conference proceedings - home | evergreen€¦ · finally, sustainable development must be...

Breaking GroundCreating a Greener, Healthier City

May 2nd- 4th ,2002Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Conference Proceedings

Breaking Ground: Creating a Greener Healthier CityCalgary, Alberta, Canada

May 2nd - 4th, 2002

2

Table of ContentsKEYNOTE SPEAKERDr. Mark Roseland , A Framework For Sustainable Community Development 3

CONCURRENT SESSIONS.................................................. 6Raising The Profile Of Urban Water Management Getting To Specifics AboutThe Necessity Of Taking A Watershed Approach To Our Water Systems. 6Wendell Koning ,The Nose Creek Partnership ................................. 6

Greening Urban Village Parks A Discussion And Comparison Of Urban ParksAnd Open Space As Vital Ecological Components To Our Urban Settings. 14Louise Cerveny and Dennis R. Westhoff, A Discussion And Comparison OfUrban Parks And Open Space As Vital Ecological Components To Our Urban Settings 14

Rethinking Open Space As Calgary Grows, Innovative Techniques Will EnsureShane Simpson , Seeking Nature Between The Towers ................... 18

Planning Greenways And Trails For Healthy Lifestyles The Many Benefits OfGreenways And Trail Infrastructure Include Less Automobile Emissions AndImproved Public Health..................................................................... 24Dara Finney, Greenways and Trails Planning For Healthy Lifestyles 24

LUNCHEON SPEAKERCynthia Girling , Green Infrastructure: City As Machine Or City As Ecosystem? 29

BREAKOUT STRATEGIESRaising The Profile Of Urban Water Management........................... 32Greening Urban Village Parks........................................................... 34Rethinking Open Space ..................................................................... 37Planning Greenways And Trails For Healthy Lifestyles................... 40

ECO-CELEBRATIONArt Component .................................................................................. 43Slide PresentationsLori Beattie, Urban Hikes................................... 45Dave Elphinstone, Urban Nature Photography ................................. 45Myrna Pearman And Dr. Ted Pike, Naturescape Alberta ................. 45Displays ............................................................................................. 46


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

3

Keynote Speakers and ConcurrentSessions

METROPOLITAN CENTRE, CALGARY ALBERTA

FRIDAY, MAY 3RD 2002

PROGRAM

7:30 – 8:30 Registration

8:30 – 8:45 Welcome

8:45 – 9:15 Plenary Keynote Speaker

9:30 – 11:45 Concurrent Sessions

12:00 – 1:15 Lunch Speaker

1:15 - 4:15 Breakout Strategies

Keynote Speaker

A FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Dr. Mark RoselandMark Roseland is Director of the Community Economic Development Centre at Simon FraserUniversity and is a professor in SFU’s Department of Geography. Dr. Roseland has publishedwidely, and his work has been cited in numerous journals. His books include TowardSustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens and Their Government, published byNew Society Publishers. He is also the North American Editor of the international journalLocal Environment, published in association with the International Council for LocalEnvironmental Initiatives. Dr. Roseland lectures internationally and advises communities andgovernments on sustainable development policy and planning.

Numerous initiatives illustrate that citizens and their governments have the ability to frame issues,assume leadership, champion initiatives, and demonstrate sustainable alternatives in theireveryday practice. This presentation develops a framework for sustainable communitydevelopment based upon my book Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens andTheir Governments (New Society Publishers, 1998).

The first element of the framework is that we must minimize our consumption of essential natural(or environmental) capital. Natural capital refers to any stock of natural assets that yields a flowof valuable goods and services into the future. For example, a forest, a fish stock or an aquifer


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

4

can provide a harvest or flow that is potentially sustainable year after year. The forest or fishstock is “natural capital” and the sustainable harvest is “natural income.”

The second element concerns social capital. Social capital is the shared knowledge,understandings, and patterns of interactions that a group of people brings to any productiveactivity. Social capital refers to the organizations, structures and social relations which peoplebuild up themselves, independently of the state or large corporations.

Social capital differs from other forms of capital in that it is not limited by material scarcity.Social capital suggests a route toward sustainability by replacing the fundamentally illogicalmodel of unlimited growth within a finite world, with one of unlimited complexity, which is notbound by the availability of material resources. For sustainable community development we needto know where to locate and how to multiply social capital.

The third critical element for sustainable community development is more efficient use of urbanspace. Indeed, the pattern of growth is often more important than the amount of growth indetermining the level and efficiency of resource use and traffic congestion.

Finally, sustainable development must be participatory development, and is thus about thequantity and quality of empowerment and participation of people. Sustainable developmenttherefore requires mobilizing citizens and their governments toward sustainable communities.This last element is crucial to coordinating and balancing the other three.

This framework will be illustrated using numerous examples of citizen and community initiativeswhich demonstrate that creative, transferable solutions to seemingly intractable social andenvironmental challenges are being initiated by citizen organizations and municipal officials incities and towns around the world.

Several key arguments inform this presentation. First, the term “sustainable development”acquires tangible meaning when understood in terms of natural capital and natural income. Thebottom line for sustainability is that we must learn to live on our natural income rather thandeplete our natural capital. Economic growth with an ecological deficit is anti-economic andmakes us poorer rather than richer in the long term. Sustainability therefore requires that weminimize our consumption of essential natural capital.

Second, natural capital and social equity demand that North Americans, who are among theworld's most inefficient and wasteful consumers of materials and energy, find ways of living morelightly on the planet. At a minimum, we will have to increase the efficiency of our resource andenergy use. More likely, we will also have to reduce our present (not to speak of projected) levelsof materials and energy consumption.

Third, reducing our materials and energy consumption need not diminish and, in fact, wouldlikely enhance our quality of life and the public domain – in other words, it could multiply oursocial capital. It is important to distinguish here between “quality of life” and “standard ofliving.” “Standard of living” generally refers to disposable income for things we purchaseindividually, whereas “quality of life” can be considered as the sum of all things which peoplepurchase collectively (e.g., the health care system, public education, policing), or those things


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

5

which are not purchased at all (e.g., air quality). “Standard of living” refers solely to the privatedomain, whereas “quality of life” refers to the public domain, the realm of social capital.

Fourth, the critical resource for multiplying social capital is not money – rather, the criticalresources are trust, imagination, courage, commitment, the relations between individuals andgroups, and time, the literal currency of life. Many of the social issues that people relate to mostintimately – family, neighbourhood, community, decompression from work, recreation, culture,etc. – depend on these resources at least as much as money. This is not to say that economicsecurity isn’t important – it is – but focusing solely on money to provide security is using 19thcentury thinking to address 21st century challenges.

Taken together, the direction to which these arguments point is clear. We must explicitly aim tonurture and multiply social capital in order not only to preserve our stock of natural capital butalso to improve our economic and social well-being. Government and corporate decisions shouldbe reviewed for their effects on both natural and social capital. Programs and policies need to beeffected at every level to insure that natural and social capital are properly considered.In a nutshell, we need to do development differently.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

6

CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Raising The Profile Of Urban Water ManagementGetting To Specifics About The Necessity Of Taking A Watershed Approach To

Our Water Systems.Wendell Koning, Limnologist, Bernie Amell, Landscape Architect;;

Barry Bohn, Hydrology Engineer; Paul Taylor, Developer; JerryBrunen, Ducks Unlimited

Session Questions

Question 1. What are the opportunities, incentives and obstacles related to takinga watershed approach to water management?

Question 2. How do we fund watershed management initiatives?

THE NOSE CREEK PARTNERSHIP

Wendell KoningWendell Koning is a Limnologist working in the Water Quality Section of Alberta Environment.His main responsibilities are water quality monitoring, site specific water quality guidelinedevelopment, and identification of instream flow needs in rivers in southern Alberta. His previousemployment includes six years in the Watershed Restoration Program of B.C. Environment.From his current office in NE Calgary he looks west towards Nose Creek - a frequentlyoverlooked, but valuable water feature within the City of Calgary.

In Calgary there are five distinct waterways, namely the Bow and Elbow rivers, and Nose, WestNose and Fish creeks. There are at least 10 man-made lakes, a major reservoir and a majorirrigation withdrawal (canal to Chestermere Lake). There are engineered stormwater treatmentponds and engineered wetlands. The City of Calgary has identified a whopping 14,000 naturalwetland areas within the City boundaries. There are two water treatment plants and twowastewater treatment plants. There are also many storm sewers of various sizes that carry runofffrom snowmelt and summer rains into our rivers - for example, in Nose Creek alone there aremore than 60 stormwater outfalls.

Waterbodies within the City are used for drinking water supply, boating, swimming, fishing,irrigation, waste assimilation, animal watering, bird and wildlife habitat, education, andrelaxation. The heart of most cities can be found next to the waterbodies that flow through theirboundaries and this is also true for Calgary.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

7

How shall we manage this vast array of water resources present within just one urban boundary?To manage these resources within the City we need a coordinated response between the variouslevels of government (civic, provincial and federal). However, management need not be bygovernment legislation only. There are other tools based on codes of practice, education,economic pricing, and community stewardship. Stewardship groups within the Bow Basininclude (to name just a few) the Bow Basin Council, Nose Creek Watershed Partnership,Crowfoot Creek Watershed Group, and Farmers of the Elbow Watershed. All four groups operateon a watershed basis.

An important, recent initiative is the development of Water Management Plans as part of the newprovincial Water Act. These plans are being built at the watershed level; they are beingconstructed with community input and will help establish water flow and quality objectives in ourrivers. Currently a Water Management Plan is being developed for the entire SouthSaskatchewan River (SSR) basin within Alberta and additional Plans are being developed withinsmaller sub-basins of the SSR.

Alberta Environment and the City of Calgary are working together to set a new total loadinglicense for the City. This license will govern the levels of ammonia, biological oxygen demand,total phosphorus and suspended sediments that the City can discharge to the Bow River.Anthropogenic loadings to the Bow River in Calgary come primarily from the wastewatertreatment plants and storm sewers. However, establishing a scientifically defendable totalloadings limit for the City requires recognition of upstream conditions and downstream impacts,therefore going beyond the city boundaries and taking a larger watershed approach.

In this session we are asked to answer two questions. I will use my experience with the NoseCreek Watershed Partnership as the basis for my answers.

Question 1. What are the opportunities, incentives and obstacles related to taking awatershed approach to water management?

