Housing Choices - where you choose to live

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Me&You

That's just one of many glaring issues. This might be the worst Avenue list yet...

Any list generated by a business who makes its living selling ads has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Took a quick look at the accompanying list of 50 great things in 50 great neighbourhoods and they had Olly Fresco was listed. Olly Fresco? There's an Olly's in my building, I'll walk 2 blocks so I don't have to eat there.

[suburbia]

I didn't realize we had 175 neighbourhoods in our city.

[Spring2008]

Originally Posted by fusili

Great report, but it also illustrates how much resources our bureaucracy puts into suburban growth and how woefully inadequate we are when it comes to anything else.

What are the steps you'd suggest to reverse this. For one I'd like to see enhanced inner-city ARP's and the city consistently following through on allowing proposals that abide by ARP guidelines regardless of Nimbyism.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

What are the steps you'd suggest to reverse this. For one I'd like to see enhanced inner-city ARP's and the city consistently following through on allowing proposals that abide by ARP guidelines regardless of Nimbyism.

Geodemographics is already putting more resources into things like assessing inner city land supply (although I don't think they fully grasp the complexity and nuance of it just yet), so that is a start.

I think things like city-initiated land uses would be useful, but it seems the city either sees this as lost revenue ("we don't get application fees!!") or as a handout to developers, rather than, say, an economic development tool or a growth management tool. There are so many instances where the city will undertake some policy exercise (an ARP review for instance), but then won't zone the land for it, and will rely on developers to come in with land use redesignations to actually implement the changes. What this results in is an inner city woefully underzoned for density and a situation where developers have to take the risk to rezone the land in a policy environment that is vague and uncertain. Not a great way to pursue a growth management policy.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

For one I'd like to see enhanced inner-city ARP's and the city consistently following through on allowing proposals that abide by ARP guidelines regardless of Nimbyism.

UPDATED ARPs. not "enhanced." ARPs are the ultimate tool of the NIMBY and that can cite ridiculously outdated- like more the 30 years outdated in my neighbourhood- ARP to block pretty much everything.

[Spring2008]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

UPDATED ARPs. not "enhanced." ARPs are the ultimate tool of the NIMBY and that can cite ridiculously outdated- like more the 30 years outdated in my neighbourhood- ARP to block pretty much everything.

Updated and enhanced. More clarity on permitted uses, FAR, max heights, density bonuses etc for each site. And once in place, stick to it. Reduce development risks.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

UPDATED ARPs. not "enhanced." ARPs are the ultimate tool of the NIMBY and that can cite ridiculously outdated- like more the 30 years outdated in my neighbourhood- ARP to block pretty much everything.

Originally Posted by Spring2008

Updated and enhanced. More clarity on permitted uses, FAR, max heights, density bonuses etc for each site. And once in place, stick to it. Reduce development risks.

Actually Rusty, technically it isn't an "Updated" ARP, it is an amendment to the ARP, and a series of amendments is called an "office consolidation." If you are going to nitpick on people's terminology, you should expect the same. Point being you know what he meant; no need to nitpick.

ARPs in this city are notoriously vague, outdated and generally hostile to redevelopment. There are a few exceptions in a few areas, but most are premised on the idea that single family detached homes are the only acceptable form of development.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by fusili

ARPs in this city are notoriously vague, outdated and generally hostile to redevelopment. There are a few exceptions in a few areas, but most are premised on the idea that single family detached homes are the only acceptable form of development.

QFT - Further the area that ARP's typically cover are tiny or you end up with multiple overlapping ones. In some cases the overlapping ARP contradict one another.

Also holding on to the ARP's intent despite it being unfeasible cause issues. One has the intent of making a rear lane a mews, but the resulting stepbacks has caused significant issues with getting redevelopment started, but yet many hold on to this without realizing that the redevelopment of the area may be prevented by this item.

In other cases the ARP's are so specific that the remove any ability for a developer to be creative, one defines that balconies must be recessed. This creates fights at the CA level as to aesthetic views rather than focusing on the outcome.

