just out of interest: a comparison of Vancouver and Calgary

[msmariner]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Maybe 17 years ago you could get anywhere in 20-30 minutes. If you're going from the deep south or north of the city to anywhere on the opposite side of downtown, 20-30 minutes would a very fast trip. Just getting from, say, Chinook to Sunnyside will take you that long if there's any traffic at all.

Type "Cranston to Coventry Hills" into google maps. 48 minutes, in no traffic. A city of 1.3 million people that takes 45-50 minutes to traverse end-to-end, largely at highway speed, is a sprawling city.

And Burnaby is closer to downtown Vancouver than Calgary's airport is to downtEown Calgary. Traffic congestion might make the drive longer, but that doesn't mean it sprawls--it means driving a car might not be the best way to get around. (For what it's worth, I DO think Vancouver and the Lower Mainland sprawl--but Calgary moreso.)

Just too throw some facts at your uneducated guess that Calgary sprawls more than Vancouver. From DT Calgary (which is basically the centre of town) to the eastern edge is less than 10km... Northern edge 15km... Southern edge 20km... Western edge 10km.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by msmariner

Comparing DT Calgary to the airport and DT Vancouver to Burnaby isn't a good comparison. It's freeway in Calgary...

The point he was trying to make was that you used the time to travel from Vancouver to Burnaby as evidence of sprawl. In that particular case, the drive doesn't take a long time because of distance, it's because of traffic. Calgary to the airport is farther, so it is more sprawled out.
It doesn't matter what kind of road is between them.

Sprawl is determined by distance, not travel time. It can take half an hour to drive a few blocks in Manhattan. Does that mean Manhattan sprawls?

Not that Vancouver doesn't sprawl, but the fact that you can drive along the ring road at 100 km/h for half an hour and still be in Calgary is pretty indicative of sprawl problems.

Originally Posted by msmariner

Just too throw some facts at your uneducated guess that Calgary sprawls more than Vancouver. From DT Calgary (which is basically the centre of town) to the eastern edge is less than 10km... Northern edge 15km... Southern edge 20km... Western edge 10km.

You also have to take into account population.

If you include Abbotsford, Greater Vancouver is nearly twice as populated as Calgary, but it doesn't nearly sprawl twice as much. And you have to take into account that sprawl in Vancouver is affected by the fact that it can't sprawl to the west, so it probably sprawls more to the east than it would otherwise as a result...

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by msmariner

I'm guessing you haven't been to Calgary recently. With the Stoney Trail 3/4 completed (it's a freeway), Cranston ( or anywhere in the Deep South) to Coventry (or anywhere in the north) is a breeze now. It's done easily in less than 30 mins.
Comparing DT Calgary to the airport and DT Vancouver to Burnaby isn't a good comparison. It's freeway in Calgary...

Sprawl isn`t about how long it takes to get places; it`s about distance and density. So it`s still an apt comparison. The fact that we use freeways to drive around within the city of Calgary is in itself an indicator of sprawl.

And I know Stoney Trail is done, but even in zero-traffic, it`s more than half an hour from the deep south to the far north (unless your start and end points are on the freeway itself, rather than in the local roads inside the communities).

Originally Posted by msmariner

Just too throw some facts at your uneducated guess that Calgary sprawls more than Vancouver. From DT Calgary (which is basically the centre of town) to the eastern edge is less than 10km... Northern edge 15km... Southern edge 20km... Western edge 10km.

¸

That`s enormous. 35 kilometres and rapidly expanding north to south, 20 east-west.

The city of Toronto, just to compare, is 17 kilometres, north to south, and 37 east to west, with twice as many people. Ultimately, TO is 640 sq. km., and Calgary is 825 sq. km. Calgary has half the people. And Toronto isn`t even that dense outside the downtown core--mostly 1940s-70s suburbia through Etobicoke, Scarborough, and North York.