Opportunities: Community-based stewardship groups are becoming established in manywatersheds. The Nose Creek Watershed Partnership is a good example of local stewardship inaction. The Partnership includes both urban and rural participants. Nose and West Nose creeksare small tributaries flowing through agricultural and urban communities, through four politicaljurisdictions before joining together and emptying into the Bow River within the City of Calgary.These four jurisdictions (Calgary, Airdrie, Crossfield and MD of Rocky View) participate in theNose Creek Watershed Partnership.

The focus of the Nose Creek Partnership is to encourage the implementation of best managementpractices to conserve and enhance riparian areas, and to protect water quality and quantity withinthe watershed. Alberta Environment is not a member of the Partnership but provides financialand technical support. To date the Partnership has been successful at conducting water qualitymonitoring (three years, five sites), coordinating a riparian assessment, initiating offsite stockwatering, hosting a stream cleanup, building a streamside interpretive trail, and funding twouniversity research projects. A website summarizes the Partnership activities. Future plans and


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

8

actions include demonstration projects related to riparian restoration, improved agriculturalpractices and urban stormwater quality. In addition, within each jurisdiction, landuse policies thataffect riparian areas or water quality are being examined with the intent to improve them wheredeficiencies are found, and to provide consistent policies between the four jurisdictions.

Obstacles to a watershed approach: One of the biggest obstacles is communication. Watermanagement is very interdisciplinary, as per the assembled Panel, and seldom do we meet todiscuss the various perspectives (science, engineering, economic, social). Communication canalso be a problem when water management crosses political boundaries and involves both ruraland urban communities.

The Nose Creek Partnership tries to overcome communication obstacles by doing the following:a) ensuring leadership of the Partnership comes from elected officials from all four localjurisdictions (and therefore support from the public); b) employing a consultant to summarize andinterpret the water quality monitoring data, producing a yearly report very soon after the data hasbeen collected (timely reporting); and c) holding an annual public meeting to discuss results andprogress (timely reporting / public involvement); and the public meetings (three) have been heldin both urban and rural settings.

A second obstacle is lack of time. For example, within the Nose Creek Partnership, allparticipants are involved in other work activities and must juggle varying workloads.

Incentives to initiate a watershed approach: Scarcity of any essential substance is a goodmotivator. In Southern Alberta we’re becoming more and more aware of the scarcity of water aswe face drought conditions and increasing, multiple use water demands. Secondly, public healthissues in Walkerton and North Battleford have focused much attention on source control of waterpollutants – and therefore on watershed management. We’re starting to embrace and flesh-out theoft quoted slogans, “we all live in a watershed” and “healthy watersheds for healthycommunities”.

Question 2. How do we fund watershed management initiatives?Funding is usually provided on a year-by-year basis (most government agencies). For communitygroups funding often depends on the skill of the fund raising community. Within the Nose CreekWatershed Partnership, funds are provided by all four local jurisdictions as well as by AlbertaEnvironment.

Some would suggest that in the future funding could also come from those who are having animpact on our streams, following the user-pay principle. For example, cities could start charginga fee for stormwater collection (storm sewers and associated infrastructure). Cities already do sofor sewerage (commercial and industrial wastewater) and often this is based on volume orstrength of the waste stream. As an incentive for private business (e.g. Shopping centres) toreduce stormwater runoff volumes, the city (or stormwater utility) could reduce fees wherebusinesses decrease the amount of impervious area at their business location. Fees collected fromthis could then be directed back into improvements in stormwater management.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

9

Others suggest that funds might be found in pollution trading. Or perhaps Calgary could pay forwatershed protection and restoration works upstream of the city since the city would reap themost benefit from these efforts. No doubt creative funding solutions will be discussed further inthis afternoon’s breakout session.

Panelists:Bernie AmellBernie Amell is a landscape architect and environmental designer focusing on aquatic, wetland and shoreland landscapes. He also teaches part-time in the faculty of Environmental Design at the University ofCalgary. He was the environmental designer of the wetlands component of the Canadian Wilds BorealForest that you will be touring.

Barry BohnBarry is the Principal Engineer with Watertech Engineering Research & Health Inc. a consultingengineering firm specializing in water and wastewater issues. Barry holds a Bachelor of Science inEngineering (Civil) and a Master of Science in Environmental Engineering, both from the University ofManitoba. Barry is a member of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicistsof Alberta, Water Environment Federation, Western Canada Water and Wastewater Association, Societyof Wetland Scientists and the American Waterworks Association.

Barry has extensive experience in water management issues and has worked on the Bow RiverWater Quality Task Force and the Elbow River Water Quality Task force, the Water EnvironmentFederal Total Maximum Daily Loading Work Group - all of which focused on watershed issues –as well as serving on the Bow River Water Quality Council. Prior to private practice, Barry spenta number of years in the public sector dealing with water quality issues, infrastructure financingand utility funding.

Paul TaylorPaul Taylor received his diploma in Civil Engineering Technology from Southern AlbertaInstitute of Technology 1990,a certificate in Financial Analysis from the University of Calgary in1993 and a Certificate in Marketing Management from the University of Calgary in 2001. He hasbeen involved with the construction industry in varied roles since 1983. His experience rangesfrom surveying and materials testing to being a general contractor. From 1990 to present Mr.Taylor has worked directly in the land development field with firstly, Carma Developers Ltd. andthen Hopewell Residential Communities. Mr. Taylor has been personally part of varied levels ofmanagement of the construction of, in excess of 5000 residential lots. Mr. Taylor is currently theVice President of Hopewell Residential Communities: a medium sized residential DevelopmentCompany, with land holding in excess of 4000 acres, in the Calgary area

Jerry BrunenJerry is Ducks Unlimited Canada ‘s Area Representative for the Calgary region based inStrathmore, Alberta. His career in fish and wildlife habitat conservation spans 23 years includingfisheries and wildlife management with the Province of Manitoba followed by several positionswith Ducks Unlimited Canada in Alberta. He has overseen multi disciplinary teams dealing with


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

10

waterfowl habitat assessment, design, implementation and management, and is active innegotiation and mediation, policy development, education, fund raising, marketing and planning.

Jerry is a member of the BRBC’s Urban Stormwater – Bow Basin team and the Calgary WetlandCommittee. He has been DUC’s lead in their partnership with the City of Calgary’s wetlandinventory and Inglewood Bird Sanctuary’s educational programs, as well as with the CalgaryStampede, Bridlewood Creek wetland and other activities related to increasing urban awarenessof the natural environment. Several Calgary area wetland projects that he manages incorporatestormwater, wastewater and watershed management into their design and operation.

Notes:

Two key questions

1. What are the opportunities, incentives and obstacles related to taking awatershed approach to water management?

2. How do we fund watershed management initiatives?Intro pointsCalgary has 5 distinct waterways (Bow & Elbow Rivers; Nose, West Nose & Fish Creeks) and10+ constructed lakes, a big reservoir and a major irrigation withdrawal.The Calgary region sees many & diverse water uses.There are several water management tools available (e.g., legislation, codes of practice, education,pricing, community stewardship). There is also a new province-led initiative: the development ofWater Management Plans, aimed at a watershed level of influence.Another current initiative is a new “Total Loadings License.” for the City of Calgary, coveringammonia levels, biological Oxygen demands, phosphorous, sediments, etc. This license willconsider pollutants & point-source discharges, as well as upstream conditions & downstreamimpacts (i.e., watershed issues).Regional service commissions exist for other resources (drink-H2O, waste-H2O): why not forwatersheds? (…power/control/$ issues for politicians…)

Question 1 (…opportunities, incentives and obstacles to watershed management)

Opportunities:o Community stewardship groups like the Nose Creek Watershed Partnership can take the

lead in the process, demonstrating best management practices, (e.g., monitoring, cleanup,research, education, et al.

o Multi-jurisdictional officials are players (e.g., MDs of Cgy, Airdrie, Crossfield, R-View),as well as tech committee, local stakeholders, etc.

o Projects can focus on H2O quality (not just quantity) and link this with land use,conservation, runoff mgmt and agriculture.

Incentives:o Scarcity of H2O (i.e., awareness).o Walkerton, N. Battleford “scares.”

Obstacles:


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

11

o Lack of communication between rural/urban, across political boundaries, amongstspecialists (scientific, engineering, economic, sociological). Solutions: leadership from all4 political jurisdictions; consultant for monitoring & interpreting data, and reporting;public meetings in various locations.

o Lack of time for volunteers, lengthy process, etc.

Question 2 (…funding watershed management)o Usually on a year-year basis (from gov’t).o Dependent on fund-raising skills of groups.o For NCWP, $$ comes from all 4 jurisdictions plus AB Env’t.o Potential $$ could come from consumers (i.e., user-pays principle): e.g., municipal fees

for stormwater collection (infrastructure), reduced charges for reduced impervious areas(parking lots, etc).

o Potential for trading of pollution “credits”…o Calgary could fund watershed protection/restoration upstream (city = primary

beneficiary).

Panel responsesPaul Taylor

o Costs are everything.o Important issues: 1) stormwater mgmt, 2) revenue from mgmt facilities, 3) jargon-laden(!)

amenities for quality of life (wetlands, rec-lakes, etc).o Question 2 is easy – new homeowners will pay for it all.o Question 1 is harder – need to follow Mother Nature’s rules: take advantage of natural

elements, try to lower costs while still adding “value.” (E.g., Elbow Valley: low density,no water-infrastructure only sanitary system, individual units responsible for water,stormwater ditches, recreational lakes… à water out = better than water enteringcommunity.

o Time is the major constraint (development approvals, construction, etc).o Getting stakeholders together for discussions = difficult challenge!

Barry Bohno Question 2 – levies & assessments for infrastructure are generally fronted by developer

but then recouped from home-buyers.o Watershed approaches need stable & diverse sources of $$ à Taxes (like Police/essential

services)? City of Calgary levies? “Watershed Authority” of MDs, province, etc? Smallusage fees [1¢/m3/month = less than $1/person/yr = $2 million/year for City]? Industrialcredit trading?

o Question 1 – Water = shared resource, therefore shared responsibility.o Bureaucracy = no answer; multi-party group = essential.

