News   Nov 08, 2024
 495     0 
News   Nov 08, 2024
 935     3 
News   Nov 08, 2024
 499     0 

Stampeding Calgary

E

Ed007Toronto

Guest
www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs...7147419106

Stampeding Calgary
Rapid expansion has given the city the largest footprint in North America. The nightmare scenario? Turning into Toronto.
Sep. 2, 2006. 01:00 AM
MURRAY WHYTE
STAFF REPORTER

CALGARY—The plane slips lower, through the yellow-brown haze of smog that drapes lazily into the river valley, bringing them into sharp view: vast tracts of tightly packed, near-identical houses, spilling into the endless plains at the city's southeast corner and over the green foothills in the northwest, where the prairie buckles on its way to the Rocky Mountains, looming and majestic, to the west.
Calgary proper, a vast unicity with the largest footprint of any city in North America, occupies almost the same amount of land as the five boroughs of New York, which form a tightly packed urban zone with 12 million people. Calgary celebrated the arrival of its one millionth citizen just this summer.
In 1951, Calgary held 127,000 people within the bounds of a mere 40.4 square kilometres. By next year, this roiling centre of commerce and oil-fuelled optimism, the heart of the western boom, will swallow another 102 square kilometres to accommodate, it projects, another 400,000 people over the next 40 years. That swell will expand its current boundaries from 745 square kilometres to 847 — more than 20 times the 1951 figure.
Toronto, meanwhile, a much-chastised offender in the annals of urban sprawl, spreads its 2.6 million people over about 630 square kilometres of land. But Calgary, like Toronto, Vancouver and virtually every other Canadian city, faces an issue loudly proclaimed at the World Urban Forum in Vancouver in June to be among the most pressing social concerns of the future: Continued and accelerating urbanization.
By next year, for the first time in history, urban dwellers worldwide will outnumber ruralites. In Canada, where 80 per cent of the population already lives in cities, major urban centres will swell rapidly and municipal governments will strain to create and maintain infrastructure to support them.
But most would agree that Calgary's rapid growth is unique. The city expected to hit 1 million some time in 2008; swarmed by job-seekers from across the country, even those generous population projections proved way off. More than 35,000 people came to this city last year, drawn by Alberta's super-heated economy. Calgary's high-speed development is now swallowing about 1.5 hectares a day. And it shows no sign of slowing.
This is the downside of boomtown: With gridlock on its vast networks of freeways that link the core to its ever more distant suburbs, the average commute time increasing more rapidly than anywhere in Canada, mounting pollution and spiralling real estate prices, this fiercely independent heart of the new West faces the real possibility of morphing into its most-loathed nightmare: Toronto.
"Calgary is like a big balloon, growing in all directions," says Noel Keough, bundled in a grey fleece jacket to ward off the summer morning chill. It's a cloudless day, but here in the faraway new developments of the city's northwest, downtown is a distant collection of unidentifiable spires, shrouded in a smoggy haze.
Houses cluster along the city boundary, marked by a small green sign, and seem eager to flow past it into the foothills beyond.
"I guess that's why they need to annex," says Keough, smiling ruefully. "They've pretty much used up all their land."
Keough, soft-spoken and ruddy, came to Calgary in 1982, a recent engineering grad from Newfoundland with a job in the first oil-patch boom. He experienced the subsequent bust. "That job lasted three years," he says. "I was out of the industry for good."
He moved on to urban and community development, and is the director of Sustainable Calgary, a non-profit group that lobbies local leaders for a new era of development meant to humanize this increasingly car-dependent city: More walkable spaces, better transit, increased density in the city's sparsely populated core.
He's not pleased with what he sees.
"One of the problems is that it's all over the place. It's car-oriented development," he says, passing a distended strip mall surrounded by four lanes of fast-moving traffic.
"To get in your SUV and drive two kilometres to get a litre of milk is insane. It's an insane way to design a city in the 21st century."
Mary Axworthy, the city's director of land use, planning and policy, has heard the sprawl label applied all too often. The city has drawn a raft of criticism recently from all over the West for its expansive plans. An article in the Vancouver Sun in August, profiling Calgary city planner Brent Toderain, soon to take over the planning department in Vancouver, offhandedly referred to the city as "the temple of sprawl."
So Axworthy can be forgiven if she's a little sensitive to the term.
"Sure, we feel like it's unfair criticism sometimes, but I think mainly it's misunderstanding," says Axworthy, a friendly, no-nonsense ex-Winnipegger who came to Calgary during the first boom, in the late '70s.
She describes a different kind of Calgary from the one seen from the air: one with an increasing cluster of condominium projects dotting the city core. Most are under construction, or planned, with a few completed and occupied. She speaks of a city centre that will see its population spike from its current 35,000 to 103,000 over the next 20 years.
But in the last two years, a hard reality came to pass. "The city just exploded. Everyone could feel it," she says. "We could tie a noose around the city and say, well, the city isn't going to grow any larger. But we simply can't accommodate all the growth we have into the downtown area. That's just not going to happen. The reality for us is we still need to grow out."
If it's not a crisis, it's near one. The city's vacancy rate for residential properties is 0.6 per cent. For industry, it's 0.95 per cent. A story in the Calgary Herald this week said the price of industrial property had doubled in the past year due to the shortage.
Managing rapidly expanding suburbs is not new here.
