Calgary is somewhat of an anomaly, in that it gets better in many aspects, as it gets worse in others. For example, Ottawa contains far more urban neighbourhoods, yet has fewer ethnic enclaves (and restaurants). Calgary is almost a study in extremes. I had to go to a Southwest strip mall to go to a vegetarian chinese restaurant, anywhere similar (But not as good) in Ottawa (or Montreal or Toronto for that matter) would be downtown.

It’s an interesting film, and probably among Canada’s top ten this year.

Calgary is way more diverse than it used to be. Sure, there have always been large Chinese and Punjabi communities, but now you hear many more languages on the streets—a whole Korean community has emerged since I left, and there are way more Somalis—and the citizenry is visibly less white.

It’s definitely not as cosmopolitan or as culturally sophisticated as Montreal, though. But on the whole what pleases me about Calgary is that it seems to be getting better, not worse. There’s a lot more sprawl than in 1993, but a lot more of everything else, too.

Some of the good changes: seeing more diversity in the mix of people here, some life in the downtown, and more cultural events.

But people here are still too much in love with their SUVs, shopping malls and McMansions, and there aren’t enough places to get a decent zaatar.

When I had to leave, my Montreal friends said, “Go. We hear that life is better there.” My response, “It depends on what you want from life.”

And yes, from a planning perspective Calgary’s sprawl situation is much less severe then almost every American city. But for a variety of factors, primarily being the young age of the city and the density of spawl it is much more noticeable (tightly packed houses require grading of land, whereas many Eastern US suburbs hide under the trees).

That said, the only benefit of increasing the density from seven units per acre to twelve is reduced cost in providing city services. From a design perspective, everything is the same, especially the street patterns, which are still loopy and completely car-oriented.

The bright side to Calgary’s boom is what Nick will explore next week: the densification of the inner city, which is being completely transformed by new highrise condo development almost like a mini-Vancouver. In fact, the boom seems to have sparked a naissance of public awareness in urban issues: when I lived in Calgary, nobody was aware of pedestrian-oriented design, streetscapes, the public realm, etc. Now it’s being discussed like never before. City planners have also become more activist and gained new powers (in fact, Calgary’s planning process has been remodeled after Vancouver). Some very high-quality master plans for inner-city neighbourhoods have been produced. One neighbourhood, the Beltline, will see its density triple over the next decade with new infill development.

Just curious, ’cause this doesn’t seem to get dealt with too much anywhere: statistical density aside, are there real fundamental changes in the form of the built environment? Radiant City showed how developers went around the density requirement, threw all the multi-family stuff way out on the periphery, built the usual cul-de-sacs etc., effectively achieving the same sort of demographic and use segregation and car dependence. Are the denser projects going up right now the same old?

They also brought Andre Duany on for a second. He proposed rectifying the existing situation by building on the front lawn. This sort of political no-go aside, I wonder if there is any active “buzz” in the design community over there, or whether Calgary has its own brand of grass-rootsy public space activism.

Looking forward to the rest of the articles. Calgary’s problem is every North American city’s problem, just magnified.