Jerry Bruneno Natural habitat is all about economics+social+environmental values.o Cumulative impacts = very complex & multi-disciplinary.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

12

o Calgary is uniquely situated for habitat & ecology: 14,000+ wetlands! Healthy watershed= healthy ecosystem.

o Opportunities: education (e.g., DU curricula for grades 5-9 in AB), constructed wetlands,informed public, partnerships & shared resources.

o Incentives: quality of life & health, on-going long-term approach, encouragement/rewardof good practices, full-cost accounting (for infrastructure provision), natural featureretention.

o Obstacles: dominant mind-set ignores valuable assets (wetlands, features, riparian zones,etc), poor communication between agencies, need long-term commitment to theimplementation of plans (plans in themselves are not enough).

Bernie Amell (politician role playing)o Politicians are elected on the basis of pot-holes and accidents in people’s neighbourhoods!o Political realities of being re-elected generally preclude a focus on environmental issues…o “Taking the larger view” is rarely recognized politically, but supporters of civil society

(i.e., us) have an obligation to raise “the larger view.”

Comments from the Flooro What kinds of technology are available for smaller watersheds? [Answer: “Lots!”]o The title of this session is “Raising the Profile of Urban Water Mgmt” – but where’s the

discussion of this? How do we raise the profile? How do we make these issues palatable,interesting, engaging?

o Time is money, and both are scarce commodities.o Are there any (proven) techniques/technologies for retro-fitting already developed, inner-

city areas, as opposed to new developments on green sites?

Summaryo Societal values regarding H2O are key: it’s a matter of great concern environmentally,

socially and economically, but its quantification (i.e., $$) remains problematic…o We’d like to see an Inter-Municipal Commission for overseeing watershed mgmt, with

multi-sector involvement and monitoring & enforcement authority. Provincial funding forcooperative partnership groups is already available… This squares with trends toward thedecentralization of power/authority & increased responsibilities for public groups.

o Volunteering & public involvement (“ownership”) often lead to long-term success.o Potential for “user-pays” fees/charges for H2O services and runoff mgmt: either flat fees

(residential, commercial, industrial) or on a graduated scale (property size, surface area).Adjustments can be made for smaller (or unique) municipalities or districts; donationscould be accepted as a charitable organization.

o Lack of awareness/education among the public is still seen as a significant obstacle:o Break down tax bills to show people where their $ goeso Case studies, best practices, etco Include media agencies in partnership (advertising, awareness, networking, etc)o Promote special events (e.g., river cleanup, dog-park cleanup, etc)


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

13

o Education programs must be concurrent with real activities (need baseline educationassessment/survey & monitoring)

o Identify a champion for the cause (children work great!) à demo of stewardship…o The watershed approach to H2O mgmt is beneficial because:o There is a need for H2O conservation (quantity)o There is a need for H2O-supply protection (quality)o It simultaneously suggests a vehicle for the creation of corridors (for wildlife, ecosystem,

recreational amenities, sense of community)o It promotes/encourages public involvement (a common focus for diverse people)o It promotes the transfer of technology/knowledge from urban to rural (& vice versa)o There are certain economic advantages: partnership can direct $ to wherever it’s needed

most, it creates a distribution network for the region, watershed protection adds value tothe entire region.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

14

Greening urban village parksA discussion and comparison of urban parks and open space as vital ecological

components to our urban settings.Dennis Westhoff, Engineer; Louise Cerveny, Landscape Architect;

Druh Farrell, Alderman; Utpal Mazumdar, Architect; Harry Heuer, UrbanPlanner

Session Questions:

Question 1. How do we educate and encourage municipal government andprivate industry to incorporate policy that strives to provide ecological benefit toour urban fabric?

Question 2. How can ecology be recognized and incorporated as a fundamentalcomponent to the design planning and implementation of our existing and futureparks, public meeting places and open space within the city?

Louise CervenyLouise Cerveny received a BFA (NSCAD) 1986, in Art History and Studio Design. Her earlyundergraduate studies also include Economics and History, UNB/STU. During her BFAstudies, she organized and staged the largest unjuried art show (Ecphore Exhibition 1985) inHalifax, NS. Upon graduation, Louise worked as Executive Co-ordinator of the InternationalFolklore Festival, Worldfest/Festimonde – Cornwall, 1986-87. This was followed by aconcurrent professional /graduate degree at the University of Oregon, in Landscape Architecture(BLA, 1991) and studies in Interior Architecture (1990).

In Calgary, Louise was employed by Engineering and Architecture firms, where she worked onOutline Plans, design details, Landscape Guidelines for developments and graphic presentations.She started her own private practice, Cerveny Design Group, in 1993 - 2000 and continued towork with architecture and engineering consultants and developers on inner city developments,outline plans and residential projects. Louise has been with the City of Calgary since 1999, first asParks Planner and currently as Project Manager. Her primary focus is on good design andecology and the merging of the two for responsible and sustainable inner city and urbandevelopment.

Dennis R. WesthoffMr. Dennis R. Westhoff brings to his clients over twenty six years experience in rural and urbandrainage studies and development projects. Selected relevant project experience includes:developing urban stormwater management guidelines in the Republic of Indonesia, the MunicipalDistrict of Rocky View, and for the City of Calgary. Dennis has also been part of the drafting ofWatershed Master Plans (Southeast Calgary Storm Drainage Study,Central Springbank SubBasin Study); Master Drainage Plans (including Western Headworks Main Canal Storm Studyand Hanson Ranch Master Drainage Plan) ; stormwater management Reports; design storms;Best Management Practices and the completion of several constructed wetland designs.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

15

Dennis Westhoff emphasized the strong connection that exists between a city’s social fabric andthe natural environment. By ‘natural green spaces, he made clear that manicured playing fieldswere not included in the scope of his discussion. He explained how access to nature in oureveryday experiences would greatly improve our quality of life. In order to have people be ableto see and recognize various natural processes, however, natural areas in the city need to bephysically well linked, since isolated patches of ‘green’ serve little purpose in people’s everydaylives. Close attention to the integration of larger natural systems in the region is vital to havingthese natural areas function successfully, ecologically speaking. He also made reference to thechallenges that inner cities in particular face with improving the biodiversity in these areas. Suchtypically hard-scaped areas are often attached with a higher land value making the argument forcostly ‘re- greening’ a tough one in the face of development pressures.

SolutionsMr. Westhoff stated that in order for these natural green ways to become a more visible reality inthe lives of Calgarians, a multi-level approach to developing solutions is needed. He suggestedthe following 4 areas of focus:

1. Creation of a Regional Planning TeamSuch a planning team would recognize that ecological systems are interconnected on a large scale,a scale that reaches beyond politically decided upon boundaries

2. Open Space Master Plan & Inner-City ParksAn open space master plan would be used as a long range visioning tool on the city-wide (vs.community only) level in order to identify potential areas for open space.

Introduction of the ‘smart park’ would help the city begin to move away from linear play fieldsand would instead ensure that all parks are safely linked for children that may be, for example,using their bicycles. Such parks, he said, would also “reflect the environmental and culturalinfluences and change in the area.” Mr. Westhoff indicated the need to re-think current by-lawpractices that pertain to the use of land in the inner-city.

3. EducationEducation on ecological systems and the importance of their integration would need to occur on anumber of different fronts:Class field trips for elementary school aged childrenEcological education to community leaders, residents and developers in order to provide themwith the tools to make ecologically appropriate development decisionsCitizen and advocacy groups well versed in the knowledge of how ecological systems workwould need to put pressure on council.

4. PartnershipsIn order to better share resources and create a common vision amongst all stakeholders,partnerships need to be formed between city departments, public interest groups, advocacy groupsand all other interested parties. Events like conferences, for example, provide just such a forumfor this type of communication to take place.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

16

Panelists

Druh FarrellDruh Farrell is a Calgary native and long-time Ward 7 resident, where she was elected Aldermanin 2001. Her passion for community is demonstrated by her 15-year commitment to neighborhoodand urban issues. Druh founded and chaired the Inner City Coalition, an action committee of 20communities, to preserve Calgary’s unique, established neighborhoods. Druh has a diversebusiness background, owning a clothing manufacturing and exporting company for 17 years. Shemanaged the Kensington Business Revitalization Zone and played a vital role in the planning ofher community. A long-time community advocate, Druh brings a dynamic and constructiveapproach to leading Ward 7 and the City of Calgary in the year’s ahead. Druh believes that a cityis defined by the vibrancy of its downtown and urban spaces.

Utpal MazumdarWith over twenty years of experience, Paul has thorough knowledge of planning and developmentin Calgary. Most recently as principal of Paul Mazumdar Planning Group, Paul providesmanagement consulting services to a wide range of clients who are involved in the Real EstateDevelopment and in the investment of capital funds in major planning and development projects.While working for the City of Calgary, Paul was involved in numerous projects including: thedevelopment a Public/Private Joint Venture for East Village; +15 Walkways, and LRT stations,structures and landscaping along the alignment. Paul has a B. Arch (Honors) – Bachelor ofArchitecture and Planning and is a member of Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, AlbertaAssociation of Architects, and AACIP – Alberta Association of Canadian Institute of Planners(Provisional).

Panel Discussion

Q. 1: How do we educate and encourage municipal government and private industry toincorporate policy that strives to provide ecological benefit to our urban fabric?

Response:Druh Farrell: The city is receiving pressure to build more roads, not to create smart parks. DruhFarrell pointed out how leadership from the citizenry is key to instigating change to the directionthat developmental decisions are currently taking on the council level. She also recognized thatcouncil’s decisions are primarily based on the ‘bottom line’ and is made by people elected foronly a 3-year period. She suggested that a triple bottom line be considered instead, one that takesinto consideration the environmental, social, and economic costs of development. As well, longertime frames are needed for elected members if they want to truly enact some type of change.

Uptal Mazumdar: He stated in his response that professionals have a responsibility to reach out tothe community and “sell what is good to us.” He also recognized that we all must see nature asfundamental to our being, we need to feel our environment – barefoot! Meaning that ourknowledge of the environment must be deeply felt and understood as critical to our being.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

17

Question 2. How can ecology be recognized and incorporated as a fundamental component tothe design planning and implementation of our existing and future parks, public meeting placesand open space within the city?

Druh Farrell: She recognized that the city of Calgary is quite progressive on some fronts (ex:energy efficient buildings) but not very progressive in its development of a parks system. Shepointed out that the City “must play catch up with citizens because they are ahead of the game.”Referencing green spaces and the treatment of their edges in plans (ARP’s for example) is also anecessary step to take in order to ensure their proper consideration.

