Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New regional ring road 30 years away

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Kitlope View Post
    Don't fret Drum, it will eventually happen.

    Nobody, other than Portland, has stopped sprawl.
    Its not about stopping sprawl altogether, its about:

    1. Ensuring the long term costs of sprawl are borne by those who choose it (i.e. bedroom communities not the main city, let them pay the higher taxes for all that snow removal, new fire stations, etc.)
    2. Planning where development will work best for the city longer term (e.g. Calgary now prioritizing affordable areas of the NE ahead of other areas, so that sprawl really is "affordable" stuff)
    3. Spending infrastructure on existing neighborhoods with a view to filling the many gaps within the city already / improving infill. There is a ton of room for example, for COE to go "up" in downtown, quarters, muni lands, and perhaps even the university lands, and plenty of room for infill on post war sideways bungalows - skinny homes / semi-detached, and similar.
    4. Recycling existing neighborhoods - both inner city and mature suburbs, so that their schools are re-used / they become attractive for new families after their residents kids move on.

    Either that, or just choose to be a suburban city, much like US cities like Atlanta - the downtown will suck relative to other Canadian cities who have chosen to plan their development (even with a new Arena), but the new suburbs will be nice (old ones will suck, but they can be the future "affordable" slums).
    Last edited by moahunter; 26-11-2014, 01:00 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      1) Unfortunately, what sprawls outside our borders doesn't happen in a vacuum. We are all in this together, and in the end, we all pay directly or indirectly. Sprawl in our borders or just outside doesn't matter. Edmonton taxpayers pays the cost, and so do Alberta taxpayers, a double hit to me.
      2) We already do this.
      3) pretty sure the city is already focused on doing this.
      4) Except if its a neighbourhood like Glenora....
      A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Medwards View Post
        4) Except if its a neighbourhood like Glenora....
        Its an example of one of the few COE neighbourhoods that has recycled, its school is packed, and new homes are replacing the old / being filled with kids. IMO it would be good for COE if you saw that in places places like Castledowns, or the inner South East like Bonnie Doon (LRT might help there). Rather than build new neighbourhoods for children with new schools, why not put more effort into encouraging more families to buy into existing neighborhoods?
        Last edited by moahunter; 26-11-2014, 01:26 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by moahunter View Post
          Originally posted by Medwards View Post
          4) Except if its a neighbourhood like Glenora....
          Its an example of one of the few COE neighbourhoods that has recycled, its school is packed, and new homes are replacing the old / being filled with kids. IMO it would be good for COE if you saw that in places places like Castledowns, or the inner South East like Bonnie Doon (LRT might help there). Rather than build new neighbourhoods for children with new schools, why not put more effort into encouraging more families to buy into existing neighborhoods?
          encourage more families to buy into existing neighborhoods????

          how many vacant homes do you think there are in all of our existing neighborhoods combined?

          and those new subdivisions? most of them have densities up to twice what you hog in yours. and many of the people living in them work in employment nodes much closer to many of those new neighborhoods than yours. in the planning world that's called sustainable.

          but go ahead. keep on insisting that "calgary is doing it better" by forcing development to stay in flood plains or move to airdre and okotoks. because that's really sustainable.
          "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by moahunter View Post
            Originally posted by Medwards View Post
            4) Except if its a neighbourhood like Glenora....
            Its an example of one of the few COE neighbourhoods that has recycled, its school is packed, and new homes are replacing the old / being filled with kids. IMO it would be good for COE if you saw that in places places like Castledowns, or the inner South East like Bonnie Doon (LRT might help there). Rather than build new neighbourhoods for children with new schools, why not put more effort into encouraging more families to buy into existing neighborhoods?
            emphasis added...

            which school is packed???

            the provincial utilization rating for glenora elementary is 63%.

            it's provincially adjusted school ratings give it a provincial acu school capacity of 277 and an acol school capacity of 200.

            it had 180 students enrolled in 2013 which was a 9% decline over the previous 4 years.

