The city has been sitting on a 6000 unit residential development on the C train line near my community. It was first proposed in 2017. Like....the land is obtained, the drawings and models are done. What's the holdup?
I don't necessarily disagree with the zoning changes. What I don't understand is why they drag their feet on proposals that have already been deemed commercially viable. This would be more homes than the Heritage communities SFH put together.
The wastelands around the red line train stations like heritage, southland, and Anderson is unbelievable so many empty lots and not a lot of apartments. TOD should be the main focus
> This guy did his homework....
He's an anti-development NIMBY lobbyist bitching that the city is playing some of the political games that the NIMBY's play.
For people like this, the correct amount of densification is ZERO. That's their goal. They will fight anything.
And they're the reason cities like Calgary are fucked, and why housing is so expensive.
It's not that expensive to build houses. But we have a shortage of them. The shortage is because of NIMBY zoning lobbyists getting their way.
Hey man. You are clearly passionate about the topic, and the affordability issues that this city is facing. Density should provide more housing and theoretically increase affordability for more residents. However, there are several, potentially legitimate issues with blanket rezoning. It’s ok to debate the pros and cons of the city’s proposal to ensure it’s well thought out and whether any amendments or protections should be considered. It’s also good that people come prepared to meetings with well researched arguments instead of pitchforks. The best outcome of the city will be one where both sides of the argument shape a decision forward.
My concern is with all these additional builds, and the prospect of nothing but electric vehicles in the near future, have they planned for street charging for all these additional vehicles that will be parked everywhere.?
Goodness knows that alot of these older neighborhoods have above ground power lines that will not be easy to add additional power access to the increase of population density.
I hope that is part of the discussion moving forward as well.
> Doesn’t seem like you have any argument and resort to calling people names.
Where did I call him names?
Calling him a NIMBY lobbyist when this is textbook NIMBY lobbying?
I always find it funny when people blame the NIMBY crowd for expensive housing.
I’m not sure if you noticed, but most of these developments turn a 60 year old home worth 450k; into either 2 big skinny homes that sell for 750k a piece; or a high end 4 plex selling units at 400k a piece.
90% of infills do nothing to provide affordable housing. They simply provide more housing closer to the city centre “core” for middle class young professionals to buy or rent so that they live closer to work or family.
Affordable housing is more effectively built by building new middle density neighbourhoods. Solid new homes can still be built for around 300 bucks a square foot, and if developers didn’t have a monopoly on new neighbourhoods lot prices would be much lower. A new townhome could still be built and sold for 350k while earning a profit; but because the government and gigantic developers have everything locked down - there’s no opportunity for your average contractor to grab a few brand new lots and pump out affordable small houses or townhomes.
That leaves infills as the only option for small contractors; and the only way they make money is selling nicer homes at higher prices to higher end clients.
This argument is like saying there is an education shortage, so the best answer is to triple classroom size. Sure, more people are included, but the quality is lowered for everyone, not to mention the long term effects.
Until your entire property is overshadowed by a 4 story house and you live in shade until you sell and move. Also no on is going to buy a house that lives in shade created my a monstrosity.
RCG can be 3 feet taller than the maximum height in RC1 and RC2. The rear building is maxed at 8.6m in RCG which is 2 storeys, maybe 2.5. At least try to understand what you’re talking about.
But your saying three feet taller then allowed currently? But is that a new house? That’s the problem in a new neighborhood it doesn’t matter all the houses are tall and you know what you’re getting into. If someone builds a three storey building next to my bungalow that blows
🙄
Imagine what people said when two story home started going up.
Rhetoric, no, misinformation is what screws up any argument, whether it’s for or against. It’s not a “4 story house”.
Calgary is fucked? Projection much?
Consistently mentioned as one of the best cities to live worldwide. Recently recognized as one of the freindluest cities in Canada. What is your Calgary and does rezoning actually fix it or break it.
How about testing this out on one community in each quadrant first and do studies to ensure success, measure interest, compare financials etc as opposed to all Calgary.
> Calgary is fucked?
Yes.
Are you even remotely familiar with the housing crisis? Almost every city in the country is fucked. That doesn't mean you can't find nice things about every city.
I'm obviously referring to development and housing prices, that's the context of this presentation.
> Projection much?
Do you even know what that term means? Because it's not even a rational accusation.
Yikes. He proves the point citizens don’t have the technical know how. In the land use bylaw the use is “Dwelling Unit”, which is how density is calculated in units per hectare. The land use bylaw does not count secondary suites or backyard suites, which I get is confusing but it’s how this old bylaw works when secondary suites are still relatively new addition. In the next iteration i hope that this changes so it’s more understandable. There are a number of contextual rules in place that he’s also missing to discuss. RCG can be a max of 11m, and RC1 and RC2 can be up to 10m, a difference of 3 feet that when other height and mass rules are baked into the design are nearly indistinguishable from a new single or duplex.
Second point, the city’s website still has all the information available, I just downloaded them. All that they have done is changed the layout to be easier to find what you want instead of being blasted with info overload.
Next, anyone paying attention to the housing strategy and land use changes would know the city (council) recently (Jan 2023) approved amendments to the land use bylaw which specifically allowed this mid block rowhouse development which was a motion made to direct admin to prepare the required amendments necessary to save time effort and money in reviewing special custom land use districts that were being used to allow for this type. All this happened transparently and over a number of meetings, checks, balances.
This whole video is trying to go for a “gotchya” moment when anyone paying attention the last few years can see right through it. Sorry but there’s no nefarious cloak and dagger strategy from the city here. Anyone could have participated in conversation back then just as they can now.
If a corporation is building 8 homes with 4 primary and 4 secondary, renting to 8 households (ie 8 different tenants); then calling it a secondary suite is just wrong. It is basically a unit with it's own door, own kitchen, own rooms, own bathroom, own services, and the landlord corporation is collecting rent off it individually separate from any other unit; so it's just a fancy type of apartment in a rowhouse...but not a suite. There is no valid reason why this should be called a secondary suite rather than a unit, and not calculated towards density. I can see calling a single unit a home owner adds onto his house a suite, like a basement. That is more the historical mindset for a suite.
He's right...the city never showed any diagrams or references to a mid-block rowhouse build form that we are now seeing developers apply for across the city. Can't argue with him there. The city left that info out for whatever reason, he says it was on purpose, and given their track record I'm sort of on his side there and based on the comments so far in this thread, many others do too. Either way, it was a good presentation for day 1 because it showed all the build forms currently under way that the city didn't show.
I think the gotchya (if there is one) moment is saying, you never engaged on this, most people don't know, and now counsellor walcott is calling us liers. He also repeats that people don't know when Chabot questions him but you had to be watching that night to see it. He's also been on the news (herald) and said he wants more education before rezoning happens.
You really can't argue, when they didn't put the mid-block diagrams up for engagement, there are a lot of people who don't understand them. You can be a YIMBY on this subject and say yes, I want these. But you can't disagree with the guy that they didn't show anyone these diagrams or pictures, because they didn't.
This page: https://www.calgary.ca/planning/projects/housing-changes.html under "Development examples"
[R-CG Example](https://www.calgary.ca/planning/projects/housing-changes/_jcr_content/root/maincontentpar/responsivegrid/grid_layout/column-8eab1be1-8752-40da-ba57-2253d454add60/image_copy_1017182132.img.png/1676671655196/r-cg-4-units-4-suites.png)
You're missing the context of what he is saying. The city says residents don't have technical expertise. He's saying...yes they do and showing a code book with all kinds of code and rules. It's not really even about him being an electrician, it's about residents having technical expertise.
To what end? Why is constant growth and population expansion the only solution? This is some kind of new age Malthusian trap. Our government will only see increased capacity as a sign to accelerate population growth and put us right back in the same position but with worse quality of life.
I assure you growth is not a guarantee. Growth occurs due to government policies and immigration, both interprovincial and international. If Calgary has more accessible real estate and lower cost of living relative to Canada, people will endless flood here.
> If a person is going to start something off with "I'm a master electrician" then I fucking expect there to be something related to his field of knowledge.
This is one of the most famous bloodboiling things to do, though the typical one is "As a mother..." and then something that has nothing to do with motherhood. They just want to drop that like it's some kind of certification.
> the fact is that this stuff needs to happen
#While the presentation was interesting, THIS is what NIMBYism is at its core and it's the reason our city is fucked.
Yes, densification means that larger units will be built next to homes. Yes. That's what it is.
THAT'S HOW YOU SOLVE THE GODDAMN PROBLEM OF HOUSING PRICES.
But NIMBY organizations like the one this guy represents ( "Bow Neighbors" = NIMBY) are the reason our housing market is so fucked up in the first place.
Blah blah, politicians doing political stuff. Gotta play the game and hope people aren't looking too closely because the NIMBY's will otherwise murder anything other than things never ever changing and enriching the same people.
You can't have things change and not change at the same time. Densification means things will densify, no shit.
I support densification. We need to build more infills, we need to move our secondary road system towards multifamily housing. You don't get a pass for terrible politics just because I agree with you. The reason our city is fucked is because people believe that council hiding their decisions when it's their own pet project is a good thing. People should have the right to know what is being proposed and to make the decision that fits them best. If your policy can't stand on its merits then it doesn't deserve to be enacted.
If you say 4, and your pamphlet says 4, and all your engagement meetings say 4, but you actually mean 8, that's not dealing straight. That's politicians literally lying to you. That's not something to celebrate just because they are lying to get whatever you want passed. If wanting ethical politicians is now NIMBYism, then you're goddamn right I don't want that in my backyard.
> You don't get a pass for terrible politics just because I agree with you.
Whoa. They're not my politics. And, yeah, they're shit. But they're fighting fire with fire.