Another part that complicates this is the CA's many have small areas and typically have a why us attitude when it comes to densification. This is further emphasized when you have communities that have been typically excluded from the densification (mount royal, rosedale, etc.).

[suburbia]

The recent exchange on the East Village thread between BigTime and others may be best placed here. Some selections for you:

Originally Posted by MasterG

East Village's success hinges on accepting the vitality that young people and their loud music festivals bring, while still being a welcome place for people that will actually afford to live there. Yaletown, Vancouver is what happens when you price out all activities, services and housing options for the 18-25 year olds. It looks great but is a cultural dead-zone despite all it's density.

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I'm sorry but I'm in the "fuck chasing summer" camp. That shit kept me up until 11:30 last night and judging by my wife's 20 minute wait on 311 we weren't the only ones not impressed. A quick look at the 311 app confirmed as much.

I shouldn't be able to feel the bass from the distance we are from Fort Calgary. Also folks in Sunalta, Bankview, Inglewood, Crescent Heights, Bridgeland, and Rosedale talking about the noise.

Originally Posted by nick.flood

EDM is way more disruptive than other types of festivals. Repetive low frequency bass for 6-10 straight hours can make some people ill. Many can't sleep through it, and to those that say it's ok that it just runs to 11, not everyone is on a standard 9-5 schedule. I hope my surgeon who's getting up at 5 doesn't live next to this.

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

I've had more days ruined by stupid parades (Irish, Puerto Rican, Gay, Stampede, whatever) than I can recall, but a ton of others love it, and it kind of goes with the territory of living in the inner city. I don't particularly love EDM, but I'm sure its something that a lot of younger people love, and it helps them be more engaged with their city. I think an 11pm cut-toff is pretty reasonable.

You've gotta be careful about complaints. Enough people do it and eventually somebody will actually listen... and probably way over-react in terms of restricting activity for everyone.

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

He's just doing his regular troll job, guys. Ignore and move on.

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Hey no problem with the music playing just across the river during the day. BUT, here are all these people at the park. All ages, singles, couples, groups of friends, families. Then you get to hear whatever DJ is on the one stage clearly shouting out nice and loud "Calgary, make some FUCKING noise! Let me see you FUCKING jump!" over and over again.

Originally Posted by Lukylucky

If people are not able to handle some noise, well you might wanna join Suburbia in his quite dead suburb and this is probably where they belong.

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Also if you are paying any attention to social media there have been complaints for multiple years about this event, so your assumption that this will spell the end of it isn't likely (now the 17 drug overdoses on the other hand...).

<>Closing doors and windows did NOTHING to abate the vibration one could feel in their body from long distances away.<>

Just because you have been to "way worst" festivals doesn't mean we can't expect better and have the city work with the organizers to find some solutions to issues that it clearly causes.

Originally Posted by MasterG

If we are to crack down on festivals for noise, bass and general discomfort to the un-attending public, Stampede is the biggest festival culprit this city has by an order of magnitude for chaos and negatively impacting communities nearby. Of course, nothing is done because it is a long-time sanctioned event for the mainstream. Hell, the Stampede even gets the city to throw in millions of dollars worth of free extras such as 24-hour transit, city sponsored advertising and street closures that aren't compensated for as far as I am aware.

<>We certainly don't need another McMahon Stadium concert ban for Fort Calgary.

Having loud music in the inner city on a few beautiful Friday and Saturday nights in August isn't a bad thing.

Originally Posted by artvandelay

I'm sorry Bigtime, but I think you're out to lunch complaining to 311 about noise from this festival. They ended at exactly 11 pm, a more than reasonable time for a weekend night. Dealing with occasional noise is part of living near downtown, and I look at it as a trade off for the convenience and vibrancy of the area. There are plenty of quiet suburbs in the inner city to move to as well if it's that bothersome. I'd encourage you to think about whether you want to turn downtown Calgary into nofunville before the next time you phone in a noise complaint, because that's what will happen if enough people complain.