Uptal Mazumdar: Our second panelist really felt strongly that improved education (startingwith our Kindergarten classes) is needed for us to re-connect to nature and clean up the mess wehave created over the last half century. Time, he saw, was needed to really change the waypeople think and to really re-direct their notions of good and healthy development.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

18

Rethinking Open SpaceAs Calgary grows, innovative techniques will ensure open spaces are available to

meet all needs.Shane Simpson, Smart Growth British Columbia; Bob Priebe, ParksPlanner; Craig Burrows, Alderman; Don Merlo, Developer; Lawrence

Bortoluzzi, Calgary Board of Education; Chris Davis, Barrister &Solicitor

Session Questions:

Question 1. What changes must be made to the current system to acquire moreparks and public open space?

Question 2. How can we can we plan and implement a land trust to enableprivate citizens and corporations to donate parkland?

Statisticshectares of open space - includes cemeteries and golf coursesApplewood Park (SE) 13.33China Town (downtown) 5.46Edgemont (NW) 237.57Mayfair (SW) 1.60Rosedale (NW) 2.76Riverbend (SE) 104.30Rockyridge (NW) 14.23Taradale (NE) 5.85Woodlands (SW) 23.49

SEEKING NATURE BETWEEN THE TOWERS

Shane SimpsonShane has been involved in urban livability issues, primarily in Vancouver, for over 25 years.His involvement has included being a founding member of the Hastings Park RestorationSociety which, after 20 years of effort, successfully spearheaded the reclamation of HastingsPark in Vancouver - a 90-acre plus inner city park making it the largest green space in thenorth-east sector of Vancouver. He is President an inner city residents group and a member ofthe Vancouver City Planning Commission. As the Director of Communications for SmartGrowth BC, a leading non-governmental organization in the area of urban sustainability inBritish Columbia, he works with a wide range of groups on inner city issues including questionsof greenways and usable open space. Smart Growth BC is also a partner in the SustainableRegion Initiative of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which is developing the social,economic and environmental plans for the future of the region.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

19

We all have our memories of walks in the park, picnics, kicking the ball with our kids at theplayground, quiet moments on an inner-city trail or sitting at the riverside with city towers as ourbackdrop. For many city dwellers the ability to escape for a few moments on the weekend or atlunch to a small oasis in the middle of downtown or next to our workplace is important. We alllive with the concrete, the hustle and bustle, the traffic, the buildings and the people of our citiesand we inherently know the relief of inner city green space and parks is critical to both ourphysical and mental health.

However, the growth of our cities, with their increasing land costs and density considerations, hasput mounting pressure on local leaders to develop new, innovative and creative approaches tomaximize the potential for the provision of more urban public and green space within the contextof the public realm. Land is at a premium and we need to make our open and green spaces apriority that is seen to be of equal or greater value than our built form.It is important to acknowledge the increased value that greenways and parks add to adjacentdevelopment properties. Particularly in the case of residential properties, the ability of developersand realtors to promote a property or development as having significant green space, trails andrelated amenities close by does enhance property values.

Developing effective strategies for greenway development, protected environmental areas, parksand public spaces requires the support of elected leaders at the municipal, provincial and federallevels of government and of the citizenry. A critical step is a public education and consultationprogram that places a discussion of the importance of alternative development standards includingparks and open space before the general public and enlists their support in making the provisionof these spaces an integral part of every process concerning the vision of the city and how itdevelops. The greater the value taxpayers place on the public realm and the provision of openspaces within the urban context the greater the attention of our civic leaders will be.

Developing workable strategies will need to include a range of vehicles that make green spaceboth economic and desirable for those who traditionally view land use issues with a much morebottom line perspective. These challenges include identification of potential opportunities for theincorporation of public space requirements within the development process. Developingpublic/private alternatives and strategies to supply and fund public space. Targeting developmentcost charges to the provision of amenity and open space. Use of existing legislative tools andbylaws or the development of new strategies to transfer development rights in return for densitybonusing or other incentives. Partnering with non-governmental organizations and foundationswho support the preservation of land and open spaces. Using tools, such as land trust options, andpublic education to maximize these programs and options.

Together we need to define our priorities and build consensus on core values that are critical tourban living. Then we can move ahead with the creation of more livable communities thatembrace a holistic and comprehensive approach to meeting all our needs including the need forusable nature amidst the concrete and cars.

Panelists:Lawrence Bortoluzzi


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

20

Lawrence has a Masters degree in City Planning from the Faculty of Architecture University ofManitoba. He joined the Calgary Board of Education as Director of Student AccommodationsDepartment in 2000 after working with Alberta Infrastructure as the Director of Policy andFinance, Learning and Housing Facilities. The Calgary Board of Education is the second largestschool district in Canada and one of the largest in North America, has 245 school facilities and1.2 million M2 of facility space. His responsibilities with the CBE, include: student enrolmentprojections, land use planning, leasing of school authority space, sale of school authorityproperties, design and construction services for new and existing facilities and transportationservices. He has also worked with all levels of government including 3 municipal governments,several Alberta government departments and the government of BC. While working with the 3municipal governments he was senior manager responsible for Area Structure Plans, AreaRedevelopment Plans, General Municipal Plans, Strategic Plans and public consultation.

Craig BurrowsCraig has a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science/History from McGill University. He waselected to his first term as Alderman for Ward Six in October 2001 bringing a strong and diversebusiness background in sales (includes holding a position as Director of Sales and Marketing foran environmental company focused on the oil and gas industry). Craig is an active volunteer. Hesits on the Calgary Grey Cup Committee and is a member of the Board of Directors for the PCAlberta riding of Calgary West. He is also in the process of helping communities create the firstever Ward 6 Action Committee to address issues that affect the whole ward. Craig presently sitson a number of civic boards and committees some of which include: Standing Policy Committeeon Community & Protective Services; Standing Policy Committee on Operations & Environment;Calgary Housing Company; Inter-municipal Committee/City of Calgary - M.D. of Rocky View;Parks Use Appeal Committee; Land Committee, Vice Chairman

Christopher S. Davis, B.Comm, LL.B.Chris graduated from the University of Calgary with a Bachelor of Commerce degree andobtained his LL.B. from the University of British Columbia. Since 1984 he has been practisinglaw which includes working at the City of Calgary Law Department where he was involved inadvising the Planning, Engineering and Transportation Departments on development, zoning andsubdivision issues. Chris also provided legal advice to the Calgary Subdivision and DevelopmentAppeal Board and Calgary City Council. He also worked with Bennett Jones advising clients onland use changes, development requirements, subdivision concerns and appearing beforemunicipal councils and boards. Clients included ATCO, Pan-Canadian, Nexen, Prudential Steeland Top Notch Construction. Chris was also engaged in expropriation matters during this time.Currently he is working with K. Hugh Ham and Arlene J. Liepins at Municipal Counsellors Inc.to advising municipalities and developers. Chris is an active member of the Canadian BarAssociation, the Law Society of Alberta, and the Calgary Bar Association. He is an activevolunteer with Calgary Region Arts Foundation (CRAF), current secretary to the RotaryChallenger Park Development Society, a volunteer to the River Valleys Committee of the ParksFoundation (Calgary) and a member of Rotary International (Calgary West club) where he chairstheir accessible housing committee and is a member of the Calgary all-clubs ‘Rotary IntegrityAwards’ committee.

Don Merlo


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

21

Don has a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Calgary and a MBA from Texas A&MUniversity. He has held various positions with Carma including: Project Manager/DevelopmentManager - Multi Family housing Division; first employee of a new division responsible for allaspects of project assessment, planning, marketing and development (11 projects and 400 homes).Currently, he is the Development Manager/Senior Development Manager at the Corporate HeadOffice &Calgary Land Division responsible for market analysis, strategic positioning, planningand approvals for Carma's 4,000+ acre raw land holdings within the City of Calgary. He isdirectly involved in all due diligence for land acquisitions and disposals and directly responsiblefor all planning, approvals and production of the actively developing community of Tuscany.

Bob PriebeBob has a Masters degree in Urban and Regional Planning from Queen's University, and aBachelor of Arts in Geography and Urban and Environmental Studies from Brock University.Currently he is employed as the Project Leader for the development of a new Urban ParksManagement Plan for the City of Edmonton Community Services Department. He has spentmuch of the past 3 years working with the Edmonton Urban Development Institute andEnvironmental Non-Governmental organizations to develop new approaches to conserve naturalareas within developed urban areas. For over 20 years he has been employed with the City ofEdmonton in various park planning capacities, including land management, community parkredevelopment planning, capital budgeting, facility redevelopment and special event planning(2001 Athletic Games).

Panel DiscussionQuestion 1 – What changes must be made to the current system to acquire more parks andpublic open space?Question 2 – How can we can we plan and implement a land trust to enable private citizensand corporations to donate parkland?

Shane SimpsonIntroductory Points –

o Smart Growth BC deals with liveability of urban and suburban areas by focussing onhousing, community economic development, and open space.

o Cities are the cornerstones of Canadian economy, though they lack the resources to dealwith issues of social, economic and environmental sustainability. The property tax base isnot enough to deal with the challenges that they face in these areas.

o How do cities prioritize to deal with open space needs? This is a big challenge.

Response to Q.1.

o Some changes that must be made to the current system to achieve more open space are:o Recognition that there are many different kinds of open space- natural open space & active

open space – both are positive because they increase citizen interaction with open space.o Zoning and planning tools can contribute to open space development. As well,

development cost levies can contribute to open space development.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

22

o Schools must play a larger role in community life after 4 p.m. – though this has someliability issues that must be dealt with.

o One example of successful achievement of open space through a community initiative wasHastings Park in Vancouver.

Response to Q.2

o Land trusts provide permanent protection of land and are a vehicle for public education.o Land trusts must act as the catalyst to facilitate partnerships that acquire land for public

benefit.o Land trusts can benefit from using the following tools: income tax credits, land swaps, and

land donations.o They vary in size and staffing and should be business like in orientation.o They should involve the community in a meaningful way.

Panelist’s’ Comments

Question 1 – What changes must be made to the current system to acquire more parks andpublic open space?

Chris Daviso We should look to documents such as the Municipal Government Act, the Municipal

Development Plan, and the conference toolkit for ways to achieve more open space.o The current environmental reserve guideline of 10% should be reassessed because it stands

in the way of achieving more creative solutions. In certain cases 10% is not always needed.

