News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 7.3K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     5 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 5.3K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

livewirecalgary.com

Calgary rezoning repeal is in the books. What about replace?

The question on many Calgary development minds is: OK, we’ve repealed citywide rezoning… what’s next? The notion of a replacement for Calgary’s beleaguered citywide rezoning bylaw changes was a common theme throughout the public hearing, in the written submissions and throughout the debate...
livewirecalgary.com livewirecalgary.com
 
Here's an interesting proposed development. This is from an X post from the City Councillor John Pantazopoulos. The addresses posted indicate it'll be north of Lower Springbank Road SW, and west of 85 St SW in the Springbank Hill community.

Springbank Hill Development

From the DMAP link, it shows 589 new low density homes, 1408 multi-residential units. 53 hectares in total.
 
pdubs015 said:
Here's an interesting proposed development. This is from an X post from the City Councillor John Pantazopoulos. The addresses posted indicate it'll be north of Lower Springbank Road SW, and west of 85 St SW in the Springbank Hill community.

Springbank Hill Development

From the DMAP link, it shows 589 new low density homes, 1408 multi-residential units. 53 hectares in total.
Click to expand...
This one has been there for a while. The unit count seems low for such a big piece of land?
 
trtcttc said:
www.ctvnews.ca

Calgary to continue receiving federal housing funding despite repeal of blanket rezoning

Calgary Mayor Jeromy Farkas will make an announcement regarding the federal government’s Housing Accelerator Fund.
www.ctvnews.ca www.ctvnews.ca

Looks like we are not losing the HAF funds afterall.
Click to expand...
It's still a little early for a Mission Accomplished banner... https://livewirecalgary.com/2026/04...-third-haf-payment-final-cash-is-conditional/

From the Housing Minister to Farkas:
In the spirit of recognizing Calgary’s progress to date, and ensuring ongoing compliance with the HAF agreement, I am approving Calgary’s third payment with the following conditions:
Click to expand...
1. That Council clearly indicate it will adopt a zoning replacement that allows a minimum of four units to be built on a lot for a significant majority of lots across the city, and
Click to expand...
2. That any such replacement is in effect or significantly developed prior to the end date of your HAF agreement, October 27, 2026
Click to expand...
The approval of your final payment is subject to meeting these conditions
Click to expand...

Obviously leaving lots of room for interpretation, in multiple ways. And Farkas himself seems more cautious than optimistic:

Mayor Farkas said he believes Calgary is within striking distance of that target, particularly considering that most of the newer areas of the city have significant density, and are already zoned RG.

Still, if a solution can’t be found, the mayor said he’d consider forgoing that final instalment of nearly $65 million.

“That’s a discussion and debate that needs to be had by our council in full consultation with Calgarians in terms of how and if we go down that road, and whether they say the $60 million or so may be worth that level of approach,” Farkas told reporters.

“But from where we stand, just shy of half of the lots in Calgary allow for four units. By rights, it’s not a big leap to go to a majority of the units, allowing for that, especially if we’re doing it in a more targeted way through Local Area Plan process.”
Click to expand...
Of course council already voted down the first attempt to implement zoning based on existing statutory LAPs...
 
As for "a minimum of four units to be built on a lot for a significant majority of lots across the city", there are lots of questions.

I looked at a breakdown of residential land-use designations from 2022 (R1 and R2 will now be a bit lower based on RCG developments and everything else a bit higher)


Screenshot 2026-04-22 at 7.07.56 PM.png



So just under half [currently allowing 4-units by right] may be technically correct at this point, but it's a very charitable way of interpreting it.

For starters, most of the time there are 2 titles for each R-2 and 4 titles for R-CG on an equivalent parcel to R1. So even if we're up to say 40k RCG titles by now, that's really just 10k standard lots with 4-plexes. I also suspect RCG developments have been a lot more common on R-2 lots than R-1s.

So in the least charitable way of looking at it, it's probably also true that about 80% of Calgary's low-density standard-size lots are zoned for only SFHs.

