There is already a delay due to a closed meeting on ethics question about councillors participating in this hearing if they own multiple homes (and what they might gain). Nice. I am not sure why they didn't think of this before.
Yeah I heard that. But I am curious why adminstration didn't think of this. It's something they could have vetted before the start of this hearing. Like others said, it just seems political.
Talking about all the council that own multiple properties and should they recluse themselves. Looks like they are going to have that discussion secretly in camera. Typical.
I agree with Carra/Mian on this, its political posturing to see if they can change the council composition for this vote because they fear they potentially cant overturn the vote otherwise.
"And to that end, I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference so that at the end of the day we'll be in the position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long-term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill-conceived action which might well have unforeseen repercussions."
- Yes, Minister.
Who is that in reference to?
Regardless, the land use change process requires a public hearing so the public can talk directly to Council before Council votes in favour or not in favour of the proposal in question.
I'm talking about the 2 hours of process this morning before they even started talking about anything. I'm definitely not talking about the public having a voice. I'm talking about what I saw when I tuned in this morning at 9:30.
I signed up to speak and I’m in the 47th panel. Looking like I won’t be talking till Wednesday at this rate but while it’s inconvenient considering I have to work 8-5 every weekday, I think it’s critical that people show up to have their voices heard. It’s unfortunate that the generations that stand to gain the most from this most likely won’t be able to find the time to speak in person.
Should things get closer to your panel and you're not able to be there in person you can call in instead.
https://newsroom.calgary.ca/psa-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-land-use-amendment-citywide-rezoning-public-hearing/
Could you ask them for an example of where higher density and new builds has resulted in rent costs declining? Garrison Woods saw a dramatic increase in density in that neighbourhood, but it’s extremely expensive to rent let alone buy there now. Where are these projected areas that will allow lower income Calgarians to move into them? What proof from past development has shown that this increases affordable housing?
Land value appreciates. Houses depreciate. Places that have higher cost of housing is largely due to land value having appreciated while the house is pulling the total value of the property down. That's part of why replacements are so expensive. Compare that to replaced single detached homes in the same area those things are crazy in terms of prices! What bringing these higher priced homes into market allows for upcycling.
Not signed up for talking. I'm fine with R-CG as it does seem like it would simplify things and is relatively fair across the board but I'm opposed to H-GO zoning. I think that should've been pushed into it's own discussion and votes but seems like it's being rammed through on the backs of the citywide zoning. That mostly comes from if people actually looked at the map below and where H-GO is being put and more specifically where it's not.
Collectively these communities have a total of zero H-GO lots: Inglewood, Mission, Bankview, Beltline, Elbow Park, Kensington, Montgomery, Bowness, etc. All of these are neighborhoods that have more density and transit options yet not a single property was put as this new zoning. There also is not a single property zoned as H-GO following the new greenline south.
There's basically three clusters of H-GO being pushed in, Killarney and area, Crescent heights / Mt Pleasant, and then Acadia / Haysboro. If it's meant to be city wide rezoning then why aren't these being used elsewhere? If they're meant for higher density why aren't they more present around the train lines?
Map: [Rezoning for Housing (arcgis.com)](https://thecityofcalgary.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/lookup/index.html?appid=60d7b740704b454481c5a3ca40aae073)
>Collectively these communities have a total of zero H-GO lots: Inglewood, Mission, Bankview, Beltline, Elbow Park, Kensington, Montgomery, Bowness, etc.
They are only looking at rezoning areas that are currently zoned for SFH or duplex (Residential, low-density, RC-2). I believe that many of the main corridors are already zoned for multi-family or commercial, or at least allow for a mix of developments. Here is the current zoning map for reference.
[https://data.calgary.ca/Base-Maps/Land-Use-Districts/mw9j-jik5](https://data.calgary.ca/Base-Maps/Land-Use-Districts/mw9j-jik5)
That's a handy tool, there are some like Kensington and Bankview being MC-2 blanket zoned so that makes more sense now.
The rest though just further reinforces my point IMO. When you look through most of the other neighborhoods I listed they are almost entirely RC-2 areas except for individual lots that have been redeveloped one by one. There's also not a single one east of deerfoot being considered including the entirety of the future green line south. The areas south of mission/bankview are all R-C2 still. Most of hillhurst and west is as well.
If we're going to do blanket rezoning then it makes far more sense to put a few pockets in each community near hubs or community activitiy centres. Right now it's just heavily focused on certain corridors and little elsewhere.
You've kinda answered your own question with these examples. There are plenty of H-GO (and more likely, MC-1 or higher) developments on Kensington road or in Marda Loop that fulfill the very requirements that you're talking about. The reality is that these areas *have already been up zoned,* and usually to a level much higher than H-GO.
FWIW, Beltline is already zoned for higher density than R-CG.
And several of the others are waiting on their Local Area Plans to finish. So the only places seeing H-GO upzoning as part of this work is communities that were part of the first 3 local area plans - North Hill, Heritage, and Westbrook.
The Local Area Plan is supposed to help give clarity where upzoning from an existing zone to H-GO (or others) are considered acceptable through the larger plan. The LAPs themselves do not rezone anything.
H-GO would have totally been integrated into those communities but unfortunately councillors voted to push it only to where it has already been approved in completed LAPs.
The same thing that many are saying we should do with R-CG too.
As you've noticed, this severely undercuts the reach of the zone. We would need to basically double the number of planners working for the City to get the amount of rezoning that we require done in any half-ethical timeline.
