| Re: "Calgary’s footprint can’t be compared," by Richard White, Letters (Jan. 27-Feb. 2, 2005)
Richard White makes some good points on the comparison of Calgary to other cities, but he misses the mark on others.
Comparing city size solely on geography always leaves room for misinterpretation. Everyone knows that Vancouver is surrounded by the municipalities of Burnaby, Richmond and North Vancouver. To compare Vancouver's size independent of these cities is misleading.
Calgary has had the unique ability to annex land in order to accommodate its growth, however, I would stop short of lauding this as a good thing. The results are ultimately the same whether you have one huge uni-city or a city surrounded by leap-frog development. It makes for single-use, car-dependent communities and does nothing to curb urban sprawl.
To say that new residents to Calgary don't feel comfortable living in denser communities also does not hold up. This has been the city's excuse to justify further annexation. The fact is there is little to no alternative for those starting out with new families. Calgary has been negligent by allowing much of the inner-city infrastructure to fall by the wayside – schools, libraries and recreation facilities have been closed in order to free up resources for the suburbs. This is not good urban planning. I would imagine many families would enjoy not having to own two cars just to drive little Billy to soccer practice. More of our development should follow an urban village model that Mr. White speaks of, but most new growth in the suburbs does not follow this trend.
Calgary could be a role model in showing leadership and vision in how it deals with growth, but by and large all we are seeing is the status quo.
|
Copyright ©2005 FFWD. All rights reserved.