Waterloo Region Connected

(09-07-2020, 06:19 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]Some people want that, though, so we're always going to have suburban areas. jeffster is right in saying that not all people don't want to live in urban areas in a tiny apartment. I have spent most of my life growing up in Europe and there are tons of people there who would love to have a detached home like so many people over here have. It's pretty natural to want your own independent home with your own tiny plot of land to use, so much so that in countries like Russia it's common to own a dacha in addition to an apartment in the city. There's no need to get passive aggressive over it. The city has spent the last two decades trying to densify and urbanize, but we can't exactly force people to accept that. There needs to be a balance and we're at least trying to work towards it.

We all project what we want universally and think everyone else should want what we want. I in particular have no desire to have an independent tiny plot of land (townhouses are my favourite compromise) but other people want hem. But it is a fact that detached housing should be more expensive to buy and it is more expensive to service.

(09-07-2020, 06:19 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]Some people want that, though, so we're always going to have suburban areas. jeffster is right in saying that not all people don't want to live in urban areas in a tiny apartment. I have spent most of my life growing up in Europe and there are tons of people there who would love to have a detached home like so many people over here have. It's pretty natural to want your own independent home with your own tiny plot of land to use, so much so that in countries like Russia it's common to own a dacha in addition to an apartment in the city. There's no need to get passive aggressive over it. The city has spent the last two decades trying to densify and urbanize, but we can't exactly force people to accept that nor expect it to happen in an instant. There needs to be a balance and we're at least trying to work towards it.

First of all, this belief that the only choice is a "tiny apartment" in an urban area, is just missinformation, it is entirely possible to live in a dense urban area and live in a townhome, or a walkup, or any number of missing middle housing forms. It is also entirely possible to live in a large apartment, as I do. Just because our broken policies have made building these types of housing impossible, does not mean that they can not exist.

Second of all, as I explained in my first comment, those who want to live in a car dependent suburban hellscape have a nearly unlimited selection of locations in the city. It is those who want a walkable livable complete community who find it nearly impossible or completely impossible (depending on one's budget) to find a location that suits their needs.

I am not being passive aggressive, I am being very direct, I am tired of missinformation and missrepresentation around the issue of housing.  The city has not spent the last two decades doing anything of the sort.  In the past two decades the vast vast VAST majority of the housing built has been in the form of suburban housing trackts that are impossible to live in without a car. The remainder has been in the form of tiny apartments that are limited to a few tiny areas of development and that has only happened in the last few years.  You can probably count on one hand the number of small scale missing middle developments that have happened in walkable areas in the city.

The ONLY people forcing someone to live somewhere they don't want to is those who oppose densifying the city. We are working towards balance sure...but we've barely even moved the needle away from complete car dependence.

For those who aren't sure...here's a walkscore map...I have some issues with the methodology, but it provides a reasonable map, the green areas are ones where you could reasonably expect to live without a car without too much hardship...(still some, to be sure).

[attachment=7289]

Only a tiny portion of the city qualifies.

Edit: Oh, and make sure you see only the actual green areas, there are many parks that look a little green, it's only an illusion.

I successfully live in a yellow area without a car! It's a bit more hardship - a lot of transit or walking trips - but it fits my lifestyle. I don't harbour any illusions that many other people would be willing to live this way, however.

(09-07-2020, 10:15 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]I successfully live in a yellow area without a car! It's a bit more hardship - a lot of transit or walking trips - but it fits my lifestyle. I don't harbour any illusions that many other people would be willing to live this way, however.

That's fair, and many people do both willingly but mostly unwillingly, for economic or other reasons. I did as well for a while, but have since moved to the "green zone" because I am so privileged to have that option--even in the green zone, not everything is sunshine and roses.

It would likely be illustrative, if someone were to overlay a zoning map on top of this walkscore map. You'd likely find that virtually all of the yellow and red zones are legally enforced, not driven by market forces nor preference.

(09-07-2020, 07:08 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Only a tiny portion of the city qualifies.

Edit: Oh, and make sure you see only the actual green areas, there are many parks that look a little green, it's only an illusion.

Yes. However, that's going to be somewhat tautologically true because dense housing is dense and can house a lot more people than the suburban form. I do agree that there needs to be a lot more missing middle.

