News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.4K     0 

Infill Development Discussion

Mountain Man said:
I don't see buildings being built right up to the sidewalk in CAlgary any time soon, most people in this city would much prefer to have a larger setback and front yard. Also, lots in the inner city are still quite large here, the townhomes or row houses that would be built right out to the street would be massive! I also prefer tree lined streets to having brick and stone right up to the sidewalk.
Click to expand...

I agree. So much density and flexbility of built form is sacrificed to preserve the set-backs, often wasted in the form of unusable greenspace. If everything was shifted forward, secondary/lane suites become much easier to accommodate. On main streets, alley patios for bar and restaurants avoid the worst part of street-fronting ones: traffic and noise (e.g. the "17th Avenue motorcycle/truck show off how annoyingly loud I can be" phenomenon). Lawns and setbacks are fine in some places, but we've have definitely erred too far in regulating and forcing them as a firm rule.
 
I like the way the townhomes are in Noble and Ivy at the University district. Some of them come right up to the sidewalk and some don't, but the ones that don't are only setback about 6 feet. Just enough to put some planters etc... in front. I totally agree with @CBBarnett, most setbacks are a colossal waste of space, especially the ones that are 20 feet back. It's an insane waste of space.
 
Great post.

I 98% agree. My 2 reservations are (1) that setback provide room for tree canopy to develop, stormwater drainage, and might sometimes provide a nice street character (as they do in much of Toronto), and (2) that I personally believe that it is not strictly access but income diversity that makes a neighborhood great.

That's said, there's surely a solution to these issues when we are guiding development. Overall we need simpler, more "build whatever you want" zoning.


Calgcouver said:
Agreed. I think the City needs to think seriously about getting rid of RC2 zoning in most inner-city hoods and replacing it with this modified MCG (d111) zoning like this. RCG zoning respects existing home setbacks too much, this form is much more urban and much better. Neighbourhoods like Banff Trail and Capitol Hill should be basically exclusively this form. RC2 and RCG have unnecessary suburban setbacks, if Calgary wants genuine urbanity in established neighbourhoods it is time to reduce setbacks and allow Wall-to-Wall rowhomes with almost no setback from the sidewalk. This is why i think MCG (d111) zoning with reduced front and side setbacks should be the de-facto inner-city zoning for anything that is RC2 today. Calgary is in a really good position to start allowing ground-oriented multi-family forms, and to kick Vancouver and Toronto's ass at actually building for the 'missing middle' in the inner-city at reasonable price points.

When is the last time that a North American city has successfully built blocks of street-oriented rowhomes/brownstones? If they could sell units like this, in places like Killarney, Capitol Hill, Mt Pleasant, etc. in the 475k-550k range, you would start actively pulling buyers away from single and semi-detached homes in the new suburbs. RC2 homes don't have the density to hit decent price points. RCG has side and front setbacks that make doing mid-block development unfeasible. That seems to be why there are almost no examples on RCG anywhere but on corner lots, developers can't make sense of the assembling mid-block parcels and making that form work. we need to make it easy to build to zero lot-line on the side setbacks, and to push front setbacks much closer to the curb to bring efficiency to an urban rowhome form to the inner-city in Calgary.

If the City of Calgary can figure this out, we can start to see a form of housing in the inner-city and established neighbourhoods that isn't so suburban, and i think that would lead Calgary to have more affordable forms of inner-city housing like Montreal does. Best way i can think of to stop having people buying in the new suburbs is to allow a housing form in the inner city that can be relatively competitive in terms of size and price. If this was the norm, voila less outward suburban expansion and more real urbanity. And it is a market-based solution, if the city could make land-use bylaw work for developers to build this rowhouse form.

TLDR?

No more of this shit:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0172...4!1sPAUn4UYU14MdV45F0oqsUA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

We should be be building a Calgary version of this to replace older ranch style bungalows:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@39.9817...4!1sFTrPVdEWgox6vc5dNTp7FQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Click to expand...
 
RyLucky said:
Great post.

I 98% agree. My 2 reservations are (1) that setback provide room for tree canopy to develop, stormwater drainage, and might sometimes provide a nice street character (as they do in much of Toronto), and (2) that I personally believe that it is not strictly access but income diversity that makes a neighborhood great.

That's said, there's surely a solution to these issues when we are guiding development. Overall we need simpler, more "build whatever you want" zoning.
Click to expand...

I have seen little evidence that Calgary can ever grow a really stand-out tree canopy like more tree-friendly climates (e.g. Toronto). Also: most of Toronto's most iconic neighbourhoods have far less generous set-backs on all sides than Calgary. For example, Toronto's Little Italy has houses separated by a foot or less in some cases, combined with narrow lots and decades of multi-tenant households combines for a very high population density in a very low-height built-form. A great example of how minimizing set-backs can help create a more interesting street character.