It's also worth noting that many R-G lots (number would be much higher now) contain SFHs and will only have SFHs for the next half century or more...so while R-G zoning may make the proportions look a bit better, the reality is that most of it is just R-1 outcomes.
 
lemongrab said:
As for "a minimum of four units to be built on a lot for a significant majority of lots across the city", there are lots of questions.

I looked at a breakdown of residential land-use designations from 2022 (R1 and R2 will now be a bit lower based on RCG developments and everything else a bit higher)


View attachment 731389


So just under half [currently allowing 4-units by right] may be technically correct at this point, but it's a very charitable way of interpreting it.

For starters, most of the time there are 2 titles for each R-2 and 4 titles for R-CG on an equivalent parcel to R1. So even if we're up to say 40k RCG titles by now, that's really just 10k standard lots with 4-plexes. I also suspect RCG developments have been a lot more common on R-2 lots than R-1s.

So in the least charitable way of looking at it, it's probably also true that about 80% of Calgary's low-density standard-size lots are zoned for only SFHs.

It's also worth noting that many R-G lots (number would be much higher now) contain SFHs and will only have SFHs for the next half century or more...so while R-G zoning may make the proportions look a bit better, the reality is that most of it is just R-1 outcomes.
Click to expand...
We are clearly not dealing with a government that works in outcomes, because then by no means should Calgary even be in conversation of losing any funding, being one of the fastest builder of housing in the country on a per capita and overall basis. As long as we can put those numbers so it's something below 50% for R-C1, etc. we can check the beauracratic box. 2022 would be missing a lot of the new suburban land, which I think defaults to R-CG? And there's a bunch of communities that aren't built yet, but has been approved, maybe those count too. It's funny how our government funding agreements aren't legal contracts but uses words like "significant majority".
 
I genuinely don't understand the fear people have of a duplex with secondary suites popping up next to them. What is so terrifying about something that looks like most single family homes in the city but has a couple more doors? It should be an easy no-brainer to make every lot in the city zoned for 4 units (duplex + suites) to satisfy the HAF requirements.

The world is not going to end because a duplex shows up on your street. Parking Armageddon will not occur if a bunch of them show up on your street. People will still recognize that you are a rich, successful person if you have the biggest, nicest house on the block regardless of whether or not your neighbour lives in a duplex. Backyards will still exist and trees will still be planted. Like seriously, what is so damn scary about duplexes that people don't think they're appropriate for any residential lot in the city?
 
trtcttc said:
We are clearly not dealing with a government that works in outcomes, because then by no means should Calgary even be in conversation of losing any funding, being one of the fastest builder of housing in the country on a per capita and overall basis. As long as we can put those numbers so it's something below 50% for R-C1, etc. we can check the beauracratic box. 2022 would be missing a lot of the new suburban land, which I think defaults to R-CG? And there's a bunch of communities that aren't built yet, but has been approved, maybe those count too. It's funny how our government funding agreements aren't legal contracts but uses words like "significant majority".
Click to expand...
There's two ways of looking at it - do we deserve to be rewarded for what we've always been doing (building lots of houses), even if it keeps us on a path towards becoming Houston/Phoenix? Or, is the funding meant to incentivize change for the better?

The wording is intentionally vague because this is akin to a philanthropy agreement. It is counter-productive to nail everything down super specifically. The risks of breaking trust with the benefactor should be enough to keep the beneficiary in line. Of course it's a bit unique here where there is so much turnover in both the individuals signing and receiving the cheques. But admin is right to warn the risks of being perceived as pulling a bait and switch.

R-G is basically R-CG for new developments. Outcome based it still results in mostly SFHs, which is fine, but not really a strong claim for solving the missing-middle problem.

50% is a totally arbitrary number (and IMO the word significant bumps that threshold well above that mark). And again, there's two ways of looking at it - 50% of units being under R4+ zoning is very different than 50% of lots.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top