(09-07-2020, 11:32 PM)plam Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2020, 07:08 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Only a tiny portion of the city qualifies.

Edit: Oh, and make sure you see only the actual green areas, there are many parks that look a little green, it's only an illusion.

Yes. However, that's going to be somewhat tautologically true because dense housing is dense and can house a lot more people than the suburban form. I do agree that there needs to be a lot more missing middle.

Some recent suburban developments, while retaining the unwalkable car dependent nature, have been built at a might higher density that 60's development approaching that of a healthy walkable community.

It is still the case that the vast vast majority of the population lives in sprawling unwalkable car dependent suburbs.

(09-07-2020, 01:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-06-2020, 11:29 PM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]It's not defeatist at all. If we want vibrant safe communities for young families we still need this type of development. It's simply not going to stop because some people don't like houses and cars.

*rolls eyes*...can you drop the nonsense, just because you grew up in a miserable car dependent suburb doesn't mean everyone wants that for their children. There is nothing vibrant about car dependency and suburban sprawl, and there's strong evidence that it isn't good for young famillies.  It's also the case that there are vast swaths of the city already built this way and it is in fact the walkable livable areas that are in desperately low supply. Of course, none of that really change the fact that the real problem is the fact that your development is unsustainable---young families probably also want to have a planet for their children to live on in the future.

But you're just going to accuse me of hating cars and houses.  Clearly we are not even on remotely the same page, nor do you care to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98&ab_channel=NotJustBikes

I for one, do not want to raise my child in such an environment, and that is one reason that we will probably leave KW.

“*rolls eyes*” — that says a lot about you. You are 100% incapable of showing other people any respect and having a mature conversation, what are you? 15? And I did NOT grow up in a miserable car dependant suburb. That shows you don’t know anything. I have no idea who shits in your Wheaties everyday for you aggressiveness, but obviously something is happening.

For what it’s worth, I grew up in DTK, or at least very close (Victoria and Lancaster). We did leave because of interactions with addicts, even back then. Currently I live in a very old section of the city (housing dates to the 1930’s), however, no transit as it was canceled for Ion. Secondly, my daughter was molested on a city bus, so no matter the case, she will never ride transit again, and she certainly isn’t alone with having an experience on GRT.

And yeah, families DO want to have a livable planet for their children. But guess what, NOTHING we do will make a difference. All it will do is make people live elsewhere, and depress the economy. We’re a small country population wise, with a huge area. We’re not the problem. And I have been preaching, and no parishioners obviously, cars will be mostly electric in the future.

And why do I accuse you of hating cars and houses? Because you have nothing positive to say about them. I can speak positively about GRT, I can speak positively about walking, I can speak positively about biking. I do all 3. But I won’t force other to do them, nor have a hate on for primary travel, the car.

You really do need to put yourself in other peoples feet. To understand why they choose what they choose. You feel that apartment living for you, and your family (this assumes you have children) is great. Nothing wrong with that. Perhaps you are lucky and have great co-tenants. Perhaps you have a great super and property manager. Perhaps you have no desire to have people visit you and chill outside when we have great weather. But not everyone is you.

Maybe one day, you will have to take care of an elderly relative, a kid with a disability. Maybe one day you’ll appreciate the spare time you get by having quick transportation. Maybe then, you’ll understand why some people rely on cars. Not everyone’s world is as perfect as yours, and you better hope that yours doesn’t change.

(09-08-2020, 02:45 PM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]And yeah, families DO want to have a livable planet for their children. But guess what, NOTHING we do will make a difference. All it will do is make people live elsewhere, and depress the economy. We’re a small country population wise, with a huge area. We’re not the problem. And I have been preaching, and no parishioners obviously, cars will be mostly electric in the future.

You make some valid points about understanding why others think the way they do, but I feel like this part totally undercuts your argument.

Canada has terrible per-capita emissions, and electric vehicles aren't going to change that. Only a fundamental change to a more dense urban form, more European, will do that. Saying that it's pointless and we can't do anything is EXACTLY the problem. Per-capita we're a terrible emitter of CO2. So unless you have justification for why Canadians should be entitled to more CO2 than other countries, we need to be taking action.

