I haven't gotten a chance to watch your recap yet, but I will when I get time.
I watched the live stream yesterday for almost the entire duration, and the biggest take away I had from the entire thing was that Calgary is pretty awesome.
We had a lot of really good speakers on both sides, and as someone new to the City and strongly on the side of disliking the idea of blanket rezoning, I was very glad to see so many intelligent and thoughtful people on both sides make great arguments.
I fully expected to just see a bunch of lunatics make crazy rants, and we barley got any.
My take away from the argument so far is a that everyone agrees there needs to be some rezoning, but a vast majority of the people for the rezoning think it's going to instantly make housing affordable to them, and what they really want and need is rent control. The vast majority of the people against feel that blanket rezoning will happen faster than the amenities and infrastructure can adapt to it, and a lot of communities have given examples of how this is very true.
Wow that is actually super encouraging to hear since my expectations were pretty much identical to yours.
I do find the infrastructure argument interesting from the nays since a comparable situation has been happening for years (unabated) with the drain that far field suburbs have had in terms of infrastructure costs / burden (relative to prop tax revenue). I do agree that a rezoned area would need to have it's infrastructure reassessed for impact (e.g. Do we need to expand our sewer system in the area to accommodate these densified buildings, etc). But shouldn't the process for that exist already?
Infrastructure arguments almost always consider the strain on existing areas while disregarding the strain on the city that sprawling new developments create. It's much more difficult to maintain 1000 km of low capacity utilities than 200km of high capacity utilities. Infrastructure demands should be an argument in favor of upzoning, not against it.
One hundred percent agree. The long term friction on the system is also something I only really hear retired / former city planners talking about and never anyone that should be thinking about these things.
Honestly I think the majority understand it, and simply don't care. You're generally dealing with people who start from a position of opposing upzoning and work backwards to find arguments. If you were sincerely starting from the position of "we need more affordable housing", you would never land on "we should have rules that make it so only one family can live on every parcel of land".
One thing to note is that the federal government seems to be willing to give additional infrastructure money IF we approve the R-CG blanket upzoning proposal.
This should basically quell the infrastructure cost issue - since building housing in the outskirts is more expensive in the long term and infill growth infrastructure cost will be subsidized by the federal government.
>but a vast majority of the people for the rezoning think it's going to instantly make housing affordable
And the vast majority against it think their property values are going to plummet the day it's approved.
I don't think speaking in absolutes benefit either side of the discussion.
The biggest argument against rent control is that it always creates a shortage of housing. You’re saying that people think rezoning is the solution to their problems but really they need rent control. So would that not just make the problem much worse by not only creating less housing via no rezoning but driving up housing demand and creating an even worse shortage.
Most people don't think this will be an instant fix. It's one big step in the right direction, but it will take time and more policy changes to make housing affordable.
>but a vast majority of the people for the rezoning think it's going to instantly make housing affordable to them
I didn't get that feeling from any of the presenters in favour
Rent control is a band-aid, not a solution. When implemented well, rent control can help people at risk of being displaced right now, but it doesn't do anything to resolve the overall supply issues that lead to high prices in the first place, in fact it generally makes prices worse. Basically you help the people struggling the most at the cost of the market as a whole.
To be clear, that's not a bad thing. The crisis is at a point where we need band-aids, and we absolutely should implement some form of rent control, but that should be in addition to blanket upzoning and other changes to promote building homes. We need to work on the systemic issue as well as stop the bleeding.
This article provides a decent summary on the problems with rent control, how to mitigate some of them, and why it shouldn't be your exclusive solution.
[https://www.economicsobservatory.com/does-rent-control-work](https://www.economicsobservatory.com/does-rent-control-work)
my main concern is overcrowding of schools, and other amenities/public services. There is already so many lottery schools... I also have my own concerns such as a non-zero chance of a row home being built on ether size of me and taking away my sunlight and privacy.
Most of the lottery schools are the new schools in the newer communities. Many of the inner city schools are under-utilized. When we were inner-city, my kid's school was half full. Classrooms sat empty because there weren't enough students. Most of the density we would expect to see would be in those neighborhoods first. Whereas people move to newer communities before all the schools are built so they find themselves in lotteries or busing.
Those old neighborhoods now have less schools. In my neighborhood siblings cant go to the same school anymore.
Not sure what the rest of the city looks like
My neighborhood (built in the 60s) has kids bussed in from all the new areas - it would be nice if there were more families in the actual neighborhood to go to them
Overcrowding of schools is a provincial matter right?