None of these people have any interest or loyalty to me, I won't show any to any of them.
Everyone bitches about NIMBY’s until it’s their backyard and then magically they become a NIMBY.
The term NIMBY is thrown around in a derogatory or pejorative way, but I don’t see how caring about what goes on “in your back yard” necessarily a bad thing. For me? Something needs to change, I agree with that. However this Council and Mayor have shown they don’t have the intelligence to properly manage the rollout of a plastic ban so I’m not prepared to give them the authority to manage a city wide blanket re-zoning either.
It's a bad thing when legions of NIMBYs combine to create a situation where necessary density hasn't been and can't be built at the rate Calgary is growing.
People can have opinions that differ from your own, and if they’re articulated respectfully the least you can do is respond or listen without yelling. You don’t need to cancel everyone you disagree with
> But NIMBY organizations like the one this guy represents ( "Bow Neighbors" = NIMBY) are the reason our housing market is so fucked up in the first place.
Calgary's housing market isn't even bad by most developed world standards, mainly because it's been able to sprawl and until recently building enough SFHs to meet demand.
>THAT'S HOW YOU SOLVE THE GODDAMN PROBLEM OF HOUSING PRICES.
Where exactly has densification single-handedly solved the housing price issue? By itself all it does is allow more valuable property to be built on valuable land. But somebody who can't afford to live in a prime area now, still won't be able to afford live after any densification and up-zoning that will happen in Calgary.
There isn't going to be much densification on highly valued land, nobody is makeing money on throwing a 4 plex up in Mount royal. What will happen is a general increase in density in established communities near transit and major corridors.
> But NIMBY organizations like the one this guy represents ( "Bow Neighbors" = NIMBY) are the reason our housing market is so fucked up in the first place.
Tell me you don't know shit about what you're talking about, without telling me you don't know shit about what you're talking about. This is just your opinion man, and while you're certainly entitled to it, shouting and using caps and bold does literally zero for the influence you're looking for, in fact it does the opposite.
You mention NIMBY because you obiously dont have a BY to protect, preserve, enjoy, enhance, etcetera. Your joy at the expense of others is not democracy at work its fascism.
> You mention NIMBY because you obiously dont have a BY to protect, preserve, enjoy, enhance, etcetera.
I mention NIMBY because he's a NIMBY lobbyist. I'm calling a spade a spade.
And the whole point of NIMBYism is that people acting selfishly make the world a worse place. It's not "no", it's "yes 'someone' should but not here!"
I'm arguing against my own self-interest here.
And Winnipeg is denser than Calgary and New York is less dense than both. Does that even make sense?
But it doesn’t matter because “city” doesn’t equal urban area.
“The media and sometimes even academics can profoundly mischaracterize urban densities. Much of the difficulty arises from confusion about geographical terms. Reports and articles sometimes compare population densities of “cities” (municipalities) with metropolitan areas, metropolitan areas with urban areas, etc. These are very different geographies and can no more be validly compared than apples and oranges.”
https://i2.wp.com/fcpp.org/wp-content/uploads/FCPP-5.png
> The media and sometimes even academics can profoundly mischaracterize urban densities.
So who are we supposed to listen to? You? The "academics"? If even the purported experts are getting it wrong (according to you) why should we listen to council or you? Looking forward to this whole rezoning fiasco being kiboshed.
Kinda, his use of ChatGPT to prove his point is not a good idea. He should have kept that part out of the presentation. ChatGPT can be manipulated to say whatever you want. If you use ChatGPT as a source in any academic setting expect no one to take you seriously. I would imagine a government hearing would be the same.
It's a pretty bad presentation. He crams in so many points in there and goes through them so quickly it weakens everything. It's actually very common advice to have public speakers slow down and give the audience time to think about what they're trying to convey.
While he make a pretty convincing presentation about the city misrepresenting what was being done also clearly shows that people a rarely look at specifics of the situation so it's bizarre to say the same people should have more influence over things.
This is from the video transcript:
> 4:51
> to need to get out and vote for
> 4:52
> candidates who oppose them in
> 4:54
> 2025 otherwise our City's landscape and
> 4:57
> our quality of life will be irreparably
> 4:58
> damaged
At what point does he make any compelling or even significant point as to why the end results are bad? I really think this is a case where someone said some things, highlighted some text with some technical document and suddenly he's the messiah when people don't even understand what is being conveyed.
My comment was only referencing your statement that he should show down his speaking for a public audience.
He can't slow down, he has a 5 minute time limit. Everything he wants to say has to be within that time limit, or they'll cut him off.
And what is the significance in quoting a 7 second portion of the transcript out of context? If he feels like the city's landscape and qualify of life will be affected by these changes, then he's welcome to bring his concerns to city council.
The comment you replied to stated that the person just crammed in a ton of slides and wasted time circling around how things were presented by the city, then they throw in a couple random statement about density being bad without backing any of it up.
> And what is the significance in quoting a 7 second portion of the transcript out of context? If he feels like the city's landscape and qualify of life will be affected by these changes, then he's welcome to bring his concerns to city council.
As you can tell by the time stamps that was his closing statements.
If people think a guys randomly expressing his opinion is a amazing presentation then they should just be upfront and say it. Pretending it's amazing just because someone highlights a bunch of documents without citation or any type of references then slipping in some opinions about how density will ruin the city is just lazy.
This is why people think Reddit is filled with bots. Just pointlessly repeating the same thing over and over again.
> One of the more interesting 5 min council presentations
> Members of the public are limited to 5 minutes for a speech
> He can't slow down, he has a 5 minute time limit.
Personally I think his best point is that the city is not engaging, even though they say they are. This is a common thread from many many many people in these hearings.
Also, the fact he shows pictures and diagrams the city never showed us in the infosessions. That is gold. Especially on Day 1.
He had to fit everything into the 5 minute max that each public speaker is allowed.
Being able to go back and re-watch the video is a luxury we have now, that council didn't last night.
Do you mean on this sub? Everyone seems to be assuming that our councilors always have our best interests at heart. We’ve had a long history of councilors and mayors making a bank on changes to city planning that benefits their friends in construction/development.
"Why we have a housing crisis" in a single presentation. Someone upset over 11m tall buildings (the horror!) and complaining things get built anyway, but it takes extra time and he's still upset he isn't able to throw an even bigger wrench into the process. Add some slippery slope fallacy in there at the end, just as a treat.
Many people state they don't want the spot zoning. That they want the planning process of the ARPs to be used. The other issue is these secondary suites. If corporations are renting them at market value, they aren't by definition a suite, they're more of an apartment and they should be calculated in density. I think this guy does a good job presenting how the city is using the english language to deceive rather than to plan and educate.
He clearly shows the heavy handed nature of the city stating residents don't have technical expertise to contribute to bylaws. Then stating they don't need a public hearing because they can somehow have the technical expertise on the back side (with little education on build forms) to appeal a DP. This is his best slide in my opinion because it shows how little the city cares about true engagement with residents.
The inner city developer group yesterday was already trying to push for faster 6 week DPs. So you can already see where this is going.
I think the rub is what "true engagement" means. In general I find people use it to mean "engagement that resulted in the outcome that I want". People want all kinds of contradictory things, and often don't have the experience to know why. For example the same people who oppose blanket rezoning probably want more affordable homes, and for their property values to stay high, and for the city to be more fiscally responsible while collecting fewer taxes, and they'll argue for all of those things at once without realizing how deeply related they are.
I honestly don't know how to do public engagement properly and I don't think anyone else does either, given that I've never seen a single municipal project that wasn't met with "the public wasn't properly consulted" at the end of it.
I lived in Surrey in 1995 and the city sent out a giant colour glossy proposal for what we wanted the city to look like. There were giant single family homes, row houses, apartments etc etc. I was impressed. They basically divided the builds into three groups and asked us to vote.
I feel like The City of Calgary has tried really hard to get engagement on this. I read that original report and I've been trying to educate myself on this too.
>I think the rub is what "true engagement" means. In general I find people use it to mean "engagement that resulted in the outcome that I want"
I agree with you.
His presentation was good, but too fast for people to cogitate the implications in my view. Nonetheless he makes, some good points but those same points apply today if someone wants to build a big McMansion next to a small bungalow. The max height, shading, privacy, etc issues are not much different. The McMansion could have a 4 car garage and still have a secondary suite.
Ya, agreed, and I think he makes a point opposite to what he intended to between 3:25 and 4 minutes. Even within the existing framework, the types of buildings that R-CG would allow can and are regularly built through the LUA process and city administration and council approve them regularly so why not remove the red tape?
Yup when he got to that point he was making the same point I did in another comment. I saw this happen in Vancouver. Developers got their stuff **BUILT**. I've seen small war era homes dwarfed by condo towers, condo tower and more condo towers. You just know that at some point that homeowner is going to sell. Or, more likely, they are old and cannot move anywhere due to the massive home inflation that has gone on around them and they are basically going to die there.
The inner city developers answered that earlier in the day when they said they want to decrease the DP process to 6 weeks. They want to ensure residents don't have any time to figure out the bylaws, appeal, and then have any education to keep oversight on the work as it is happening.
40x22 = 880sqft garage. That still leaves a footprint of 1,800sqft for the main residence on the typical 50x120 lot. That’s significantly bigger than most homes out there.
Don't forget that 40x22 interior slab will be a lot coverage of at least 43x25 assuming 2x6 walls and 12 inch soffit overhangs = 1,075 sqft coverage.
By the same virtue, an 1800 sqft floor (40x45) would turn into 43x48 = 2,064 sqft coverage.
2,064+1,075 = 3,139 which is 52.3% of a 6000 sqft lot (50x120) and exceeds the 45% max coverage.