So there you have it. In response to Bigtime saying that profanity loud enough to be heard 4 km away being unreasonable, at least two people suggested he move (lukylucky and artvandelay), and two people attempted to bully him into not calling 311 because it is his type that stop the vibrancy of Calgary (corporatewhore and artvandelay).

For the record, I stand with Bigtime. No one should be bullied into not expressing their concerns. He is an owner and resident of the area he is in, and this should be respected. In fact, his vote should count more than those who don't pay municipal taxes in these areas. Yes, people have choices as to where they live, but it is their choice, and it is not for others to dictate that to them.

[shogged]

^ lol

[Lukylucky]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The recent exchange on the East Village thread between BigTime and others may be best placed here. Some selections for you:





















So there you have it. In response to Bigtime saying that profanity loud enough to be heard 4 km away being unreasonable, at least two people suggested he move (lukylucky and artvandelay), and two people attempted to bully him into not calling 311 because it is his type that stop the vibrancy of Calgary (corporatewhore and artvandelay).

For the record, I stand with Bigtime. No one should be bullied into not expressing their concerns. He is an owner and resident of the area he is in, and this should be respected. In fact, his vote should count more than those who don't pay municipal taxes in these areas. Yes, people have choices as to where they live, but it is their choice, and it is not for others to dictate that to them.

Well for your information, I own a place DT, and I just bought a condo in East village, so yeah I pay and will keep on paying municipal taxes in the area...
And we all know that you don't like vibrancy, so why would you take our side anyway.
Please just stay in your dead suburb and leave us alone. And yes it took me 2 seconds to figure out who you are. Maybe you should start a thread why is my cookie cutter house so different from the other 100,000. Or what to do in my dead suburb this weekend?
Ps: keep dreaming about your firepark sport entertainment complex.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Lukylucky

Well for your information, I own a place DT, and I just bought a condo in East village, so yeah I pay and will keep on paying municipal taxes in the area...
And we all know that you don't like vibrancy, so why would you take our side anyway.
Please just stay in your dead suburb and leave us alone. And yes it took me 2 seconds to figure out who you are. Maybe you should start a thread why is my cookie cutter house so different from the other 100,000. Or what to do in my dead suburb this weekend?
Ps: keep dreaming about your firepark sport entertainment complex.

With all of the contributions Aaron has made to this forum (and this city) you'd think people would have a little more respect for the guy.

Oh - and mine is a custom home, so quite different from the condo context where they are all the same.

[rotten42]

I know you all like to call it a "dead suburb" but they all aren't always like that. There are a lot of parties and BBQ's that are noisy and go late.....good! I like that people can have fun in their neighbourhood. Vitality can exist anywhere in the city if you let it. To bitch everytime there is noise would create a horrible place to live. So, the scale may change but the issue doesn't whether you are in the burbs on in the village.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by rotten42

I know you all like to call it a "dead suburb" but they all aren't always like that. There are a lot of parties and BBQ's that are noisy and go late.....good! I like that people can have fun in their neighbourhood. Vitality can exist anywhere in the city if you let it. To bitch everytime there is noise would create a horrible place to live. So, the scale may change but the issue doesn't whether you are in the burbs on in the village.

Yes and no. There is a critical mass that is required for drug overdoses to exceed one dozen per day.

Joking aside, you're absolutely correct. I don't think anyone is saying having fun is bad and some noise is unacceptable. The question is about how to balance, and perhaps there was something about this particular event in East Village that was problematic. Consider the comments from EMS, which highlighted that sending out 17 ambulances is enough to possibly put other parts of the city at risk should more emergencies happen. I can't understand anyone being against the point EMS made. It is an unacceptable risk, and the tax payer is not going to go out there and buy more ambulances and staff them because of a private money making party. One of the article mentioned a larger event in Vancouver, but at the same time highlighted that it had 160 health workers (that doesn't solve the noise / profanity issue, but just highlighting that there are easy solutions to some of the considerations). These are not public events, they are private and they make (a lot of) money. So why should there be a slippery slope of (unacceptable) concessions always made by the public at large? The stampede, within this context, is a not for profit, so the parallel is actually not even there.