Calgary isn`t quite as sprawly as Vegas or Phoenix or something, but that`s about it. It`s not like I`m slamming Calgary--I`m observing an incontrovertible fact about it. Vancouver sprawls too. But a city of 1.3 million that spans 800+ square kilometres is huge.

[msmariner]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Sprawl isn`t about how long it takes to get places; it`s about distance and density. So it`s still an apt comparison. The fact that we use freeways to drive around within the city of Calgary is in itself an indicator of sprawl.

And I know Stoney Trail is done, but even in zero-traffic, it`s more than half an hour from the deep south to the far north (unless your start and end points are on the freeway itself, rather than in the local roads inside the communities).

¸

That`s enormous. 35 kilometres and rapidly expanding north to south, 20 east-west.

The city of Toronto, just to compare, is 17 kilometres, north to south, and 37 east to west, with twice as many people. Ultimately, TO is 640 sq. km., and Calgary is 825 sq. km. Calgary has half the people. And Toronto isn`t even that dense outside the downtown core--mostly 1940s-70s suburbia through Etobicoke, Scarborough, and North York.

Calgary isn`t quite as sprawly as Vegas or Phoenix or something, but that`s about it. It`s not like I`m slamming Calgary--I`m observing an incontrovertible fact about it. Vancouver sprawls too. But a city of 1.3 million that spans 800+ square kilometres is huge.

Using stats from Wikipedia Calgary has a population of 1329/sq km ... Greater Vancouver 856/sq km.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by msmariner

Using stats from Wikipedia Calgary has a population of 1329/sq km ... Greater Vancouver 856/sq km.

The number for Vancouver is brought down very heavily by all the farmland within Greater Vancouver.
Just eyeballing it on google maps, I would guess that about a third of what is classified as Greater Vancouver is farmland. Anything that isn't ALR is much higher than 856/sq km.

Calgary on the other hand, is almost entirely filled in. Other than downtown, most of the city's area is low density suburban development. You have to go a fair ways out from Vancouver to find comparably low density development. As has been mentioned, the design of the road network in Calgary in these new developments doesn't help either. Most of Vancouver's sprawl is in some form of grid pattern.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

The number for Vancouver is brought down very heavily by all the farmland within Greater Vancouver.
Just eyeballing it on google maps, I would guess that about a third of what is classified as Greater Vancouver is farmland. Anything that isn't ALR is much higher than 856/sq km.

Calgary on the other hand, is almost entirely filled in. Other than downtown, most of the city's area is low density suburban development. You have to go a fair ways out from Vancouver to find comparably low density development. As has been mentioned, the design of the road network in Calgary in these new developments doesn't help either. Most of Vancouver's sprawl is in some form of grid pattern.

Well, I don't quite agree with you. Once you step outside downtown Vancouver, it's almost entirely low density just like Calgary. Only the adjoining cities have quite a few highly-densified neighbourhoods, especially Burnaby. Vancouver alone: pretty much like Calgary, although it is just beginning to change.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

The number for Vancouver is brought down very heavily by all the farmland within Greater Vancouver.
Just eyeballing it on google maps, I would guess that about a third of what is classified as Greater Vancouver is farmland. Anything that isn't ALR is much higher than 856/sq km.

And not just farmland but the North Shore mountains, which is technically part of the CMA but for obvious reasons has nearly no population.

It's not unlike Ottawa, where a large swath of rural land brings the official density stats down, or Halifax, a relatively compact urban centre with an absurdly low density of something like 80 people per square kilometre because the city was amalgamated into a "regional municipality" that encompasses thousands of square kilometres of forests and villages up and down the shore of Nova Scotia.

It's really tricky to compare Canadian cities and metro areas for density since they're really divvied up very inconsistently.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Vin

Well, I don't quite agree with you. Once you step outside downtown Vancouver, it's almost entirely low density just like Calgary. Only the adjoining cities have quite a few highly-densified neighbourhoods, especially Burnaby. Vancouver alone: pretty much like Calgary, although it is just beginning to change.

