HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > General Discussions, Culture, Dining, Sports & Recreation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2015, 1:52 AM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassic Lab View Post
Water is complicated by various factors. It is sized for fire fighting as opposed to consumption. It operates as a grid to eliminate deadheading, where bacteria could grow. For these reasons, growth elsewhere doesn't really affect the inner city. Really, growth barely affects anywhere unless it is greenfield construction that requires new lines. Sprawl is of course less efficient for distribution, more pipe needing to be laid and maintained, but Kincora isn't putting a direct strain on Hillhurst. Water operates a lot more like the electrical grid than most people think.

For sewage, you're entirely correctSanitary does operate like a tree. The trunks have to support the entire system. So growth in the extremities requires growth all the way down to Bonnybrook. Everything in the north goes to Bonnybrook.
Thanks for the clarification. I take it water pressure is maintained to a certain level to allow for fire fighting, but also that the systems have to loop to allow flow to prevent bacterial growth.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2015, 2:46 AM
suburbia suburbia is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassic Lab View Post
Water is complicated by various factors. It is sized for fire fighting as opposed to consumption. It operates as a grid to eliminate deadheading, where bacteria could grow. For these reasons, growth elsewhere doesn't really affect the inner city. Really, growth barely affects anywhere unless it is greenfield construction that requires new lines. Sprawl is of course less efficient for distribution, more pipe needing to be laid and maintained, but Kincora isn't putting a direct strain on Hillhurst. Water operates a lot more like the electrical grid than most people think.

For sewage, you're entirely correctSanitary does operate like a tree. The trunks have to support the entire system. So growth in the extremities requires growth all the way down to Bonnybrook. Everything in the north goes to Bonnybrook.
Thanks for this. It is my favourite part of reading these threads - once in a while you run into someone who actually knows what they are talking about!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2015, 4:35 AM
sim sim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbia View Post
Thanks for this. It is my favourite part of reading these threads - once in a while you run into someone who actually knows what they are talking about!
I guess that can be influenced by the numerator or the denominator - if for example there were less posts by a certain poster, you'd have a better ratio, and you wouldn't even need more posts. But you're the math wiz here, so I'll leave that one up to you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2015, 2:27 PM
speedog's Avatar
speedog speedog is offline
Moran supreme
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,579
So what now? One poster debunked some of the conclusions in this thread that adding 10,000 to a community like Bridlewood would result in increased infrastructure in the inner city - the water system is not set up that way.

As for transit or driving, we just can't assume those 10,000 people are all going to or through downtown and I know when we owned a business in Bridlewood that the majority of our customers did not work in the inner city or have to go through the inner city to get to work. Certainly for the school aged kids of those 10,000, they are not going to or through the inner city with maybe just a handful of exceptions.

Sewer - I still find it very difficult to believe that the CoC would take Bridlewood's sewer and pump it all the way downtown and then back to one of the three SE plants - my suspicions are that there some sewer mains that go form those deep SW communities to one of those three plants without going into the inner city.

I am only using Bridlewood as an example to thwart those that say the inner city infrastructure is affected by everything built on the edges - this may be the case for the NW or west side burbs but I would be highly suspicious that a new home in Walden would be getting it's water from a route that goes through the inner city or that's it's sewer would go all the way back into the inner city to go to one of the three sewer plants.

Maybe I'm wrong but I have a difficult time believing that every new home build on the periphery has it's sewer and water going through the inner city.
__________________
Just a wee bit below average prairie boy in Canada's third largest city and fourth largest CMA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2015, 2:32 PM
MichaelS's Avatar
MichaelS MichaelS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedog View Post
So what now? One poster debunked some of the conclusions in this thread that adding 10,000 to a community like Bridlewood would result in increased infrastructure in the inner city - the water system is not set up that way.

As for transit or driving, we just can't assume those 10,000 people are all going to or through downtown and I know when we owned a business in Bridlewood that the majority of our customers did not work in the inner city or have to go through the inner city to get to work. Certainly for the school aged kids of those 10,000, they are not going to or through the inner city with maybe just a handful of exceptions.

Sewer - I still find it very difficult to believe that the CoC would take Bridlewood's sewer and pump it all the way downtown and then back to one of the three SE plants - my suspicions are that there some sewer mains that go form those deep SW communities to one of those three plants without going into the inner city.

