will see how much more not into the club life I am after that!

 

[Surrealplaces]

Are you suggesting that Vancouver is more vibrant than Toronto and Montreal? Have you been to Montreal? Relatedly, I was in Dundas Square in Toronto last month - a place that I avoided like the plague when I lived there - and I was blown away by how successful the area has become. It was 10 pm on a weeknight and the place was teeming with life. I've seen nothing like it in Canada. At the time it was built, it was a bit of a joke - Toronto's budget-version Times Square/Shibuya Crossing. But being there now reminds me of one of Calgary's major shortcomings: there's no place for young adults to just go and hang out. We have no exciting public spaces and no 24-hour entertainment economy. Serious question for those who grew up here: what do Calgarians aged 19-25 do on a Saturday night?

True. I've noticed that before too, but part of it is the size of the city. Not many cities of Calgary's size have something as vibrant as Dundas Square.

What are Calgary's top public hangouts for young people...(not including restaurant bar strips) only places if you just wanted to hangout? My two cents.

Central Memorial Park - Fairly busy all year, really busy in the summer, and has limited retail/resto
Tomkins Park - Busy all year day and night, lots of retail resto options and with The Royal/Canadian Tire/Urban Fare coming soon, it could elevate to another level. Cons are that it's not very big..
Crescent Road - Busy all year, but especially on summer nights Biggest downside is no commercial/retail/resto options whatsoever.
Peace Bridge Square - Busy most of the year, and very busy in the summer, but lacks retail/resto options.
East Village Riverwalk - Busy most of the year and is picking up steam, also has some retail/resto options

I didn't list Olympic plaza because it seems it's not very busy outside of work hours from my own experience.

 

[retrofiturbanism]

I was just watching Nenshis interview and he was suggesting them approving 8 new communities. IMO it should be 0. Even condo developers have suggested a good way to increase densification and allow more inner city development is to provide a densification subsidy and force developers to build in existing city limits by stopping Greenfield development. I think I've mentioned this before, the fact you can buy a single detached home for the same price as a condo in the inner city/downtown is not helping attract consumers to denser options. In Vancouver, many people have been squeezed out of the detached homes market and thus have adjusted to buying condos in hopes of some sort of home ownership (this is why condos are still booming compared to single homes) Calgary is already way to big for such a small population, at this rate I can't imagine how ridiculous our footprint from satellite is going to look when we hit a population of 2.5 million. IMO, they should eventually consider freezing new greenfield development for a few more years until density is around at at least 3000/sq.km. Home prices and condo prices are relatively cheap compared to other Canadian cities, now would be a good time to constrain detached homes supply and support condos/townhomes because if theres another boom, you don't want to be in a postion talking about density when cost of homes begin skyrocketing due to high demand. Calgary is so lifeless already and costing taxpayers a lot of money. Nenshi even said all this outrage over public art and such expenses is peanuts compared to the costs of supporting more sprawl through new communities. So yea, this was my little emotional rant because Im becoming a little impatient with our current progress on densification and would like to see Calgary feel at least as vibrant as Montreal/Toronto within the next 10-15 years and hopefully reaching the current vibrancy levels that are seen in Vancouver/Boston in my lifetime, that would be one of the greatest achievements for Calgary as a city imo

I don't agree with stopping all greenfield growth, but you raise some good points.

- Calgary is around 590 km2 of developed area. Toronto is 620 km2. Calgary's pop: 1.2M . Toronto's population: 2.7M
- Calgary has 16,000 lane kms of road (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/Roads/Pages/Road-Maintenance/Pothole-repair.aspx) while Toronto has 14,800 (https://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledg...-number-of-roads-bike-lanes-bus-shelters.html)

Calgary is less than half the population of Toronto, but has to maintain more roads (and therefore more sewers, more water pipes, more street lights). That is just one factor that adds to the economic and servicing inefficiencies of this city.

 

[darwink]

We are also richer, so that make things easier.

 

[CBBarnett]

I don't agree with stopping all greenfield growth, but you raise some good points.

- Calgary is around 590 km2 of developed area. Toronto is 620 km2. Calgary's pop: 1.2M . Toronto's population: 2.7M
- Calgary has 16,000 lane kms of road (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/Roads/Pages/Road-Maintenance/Pothole-repair.aspx) while Toronto has 14,800 (https://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledg...-number-of-roads-bike-lanes-bus-shelters.html)

Calgary is less than half the population of Toronto, but has to maintain more roads (and therefore more sewers, more water pipes, more street lights). That is just one factor that adds to the economic and servicing inefficiencies of this city.

Calgary's low density inefficiencies have been masked due to disproportionately high downtown land values (and taxes) that have helped keep taxes low despite inefficiencies. We also accept lower levels of service quality and accessibility to Toronto on some things (e.g. sidewalk clearing, park maintenance, recreation fees to name a few etc.)

Calgary also generally devotes more space to parks / park reserves than most cities, but especially Toronto. I am not sure if this is included or removed from the 590km2 calculation. Excessive park space can either be a bad thing (lowers density, increases sprawl, reduced connectivity, high cost/low quality park maintenance) or a good thing (yay! more green space, better in-place storm-water retention) depending who you ask, and how much you value green space. Many of our "parks" are really just reserves due to steep slopes and random left-over parcels and not actual designated parks with designed for uses.

