Does Canada protect green belts more so than the US? (appointed, apartment)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does Canada protect green belts more so than the US or does the US lack lot of green belts in lot of cities? What cities in the US have a lot of green belts?
I hear greater Toronto area can’t sprawl out any more because of the green belts and the same with Vancouver the farms limiting sprawl.
Is farmland less of heated debate in the US than Canada. I read comments on other message board Canadians attacking urban sprawl eating up farmland in Canada. In the US is the attitude different? Is that because more of the US land is ripe for farmland than Canada if 80% of the land or more in Canada is not ripe for farmland.
Does Canada protect green belts more so than the US or does the US lack lot of green belts in lot of cities? What cities in the US have a lot of green belts?................
Look at the map and familiarize yourself with the geography and the colours of the terrain and what those colours mean. You can zoom in and zoom out to see where all the cities and farm lands and all the green belts and lakes and rivers are in North America. Canada has more green belts and lakes than US and US has many, many more cities and more infrastructure and farmlands than Canada. The majority of the green belt regions in Canada have no roads or infrastructure going to them, a lot of them are under or floating as rafts on top of lake water and they are not accessible except by helicopters and by seaplanes that can land on lakes.
I think it’s more a Toronto and Vancouver thing. There’s probably some US cities that are similar. Maybe Denver? Nashville? I’m not totally sure but I’m sure they’re out there. I’m personally not a big fan. I think they exist mainly to make homeowners happy who don’t have to worry about new housing being built. These homeowners like the visual appeal of driving through fields on their morning commutes or if they’re retired, when they go to the city. Many farmers hate it, because it devalues their land. Renters like me hate it because it creates scarcity in the housing market. I’d look into somewhere like Edmonton or Winnipeg if you want to live somewhere in Canada that doesn’t have this constraint.
Greenbelts and agricultural land reserves are environmentally essential for the health and well being of all living organisms, including humans. All towns and cities should encourage an abundance of greenbelts for the good health and good mental well being of the residents and for the healthy micro-climates and moderation of climate changes that they create for all things living in the vicinity of green belts. A city without plenty of green belts is a very sick and unbalanced city and so are the people and any animals that may dwell in that city.
Greenbelts and agricultural land reserves are environmentally essential for the health and well being of all living organisms, including humans. All towns and cities should encourage an abundance of greenbelts for the good health and good mental well being of the residents and for the healthy micro-climates and moderation of climate changes that they create for all things living in the vicinity of green belts. A city without plenty of green belts is a very sick and unbalanced city and so are the people and any animals that may dwell in that city.
.
You’re not wrong. There’s a cost in terms of having local farmers markets close to the city and to a lesser extent conservation areas (I’m not a fan of developing those conservation areas). I think we’re mislead as the public for which these were implemented in the first place though, I think the primary purpose they serve is appeasing NIMBY (not in my back yard) voters who want to keep their neighbourhoods sort of frozen in time without more development. The problem is, economic projections and immigration are showing several million more people will be added to the Greater Toronto Area in the next 10 years. Housing costs are already so expensive, only 1 in 20 people who would want to buy their first home will have the income level required to get mortgage approval for even the cheapest properties on the market. Having to bulldoze already expensive homes to build new ones at a higher density isn’t going to single handedly fix the supply issues. I think infill is a good idea, but it’s a very slow process. Building a new property between two neighbours will mean both neighbouring houses will need to be sold. That can take years and years or even decades. Meanwhile millions of people will be cramming into every basement apartment, room for rent, even couch surfing and living in their cars waiting for something they can afford to become available. The people are coming whether we like it or not, our government would be failing to provide the most basic infrastructure growth if it doesn’t find a solution for this. I think farmland should be allowed to be sold to developers by the farmers who have been waiting years or decades to sell and get out. I don’t want to ruin wetlands and clear cut forests or anything like that. I don’t think we need to though.
PDW, I think this is something we probably won't agree on. See, I hate cities and I hate urban sprawl with a passion. They make me sick. Literally, both physically and mentally. The bigger the city, the worse the sickness. They make lots of other people sick too so the bigger the cities are, the sicker the people become and the more sick people there are the more there are of people living like deranged rats. Why do you think the term the "rat race" became a well know expression. It was born out of cities and it's really unhealthy. Humans weren't made to live like rats.