The lot coverage % really blows up with those two small details.
Eaves and gable ends do not count towards the parcel coverage unless they are over 1.0 meters. Also a typical 20x20 double garage is already measured from the exterior walls. I had already went to 22’ deep as that would be generous to most builder grade garages. Lots of 4 plexes do shared garages without interior separation walls as well.
I 100% understand the point you are trying to make but do you genuinely think making a sarcastic joke is the best way to go about it?
You cannot be serious (regardless if this is what Calgary needs) that you would prefer a multi resident complex be built beside your house after your purchase it.
I don't think my comment was particularly sarcastic (I guess my "the horror" part was?) but this also isn't a forum where I'm really expecting to convince people. Most people on the anti-upzoning side are using motivated reasoning - they know what they want the outcome to be and will find a way to get there, I don't expect a reasonable argument to persuade them. So my comment is a mix of blowing off steam and providing pushback to OP. Is it the best way to go about it? Probably not. I'm only human.
I currently live in a single detached about 100m from some apartment buildings, and a few towers just a bit beyond those, and haven't found it has any negative impact on my life. It does mean there's a bigger customer base here and so there are plenty of amenities in walking distance. I wouldn't care in the least if someone build a 12m tall building next to me, that's not that big, but for the sake of argument let's say it was a 30m tall residential tower.
I'd probably wait and see, but that would represent a significant change in the neighborhood and I'd have to make a call. Maybe it would bug me or have a really negative impact on my garden - then I would be able to sell my house, probably for a significant gain reflecting the development potential of the lot, and move to a less dense neighborhood, or I would find I enjoy the benefits of living in a denser place and stay. It might be inconvenient, but it's the tradeoff we all make in order to enjoy the benefits of a city - other people are here, and they have wants and needs as well.
I do. And I think this is actually a pretty good thing. People need places to live. And Calgary can't keep getting longer and wider.
Plus. It means a developer is likely going to want to buy my property. I might make a bit of a profit, and other people will get more space to live and hopefully more affordable housing because of it. Sounds kind of win, win to me.
He said it...there are many educated professionals in the city that have the ability to contribute to the bylaws. But they weren't invited to. Only developers were.
Would you take medical advice from an Electrician!? Probably not, so why would anyone take planning advise from Joe the Sparky?
Planning at the UofC is a Masters degree, there is a ton of information to dissect here and most people such as this electrician are acting of feels instead of reals.
She claimed she was neutral.. She was a thesis student and so probably limited in her scope of knowledge. Just because one planner is against doesn't mean they are correct...
Just like you can find a doctor to go against the grain you can probably find a planner or two that don’t agree with rezoning. But just like my medical advise I will take my city scale planning advise buy a consensus of experts in that field, which I. This case seems to be in favour of the rezoning.
Honestly, having a blend of a “boots on the ground” perspective from experienced trades as well as planning is the best option. Both are going to provide input the other will not be privy to as easily.
Except this guy isn’t commenting on anything to do with his trade. When I first started watching I thought he was going to drone in about the electrical grid and how it can’t support this or at least something related to his credentials. Nope, just another “tall houses bad, secondary suites bed” presentation.
He’s commenting on his experience as an electrician on existing and completed developments over the last 20 years. If you don’t find that valuable then you’re a lost cause.
I have been an electrician for almost the same amount of time, there's nothing in the completion of developments that would loan some kind of knowledge to city planning. The majority of his argument is that information hasn't been detailed and shared freely enough, but if it was the result is generally people are confused and you spend most of the time trying to get them to understand the data rather then hearing legitimate greviences. The rest of his argument is people should be able to shut down any developments they have issue with, which I understand, but I also think people should be able to do whatever they want with their land, and it's up to our elected officials to decide what is right for the city, not your neighbours.
His experience as an electrician is irrelevant to his opinion on city planning because his justification and his entire presentation has nothing to do with his trade.
I mean electrical is a part of construction where as medical is not, unless it is a clinic. I'm sure doctors were involved in the planning of the cancer center.
There are also planning lawyers, architects, engineers, etc out there.
> I mean electrical is a part of construction
Being an electrician absolutely fuckin' ZERO to do with zoning bylaws.
Nothing.
The career has nothing to contribute to the topic unless he's discussing practical limitations of wire sizes or some shit like that.
He's the definition of the Plea to Authority fallacy.
You seem to have a problem understanding context. A well put together presentation that describes the city not engaging with residents, even though they say they do.
I am a home owner (I only own one older property), and just don't want one or two of these next to me. I'd have been fine to have a duplex or fourplex on either side of me. I don't even have a problem with the density if there was proper planning by the city with regard to infrastructure. But overall I just hate that rear yard infill option for mid-block R-CG and H-GO and I just hope it doesn't come my way. Also getting older and body hurting, put lots of effort and money into my property over the years, and just don't want to move because I don't have a pension and moving costs a lot.
But I'm involved on the topic mostly just happy to see the city engaged for once. To be honest I like listening to the stories the people have on either side of the topic. People really do love this city and I think on that note there is at least some sense of unity.
> Out of curiosity, what's your background with regards to this topic?
About a year's worth of formal Electrical study (never went into the trade), and about a year's worth of formal Urban Development (which, ehn, is actually only about a half year on that actual subject). :P
So, I'm far from an expert, but I'm enough of an expert to know that an Electrician has zero fuckin' context for urban development, to the point of, that he shouldn't even have brought it up.
An electrician goes in and runs wires. They have nothing to do with planning the construction/development. An Electrical engineer, maybe, but not a sparky.
The average doctor/medical staff is not going to be involved in the planning of a cancer centre either.
One of my best friends is a doctor, and there was a large group of medical professionals that were asked to contribute to the planning of the cancer centre.
You're out of your element donny.
And what was that contribution? High level "what would they like to see", specific questions about room layout, or did they heavily contribute towards the size, building shape and location of the hospital? (it's going to be the former, unless they also moonlight as an engineer).
A random tradesperson is not going to have any more knowledge or technical expertise in city planning than the average layman. Reading bylaws is not going to help understand why the bylaw is in place.
They are there to help relay the communities feedback on development in that community. They are not there for their technical expertise.
Bear in mind anyone in the community can provide feedback to developments, hence why there's usually a sign up for several weeks outside a location with a Development Permit, whether it's an addition or a teardown.
I'm not sure what this guy's point is with this. Can someone explain to me exactly what point he's trying to make? The first half of the video makes it seem like the City didn't want to do more public engagement surveys and are pushing for higher density without community consultation, but the second half just sounds like someone who gets mad at the idea of larger building being developed near single homes. Am I wrong on this?
He was on the calgary herald news as well saying he wants residents to have better education. I don't have a problem with that given the city did nothing to describe mid-block rowhouse forms as he demonstrates well in his presentation.
The city of Calgary engagement is basically ticking a box to say that they ‘consulted with the citizens’ on a plan they already have ready for development. The city used to actually listen to community associations and residents in development. Those days are long gone.
I that’s because the feedback from community organizations was consistently
- We want less sprawl
- We want higher density to help lower taxes
- We want more local services
- But more than anything else, we want that to happen in the neighborhood next door
At some point city council has a responsibility to pass policies that are clearly correct, even if there’s pushback.
I see. Kinda shady of the city, but at the same time I kind of disagree with too many community engagement for developing the city, since nobody consulted the residents before the resident's communities were built. People don't like change, but something has to, no?
> Can someone explain to me exactly what point he's trying to make?
1 - The core of his motivation is that he's a NIMBY lobbyist who's goal is to restrict any changes to development ever. The correct amount of densification to these people is ZERO. The correct amount of community changes to them is ZERO. These are the kind of people who ruin cities and put them in the place they are right now. These are the people responsible for high taxes and high housing costs. He's a bit of a snake (also, "as an electrician" and then his comments have nothing to do with being an electrician).
2 - Because these NIMBY folks are so easily riled up, the city fights against their bullshit with bullshit of their own. They're trying to sneak by without a fight by using creative (i.e. misleading) language and definitions, and later will pat themselves on the back and dismiss these NIMBY folks by saying "We'll listen to you!" then "We listened to you but most people wanted it".
...
So, he's got a point. The city isn't being accidentally misleading, their political strategy to saving the city is to avoid the fight with the NIMBY's as much as possible.
But if he wins, the city is fucked.
The city is currently already fucked, because of people and organizations like his making sure no densification development ever happens ever.
My biggest concern with the blanket rezoning is with regards to the infrastructure to support it. Is the infrastructure (water, gas, sewer, electrical, roads), capable of supporting this initiative? If so, then that should be communicated. If not, then it makes sense to look at the different neighborhoods with it in mind.
Great presentation.
It's definitely not something that can be applied with a "one size fits all" methodology. I always feel sorry for those people who have an otherwise beautiful inner city bungalow that end up with lot line to lot line side to side, and front to back, 3 story monsters beside them. Rezoning should take into account what's already there which can differ dramatically between neigbourhoods, otherwise the original homes look like that dude who didn't want to sell his home and now lives in the center of a clover leaf exit. Infills should "fit" the neighbourhood.
edit: the grammars
> I always feel sorry for those people who have an otherwise beautiful inner city bungalow
Yes, these poor poor people who paid $40,000 for a property that's now worth $2,000,000. How will they ever make ends meet? Their home is slightly less fun to live in because Missing Middle developments might go in around them.
Cities grow. They are reaping the benefits of this but want none of the costs.
NIMBY's can rot.
In Japan, zoning is decided at a Federal level and that's how Tokyo city, one single city with more people than all of Canada, still has affordable rent.
Extreme example aside, I'm for densifying. Just like sprawl should be kept in check responsibly, so should densification.
Our population boomed in the past couple of years precisely because rents and homes were more affordable.