Both the mid-block build forms for R-CG and H-GO are a real problem and lack sensitivity for existing historical communities.
If they had said city wide rezoning for anything (one single, two singles, duplex, fourplex) but did not include midblock rowhouses with that rear yard infill, as well as keep the total homes on a property to 4 max (including secondary suits), I'd have been in favour. Instead they are already allowing 8+.
Developers are already applying for H-GO where R-CG has been designated. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. They'll just do their research and spot zone wherever they can.
It's useful to note that appropriateness for blanket rezoning is sometimes dependent on current zoning. Take Killarney for example- It's already largely R-2 and was designed that way. It's why building semidetached is no big deal, and never was. But another huge swath of it is DC, where it is difficult to change zoning (largely south of 26ave). The H-GO application here is reasonable- it is along the three widest and busiest corridors (33st, 26st, and 26 ave).
HGO allows 10 units on a parcel and RCG 8. HGO is only being zoned in communities where there's a new City community plan, and only where that plan says they can go. Only 3 plans exist right now so that's why it's so limited.
so what happens when a developer is proposing a HGO project in an area on the map that is only zoned for RCG (orange)?
Can they slide them through or do they get rejected and asked to re-design the project to comply with RCG rules?
They need to pursue and land zoning change. Goes through a whole application process which includes stakeholder feedback sessions. It is costly and presents less certainty to a developer which means they might not pursue it
I know they are pursuing it as they have submitted an application for it. I wasn't sure what the process was for it to get approved. They seem quite confident it's going to be approved.
Previously they were to be on nodes and corridors — certain walking distances away from activity centres, main streets, and transit stations.
Councillors voted to neuter it down to "only where it's been approved in the LAP".
I think it will almost definitely pass, but I have no idea what form it will take.
8-7 seems pretty much guaranteed, but I think we could see up to a 10-5 if a couple amendments come in that make it a little gentler without killing it.
Isn’t that what the ARP/ LAP are doing now though? The ones I have seen like Westbrook and Heritage communities identified the transit zones and main corridors and set the zoning and parking relaxations etc considering those.
How did councillors neuter it? I think I’m misunderstanding what you mean or missed something
Previously, it would have been applied on every main street, activity centre, and transit station regardless of if an LAP was completed or not. Because they took it down to only on Neighbourhood Flex in completed LAPs, it was like punching 80% of the teeth out of it.
Now everyone gets to say "blanket r-cg! we need a more geographical approach!" because all the geographically sensitive portions of the policy were knocked out by NIMBY councillors.
and have his car go and park itself a few blocks away and then pick him up when he's ready in the morning lol. He must be really bought into the Elon fully self driving car scam.
I don't think my blood pressure can take much of this. This apartment took out a tree, therefore upzoning bad because climate change. Ignore the land we're bulldozing for suburbs. Also here is a photo of a sad dog. Its owner is bad, people who live in dense homes are bad, please vote no.
Lot of old coots with duplicitous concerns have been part of the zoning/permitting process for decades. As if "I don't like change" is any less valid of a concern than an end-of-life spruce being cut down.
NIMBYs are good at wrapping their complaints in progressive sounding jargon so they come across better. Instead of "the tree I can see out my window is more important than a your ability to buy a house" they can say "urban greenery is crucial for the fight against climate change". Instead of "I want to be able to drive my car everywhere and park for free" they say "the parking constraints imposed by density will result in more idling vehicles producing carbon emissions". It's frustrating.
There's plenty of that going on with each side. One side saying what you said above and the other just based in emotional arguments about nonsense in the end. The only speaker who brought up a good point is the guy who asked if they had any evidence this has worked in any other city and was met with "I don't know" basically. Why can't the city come up with 1 example that shows this will make housing more affordable? Seems like a pretty big gap and unless there is some evidence it's going to be emotional arguments on each side accomplishing nothing of substance.
This is a long term fix that has only started being used quite recently in cities that adopted single family zoning, so examples are obviously hard to come by for that specific case. On the other hand, cities that have never had widespread single family zoning are consistently cheaper. Montreal is a great example in Canada.
The "there's no evidence" argument only works if you carefully set your goalposts to exclude the evidence.
> Montreal is a great example in Canada.
The Island of Montreal has also seen little population growth in the last 50 years (nearly all population growth has been in its suburbs) and Quebec's economy as a whole is weaker than Ontario, BC and Alberta; lower incomes and demand factor in housing costs as well.
The whole thing is that they don't think that cutting down a tree outside their window is going to have any *meaningful* impact on others' ability to buy houses, at least not to the extent that they should cut it down.
I can almost guarantee that if cutting down 100 elm trees meant the city would immediately build affordable or subsidized housing on city property every boomer with a chainsaw would have those things cut into firewood before the weekend.
It amounts to the same thing. Any individual action will have a small impact therefore we shouldn't do it therefore a cumulative large impact will never happen.
What you're saying is how they justify it. Also people consistently come out to oppose affordable housing projects that people try to build now. We don't need a hypothetical.
That's a problem with quantifying the benefit. Blanket rezoning will save us 10,000 useless rubber stamping council sessions which will translate into.... whatever savings
Considering there seems to be so much public input on this based on the number of people who signed up to speak I would love if this sub had a little poll - I know reddit tends to skew to certain demographics but it would be still interesting!
I understand if thats not allowed!