Most of the city of Vancouver is single family homes, sure, but most are built on small lots with a fairly dense grid pattern of streets. The pre-war neighbourhoods are quite dense for SFH.
The difference in Calgary is that much of the new development is on a road network that winds around and is forced to have more space between roads. Most of the major roads in the suburbs don't have any development along the sides at all.

While the space between houses is similar:
http://goo.gl/maps/cfvRz
http://goo.gl/maps/iHzNH

Vancouver doesn't have the same undeveloped gaps between roads and development:
http://goo.gl/maps/YVq5G
http://goo.gl/maps/XXHt6

You have to go at least as far out as Surrey to get the same kind of undeveloped gaps near Vancouver. But in Calgary they can be found surprisingly close to the city centre... http://goo.gl/maps/Na4XN

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

High ridership levels combined with good roads and excellent bike path network has left Calgarians with a great transportation system.

When looking at the traffic congestion on Deerfoot, Glenmore and Crowchild, not once have I ever thought "what a great transportation system".

[msmariner]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

Most of the city of Vancouver is single family homes, sure, but most are built on small lots with a fairly dense grid pattern of streets. The pre-war neighbourhoods are quite dense for SFH.
The difference in Calgary is that much of the new development is on a road network that winds around and is forced to have more space between roads. Most of the major roads in the suburbs don't have any development along the sides at all.

While the space between houses is similar:
http://goo.gl/maps/cfvRz
http://goo.gl/maps/iHzNH

Vancouver doesn't have the same undeveloped gaps between roads and development:
http://goo.gl/maps/YVq5G
http://goo.gl/maps/XXHt6

You have to go at least as far out as Surrey to get the same kind of undeveloped gaps near Vancouver. But in Calgary they can be found surprisingly close to the city centre... http://goo.gl/maps/Na4XN

Not a very good example. That is one of the oldest neighbourhoods in calgary. Which is in a grid system. That street is winding down a steep hill (steep for calgary ) with the Foothills hospital land on one side and a steep bank on the other.

[Drybrain]

Honestly, how is this a matter of debate? Calgary has very meaningfully urbanized in recent years and continues to do so, but it is fundamentally a suburban city. Granted, the Vancouver area gets way too much credit, often from Vancouverities, for being some ideal urban achievement of livability and density—like all Canadian cities, it has enormous tracts of nasty sprawl. But:

1. It has a far more urbanized inner city
2. Proportionally, far more of it is on a walkable (albeit only medium- to low-density) grid system
3. It has several small but densely built regional town centres (New West, White Rock, Mission, Port Coquitlam, West Van, maybe Ladner to stretch the definition) or new-built suburban city centres dominated by mid-rise and condo/apartments (Surrey, Langley, Guildford).
4. Its suburbia has more towersand mid-rise buildings than Calgary's (though this is changing in Calgary)

It's denser and less sprawly. It's not a matter of opinion. It's observable fact.

[logan5]

There really aren't any dense neighbourhoods outside of the beltline in Calgary, so I think the City has to start being more progressive as far as city building goes. Not just some token development like Garrison Woods but more far reaching policies.

There are some street grid neighbourhoods in Calgary to build walk-able neighbourhoods around. The neighbourhoods flanking Centre St. N looks like a good place to start. Mid rise on the arterial road, stepping down to low rise, then row-house further away from the arterial street. That's what I would be pushing for, but overall maybe there's just not enough demand for this type of housing, and that's why you don't see more density.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by msmariner

Not a very good example. That is one of the oldest neighbourhoods in calgary. Which is in a grid system. That street is winding down a steep hill (steep for calgary ) with the Foothills hospital land on one side and a steep bank on the other.

