People confuse manicured green spaces with natural ecosystems

Content of the article

Rents are rising at their highest rate in decades and home ownership is out of reach for many Calgarians. In addition, human encroachment, climate change and urban development are destroying local ecosystems at an alarming rate. Can we build homes for a growing population without destroying the ecosystem?

The housing discourse increasingly reflects the misconception that increased density has a negative impact on the environment. This argument is often picked up by opponents of density under the guise of “protecting biodiversity” or “preserving green space.”

Content of the article

Content of the article

We need to stop pretending manicured lawns are natural oases.

Calgary has relied almost exclusively on geography to meet periods of rapid population growth. As a result, Calgary's population density is low, requiring more road kilometers per capita than any major Canadian city outside of Alberta, which eats away at important habitat and natural areas on the outskirts of the city.

Community projects to develop these sprawling green spaces often require the creation of new green spaces that are manicured, manipulated, or filled with non-native species, in contrast to the native ecosystems lost in the process. Ironically, these cultivated areas in new developments are considered “green” or “natural” and are instrumentalized against environmentally beneficial urban design and energy and transportation efficiency improvements.

Why do some city dwellers focus on manicured green spaces and solitary trees to protect the environment? Kentucky's acres of manicured bluegrass and introduced tree species do not offer the same benefits as naturalized or native ecosystems. Habitat for native species, effective drought and flood tolerance, and plants uniquely adapted to local conditions should be the goal. When we lose these ecosystems, we also lose human and environmental health benefits.

Content of the article

Content of the article

Located 35 kilometers from downtown Calgary, Ricardo Ranch faces one of the last undeveloped wetlands along the Bow River within the city limits. 90 percent of this wetland has already been cleared for development. It contains a diverse ecosystem, including rare nesting habitat for birds, habitat for amphibians, extensive grasslands and an active wildlife corridor.

Glenmore Landing, a shopping complex in the southwestern community located 14 kilometers from the city center, is bordered by manicured green space adjacent to the road. A recently developed proposal includes several apartment buildings near a rapid transit route. A short walk away is a popular public park that connects to a natural area along the Elbow River.

While Ricardo Ranch was protested by local environmental groups, conservationists, and anti-sprawl advocates, Glenmore Landing faced fierce opposition from the neighborhood. Their opposition was based on concerns that the public park adjacent to the development would be “overused” and two small, manicured lawns along the road would be lost.

Content of the article

The difference in public reaction to these two projects is stark and shows how some city dwellers may misunderstand the difference between protecting manipulated green spaces versus protecting key ecological areas. Adjacent roadside grasslands have a different ecological value than a complex riparian ecosystem. Environmental requirements can be used against the real need for housing. If we continue with the status quo and delay much-needed changes to Calgary's growth strategy, we risk leaving vulnerable people behind and simultaneously damaging or losing vulnerable ecosystems.

Ricardo Ranch was finally approved by the City Council, recognizing that the systems and processes that allowed the development had to change. The same council could see through the clamor of protest surrounding Glenmore Landing to approve the sale of the manicured “parkland” plot to facilitate much-needed development.

Urban encroachment on intact ecosystems accelerates habitat fragmentation and removes species from their habitats. This has a far greater impact on the environment than the loss of cultivated grass.

Content of the article

We know better than to build in high-risk, sensitive areas such as floodplains and coastal areas. In order to combat the loss of biodiversity, climate change and the housing crisis, priority should be given to adding houses to already established areas.

Calgary's proposal for residential rezoning is an important step in that direction. By being open to change and seeing the forest for the trees, we can make our cities truly great places to live for both people and nature.

David Barrett is a research fellow at the University of Calgary, focusing on the effects of urban areas on aquatic ecosystems. He sits on the City of Calgary Built Areas Growth Strategy Task Force.

Nathaniel Schmidt is a criminal lawyer with a background in environmental law. He is a board member of the Alberta Wildlife Association, Calgary River Valleys, Nature Calgary and Other Neighbors Calgary.

Content of the article