Whether people want car-dependent suburbs or not is as irrelevant as whether people want private jets or not, it's not something we can afford for every person. Our CO2 budget is as real as our economic budget, people just don't like to be told that.

To be clear, I don't fault people for owning cars. I own one too (though an EV, as even if not a solution, they are better). But at a societal level, we need to be making changes to how we build our cities.

(09-08-2020, 04:40 PM)taylortbb Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-08-2020, 02:45 PM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]And yeah, families DO want to have a livable planet for their children. But guess what, NOTHING we do will make a difference. All it will do is make people live elsewhere, and depress the economy. We’re a small country population wise, with a huge area. We’re not the problem. And I have been preaching, and no parishioners obviously, cars will be mostly electric in the future.

You make some valid points about understanding why others think the way they do, but I feel like this part totally undercuts your argument.

Canada has terrible per-capita emissions, and electric vehicles aren't going to change that. Only a fundamental change to a more dense urban form, more European, will do that. Saying that it's pointless and we can't do anything is EXACTLY the problem. Per-capita we're a terrible emitter of CO2. So unless you have justification for why Canadians should be entitled to more CO2 than other countries, we need to be taking action.

Whether people want car-dependent suburbs or not is as irrelevant as whether people want private jets or not, it's not something we can afford for every person. Our CO2 budget is as real as our economic budget, people just don't like to be told that.

To be clear, I don't fault people for owning cars. I own one too (though an EV, as even if not a solution, they are better). But at a societal level, we need to be making changes to how we build our cities.

Individual actions aren't going to get us out of this mess. It really does have to be systemic change with how we build our societies. Car-dependent suburbs are not viable.

Just to add onto the CO2 point: in Ontario natural gas currently supplies 29% of electricity; the rest aren't CO2 emitting. But that doesn't account for all the CO2 cost of suburbs. There's also embodied costs in the concrete that it takes to build these houses and the supply chains for them. Also, even electric vehicles produce particulates from tires and brakes. Not CO2 but it is pollution.

(09-08-2020, 04:40 PM)taylortbb Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-08-2020, 02:45 PM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]And yeah, families DO want to have a livable planet for their children. But guess what, NOTHING we do will make a difference. All it will do is make people live elsewhere, and depress the economy. We’re a small country population wise, with a huge area. We’re not the problem. And I have been preaching, and no parishioners obviously, cars will be mostly electric in the future.

You make some valid points about understanding why others think the way they do, but I feel like this part totally undercuts your argument.

Canada has terrible per-capita emissions, and electric vehicles aren't going to change that. Only a fundamental change to a more dense urban form, more European, will do that. Saying that it's pointless and we can't do anything is EXACTLY the problem. Per-capita we're a terrible emitter of CO2. So unless you have justification for why Canadians should be entitled to more CO2 than other countries, we need to be taking action.

Whether people want car-dependent suburbs or not is as irrelevant as whether people want private jets or not, it's not something we can afford for every person. Our CO2 budget is as real as our economic budget, people just don't like to be told that.

To be clear, I don't fault people for owning cars. I own one too (though an EV, as even if not a solution, they are better). But at a societal level, we need to be making changes to how we build our cities.

I sometimes wonder about this, how valid per-capita emissions are as a measurement of responsibility. If Canada set a specific limit on emissions per capita, it would be fine for a businessperson to make frequent flights as long as someone else (or many other people) in the country have below average emissions to balance it out. But how about globally? Should one country be allowed to have higher per capita emissions if another country is below average? What about emissions per land area? What is the correct measurement? Do we not care about total emissions, just per capita?

If the pope flew a private jet around all the time, the Vatican would have massive per capita emissions, but it would probably be fairly sustainable. So, maybe governments regulating emissions should be taking the size of the population they govern into context. If a country specifically chooses not to grow their population (a luxury most developed countries have available to them, and developing countries could do more on this front though it's more complicated...), but maintains their per capita emissions, then they are doing better than a country that lowers their per capita emissions but grows their population at an even faster rate.

Now of course, Canada wants to grow it's populate at a rate I strongly disagree with, as our population size is probably the single most effective tool we have to lower our total emissions.