            what's interesting is that there were 280 epsb students living in the glenora attendance area but only 140 of them attend school in glenora.
            "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by kcantor View Post
              but go ahead. keep on insisting that "calgary is doing it better" by forcing development to stay in flood plains or move to airdre and okotoks. because that's really sustainable.
              Calgary flood zone population has declined. The City under Nenshi has made a conscious choice though to change its development pattern, to be more akin to Toronto and Vancouver. It's population continues to grow, even though the bedrooms grow, infill is rampant in neighbourhoods like Altadore, Richmond, Summerside, with fourplexs, semi detached and skinny homes replacing single family home lots. That hasn't happened by magic, it's a concious plan to prioritize certain suburbs, and encourage infill, not perfect, but the results are starting to show:

              http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/10...course-report/

              As that article notes, Edmonton is falling out of step by keeping the status quo. That's fine, I'm not saying it's wrong, it's expensive for residents though, and it means despite some encouraging high rise condo projects there won't be any high rise condo boom like Toronto, Calgary or Vancouver anytime soon, you don't get significant up in the core of residential or infill in mature unless there are some limits to greenfield out.
              Last edited by moahunter; 26-11-2014, 07:31 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                ^ uhh.... Calgary is one of the worst examples of Urban Sprawl in the country...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Same with Vancouver and Toronto. Yes, even Vancouver sprawls far up the flats of the Fraser river valley.
                  A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by XTendEdmonton View Post
                    ^ uhh.... Calgary is one of the worst examples of Urban Sprawl in the country...
                    Agreed, which is why they are changing, these changes are leading to a high rise condo boom like Vancouver and Toronto, and its why UDI is furious there (bold added):

                    The shift in Calgary’s approach mirrors changes that took place in Vancouver in the late 1960s and in Toronto in the 1980s, according to the report, titled “Alberta Cities at the Crossroads” and published Thursday by the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

                    Author Zack Taylor describes Calgary’s new regime as one of “sustainability-oriented intensification” that puts an emphasis on infill development, mass transit, and higher-density housing.

                    That’s a departure from the “efficiency-oriented expansion regime” of decades past, in which the city annexed land, serviced it, and encouraged developers to build single-family homes in suburban communities.

                    “This has been an incredibly efficient way of accommodating population growth for decades,” Taylor said in an interview, adding that the approach begins to lose its effectiveness as cities grow past a certain size and start experiencing congestion problems and mounting infrastructure costs.

                    Calgary has only “very recently” moved in a new direction, Taylor writes, as “city council has embraced intensification … over the objections of developers and rural municipalities.”

                    But, he added, the status quo is “deeply entrenched,” as suburban developers remain resistant to changing their already profitable business models and surrounding municipalities see little incentive to cooperate with the city’s growth plans.
                    http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/10...course-report/

                    Edmonton, by contrast, remains the “outlier” of the four cities in the report.

                    “Edmonton has maintained a consistent urban development policy regime throughout the postwar period,” Taylor writes. “Growth is expected to occur primarily through fully serviced suburban expansion.”
                    Its not about stopping sprawl, its about the option of passing the cost of that sprawl onto people who choose that, which in turn, makes infill and condo towers realtivley more price attractive. COE's leaders can choose to read Iveson's old blogs and act / lead in that direction / the direction Nenshi is taking Calgary in, or they can choose to tinker with the status quo and do what UDI wants them to do i.e. continuation of 1950's efficiency-oriented expansion policies that resulted in the hole in the downtown, but did lead to terrific economic growth throughout the rest of the city.
                    Last edited by moahunter; 27-11-2014, 01:28 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      How did 1950's efficiency oriented expansion result in the hole in the downtown?

                      Just keep driving up prices to try and make something else appear more affordable. Let's put sprinklers in everything while were at it.

                      Sounds like the Edmonton region is doing things right by having several different municipalities that have to take care of their own costs of the sprawl.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        And seem to be doing ok at it. If Edmonton locks up their limits, the neighbours will really be growing.
                        Just enjoying another day in paradise.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Drumbones View Post
                          And seem to be doing ok at it. If Edmonton locks up their limits, the neighbours will really be growing.
                          Which is why now, with the NDP, a regional greenbelt can be put in place like Ontario did, so the neighbours don't. Everyone stops destroying farnland / starts building inwards and upwards.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            ^ he finally gets it! A greenbelt will only work for the region, not the city on its own. Moahunter, have a cookie!
                            A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              So! have the lands been protected yet?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X