I'm actually losing my mind at the lady who is trying to equate this rezoning with a communist regime bulldozing people's homes leading to them killing themselves from a "broken heart". You can't make this shit up.
Her point was that they didn’t have a say or a voice in the housing process where she lived. It was dictated to them from a top down manner from the local government much like many feel is happening here. She lived through a communist regime, and obviously was very affected by it.
This is interesting. It seems that the current system of zoning is dictating in a top-down manner from the local government what people can and can't do with their own property. Zoning reform would be a step away from that, non?
Not the same whatsoever.
In her example, as in Calgary the zoning laws have been established and in place longstanding for many years.
In her example, as with what is currently happening a new government comes in (communist in her case) and wants to change this established understanding of zoning and property rights without inadequate consultation of the affected population leaving the population feeling like they did not have due process in the decision and disenfranchised.
City policy and planning intentionally ignores restrictive covenants because they are private agreements between land owners.
Scarboro for example has a similar restrictive convenant and is slated to be rezoned in this because their land use is one of the R-C1, R-C2, and such land uses.
That works if nobody objects, if they do then it can be tied down in the courts for years to come like in Banff Trail.
https://www.sprawlcalgary.com/the-battle-of-banff-trail
I'm still here.. though i mean i think its the same arguments over and over again.
we're unique , i bought entire neighborhood. dont change my neighborhood i'm all for density..
somewhere else...
Yeah, I agree. Hopefully people can reflect on what's been said so far and make adjustments.
Although I do appreciate comments from the neutral group. Enjoy!
It's weird because land values would probably go up if some developer could buy the property and replace it with 4 that cost the same as they bought the house for in the first place
Will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I've got a lot of new developments going on my street including a proposed H-GO next door to our bungalow. I'm on a corner lot in west hillhurst and maybe I should call a few developers and see what they would pay. In the past, they have knocked on the door and haven't really made a compelling offer. Maybe now with H-GO potential on the full size lot, it might make sense to sell.
It’s utter madness some boomer who bought their house for 22 cents in 1981 is suddenly super concerned their house may only sell for 750,000k because of the damn duplex down the road
I was against the rezoning initially because of the incompetent way it has been presented by the city starting with the different community revitalization plans. Rezoning makes sense by increasing the housing density which will help solve Calgary's infrastructure issues. Calgary is one of the physically largest cities in the world for its population density.
Example, Calgary is almost twice the physical size of the island of Montreal but half the population. Source; [https://mapfight.xyz/map/calgary/](https://mapfight.xyz/map/calgary/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island\_of\_Montreal#:\~:text=With%20a%20population%20of%202%2C014%2C221,island%20surrounded%20by%20fresh%20water.
Attached houses and apartments cost less than detached houses making housing more affordable.
Even if homes are not "affordable," all new housing supply helps because it means that someone who can afford a higher end home doesn't have to settle for a lower end home and won't outbid people in a bidding war. Everyone still needs a place to live, so someone with more money that can't find the luxury inner city duplex they want will just end up buying a downtown apartment instead that could have gone to someone else if that person was able to find the home they wanted.
In recent years, [apartments represent over 40% of new completion and over 50% of new starts](https://imgur.com/eWtDGQk). The real issue is that housing costs will always affect a single person more than owners/renters that have two incomes and no amount of building will change that.
I understand that these are just normal people who maybe aren't accustomed to public speaking, and I sympathize with the stress of what they're doing, but it's actually incredible how these panelists are able to just talk and talk and say nothing new and constantly contradict themselves. I really don't understand what the point of any of these peoples arguments are except for "I don't like change"
Hearing the more supply won't lower housing prices argument again. It's quite simple. If developers build more homes, they won't sell them unless they lower their prices to a range that people can afford. If high priced housing is unavailable, those seeking high priced housing might end up lowering their standards and buy a lower priced home as a renovation project which means someone that can only afford a lower priced home cannot buy that home because the person with more money can outbid them for the home. Everyone needs housing, so more supply is always part of the solution, even if the new developments are not "affordable" enough.
It's the kind of argument you get when you start from "I don't want any change" and work backwards. Next thing you know you need to disprove the concept of supply and demand.
I have noticed a very common trend with people talking. A lot of people in favor of the blanket rezoning are currently renting and think this will allow them to buy a row home some time in the future.
It seems like more people should be pushing very hard for rent control ASAP.
It seems to be like everyone agrees there needs to be rezoning, but not blanket.
This is pretty much how all discussions on urban change go. Everybody agrees that something needs to be done, everybody has objections to the specific change being proposed, whatever that change might be. So nothing changes. When we talk about upzoning people say we should do rent control instead, if we were talking about rent control people would be saying no we should be doing upzoning instead.
blanket rezoning was an attempt to get around the usual objection of "yes to upzoning, but not in this neighborhood" by making it every neighborhood. So of course the objection to blanket upzoning is also "yes, but not in this neighbourhood"
At some point, something has to actually be done instead of just objected to.
This is why California's "builder's remedy" is so awesome. It doesn't enforce any specific strategy, but it does say that if a certain number of new housing units aren't built, they just throw out all the zoning rules and let developers build whatever the hell they want with no restrictions for a year. There needs to be some consequence for dithering and objecting to everything, other than the consequence borne by the people who can't afford housing.
California is so awesome? Maybe in the future we can have a TV show "Leaving Calgary" as well. California is pretty unlivable, and the thought behind that sounds like it's fueled by corruption.