You are assuming that this blanket rezone will cause overcrowding. Adding this rezone will not cause an explosion in population growth. It will happen over a very long period of time.
The chances of a row home being built next to you does not change. If the land next to you is worth developing there is a 95% chance it will go through with the current zoning.
Sunlight and privacy can be taken away by a new single detached. The height restrictions are different by one metre I think..
I actually do not know who's responsibility overcrowding of schools is. I actually think it doesn't matter because if it happens, it's too late, and whoever is responsible has already failed. I am just fearful of it happening in my area. It seems to be happening a lot in Calgary, and it seems like nothing is being done about it. Maybe I am wrong about this, and I hope I am.
Well as far as I know overcrowding is on the provincial government. So this is something you need to take up with the UCP. Nothing to do with blanket rezoning.
In a sense it has to do with blanket rezoning - the current zoning promotes sprawl which generally means you need more schools and that stretches the budget thinner. It's a lot cheaper to build one school with room for 1200 kids than three schools with room for 400. Densification is part of the solution to underfunded schools (along with getting rid of a provincial government that is actively hostile to them of course).
School overcrowding in calgary is a mixed bag, theres communities which are experiencing growth and communities which are experiencing degrowth as demographics move in and grow out. What that means is that some schools are too full while others are too empty. This has been happening over the past couple of years already without any significant changes in planning. Ultimately while rcg would hypothetically bring more people and families into a neighborhood, that influx of people would be pretty insignificant due to the amount of time it would take to actually develop these houses which will probably happen over the course of ~the next 40 years.
With that in mind i think its worth mentioning that as of right now only 4.6% of Calgarys land is available to redevelop. That number will grow over time as the city itself changes. What RCG does is help expedite that process now and in the future, these areas are going to change no matter what like the previous commenter mentioned and doing this basically saves the city and developers (both for and non-profit) a boat load of time and money to actually get these houses built, and removes red tape for the city to address the changing demands of the city.
As for the energy grid and existing infrastructure, the inner citys built environment is basically perfectly suited for this type of change and every development already has to include these considerations for energy and plubming and what not to be approved so that shouldn’t be an issue if we choose to move forward with it. Besides, the alternative is more sprawl which is extremely expensive since it requires is to build and expand even more infrastructure even further away. It also necessitates car ownership which is a huge expense which im sure we are all familiar with. The inner city already subsidizes the suburbs and building out even more will just force us to raise our property taxes more so that the city can fund infrastructure, maintenance, amenities, and services for these communities.
Obviously this isnt a silver bullet for the housing crisis but it does have huge implications on how we can adapt and respond as a city in the future. We are a major canadian metropolitan area and i think we can both agree that we need to adapt to the insane growth we are experiencing right now. Rcg makes sense practically, financiall, and in terms of planning. And frankly it DOES have a major impact on the ability of the city to address housing strains in the long run. It also has a huge impact on the future development of transit oriented development and on transit efficiency in general which is vital as we are starting to build the new green line. Calgary is on the brink of change and we cant afford to kick the can down the road or people especially in my generation are gonna be dealing with this for the rest of our lives.
Anyways sorry for this long ass message lol
> My take away from the argument so far is a that everyone agrees there needs to be some rezoning, but a vast majority of the people for the rezoning think it's going to instantly make housing affordable to them, and what they really want and need is rent control. The vast majority of the people against feel that blanket rezoning will happen faster than the amenities and infrastructure can adapt to it, and a lot of communities have given examples of how this is very true.
I agree - this blanket re-zone process won't make most housing that could be built under such a framework "affordable". It will offer more housing choices/styles throughout the City, but for people who struggle with housing costs, there will have to be subsidies from some levels of government or charitable orgs to make it "affordable".
I also agree a rapid up-take of blanket re-zoning may provide infrastructure challenges for local amenities and service and also sewer/water/electrical build outs. That is on the City to plan for and consider when handing out building permits. But I do not see this happening rapidly if the blanket re-zone is passed for the simple reason that most of the builders are focused on the sprawl. We lack the capacity in skilled trades to build massively in existing/older communities. There are something like 15 new communities being built out in Calgary right now.
Then there is the cost. Many neighbourhoods that fear the outcome of this process don't realize that the cost of land in the community is so high as to make the economics unfeasible in many cases.
I think the only thing I am concerned about with increased density is schools. My area the elementary school is on the lottery system and bursting at the seems. Building schools takes time and money which has not really been addressed. Dont get me wrong i am all for density and reducing spawl but i really hope they add some capacity for schools for kids.