 

[maestro]

Toronto has a lot of greenspace with the downtown poorly represented. My impressions are at least as much as Calgary.

 

[Silence&Motion]

What are Calgary's top public hangouts for young people...(not including restaurant bar strips) only places if you just wanted to hangout? My two cents.

Central Memorial Park - Fairly busy all year, really busy in the summer, and has limited retail/resto
Tomkins Park - Busy all year day and night, lots of retail resto options and with The Royal/Canadian Tire/Urban Fare coming soon, it could elevate to another level. Cons are that it's not very big..
Crescent Road - Busy all year, but especially on summer nights Biggest downside is no commercial/retail/resto options whatsoever.
Peace Bridge Square - Busy most of the year, and very busy in the summer, but lacks retail/resto options.
East Village Riverwalk - Busy most of the year and is picking up steam, also has some retail/resto options

I didn't list Olympic plaza because it seems it's not very busy outside of work hours from my own experience.

Tomkins Park has a lot of potential, despite its small size, but it needs a HUGE makeover. It needs to be opened up - get rid of the grass and the pine trees. Replace the gazebo. Redo the paving. Extend it to the north by narrowing 16 Ave (cars don't need to park on both sides of the street). Put in movable seating.

I think the two main ingredients for an exciting public space are: (1) they are located within 24 hour entertainment/consumer districts, and (2) they are adjacent to a transit station. It's unfortunate that the public spaces in Calgary that are next to the LRT (Olympic Park, Courthouse Park, and Century Gardens) are not in entertainment districts. Perhaps, through a combination of a new arena and the Green Line, we'll get a successful public square in Victoria Park.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Tomkins Park has a lot of potential, despite its small size, but it needs a HUGE makeover. It needs to be opened up - get rid of the grass and the pine trees. Replace the gazebo. Redo the paving. Extend it to the north by narrowing 16 Ave (cars don't need to park on both sides of the street). Put in movable seating.

I think the two main ingredients for an exciting public space are: (1) they are located within 24 hour entertainment/consumer districts, and (2) they are adjacent to a transit station. It's unfortunate that the public spaces in Calgary that are next to the LRT (Olympic Park, Courthouse Park, and Century Gardens) are not in entertainment districts. Perhaps, through a combination of a new arena and the Green Line, we'll get a successful public square in Victoria Park.

It's funny because one of the places I had in mind as a decent public spaces was the small chunk of hang out area at the Kensington Safeway. Location near transit and restaurants, has turned what would otherwise be a boring, commercial type of space into a surprisingly busy one.

 

[CBBarnett]

I decided to investigate with data about Toronto v. Calgary open space/parks. Looking at some open data from City of Calgary on land uses.
Combining all Park or park related land-uses : 75.32 sq.km
(excluding city-owned land, school reserve, special reserves and so on but including all environmental reserves, general park land, boulevard adjacent parks, fish creek park etc.). There may be caveats as I am not sure if all my sorting of land uses are appropriate from a cursory glance. Gives a rough picture of open space. (FYI including all land uses that are "open space" = 112.12 sq.km or 19% of the city's built up area)

Calgary
75.32 sq.km / 590 sq.km = 12.7% of developed land
1.239m people / 75.32 sq.km park = 16,550 people / sq.km park

Toronto
80.37 sq.km / 620 sq.km = 13% of developed land (https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/9645-parks-plan-2013-17.pdf)
2.929m people / 80.37 sq.km park = 36,444 people / sq.km park

Conclusion: Calgary has ~2.2x the park space per person as Toronto

The problem with geographies is that many don't align, even within a single city's definitions and spatial data (e.g. does Calgary's 590 sq.km include the river? What about the reservoir, does Toronto's include the waterfront?). So this is a good guess, but shouldn't be taken as the precise numbers. The story would be more that Calgary and Toronto have similar % of space devoted to parks, Calgary just has far less people to support/use them.

 

[Silence&Motion]

It's funny because one of the places I had in mind as a decent public spaces was the small chunk of hang out area at the Kensington Safeway. Location near transit and restaurants, has turned what would otherwise be a boring, commercial type of space into a surprisingly busy one.

LOL. I was actually thinking of that place too, which works well despite Safeway’s attempt to create a hostile environment through all of their anti-loitering strategies. I’d love to see the whole parking lot developed into a public plaza.

 

[FCC1982]

Just to go on record:
I can't think of a good reason why we would want to make single detached housing more expensive if that is what the majority of people prefer to live in.

 

[CBBarnett]

Just to go on record:
I can't think of a good reason why we would want to make single detached housing more expensive if that is what the majority of people prefer to live in.

As long as you can capture the external costs of mass SFH ownership in the sprawl in the price I agree with you. (e.g. highway, water and wastewater infrastructure expansion including life-cycle replacement costs, network congestion costs/GHG of the car-oriented nature of the areas, additional fire/police costs as a result of lower density).

I would even prefer additional deregulation to reduce costs further, such as no minimum parking requirements, no minimum lot sizes, no maximum units per site in areas that can support additional density (TOD etc.) IMO, these rules are often applied as a proxy to control external costs that SFH sprawl has on the municipality, with the end effect of socio-economically excluding large segments of the population from various areas of the city. If we could just attach the cost to the housing directly, we wouldn't need nearly the regulations we have. Whether we could actually get there to accurately attribute costs is another story....