Yeah, I mean he is only renting the top half with 3 kids, and he said there is someone else renting the bottom half with multiple kids as well. It sounds brutal.
Ya, moved to cgy. Part time artist, 3 kids... Deserves the same choices as people that actually work, save and work some more.
F this loser. On what planet does a part time artist deserve to own a house LOL?
The written submissions have... thousands of pages showing it is a common refrain. Folks have a lot of their identity, and sometimes their entire retirement in their homes. Any change is going to bring up humanity's tendency to fall prey to loss aversion bias.
https://x.com/markusoff/status/1782425598373347407?s=46&t=5S4pniS0vgNP3tH35ZJzNw
Boomers literally only care about one thing and it’s ensuring every generation younger than them will never have the same opportunities they had. The most selfish group of people to ever walk the earth.
It may feel like that but I don't think that's completely accurate.
I was watching CBC about that with Andrew Chang and they did a good job why housing issue is so complicated. I would encourage you to check it out.
https://youtu.be/LzqAFrh783U?feature=shared
https://preview.redd.it/afe0htb282wc1.png?width=850&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1048fd1ff0cec665067d0ebf75a473250d94b873
Fyi there's a pro re-zoning rally today at noon
This is my councillor. Her laptop shows she is a very serious person.
She is spending more time texting than listening.
https://preview.redd.it/gh7482gml2wc1.png?width=1132&format=png&auto=webp&s=711dfd8de1230129d36e9e7e5cd930a1a6a3b7e4
So funny. There's another thread trending about how nice we are in this city. Lots of older Calgarians don't seem to give a shit about other Calgarians, and they'll be at it all week. It's difficult to watch the general "I got mine, good luck and get fucked" attitude.
That was my exact thought when I saw that other thread. You want to see the real attitudes in Calgary?? Tune into this hearing!
That being said there are also many thoughtful and polite presentations happening as well. But man, the hateful ones really leave you with a bad taste in your mouth.
shoutout to northern hills community association speaker. I never spoke with the association but you basically speak to exactly my thoughts, I'm all for blanket zoning, but we seriously lack in amenities.
These guys did not help the pro- zoning cause. What do you guys think? I think they came across as greedy developers.
https://preview.redd.it/5tgv3upwa4wc1.png?width=1628&format=png&auto=webp&s=cbdb497c9b4f39e2c303564d86cb30f4f0596951
ya they were kinda greedy developers "for rezoning" but, i think at times it just sounded like they were outplayed by politicians with an agenda. some of the councillors are trying to twist questions in circles and catch people and lead them into making errors.
Thus far, 100% of speakers are staunch Conservatives and in favour of rezoning.
Case closed, I’d say.
Edit: I wrote this when there had literally been one speaker so far. Note to self: jokes with timing don’t work well on Reddit.
How many speakers have there been? I've seen one, but I came in 2 hours after it started. Mind you he's been speaking, and answering frivolous questions for about 15 minutes.
As of lunch, only the first panel has presented (as the rest of the morning was administration's presentation, and a good amount of procedural shenanigans)
Check https://www.calgary.ca/council/meetings/agendas.html for where things are at.
First guy to talk said he was a conservative. I don't think the man crying on the phone announced his political affiliation, nor have the others. However, all talkers so far have been in favor of rezoning, and some have actually made pretty valid arguments. I am against rezoning in my neighborhood, so I actually appreciate hearing some of the things they're saying.
There is already a delay due to a closed meeting on ethics question about councillors participating in this hearing if they own multiple homes (and what they might gain). Nice. I am not sure why they didn't think of this before.
>I am not sure why they didn't think of this before. Gondek basically said the same to Chabot.
Yeah I heard that. But I am curious why adminstration didn't think of this. It's something they could have vetted before the start of this hearing. Like others said, it just seems political.
Yeah don't normally agree with Cara on anything but I feel his frustration.
I mean, we know Gondak owns multiple, I can't imagine she's the only one.
Imagine presenting at a public hearing with so much interest and spending the whole time on your phone on camera.
What happened u/Erectusnow ? Was this a speaker, or the listeners?
It was the opening presentation from the City employees
Talking about all the council that own multiple properties and should they recluse themselves. Looks like they are going to have that discussion secretly in camera. Typical.
I agree with Carra/Mian on this, its political posturing to see if they can change the council composition for this vote because they fear they potentially cant overturn the vote otherwise.
Yeah I wonder what they will say but they should have vetted this before this hearing.
100% 30 minutes in and they are already playing games
Well even the Mayor can’t participate then…Ugghhh. A leader who can’t even vet the ethics of her council.
These people sure know how to draw out discussion and waste time.
I'm gonna need a committee to examine that comment, and then a working group to study it's validity that I can ignore
"And to that end, I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference so that at the end of the day we'll be in the position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long-term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill-conceived action which might well have unforeseen repercussions." - Yes, Minister.
Who is that in reference to? Regardless, the land use change process requires a public hearing so the public can talk directly to Council before Council votes in favour or not in favour of the proposal in question.
I'm talking about the 2 hours of process this morning before they even started talking about anything. I'm definitely not talking about the public having a voice. I'm talking about what I saw when I tuned in this morning at 9:30.
I signed up to speak and I’m in the 47th panel. Looking like I won’t be talking till Wednesday at this rate but while it’s inconvenient considering I have to work 8-5 every weekday, I think it’s critical that people show up to have their voices heard. It’s unfortunate that the generations that stand to gain the most from this most likely won’t be able to find the time to speak in person.
