1095 replies to this topic

[RFS]

Um, of course you wont see much in the core. It's been well established for a while. You can easily see the sprawl by the image comparison. It's not high density sprawl so its not a flat our grey.... Bonus is you can also see the trees filling in from the logging in the 80s!

Almost everything you have highlighted is clearly visible in the first photo which is mikes point. To say there has been real sprawl in Victoria is laughable.

[aastra]

I'm no fan of sprawl but Victoria is one of the least sprawling metro areas in the country. The physical extent of the CMA is about as narrowly defined as it could possibly be:

 

Selected CMAs:

 

Edmonton: 1,321,000   |   9,439 sq. km   |   avg. 140 per sq. km

 

Ottawa-Gatineau: 1,324,000   |   6,767 sq. km   |   avg. 196 per sq. km

 

Saskatoon: 295,000   |   5,891 sq. km   |   avg. 50 per sq. km

 

Halifax: 403,000   |   5,496 sq. km   |   avg. 73 per sq. km

 

Winnipeg: 778,000   |   5,307 sq. km   |   avg. 147 per sq. km

 

Calgary: 1,393,000   |   5,110 sq. km   |   avg. 273 per sq. km

 

Regina: 236,000   |   4,324 sq. km   |   avg. 55 per sq. km

 

Saint John, NB: 126,000   |   3,510 sq. km   |   avg. 36 per sq. km

 

Quebec City: 800,000   |   3,409 sq. km   |   avg. 235 per sq. km

 

Kelowna: 195,000   |   2,905 sq. km   |   avg. 67 per sq. km

 

London, ON: 494,000   |   2,662 sq. km   |   avg. 186 per sq. km

 

Moncton: 145,000   |   2,559 sq. km   |   avg. 57 per sq. km

 

Kingston: 161,000   |   1,939 sq. km   |   avg. 83 per sq. km

 

Windsor: 329,000   |   1,022 sq. km   |   avg. 322 per sq. km

 

Oshawa: 380,000   |   904 sq. km   |   avg. 420 per sq. km

 

St. John's, NFLD: 206,000   |   805 sq. km   |   avg. 256 per sq. km

 

Victoria: 368,000   |   696 sq. km   |   avg. 528 per sq. km

Guelph: 152,000   |   594 sq. km   |   avg. 256 per sq. km

http://www12.statcan...ndex.cfm?Lang=E

[nerka]

It's very, very hard to tell these two satellite images apart.

 

The images being crap may have something to do with that.

[Mike K.]

It's plenty fine to drive home the point.

 

Here's Edmonton 32-years apart. The changes are massive.

 

 

 

Edited.

[Nparker]

I can't see a difference between the photos. Maybe we're playing where's Waldo?

[Mike K.]

There we go. I uploaded the same image twice, lol.

[Mike K.]

Almost everything you have highlighted is clearly visible in the first photo which is mikes point. To say there has been real sprawl in Victoria is laughable.

 

That's the thing, right? We've got a few new roads and a few new enclaves that have appeared, but that's it. The rest is what we would consider infill or the closing of small gaps between already built-up areas.

 

The only serious sprawl in the CRD is Bear Mountain, Westhills and Sun River in Sooke, and even then the actual sprawl is tiny.

[RFS]

It's plenty fine to drive home the point.

Here's Edmonton 32-years apart. The changes are massive.

Screen Shot 2018-10-26 at 5.35.35 PM.png

Screen Shot 2018-10-26 at 5.23.28 PM.png

Edited.

Where a young family can buy a brand new SFD with a basement and 2 yards for $350k. Can you imagine living in such a terrible society as that 🙄

[Mike K.]

Oh yeah, horrible. And the roads are damn wide, too. Terrible.

[nerka]

It's plenty fine to drive home the point.

 

Here's Edmonton 32-years apart. The changes are massive.

 

In 32 years Edmonton CMA grew by more than 500,000 people (roughly adding six CoV's worth of people). In the same time frame Victoria CMA grew by about 100,000.  It would make more sense to compare Greater Victoria to a similar sized metro not to one 3.5 times our size.

[Mike K.]

It's not the volume of people, it's how much land each new person occupied.