Lawrence Bortoluzzio Schools are being forced to sell of inner city sites to finance new school construction. If

10% is reassessed should revisit the location of where schools are placed in thesubdivision due to drainage and soil condition issues. Dry ponds are being built on schoolsites.

Alderman Craig Burrowso One change that would facilitate the achievement of open is the creation of a fund to

purchase open space.o A change to 9 % taken as land rather than the current 10 % Municipal Reserve

requirements would allow 1% to be paid in cash. This cash fund would allow purchase ofland for open space.

Bob Priebeo Protection of open space sites must become far more proactive. It must get out further in

front of the development process. Sites must be bought earlier before the price goes up.o Public dialogue must also be improved to clearly articulate visions for open space to avoid

confrontation – there is too much of this surrounding open space issues.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

23

Don Merloo Development standards and regulations need to be reviewed to allow the achievement of

more open space.o Currently schools contribute 70% of open space – this should be reviewed.o Lot coverage should be allowed to go upo Road right of ways could be made into open space.

Question 2 – How can we can we plan and implement a land trust to enable private citizens andcorporations to donate parkland?

Chris Daviso More creativity must be found in the legislation.o Conservation easements are good modelso We should look to models like the Griffith Woods Park area that was achieved through a

tax receipt issued by the Parks Foundation.

Alderman Craig Burrowso People must be paid for the land that is taken for open space.o Need to change the laws that are currently in place for land trusts – the politicians should

be kept out of the mix as much as possible – there is a role here for the non-profits.o Density credits and land exchanges are tools that could be used by land trusts to protect

resources.

Bob Priebeo Land trusts must be community driven.

Don Merloo City could ‘seed’ land trusts with their own $ and land – this would give private

landowners more confidence to get involved.o There must be incentives for private industry to donate land.o Density transfer is another tool that could work – though this might be a little early for

Calgary.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

24

Planning greenways and trails for healthy lifestylesThe many benefits of greenways and trail infrastructure include less automobile

emissions and improved public health through active living.Dara Finney, Go for Green, Ottawa; Dr. Brent Friesen, M.D.; GrahamSmith, Calgary Pathway & Bikeway Advisory Council; Dr. MichaelQuinn, Assistant Professor; Don Mulligan, Transportation Planner

Session Questions:

Question 1: a) What is the relationship between greenway/trail planning andpublic health and b) how can they be integrated into the planning process?

Question 2: How can people be encouraged to change their lifestyles towards theuse of greenway and trail infrastructure?

Dara FinneyDara Finney, our key speaker for this session is from Go for Green in Ottawa, Ontario. For thepast six years Dara has been assisting communities to build healthy, environmentally strong placesfor people to live, work and interact. Over this time, she has taught public health in the SolomonIslands, built trails in Costa Rica and facilitated community planning workshops in Canada andthe United States.

o Go for Green is most effective at the community levelo ‘active transportation’ – with special emphasis on kids walking to schoolo ‘wintergreen’ – arises from the need for people to overcome being ‘scared’ of wintero integration of effective transportation (walking, cycling infrastructure, land-use planning),

healthy transportationo the use of automobiles is only predicted to decrease by 1% (from 78%) – we are planning

for carso increasing the efficiency of cars does not solve our problems, because energy use is still

increasingo are noted health impacts due to both air pollution and physical inactivityo air pollution causes asthma, and a 2-4% increase in the mortality rate (costing $4 billion in

premature deaths in Ontario)o physical inactivity results in obesity, heart disease, etco must change the definition of transportation – add CHOICEo providing the means for the choice of alternative transportation modes will benefit the

environment, as well as personal healtho Atlanta Olympics – shut down transportation routes, resulting in 28% decrease in ozone

concentration, and 42% decrease in asthma emergencieso Must change: 1) personal behaviour – must build infrastructure for walking; reduce time

and distance required … people WANT to walk/bike – make it easy for them to do so 2)


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

25

society’s perception – change perception of walking as only for recreation to also a formof transportation 3) create environment – creates PLACES to walk to; interconnectmodes; map and promote facilities (rally around events like ‘Clean Air Day’)

Panelists:Dr. Brent FriesenDr. Brent Friesen is the Medical Officer of Health for Calgary Health Region. Prior to joiningCalgary Health Region in 1986, Dr. Friesen was Regional Medical Officer of Health forSouthwestern Manitoba. Dr. Friesen undertook his specialty training in Community Medicine atthe University of Manitoba. He holds Fellowships in Community Medicine and PreventativeMedicine, and the position of Clinical Assistant Professor with the Department of CommunityHealth Sciences at the University of Calgary.

Graham SmithGraham Smith, a resident of Lakeview, has been a member of the Calgary Pathway AdvisoryCouncil since 1992. His primary use of the pathway system is as a recreational cyclist. Graham isable to draw on the experience gained from being directly involved in municipal relatedconstruction since 1967. Graham, has worked as a Development Officer and Building Inspectorsince 1975.

Dr. Michael QuinnDr. Mike Quinn grew up in Calgary, spending most of his youth enjoying outdoor pursuits in theRockies including fly-fishing and watching wildlife especially birds. Mike holds a B.Sc. in forestscience, an M.Sc. in forestry and wildlife (ornithology) and a PhD in environmental studies. Withextensive experience in faculty positions across Canada, Mike is currently an assistant professorof environmental science and planning in the Faculty of Environmental Design at the Universityof Calgary and is also the Director of the Miistakis Institute for the Rockies. Mike’s teaching andresearch interests are in the areas of ecosystem management, protected areas management,community-based natural resource management and urban ecology.

Don MulliganDon is a Transportation Planning Engineer at the City of Calgary. He is the coordinator of theTransportation Solutions Group, responsible for alternative transportation initiatives, promotionand implementation of measures such as flex times and telecommuting, optimizing the operationof the transportation network and community traffic studies. Recent initiatives that supporthealthy lifestyles include completion of a long range pathway and bikeway plan for Calgary, widecurb lanes on major roads and creation of Park and Bike sites.

Panel DiscussionQuestion 1: a) What is the relationship between greenway/trail planning and public health and b)how can they be integrated into the planning process?


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

26

Question 2: How can people be encouraged to change their lifestyles towards the use ofgreenway and trail infrastructure?

Don MulliganQuestion 1a)

o Referred to the Commuter Cyclist Survey 2000o 2500 cycle into the downtown (80% on pathway, 29% cycle all year (this is a 10%

increase), 77% 7 months per year)o Cycling Routes – respondents asked to map their routes – the Bow River is a magnet

for cyclists (50% from the northwest use it)o Health and exercise is the number one (55% ) reason for cycling to work

Question 1b)o Just completed a 2 year process with various stakeholders to plan for on and off street

pathways

Question 2o Build it, tell them about it and they will comeo There is no river (or river pathway) form the northeasto Must design for ALL users – walkers, cyclists, disabled, different skill levels, in-line

skaters (they all have different design requirements)o Eliminate/reduce barriers, i.e. industrial areas, traffic, Deerfooto Provide alternatives, i.e. intermodal connections, such as biking to transit/LRT stationo Bike racks on buses will promote intermodal useo Park ‘n Ride – get exercise and save money on parkingo Must promote with such things as the Bikeway and Pathway map

Dr. Brent FriesenQuestion 1a)

o There is a Canadian epidemic of childhood obesityo In Calgary, most expensive program (most spent?) is the renal dialysis program for

diabetes - $30 000 - $50 000 per yearo Europe has strategies to prevent kidney disease and diabeteso Physical inactivity is key in preventiono Important to change the perception of physical activity as only recreation – make

pathways part of everyday routineo Encourage the use of stairways, instead of elevatorso Make stairways more pleasant – i.e. paint and decorate

Question 1b)o One challenge is equity of access to pathways (i.e. lower socioeconomic

neighbourhoods – it is more of a challenge to make pathways accessible)


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

27

Question 2

o An opportunity exists with the Mazankowski Report – is an emphasis on stayinghealthy (it is an example of actions that can be taken)

o Behaviour Changeo Is more than knowledge, attitude and practice – we must better understand issues of

attitudeo Need to consider 4 questions when developing a strategy:o Does the strategy target individuals or policy?o Does the strategy target knowledge? Awareness? Attitudes? Skills?o How is the message delivered? (from whom? – health expert, city representative, etc)

There are positives and negatives of who delivers the message.o (sorry, didn’t get this one…)

Graham Smitho there is a committee to advise on bike/pathways – they are looking at the top 10

‘missing links’ in the pathway systemQuestion 1a)

o “the question of health is there”

Question 1b)o the pathways ARE integrated into the planning process, BUT are often lost in process

– they end up as guides, but not rules… as a result, trails are fragmented and links arelost

Question 2o design and location are important – where does the pathway go?o There is no pathway connection to the soccer centreo Must consider the industrial areas (although this consideration is starting to happen)o Must be for ALL users, not just for commuters and speed training (as this will

discourage family use)o Must consider safety issues, such as sightlines and the use of kid trailerso Year-round use – ensure paths are clear of iceo More secure parking for bikes downtown

Dr. Mike QuinnQuestion 1a)

o Consider social/psychological health – there is a history of direct contact with thenatural world for survival, therefore it is not surprising that there is a desire for peopleto have a link with the environment

o We are genetically predisposed to want contact with the non-human environmento A study showed that people with a connection to the natural environment had faster

recoveryo Childhood years (E. Cobbs – studied genius) – there is a link between genius and

childhood experience and contact with nature


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

28

Question 1b)o 1) we must work on planners, as they have been cheated – they are not ecologically

literateo 2) pay more attention to the public – they ARE telling us what they want (i.e. open

space) – we must listen

Question 2o built form influences activity pattern – i.e. curvilinear is more conducive to activity

than grido must understand and mitigate barriers. There are two types:o subjective or personal barriers (more difficulty to solve)o environmental barriers (objective, and can be solved through design)o must find a way for community groups to hold events in public green spaceso “Active Community ?? Program”o create opportunity in culture – increase preventative medicineo need to breakdown philosophy urban wilderness dichotomy – make open/green space

more explicito overcome the anti-urban attitude


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

29

Luncheon Speaker

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE: CITY AS MACHINE OR CITY ASECOSYSTEM?

Cynthia GirlingCynthia Girling is a landscape architect, Associate Professor and Chair of the Department ofLandscape Architecture, University of Oregon where she teaches and conducts research related toopen space planning, neighborhood planning and site design. She is co-author with KennethHelphand of the 1994 book, Yard Street Park: The Design of Suburban Open Space.Girling's current work focuses on courses and projects related to large open space systems andneighborhood-scale planning that integrates compact development, open space and stormwatermanagement.