In 1995, Calgary introduced citywide guidelines to increase density in suburban areas, to a minimum of 7 units per hectare.
This year, the city has taken another step, this time by removing a cap of 8 units per hectare.
"We've done a lot with our suburbs," Axworthy says. Sprawl, to her, is an inappropriate term. "It has the connotation of being unplanned — leapfrogging development, unplanned, uncontrolled. We don't think we fit that description."
`To get in your SUV and drive two kilometres to get a litre of milk is insane'
Noel Keough, director of Sustainable Calgary
`For the first time, Calgary has the political will and the right fit to make it happen'
Jeremy Sturgess, architect
But Axworthy's contention is a flashpoint of debate here, where explosive growth, and how to manage it, is a divisive urban issue.
"The city, all the way down from the mayor, will tell you there's no sprawl," says Beverly Sandalack, the co-ordinator of the University of Calgary's Urban Design program.
"But that's absolutely not true. You fly into Calgary, and what do you see? A city overwhelmed by its suburbs."
In Sandalack's downtown office, the university's urban design lab, a map of the city from 1924 hangs on the wall. It is almost comic in its proportions: A small cluster around the Bow and Elbow rivers, extending not more than six kilometres in any direction. It seems an unlikely forebear, only 80 years previous, of the distended urbanity that exists now.
Sandalack calls the city's minimum density requirements "pathetically low." She looks to the culture for the root of the problem. "People move to the West, and always have, for 100 years or more, so they can have a house of their own," she says.
Annexation — the city's ever-expanding outward growth — is the issue: If vast lands are swallowed for growth, then low-density suburbs are inevitable. "The horse is already out of the barn, so to speak," she says.
"We need to do something to make a better quality of city inside."
For Keough, the issue lies at the heart of an Albertan political reality. "Governments think they'll be pilloried if they suggest interventionist planning," with the result of letting the developers decide how the city grows, he says. "It goes all the way to the provincial level — `the oil companies are going to provide for everyone and all we have to do is sit back and stay out of their way.'"
Increasingly, though, that's proving to not be the case. The vast wealth generated here by the oil boom has also brought just as dramatic inequities. Once a minor issue, homelessness in Calgary has exploded. In the past year alone, the homeless population in Calgary has ballooned by more than 30 per cent, to 3,400.
It is the pain of growth, most here will allow. But a brighter future is a managed one, says Druh Farrell, a Calgary alderman. A native Calgarian, Farrell remembers the unchecked sprawl of the '80s boom, and the bullying ways of developers.
"They ruled this city," she says. "If things were made too difficult, there was this threat that they would simply go elsewhere."
When she first took office in 2001, she heard the same threats. "My answer was `Don't let the door hit you on the way out,'" she says. "You're building a city here, and every development is part of that."
Farrell is quick to acknowledge that Calgary, while growing rapidly, still has some growing up to do. She describes, with a laugh, the guideline of 7 units per hectare as "enough to be annoying, but not enough to accomplish anything, really."
But Farrell's vision is of a Calgary with a bustling downtown, day and night, where people eat, sleep, play, and above all, walk — still rare in all but a scant few districts, like Kensington, just north of downtown, or the busy social strips of 17th Ave. and 4th St. to the south.
"There's a realization that downtown can be so much more," she says. "There is an opportunity to do something better here. It's our choice, and it's one we have to make now."
In recent years, Farrell has been active in recruiting architects to the city's Urban Planning Commission, previously a domain of developers, councillors and the general public. There are now three. "In the past, you'd be lucky to have one," says Jeremy Sturgess, a celebrated local architect on the commission.
Looking at the handful of condo towers either planned or poking up in major redevelopment areas around downtown, Sturgess says he's pleased with what it implies. "I'm not worried about the inner city any more. If even half of them get built, it's going to do very well for itself."
But the city needs densifying suburban models — "sustainable villages" where people can live, walk, play and work, and scrap the growing commute — to turn the tide of its rapid land consumption.
A shift at city council offers hope that, finally, it might be possible, Sturgess says. "Their hearts are in the right place. For the first time, Calgary has the political will and the right fit to make it happen."
But that future vision of Calgary is very different from its current form. Of the 75 communities recently built, or being built, only two — Garrison Woods in the near southwest and McKenzie Towne in the distant southeast — are built on the "sustainable village" principles.
"The city says all the right things, and you look at it, but it's always business as usual," Sandalack says. "This is a drop-dead beautiful landscape, built on ranching.
"It's going to take some real visionary politicians to say `Let's make a different city.'"
On the fringe of that landscape in the city's northwest, the mountains tower serenely in the late morning sun. Keough steps out of the car on to a dusty gravel track where construction vehicles rumble back and forth on the rough, cleared lots, rapidly assembling Sherwood, a distant suburb lined with single-family homes with big garages in front.
"Legendary Living," the sign reads in an Arthurian font, complete with cartoon castle.
"I liken this to clear-cut logging," Keough says. "You clear the land, you throw down a bunch of cookie-cutter houses — it's easy. That's what we're geared to do here."
The city's talk of density leaves him wondering if it's too late. Meanwhile, thousands of hectares of rolling countryside wait for the bulldozer blades.
 