Fair enough, but there are arterial roads all over the city with no development whatsoever alongside them.
http://goo.gl/maps/6dIsD
http://goo.gl/maps/tES3N
http://goo.gl/maps/kKVLb

Anything comparable, even out in Surrey or Langley, generally has businesses or housing built up right against the road.
http://goo.gl/maps/ek0J4
http://goo.gl/maps/F7eUd

I'm not trying to say Vancouver doesn't sprawl... By all means, the Lower Mainland has a long way to go before it could be considered anything other than a city that sprawls way out into the Fraser Valley. But Calgary absolutely sprawls more considering the population difference, and there isn't really any point to try to argue otherwise. That's not to say I don't like the city of Calgary either. I've really enjoyed myself whenever I've gone.

[ozonemania]

I think in Calgary, all the incentive is towards sprawl. The central employment centre (downtown), the feeder style mass transit solution, the ring roads and freeways, the unencumbered capability to grow outward. These are a recipe for sprawl, and sprawl done well, I would dare say.

The fact that Calgary is developing densified population town centres etc to me seems more of a matter of fashion and choice -- it's trendy to do the urban living thing. But there is nothing hindering your ability to have your own plot of land, white picket fence and 2 car garage.

[ssiguy]

Calgary sprawls quite a bit but when it comes to quality of life, people in the suburbs of Calgary have a far better time of it than Vancouverites. That extra hour or so you don't have to spend commuting everyday means a lot.

Vancouver has to face some realities. In many ways Vancouver has made a lot of very good and progressive urban planning decisions and it's new TODs around SkyTrain are good examples of suburban growth. However Vancouver must also realize that when it come to transportation, the "Vancouver model" has been a failure of epic proportions.

Contrary to popular belief, Vancouver does not have high per-capita ridership levels. It is only on a par with Ott/Van but has twice the population. Vancouver also has the second longest commutes in NA which is absurd for a city that doesn't even rank in NA 20 largest metros and is a newer city to boot.

Vancouver has done a lot of things well but it's transportation system is definitely not one of them.

[logan5]

You must have amnesia.

[GlassCity]

I honestly think he's doing it just to get a rile out of us now.

[Chadillaccc]

When talking about how much Calgary sprawls, and especially coupled with how low our population density is, one also has to consider that the City of Calgary has over 120 km2 of undeveloped land within its municipal borders. That's an area nearly the size of the City of Kitchener. Total farm land, inside the city. Our municipal area is 825 km2, while our urban area is only 704 km2. Considering that the share of our development going to greenfield is on the downsing, and the share of our development going to intensification is on the upswing, we have a LOOOONG way to go before we fill up the area within our own borders. However, by then we'll probably have annexed another 100 km2 of farmland just to get Chestermere.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Calgary isn`t quite as sprawly as Vegas or Phoenix or something, but that`s about it. It`s not like I`m slamming Calgary--I`m observing an incontrovertible fact about it. Vancouver sprawls too. But a city of 1.3 million that spans 800+ square kilometres is huge.

Calgary doesn't span 800+ km2, the municipal borders do. The city as it currently exists spans just over 700 km2. Hence the city's Unicity strategy of annexing contiguous suburbs and nearby farmland.

[Drybrain]

What does it mean that the only people who think Calgary isn't sprawly are Calgarians? (I used to be a Calgarian, so maybe my opinion half-counts.)

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

What does it mean that the only people who think Calgary isn't sprawly are Calgarians? (I used to be a Calgarian, so maybe my opinion half-counts.)

What does it mean when people who live in larger cities with greater sprawl than Calgary think their cities don't sprawl? I guess sprawl is ignorable if it's dense sprawl? Perhaps a Vancouver vs Hong Kong and Calgary vs Perth thread would put things in better perspective as sprawl and density are functions of population and geography far more than great city planning. Calgary could have 3 million people or 9 million population and will not have the densities of a Vancouver or a Hong Kong nor the sprawl of a Melbourne or Chicago, so give it a rest.