Suburban Development and Sprawl

[Platinum107]

There are not single standing homes on a "traditional" lot in Blatchford. Young family's, most anyway, want a backyard for swings, hot tubs, maybe a small greenhouse and garden and a large garage to store recreational and home equipment like bikes, snowblowers a canoe. The only place to find that is the suburbs except a few lots or house that pop up in central that can be renovated or demolished and a new home built.

JEEZUS. A swingset, greenhouse, and a hot tub?? Where has this family lifestyle been all my life I see now that the Home + Garden Show is the apex of living that I've been missing out on and that's gotta change NOW

 

[archited]

^^^^ Your sarcasm implies a kind of one-solution fits all (again). Heaven forbid that there exist people with different ideals of what puts meaning or excitement in their lives. You should try to curb your de-enthusiasm, especially if you have aims to go into one of the design professions... an open mind is a very precious commodity.

 

[Platinum107]

^^^^ Your sarcasm implies a kind of one-solution fits all (again). Heaven forbid that there exist people with different ideals of what puts meaning or excitement in their lives. You should try to curb your de-enthusiasm, especially if you have aims to go into one of the design professions... an open mind is a very precious commodity.

Wow okay. The joke of my post was going against exactly what you’re accusing me of doing. There is an expectation of a “one size fits all” when it comes to the “good” young-family lifestyle, and that often ivloves the conventions of a big house with lots of “accessories”. If a family falls outside of those conventions and chooses to live in, let’s say, a town house near downtown they can be considered strange for doing so. The point is that I think that people should have the choice to live wherever and however they want without being ostracized or thought of as weird.

I shouldn’t even really have to clarify this to you guys.

 

[ChazYEG]

The Disturbing History Of The Suburbs | Redlining: the racist housing policy from the Jim Crow era that still affects us today. | By CollegeHumor | Facebook

Redlining: the racist housing policy from the Jim Crow era that still affects us today.

fb.watch

Good, short video about some of the many issues of the suburbs (with actual references and all)

 

[Oilers99]

The Disturbing History Of The Suburbs | Redlining: the racist housing policy from the Jim Crow era that still affects us today. | By CollegeHumor | Facebook

Redlining: the racist housing policy from the Jim Crow era that still affects us today.

fb.watch

Good, short video about some of the many issues of the suburbs (with actual references and all)

The misnomer is that Edmonton and Calgary suburbs are white. They are not overwhelmingly white at all. American red lining was an abhorrent practice, but it is not what is occurring today.

 

[Platinum107]

The misnomer is that Edmonton and Calgary suburbs are white. They are not overwhelmingly white at all. American red lining was an abhorrent practice, but it is not what is occurring today.

It is true that the suburbs are a more diverse place than they ever have been, but the effects of redlining and racially discriminatory policies of the (not so far gone) past most definitely still exist, especially when it comes to perceptions of safety.

 

[EtoV]

An interesting analysis here. Edmonton was one of the few metro areas in Canada that appears to have increased in density overall, but of course the density we were starting from was already quite low.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/20...s-transport-commun-changements-climatiques/en

 

[CplKlinger]

The misnomer is that Edmonton and Calgary suburbs are white. They are not overwhelmingly white at all. American red lining was an abhorrent practice, but it is not what is occurring today.

Fun fact: Ethnoburb is a term for that, and can be used to describe places like Mill Woods.

 

[Avenuer]

An interesting analysis here. Edmonton was one of the few metro areas in Canada that appears to have increased in density overall, but of course the density we were starting from was already quite low.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/20...s-transport-commun-changements-climatiques/en

It seems that the increase in density came from the post-2000s suburbs that were designed at nearly twice the density as the 1950s-1990s burbs.

 

[TAS]

Nice new concise release from Not Just Bikes on cost of surburbia using 3D models. Example at the end how Guelph made building density cheaper and easier and how it paid off.

 

[BrettB]

It seems that the increase in density came from the post-2000s suburbs that were designed at nearly twice the density as the 1950s-1990s burbs.

Yes, which I do find somewhat more attractive, and yet the article shows:

In the low amenity-dense zones, residents must leave their neighbourhoods in order to meet their basic needs. In these parts of Edmonton, the proportion of car commuters hits 84 per cent. The vast majority of vehicles move just one person, causing congestion.

In the Edmonton region, 89 per cent of neighbourhoods built between 2001 and 2021 fall into this category, with few nearby services and a strong reliance on cars. In total, these newer urban areas, which did not exist 20 years ago, cover 228 square kilometres.

So my takeaway is there's still a long way to go to reach the 15-minute city goal.

 

[cloney]

Nice new concise release from Not Just Bikes on cost of surburbia using 3D models. Example at the end how Guelph made building density cheaper and easier and how it paid off.

I wonder how much it costed Guelph to have this analysis done, and if its something that Edmonton should look into. While current council might already be very supportive of increasing density (im honestly not sure), having a report like this that so clearly spells out the cost of it all, densification might get more public support. Im not sure how anyone could watch a video like that, and not think that the sprawl of Edmonton needs to stop

 

[danimori]

I wonder how much it costed Guelph to have this analysis done, and if its something that Edmonton should look into. While current council might already be very supportive of increasing density (im honestly not sure), having a report like this that so clearly spells out the cost of it all, densification might get more public support. Im not sure how anyone could watch a video like that, and not think that the sprawl of Edmonton needs to stop

I think a lot of people agree sprawl should stop but they don't want anything in their own community to change, which creates a bit of a problem lol

 

[cloney]

I think a lot of people agree sprawl should stop but they don't want anything in their own community to change, which creates a bit of a problem lol

well, if people had to pick between changes to their neighbourhood or a higher cost of living, then im sure they would be more likely to change. And if they didnt, well then increases in property tax to these money draining areas would at least start to flip the script on who in the city pays for who

 

[thommyjo]

What could be cool too is using that analysis to highlight and set benchmarks. Showing people that we could basically triple our population without any greenfield development and it barely being noticeable from a neighbourhood/next door feel would be cool.

Like “hey, your neighbourhood could become tax positive by rebuilding half of it to be duplexes and townhouses, a few apartments/condos, and some basement suites and garage suites. Half the homes can stay bungalows. Density up. Revenue up. Felt difference minimized.

I think a lot of nimby stuff is theoretical and scare tactics more than reality. Like the parking/traffic/kids safety pieces are usually overblown.

We should also use data like this to build a more equitable property tax strategy. Large single family areas that aren’t as tax positive should pay more than denser areas that are tax positive.