I'm fascinated that sprawl is viewed as a unique "Toronto" problem. Go to virtually any city in North America and you will find a sprawl problem. As far as I'm concerned, there already was urban (or more accurately "suburban") sprawl in Calgary long before this present boom period.
 
I don't understand why and how is Toronto being perceived as "the worst nightmare"?
 
Interesting how Toronto-area issues are still framed as if they exist simply because Toronto exists and not becuase of social and developmental decisions made in the past.

About three years ago I noted that it should be fun to watch Calgary mature and start having issues that mature cities have. The changes that happen to a city as it grows and matures are well understood and documented; so it's no end of entertainment to watch Calgary news and pols act surprised every step of the way. This article makes a nice case-in-point.
 
I think the reference to Toronto largely has to do with the sheer amount of land that the city and the surrounding GTA take up. North American wide there are plenty of equals and superiors to Toronto in the realm of suburban sprawl but in a strictly Canadian context, there is no city/region that really comes close.

How can Toronto be perceived as a nightmare? Its not hard when you can drive 100 km on a massive freeway and see nothing but near endless sprawl. Oshawa to Kitchener/Waterloo with another 10 or 20 years of suburban sprawl will no doubt become not just hideous but a rather stupid and tragic mistake in planning.

That being said, I think Calgary will easily eclipse Toronto for the sheer audacity of its sprawl in no time.