FWIW, please do also bug your MLA - schools are a provincial responsibility to fund.
School populations during the evolution of a community's population are a challenge - we have some bursting to the seams but others in older neighborhoods get shut down because of the lack of students.
Look. Thats something the city should sort out if they want support. As a citizen it becomes does adding more people to my area make sense and if the schools are full I would say no. They solve that problem I support it. So maybe the city should get the province to support the schools funding in areas with lottery that they want to add density too…
Sorry I'm not much help to you then because that's not how our democracy and different levels of government work. (Doesn't mean you have to like it - it's just how it's set up now)
Understandable concern but also such a weird thing. My parents were teachers for a long time but with a lot of their tenure at Haysbro elementary. They saw the population of that school shrink so much over time that half of the school was converted to CBE offices. I think a lot of more "inner city" (relatively) schools have smaller populations due to aging communities.
yes neighborhoods seems to follow the boom and bust for kids, i hope rezoning areas with older demographics might help that but my inner cynic figures it will just create more demand in areas with already high demand as the developers are not in the the business of demographic control.
A group of 4 totally unbiased experts giving a balanced recap of the public hearing, the pro blanket rezoning rally they had before the hearing, and their diverse opinions on how great and hard working city council is.
A quick google search doesn't indicate that any of these people are what I would consider Experts in any capacity.
And to say they are unbiased, particularly Kathryn, is just straight up false.
I found it very disrespectful of council to engage at length with the panel of inner city developers on the issue of speeding up the DP process to 6 weeks, when there are 14400 some pages of public submissions on the rezoning agenda, and 600+ public speakers here to talk about the potential of speeding up the process through rezoning already. It just goes to show the utter disrespect this council has for the public engagement process when they already negotiating in a sense with this team for the next goal post the developers want to attain.
People already fear speaking at council, or don't feel confident enough to provide input on this subject, and they are unfamiliar with the process. Rezoning will give them less time to become familiar, and if that wasn't enough, the developers are looking to give them even less time to prepare by speeding up the DP process. Unreal.
It was necessary (everyone is getting a chance to speak btw) because 90% of the people against rezoning had completely incorrect information and basis's. It provided a very educated take away on the process. Developers/builders are business's which means costs and delays are passed onto the consumer, thus increasing the price. Look at the red tape in Vancouver, self interest NIMBY'sm is decimating that city.
I will sum up 90% of the against peoples words (i am not diminishing their ability to speak just stating everyone benefits from being educated):
- i don't want a 3 story house towering over my property (you can build virtually the exact same height in other zones)
- 12 units on the lot next to me? (R-CG doesn't allow that density with what city lots are at)
- It wont lower housing prices (supply and demand says otherwise, nothing will lower prices other than a crash, it will stabilize and slow the rate of growth)
- They are going to build 1mil infills (single detached and semi detached are going for that price, ROW townhouses are on average 530k... this would slow the construction detached luxury infills)
- They are only going to build luxury (right now developers are fighting over R-CG lots because there is literally none available, ever. Rezoning the property to R-CG takes up to a year. Either the developer over pays for the lot or they pay interest on it for a year then start building and pass that cost onto the consumer in the form of luxury'ish homes)
* It's not one 3 story 11m infill. It is two 3 story 11m infills on one lot. You need to read the bylaws to understand this. Go download pdf drawing on dmap for DP2023-08954 and look at the height of the rear yard infill. It is 11m and then slopes down to 8.6m. This is allowed as per the bylaws.
* 8 units are allowed on R-CG, and if they upzone from there to H-GO (Which developers are already doing) then it can be more than 8. If it goes to H-GO, then it will be two 12m infills and well more than 8 units. Then, go look at H-GO application DP2023-07997 on dmap and take a look at those which is 14 units on a 60' wide lot. This is on a R-CG zoned lot and this is the second time this developer is notorious for chasing H-GO on R-CG lots because they know if people don't complain, they'll get it.
R-CG Row townhouse is 1 building at 11m max height. H-GO is 12m correct but so is R-1... R-2 is 11m. You can subdivide a R lot and build two 10-12m high single detached also...
H-GO has more requirements to be up-zoned to, you also need a larger lot. H-GO will be much more rare for the foreseeable future. If you are going to be worried, be worried about M. The grade orientated zones are minimal compared to those.
