Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

[artvandelay]

There's nothing wrong with greenfield development as long as new communities are being designed with densities and street layouts to be efficiently serviced by utilities, transit, and other city services (which they largely are).

A balanced market has a good breadth of options. We need to improve our existing infrastructure (mainly utilities) in inner city areas to enable further growth in developed areas, but limiting growth at the edges is foolish (and a significant reason why the GTA housing market is so screwed up).

 

[smart_development]

I guess the people who would potentially live in one of the new edge communities could go live in the Stephen Avenue project....oh wait that's also "bad".

Precisely why Calgary shouldn't fall into this trap of restricting greenfield development. It just gives even more say to incumbent owners/NIMBYs/neighborhood associations on what inevitably gets built.

If a new community being built on the edges is relatively dense and mixed use you should not be against that. If you are it isn't an "urban design" argument it's an anti growth/anti-newcomer argument.

 

[YourBoy007]

You'd rather see greenfield housing development migrate to places like Airdrie?

Absolutely! Better than thinning out our tax dollars even more. Instead, we could use those saved tax dollars to invest in inner-city development and create a nicer city overall.

To what extent do we push Calgary's borders?

 

[Mountain Man]

Except that all those people living in Airdrie will still drive into Calgary for work, the difference is that their tax dollars stay in Airdrie. Not sure if there is any sort of cost sharing initiative for the Calgary region to help with infrastructure costs...

 

[YourBoy007]

Not to mention at some point, you need to ask if all of your aspirational policies are REALLY what your electorate wants. When 90%+ of all new residents move to the suburbs, well, at some point, give the people what they want. And million dollar skinny infills are not an option for new families.

I think that's the problem. With our current policies in place, most of who we attract are people wanting a suburban home. Whereas people who enjoy the convenience of a denser city or downtown and like vibrancy don't often move here or realize that Calgary can't satisfy them and end up moving.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

 

[Silence&Motion]

Precisely why Calgary shouldn't fall into this trap of restricting greenfield development. It just gives even more say to incumbent owners/NIMBYs/neighborhood associations on what inevitably gets built.

If a new community being built on the edges is relatively dense and mixed use you should not be against that. If you are it isn't an "urban design" argument it's an anti growth/anti-newcomer argument.

We are already in a "trap". It's a treadmill of subsidizing new greenfield developments to make up for shrinking tax base and aging infrastructure in older greenfield developments. Right now almost every CTrain station in this city is surrounded by parking lots and underutilized land. 46 public schools are at lower than 70% capacity and dozens are at risk of closure. We need to change the rules of the game so that it is more economical to build higher densities around existing infrastructure and services than constantly expanding outward.

I guess the people who would potentially live in one of the new edge communities could go live in the Stephen Avenue project....oh wait that's also "bad".

Yes, demolishing heritage commercial buildings to build another massive city block-sized office building is a bad idea. I'm not sure how this is relevant to the current discussion.

 

[Golfing guy]

I personally would love to have a 100 condo development’s in the inner city right now. But that isn’t going to happen. Only rental projects seem to catch any steam right now. The market is driven by greenfield projects. With up to 90,000 new faces coming to calgary in the next 4 years we better start planning and have properties ready for them. I’m sure downtown will get their share of the newbies. That life just isn’t for everyone

 

[smart_development]

We are already in a "trap". It's a treadmill of subsidizing new greenfield developments to make up for shrinking tax base and aging infrastructure in older greenfield developments. Right now almost every CTrain station in this city is surrounded by parking lots and underutilized land. 46 public schools are at lower than 70% capacity and dozens are at risk of closure. We need to change the rules of the game so that it is more economical to build higher densities around existing infrastructure and services than constantly expanding outward.

If the rules haven't changed up to this point...why would one have any have any faith that the rules will magically change after greenfield development is restricted?

In fact there are many examples of cities/municipalities in Canada where the urban boundary gets capped and then the adequate rule changes do not take place and what happens....supply gets restricted and prices escalate.

 

[JonnyCanuck]

211 25 Ave SW · 211 25 Ave SW, Calgary, AB T2S 0L2, Canada

211 25 Ave SW, Calgary, AB T2S 0L2, Canada

www.google.ca

There is a new development permit for one of the last vacant lots on 25 Ave SW (just east of 4 St)..... 39 residential units. I believe someone posted a rendering on this a while ago. Same architect, Manu Chugh, as before.