About three years ago I noted that it should be fun to watch Calgary mature and start having issues that mature cities have. The changes that happen to a city as it grows and matures are well understood and documented; so it's no end of entertainment to watch Calgary news and pols act surprised every step of the way. This article makes a nice case-in-point.

How true. What is more, Calgary not only seems to ignore documented evidence but has built upon past mistakes. My girlfriend spent the summer working there and she was really blown away by the amount and size of the sprawl that is being built right now. She put it on par with cities such as Phoenix and Houston, both of which she has visited and studied. After 4 months there she has come away with far more negative impressions of the city than positive.
 
I do think of suburban Toronto as a nightmare whenever I pass through it. Isn't Toronto the gold standard for smog, gridlock and sprawl in Canada? Anyway, I agree with Antiloop. Calgary, which happens to be booming in a less than progressive environment in the era of sprawl is likely to experience a nightmare that's even worse.
 
As long as Calgary has virtually no peripheral suburbs, it may never be like Toronto. Right now, quantitative comparisons between the city of Calgary and almost any other city are somewhat meaningless because the city of Calgary includes everything from exurban industrial parks to provincial parks. The ubiquitous highway/arterial hybrids also take up a lot of room - it'll be interesting to see how they handle a doubling or so of traffic within the next quarter century...not surprisingly, Calgarians already whine about their traffic.

Calgary's low densities will rise noticeably in the near future due to condo projects and the birth of children in all the very new subdivisions. If Calgary continues to annex farmland, its sprawl will stay contiguous and relatively compact. I actually think Calgary has decent potential to become less sprawlly down the road. It could be much, much worse...*cough* Atlanta *cough*

...or *cough* Vaughan *cough*
 
I think you are coughing a bit much. Toronto on purpose designated NYCC, SCC, ECC, Y&E etc as high density nodes on top of downtown. Add the 905 nodes and areas like Flemington Park and you have an entirely different way of doing things. And this was done as far back as the 50's. Name a high density area outside of downtown Calgary. The planner even says only so many towers can be built downtown. No mention of towers in the burbs centred along transit routes.
 
"The changes that happen to a city as it grows and matures are well understood and documented; so it's no end of entertainment to watch Calgary news and pols act surprised every step of the way."

Yep - at once hilarious and tragic, as well as all too common and familiar.

Calgary's really no more a laughable naïf than any of the rest of us myopic pigheads. I've come to believe that humanity's apparent inability to learn from history is a (defining?) trait that probably cannot be changed. On a personal level - which is comparable in some ways - one person's history does not seem to really be able to help another person avoid similar errors. Overwhelmingly, humans only learn from their own mistakes. Groups of humans (like countries or cities) generally appear to work more or less the same way: since they are run by individuals who are largely not able (or willing?) to recognize that their current situation has much in common with any previous situation, they ignore any lessons that might help them avoid foolish decisions. Our egos relentlessly assure us that we know better than anyone who came before us. It's always easier for those on the sidelines of any given situation to evaluate it objectively and to apply the known lessons of history, mainly because ego is simply not involved in the same way.

Shorter version: Most of us are arrogant, infantile imbeciles who just won't listen, dumbly believing that we've been born anew each morn, and smugly certain that no one has ever understood the fresh sunlight quite as we are doing at this moment.

Even shorter: Almost everyone fancies themselves smarter and wiser than almost everyone else who ever existed.

"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." (George Bernard Shaw)
 
^Not only does arrogance result in a failure to logically deal with existing problems, it very often creates a whole new set for the next generation.

The only real hope that sprawl will be better controlled and managed is a complete breakdown of the existing system. That seems to be what motivates humans to react to a situation. If it was rational thought and reason then none of this likely would have happened.

It's often painful to read books and essays written on urban issues from the 50's (and in some cases as early as the late 30's). Even then the outcome of building massive urbanized areas centered around the car were largely agreed to be shortsighted, and a method of city building that would lead to the very problems we see today. Really the only thing that has changed in the discussion is the introduction of buzzwords like 'McMansions', 'SUVs', and 'New Urbanism'.