I am only using Bridlewood as an example to thwart those that say the inner city infrastructure is affected by everything built on the edges - this may be the case for the NW or west side burbs but I would be highly suspicious that a new home in Walden would be getting it's water from a route that goes through the inner city or that's it's sewer would go all the way back into the inner city to go to one of the three sewer plants.

Maybe I'm wrong but I have a difficult time believing that every new home build on the periphery has it's sewer and water going through the inner city.
Walden (since you cited it) will tie into the new sanitary sewer trunk being installed through the 210th Ave ROW. This trunk will feed directly to the Pine Creek waste water treatment plant, and will be used to take sewage from Walden, Legacy, the communities to be developed on the west side of Macleod Trail, Silverado (who are currently pumping to a line through Shawnessey I believe) and Providence.

The acreage assessments paid by the greenfield developments are used to pay for this infrastructure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2015, 2:44 PM
Surrealplaces's Avatar
Surrealplaces Surrealplaces is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cowtropolis
Posts: 19,968
That's really the whole argument the Urbanists are presenting. It's not that 10,000 new people in the burbs are affecting existing infrastructure, it's that they are creating completely new infrastructure, whereas an existing neighbourhood like the Beltline isn't, at least as far as roads, transit, water, light posts, side-walks, etc.. and not near the same amount of sewer. No matter how you look at it, adding 10,000 people to the Beltline is far cheaper than developing a new area for 10,000 people.

Just for the record, I'm not opposed to new development. I understand that it needs to happen and will happen, and that many choose those locations for varying reasons. I'm just happy to see inner city neighborhoods like the Beltline having strong growth. It's good for the city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedog View Post
So what now? One poster debunked some of the conclusions in this thread that adding 10,000 to a community like Bridlewood would result in increased infrastructure in the inner city - the water system is not set up that way.

As for transit or driving, we just can't assume those 10,000 people are all going to or through downtown and I know when we owned a business in Bridlewood that the majority of our customers did not work in the inner city or have to go through the inner city to get to work. Certainly for the school aged kids of those 10,000, they are not going to or through the inner city with maybe just a handful of exceptions.

Sewer - I still find it very difficult to believe that the CoC would take Bridlewood's sewer and pump it all the way downtown and then back to one of the three SE plants - my suspicions are that there some sewer mains that go form those deep SW communities to one of those three plants without going into the inner city.

I am only using Bridlewood as an example to thwart those that say the inner city infrastructure is affected by everything built on the edges - this may be the case for the NW or west side burbs but I would be highly suspicious that a new home in Walden would be getting it's water from a route that goes through the inner city or that's it's sewer would go all the way back into the inner city to go to one of the three sewer plants.

Maybe I'm wrong but I have a difficult time believing that every new home build on the periphery has it's sewer and water going through the inner city.

Last edited by Surrealplaces; Aug 14, 2015 at 2:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2015, 2:45 PM
speedog's Avatar
speedog speedog is offline
Moran supreme
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelS View Post
Walden (since you cited it) will tie into the new sanitary sewer trunk being installed through the 210th Ave ROW. This trunk will feed directly to the Pine Creek waste water treatment plant, and will be used to take sewage from Walden, Legacy, the communities to be developed on the west side of Macleod Trail, Silverado (who are currently pumping to a line through Shawnessey I believe) and Providence.

The acreage assessments paid by the greenfield developments are used to pay for this infrastructure.
So this means that not all homes being built in the suburbs are affecting inner city water and sewer infrastructure. Cool.
__________________
Just a wee bit below average prairie boy in Canada's third largest city and fourth largest CMA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2015, 3:35 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedog View Post
So what now? One poster debunked some of the conclusions in this thread that adding 10,000 to a community like Bridlewood would result in increased infrastructure in the inner city - the water system is not set up that way.

As for transit or driving, we just can't assume those 10,000 people are all going to or through downtown and I know when we owned a business in Bridlewood that the majority of our customers did not work in the inner city or have to go through the inner city to get to work. Certainly for the school aged kids of those 10,000, they are not going to or through the inner city with maybe just a handful of exceptions.

Sewer - I still find it very difficult to believe that the CoC would take Bridlewood's sewer and pump it all the way downtown and then back to one of the three SE plants - my suspicions are that there some sewer mains that go form those deep SW communities to one of those three plants without going into the inner city.

