Infill Development Discussion

[TooBizzy]

It's so frustrating! And to read accounts like Bruce Graham's in the Herald today is irritating for how misinforming it is, though well-intentioned. In Graham's case, the properties in question were not part of blanket rezoning, but were instead rezoned R-CG with a city council hearing. This is not sufficiently clear in the article, which seems to overwhelmingly be in opposition to the allowances of that particular type of zoning.

Then, to make matters worse, the Herald illustrated it with a photo of an apartment building that falls under an entirely different type of zoning while implying it is part of the question of blanket rezoning. Again, it isn't — this was built by going through normal council channels to receive rezoning.

Were you able to find the parcels under discussion? I found a 34 unit + 17 suite development across 4 mid-block parcels, but it's an M-CG that went to Council in 2020, two Councils ago.

 

[lemongrab]

This is a pathetic NIMBY council. Which is obvious with the repealing, but also extending to piss poor governance on the small matters, too. For some reason the video for yesterday's council meeting wasn't uploaded, so instead I tuned into today's public hearing near the end.

I only caught the end of the item, but a proposal in Mayland Heights was voted down, seemingly because there is no LAP (or equivalent for this semi-industrial area) for the area yet.

The next item was to go to MU-1 (up to 6 storey) for 3 lots on the corner of 19th St and 50 Ave (where the burnouts at Central used to go off property to smoke...maybe they still do). Great location.

It was made clear repeatedly by the applicant and administration that it fully complied with the brand new West Elbow LAP (passed in Sep 2025 IIRC). And yet it got voted down 8-7. (Farkas, Yule, Pantazopolous, Tyers and the southern 4 in opposition; Chabot, Wynness, Dhaliwal, and the progressives in favour). Piss poor arguments for voting against that all strayed into the DP phase (which they're not supposed to do for land-use).

No plan? vote it down! Full compliance with totally current plan? vote it down!

To be fair, North Glenmore Park is bursting at the seams:

This really exemplifies the issue with the Land-use vs DP process. No idea how to improve it, but this is a really bad sign when repealing means a lot more land-use amendments decided by this council.

 

[nickheer]

Were you able to find the parcels under discussion? I found a 34 unit + 17 suite development across 4 mid-block parcels, but it's an M-CG that went to Council in 2020, two Councils ago.

I’m pretty sure I did, but I don't know what the rules are in posting it since it would effectively doxx Bruce Graham.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

This is a pathetic NIMBY council. Which is obvious with the repealing, but also extending to piss poor governance on the small matters, too. For some reason the video for yesterday's council meeting wasn't uploaded, so instead I tuned into today's public hearing near the end.

I only caught the end of the item, but a proposal in Mayland Heights was voted down, seemingly because there is no LAP (or equivalent for this semi-industrial area) for the area yet.

The next item was to go to MU-1 (up to 6 storey) for 3 lots on the corner of 19th St and 50 Ave (where the burnouts at Central used to go off property to smoke...maybe they still do). Great location.

View attachment 703335

It was made clear repeatedly by the applicant and administration that it fully complied with the brand new West Elbow LAP (passed in Sep 2025 IIRC). And yet it got voted down 8-7. (Farkas, Yule, Pantazopolous, Tyers and the southern 4 in opposition; Chabot, Wynness, Dhaliwal, and the progressives in favour). Piss poor arguments for voting against that all strayed into the DP phase (which they're not supposed to do for land-use).

No plan? vote it down! Full compliance with totally current plan? vote it down!

To be fair, North Glenmore Park is bursting at the seams:
View attachment 703336


This really exemplifies the issue with the Land-use vs DP process. No idea how to improve it, but this is a really bad sign when repealing means a lot more land-use amendments decided by this council.

I cannot believe this council voted down that one on 50th... It is up the road from Mount Royal University and right next to an infill. This is the right context for a smaller apartment. I will try to look at their view and say it would change precedent as other lots along here are more infill type but if anywhere here could've used an apartment it was here.

 

[outoftheice]

My question would be what is the point of the LAP process that Farkas and a bunch of these Councillors seem to favour in lieu of blanket rezoning if they are still going to vote down a proposal that conforms with a recently approved LAP?