(09-08-2020, 07:15 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: [ -> ]I sometimes wonder about this, how valid per-capita emissions are as a measurement of responsibility. If Canada set a specific limit on emissions per capita, it would be fine for a businessperson to make frequent flights as long as someone else (or many other people) in the country have below average emissions to balance it out. But how about globally? Should one country be allowed to have higher per capita emissions if another country is below average? What about emissions per land area? What is the correct measurement? Do we not care about total emissions, just per capita?

If the pope flew a private jet around all the time, the Vatican would have massive per capita emissions, but it would probably be fairly sustainable. So, maybe governments regulating emissions should be taking the size of the population they govern into context. If a country specifically chooses not to grow their population (a luxury most developed countries have available to them, and developing countries could do more on this front though it's more complicated...), but maintains their per capita emissions, then they are doing better than a country that lowers their per capita emissions but grows their population at an even faster rate.

Now of course, Canada wants to grow it's populate at a rate I strongly disagree with, as our population size is probably the single most effective tool we have to lower our total emissions.

International carbon markets are supposed to make things work out on average. The tricky part is setting what the initial budgets are. In the end, though, we care about total emissions, but thinking about per capita numbers is one measure of fairness that people can point at. It's absolutely unfair that Canada should get to have a higher per-capita CO2 budget than India, but the way forward is not clear.

Population growth in Canada is 60% migration and 40% births. So for that 60% we are mostly importing people from countries with lower CO2 emissions and converting them to have Canadian-level CO2 emissions. The 40% probably is less than replacement. To a first approximation, fewer people will also mean less CO2, but also worse for the economy as it is currently configured.

(09-08-2020, 07:25 PM)plam Wrote: [ -> ]The tricky part is setting what the initial budgets are. In the end, though, we care about total emissions, but thinking about per capita numbers is one measure of fairness that people can point at. It's absolutely unfair that Canada should get to have a higher per-capita CO2 budget than India, but the way forward is not clear.

Is it unfair? Wouldn't it be unfair for a country that manages a sustainable population to be forced to lower per capita emissions every time other countries let their population growth explode?

(09-08-2020, 07:25 PM)plam Wrote: [ -> ]Population growth in Canada is 60% migration and 40% births. So for that 60% we are mostly importing people from countries with lower CO2 emissions and converting them to have Canadian-level CO2 emissions. The 40% probably is less than replacement. To a first approximation, fewer people will also mean less CO2, but also worse for the economy as it is currently configured.

The fertility rate in Canada is far below replacement level, so unless I am misunderstanding something, our growth is entirely immigration. We even have the option to enter population decline if we desired. Of course I understand we have a ponzi scheme economy that would collapse without population growth though.

For the record, I'm not advocating for a specific position here... I'm just here to ask questions.

(09-08-2020, 07:39 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-08-2020, 07:25 PM)plam Wrote: [ -> ]The tricky part is setting what the initial budgets are. In the end, though, we care about total emissions, but thinking about per capita numbers is one measure of fairness that people can point at. It's absolutely unfair that Canada should get to have a higher per-capita CO2 budget than India, but the way forward is not clear.

Is it unfair? Wouldn't it be unfair for a country that manages a sustainable population to be forced to lower per capita emissions every time other countries let their population growth explode?

I'm not aware of any countries that are rich and also have a high birth rate. The Wikipedia chart on income and fertility identifies two sort of outliers: Israel and Oman. But most of the higher-GDP countries have sub-2 fertility.

You set the allowed total carbon emissions at say 1990 levels (this is hard) and then you peg to total emissions, not per capita. That takes care of your concern naturally, I think.

(09-08-2020, 07:39 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-08-2020, 07:25 PM)plam Wrote: [ -> ]Population growth in Canada is 60% migration and 40% births. So for that 60% we are mostly importing people from countries with lower CO2 emissions and converting them to have Canadian-level CO2 emissions. The 40% probably is less than replacement. To a first approximation, fewer people will also mean less CO2, but also worse for the economy as it is currently configured.

The fertility rate in Canada is far below replacement level, so unless I am misunderstanding something, our growth is entirely immigration. We even have the option to enter population decline if we desired. Of course I understand we have a ponzi scheme economy that would collapse without population growth though.