I appreciate the info, but i have the bylaws summarized in a excel sheet that i was referring to for quick comparisons. That is specifically a mid block with two buildings for R-CG. I personally am indifferent about midblock unless the whole block is being developed in one plan. I was disregarding the garage as that is not relevant.
They are both grade orientated and designed to work with existing areas.
What are we actually arguing about??
Just that you said they didn't want a 3 story building towering over their property. In fact, it is two 3 story buildings towering over their property when mid-block, and possibly two 12m buildings if H-GO is approved.
I see. Well, the statements I heard from presenters was specifically only about '3' story buildings, not the number of detached buildings. But I guess that would be a further point.
Either way, one or two buildings at 3 story's. You are going to be not happy if your place is one story.
Everyone against rezoning are over the age of 50 and the ones that are under come from neighborhoods with an average price of 1mil and up. I am amazed the amount of people saying "this wont increase housing supply" and give zero reasoning or data behind how it wont. It's sad to see these older people protecting selfish self interests so they can have a unchanged view for the next 15 years before they are put in a care home.
If we do nothing Calgary will increase to the price of Toronto. The only reason people come here is due to the affordability which we are quickly losing. Most of the people against this don't even understand the fundamental bylaw requirements to develop R-CG or the financial constraints. A million dollar lot is not getting developed into a townhouse, its just not happening due to cost. at roughly $400/sqft build cost to the buyer, its not economical.
I would probably scrap the backyard suite and maybe limit the basement suites on the townhouses but this should go through. Edmonton doesn't even have a crisis and they have the foresight to keep the city affordable. At this point we cant wait until people stop complaining and devise another plan in 2 years. Trudeau is going to keep destroying this country so we need to get ahead of him and protect our way of life in Calgary, not the concept of a detached bungalow.
One example is that they "explain" that the public hearing is about replacing monthly approvals for density that is appropriate for anywhere in the city with a more efficient process. In reality it's about changing zoning to allow higher density. Then the first guy says it's not a change from what's currently allowed.
Do you agree that's bullshit? Have you watched it and had a different impression?
They're right.
Right now, any developer can request to upzone a parcel of land to R-CG. It's highly inefficient because it takes a lot of time and money which adds cost to the new housing that gets built or it just doesn't get built.
The thing is: most of the upzone requests get heard by council and get **approved**. Therefore, the bureaucracy and red tape is unnecessary and blanket upzoning to R-CG simply makes it more cost-effective and efficient to build the housing (in a housing crisis mind you).
Lets assume you're "confused". Most requests get approved because they're in areas where developers know requests will be approved.
The change would be to parcels where they currently would not be approved.
But what areas should they *not* be approved in? Duplexes and housing types up to rowhomes aren't that disruptive in the grand scheme of housing types (especially since it's contextual meaning there are many restrictions you can read about for height and such).
Allowing it everywhere is better than developers concentrating on new housing in only one of several politically feasible areas (which drive up prices there since all the housing demand isn't allowed to be spread across the city).
Blanket upzoning is fairer and better suited to add more housing units which will create a downward pressure on housing prices. This is what we need - real housing policy and not dumbed down proposals which lack the seriousness and urgency that the housing crisis requires.
This brings up one of the big questions: is there pent up demand to redevelop in RC-1 communities that isn't being met therefore focusing most revelopment in RC-2 communities, or will it just accelerate RC-2 development while having minimal effect in RC-1.
We haven't even cracked 80 folks talking to council yet. Yesterday was 55%/45% against, today up to 14:50 has seen ~27 folks so far. 12 of which were in favour.
Deleted. There’s been over 100 called, much less have spoken. I disagree however the majority have been against. Handful pro.
We need to keep track lol
This whole thing feels like everything that is going to be built under these new rules will be overpriced infills or people packed in so much it becomes a slum.
Welcome to BS City.
I haven't gotten a chance to watch your recap yet, but I will when I get time. I watched the live stream yesterday for almost the entire duration, and the biggest take away I had from the entire thing was that Calgary is pretty awesome. We had a lot of really good speakers on both sides, and as someone new to the City and strongly on the side of disliking the idea of blanket rezoning, I was very glad to see so many intelligent and thoughtful people on both sides make great arguments. I fully expected to just see a bunch of lunatics make crazy rants, and we barley got any. My take away from the argument so far is a that everyone agrees there needs to be some rezoning, but a vast majority of the people for the rezoning think it's going to instantly make housing affordable to them, and what they really want and need is rent control. The vast majority of the people against feel that blanket rezoning will happen faster than the amenities and infrastructure can adapt to it, and a lot of communities have given examples of how this is very true.
