| Re: "Don't fence me in: Calgarians’ desire for wide-open spaces creating an urban monster," by Roberta McDonald, City, Jan. 20-26, 2005
Kudos to Fast Forward and Ms. McDonald for this in-depth article on the need for Calgarians to embrace a more compact city. However, a number of factors on why Calgary has such a large footprint are not covered in the article.
I don’t think it is fair to compare Calgary to New York City. NYC became a city of one million people over 100 years ago. Its basic footprint was established at a different time, with different technology and a different economy. Only the very wealthy had cars and single-family homes until the mid-20th century. This meant urban growth after the 1950s was very different than pre-1950 cities. Also port cities are always denser than prairie cities, because their growth is limited by geography.
We also shouldn’t compare ourselves to Vancouver as it is quickly evolving into an "urban resort" – an entirely new type of urban place. Vancouver’s city centre is dominated by retail, restaurant, residential and hotel development catering to tourists and retirees. Its central business district is disappearing. But if we do compare, both cities have six per cent of their metro population living in the city centre.
Calgary has one of the youngest populations of any city in North America, with the majority of Calgarians in the 25 to 45 demographic sector. This is the age when most people have families, which usually means single-family homes in the suburbs.
Calgary’s growth has been almost exclusively from rural and small cities in Western Canada and the East Coast. These individuals are not accustomed to living in high-density communities. Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver’s growth has been primarily from offshore immigrants who are more comfortable living in high-density areas.
Calgary also has two of the largest urban parks in North America within its boundaries – Nose Hill and Fish Creek. If we eliminate these we’d have a significantly smaller footprint.
Calgary’s city council, past and present, should be praised for their annexation policy, which has resulted in Calgary being a uni-city. Calgary would have a much smaller footprint if we didn’t annex new land to accommodate growth, but then we would be dealing with numerous "edge cities" competing for tax revenues from residential and commercial development. Just ask Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Edmonton or Vancouver about the problems of managing growth when you are surrounded by "edge cities."
Calgary is well served by a downtown that is built at the same density as Manhattan or Chicago. As long as Calgary continues to foster the downtown core as its premier employment centre, the surrounding city centre and inner-city communities will be attractive places to live. As Don Shultz says in the Fast Forward article, "we need to make sure there is a broad range of housing choices in the inner city." Indeed, this has been happening. High-density communities are developing in Eau Claire, West End and the Beltline, and thousands of new infill homes have been built in all inner-city communities within five kilometres of downtown. We have created two new urban villages, Garrison Woods and The Bridges. I hope that 10 years from now we can add East Village and Victoria Park to this list.
Calgary is at a critical point in its evolution as a city. Decisions made over the next few years will shape our city for the next century. Currently, planners and politicians are creating long-term visions for both the city and the city centre. I hope they won’t pit the suburbs against the inner city – we need both. I also hope they will stop looking at other cities and face the reality of Calgary’s unique situation. I hope we can be innovative and not imitative when it comes to creating policies and plans that will allow for sustainable development in both the suburbs and inner city communities. Let’s dare to be different!
Richard White,
Executive director,
Calgary Downtown Association
|
Copyright ©2005 FFWD. All rights reserved.