 

In our case the difference over 32-years is negligible. But if we shared Edmonton's development patterns we'd see a considerable different between Victoria of 1984 and Victoria of 2016.

[Brantastic]

Yes, but what if we increase Vancouver Island’s urbanized area to 2.5% from 2.4% with unabated urban sprawl? What then??? What will happen to the animals?

You do also realize that Vancouver Island is not just one massive homogenous ecosystem, don't you? The South Island is one of Canada's biodiversity hotspots and several extremely rare species are primarily associated with only Garry Oak ecosystems, of which only about 5% of its original extent remains in Greater Victoria. Very little of it exists elsewhere on the island, just in small pockets along VI's eastern coast. Looking at total area is missing the point. Using that logic, it would be just fine if we wiped out The Great Barrier Reef as it only covers about 0.06% of Earth's surface! "The animals" will be fine!

Same goes for the Coastal Douglas Fir biogeoclimatic zone - very little of it left.

Are you seriously advocating for urban sprawl?

 

[Brantastic]

Btw, I am not saying that Victoria is sprawling at some crazy rate, and agree that it is very little compared to elsewhere in Canada, but I don't think sprawl should be encouraged. Infill seems to be a better option, IMO.

[nerka]

It's not the volume of people, it's how much land each new person occupied.

 

I agree with you on the land per person. I visit Edmonton often.  Victoria could fit whole neighbourhoods just within some of the freeway right of ways that Edmonton leaves.  I don't find the new neighbourhoods of Edmonton that attractive or functional for my lifestyle but people seem to love them.

[lanforod]

You do also realize that Vancouver Island is not just one massive homogenous ecosystem, don't you? The South Island is one of Canada's biodiversity hotspots and several extremely rare species are primarily associated with only Garry Oak ecosystems, of which only about 5% of its original extent remains in Greater Victoria. Very little of it exists elsewhere on the island, just in small pockets along VI's eastern coast. Looking at total area is missing the point. Using that logic, it would be just fine if we wiped out The Great Barrier Reef as it only covers about 0.06% of Earth's surface! "The animals" will be fine!

Same goes for the Coastal Douglas Fir biogeoclimatic zone - very little of it left.

Are you seriously advocating for urban sprawl?

 

 

Just to be clear here, you're referring to flora, not fauna.

Yes, there are some endangered plants. Garry Oak areas are heavily protected, urban sprawl here in the future won't affect that near as much as in the past.

 

In-fill is better, I agree, but there is plenty of infertile land in the area that would work fine for more SFH developments too.

[Brantastic]

No, I'm talking about both flora and fauna. There are several endangered animal species specifically associated with Garry Oak ecosystems. While I understand that Garry Oak areas are largely protected, my main point is that Vancouver Island is a complex landscape of smaller biogeoclimatic zones, each quite sensitive, so developing 0.1% of Vancouver Island has bigger ecological ramifications than Mike seems to assert. We have other options, so why knowingly destroy ecosystems?

I can't think of many areas of infertile land in the CRD that would make great SFH developments. 

[nerka]

I can't think of many areas of infertile land in the CRD that would make great SFH developments.

The rest of the giant Colwood gravel pit, between the hospital and the golf course, south slopes of skirt Mountain, and WNW of Camosun Interurban. Any development is going to have impacts. But in those areas you could either build new areas of SFHs or increase the density of SFHs without paving great farmland or slicing up untouched areas

[Mike K.]

Are you seriously advocating for urban sprawl?

I’m saying the concerns over Victoria’s urban sprawl are misplaced.

The misconception is most often voiced when there’s an animal sighting in the region and you hear the obligatory “well what do we expect if we keep destroying their habitats with urban sprawl?”

[G-Man]

I would certainly prefer to see some more housing going in the West Shore before letting anymore of the farms in Saanich or Highlands disappear. Having the ALR in place has likely saved Saanich from being an ugly place over the last 30 years. 

[rjag]

I would certainly prefer to see some more housing going in the West Shore before letting anymore of the farms in Saanich or Highlands disappear. Having the ALR in place has likely saved Saanich from being an ugly place over the last 30 years. 

 

What about Esquimalt? There could be some serious density changes there and it wouldnt have an effect on congestion