Girling is co-principal with Ron Kellett of the neighborhoodsLAB, a teaching, research andcommunity service organization of the Center for Housing Innovation and the School ofArchitecture and Allied Arts at the University of Oregon. The Lab's work focuses on the physicaldimensions of community, and tools for public participation in their planning and design. Itbrings together expertise in planning, landscape architecture, architecture and computerapplications. All of the Lab's applied work in Oregon has integrated principles of environmentalprotection with accepted principles of "smart growth." Recently, Girling and Kellett withJacqueline Rochefort and Cristine Roe published Green Neighborhoods: Planning and DesignGuidelines for Air, Water, and Urban Forest Quality.

Introduction:Throughout the twentieth century, when most city-building has occurred in North America, wehave seen the city as an entity separate from nature, an entity dedicated to serving humanfunctions. Cities have been conceived of and designed as machines, instruments designed totransmit or modify power, force or motion to serve some desired end. (Websters Third NewInternational Dictionary, 1986). Machines are typically single-purpose, rarely capable ofproducing more than one product or serving more than one function. They typically consumeenergy in the form of electricity or fossil fuels to produce goods and they typically have waste by-products such as heat, carbon dioxide, and used water. The city-machine is composed of buildingsinterconnected by networks. Urban infrastructure is a term typically referring to theinterconnecting networks or framework of the city and includes streets and transportation,utilities, sewage and stormwater systems. The products of urban infrastructure are the water,energy and transportation networks that service buildings, and move people and goods betweenthem. The wastes are air and water pollution, solid waste dumps, and depleted groundwaterresources to mention a few. As populations increase and urbanized areas expand, the wasteproducts increase in volume, extent and concentration. Despite energy-efficient systems,recycling, and clean-up efforts, as populations grow, the city as machine approach is rapidlymaking polluted wastelands out of the urban landscape.

A more ecologically based approach to city-building would be one that begins with anunderstanding of cities being a part of nature. “Nature pervades the city, forging bonds between


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

30

the city and the air, earth, water and living organisms within and around it. In themselves, theforces of nature are neither benign nor hostile to humankind. Acknowledged and harnessed, theyrepresent a powerful resource for shaping a beneficial urban environment; ignored or subverted,they magnify problems that have plagued cities for centuries such as floods and landslides,poisoned air and water. Unfortunately cities have mostly neglected and rarely exploited thenatural forces within them.” (Spirn, 1984, p.xi). Taking an ecological approach to city planningimplies, as Johnson and Hill (2001) state, “moving beyond separate visions for human and naturewhile recognizing that humans are a key species in contemporary earth ecosystems.” (p. 13) Inother words, an ecological approach views human and natural ecology as interacting partners inthe local ecosystem. This approach to the design and planning of urban systems would allownatural processes to continue in a healthy state, would produce few negative impacts on the urbanenvironment itself and the surrounding region, and would take care of its own wastes.Concurrently, it would allow for the healthy sustenance of its human populations.

Skeptics would say this is impossible. But there is mounting evidence and a few examples thatsuggest otherwise. This paper focuses on the concept of planning cities and neighborhoods arounda functioning green infrastructure, one that allows natural processes to occur and provides healthyurban benefits. A few examples are referenced.

A Green InfrastructureThe term green infrastructure has become a popular catch-phrase recently, but few who have usedit have endeavored to define it. If “infrastructure” is the underlying framework of the city-machine and “green” is a contemporary colloquialism that means environmentally friendly orhealthy, then an obvious definition for “green infrastructure” would be urban infrastructure that isenvironmentally friendly. Examples might include stormwater management systems that protectthe natural hydrology and do not degrade or pollute streams, or wastewater systems that re-usesolids and “polish” water using the cleaning powers of wetlands. However, I would like topropose a definition that looks deeper. The deeper “structure” of the urban environment is thefoundation or skeleton of the local ecosystem, primarily composed of large patches of naturalhabitat interconnected by habitat corridors, typically riparian corridors and hedgerows.(Dramstad, et al, 1996) Adding water, the sustenance of life, this definition of “greeninfrastructure” would be the ecological landscape structure, including lands essential to afunctioning hydrology such as wetlands and floodplains. Preserving this deep green infrastructureallows natural processes to continue and at the same time, can utilize natural processes to provideurban benefits. Floodplains provide a clear and convincing example of this. If left in open spaceand free to flood, floodplains help to protect people and property, provide recreational open spacefor most of the year and can provide wildlife habitat.

Principles of planning for a Green Infrastructure include: taking a process-oriented approach inwhich incremental change, monitored over time replaces the master-plan mentality; understandingand preserving the green infrastructure, and locating urban development around this structure;incorporating natural processes in the design of the urban environment and making these naturalprocesses visible; developing compact, diverse, vibrant, neighborhoods throughout the city andinterconnecting these with excellent pedestrian and bicycle networks; managing urban stormwaterrunoff to maintain natural hydrologic processes— keeping and cleaning runoff in the city;


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

31

managing a dense and diverse urban forest to mitigate some of the city’s wastes. (Hough, 1995and Girling and Kellett, 2000)

3 case studies: Ecolonia, Village Homes, and The Royal Avenue neighborhood[Figure 1] Ecolonia, The Netherlands, is a small neighborhood located in the town of Alphen aanden Rijn. This development, sponsored by the Dutch Ministry of Housing, was developed in theearly 1990s as a demonstration of environment-sensitive development practices. A very densedevelopment by North American standards, it nonetheless provides most families with singlefamily homes, small private yards and parking. Homes feature energy efficient designs withpassive and active solar systems, low water use, and alternative building materials, includingsome turf roofs. The heart and central feature of the community is a stormwater treatment pondthat stores and treats stormwater before it leaves the site. Homes face onto this feature andresidents have built sunning decks at its edges.

[Figure 2] Village Homes, Davis California is a small subdivision built in Davis by developerMichael Corbett in 1975. Corbett wanted to build a community that “conserved and cleanedwater, used passive and active solar energy, produced more food than its residents could consumeand included the residents in managing their community’s resources.” (Girling and Helphand1994, p. 155) Village Homes is an agriculturally based community. Gardens exist outsidepeople’s doors, and in nearby community gardens. A vineyard is a central feature of thecommunity, almond orchards line the major streets and fruit trees line the residential streets. Fulltime gardeners manage the “farm” within the neighborhood and sales of the produce pay theirwages. The community also features a natural stormwater infrastructure, characterized by gentlegrassy swales running along paths and roads, interrupted frequently by tiny attractive detentionponds. This system helps to maintain the site’s natural hydrology and groundwater, essential for athriving farm. It also protects the residents from floods. On several occasions, when Davis hasexperienced severe floods, Village Homes has survived unscathed.

[Figure 3] The Royal Avenue neighborhood in Eugene Oregon is still in the planning stages. TheCity of Eugene, working with consultants, has developed a plan for this neighborhood thatprotects wetlands and drainage corridors within the neighborhood while concurrently creating acompact, pedestrian oriented neighborhood. Located on a “greenfield” site near Eugene’s urbangrowth boundary, the site sits adjacent to a 400 acre (162 ha.) wetland restoration project, haswetlands on the site and several creeks and drainageways passing through it. The plan calls for astormwater management system in which 80% of all stormwater runoff is filtered, using primarilynatural means. Stormwater from over 90% of the rain storms each year will be carried by anatural stormwater infrastructure to the open drainage corridors. These drainage corridors areadjacent to preserved wetlands yielding open space corridors in the neighborhood ranging from100 to almost 400 feet wide (30 to 122 m.). Multi-use trails align their edges and houses will facethese open space corridors, making them central features of the community.

“Landscapes are shaped by rain and sun, plants and animals, human hands and minds. Whetherwild or clipped, composed of curved lines or straight, living plants or plastic, every garden andevery region is the product of natural phenomena and human artifice.” (Anne Spirn in Johnsonand Hill, 2001, pg. 29) Planning and engaging the green infrastructure in cities will go a longway towards forging healthy and constructive bonds between the city and nature.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

32

Reference ListDramstad, Wenche E., James D. Olsen, Richard T.T. Forman, Landscape ecology principles inlandscape architecture and land-use planning, Washington D. C.: Island Press, 1996Girling, Cynthia L., and Kenneth I. Helphand. Yard, Street, Park : The Design of Suburban OpenSpace. New York : J. Wiley, c1994.Girling, Cynthia, Ronald Kellett, Jacqueline Rochefort, Crissy Roe, Green NeighborhoodsPlanning and Design Guidelines for Air, Water and Urban Forest Quality, Eugene, OR: Centerfor Housing Innovation, 2000.Hough, Michael. Cities and Natural Process. New York: Routledge, 1995.Johnson, Bart R. and Kristina Hill, Ecology and Design Frameworks for Learning, WashingtonD.C.: Island Press, 2001.

Breakout Strategies

RAISING THE PROFILE OF URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT

Session QuestionsQuestion 1. What are the opportunities, incentives and obstacles related to taking awatershed approach to water management?Question 2. How do we fund watershed management initiatives?

Question 1. What are the opportunities, incentives and obstacles related to taking awatershed approach to water managementSynopsis of Discussion1. Water Management Issues

Education for responsible water use:

o Illustrating that “brown does not necessarily mean bad”i.e. –Town Brown Initiative in Okotoks – educated people about how much water their lawnsreally needed; emphasized that brown was not bad and; among other things sent out ahorticulturalist to peoples’ houses if they felt there plants were dying due to decreased watering.o Changing peoples’ beliefs, ideology and perceptions fundamental to achieving more

responsible water management practices and changing consumption patterns at the householdslevel. It’s about quantity as much as quality.“it’s not about doing without, but realizing howmuch we waste”

o To some a water metering system really only means “I’m using as much as I want becauseI’m paying for it”

o Education is part of “social marketing toolbox”o Enforcement and prevention go hand in hand with educationo Educating people about economic benefits of water metering system.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

33

o Timeline for water metering: some discussion that the current timeline (12-15 years was toolong) because many different governments will come and go in that time period.

o Water management, especially regarding potable water use, needs to be recognized as apriority by Council for different bodies to get a mandate for working on it.