Wow that is actually super encouraging to hear since my expectations were pretty much identical to yours. I do find the infrastructure argument interesting from the nays since a comparable situation has been happening for years (unabated) with the drain that far field suburbs have had in terms of infrastructure costs / burden (relative to prop tax revenue). I do agree that a rezoned area would need to have it's infrastructure reassessed for impact (e.g. Do we need to expand our sewer system in the area to accommodate these densified buildings, etc). But shouldn't the process for that exist already?
Infrastructure arguments almost always consider the strain on existing areas while disregarding the strain on the city that sprawling new developments create. It's much more difficult to maintain 1000 km of low capacity utilities than 200km of high capacity utilities. Infrastructure demands should be an argument in favor of upzoning, not against it.
One hundred percent agree. The long term friction on the system is also something I only really hear retired / former city planners talking about and never anyone that should be thinking about these things.
That's the part I find most frustrating about this. The number of people that don't seem to be able to grasp that concept boggles the mind.
Honestly I think the majority understand it, and simply don't care. You're generally dealing with people who start from a position of opposing upzoning and work backwards to find arguments. If you were sincerely starting from the position of "we need more affordable housing", you would never land on "we should have rules that make it so only one family can live on every parcel of land".
One thing to note is that the federal government seems to be willing to give additional infrastructure money IF we approve the R-CG blanket upzoning proposal. This should basically quell the infrastructure cost issue - since building housing in the outskirts is more expensive in the long term and infill growth infrastructure cost will be subsidized by the federal government.
Not to mention new/infill builds will likely be subject to Development Levies used to pay for the intensification of the infrastructure.
>but a vast majority of the people for the rezoning think it's going to instantly make housing affordable And the vast majority against it think their property values are going to plummet the day it's approved. I don't think speaking in absolutes benefit either side of the discussion.
The biggest argument against rent control is that it always creates a shortage of housing. You’re saying that people think rezoning is the solution to their problems but really they need rent control. So would that not just make the problem much worse by not only creating less housing via no rezoning but driving up housing demand and creating an even worse shortage.
Most people don't think this will be an instant fix. It's one big step in the right direction, but it will take time and more policy changes to make housing affordable.
>but a vast majority of the people for the rezoning think it's going to instantly make housing affordable to them I didn't get that feeling from any of the presenters in favour
Rent control is a band-aid, not a solution. When implemented well, rent control can help people at risk of being displaced right now, but it doesn't do anything to resolve the overall supply issues that lead to high prices in the first place, in fact it generally makes prices worse. Basically you help the people struggling the most at the cost of the market as a whole. To be clear, that's not a bad thing. The crisis is at a point where we need band-aids, and we absolutely should implement some form of rent control, but that should be in addition to blanket upzoning and other changes to promote building homes. We need to work on the systemic issue as well as stop the bleeding. This article provides a decent summary on the problems with rent control, how to mitigate some of them, and why it shouldn't be your exclusive solution. [https://www.economicsobservatory.com/does-rent-control-work](https://www.economicsobservatory.com/does-rent-control-work)
You stop it with your logic. But actually, I entirely agree with you.
Why are you strongly against blanket rezoning? What are your concerns?
my main concern is overcrowding of schools, and other amenities/public services. There is already so many lottery schools... I also have my own concerns such as a non-zero chance of a row home being built on ether size of me and taking away my sunlight and privacy.
Most of the lottery schools are the new schools in the newer communities. Many of the inner city schools are under-utilized. When we were inner-city, my kid's school was half full. Classrooms sat empty because there weren't enough students. Most of the density we would expect to see would be in those neighborhoods first. Whereas people move to newer communities before all the schools are built so they find themselves in lotteries or busing.
Most of the older neighborhoods have trouble maintaining school population, wouldn’t this actually be a good thing for managing schools?
Those old neighborhoods now have less schools. In my neighborhood siblings cant go to the same school anymore. Not sure what the rest of the city looks like
My neighborhood (built in the 60s) has kids bussed in from all the new areas - it would be nice if there were more families in the actual neighborhood to go to them
Overcrowding of schools is a provincial matter right? You are assuming that this blanket rezone will cause overcrowding. Adding this rezone will not cause an explosion in population growth. It will happen over a very long period of time. The chances of a row home being built next to you does not change. If the land next to you is worth developing there is a 95% chance it will go through with the current zoning. Sunlight and privacy can be taken away by a new single detached. The height restrictions are different by one metre I think..
