Winnipeg rethinks suburban sprawl (Pittsburgh, Oakmont: sales, home, buy)

[squarian]

Winnipeg, MB is probably not on a lot of Pittsburghers' radar screens, unless there are some hockey fans who recall the Jets, but maybe this article will interest anyone following the ongoing discussions here around development and urban sustainability issues:

Winnipeg rethinks suburban sprawl with downtown reinvention - The Globe and Mail

[I_Like_Spam]

A lot of people like to live in the suburbs and have a yard and a little bit of privacy that such a lifestyle provides.

Others see living in the city as a more convenient and sociable way to live.

I suppose that some suburbanite types, if they were exposed to city living might take a liking to it, but others would be miserable as heck without grass to cut and room for a swimming pool and a dog run.

I don't think pressuring people into accepting city living is really a way to promote tranquility, it would drive a lot of folks nuts to live in Regent Square or Lawrenceville or Aspinwall or Oakmont.

[squarian]

ILS: Not sure if that's a comment on the article or just obiter dicta, but I don't see anything in it about (aboot?) pressuring people.

[BrianTH]

If you read the article, the main factors are:

(1) High energy prices;

(2) Getting rid of a zoning law that was preventing mixed-use developments;

(3) Tax and financing incentives;

(4) Freeing up surface parking lots for development; and

(5) University expansions.

Not a lot of coercion going on there. In fact a lot of it is pretty free-markety, with the exception of the public financing.

By the way, Aspinwall, Oakmont, and most of Regent Square are suburbs. There are even lawns.

[onwardandupward]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

By the way, Aspinwall, Oakmont, and most of Regent Square are suburbs. There are even lawns.

..and pools, and even dog runs (gasp)!

[TechieTransplant]

Originally Posted by squarian

Winnipeg, MB is probably not on a lot of Pittsburghers' radar screens, unless there are some hockey fans who recall the Jets

Those were the days! Staying up to watch home games that started at 9:35pm eastern. And to think they moved the team to Phoenix? Anyway....

[JayDiFiore]

Originally Posted by scottrpriester

Those were the days! Staying up to watch home games that started at 9:35pm eastern. And to think they moved the team to Phoenix? Anyway....

Fear not...

Thrashers-to-Winnipeg on fast track -- as is conference realignment - NHL - Sporting News

[TechieTransplant]

Originally Posted by JayDiFiore

Fear not...

Thrashers-to-Winnipeg on fast track -- as is conference realignment - NHL - Sporting News

I'm on top of it!

[PeeAye Native]

There are some interesting statements in that article, one of which is

Around the world there is a growing understanding that suburban sprawl is unsustainable, and that, for cities to survive, they must shrink back in on themselves, tightening up, promoting density and pushing their growing population into space already served by existing infrastructure and social services.

I’m surprised the tea-partiers and cut-govt-spending-at-all-levels types haven’t latched onto this yet.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

If you read the article, the main factors are:

(1) High energy prices;

(2) Getting rid of a zoning law that was preventing mixed-use developments;

(3) Tax and financing incentives;

(4) Freeing up surface parking lots for development; and

(5) University expansions.

Not a lot of coercion going on there. In fact a lot of it is pretty free-markety, with the exception of the public financing.

By the way, Aspinwall, Oakmont, and most of Regent Square are suburbs. There are even lawns.

In Pennsylvania, I think the biggest factor is the patchwork layout of municipal boundaries and the resulting incentives for each municipality, especially the growing rural townships on the periphery of growth, to unknowingly (usually) look out for their own best interests at the expense of neighboring municipalities, or the greater region. Here’s an example:

Say you are a commercial developer who develops or builds properties for WalMart (or Target, or Giant food stores, or Lowes or etc.). You’re made aware of a location where a Walmart (or other retail big box store) is desired (by the big box owners), and in a typical situation, for various financial reasons, you select a smallish township, and you approach the municipal leaders. One part of your sales pitch to the elected officials is all parties win, Walmart gets a new location, and your township gets increased revenues, with which you can buy new police cars, hire more police, get a new administration building, and get that backlog of infrastructure maintenance up to date. (How many formerly sleepy townships across the state has this happened to, a big box store opens up, and in a year or two there's a bigger police force with multiple new cars, a shiny new administration building, some infrastructure improvements, and the list goes on. I can think of several instances of this in the SE part of the state).

And you casually suggest, what other opportunity to increase your municipal revenues are going to come along in the foreseeable future, and then you add that if your township is not interested, the other guys two townships over will jump at the opportunity.

So what was once a sleepy semi-rural suburban area on the outskirts of a larger area is presented with an opportunity for some growth. The local elected officials usually go for it, after all who’s going to get voted out of office for increasing the tax base with some new retail?

If there were incentives to consider the bigger picture, regionally, growth in the state would happen differently than it does now.

[Ann_Arbor]

This sounds a lot like what is going on here. Canada has as severe of a suburban sprawl problem as the US, though it is a bit more dense up there. Rather than willy-nilly, exurban areas are being planned along bus routes as well- look at Toronto..