Question 2. What are opportunities, incentives and obstacles to a watershed approach?(Question one for breakout session)

Opportunities:

o Climate is right – due to health scares (Walkerton) and water shortage stories on the news,people are more receptive to water management issues at the moment.

o Watershed approach will recognize the benefits of natural features and emphasize preservingwhat we have (wetlands), and working with what we have.

o Possibility of the creation of overarching regional body to provide direction and authority onwater management issues (to provide common framework and set of goals)

o Public educationo Stressing the economic benefits to the consumer of better water management practices as a

mechanism for changing behaviour (it makes economic sense to practice better watermanagement practices!).

Obstacles:

o Can’t control upstream/downstream effectso No structure in place to act as overarching authority or have political clouto Competing jurisdictionso Current licensing system does not work towards instilling better water management practiceso Municipalities have no net impact (or authority?), but are beholden to senior userso Individual attitudes and current consumption patterns – lack of awarenesso Not a recognized priority by Council (which limits how much can be done by different

municipal and local bodies)o Competing interests (lots of different users)

KEY POINTS TO FORWARD1. Lack of awareness/ education2. Conservation techniques and mechanisms: legislated for public and industry updated.3. Recognition of value of water and current practices/conditions


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

34

Question 2. How do we fund watershed management initiatives?

o Create an overarching water management body or commission (or through existing regionalbody such as the Calgary Regional Partnership) that would be funded by a watershedmanagement fund, which would be generated by setting aside some portion of current taxes.

o Possibility of water co-ops as a funding mechanism (works on a site by site basis like acommunity housing co-op)

o Monetary disincentives (i.e. – changes to current licensing system to reflect real costs ofwater)

Recommendations (most important points for moving forward):

o Creation of an overarching watershed management body – that can oversee variousjurisdictions and provide a common framework and set of common goals within whichvarious different agencies responsible for some aspect of water management can work within.

o In tandem with an overarching body there needs to be the creation of a pilot project as well asthe development of a communication and education branch (various levels of governmentneed to lead by example).

o Have watershed management and conservation recognized as Council priorities.o Focus on education and changing peoples’ behaviors and thus decreasing consumptiono Change regulations and bylaws to mandate that all new developments have water saving

appliances (low flush toilets, washing machines, showerheads, faucets etc).o Reassess and change current licensing system to reflect real cost of water.

KEY POINTS TO FORWARD1. Users pay (domestic/industry)2. Conservation credits and over-use penalties3. Good information, communication.

GREENING URBAN VILLAGE PARKS

Session Questions:Question 1. How do we educate and encourage municipal government and private industryto incorporate policy that strives to provide ecological benefit to our urban fabric?Question 2. How can ecology be recognized and incorporated as a fundamental componentto the design planning and implementation of our existing and future

Question 1. How do we educate and encourage municipal government and private industryto incorporate policy that strives to provide ecological benefit to our urban fabric?o Need to take an inventory and design around the inventory (percolation etc. are identifiable in

landscape prior to development). You need to work with what you have.o Public needs to educated about the environment / natural landscapes. We talked about failed

projects (i.e. Douglas Glen and what can be learned from these projects).o examples provided of ravine management – natural community – managed semi-natural area.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

35

o xeriscaping – talk about browning urban areas in Calgary rather than greening. Go with thenatural landscapes.

o Situation differs between Edmonton and Calgary.o Difficult to change people from grass. Land no longer used for food production in city.o Discussed locations of community gardens in Calgary.o For 20 – 30 years public has been provided with information – Are we seeing change? MLAs

are becoming more aware. Natural front lawn leads to bylaw problems. Discussed the needto change city by-laws in regard to herbicide use.

o Meeting places need to be multi-use and interconnected … access to the parks needs to bemore prevalent.

o Need to look at the conditions of our semi-arid land.o Why build on a slope area (i.e. Paskapoo when there is a natural slope) Respect the land

rather than fighting it.o Money – commitment of local government for maintenance of impervious surfaceso How do you make overused boulevards green? Connaught Community. Need more trees.

More could be done with school space.o Political pressure to replant trees in Hillhurst Sunnyside.o Practicalities – not to hit a utility line, distance from traffic roadways from an injury

prevention point of view. We are building cities primarily for the car. Engineeringdepartment is reducing width of roads due to pressure from developers. Practical approach tospeed and road width in residential areas is needed.

o Create more connectivityo Constructed wetlands and the use of bioswells are integral.o Carma developer “Can’t give green space away” This is problem.o A lot of market gardening occurs in Northeast Edmonton.o City maintenance on green surfaces rather than hard surfaceo City’s base standard for landscaping is too low.o Not enough green space for residential downtown areaso Good quality green spaces is more important than quantity of green space.o Tax break for neighbourhoods with community gardenso Need for roof top gardens

KEY POINTS TO FORWARD1. We feel that the City needs to change policies and specifications to allow park programming toimplement ecological planning. It is essential to work around the land, the natural landscape.

2.We need to revisit projects and learn from these experiences. There is not ample time toembrace lessons learned from past project implementation.

3. We can’t keep planning cities the way that we planned them in the past. Let’s not make thesame mistakes in our new subdivisions.

4. Approach must be both on a macro and micro scale.

5. Encourage and strengthen communities - use your local capital.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

36

6. Make government system flexible enough to accommodate and reward ecological innovationfor small and large projects.

7. Develop innovative ideas working with communities and developers.

Question 2. How can ecology be recognized and incorporated as a fundamental componentto the design planning and implementation of our existing and futureo Edmonton – NGOs make council perceptive Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited, University of

Alberta Women’s Association – to set up land trust.o Calgary has the potential to do more of this. We need to go a step further. Calgary may be

ahead of Edmonton on issues of connectivity.o Well-educated electorate – but we need to get community groups into council. Participation

in municipal government is essential.o We need more grassroots urban organizations.o Change comes from community level planning.o We need to encourage discussion between the community and council. It is integral that

people come together for a common issue. City community coordinators can be a big help tothe public. Need to choose your battles to fight bad development, i.e. cut through traffic.

o We need to fight for Electoral boundaries Commission as it is so important from theperspective of voting.

o Calgary started looking at wetlands when the province talked about taxation. The way webuild cities is not ecologically or economically sound. Services are being paid for by industryto a large extent. The public’s expectations are not realistic.

o We need to make the public aware of how things are funded.o Canada Olympic Plaza for instance does not have adequate funding.o The Devonian Group – as costs rose, the grant for maintenance didn’t increase.o Have buildings represent what they were built to represent. - Architectureo Some of the suburbs are poorly serviced. We need to look at maintaining inner city urban

areas.o Schoolyards site idle 8 weeks/ year: discussion around landscaping sites, using them more

effectively year roundo Planning for the future: too much local emphasis, need look outside your own space.

KEY POINTS TO FORWARD1. Community members need to participate in local governments. Grassroots

organizations and established NGOs need to challenge issues in council.2. The municipal government and the public need to be brought into the new millennium

We all need to think beyond the big house and the two car garage mentality that isinherent in our society.

3. The government should facilitate; it is their responsibility. They must necessitateecological infrastructure initiatives.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

37

RETHINKING OPEN SPACE

Session questions:Question 1. What changes should be made to the current system to acquire more parks andpublic open space?Question 2. How can we plan and implement a land trust to donate park land?

Question 1: What changes should be made to the current system to acquire more parksand public open space?

Mission/Cliff Bungalow community:o Adult community different needso Disused parks turned into community gardenso Inner-city communities have spaces that don’t meet the needs of the demographics.

What to do?o We need the right spaces in the right places that allow safety and access.o Mission/Cliff Bungalow ayes on the street.o ARP’s community imput can be ignored.

- Need to talk to alderman- ARP’s too legalistic regarding the guidelines- Investment of public energies only to disregard because of legalities- Need to be political in action need to talk to right people in thecommunity.- Need to activate the political and community will to make open spaces.

o Is it desirable to have more open spaceo Developers give useless property to the city which are unworkable.o City needs to be selective in what they accept from developers. Capital costs are often

too great.o Do we want more parks and what kind of parks are these?o Development agreement needs to be tailored to reflect the kinds of public open spaces

available.o How can we find out what people want?o Developer has a trust relationship with future owners.o City inherits amenities from developer to sell communities and has to maintain these.o Acquire relevant spaces for parks.o Maintenance issues on green space even on area with native vegetation.o Inner-city communities don’t need more open space for parks.o Homeless in inner-city parks is an issue. Design of these spaces must be functional…

pathways and open spaces must be well designed to discourage this use.o What is the value of these amenities? Must have amenities for homeless people.o Overall parks master plan to define urban park space

- must be integrated with Go Plan- Alderman and city staff need to read this document- Follow and update existing documents that relate to parks.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

38

o Parks Plan might allow us not to make mistakes of the past (Shaw Millennium Park)o Parks don’t have to be city owned: i.e. Davis California, Elbow Valley, ecological

processes integrated with landscaping.o Agreements for ownership can be similar to condominium agreement.o Developers need to be given incentive to develop these types of spaces.o Minimize infrastructure to community:

- drainage and wastewater need to be reconsidered.- over land rain water treatment.- address the problems more creatively with simple solutions.

o Review current development standards in positioning green space.

KEY POINTS TO FORWARD1. Master plans must be established early and identify ideal sites and linkages. The plan

for parks and open spaces should be better co-ordinate with other city plans forroadways, etc.

2. Should there be more parks and open spaces or better parks and open spaces? Avoidpocket parks and combine them into bigger and better parks and open spaces.

3. Better and more creative incentives to developers would encourage more public landand less private land.

4. Make better use of school sites and when used as such, school boards to sell to theCity for use as public spaces rather than development.

5. To reduce costs, place more emphasis on low maintenance areas.

Question 2: How can we plan and implement a land trust to donate park land?

o Parks Foundation and like organizations donate to parks department who don’t havethe resources to maintain lands.

o Creation of a body to accept like donations of land trust.o The trust needs to include a donation to offset the cost of operations and maintenance.o City is being responsible in accepting these lands.o Need to empower citizen groups to adopt/self organize park spaces.o i.e. composting in Cliff Bungalow

- through parks- through neighborhood- through various stakeholders- then get the money.

o Do we need a land trust?o the government takes care of this?o Parks foundation to give tax receipts for donations.o Provide tax incentives for people to donate land trust or land.o Educational service or campaign to let people know that they can donate land.o Public perception is that parks is only recreational and cutting and watering the land

are the only things they do.o Need a volunteer program.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

39

o Re-branding of parks in Calgary that links all relevant organizationso Need outreach to get the message out thereo Advertising campaign i.e. a legacy campaigno Assess the land to be donated to determine contamination and relevance to the area.o Make the donating body do the homework before donationo Community need to take lead roleo Allow the developer to create a land trust instead of the 10% to parks.o Create a template for people to follow in donating land.