I am only using Bridlewood as an example to thwart those that say the inner city infrastructure is affected by everything built on the edges - this may be the case for the NW or west side burbs but I would be highly suspicious that a new home in Walden would be getting it's water from a route that goes through the inner city or that's it's sewer would go all the way back into the inner city to go to one of the three sewer plants.

Maybe I'm wrong but I have a difficult time believing that every new home build on the periphery has it's sewer and water going through the inner city.
The argument was not that all infrastructure goes through the inner city. The argument was a counter to the statement by suburbia that "Yeah - but man a lot of money has been spent upgrading utilities to deal with the shit density".

My point was that upgrading utilities for density makes sense, because overall, higher density requires less infrastructure than lower density, both from a capital and operational perspective. Building density is good from an infrastructure point of view. That is the entire argument for density across the entire world. This isn't unique to Calgary. My point was also that often, but not always, suburban growth not only requires new infrastructure to be built, but also upgrades to downstream infrastructure. This is especially true for sanitary sewer.

You are correct that not all sanitary sewer runs through the inner city. Most of the south is serviced by the Pine Creek treatment plant, so those mains are mostly running through somewhat newer communities or utility rights of way.

The same goes for downstream transportation. But the argument isn't that every single person is travelling through the inner city, or using inner city roads. The point is that more centrally located residential development has less an impact on the transportation system then residential growth on the outskirts. This is because average travel distances are shorter, and transit, walking and cycling usage is higher. I am sure there are people who live in Bridlewood who work in Bridlewood, or people who live in Evanston who work in Evanston, but on the whole, the average distance driven by car to get to work by people in those communities compared to say, Parkdale, is a lot higher.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2015, 3:50 PM
speedog's Avatar
speedog speedog is offline
Moran supreme
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,579
Then people should be careful of statements like "The sewage treatment plants are in Bonnybrook and Pine Creek. The sanitary mains travel through the inner city to get to them".

I agree that suburbia is an interesting member who puts up a lot of interesting posts but responses to suburbia shouldn't go off the deep edge at the same time.

On a side note, does anyone know of publicly available CoC water and sewer system maps - it would be kind of interesting to peruse them.
__________________
Just a wee bit below average prairie boy in Canada's third largest city and fourth largest CMA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2015, 3:54 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
I think you will see the next off-site levy bylaw move our city much closer to essentially "full cost recovery" through acreage assessments for infrastructure directly attributable to growth. Density, form and housing mix is changing a lot as well in greenfields (making them more operationally efficient). The overall balance of new community growth to inner city/downtown growth is also ahead of the City's anticipated curve. This is all very positive. We are moving very quickly in the right direction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2015, 4:21 PM
Surrealplaces's Avatar
Surrealplaces Surrealplaces is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cowtropolis
Posts: 19,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster View Post
I think you will see the next off-site levy bylaw move our city much closer to essentially "full cost recovery" through acreage assessments for infrastructure directly attributable to growth. Density, form and housing mix is changing a lot as well in greenfields (making them more operationally efficient). The overall balance of new community growth to inner city/downtown growth is also ahead of the City's anticipated curve. This is all very positive. We are moving very quickly in the right direction.
What's the current levy at, and what will the new one look like?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2015, 4:31 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surrealplaces View Post
That's really the whole argument the Urbanists are presenting. It's not that 10,000 new people in the burbs are affecting existing infrastructure, it's that they are creating completely new infrastructure, whereas an existing neighbourhood like the Beltline isn't, at least as far as roads, transit, water, light posts, side-walks, etc.. and not near the same amount of sewer. No matter how you look at it, adding 10,000 people to the Beltline is far cheaper than developing a new area for 10,000 people.

Just for the record, I'm not opposed to new development. I understand that it needs to happen and will happen, and that many choose those locations for varying reasons. I'm just happy to see inner city neighborhoods like the Beltline having strong growth. It's good for the city.
Exactly. I am not anti-suburb at all. I am just anti-ridiculous arguments against density. Inner city growth does not require more infrastructure, on the whole, as suburban development. That isn't to say that suburban development is bad, just that it isn't true that it's cheaper from a infrastructure perspective than inner city growth. Sadly, the sentiment that suburbia expresses is shared by many: politicians, lay people, even some in industry (less now as more and more developers and builders are diversifying and building in both greenfield and inner city markets and understand the implications of slagging inner city growth on their own business). Many think building towers in the Beltline or in Brentwood, or mid rise in the inner city, is a huge strain on infrastructure. It isn't. On the whole, it requires less to service that type of development than the alternative.