 

[dirtymood]

My question would be what is the point of the LAP process that Farkas and a bunch of these Councillors seem to favour in lieu of blanket rezoning if they are still going to vote down a proposal that conforms with a recently approved LAP?

The cynical side of me thinks that the councillors may be carrying out the perceived will of their NIMBY constituents. To the NIMBYs, being against blanket rezoning means being against higher density redevelopment, regardless of LAP or other process. Defeating blanket rezoning => no more dense infilling, in this viewpoint.

I hope this isn’t the case and perhaps just a one-off .

 

[Red Star]

Unfortunately zoning is one of those things that is fairly complex, requires context, and hard to discuss in simple black and white terms...but it has also now become a political football, which is never good for nuanced discussion. Like pretty much everything these days I guess, you're either with us or against us!

Excellent post.

I always thought the blanket H-GO zoning was a very ham-fisted approach to zoning. I'm not against upzoning existing R-1 residential areas, but I think the upzoning should be done in areas where it makes sense.

The big question is, what are we trying to achieve with a blanket upzoning? Was it simply to collect the $200 million from the Federal Housing Accelerator Fund?

 

[TooBizzy]

This really exemplifies the issue with the Land-use vs DP process.

It's almost like the Land Use Redesignation is a meaningless step in the process.

The LOC goes to Council and a Public Hearing, but all of the consequences of it are essentially relevant to planners only.

Meanwhile the DP is super relevant to the public and Council, and is decided internally by Admin or rarely by CPC. Make it make sense. (Yes I know it's an MGA requirement, but it's silly.)

 

[TooBizzy]

Excellent post.

I always thought the blanket H-GO zoning was a very ham-fisted approach to zoning. I'm not against upzoning existing R-1 residential areas, but I think the upzoning should be done in areas where it makes sense.

The big question is, what are we trying to achieve with a blanket upzoning? Was it simply to collect the $200 million from the Federal Housing Accelerator Fund?

It's to increase supply elasticity across the city, such that the impacts of development are spread thin and the benefits of it are spread wide.

When we replace a single-detached with 4+4 homes, we can increase the land value while splitting it's per-unit cost enough to maintain affordability. This is the lowest density we can increment to without forcing neighbourhoods to become less affordable over time.

Redevelopment will happen, it's not a matter of if. When a home becomes decrepit and must be replaced, the old Blanket R-C1 makes it so that the required norm is mansion redevelopment. R-CG aligns our planning norms with reality and opens the opportunity for predictable, gradual inner-city growth, and less reliance on sprawl.

It was also R-CG base zone, not H-GO, though as of now they are quite similar so I can't blame you for confusing them.

 

[TooBizzy]

It's so frustrating! And to read accounts like Bruce Graham's in the Herald today is irritating for how misinforming it is, though well-intentioned. In Graham's case, the properties in question were not part of blanket rezoning, but were instead rezoned R-CG with a city council hearing. This is not sufficiently clear in the article, which seems to overwhelmingly be in opposition to the allowances of that particular type of zoning.

Then, to make matters worse, the Herald illustrated it with a photo of an apartment building that falls under an entirely different type of zoning while implying it is part of the question of blanket rezoning. Again, it isn't — this was built by going through normal council channels to receive rezoning.

Yeah, I think "Blanket Rezoning" has been intertwined really nefariously with "All Redevelopment of Any Kind"

The choice here is, do we want every single fourplex anywhere in the city to be required to go to Council for special approval where they approve in 95% of cases anyway, or are we better off skipping the rubber stamping and working through DP review and engagement processes instead.

People have blamed M-CG developments on blanket rezoning, blamed 6 storey developments on blanket rezoning, all of these things go through the process that blanket rezoning skips. Your problem at that point isn't with the zoning reform, it's with development period. We can't let people doublespeak their way through this with "I'm not opposed to housing but... just not this, and not here."

Okay, so what, and where? What's the level of density that is acceptable, and where can it go?
Let's talk positive, because otherwise the goalposts can always slide further and further away.