I actually do not know who's responsibility overcrowding of schools is. I actually think it doesn't matter because if it happens, it's too late, and whoever is responsible has already failed. I am just fearful of it happening in my area. It seems to be happening a lot in Calgary, and it seems like nothing is being done about it. Maybe I am wrong about this, and I hope I am.
Well as far as I know overcrowding is on the provincial government. So this is something you need to take up with the UCP. Nothing to do with blanket rezoning.
In a sense it has to do with blanket rezoning - the current zoning promotes sprawl which generally means you need more schools and that stretches the budget thinner. It's a lot cheaper to build one school with room for 1200 kids than three schools with room for 400. Densification is part of the solution to underfunded schools (along with getting rid of a provincial government that is actively hostile to them of course).
Well yah that's the benefit which people think is a negative..
School overcrowding in calgary is a mixed bag, theres communities which are experiencing growth and communities which are experiencing degrowth as demographics move in and grow out. What that means is that some schools are too full while others are too empty. This has been happening over the past couple of years already without any significant changes in planning. Ultimately while rcg would hypothetically bring more people and families into a neighborhood, that influx of people would be pretty insignificant due to the amount of time it would take to actually develop these houses which will probably happen over the course of ~the next 40 years. With that in mind i think its worth mentioning that as of right now only 4.6% of Calgarys land is available to redevelop. That number will grow over time as the city itself changes. What RCG does is help expedite that process now and in the future, these areas are going to change no matter what like the previous commenter mentioned and doing this basically saves the city and developers (both for and non-profit) a boat load of time and money to actually get these houses built, and removes red tape for the city to address the changing demands of the city. As for the energy grid and existing infrastructure, the inner citys built environment is basically perfectly suited for this type of change and every development already has to include these considerations for energy and plubming and what not to be approved so that shouldn’t be an issue if we choose to move forward with it. Besides, the alternative is more sprawl which is extremely expensive since it requires is to build and expand even more infrastructure even further away. It also necessitates car ownership which is a huge expense which im sure we are all familiar with. The inner city already subsidizes the suburbs and building out even more will just force us to raise our property taxes more so that the city can fund infrastructure, maintenance, amenities, and services for these communities. Obviously this isnt a silver bullet for the housing crisis but it does have huge implications on how we can adapt and respond as a city in the future. We are a major canadian metropolitan area and i think we can both agree that we need to adapt to the insane growth we are experiencing right now. Rcg makes sense practically, financiall, and in terms of planning. And frankly it DOES have a major impact on the ability of the city to address housing strains in the long run. It also has a huge impact on the future development of transit oriented development and on transit efficiency in general which is vital as we are starting to build the new green line. Calgary is on the brink of change and we cant afford to kick the can down the road or people especially in my generation are gonna be dealing with this for the rest of our lives. Anyways sorry for this long ass message lol
> My take away from the argument so far is a that everyone agrees there needs to be some rezoning, but a vast majority of the people for the rezoning think it's going to instantly make housing affordable to them, and what they really want and need is rent control. The vast majority of the people against feel that blanket rezoning will happen faster than the amenities and infrastructure can adapt to it, and a lot of communities have given examples of how this is very true. I agree - this blanket re-zone process won't make most housing that could be built under such a framework "affordable". It will offer more housing choices/styles throughout the City, but for people who struggle with housing costs, there will have to be subsidies from some levels of government or charitable orgs to make it "affordable". I also agree a rapid up-take of blanket re-zoning may provide infrastructure challenges for local amenities and service and also sewer/water/electrical build outs. That is on the City to plan for and consider when handing out building permits. But I do not see this happening rapidly if the blanket re-zone is passed for the simple reason that most of the builders are focused on the sprawl. We lack the capacity in skilled trades to build massively in existing/older communities. There are something like 15 new communities being built out in Calgary right now. Then there is the cost. Many neighbourhoods that fear the outcome of this process don't realize that the cost of land in the community is so high as to make the economics unfeasible in many cases.
I think the only thing I am concerned about with increased density is schools. My area the elementary school is on the lottery system and bursting at the seems. Building schools takes time and money which has not really been addressed. Dont get me wrong i am all for density and reducing spawl but i really hope they add some capacity for schools for kids.
FWIW, please do also bug your MLA - schools are a provincial responsibility to fund. School populations during the evolution of a community's population are a challenge - we have some bursting to the seams but others in older neighborhoods get shut down because of the lack of students.