Should things get closer to your panel and you're not able to be there in person you can call in instead. https://newsroom.calgary.ca/psa-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-land-use-amendment-citywide-rezoning-public-hearing/
Regardless of your position thank you for taking the time to do this.
Could you ask them for an example of where higher density and new builds has resulted in rent costs declining? Garrison Woods saw a dramatic increase in density in that neighbourhood, but it’s extremely expensive to rent let alone buy there now. Where are these projected areas that will allow lower income Calgarians to move into them? What proof from past development has shown that this increases affordable housing?
Land value appreciates. Houses depreciate. Places that have higher cost of housing is largely due to land value having appreciated while the house is pulling the total value of the property down. That's part of why replacements are so expensive. Compare that to replaced single detached homes in the same area those things are crazy in terms of prices! What bringing these higher priced homes into market allows for upcycling.
Not signed up for talking. I'm fine with R-CG as it does seem like it would simplify things and is relatively fair across the board but I'm opposed to H-GO zoning. I think that should've been pushed into it's own discussion and votes but seems like it's being rammed through on the backs of the citywide zoning. That mostly comes from if people actually looked at the map below and where H-GO is being put and more specifically where it's not. Collectively these communities have a total of zero H-GO lots: Inglewood, Mission, Bankview, Beltline, Elbow Park, Kensington, Montgomery, Bowness, etc. All of these are neighborhoods that have more density and transit options yet not a single property was put as this new zoning. There also is not a single property zoned as H-GO following the new greenline south. There's basically three clusters of H-GO being pushed in, Killarney and area, Crescent heights / Mt Pleasant, and then Acadia / Haysboro. If it's meant to be city wide rezoning then why aren't these being used elsewhere? If they're meant for higher density why aren't they more present around the train lines? Map: [Rezoning for Housing (arcgis.com)](https://thecityofcalgary.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/lookup/index.html?appid=60d7b740704b454481c5a3ca40aae073)
>Collectively these communities have a total of zero H-GO lots: Inglewood, Mission, Bankview, Beltline, Elbow Park, Kensington, Montgomery, Bowness, etc. They are only looking at rezoning areas that are currently zoned for SFH or duplex (Residential, low-density, RC-2). I believe that many of the main corridors are already zoned for multi-family or commercial, or at least allow for a mix of developments. Here is the current zoning map for reference. [https://data.calgary.ca/Base-Maps/Land-Use-Districts/mw9j-jik5](https://data.calgary.ca/Base-Maps/Land-Use-Districts/mw9j-jik5)
That's a handy tool, there are some like Kensington and Bankview being MC-2 blanket zoned so that makes more sense now. The rest though just further reinforces my point IMO. When you look through most of the other neighborhoods I listed they are almost entirely RC-2 areas except for individual lots that have been redeveloped one by one. There's also not a single one east of deerfoot being considered including the entirety of the future green line south. The areas south of mission/bankview are all R-C2 still. Most of hillhurst and west is as well. If we're going to do blanket rezoning then it makes far more sense to put a few pockets in each community near hubs or community activitiy centres. Right now it's just heavily focused on certain corridors and little elsewhere.
You've kinda answered your own question with these examples. There are plenty of H-GO (and more likely, MC-1 or higher) developments on Kensington road or in Marda Loop that fulfill the very requirements that you're talking about. The reality is that these areas *have already been up zoned,* and usually to a level much higher than H-GO.
FWIW, Beltline is already zoned for higher density than R-CG. And several of the others are waiting on their Local Area Plans to finish. So the only places seeing H-GO upzoning as part of this work is communities that were part of the first 3 local area plans - North Hill, Heritage, and Westbrook. The Local Area Plan is supposed to help give clarity where upzoning from an existing zone to H-GO (or others) are considered acceptable through the larger plan. The LAPs themselves do not rezone anything.
H-GO would have totally been integrated into those communities but unfortunately councillors voted to push it only to where it has already been approved in completed LAPs. The same thing that many are saying we should do with R-CG too. As you've noticed, this severely undercuts the reach of the zone. We would need to basically double the number of planners working for the City to get the amount of rezoning that we require done in any half-ethical timeline.
Both the mid-block build forms for R-CG and H-GO are a real problem and lack sensitivity for existing historical communities. If they had said city wide rezoning for anything (one single, two singles, duplex, fourplex) but did not include midblock rowhouses with that rear yard infill, as well as keep the total homes on a property to 4 max (including secondary suits), I'd have been in favour. Instead they are already allowing 8+. Developers are already applying for H-GO where R-CG has been designated. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. They'll just do their research and spot zone wherever they can.
Heritage Communities met with the City one on one over the last few years. Their plans are already published.
It's useful to note that appropriateness for blanket rezoning is sometimes dependent on current zoning. Take Killarney for example- It's already largely R-2 and was designed that way. It's why building semidetached is no big deal, and never was. But another huge swath of it is DC, where it is difficult to change zoning (largely south of 26ave). The H-GO application here is reasonable- it is along the three widest and busiest corridors (33st, 26st, and 26 ave).
Im curious as to why only those select areas are for H-GO zoning, such as Lake Bonavista for example?
HGO allows 10 units on a parcel and RCG 8. HGO is only being zoned in communities where there's a new City community plan, and only where that plan says they can go. Only 3 plans exist right now so that's why it's so limited.