There is a very real possibility that such arguments will have a strong influence on policy. We could see an inner city development levy implemented that bears a disproportionate share of infrastructure costs. Asking for development to share costs to upgrade infrastructure only in it's immediate vicinity isn't just about asking greenfield to pay for downstream effects, it is also recognizing that 50 unit condo in Crescent Heights shouldn't have to pay full cost of upgrading a sewer line if that line is also serving other upstream growth. The west memorial sanitary trunk line is a perfect example of this. Imagine if we asked only new developments in Bowness (where the line is being upgraded) to pay for this. It would effectively freeze development in that community.

I have no doubt in my mind that certain councillors will bring up similar arguments during the negotiations on off-site levies and hopefully administration, industry and more reasonable members of council will coherently make the case that inner city growth is desirable and we shouldn't unfairly punish it. I am not super optimistic about this though.

All I think we need is a system that fairly accounts for the burden on infrastructure to be accounted for in the levy calculations. I think some sort of "catchment" system is the best way to do this. As those in the development industry know, there are massive variances to acreage assessments for storm water (Elbow catchment vs Shepard- crazy!). I just think we should have similar ones for transportation (i.e. are some areas less expensive to serve than others) and sewer and water (as much as is reasonable).
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2015, 4:34 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedog View Post
Then people should be careful of statements like "The sewage treatment plants are in Bonnybrook and Pine Creek. The sanitary mains travel through the inner city to get to them".

I agree that suburbia is an interesting member who puts up a lot of interesting posts but responses to suburbia shouldn't go off the deep edge at the same time.

On a side note, does anyone know of publicly available CoC water and sewer system maps - it would be kind of interesting to peruse them.
Fair point.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2015, 4:35 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surrealplaces View Post
What's the current levy at, and what will the new one look like?
That is a question a lot of people want to know the answer to. Industry and the City are currently working through it, but no one really knows exactly how this will shake out yet.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2015, 3:53 PM
Deepstar's Avatar
Deepstar Deepstar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,291
That's my biggest beef. I'm not against development of new suburbs, but I find the anti-inner city sentiment ridiculous. I have have friend who lives in the burbs and he's always complaining about how downtown gets a fancy expensive bridge but Panorama Hills gets nothing. No amount of debate and logic will make him understand.

I wonder if there are any numbers out there for the total cost of infrastructure for a new subdivision?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
Exactly. I am not anti-suburb at all. I am just anti-ridiculous arguments against density. Inner city growth does not require more infrastructure, on the whole, as suburban development. That isn't to say that suburban development is bad, just that it isn't true that it's cheaper from a infrastructure perspective than inner city growth. Sadly, the sentiment that suburbia expresses is shared by many: politicians, lay people, even some in industry (less now as more and more developers and builders are diversifying and building in both greenfield and inner city markets and understand the implications of slagging inner city growth on their own business). Many think building towers in the Beltline or in Brentwood, or mid rise in the inner city, is a huge strain on infrastructure. It isn't. On the whole, it requires less to service that type of development than the alternative.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2015, 5:00 PM
speedog's Avatar
speedog speedog is offline
Moran supreme
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepstar View Post
That's my biggest beef. I'm not against development of new suburbs, but I find the anti-inner city sentiment ridiculous. I have have friend who lives in the burbs and he's always complaining about how downtown gets a fancy expensive bridge but Panorama Hills gets nothing. No amount of debate and logic will make him understand.

I wonder if there are any numbers out there for the total cost of infrastructure for a new subdivision?
I believe more and more of those new subdivision infrastructure costs are being rolled into the prices of those homes in those suburbs instead of being rolled on to the backs of all civic tax payers. I do remember the developers complaining about this in years past but to me, this seems fair - why should my almost inner-city bungalow that's been paying into the tax base for decades go to help build new areas and then I get stuck with a surtax or whatever they call it when my sidewalks wear out and need replacing.
__________________
Just a wee bit below average prairie boy in Canada's third largest city and fourth largest CMA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2015, 5:05 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
Exactly. I am not anti-suburb at all. I am just anti-ridiculous arguments against density. Inner city growth does not require more infrastructure, on the whole, as suburban development. That isn't to say that suburban development is bad, just that it isn't true that it's cheaper from a infrastructure perspective than inner city growth. Sadly, the sentiment that suburbia expresses is shared by many: politicians, lay people, even some in industry (less now as more and more developers and builders are diversifying and building in both greenfield and inner city markets and understand the implications of slagging inner city growth on their own business). Many think building towers in the Beltline or in Brentwood, or mid rise in the inner city, is a huge strain on infrastructure. It isn't. On the whole, it requires less to service that type of development than the alternative.