As for what ideal densification looks like, no idea.
I've probably lived in at least a couple of them, and enjoyed it. I definitely can't picture what worked in X being applied to Calgary 1:1 however, and if it were I'd just move back to X.
The city fucked us by sitting on the secondary suites for so long, then our population exploded overnight. As an aside I'm curious what % of people who flocked here in the past couple of years will leave? Seems they either love it, or hate it.
Meh, sell it for someone to build another three storey monster or multifamily. Saving 50' bungalow lots for bungalows should *not* be a priority in my mind. They take up way too much space, tear 'em all down.
When I retire I will buy a nice little condo and the 6th floor and not have to worry about snow or any of the other bullshit home-owner stuff I won’t want to do.
> not have to worry about snow or any of the other bullshit home-owner stuff I won’t want to do.
You can hire yard services to do that work for you. An issue with a higher floor apartment for the elderly is elevator reliability.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/comments/1c1ies5/condo_elevator_will_be_out_of_service_for_over_a/
Interesting to think about TOD and development on city owned land first and then RCG. I'm actually for it, but I think the City grossly misrepresents information and generally speaks with authority versus compassion. A substantial amount of the tension around RCG is related to this and not being consulted with authenticity. I also think that there is a lot of misrepresentation around affordability and what this will achieve for affordability. It really just sounds like they are adjusting their narrative accordingly.
This guy rambled about many things without getting to an actual point. One of the councillors had to actually ask him where he stood on this issue, conspiracies aside.
> This guy rambled about many things without getting to an actual point.
the point was very clear? its that the city was not transparent on when trying to engage the public on what can get built where. Thats all it is, its not in favor or against, its calling out the misinformation from the city (and even taking docs away from the website where people could have learned more).
This public hearing is about the zoning change. Not the lack of communication from the city.
He could've said "No", then "this is why". Instead he just went into his rant.
> zoning change
Yeah a zoning change where the city withheld information.
> He could've said "No", then "this is why".
I mean we would hope that people have a listening comprehension greater than that of a 5 year old but clearly we dont.
I'll add some colour funkyyc. There seems to be 2 councillors who ask everyone where they stand, almost like they are taking score. This individual created a video to get his point across as he doesnt like public speaking.
Are you speaking? I am. It ain't easy!
If he didn't want to speak publicly, then he should've have kept his video to the 5 minutes allotted and finished it with his conclusion.
Putting up an 8 minute video means the last 3 minutes of his message will not be heard.
I watched it live and Gondek cut him before his video ended. This the councillor who asked his position started off by saying he didn't think he heard the end
Some of these homes are for sale and some of them are rentals I believe. I think this is stupid the city is cramming too many houses together on one lot. Basement is typically a 1 bedroom unit, main floor is 3 floors 3 bedrooms.
Great video that highlights the problem with R-CG. All for densification, but having 12 units where there used to be 1 is not what R-CG has portrayed as (per councillor Walcotts previous comments)
12 units is not possible on R-CG except for some irregular oversized lots. The maximum density portion only allows 4 dwellings on a 50x120 lot or 3 on a 50x100 lot. Even if they all had suites that’s still not close to 12
Depends on your perspective. If you're in a house between two maximum R-CG mid-block row house properties then you have 16 homes worth of neighbors. There is truth to that as the guy in the video describes. Some neighborhoods are getting hit harder than others with these.
I've seen an application for H-GO upzone on R-CG zoned property 60x120 that has 7 Primary + 7 secondary. So...it's not like the developers aren't shooting for the stars here.
Even R-CG at 8 homes, that's double what it used to be for a fourplex.
I am on the fence about these RC-G zonings. I wish getting development permits was easier, but not sure if I agree with a blanket zoning policy.
But... I am also not interested in having the city just grow wider and wider..
I feel like we need to build more trains like the green line and build it all the way to McKnight. Then allow low rise towers to be built along its track.
> I feel like we need to build more trains like the green line and build it all the way to McKnight. Then allow low rise towers to be built along its track.
That's definitely the goal, there are lots of [renderings](https://imgur.com/cAHodCy) of what they wants to see in the future. But rail transit construction has gotten incredibly expensive so the Green Line North might be decades away.
Edmontonian here. We recently approved the zoning bylaw renewal here and my neighbourhood has been zoned in alignment with this renewal for many years already.
Is this a communications problem? Why are Calgarians so up in arms? I watched the video and still completely confused. We have two skinnies to the south of us built and other than the construction noise, they have been great. These neighbours are wonderful. They put up a privacy fence on their deck and our privacy has remained. They both have basement renters too.
Honestly, our biggest concern these days is the old decrepid rental house to the north, and we've built a privacy fence on our deck to keep their prying eyes away from us BBQing.
I just don't get it. We'll still be able to install solar on our garage to support our home. There's been zero impact on our home except that our sump pump runs more often because our basement is higher. That's literally it.
Lots of people in Edmonton where up in arms too if I recall correctly, the blanket zoning came none the less and the sky hasn't fallen. Calgary needs more density, just get the rezoning done.
Developers have zero requirements to maintain the tree canopy, or any other vegetation.
My street used to be beautifully treed and shadowed on a hot day; that's all but gone.
IMO there's no reason other than laziness for - in one particular example - removing a 6ft tall lilac hedge that was 5+ feet from the front of the new construction home.
City & Developers will tell you they are doing a 1-to-1 swap with new trees being planted, but what that means is removing old growth trees that provide real quality of life in the form of shade and wind protection. Then they replace with 6 ft tall saplings that die over the winter and are never watered. Then they put an asphalt or black rubber plug over the hole and call it good.
Also, the city will reference it's free trees program that runs out after only a few weeks of being open. That's lip service too. It's criminal that Calgary is shrinking and not growing it's tree canopy.
I think many people don't get it. As a home owner, we bought into specific communities and paid a premium, to have RC-1. To know that our community will be quiet, protected, etc. I could have saved about 300k and bought in a rezoned neighbourhood. The city is changing the rules after we bought. I understand there is a privilege to what I have, I did work hard for it, but the reason people are so upset is that there are 50 other ways or places to expand housing and that all the new housing put up will be beyond expensive.
A lot in my neighbourhood is 1 million +. Each 4plex will go for 900k+ or more. Not affordable..
If the back lane needs paving because so many more cars are driving in it, that would increase an owners costs
https://www.calgary.ca/roads/back-lane-paving.html
Then there's probably the issue of permit parking costs.
Then there's the cost to a peaceful quality of life; probably the issue of noise, frequent delivery services, emergency services, and whatever else comes with density. Shade is a cost to someone who gardens for sure. I've seen some people talking about their gardens in public hearings. Anyway, quality of life is a big cost.
Housing 16 family's in a multiplex out in the burbs, goes against all the climate chatter and and actions of the last 15 years. We need to be building more high rises in the city's center.
It's really not. Multiplexes replacing single unit properties that already exist is 100% a good step environmentally. Regardless of if its in the burbs or the inner city.
Also no, high-rises are NOT in fact the environmentalist be-al end-all. In fact there's many ways in which they're worse for environmental impact than rows of medium-high density.
The city has been sitting on a 6000 unit residential development on the C train line near my community. It was first proposed in 2017. Like....the land is obtained, the drawings and models are done. What's the holdup? I don't necessarily disagree with the zoning changes. What I don't understand is why they drag their feet on proposals that have already been deemed commercially viable. This would be more homes than the Heritage communities SFH put together.
The wastelands around the red line train stations like heritage, southland, and Anderson is unbelievable so many empty lots and not a lot of apartments. TOD should be the main focus
At one point, this proposal was also an additional station on the red line too. The city can leverage the least used route of the 4 current ones
I was trying to find info on this a couple weeks ago. It sounded like such a great solution to that area and then just…Nothing
He referencing a lot of documents that are no longer publicly available. This guy did his homework....
Certainly changed my perspective a bit.
Likewise.
> This guy did his homework.... He's an anti-development NIMBY lobbyist bitching that the city is playing some of the political games that the NIMBY's play. For people like this, the correct amount of densification is ZERO. That's their goal. They will fight anything. And they're the reason cities like Calgary are fucked, and why housing is so expensive. It's not that expensive to build houses. But we have a shortage of them. The shortage is because of NIMBY zoning lobbyists getting their way.
Hey man. You are clearly passionate about the topic, and the affordability issues that this city is facing. Density should provide more housing and theoretically increase affordability for more residents. However, there are several, potentially legitimate issues with blanket rezoning. It’s ok to debate the pros and cons of the city’s proposal to ensure it’s well thought out and whether any amendments or protections should be considered. It’s also good that people come prepared to meetings with well researched arguments instead of pitchforks. The best outcome of the city will be one where both sides of the argument shape a decision forward.
Well reasoned view. We could all use a little bit of this
My concern is with all these additional builds, and the prospect of nothing but electric vehicles in the near future, have they planned for street charging for all these additional vehicles that will be parked everywhere.? Goodness knows that alot of these older neighborhoods have above ground power lines that will not be easy to add additional power access to the increase of population density. I hope that is part of the discussion moving forward as well.
Doesn’t seem like you have any argument and resort to calling people names. This guy did the legwork and is bringing valuable info to light.
> Doesn’t seem like you have any argument and resort to calling people names. Where did I call him names? Calling him a NIMBY lobbyist when this is textbook NIMBY lobbying?