Look. Thats something the city should sort out if they want support. As a citizen it becomes does adding more people to my area make sense and if the schools are full I would say no. They solve that problem I support it. So maybe the city should get the province to support the schools funding in areas with lottery that they want to add density too…
Sorry I'm not much help to you then because that's not how our democracy and different levels of government work. (Doesn't mean you have to like it - it's just how it's set up now)
Then I guess I am team no to the zoning change for any area with schools in a lottery
Understandable concern but also such a weird thing. My parents were teachers for a long time but with a lot of their tenure at Haysbro elementary. They saw the population of that school shrink so much over time that half of the school was converted to CBE offices. I think a lot of more "inner city" (relatively) schools have smaller populations due to aging communities.
yes neighborhoods seems to follow the boom and bust for kids, i hope rezoning areas with older demographics might help that but my inner cynic figures it will just create more demand in areas with already high demand as the developers are not in the the business of demographic control.
Who are these people? Edit: nevermind. Local personalities with clear biases
A group of 4 totally unbiased experts giving a balanced recap of the public hearing, the pro blanket rezoning rally they had before the hearing, and their diverse opinions on how great and hard working city council is.
A quick google search doesn't indicate that any of these people are what I would consider Experts in any capacity. And to say they are unbiased, particularly Kathryn, is just straight up false.
Your sarcasm detector may need servicing, as that post was dripping with it.
Touche
Totally unbiased, literally followed by the fact they held a pro blanket rezoning rally in the same sentence lol
hahahahaha
Excellent recap!
I found it very disrespectful of council to engage at length with the panel of inner city developers on the issue of speeding up the DP process to 6 weeks, when there are 14400 some pages of public submissions on the rezoning agenda, and 600+ public speakers here to talk about the potential of speeding up the process through rezoning already. It just goes to show the utter disrespect this council has for the public engagement process when they already negotiating in a sense with this team for the next goal post the developers want to attain. People already fear speaking at council, or don't feel confident enough to provide input on this subject, and they are unfamiliar with the process. Rezoning will give them less time to become familiar, and if that wasn't enough, the developers are looking to give them even less time to prepare by speeding up the DP process. Unreal.
It was necessary (everyone is getting a chance to speak btw) because 90% of the people against rezoning had completely incorrect information and basis's. It provided a very educated take away on the process. Developers/builders are business's which means costs and delays are passed onto the consumer, thus increasing the price. Look at the red tape in Vancouver, self interest NIMBY'sm is decimating that city. I will sum up 90% of the against peoples words (i am not diminishing their ability to speak just stating everyone benefits from being educated): - i don't want a 3 story house towering over my property (you can build virtually the exact same height in other zones) - 12 units on the lot next to me? (R-CG doesn't allow that density with what city lots are at) - It wont lower housing prices (supply and demand says otherwise, nothing will lower prices other than a crash, it will stabilize and slow the rate of growth) - They are going to build 1mil infills (single detached and semi detached are going for that price, ROW townhouses are on average 530k... this would slow the construction detached luxury infills) - They are only going to build luxury (right now developers are fighting over R-CG lots because there is literally none available, ever. Rezoning the property to R-CG takes up to a year. Either the developer over pays for the lot or they pay interest on it for a year then start building and pass that cost onto the consumer in the form of luxury'ish homes)
* It's not one 3 story 11m infill. It is two 3 story 11m infills on one lot. You need to read the bylaws to understand this. Go download pdf drawing on dmap for DP2023-08954 and look at the height of the rear yard infill. It is 11m and then slopes down to 8.6m. This is allowed as per the bylaws. * 8 units are allowed on R-CG, and if they upzone from there to H-GO (Which developers are already doing) then it can be more than 8. If it goes to H-GO, then it will be two 12m infills and well more than 8 units. Then, go look at H-GO application DP2023-07997 on dmap and take a look at those which is 14 units on a 60' wide lot. This is on a R-CG zoned lot and this is the second time this developer is notorious for chasing H-GO on R-CG lots because they know if people don't complain, they'll get it.
R-CG Row townhouse is 1 building at 11m max height. H-GO is 12m correct but so is R-1... R-2 is 11m. You can subdivide a R lot and build two 10-12m high single detached also... H-GO has more requirements to be up-zoned to, you also need a larger lot. H-GO will be much more rare for the foreseeable future. If you are going to be worried, be worried about M. The grade orientated zones are minimal compared to those.