[Full Mountain]

If 17 ambulances over the course of 2 days is causing a strain on our health care system we have bigger problems than a festival. 17 would be less than having one on site for the duration of the festival (20 hours over 2 days). Worst case this means that there would have been 2 involved in care for the festival, I would bet even without a single drug on the site you would have that many cases just from dehydration/sun stroke.

[Fuzz]

As far as I know these events also pay for medical presence, and it is required.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

If 17 ambulances over the course of 2 days is causing a strain on our health care system we have bigger problems than a festival. 17 would be less than having one on site for the duration of the festival (20 hours over 2 days). Worst case this means that there would have been 2 involved in care for the festival, I would bet even without a single drug on the site you would have that many cases just from dehydration/sun stroke.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

As far as I know these events also pay for medical presence, and it is required.

You guys don't know what you're talking about. Consider the following:
- when an ambulance is dispatched for a person who might die, they pick up the person and then need to wait at emergency till the individual is accepted into care, so it is not like a tax service. Each ambulance and related staff are basically out of service for many hours (I don't know the average, but likely in the range of four to five hours counting driving to site, servicing on site, going to hospital, servicing at hospital and waiting for emerg, and driving back to home base).
- while events like this often have health workers on site, from one of the articles, a similar event in vancouver had 160 such workers, and this one was no where close.
- health workers on site doesn't resolve serious issues that need to be transported to hospital. The 17 overdoses were in addition to less severe overdoses and heat stroke type things that would have been managed without going to an acute care site.
- they likely did have an ambulance on site, but not 17
- there is a fixed modest number of ambulances required for a city our size, and they are housed is a distributed manner so as to service all of the population equitably. To have 17 being blocked off, basically for half a day each over a period of 36 hours is absolutely material. That number went up 70% from last year, so you don't know what it could be next year. This is a legitimate concern and risk, and the for-profit organizers do not pay for this. If someone dies somewhere else because their ambulance in say signal hill was called into fort calgary and so signal hill became at risk, the organizers don't go back and give the person their life. That type of collateral is unacceptable.

I'm amazed you guys are defending drug overdoses and risks to human life. I'm with the deputy mayor on this one.

[Fuzz]

Oh, I don't know what I'm talking about?

With several hundred event security staff and volunteers onsite, along with our onsite medical team, pay duty AHS EMT, pay duty Calgary Police Service officers, and on-site ambulance, our comprehensive emergency response plan allowed our team to effectively respond to any incidents as they arose in a quick and efficient manner.

http://www.unionevents.com/2015/08/1...g-summer-2015/

That means they paid for the medical presence there, which is exactly what I said. Stuff it. Events do this all the time. The system is setup for it.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Oh, I don't know what I'm talking about?

Yes, within this context, you clearly didn't have a clear understanding of the gravity of the situation or their implications. Is that clear enough for you?

EDIT:

Responding to your phantom edit:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

http://www.unionevents.com/2015/08/1...g-summer-2015/

That means they paid for the medical presence there, which is exactly what I said.

I never denied this at a general level, and if you read my post carefully (like word for word) you'll see I acknowledged that they would have had 'some' health workers but clearly not enough (as highlighted in an article on the matter comparing with a vancouver event) and they certainly did not have 17 ambulances. From your link they state, "on-site ambulance." Note that it was singular, not plural.

Within this context, your comment was misleading and unhelpful, and that is because either you wanted to mislead, or you don't understand the medical system. I assumed the latter, but perhaps it was the former.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Stuff it. Events do this all the time. The system is setup for it.

No. The system was not set-up for 17 people needing hospital care, and ambulances had to be re-directed.

Stuff it yourself.

[Fuzz]

Didn't mean to phantom edit, accidentally hit post.

Did EMS enter into a red alert status? If not, then I don't see it as being something to get worried about. It wasn't 17 ambulances all at once, it was over the entire event.

How about you stop assuming what I do and do not know from one sentence?

I'm not defending the event or the stupid actions of those involved.