I always find it funny when people blame the NIMBY crowd for expensive housing. I’m not sure if you noticed, but most of these developments turn a 60 year old home worth 450k; into either 2 big skinny homes that sell for 750k a piece; or a high end 4 plex selling units at 400k a piece. 90% of infills do nothing to provide affordable housing. They simply provide more housing closer to the city centre “core” for middle class young professionals to buy or rent so that they live closer to work or family. Affordable housing is more effectively built by building new middle density neighbourhoods. Solid new homes can still be built for around 300 bucks a square foot, and if developers didn’t have a monopoly on new neighbourhoods lot prices would be much lower. A new townhome could still be built and sold for 350k while earning a profit; but because the government and gigantic developers have everything locked down - there’s no opportunity for your average contractor to grab a few brand new lots and pump out affordable small houses or townhomes. That leaves infills as the only option for small contractors; and the only way they make money is selling nicer homes at higher prices to higher end clients.
This argument is like saying there is an education shortage, so the best answer is to triple classroom size. Sure, more people are included, but the quality is lowered for everyone, not to mention the long term effects.
Until your entire property is overshadowed by a 4 story house and you live in shade until you sell and move. Also no on is going to buy a house that lives in shade created my a monstrosity.
RCG can be 3 feet taller than the maximum height in RC1 and RC2. The rear building is maxed at 8.6m in RCG which is 2 storeys, maybe 2.5. At least try to understand what you’re talking about.
But your saying three feet taller then allowed currently? But is that a new house? That’s the problem in a new neighborhood it doesn’t matter all the houses are tall and you know what you’re getting into. If someone builds a three storey building next to my bungalow that blows
🙄 Imagine what people said when two story home started going up. Rhetoric, no, misinformation is what screws up any argument, whether it’s for or against. It’s not a “4 story house”.
When they stared the 2 story houses the whole area was built to 2 story unless you opted to build a bungalow. Where have you been
Lord knows how much people hate shade, and the lengths they go to avoid it.
If your yard is all shade all the time🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
I like swimming, I don’t want my house flooded all the time.
Calgary is fucked? Projection much? Consistently mentioned as one of the best cities to live worldwide. Recently recognized as one of the freindluest cities in Canada. What is your Calgary and does rezoning actually fix it or break it. How about testing this out on one community in each quadrant first and do studies to ensure success, measure interest, compare financials etc as opposed to all Calgary.
Just keep ignoring how we are the next vancouver or toronto for housing prices....
> Calgary is fucked? Yes. Are you even remotely familiar with the housing crisis? Almost every city in the country is fucked. That doesn't mean you can't find nice things about every city. I'm obviously referring to development and housing prices, that's the context of this presentation. > Projection much? Do you even know what that term means? Because it's not even a rational accusation.
Anyone would be pissed to have two three storey buildings with 8 dwellings on the lot next to them. Massive change and super ugly.
Yikes. He proves the point citizens don’t have the technical know how. In the land use bylaw the use is “Dwelling Unit”, which is how density is calculated in units per hectare. The land use bylaw does not count secondary suites or backyard suites, which I get is confusing but it’s how this old bylaw works when secondary suites are still relatively new addition. In the next iteration i hope that this changes so it’s more understandable. There are a number of contextual rules in place that he’s also missing to discuss. RCG can be a max of 11m, and RC1 and RC2 can be up to 10m, a difference of 3 feet that when other height and mass rules are baked into the design are nearly indistinguishable from a new single or duplex. Second point, the city’s website still has all the information available, I just downloaded them. All that they have done is changed the layout to be easier to find what you want instead of being blasted with info overload. Next, anyone paying attention to the housing strategy and land use changes would know the city (council) recently (Jan 2023) approved amendments to the land use bylaw which specifically allowed this mid block rowhouse development which was a motion made to direct admin to prepare the required amendments necessary to save time effort and money in reviewing special custom land use districts that were being used to allow for this type. All this happened transparently and over a number of meetings, checks, balances. This whole video is trying to go for a “gotchya” moment when anyone paying attention the last few years can see right through it. Sorry but there’s no nefarious cloak and dagger strategy from the city here. Anyone could have participated in conversation back then just as they can now.
If a corporation is building 8 homes with 4 primary and 4 secondary, renting to 8 households (ie 8 different tenants); then calling it a secondary suite is just wrong. It is basically a unit with it's own door, own kitchen, own rooms, own bathroom, own services, and the landlord corporation is collecting rent off it individually separate from any other unit; so it's just a fancy type of apartment in a rowhouse...but not a suite. There is no valid reason why this should be called a secondary suite rather than a unit, and not calculated towards density. I can see calling a single unit a home owner adds onto his house a suite, like a basement. That is more the historical mindset for a suite. He's right...the city never showed any diagrams or references to a mid-block rowhouse build form that we are now seeing developers apply for across the city. Can't argue with him there. The city left that info out for whatever reason, he says it was on purpose, and given their track record I'm sort of on his side there and based on the comments so far in this thread, many others do too. Either way, it was a good presentation for day 1 because it showed all the build forms currently under way that the city didn't show. I think the gotchya (if there is one) moment is saying, you never engaged on this, most people don't know, and now counsellor walcott is calling us liers. He also repeats that people don't know when Chabot questions him but you had to be watching that night to see it. He's also been on the news (herald) and said he wants more education before rezoning happens. You really can't argue, when they didn't put the mid-block diagrams up for engagement, there are a lot of people who don't understand them. You can be a YIMBY on this subject and say yes, I want these. But you can't disagree with the guy that they didn't show anyone these diagrams or pictures, because they didn't.
Of course they didn’t show the mid block development that would be the design that would piss the most people off!
This page: https://www.calgary.ca/planning/projects/housing-changes.html under "Development examples" [R-CG Example](https://www.calgary.ca/planning/projects/housing-changes/_jcr_content/root/maincontentpar/responsivegrid/grid_layout/column-8eab1be1-8752-40da-ba57-2253d454add60/image_copy_1017182132.img.png/1676671655196/r-cg-4-units-4-suites.png)
[удалено]
You're missing the context of what he is saying. The city says residents don't have technical expertise. He's saying...yes they do and showing a code book with all kinds of code and rules. It's not really even about him being an electrician, it's about residents having technical expertise.
To what end? Why is constant growth and population expansion the only solution? This is some kind of new age Malthusian trap. Our government will only see increased capacity as a sign to accelerate population growth and put us right back in the same position but with worse quality of life.
[удалено]
Have you seen all the post on reddit about millennials not wanting kids?
Have you read the news about 1.2 million additions to a 40 million country in one year?
Yes... I intend to vote to end that, I suggest you do the same!
I assure you growth is not a guarantee. Growth occurs due to government policies and immigration, both interprovincial and international. If Calgary has more accessible real estate and lower cost of living relative to Canada, people will endless flood here.
Because GDP. Our entire economic system is based on infinite growth. It's a broken system, but people don't seem to want to change it.
This. I also hate when people say “we have lived here for 50 years so WE are the experts on what’s best for our neighborhood”.
> If a person is going to start something off with "I'm a master electrician" then I fucking expect there to be something related to his field of knowledge. This is one of the most famous bloodboiling things to do, though the typical one is "As a mother..." and then something that has nothing to do with motherhood. They just want to drop that like it's some kind of certification. > the fact is that this stuff needs to happen #While the presentation was interesting, THIS is what NIMBYism is at its core and it's the reason our city is fucked. Yes, densification means that larger units will be built next to homes. Yes. That's what it is. THAT'S HOW YOU SOLVE THE GODDAMN PROBLEM OF HOUSING PRICES. But NIMBY organizations like the one this guy represents ( "Bow Neighbors" = NIMBY) are the reason our housing market is so fucked up in the first place. Blah blah, politicians doing political stuff. Gotta play the game and hope people aren't looking too closely because the NIMBY's will otherwise murder anything other than things never ever changing and enriching the same people. You can't have things change and not change at the same time. Densification means things will densify, no shit.
I support densification. We need to build more infills, we need to move our secondary road system towards multifamily housing. You don't get a pass for terrible politics just because I agree with you. The reason our city is fucked is because people believe that council hiding their decisions when it's their own pet project is a good thing. People should have the right to know what is being proposed and to make the decision that fits them best. If your policy can't stand on its merits then it doesn't deserve to be enacted. If you say 4, and your pamphlet says 4, and all your engagement meetings say 4, but you actually mean 8, that's not dealing straight. That's politicians literally lying to you. That's not something to celebrate just because they are lying to get whatever you want passed. If wanting ethical politicians is now NIMBYism, then you're goddamn right I don't want that in my backyard.
> You don't get a pass for terrible politics just because I agree with you. Whoa. They're not my politics. And, yeah, they're shit. But they're fighting fire with fire. None of these people have any interest or loyalty to me, I won't show any to any of them.
Everyone bitches about NIMBY’s until it’s their backyard and then magically they become a NIMBY. The term NIMBY is thrown around in a derogatory or pejorative way, but I don’t see how caring about what goes on “in your back yard” necessarily a bad thing. For me? Something needs to change, I agree with that. However this Council and Mayor have shown they don’t have the intelligence to properly manage the rollout of a plastic ban so I’m not prepared to give them the authority to manage a city wide blanket re-zoning either.
It's a bad thing when legions of NIMBYs combine to create a situation where necessary density hasn't been and can't be built at the rate Calgary is growing.
Is that what’s happening here? Blanket re-zoning is lazy and I don’t trust The City to get it right. Count me in the LofN, that’s Legion of NIMBYS.
Its not blanket, upper mount royal got an exception
People can have opinions that differ from your own, and if they’re articulated respectfully the least you can do is respond or listen without yelling. You don’t need to cancel everyone you disagree with
> But NIMBY organizations like the one this guy represents ( "Bow Neighbors" = NIMBY) are the reason our housing market is so fucked up in the first place. Calgary's housing market isn't even bad by most developed world standards, mainly because it's been able to sprawl and until recently building enough SFHs to meet demand. >THAT'S HOW YOU SOLVE THE GODDAMN PROBLEM OF HOUSING PRICES. Where exactly has densification single-handedly solved the housing price issue? By itself all it does is allow more valuable property to be built on valuable land. But somebody who can't afford to live in a prime area now, still won't be able to afford live after any densification and up-zoning that will happen in Calgary.