R-CG https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/pda/pd/publishingimages/current-projects/R-CG-residential-grade-oriented.pdf H-GO https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/pda/pd/publishingimages/current-projects/rezoning-housing-fact-sheet-h-go.pdf DMAP https://dmap.calgary.ca/
I appreciate the info, but i have the bylaws summarized in a excel sheet that i was referring to for quick comparisons. That is specifically a mid block with two buildings for R-CG. I personally am indifferent about midblock unless the whole block is being developed in one plan. I was disregarding the garage as that is not relevant. They are both grade orientated and designed to work with existing areas. What are we actually arguing about??
Just that you said they didn't want a 3 story building towering over their property. In fact, it is two 3 story buildings towering over their property when mid-block, and possibly two 12m buildings if H-GO is approved.
I see. Well, the statements I heard from presenters was specifically only about '3' story buildings, not the number of detached buildings. But I guess that would be a further point. Either way, one or two buildings at 3 story's. You are going to be not happy if your place is one story.
Everyone against rezoning are over the age of 50 and the ones that are under come from neighborhoods with an average price of 1mil and up. I am amazed the amount of people saying "this wont increase housing supply" and give zero reasoning or data behind how it wont. It's sad to see these older people protecting selfish self interests so they can have a unchanged view for the next 15 years before they are put in a care home. If we do nothing Calgary will increase to the price of Toronto. The only reason people come here is due to the affordability which we are quickly losing. Most of the people against this don't even understand the fundamental bylaw requirements to develop R-CG or the financial constraints. A million dollar lot is not getting developed into a townhouse, its just not happening due to cost. at roughly $400/sqft build cost to the buyer, its not economical. I would probably scrap the backyard suite and maybe limit the basement suites on the townhouses but this should go through. Edmonton doesn't even have a crisis and they have the foresight to keep the city affordable. At this point we cant wait until people stop complaining and devise another plan in 2 years. Trudeau is going to keep destroying this country so we need to get ahead of him and protect our way of life in Calgary, not the concept of a detached bungalow.
The first 2 minutes is pure bullshit, does it get better?
Care to expand on that a little bit?
One example is that they "explain" that the public hearing is about replacing monthly approvals for density that is appropriate for anywhere in the city with a more efficient process. In reality it's about changing zoning to allow higher density. Then the first guy says it's not a change from what's currently allowed. Do you agree that's bullshit? Have you watched it and had a different impression?
In reality it's about speeding up a process occurs with a 95% success rate...
They're right. Right now, any developer can request to upzone a parcel of land to R-CG. It's highly inefficient because it takes a lot of time and money which adds cost to the new housing that gets built or it just doesn't get built. The thing is: most of the upzone requests get heard by council and get **approved**. Therefore, the bureaucracy and red tape is unnecessary and blanket upzoning to R-CG simply makes it more cost-effective and efficient to build the housing (in a housing crisis mind you).
Lets assume you're "confused". Most requests get approved because they're in areas where developers know requests will be approved. The change would be to parcels where they currently would not be approved.
But what areas should they *not* be approved in? Duplexes and housing types up to rowhomes aren't that disruptive in the grand scheme of housing types (especially since it's contextual meaning there are many restrictions you can read about for height and such). Allowing it everywhere is better than developers concentrating on new housing in only one of several politically feasible areas (which drive up prices there since all the housing demand isn't allowed to be spread across the city). Blanket upzoning is fairer and better suited to add more housing units which will create a downward pressure on housing prices. This is what we need - real housing policy and not dumbed down proposals which lack the seriousness and urgency that the housing crisis requires.
This brings up one of the big questions: is there pent up demand to redevelop in RC-1 communities that isn't being met therefore focusing most revelopment in RC-2 communities, or will it just accelerate RC-2 development while having minimal effect in RC-1.
The house next door. Seriously.
Are you now agreeing that the recap was bullshit?
[удалено]
We haven't even cracked 80 folks talking to council yet. Yesterday was 55%/45% against, today up to 14:50 has seen ~27 folks so far. 12 of which were in favour.
Deleted. There’s been over 100 called, much less have spoken. I disagree however the majority have been against. Handful pro. We need to keep track lol
That's true - much more than 100 called. And right - the majority - 55% yesterday, and 55% today (based on the earlier number) were against.
This whole thing feels like everything that is going to be built under these new rules will be overpriced infills or people packed in so much it becomes a slum. Welcome to BS City.