KEY POINTS TO FORWARD1. Land trust should always be managed by non-governmental non-profit organizations

and make use of existing organizations, such as the Calgary Foundation, ParksFoundation, etc.

2. Publicity - two types. First reorganize the donors in an appropriate way but notnecessarily by naming a particular space for them. Second, publicize widely thesuccesses achieved so as to encourage others.

3. Incentives for giving of land should be competitive with other competing causes.Incentives should include density credits for developers and land swaps.

4. Encourage the donation of land which can be sold for money to buy or maintain othermore appropriate land and encourage donation of money for purchases andmaintenance of land.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

40

PLANNING GREENWAYS AND TRAILS FOR HEALTHY LIFESTYLESSession QuestionsQuestion 1: a) What is the relationship between greenway/trail planning and public healthand b) how can they be integrated into the planning process?Question 2: How can people be encouraged to change their lifestyles towards the use ofgreenway and trail infrastructure?

Question 1: a) What is the relationship between greenway/trail planning and public healthand b) how can they be integrated into the planning process?

o Walking = exercise = physical and mental healtho Integrate into policy planso Implement and put in place before moving into new communities prior to

development.o How to influence alderman?o Educate developers to lobby on your behalf.o Start with the public, encourage the ‘silent’ majority to make the alderman

accountable.o Hove strong cycling/walking advocacy groups/individualso Lead by example - close to home examples of good planningo Every community must show bike path/pedestrian connectors, zoning for small local

commercial developments, corner storeso Ensure the ‘bike plan’ and local development interact, linkages, ARPs,o Challenges of balancing multiuses on pathway systemo Formally include the ‘public health’ voice as part of the planning process. Public

health presently absorbs the effects of bad planning , public health should be on thetable.

o Bonus system for developers providing alternate modes of infrastructureo ‘benefits of trails’ more media attention, more positive coverage.

KEY POINTS TO FORWARD1. Increase city planners ecological knowledge and training.

2. Reduce the inequitable distribution of access to pathways - every community should havepathway bike/ pedestrian connections and zoning for small local commercial developmentsincluding corner stores to lessen travel distances for common essentials.

3. Recognize the challenges of balancing multi-uses on the pathway system and that using theparalleling road system for cycling is feasible and desirable.

4. Formally include the ‘public health’ voice as part of the planning process. Public healthofficials presently absorb the effects of bad planning. Public health voice should be ‘at thetable’ participating.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

41

5. Encourage developers to provide well connected active transportation infrastructure – e.g.provide a bonus system for developers who provide infrastructure for alternate modes.

Question 2: How can people be encouraged to change their lifestyles towards the use ofgreenway and trail infrastructure?

o Incentives: showers, bike racks, subsidies for ‘rainy day’ transito Education: mentors and corporate initiatives, neighbourhoods, schools, etc.o Courses: i.e. winter cycling.o Route suggestion resources: help line and route planningo Multi-function, multi-times activitieso Native vegetation, interpretation signs on pathwayso Redesigning transport modes - modify routes, buses with bike trailerso “White” bike programs - Red Deer, Jaspero Car sharingo Design for safety

KEY POINTS TO FORWARDSuggestions for successful design of active transportation infrastructure include:1. Interconnect all modes of transportation (e.g. bike racks on busses, bike and ride facilities);2. Eliminate/reduce barriers (e.g. inclusion of trails in industrial areas, provide Deerfoot Trail

crossing);3. Develop facilities at destination points (e.g. bike lockers with coin machines or monthly rates,

changing rooms/showers;;4. Consider “white bike” program implementation, free bikes for public to pick-up / drop-off

anywhere (e.g. Jasper, Red Deer, Amsterdam);5. Design for universal accessibility (e.g. ramps, hand rails, paved trails);6. Design facilities for safety (e.g. clear sight lines, adequate night lighting, sweep gravel, ice /

snow removal, help phones on pathways);7. Design to maximize use throughout the day and the year (e.g. include a natural history

interpretation program, native vegetation along pathways, host special events along trails,include cross country ski areas); and,

8. Incorporate infrastructure near elements of interest (e.g. rivers, parks and open spaces,commercial nodes)

Suggestions for promotion programs of active transportation use include:1. Provide education in major public institutions such as schools, post-secondary institutions, the

City of Calgary, the Calgary Health Region2. Host special events to promote alternate mode choices (e.g. commuter challenge)3. Encourage ‘Green active living’ prescriptions by physicians (e.g. to walk for one hour/day)4. Encourage small steps towards a healthier lifestyle.( e.g. promote walking rather than driving

to the mailbox)5. Provide courses (e.g. winter cycling programs, CAN-BIKE Skills courses, kids cycling

festivals)


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

42

6. Provide and Promote route suggestion resources (e.g. Calgary Bike and Pathways Map, help-line for bike route planning)

7. Focus more media attention on the ‘benefits of trails’ (e.g. more positive coverage to reducefears of safety).Promote car-sharing opportunities (Calgary Alternative TransportationCooperative


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

43

Eco-CelebrationDevonian Gardens

4th Floor, 317 – 7 Avenue SWMay 3, 2002

ProgramFriday, May 3Devonian Gardens, 4th Floor, TD Square, 317-7th Avenue S.W.

6:00-8:00 pm1 Arts in celebration of nature2 Calgary urban nature photography3 Local urban ecology success stories4 Urban displays

6:30-7:00 pmA reading by Lori Beattie - author of Calgary's Best Hikes and Walks

6:00-6:30 pmA slide show illustrating urban nature - local naturalist Dave Elphinstone

7:30-8:00 pmA reading by Myrna Pearman and Dr. Ted Pike - co-authors ofNatureScape Alberta

Art ComponentThe Task: to create an artistic interpretation of the ideas, visions and insights presented andparlayed at Calgary edition of Breaking Ground Conferences held in various locations across thecountry.

From initial round-table discussions shared by the conference's organizing committee, the conceptof incorporating the artistic eyes and ears' of our future - namely a few incredibly talentedstudents from the Alberta College of Art.

Enthusiastic and keen to share in this opportunity, the artists were asked to audit the variouspresentations and guest-speaker lectures held during the conference's professional segment of theweekend event held May 2 - 4, 2002. Local and regional planners, engineers, developers,community representatives, politicians, and other interested parties gathered to hear the insightsand knowledge presented by a few of their respected peers. Through the students' presence, theiropen and creative minds were fed with newly gathered ideas and future notions. The accumulatedknowledge not only helped with evaluating how urban greening is currently being addressed, butalso focused on how these ideas and insights might help shape the future. The 'blacks and whites'of our accomplishments and actions to-date, were now colourfully enhanced with the hopes andinspirations of a 'greener tomorrow'.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

44

Artists have a rare gift to express themselves, and their thoughts through creative, visualmediums. Any Cripps, Natalie Woodhouse and Chad Redl's artistic works accomplished the takein spades. From a variety of colourful pictures, city maps, artists pencils and carved ink blocks -reflections of 'green' transportation, adaptable eco-water treatment systems and 'friendly' urbangreen sprawl ideas were just a few of the images portrayed. Even the story told about a localenvironmental technician's barefoot stroll (actually through!) Nose Hill Creek was delightfullycaptured in on of the four collages depicting the day's discussions and presentations. The result ofthe artists' creative endeavors were then joyfully shared at the evening's wind-up gala held amidstthe beautiful surroundings of Calgary's Devonian Gardens (the Chinook city's indoor tropicaloasis which is nestled amidst the towering jungle of it's downtown corporate pulse). Without thegenerous donations of art, mind and persons - these 'gifts' for the national urban greening quiltwould not have transpired. Many a thanks to all who gathered - but many a sincerest thanks to thetalented artists who gave 'of themselves ' so graciously.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

45

Slide PresentationsUrban HikesLori Beattie

Lori is owner and guide of Calgary-based Fit Frog Adventures. Since starting Fit Frog in Mayof 1997, Lori has created over 100 city routes that take participants over hill and dale throughout the neighborhoods and parks of Calgary. Year-round city hiking programs run nightlythroughout the week and some weekend mornings. Hiking boots laced, participants hikethrough river valleys and along wildflower covered hills with city skyline views to the east andmountain vistas to the west.

Fit Frog has full day weekend outings that take participants hiking, snowshoeing and cross-country skiing throughout Kananaskis Country, the Whaleback and the Badlands.

Urban Nature Photography Dave Elphinstone

Dave is the Natural Area Management Coordinator in charge of the Natural Environment Parks(Over 40 percent of the park system in Calgary). He has won an Emerald Award for IndividualCommitment to the Environment, authored and edited books and wrote a column for CalgaryHerald. He is a wildlife photographer with previous teaching postings at Mount Royal, U of Cand Calgary Board of Education. Previously, he has worked in Archaeology and was Chief ParkNaturalist at Fish Creek Provincial Park

NatureScape Alberta Myrna Pearman and Dr. Ted Pike

Co-authors of NatureScape Alberta: Creating and caring for wildlife habitat at home. Presentedideas on how landowners can increase backyard biodiversity by applying the principles ofNatureScaping. Their presentation covered all the topics outlined in their book, but will focus onattracting butterflies, bees, birds (especially hummingbirds) and other backyard wildlife.


May 2nd - 4th, 2002

46

DisplaysBelow is a list of the organization that had display booths at the Eco-Celebration:

o Alberta Ecotrusto Alberta Native Plants Councilo Alberta Wilderness Associationo ALCLA Native Plant Restorationo Boiled Frogo Calgary Area Outdoor Councilo Calgary Environmental Guideo Calgary Field Naturalistso Calgary Horticultural Societyo City – Parkland Managemento Clean Calgaryo Down to Earth

o Evergreeno FCCo Fit Frogo Inner City Forest Committeeo Mayor’s Environmental Expoo NatureScape Albertao Parks Foundation, Calgaryo Riverwatch (8’x4’)o Sierra Clubo Sustainable Calgaryo The Calgary Foundationo Trees Alive Alberta

conference proceedings - home | evergreen€¦ · finally, sustainable development must be...

Documents