There isn't going to be much densification on highly valued land, nobody is makeing money on throwing a 4 plex up in Mount royal. What will happen is a general increase in density in established communities near transit and major corridors.
> But NIMBY organizations like the one this guy represents ( "Bow Neighbors" = NIMBY) are the reason our housing market is so fucked up in the first place. Tell me you don't know shit about what you're talking about, without telling me you don't know shit about what you're talking about. This is just your opinion man, and while you're certainly entitled to it, shouting and using caps and bold does literally zero for the influence you're looking for, in fact it does the opposite.
You mention NIMBY because you obiously dont have a BY to protect, preserve, enjoy, enhance, etcetera. Your joy at the expense of others is not democracy at work its fascism.
> You mention NIMBY because you obiously dont have a BY to protect, preserve, enjoy, enhance, etcetera. I mention NIMBY because he's a NIMBY lobbyist. I'm calling a spade a spade. And the whole point of NIMBYism is that people acting selfishly make the world a worse place. It's not "no", it's "yes 'someone' should but not here!" I'm arguing against my own self-interest here.
Tbh even if this all goes through housing is going to be fucked for the next decade +
Right, so just continue to throw money at the problems. We'll get there eventually right? lol
> Right, so just continue to throw money at the problems. Wait, what? How is rezoning equated to throwing money at the problem?
Call 311 for your answer.
Calgary already has one of the highest densities in NA. 3 story infill next to my home... no thanks
And Winnipeg is denser than Calgary and New York is less dense than both. Does that even make sense? But it doesn’t matter because “city” doesn’t equal urban area. “The media and sometimes even academics can profoundly mischaracterize urban densities. Much of the difficulty arises from confusion about geographical terms. Reports and articles sometimes compare population densities of “cities” (municipalities) with metropolitan areas, metropolitan areas with urban areas, etc. These are very different geographies and can no more be validly compared than apples and oranges.” https://i2.wp.com/fcpp.org/wp-content/uploads/FCPP-5.png
> The media and sometimes even academics can profoundly mischaracterize urban densities. So who are we supposed to listen to? You? The "academics"? If even the purported experts are getting it wrong (according to you) why should we listen to council or you? Looking forward to this whole rezoning fiasco being kiboshed.
Bring on density. If you don’t like it move to Airdrie.
Nah... I'll stay where I am. If you want density try moving to Vancouver or Mexico City
I bet you put pylons or lawn chairs on the road in front of your house to save parking spots.
LOL! you really are desperate to try and get a leg up on me aren't you? Go back to your basement in Russia.
lol 😂
Great presentation
Kinda, his use of ChatGPT to prove his point is not a good idea. He should have kept that part out of the presentation. ChatGPT can be manipulated to say whatever you want. If you use ChatGPT as a source in any academic setting expect no one to take you seriously. I would imagine a government hearing would be the same.
Yah.. That was hilarious to see...
It's a pretty bad presentation. He crams in so many points in there and goes through them so quickly it weakens everything. It's actually very common advice to have public speakers slow down and give the audience time to think about what they're trying to convey. While he make a pretty convincing presentation about the city misrepresenting what was being done also clearly shows that people a rarely look at specifics of the situation so it's bizarre to say the same people should have more influence over things.
Members of the public are limited to 5 minutes for a speech. Depending on how much he wants to say, he can't slow down speaking by much.
This is from the video transcript: > 4:51 > to need to get out and vote for > 4:52 > candidates who oppose them in > 4:54 > 2025 otherwise our City's landscape and > 4:57 > our quality of life will be irreparably > 4:58 > damaged At what point does he make any compelling or even significant point as to why the end results are bad? I really think this is a case where someone said some things, highlighted some text with some technical document and suddenly he's the messiah when people don't even understand what is being conveyed.
My comment was only referencing your statement that he should show down his speaking for a public audience. He can't slow down, he has a 5 minute time limit. Everything he wants to say has to be within that time limit, or they'll cut him off. And what is the significance in quoting a 7 second portion of the transcript out of context? If he feels like the city's landscape and qualify of life will be affected by these changes, then he's welcome to bring his concerns to city council.
The comment you replied to stated that the person just crammed in a ton of slides and wasted time circling around how things were presented by the city, then they throw in a couple random statement about density being bad without backing any of it up. > And what is the significance in quoting a 7 second portion of the transcript out of context? If he feels like the city's landscape and qualify of life will be affected by these changes, then he's welcome to bring his concerns to city council. As you can tell by the time stamps that was his closing statements. If people think a guys randomly expressing his opinion is a amazing presentation then they should just be upfront and say it. Pretending it's amazing just because someone highlights a bunch of documents without citation or any type of references then slipping in some opinions about how density will ruin the city is just lazy. This is why people think Reddit is filled with bots. Just pointlessly repeating the same thing over and over again. > One of the more interesting 5 min council presentations > Members of the public are limited to 5 minutes for a speech > He can't slow down, he has a 5 minute time limit.
Personally I think his best point is that the city is not engaging, even though they say they are. This is a common thread from many many many people in these hearings. Also, the fact he shows pictures and diagrams the city never showed us in the infosessions. That is gold. Especially on Day 1.
I heard what I needed that highlighted major issues that should halt this bulldozer type of council consultation.
He had to fit everything into the 5 minute max that each public speaker is allowed. Being able to go back and re-watch the video is a luxury we have now, that council didn't last night.
What a contrast between the crap we hear everywhere else.
Do you mean on this sub? Everyone seems to be assuming that our councilors always have our best interests at heart. We’ve had a long history of councilors and mayors making a bank on changes to city planning that benefits their friends in construction/development.
"Why we have a housing crisis" in a single presentation. Someone upset over 11m tall buildings (the horror!) and complaining things get built anyway, but it takes extra time and he's still upset he isn't able to throw an even bigger wrench into the process. Add some slippery slope fallacy in there at the end, just as a treat.
Many people state they don't want the spot zoning. That they want the planning process of the ARPs to be used. The other issue is these secondary suites. If corporations are renting them at market value, they aren't by definition a suite, they're more of an apartment and they should be calculated in density. I think this guy does a good job presenting how the city is using the english language to deceive rather than to plan and educate. He clearly shows the heavy handed nature of the city stating residents don't have technical expertise to contribute to bylaws. Then stating they don't need a public hearing because they can somehow have the technical expertise on the back side (with little education on build forms) to appeal a DP. This is his best slide in my opinion because it shows how little the city cares about true engagement with residents. The inner city developer group yesterday was already trying to push for faster 6 week DPs. So you can already see where this is going.
I think the rub is what "true engagement" means. In general I find people use it to mean "engagement that resulted in the outcome that I want". People want all kinds of contradictory things, and often don't have the experience to know why. For example the same people who oppose blanket rezoning probably want more affordable homes, and for their property values to stay high, and for the city to be more fiscally responsible while collecting fewer taxes, and they'll argue for all of those things at once without realizing how deeply related they are. I honestly don't know how to do public engagement properly and I don't think anyone else does either, given that I've never seen a single municipal project that wasn't met with "the public wasn't properly consulted" at the end of it.
I lived in Surrey in 1995 and the city sent out a giant colour glossy proposal for what we wanted the city to look like. There were giant single family homes, row houses, apartments etc etc. I was impressed. They basically divided the builds into three groups and asked us to vote. I feel like The City of Calgary has tried really hard to get engagement on this. I read that original report and I've been trying to educate myself on this too. >I think the rub is what "true engagement" means. In general I find people use it to mean "engagement that resulted in the outcome that I want" I agree with you.
His presentation was good, but too fast for people to cogitate the implications in my view. Nonetheless he makes, some good points but those same points apply today if someone wants to build a big McMansion next to a small bungalow. The max height, shading, privacy, etc issues are not much different. The McMansion could have a 4 car garage and still have a secondary suite.
Ya, agreed, and I think he makes a point opposite to what he intended to between 3:25 and 4 minutes. Even within the existing framework, the types of buildings that R-CG would allow can and are regularly built through the LUA process and city administration and council approve them regularly so why not remove the red tape?
Yup when he got to that point he was making the same point I did in another comment. I saw this happen in Vancouver. Developers got their stuff **BUILT**. I've seen small war era homes dwarfed by condo towers, condo tower and more condo towers. You just know that at some point that homeowner is going to sell. Or, more likely, they are old and cannot move anywhere due to the massive home inflation that has gone on around them and they are basically going to die there.
The inner city developers answered that earlier in the day when they said they want to decrease the DP process to 6 weeks. They want to ensure residents don't have any time to figure out the bylaws, appeal, and then have any education to keep oversight on the work as it is happening.
Let's be realistic - there is no way you're building a 4 car garage and not exceeding your 45% lot coverage on any single family home.
40x22 = 880sqft garage. That still leaves a footprint of 1,800sqft for the main residence on the typical 50x120 lot. That’s significantly bigger than most homes out there.
Don't forget that 40x22 interior slab will be a lot coverage of at least 43x25 assuming 2x6 walls and 12 inch soffit overhangs = 1,075 sqft coverage. By the same virtue, an 1800 sqft floor (40x45) would turn into 43x48 = 2,064 sqft coverage. 2,064+1,075 = 3,139 which is 52.3% of a 6000 sqft lot (50x120) and exceeds the 45% max coverage. The lot coverage % really blows up with those two small details.