I do think that more housing, and definitely affordable housing at that, is necessary but not in or near already established big cities that are already packed full like tins of sardines and turning into slums. I also don't think that Canada should be trying to accommodate millions and millions of new immigrants and I don't approve of all those millions and millions of new immigrants being led to believe there's a place for them and them insisting on moving to already established cities. I think we need the development of many new towns and cities spread out across Canada instead and all those millions of new immigrants should be settling into those brand new cities. That's how a country grows. That's how Canada was settled by immigrants in the past, except that the immigrants then built the new cities themselves.
I care far more about Canada's farmlands and greenbelts and the environment and wildlife and new infrastructure and bright new towns and cities and the way the climate in Canada is changing than what I care about millions and millions of new people arriving in the next ten or twenty or fifty years. They already come only to be disappointed and disillusioned to find that there's "no room in the inn" for them and no place to go unless they're willing to hole up in slums. I feel bad for the poor immigrants coming here today thinking that there is a place for them when there isn't and there isn't even a proper place for our own homeless Canadian citizens to go to. It's a really dirty stunt to pull on new immigrants to have them come here believing that there is a place for them here in the established cities and so many of them end up living like homeless people when they arrive. I keep up with the national news, I know what's going on.
Forget about urban and suburban spread and sprawl and more development and more housing in and around existing cities. Build new infrastructure, cities and housing away from the established cities and make sure there is lots of space and lots of farmland, greenbelts and natural wild lands between cities. New cities for both new immigrants and Canadian born citizens who want a home they can call their own.
I hate big cities. They stink and create sickness, corruption, mental illnesses and crime. Give me a town of a hundred thousand or less with lots of green belt and parks and natural wild recreational areas and roomy, healthy houses with garages and big back yards for people to grow gardens in and that would be acceptable as a city.
No problem having different opinions, Zoisite. I’ve been joying our discussion regardless. I like your idea of encouraging development in more remote areas. Chevy brought up the Peace River area of Alberta a while ago and I agree with him that area is perfect to develop a new hub. Lots of arable land but probably not enough farmers actually living there to work the land properly.
Ottawa itself was a planned city of sorts in what was then a remote area in dense forest and wilderness. The British built the city there to protect our capital from American attacks, which Quebec City was too vulnerable. I’m not saying move the capital of Canada necessarily, but maybe we can move the capital of Ontario from Toronto to somewhere like Fort Frances to encourage more settlement in a remote area like that. It’s in a good location with access to Minneapolis and by extension the Mississippi River, plus similar to Peace River has a lot of undeveloped areas suitable for farming. Toronto losing Queens Park and things like that would be a drop in the bucket compared to its overall economy. Just an idea
Portland is well known for having a greenbelt. The Bay Area has something like that too. In much of the western US, the majority of the land is federally owned, which limits sprawl. That's why sprawl in Las Vegas is much denser than in, say, Indianapolis or Kansas City.
Within Canada, Ottawa, Toronto/Hamilton and Vancouver all have greenbelts, while the Prairie cities (Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg) do not.
The problem with Canada is very high immigration, plus limitations on infill/densification, plus greenbelts in the cities that most of the immigrants are moving too. Something's gotta give. My preference would be to bring immigration levels down to the sort of levels they were at under Chretien/Harper.
Perhaps immigration will be more evenly distributed in the future due to immigrants now having established communities in smaller cities, which would help, if it means cities like Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Halifax, Windsor, etc are able to attract immigrants too rather than just having most of them move to Toronto/Vancouver 10-20 years ago.
I’m not saying move the capital of Canada necessarily, but maybe we can move the capital of Ontario from Toronto to somewhere like Fort Frances to encourage more settlement in a remote area like that. It’s in a good location with access to Minneapolis and by extension the Mississippi River, plus similar to Peace River has a lot of undeveloped areas suitable for farming. Toronto losing Queens Park and things like that would be a drop in the bucket compared to its overall economy. Just an idea
.
Ottawa itself was a planned city of sorts in what was then a remote area in dense forest and wilderness. The British built the city there .
Ottawa was a pre-existing small city when it was chosen as the capital in 1857. The area had been settled since 1800 when the city of Hull right across the river was founded. Bytown (name later changed to Ottawa) was founded in 1826 during the period when the Rideau Canal was built.
So while Ottawa did get a population and development surge from being named the capital, it's not a purpose-built planned capital city like Washington, Canberra or Brasilia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