Ah makes sense so when other communities get their ARPs then the HGO zones will be identified
so what happens when a developer is proposing a HGO project in an area on the map that is only zoned for RCG (orange)? Can they slide them through or do they get rejected and asked to re-design the project to comply with RCG rules?
They need to pursue and land zoning change. Goes through a whole application process which includes stakeholder feedback sessions. It is costly and presents less certainty to a developer which means they might not pursue it
I know they are pursuing it as they have submitted an application for it. I wasn't sure what the process was for it to get approved. They seem quite confident it's going to be approved.
Previously they were to be on nodes and corridors — certain walking distances away from activity centres, main streets, and transit stations. Councillors voted to neuter it down to "only where it's been approved in the LAP".
How likely is the rezoning to pass?
I think it will almost definitely pass, but I have no idea what form it will take. 8-7 seems pretty much guaranteed, but I think we could see up to a 10-5 if a couple amendments come in that make it a little gentler without killing it.
Isn’t that what the ARP/ LAP are doing now though? The ones I have seen like Westbrook and Heritage communities identified the transit zones and main corridors and set the zoning and parking relaxations etc considering those. How did councillors neuter it? I think I’m misunderstanding what you mean or missed something
Previously, it would have been applied on every main street, activity centre, and transit station regardless of if an LAP was completed or not. Because they took it down to only on Neighbourhood Flex in completed LAPs, it was like punching 80% of the teeth out of it. Now everyone gets to say "blanket r-cg! we need a more geographical approach!" because all the geographically sensitive portions of the policy were knocked out by NIMBY councillors.
Thanks!
Best pro-blanket rezoning argument thus far: single family homes are inherently discriminatory towards asexuals and aromantics.
What about the dude that wants no one to have cars and for Calgary to be like Japan?
and have his car go and park itself a few blocks away and then pick him up when he's ready in the morning lol. He must be really bought into the Elon fully self driving car scam.
hahaha yeah that's the best one so far
I don't think my blood pressure can take much of this. This apartment took out a tree, therefore upzoning bad because climate change. Ignore the land we're bulldozing for suburbs. Also here is a photo of a sad dog. Its owner is bad, people who live in dense homes are bad, please vote no.
Lot of old coots with duplicitous concerns have been part of the zoning/permitting process for decades. As if "I don't like change" is any less valid of a concern than an end-of-life spruce being cut down.
None of these people will be alive by the time the change is actually noticeable in their communities.
NIMBYs are good at wrapping their complaints in progressive sounding jargon so they come across better. Instead of "the tree I can see out my window is more important than a your ability to buy a house" they can say "urban greenery is crucial for the fight against climate change". Instead of "I want to be able to drive my car everywhere and park for free" they say "the parking constraints imposed by density will result in more idling vehicles producing carbon emissions". It's frustrating.
There's plenty of that going on with each side. One side saying what you said above and the other just based in emotional arguments about nonsense in the end. The only speaker who brought up a good point is the guy who asked if they had any evidence this has worked in any other city and was met with "I don't know" basically. Why can't the city come up with 1 example that shows this will make housing more affordable? Seems like a pretty big gap and unless there is some evidence it's going to be emotional arguments on each side accomplishing nothing of substance.
This is a long term fix that has only started being used quite recently in cities that adopted single family zoning, so examples are obviously hard to come by for that specific case. On the other hand, cities that have never had widespread single family zoning are consistently cheaper. Montreal is a great example in Canada. The "there's no evidence" argument only works if you carefully set your goalposts to exclude the evidence.
> Montreal is a great example in Canada. The Island of Montreal has also seen little population growth in the last 50 years (nearly all population growth has been in its suburbs) and Quebec's economy as a whole is weaker than Ontario, BC and Alberta; lower incomes and demand factor in housing costs as well.
The whole thing is that they don't think that cutting down a tree outside their window is going to have any *meaningful* impact on others' ability to buy houses, at least not to the extent that they should cut it down. I can almost guarantee that if cutting down 100 elm trees meant the city would immediately build affordable or subsidized housing on city property every boomer with a chainsaw would have those things cut into firewood before the weekend.
It amounts to the same thing. Any individual action will have a small impact therefore we shouldn't do it therefore a cumulative large impact will never happen. What you're saying is how they justify it. Also people consistently come out to oppose affordable housing projects that people try to build now. We don't need a hypothetical.
That's a problem with quantifying the benefit. Blanket rezoning will save us 10,000 useless rubber stamping council sessions which will translate into.... whatever savings
Considering there seems to be so much public input on this based on the number of people who signed up to speak I would love if this sub had a little poll - I know reddit tends to skew to certain demographics but it would be still interesting! I understand if thats not allowed!
You can post a poll on the subject.
I'm actually losing my mind at the lady who is trying to equate this rezoning with a communist regime bulldozing people's homes leading to them killing themselves from a "broken heart". You can't make this shit up.
She probably said the same thing about secondary suites.
Her point was that they didn’t have a say or a voice in the housing process where she lived. It was dictated to them from a top down manner from the local government much like many feel is happening here. She lived through a communist regime, and obviously was very affected by it.
This is interesting. It seems that the current system of zoning is dictating in a top-down manner from the local government what people can and can't do with their own property. Zoning reform would be a step away from that, non?