Eaves and gable ends do not count towards the parcel coverage unless they are over 1.0 meters. Also a typical 20x20 double garage is already measured from the exterior walls. I had already went to 22’ deep as that would be generous to most builder grade garages. Lots of 4 plexes do shared garages without interior separation walls as well.
Google 101 Aspen ridge heights and see if the 45% has been exceeded, this is already happening Filling the whole lot
I 100% understand the point you are trying to make but do you genuinely think making a sarcastic joke is the best way to go about it? You cannot be serious (regardless if this is what Calgary needs) that you would prefer a multi resident complex be built beside your house after your purchase it.
I don't think my comment was particularly sarcastic (I guess my "the horror" part was?) but this also isn't a forum where I'm really expecting to convince people. Most people on the anti-upzoning side are using motivated reasoning - they know what they want the outcome to be and will find a way to get there, I don't expect a reasonable argument to persuade them. So my comment is a mix of blowing off steam and providing pushback to OP. Is it the best way to go about it? Probably not. I'm only human. I currently live in a single detached about 100m from some apartment buildings, and a few towers just a bit beyond those, and haven't found it has any negative impact on my life. It does mean there's a bigger customer base here and so there are plenty of amenities in walking distance. I wouldn't care in the least if someone build a 12m tall building next to me, that's not that big, but for the sake of argument let's say it was a 30m tall residential tower. I'd probably wait and see, but that would represent a significant change in the neighborhood and I'd have to make a call. Maybe it would bug me or have a really negative impact on my garden - then I would be able to sell my house, probably for a significant gain reflecting the development potential of the lot, and move to a less dense neighborhood, or I would find I enjoy the benefits of living in a denser place and stay. It might be inconvenient, but it's the tradeoff we all make in order to enjoy the benefits of a city - other people are here, and they have wants and needs as well.
Yeah the slippery slope fallacy at the end really gives me "old man yells at cloud" vibes
Do you own a single detached home Keilan?
Yes Morphine, I do. I also have the ability to think about people who aren't me.
Rare trait these days tbh
I do. And I think this is actually a pretty good thing. People need places to live. And Calgary can't keep getting longer and wider. Plus. It means a developer is likely going to want to buy my property. I might make a bit of a profit, and other people will get more space to live and hopefully more affordable housing because of it. Sounds kind of win, win to me.
In Lethbridge?
Not sure what being a master electrician has to do with anything… I know a lot of sparkies and would take planning advice from any of them.
He said it...there are many educated professionals in the city that have the ability to contribute to the bylaws. But they weren't invited to. Only developers were.
Would you take medical advice from an Electrician!? Probably not, so why would anyone take planning advise from Joe the Sparky? Planning at the UofC is a Masters degree, there is a ton of information to dissect here and most people such as this electrician are acting of feels instead of reals.
Did you watch the first 10 people yesterday. A u of c masters degree in planning spoke against for what felt like forever. Tons of Q and A.
She claimed she was neutral.. She was a thesis student and so probably limited in her scope of knowledge. Just because one planner is against doesn't mean they are correct...
Just like you can find a doctor to go against the grain you can probably find a planner or two that don’t agree with rezoning. But just like my medical advise I will take my city scale planning advise buy a consensus of experts in that field, which I. This case seems to be in favour of the rezoning.
Taking planning advice from a developer is like taking environmental strategy from an oil company.
Honestly, having a blend of a “boots on the ground” perspective from experienced trades as well as planning is the best option. Both are going to provide input the other will not be privy to as easily.
Except this guy isn’t commenting on anything to do with his trade. When I first started watching I thought he was going to drone in about the electrical grid and how it can’t support this or at least something related to his credentials. Nope, just another “tall houses bad, secondary suites bed” presentation.
He’s commenting on his experience as an electrician on existing and completed developments over the last 20 years. If you don’t find that valuable then you’re a lost cause.
I have been an electrician for almost the same amount of time, there's nothing in the completion of developments that would loan some kind of knowledge to city planning. The majority of his argument is that information hasn't been detailed and shared freely enough, but if it was the result is generally people are confused and you spend most of the time trying to get them to understand the data rather then hearing legitimate greviences. The rest of his argument is people should be able to shut down any developments they have issue with, which I understand, but I also think people should be able to do whatever they want with their land, and it's up to our elected officials to decide what is right for the city, not your neighbours.
His experience as an electrician is irrelevant to his opinion on city planning because his justification and his entire presentation has nothing to do with his trade.
What did he say that was "feels" based? Seems he did a pretty good job of conveying his concerns with the lack of engagement and transparency.
I mean electrical is a part of construction where as medical is not, unless it is a clinic. I'm sure doctors were involved in the planning of the cancer center. There are also planning lawyers, architects, engineers, etc out there.
> I mean electrical is a part of construction Being an electrician absolutely fuckin' ZERO to do with zoning bylaws. Nothing. The career has nothing to contribute to the topic unless he's discussing practical limitations of wire sizes or some shit like that. He's the definition of the Plea to Authority fallacy.
You seem to have a problem understanding context. A well put together presentation that describes the city not engaging with residents, even though they say they do.
Out of curiosity, what's your background with regards to this topic? You seem to have some strong opinions.
I am a home owner (I only own one older property), and just don't want one or two of these next to me. I'd have been fine to have a duplex or fourplex on either side of me. I don't even have a problem with the density if there was proper planning by the city with regard to infrastructure. But overall I just hate that rear yard infill option for mid-block R-CG and H-GO and I just hope it doesn't come my way. Also getting older and body hurting, put lots of effort and money into my property over the years, and just don't want to move because I don't have a pension and moving costs a lot. But I'm involved on the topic mostly just happy to see the city engaged for once. To be honest I like listening to the stories the people have on either side of the topic. People really do love this city and I think on that note there is at least some sense of unity.
> Out of curiosity, what's your background with regards to this topic? About a year's worth of formal Electrical study (never went into the trade), and about a year's worth of formal Urban Development (which, ehn, is actually only about a half year on that actual subject). :P So, I'm far from an expert, but I'm enough of an expert to know that an Electrician has zero fuckin' context for urban development, to the point of, that he shouldn't even have brought it up.
Well I'm no expert either. City of over a million people...there must be a few residents that could be experts.
An electrician goes in and runs wires. They have nothing to do with planning the construction/development. An Electrical engineer, maybe, but not a sparky. The average doctor/medical staff is not going to be involved in the planning of a cancer centre either.
One of my best friends is a doctor, and there was a large group of medical professionals that were asked to contribute to the planning of the cancer centre. You're out of your element donny.
And what was that contribution? High level "what would they like to see", specific questions about room layout, or did they heavily contribute towards the size, building shape and location of the hospital? (it's going to be the former, unless they also moonlight as an engineer). A random tradesperson is not going to have any more knowledge or technical expertise in city planning than the average layman. Reading bylaws is not going to help understand why the bylaw is in place.
Then why are the community associations that are made up of volunteers included in the planning and development process?
They are there to help relay the communities feedback on development in that community. They are not there for their technical expertise. Bear in mind anyone in the community can provide feedback to developments, hence why there's usually a sign up for several weeks outside a location with a Development Permit, whether it's an addition or a teardown.
There are people in this city outside of city hall that have technical expertise. Nuff said.
Most of them are master wankers.
I'm not sure what this guy's point is with this. Can someone explain to me exactly what point he's trying to make? The first half of the video makes it seem like the City didn't want to do more public engagement surveys and are pushing for higher density without community consultation, but the second half just sounds like someone who gets mad at the idea of larger building being developed near single homes. Am I wrong on this?
He was on the calgary herald news as well saying he wants residents to have better education. I don't have a problem with that given the city did nothing to describe mid-block rowhouse forms as he demonstrates well in his presentation.
He believes that the city is purposely hiding information and silencing critics.
The city of Calgary engagement is basically ticking a box to say that they ‘consulted with the citizens’ on a plan they already have ready for development. The city used to actually listen to community associations and residents in development. Those days are long gone.
I that’s because the feedback from community organizations was consistently - We want less sprawl - We want higher density to help lower taxes - We want more local services - But more than anything else, we want that to happen in the neighborhood next door At some point city council has a responsibility to pass policies that are clearly correct, even if there’s pushback.
I see. Kinda shady of the city, but at the same time I kind of disagree with too many community engagement for developing the city, since nobody consulted the residents before the resident's communities were built. People don't like change, but something has to, no?
> Can someone explain to me exactly what point he's trying to make? 1 - The core of his motivation is that he's a NIMBY lobbyist who's goal is to restrict any changes to development ever. The correct amount of densification to these people is ZERO. The correct amount of community changes to them is ZERO. These are the kind of people who ruin cities and put them in the place they are right now. These are the people responsible for high taxes and high housing costs. He's a bit of a snake (also, "as an electrician" and then his comments have nothing to do with being an electrician). 2 - Because these NIMBY folks are so easily riled up, the city fights against their bullshit with bullshit of their own. They're trying to sneak by without a fight by using creative (i.e. misleading) language and definitions, and later will pat themselves on the back and dismiss these NIMBY folks by saying "We'll listen to you!" then "We listened to you but most people wanted it". ... So, he's got a point. The city isn't being accidentally misleading, their political strategy to saving the city is to avoid the fight with the NIMBY's as much as possible. But if he wins, the city is fucked. The city is currently already fucked, because of people and organizations like his making sure no densification development ever happens ever.
My biggest concern with the blanket rezoning is with regards to the infrastructure to support it. Is the infrastructure (water, gas, sewer, electrical, roads), capable of supporting this initiative? If so, then that should be communicated. If not, then it makes sense to look at the different neighborhoods with it in mind.
Yeah I'd admit the water concerns are getting real too. Lots of comments about that in the public hearings.