There is a very real possibility that such arguments will have a strong influence on policy. We could see an inner city development levy implemented that bears a disproportionate share of infrastructure costs. Asking for development to share costs to upgrade infrastructure only in it's immediate vicinity isn't just about asking greenfield to pay for downstream effects, it is also recognizing that 50 unit condo in Crescent Heights shouldn't have to pay full cost of upgrading a sewer line if that line is also serving other upstream growth. The west memorial sanitary trunk line is a perfect example of this. Imagine if we asked only new developments in Bowness (where the line is being upgraded) to pay for this. It would effectively freeze development in that community.

I have no doubt in my mind that certain councillors will bring up similar arguments during the negotiations on off-site levies and hopefully administration, industry and more reasonable members of council will coherently make the case that inner city growth is desirable and we shouldn't unfairly punish it. I am not super optimistic about this though.

All I think we need is a system that fairly accounts for the burden on infrastructure to be accounted for in the levy calculations. I think some sort of "catchment" system is the best way to do this. As those in the development industry know, there are massive variances to acreage assessments for storm water (Elbow catchment vs Shepard- crazy!). I just think we should have similar ones for transportation (i.e. are some areas less expensive to serve than others) and sewer and water (as much as is reasonable).
Agreed. The big debate right now with the off-site levy bylaw is whether to move toward a catchment based system versus a city wide levy approach (especially transportation) as it is now. Another element is whether linear connections for Water Resources (storm, sanitary and water) can simply be taken out of the levy and become simply a developer cost like on-site infrastructure in the greenfield area. Front ended and recouped from lagging developers to the leading developers with an endeavour to assist from the City.

Catchments for transportation (and say fire) as well as moving some infrastructure categories out of the levy is the way to go in my opinion. You can send price signals based in the real cost of infrastructure area to area and you can do more innovative and felixible financing. It can also help transfer some of the risk from the City to industry.

Things like treatment plants and truly city wide infrastructure and downstream transportation can stay within a city-wide levy structure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2015, 3:18 AM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cala Ghearraidh
Posts: 22,842
So with our municipal growth at 36 000, coupled with a suburban growth of around 7 500 (only including Airdrie, Cochrane, Chestermere), I would guess the next federal estimate of our metro area is gonna come in over 1 450 000 for 2015. Our previous federal estimate was 1 407 000 for 2014. I'd say a good guess would be 1 452 000. With that in mind, might as well just round up to 1.5 mil
__________________
Strong & Free

Mohkínstsis — 1.6 million people at the Foothills of the Rocky Mountains, 400 high-rises, a 300-metre SE to NW climb, over 1000 kilometres of pathways, with 20% of the urban area as parkland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2015, 2:32 PM
Surrealplaces's Avatar
Surrealplaces Surrealplaces is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cowtropolis
Posts: 19,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadillaccc View Post
So with our municipal growth at 36 000, coupled with a suburban growth of around 7 500 (only including Airdrie, Cochrane, Chestermere), I would guess the next federal estimate of our metro area is gonna come in over 1 450 000 for 2015. Our previous federal estimate was 1 407 000 for 2014. I'd say a good guess would be 1 452 000. With that in mind, might as well just round up to 1.5 mil
Of course throw in good old Okotoks and we are already there
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2015, 2:19 AM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cala Ghearraidh
Posts: 22,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surrealplaces View Post
Of course throw in good old Okotoks and we are already there
But you're forgetting how blasphemous the mere suggesting of including Okotoks is. Actually, how dare you! Heathen!

No it's true. The July 1, 2014 estimate of the regional population by Calgary Economic Development Agency is 1 512 000. So this year that number would be about 1 560 000.
__________________
Strong & Free

Mohkínstsis — 1.6 million people at the Foothills of the Rocky Mountains, 400 high-rises, a 300-metre SE to NW climb, over 1000 kilometres of pathways, with 20% of the urban area as parkland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > General Discussions, Culture, Dining, Sports & Recreation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:43 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.