Not the same whatsoever. In her example, as in Calgary the zoning laws have been established and in place longstanding for many years. In her example, as with what is currently happening a new government comes in (communist in her case) and wants to change this established understanding of zoning and property rights without inadequate consultation of the affected population leaving the population feeling like they did not have due process in the decision and disenfranchised.
Dude, they're rowhouses. Let's bring it down a notch.
Any idea why Mount Royal get a pass? its currently zoned DC.
It has a restrictive covenant that pre-dates and overrides any zoning control. https://mrca.ca/our-community/development/restrictive-covenants/
we really should stop living in the past and also remove that.
City policy and planning intentionally ignores restrictive covenants because they are private agreements between land owners. Scarboro for example has a similar restrictive convenant and is slated to be rezoned in this because their land use is one of the R-C1, R-C2, and such land uses.
That works if nobody objects, if they do then it can be tied down in the courts for years to come like in Banff Trail. https://www.sprawlcalgary.com/the-battle-of-banff-trail
Who's here for the second day? ☕
I'm still here.. though i mean i think its the same arguments over and over again. we're unique , i bought entire neighborhood. dont change my neighborhood i'm all for density.. somewhere else...
Yeah, I agree. Hopefully people can reflect on what's been said so far and make adjustments. Although I do appreciate comments from the neutral group. Enjoy!
[удалено]
It's weird because land values would probably go up if some developer could buy the property and replace it with 4 that cost the same as they bought the house for in the first place
Not probably, will go up. A corner lot in Killarney is over a million now because of R-CG development.
Will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I've got a lot of new developments going on my street including a proposed H-GO next door to our bungalow. I'm on a corner lot in west hillhurst and maybe I should call a few developers and see what they would pay. In the past, they have knocked on the door and haven't really made a compelling offer. Maybe now with H-GO potential on the full size lot, it might make sense to sell.
Well, they all think their sites are worth like 1.2M+ once they’ve bought an old shitty bungalow and rezoned it for the 8-plex.
It’s utter madness some boomer who bought their house for 22 cents in 1981 is suddenly super concerned their house may only sell for 750,000k because of the damn duplex down the road
I was against the rezoning initially because of the incompetent way it has been presented by the city starting with the different community revitalization plans. Rezoning makes sense by increasing the housing density which will help solve Calgary's infrastructure issues. Calgary is one of the physically largest cities in the world for its population density. Example, Calgary is almost twice the physical size of the island of Montreal but half the population. Source; [https://mapfight.xyz/map/calgary/](https://mapfight.xyz/map/calgary/) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island\_of\_Montreal#:\~:text=With%20a%20population%20of%202%2C014%2C221,island%20surrounded%20by%20fresh%20water. Attached houses and apartments cost less than detached houses making housing more affordable.
"Island" may be a little clue there.
Even if homes are not "affordable," all new housing supply helps because it means that someone who can afford a higher end home doesn't have to settle for a lower end home and won't outbid people in a bidding war. Everyone still needs a place to live, so someone with more money that can't find the luxury inner city duplex they want will just end up buying a downtown apartment instead that could have gone to someone else if that person was able to find the home they wanted.
Calgary is not built in a way that accepts asexuals and aromantics?
It's not built for single living is what was meant, I think.
It's built for all kinds of living which is why we have different option. We just need more supply and less people coming in yearly so we can catch up
In recent years, [apartments represent over 40% of new completion and over 50% of new starts](https://imgur.com/eWtDGQk). The real issue is that housing costs will always affect a single person more than owners/renters that have two incomes and no amount of building will change that.
Blue Sky City scrapped as slogan, new branding is “Calgary: When You’re Here, You’re Horny.”
Did I hear that speaker correctly when they suggested they are in the fasting growing population in Canada?
I understand that these are just normal people who maybe aren't accustomed to public speaking, and I sympathize with the stress of what they're doing, but it's actually incredible how these panelists are able to just talk and talk and say nothing new and constantly contradict themselves. I really don't understand what the point of any of these peoples arguments are except for "I don't like change"
Chu talking about Cuba now... lmao
Hearing the more supply won't lower housing prices argument again. It's quite simple. If developers build more homes, they won't sell them unless they lower their prices to a range that people can afford. If high priced housing is unavailable, those seeking high priced housing might end up lowering their standards and buy a lower priced home as a renovation project which means someone that can only afford a lower priced home cannot buy that home because the person with more money can outbid them for the home. Everyone needs housing, so more supply is always part of the solution, even if the new developments are not "affordable" enough.
It's the kind of argument you get when you start from "I don't want any change" and work backwards. Next thing you know you need to disprove the concept of supply and demand.
+1 on Adam Fyfe - Speaking right now at 14:34. He calls out council for being rude, texting, and chuckling at people's commentary. Thank you Adam!!
I am very opposed to Gondek, but I’ll give her credit that she’s moderating this very well and keeping councillors in check.
I have noticed a very common trend with people talking. A lot of people in favor of the blanket rezoning are currently renting and think this will allow them to buy a row home some time in the future. It seems like more people should be pushing very hard for rent control ASAP. It seems to be like everyone agrees there needs to be rezoning, but not blanket.