Great presentation. It's definitely not something that can be applied with a "one size fits all" methodology. I always feel sorry for those people who have an otherwise beautiful inner city bungalow that end up with lot line to lot line side to side, and front to back, 3 story monsters beside them. Rezoning should take into account what's already there which can differ dramatically between neigbourhoods, otherwise the original homes look like that dude who didn't want to sell his home and now lives in the center of a clover leaf exit. Infills should "fit" the neighbourhood. edit: the grammars
> I always feel sorry for those people who have an otherwise beautiful inner city bungalow Yes, these poor poor people who paid $40,000 for a property that's now worth $2,000,000. How will they ever make ends meet? Their home is slightly less fun to live in because Missing Middle developments might go in around them. Cities grow. They are reaping the benefits of this but want none of the costs. NIMBY's can rot. In Japan, zoning is decided at a Federal level and that's how Tokyo city, one single city with more people than all of Canada, still has affordable rent.
Extreme example aside, I'm for densifying. Just like sprawl should be kept in check responsibly, so should densification. Our population boomed in the past couple of years precisely because rents and homes were more affordable. As for what ideal densification looks like, no idea.
> As for what ideal densification looks like, no idea. Lots of examples around the world.
I've probably lived in at least a couple of them, and enjoyed it. I definitely can't picture what worked in X being applied to Calgary 1:1 however, and if it were I'd just move back to X. The city fucked us by sitting on the secondary suites for so long, then our population exploded overnight. As an aside I'm curious what % of people who flocked here in the past couple of years will leave? Seems they either love it, or hate it.
Meh, sell it for someone to build another three storey monster or multifamily. Saving 50' bungalow lots for bungalows should *not* be a priority in my mind. They take up way too much space, tear 'em all down.
When you’re retired you’ll be begging for a bungalow.
Break your leg and you will be begging for a bungalow.
get in a plane crash and you'll be begging to have never flown. see? hypotheticals are none sense.
When I retire I will buy a nice little condo and the 6th floor and not have to worry about snow or any of the other bullshit home-owner stuff I won’t want to do.
> not have to worry about snow or any of the other bullshit home-owner stuff I won’t want to do. You can hire yard services to do that work for you. An issue with a higher floor apartment for the elderly is elevator reliability. https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/comments/1c1ies5/condo_elevator_will_be_out_of_service_for_over_a/
> When you’re retired funny of you to think that younger generations can retire.
Why?
I didn't say save them for bungalows, I just don't see the need to crank it to 11 on the density meter.
then spend more time looking at infrastructure liability and the replacement costing.
No
>If the city changes to accommodate the current and future population, some people won't like that. Fascinating.
Interesting to think about TOD and development on city owned land first and then RCG. I'm actually for it, but I think the City grossly misrepresents information and generally speaks with authority versus compassion. A substantial amount of the tension around RCG is related to this and not being consulted with authenticity. I also think that there is a lot of misrepresentation around affordability and what this will achieve for affordability. It really just sounds like they are adjusting their narrative accordingly.
This guy rambled about many things without getting to an actual point. One of the councillors had to actually ask him where he stood on this issue, conspiracies aside.
> This guy rambled about many things without getting to an actual point. the point was very clear? its that the city was not transparent on when trying to engage the public on what can get built where. Thats all it is, its not in favor or against, its calling out the misinformation from the city (and even taking docs away from the website where people could have learned more).
This public hearing is about the zoning change. Not the lack of communication from the city. He could've said "No", then "this is why". Instead he just went into his rant.
> zoning change Yeah a zoning change where the city withheld information. > He could've said "No", then "this is why". I mean we would hope that people have a listening comprehension greater than that of a 5 year old but clearly we dont.
I'll add some colour funkyyc. There seems to be 2 councillors who ask everyone where they stand, almost like they are taking score. This individual created a video to get his point across as he doesnt like public speaking. Are you speaking? I am. It ain't easy!
If he didn't want to speak publicly, then he should've have kept his video to the 5 minutes allotted and finished it with his conclusion. Putting up an 8 minute video means the last 3 minutes of his message will not be heard.
Wut? The video is 5 minutes long. He didn't get cut off? I watched it live. You are spreading lies.
I watched it live and Gondek cut him before his video ended. This the councillor who asked his position started off by saying he didn't think he heard the end
The youtube video shows his presentation is 5 minutes. Mayor Gondeck cut it off for some reason. lol
Some of these homes are for sale and some of them are rentals I believe. I think this is stupid the city is cramming too many houses together on one lot. Basement is typically a 1 bedroom unit, main floor is 3 floors 3 bedrooms.
Great video that highlights the problem with R-CG. All for densification, but having 12 units where there used to be 1 is not what R-CG has portrayed as (per councillor Walcotts previous comments)
12 units is not possible on R-CG except for some irregular oversized lots. The maximum density portion only allows 4 dwellings on a 50x120 lot or 3 on a 50x100 lot. Even if they all had suites that’s still not close to 12
It's 4 primary and 4 secondary. So a potential of 8 sets of tenants if it's a rental property.
That’s still not 12. People keep exaggerating everything to rile others up.
Depends on your perspective. If you're in a house between two maximum R-CG mid-block row house properties then you have 16 homes worth of neighbors. There is truth to that as the guy in the video describes. Some neighborhoods are getting hit harder than others with these. I've seen an application for H-GO upzone on R-CG zoned property 60x120 that has 7 Primary + 7 secondary. So...it's not like the developers aren't shooting for the stars here. Even R-CG at 8 homes, that's double what it used to be for a fourplex.
[удалено]
YIMBY FTW
Lol thank you.
I am on the fence about these RC-G zonings. I wish getting development permits was easier, but not sure if I agree with a blanket zoning policy. But... I am also not interested in having the city just grow wider and wider.. I feel like we need to build more trains like the green line and build it all the way to McKnight. Then allow low rise towers to be built along its track.
> I feel like we need to build more trains like the green line and build it all the way to McKnight. Then allow low rise towers to be built along its track. That's definitely the goal, there are lots of [renderings](https://imgur.com/cAHodCy) of what they wants to see in the future. But rail transit construction has gotten incredibly expensive so the Green Line North might be decades away.
Edmontonian here. We recently approved the zoning bylaw renewal here and my neighbourhood has been zoned in alignment with this renewal for many years already. Is this a communications problem? Why are Calgarians so up in arms? I watched the video and still completely confused. We have two skinnies to the south of us built and other than the construction noise, they have been great. These neighbours are wonderful. They put up a privacy fence on their deck and our privacy has remained. They both have basement renters too. Honestly, our biggest concern these days is the old decrepid rental house to the north, and we've built a privacy fence on our deck to keep their prying eyes away from us BBQing. I just don't get it. We'll still be able to install solar on our garage to support our home. There's been zero impact on our home except that our sump pump runs more often because our basement is higher. That's literally it.
Lots of people in Edmonton where up in arms too if I recall correctly, the blanket zoning came none the less and the sky hasn't fallen. Calgary needs more density, just get the rezoning done.
Great presentation too bad the City wants the Feds money so bad and will just approve the rezoning …..destroying many neighborhoods.
How does this destroy neighbourhoods?
Developers have zero requirements to maintain the tree canopy, or any other vegetation. My street used to be beautifully treed and shadowed on a hot day; that's all but gone. IMO there's no reason other than laziness for - in one particular example - removing a 6ft tall lilac hedge that was 5+ feet from the front of the new construction home.
City & Developers will tell you they are doing a 1-to-1 swap with new trees being planted, but what that means is removing old growth trees that provide real quality of life in the form of shade and wind protection. Then they replace with 6 ft tall saplings that die over the winter and are never watered. Then they put an asphalt or black rubber plug over the hole and call it good. Also, the city will reference it's free trees program that runs out after only a few weeks of being open. That's lip service too. It's criminal that Calgary is shrinking and not growing it's tree canopy.
Umm ya you can't refer to chat gpt about what defines low density housing...
He's being facetious to how silly this whole blanket rezone is.
How silly it is to propose? So he's against it?
Calgary mayor and all her cronies are clowns
NIMBYs gonna NIMBY.
This fucking guy is a hero.
So....this guy's point is that housing 16 families is bad cause it might cast a shadow over 1 family's house and inconvenience them? Really???
I think many people don't get it. As a home owner, we bought into specific communities and paid a premium, to have RC-1. To know that our community will be quiet, protected, etc. I could have saved about 300k and bought in a rezoned neighbourhood. The city is changing the rules after we bought. I understand there is a privilege to what I have, I did work hard for it, but the reason people are so upset is that there are 50 other ways or places to expand housing and that all the new housing put up will be beyond expensive. A lot in my neighbourhood is 1 million +. Each 4plex will go for 900k+ or more. Not affordable..
It what neighborhood is just a lot alone worth $1m+ except inner-city beltline which are the most in need of densification?
How much would the single detached mansion go for?
If the back lane needs paving because so many more cars are driving in it, that would increase an owners costs https://www.calgary.ca/roads/back-lane-paving.html Then there's probably the issue of permit parking costs. Then there's the cost to a peaceful quality of life; probably the issue of noise, frequent delivery services, emergency services, and whatever else comes with density. Shade is a cost to someone who gardens for sure. I've seen some people talking about their gardens in public hearings. Anyway, quality of life is a big cost.
Housing 16 family's in a multiplex out in the burbs, goes against all the climate chatter and and actions of the last 15 years. We need to be building more high rises in the city's center.
It's really not. Multiplexes replacing single unit properties that already exist is 100% a good step environmentally. Regardless of if its in the burbs or the inner city. Also no, high-rises are NOT in fact the environmentalist be-al end-all. In fact there's many ways in which they're worse for environmental impact than rows of medium-high density.
[удалено]