Growing up in Regina I saw the same “urban decay” (is that a fair term?) and IMHO it had relatively little to do with whether people were living in basement suites. In other words, I think what's happening in your neighbourhood is a symptom rather than the disease.

That said, I don't think opening the land use floodgates is a viable solution either. But for neighbourhoods – near post secondary institutions for example – that want to embrace secondary suites, it doesn't make sense to have them mired in red tape either.

Broadly speaking, I think the sensible way to address the “urban decay” problem is hard density targets for new “greenfield” developments. (i.e. not allowing the sprawl to continue unencumbered). That's why the “backroom politics cost taxpayers $2 billion” story I linked it is so disheartening. The developers met behind closed doors with council the weekend prior to them voting on Plan-It, Calgary's 60 year development plan recently approved by council. The result? The density targets were relaxed for new developments.

Growing up in Regina I saw the same “urban decay” (is that a fair term?) and IMHO it had relatively little to do with whether people were living in basement suites. In other words, I think what's happening in your neighbourhood is a symptom rather than the disease.

That said, I don't think opening the land use floodgates is a viable solution either. But for neighbourhoods – near post secondary institutions for example – that want to embrace secondary suites, it doesn't make sense to have them mired in red tape either.

Broadly speaking, I think the sensible way to address the “urban decay” problem is hard density targets for new “greenfield” developments. (i.e. not allowing the sprawl to continue unencumbered). That's why the “backroom politics cost taxpayers $2 billion” story I linked it is so disheartening. The developers met behind closed doors with council the weekend prior to them voting on Plan-It, Calgary's 60 year development plan recently approved by council. The result? The density targets were relaxed for new developments.

In my (mature) neighbourhood, many houses have been purchased for the purpose of dividing them into two units. On paper, that seems like densification, but often what has happened is that places built to be occupied by parents with two or three kids now have two residents, one upstairs, one downstairs. Twice as many units, yes, but half as many people.

My community has never had more dwellings, but the population is at its lowest point since the Second World War.

Meanwhile, Edmonton continues to sprawl, as families with kids search for the biggest, newest house at the lowest price — in the suburbs. Unlike much of the country, Alberta has had strong birth rates and immigration, so the sharp decline in the number of children living in established parts of the major cities can't be explained away by Boomer demographics.

Setting aside environmental concerns, this trend is a disaster for taxpayers, who ultimately must come up with the money to build the new infrastructure, while good schools in mature neighbourhoods are closed because so few kids live there.

Achieving the goals the young social media crowd seems to want (including me) — more compact and
liveable cities — is immensely more complicated than simply creating more housing units. I don't care for some of the hysterical arguments against basement suites, but, in general, reducing the amount of family housing in mature neighbourhoods is not an effective strategy.