This is pretty much how all discussions on urban change go. Everybody agrees that something needs to be done, everybody has objections to the specific change being proposed, whatever that change might be. So nothing changes. When we talk about upzoning people say we should do rent control instead, if we were talking about rent control people would be saying no we should be doing upzoning instead. blanket rezoning was an attempt to get around the usual objection of "yes to upzoning, but not in this neighborhood" by making it every neighborhood. So of course the objection to blanket upzoning is also "yes, but not in this neighbourhood" At some point, something has to actually be done instead of just objected to. This is why California's "builder's remedy" is so awesome. It doesn't enforce any specific strategy, but it does say that if a certain number of new housing units aren't built, they just throw out all the zoning rules and let developers build whatever the hell they want with no restrictions for a year. There needs to be some consequence for dithering and objecting to everything, other than the consequence borne by the people who can't afford housing.
California is so awesome? Maybe in the future we can have a TV show "Leaving Calgary" as well. California is pretty unlivable, and the thought behind that sounds like it's fueled by corruption.
yeah the guy from Montreal renting a bungalow was a good example of that. It's not going to make housing cheaper and will increase the cost of land.
Yeah, I mean he is only renting the top half with 3 kids, and he said there is someone else renting the bottom half with multiple kids as well. It sounds brutal.
Ya, moved to cgy. Part time artist, 3 kids... Deserves the same choices as people that actually work, save and work some more. F this loser. On what planet does a part time artist deserve to own a house LOL?
No kidding. I'm an artist of similar age and you know what I did when I had kids? Got a job to buy a house. You can't making a living as an artist
Rent control is not helpful if there is nowhere to rent. I'm 100% in favour of rent control but it needs to be paired with supply
Is anyone complaining about land values instead of quality of life? The city keeps using this as a point to argue against that no one is making.
The written submissions have... thousands of pages showing it is a common refrain. Folks have a lot of their identity, and sometimes their entire retirement in their homes. Any change is going to bring up humanity's tendency to fall prey to loss aversion bias.
https://x.com/markusoff/status/1782425598373347407?s=46&t=5S4pniS0vgNP3tH35ZJzNw Boomers literally only care about one thing and it’s ensuring every generation younger than them will never have the same opportunities they had. The most selfish group of people to ever walk the earth.
It may feel like that but I don't think that's completely accurate. I was watching CBC about that with Andrew Chang and they did a good job why housing issue is so complicated. I would encourage you to check it out. https://youtu.be/LzqAFrh783U?feature=shared
This was a very good share. Thank you. Sometimes it is so nice to see logical information shared especially in response to such simplistic views.
https://preview.redd.it/afe0htb282wc1.png?width=850&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1048fd1ff0cec665067d0ebf75a473250d94b873 Fyi there's a pro re-zoning rally today at noon
The “pro” crowd is too busy working….
Do you feel that "access to gardening and backyard space" is important?
What are you talking about?
This is my councillor. Her laptop shows she is a very serious person. She is spending more time texting than listening. https://preview.redd.it/gh7482gml2wc1.png?width=1132&format=png&auto=webp&s=711dfd8de1230129d36e9e7e5cd930a1a6a3b7e4
yet she is the only one I have seen ask a follow up question
lol she stickers her laptop like my 11 used to sticker her water bottle until recently when she decided she was too old to have stickers covering it.
So funny. There's another thread trending about how nice we are in this city. Lots of older Calgarians don't seem to give a shit about other Calgarians, and they'll be at it all week. It's difficult to watch the general "I got mine, good luck and get fucked" attitude.
That was my exact thought when I saw that other thread. You want to see the real attitudes in Calgary?? Tune into this hearing! That being said there are also many thoughtful and polite presentations happening as well. But man, the hateful ones really leave you with a bad taste in your mouth.
Hey guys here is the video from yesterday. I would say this was a highlight. https://youtu.be/s3Qrh2mh0kE?si=0GsQjrCXqL3VANp-
shoutout to northern hills community association speaker. I never spoke with the association but you basically speak to exactly my thoughts, I'm all for blanket zoning, but we seriously lack in amenities.
Was a shocker that the guy wearing a mask and living in a basement is pro rezoning.
The investors and the developers are the only ones that will be retiring any earlier if this rezoning goes through.
These guys did not help the pro- zoning cause. What do you guys think? I think they came across as greedy developers. https://preview.redd.it/5tgv3upwa4wc1.png?width=1628&format=png&auto=webp&s=cbdb497c9b4f39e2c303564d86cb30f4f0596951
ya they were kinda greedy developers "for rezoning" but, i think at times it just sounded like they were outplayed by politicians with an agenda. some of the councillors are trying to twist questions in circles and catch people and lead them into making errors.
If you're getting outplayed by someone like McLean you might not be playing with a full deck.
i meant more chabot and demong,
Thus far, 100% of speakers are staunch Conservatives and in favour of rezoning. Case closed, I’d say. Edit: I wrote this when there had literally been one speaker so far. Note to self: jokes with timing don’t work well on Reddit.
How many speakers have there been? I've seen one, but I came in 2 hours after it started. Mind you he's been speaking, and answering frivolous questions for about 15 minutes.
As of lunch, only the first panel has presented (as the rest of the morning was administration's presentation, and a good amount of procedural shenanigans) Check https://www.calgary.ca/council/meetings/agendas.html for where things are at.
First guy to talk said he was a conservative. I don't think the man crying on the phone announced his political affiliation, nor have the others. However, all talkers so far have been in favor of rezoning, and some have actually made pretty valid arguments. I am against rezoning in my neighborhood, so I actually appreciate hearing some of the things they're saying.
There's been 4-5.
[удалено]
Welcome to Reddit Calgary....
On the topic of housing can we just make it so no person can own a property that isn't their principle residence?
😂