 

[Silence&Motion]

If the rules haven't changed up to this point...why would one have any have any faith that the rules will magically change after greenfield development is restricted?

In fact there are many examples of cities/municipalities in Canada where the urban boundary gets capped and then the adequate rule changes do not take place and what happens....supply gets restricted and prices escalate.

Politics is now considered "magic"? Here I was thinking elected representatives have the power to make changes to policy and laws.

If the example of a capped urban boundary you're thinking of is the GTA's "Greenbelt", then it actually proves the opposite. The GTA is an example of what happens when unplanned sprawl is allowed to occur unchecked for decades. Mississauga is actually a textbook example of a municipality that used greenfield development fees to balance its budget until it simply ran out of greenfields and is now facing a major crisis.

The Greenbelt itself exists as a desperate attempt to rescue the last bits of farmland, wetlands, and watershed in Southern Ontario from being paved over in asphalt. Even if the Greenbelt did drive up housing costs, it would be a necessary trade off for preventing the complete eradication of an ecosystem.

 

[haltcatchfire]

Toronto should just drain the lake and voila, room for another 50 million people.

 

[artvandelay]

Politics is now considered "magic"? Here I was thinking elected representatives have the power to make changes to policy and laws.

If the example of a capped urban boundary you're thinking of is the GTA's "Greenbelt", then it actually proves the opposite. The GTA is an example of what happens when unplanned sprawl is allowed to occur unchecked for decades. Mississauga is actually a textbook example of a municipality that used greenfield development fees to balance its budget until it simply ran out of greenfields and is now facing a major crisis.

The Greenbelt itself exists as a desperate attempt to rescue the last bits of farmland, wetlands, and watershed in Southern Ontario from being paved over in asphalt. Even if the Greenbelt did drive up housing costs, it would be a necessary trade off for preventing the complete eradication of an ecosystem.

The greenbelt certainly has a distortionary negative impact on the the GTA housing market that reduces supply by artificially limiting the highest and best use of the lands impacted, thereby driving up costs. It also fuels further sprawl in outlying communities generating additional commuting that would not occur otherwise - negating any positive environmental impact. It's a great example of a well-meaning policy that completely misses the mark due to a widespread lack of economic education in our society.

 

[smart_development]

Politics is now considered "magic"? Here I was thinking elected representatives have the power to make changes to policy and laws.

If the example of a capped urban boundary you're thinking of is the GTA's "Greenbelt", then it actually proves the opposite. The GTA is an example of what happens when unplanned sprawl is allowed to occur unchecked for decades. Mississauga is actually a textbook example of a municipality that used greenfield development fees to balance its budget until it simply ran out of greenfields and is now facing a major crisis.

The Greenbelt itself exists as a desperate attempt to rescue the last bits of farmland, wetlands, and watershed in Southern Ontario from being paved over in asphalt. Even if the Greenbelt did drive up housing costs, it would be a necessary trade off for preventing the complete eradication of an ecosystem.

First, the GTA greenbelt is a bit of a joke. It expanded significantly beyond the "special ecosystems" it's supposedly meant to protect. Not to mention Hamilton is literally already built on the Niagara Escarpment.

Second, how does it prove the opposite of my point? They capped the urban boundary and haven't done the adequate upzoning(and it's a total fight to do so) and now the cost of housing is a total disaster. That was my point.

Also the fact the you admit that high housing costs are necessary sacrifice to cap urban boundaries means we will just never agree on this.

 

[jhappy77]

I am generally in favor of building new greenfield developments - affordable housing is one of Calgary's key advantages after all - but there's still a lot wrong with the way Calgary does suburban greenfield.

There's nothing wrong with greenfield development as long as new communities are being designed with densities and street layouts to be efficiently serviced by utilities, transit, and other city services (which they largely are).

Have you tried riding transit in the furthest suburbs? It sucks, and even though in theory our neighborhoods layouts are getting better at supporting transit, in practice our transit gets worse the further we sprawl. We need to change the way we design our neighborhoods so that we can serve them entirely with fast, frequent, ridership-focused routes and not crappy coverage routes.

While we pat ourselves on the back for making marginal improvements to biking and transit networks in new suburbs, I'm pretty sure the modeshare of cars in new suburbs is higher than anywhere. We need to dramatically change the way we plan neighborhoods to turn this around. Even if the style of housing that people buy stays constant, decreasing our reliance on cars and increasing our use of bikes and transit could dramatically increase density and sustainability while decreasing costs for the city.