For the record, I'm not advocating for a specific position here... I'm just here to ask questions.

1.5. I guess that it depends on what you mean by "far". There's questions of the economy and also of who would pay for pensions.

Presumably if people are moving to Canada they think their lives would be better in Canada. And I think Canada benefits from newcomers.

(09-08-2020, 02:45 PM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2020, 01:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]*rolls eyes*...can you drop the nonsense, just because you grew up in a miserable car dependent suburb doesn't mean everyone wants that for their children. There is nothing vibrant about car dependency and suburban sprawl, and there's strong evidence that it isn't good for young famillies.  It's also the case that there are vast swaths of the city already built this way and it is in fact the walkable livable areas that are in desperately low supply. Of course, none of that really change the fact that the real problem is the fact that your development is unsustainable---young families probably also want to have a planet for their children to live on in the future.

But you're just going to accuse me of hating cars and houses.  Clearly we are not even on remotely the same page, nor do you care to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98&ab_channel=NotJustBikes

I for one, do not want to raise my child in such an environment, and that is one reason that we will probably leave KW.

“*rolls eyes*” — that says a lot about you. You are 100% incapable of showing other people any respect and having a mature conversation, what are you? 15? And I did NOT grow up in a miserable car dependant suburb. That shows you don’t know anything. I have no idea who shits in your Wheaties everyday for you aggressiveness, but obviously something is happening.

For what it’s worth, I grew up in DTK, or at least very close (Victoria and Lancaster). We did leave because of interactions with addicts, even back then. Currently I live in a very old section of the city (housing dates to the 1930’s), however, no transit as it was canceled for Ion. Secondly, my daughter was molested on a city bus, so no matter the case, she will never ride transit again, and she certainly isn’t alone with having an experience on GRT.

And yeah, families DO want to have a livable planet for their children. But guess what, NOTHING we do will make a difference. All it will do is make people live elsewhere, and depress the economy. We’re a small country population wise, with a huge area. We’re not the problem. And I have been preaching, and no parishioners obviously, cars will be mostly electric in the future.

And why do I accuse you of hating cars and houses? Because you have nothing positive to say about them. I can speak positively about GRT, I can speak positively about walking, I can speak positively about biking. I do all 3. But I won’t force other to do them, nor have a hate on for primary travel, the car.

You really do need to put yourself in other peoples feet. To understand why they choose what they choose. You feel that apartment living for you, and your family (this assumes you have children) is great. Nothing wrong with that. Perhaps you are lucky and have great co-tenants. Perhaps you have a great super and property manager. Perhaps you have no desire to have people visit you and chill outside when we have great weather. But not everyone is you.

Maybe one day, you will have to take care of an elderly relative, a kid with a disability. Maybe one day you’ll appreciate the spare time you get by having quick transportation. Maybe then, you’ll understand why some people rely on cars. Not everyone’s world is as perfect as yours, and you better hope that yours doesn’t change.

I really don't appreciate the direct personal attack here. I rolled my eyes at you because you consistently repeated the same statements, and accuse me of the same falsehoods. In response, you call me a child and call me aggressive, how would you react if I called you names?

"But guess what, NOTHING we do will make a difference." this is straight up false, our nation is a huge environmental issue, our emissions per capita are among the highest in the world. We, not other countries, are stealing the future from our children. Our nation also has immense political clout, we should use it to push for a better future, not to enrich ourselves by pushing more of our dirty oil. This is not an opinion, this is objectively true. EVs do not solve any of these problems, we need systemic and policy changes.

You accuse me of hating cars and houses because you do not listen to what I say. I have never said I hate cars, nor do I hate houses, I hate our car dependency that forces people to drive cars. I hate how we are forced into an unsustainable lifestyle. You continually accuse me of not understanding why people make the choices they do, but YOU are the one who does not understand. I understand very well the policies and systems in place to force those choices. You continue to deny those systems and policies.

This is why I roll my eyes. You are right about one thing, I'm showing you the same respect you showed me when you continue to accuse me of the same things over and over again, respect is earned, one way you earn it is by listening and not repeatedly accusing me of hating cars.