As Brain so eloquentely put it, we never learn. The same course of events that happened before will take place again in Calgary and in another 20 or 30 years, another Canadian boomtown will find itself making almost the exact same mistakes. Unless of course there has been some rather large breakdown that has shifted city building patterns. Even then, there are a passionate group of people who consider suburbia and car ownership to be a fundamental part of the liberty and freedom and will devote endless amounts of money and resources to keep this system of living going. So really, this pattern of sprawl is here for the long run with the familiar predictable results set to be repeated over and over and over....
 
Of course, there's many more issues than just developmental and planning ones that cities face as they mature. Such as crime, gangs, infrastructure, homeless, demographics, special needs, etc...
 
Just to steer back to the Toronto references in the article, I believe that the only reason they are there is that this story was written by a Toronto Star staff reporter for a Toronto audience. And sure, some Calgarians are former Torontonians who "escaped" to buy a big rambling suburban estate, and sure, there are those who just hate Toronto because it's Toronto, but we certainly are nowhere near the worst when it comes to sprawl on this continent.

I agree with scarberianskatru's coughing fit vis-a-vis Vaughan and Atlanta. Certainly the GTA has some terribly planned suburbs, and Atlanta is reportedly the worst of a huge pile of out-of-control US urban centres.

While the most of the original article is informative, one thing I hate crops up in it: use of the unique word 'Toronto' to mean different things without any explanation. When Murray Whyte writes "Toronto, meanwhile, a much-chastised offender in the annals of urban sprawl, spreads its 2.6 million people over about 630 square kilometres of land." he is talking about two different things in one sentence. It's not the 630 square kilometre city that's much chastised - it's the suburban 905 ring around it that has far lower densities. Toronto for years was "the city that works" in fact, and while there have been changes within the city proper since that moniker was applied in the 60s and 70s, they have been small changes relative to what has happened in the 905 since that time: it's the beyond-416 part of 'Toronto' that creates the transportation chaos and the smog and not the 630 sq km area Whyte cites. If the 416 holds 2.6 times Calgary's population in aprroximately Calgary's area, then we aren't the bugaboo.

42
 
'I think you are coughing a bit much."

Sorry, I was choking on sprawl.

"Name a high density area outside of downtown Calgary. The planner even says only so many towers can be built downtown. No mention of towers in the burbs centred along transit routes."

Still, they could be added. NYCC was hardly a high density node before the subway got there; Calgary has decent potential to develop similar nodes, moreso than any other undeniably sprawlly city I can think of. One possible reason why they haven't yet is because there's no Mel-galomanical suburban municipalities competing with the core.

Since it's a unicity, one vision reigns overs the whole metropolitan area, for better or for worse. The moderately impressive LRT system is for the better, while the predominance of pretty low density ranch style subdivisions is for the worse, but at least they're well-contained, not flung out like Clarington or Aurora...not yet anyway.

I agree with everyone else that this whole thing will be fun to watch for the remainder of this boom and immediately after.
 
I think calling people arogant is not a good description. People may be naive to the collective negative influence of their actions but in the end the majority of people are genuinely concerned for the well being of themselves, others and the future even if they themselves cannot see a means to make more positive influences.

I also don't think Toronto is in any position to look down on the urban land use of any other North American region. We are one of sprawls worst offenders and sprawl is just as integral to our economy and living standard as in other regions.
 
I agree totally with interchange, in that the Toronto references in that article are poorly thought out and unclear, and intended for a Toronto audience. To truly make the point that Toronto (ie., the GTA) is worse than other urban masses you'd have to show that Vaughan is somehow worse than Surrey, that Pickering makes Brossard look good, or that somehow Dartmouth is so much better designed and planned than Mississauga. I don't think that's going to happen.

I do think that Calgary is particularly poorly planned though. When I was driving around the burbs a few years ago I couldn't believe how far you had to drive to go short distances. Below is one possible route from newly planned suburbs.

Calgary.jpg
 

Back
Top