Hail, drought and generally less water makes it hard on trees here, regardless of how much space/effort we devote to them. We are a prairie climate after all. Of course, there are always better practices to follow around tree health in the city (better active management in the critical early years, better tree-boxes to collect more water and not restrict growth etc.) I don't buy that more space is needed to do these best practices, especially when most space in set-backs aren't used for trees but for lawns. The argument around storm-water sounds like a valid one, however I don't know enough about the trade-offs (i.e. is it a true statement to say: if we build more lawns = save money on storm-water infrastructure? If so, does the sprawl created in the end result in more water-infrastructure being needed just in the burbs but not inner city?)

The critical point here is that set-backs reduce density and implicitly supports sprawl developments elsewhere. I think Calgouver's comments were spot on, onerous set-back policies reduce the redevelopment potential of many parcels and increase the costs of redevelopment which favours new greenfield growth. Ironically, preserving lawns/space in the inner city helps promote the cycle that consumes many times more land in the burbs than was ever "preserved" through set-backs. Set-back regulations and parking minimums are two low-hanging fruits to reduce redevelopment cost, creating more housing choices and can help (not solve) ease issues of inner city affordability and competitiveness. Let developers have set-backs if they want, or parking if they want, just don't force them to do so everywhere (perhaps only focus on controlling set-backs on main street corridors for continuous street walls in retail districts etc.)
 
I don't think the city needs to make a policy on only one particular type of street, and could accommodate more than one style. Certain streets could and should have the buildings come right up to a sidewalk with very little setback, while other streets can have a setback of say 8' to accommodate trees.

It's tougher to grow tree canopies in Calgary due to various reasons, but it can be done. There are tree canopies in neighborhoods like Mount Pleasant and Highland Park that are full canopies and the trees are less than 50 years old (even though the neighborhoods are older). It just takes a while. The trees shown in the image below are less than 20 years old and are doing the job for those who want a tree-lined street. Not a full canopy, but give them another 20 years and they will be enough of a canopy.

Clipboard01.jpg



Other streets can be like this.. Minimal setback and the odd tree (any tree other than evergreens)
Clipboard01ss.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Clipboard01.jpg
    Clipboard01.jpg
    186.9 KB · Views: 993
  • Clipboard01ss.jpg
    Clipboard01ss.jpg
    201.4 KB · Views: 1,011
Don't forget that if you cover half a lot with roof and pavement, in theory you've doubled the amount of precipitation to the remaining half. That fact combined with the ever-increasing resilience of invasive tree species has radically changed the ecological conditions in Calgary. Just look at the sea of green in Sunnyside versus the outer burbs.
 
Mull said:
Dumb question - How does a developer manage to swoop up so many lots to build this? Is it usually many years of buying each lot, submitting an offer the current owners can't refuse, or do they get the city involved?
Click to expand...
Submitting an offer to the current owner. They usually call it an 'options' contract or deal. The developer offers on say... 5 houses in a row and is bound by the offer, just like a typical offer on a solo property....but on the condition that everyone sells, and there's usually a time frame involved. That's typical, but deals or arrangements can vary.
 
Mull said:
Dumb question - How does a developer manage to swoop up so many lots to build this? Is it usually many years of buying each lot, submitting an offer the current owners can't refuse, or do they get the city involved?
Click to expand...

The city does not get involved in purchase or sales of private land unless it is for express "municipal purposes"- LRT rights-of-way, utility rights-of-way, etc. For good reason. (i.e. you cannot use the city to force anyone to sell a property, or leverage them in any way).

The City does purchase land for their own development through its real estate arm, but again, this is done in an arms length manner.
 
retrofiturbanism said:
The city does not get involved in purchase or sales of private land unless it is for express "municipal purposes"- LRT rights-of-way, utility rights-of-way, etc. For good reason. (i.e. you cannot use the city to force anyone to sell a property, or leverage them in any way).

The City does purchase land for their own development through its real estate arm, but again, this is done in an arms length manner.
Click to expand...
What does the city do with the purchased land? Is it for Calgary Housing?
 
Cowtown said:
What does the city do with the purchased land? Is it for Calgary Housing?
Click to expand...

Well, there are things like facilities management, which is like the development arm for things like Libraries, Fire Halls, Police Stations, Community Centres etc (I believe). They don't buy land I don't think (that is Real Estate Development Services I believe). The city uses land for all sorts of purposes, they have storage yards for roads works, storage yards for parks. But yes, the City does develop some land for Calgary Housing (and attainable homes, but that is an arms length organization IIRC).

Long story short, except for things like LRTs and Roads (and a few other narrowly defined uses), the city cannot "expropriate" land (called "legal taking" in Canada I believe), and when they do so, it needs to be valuated by a third party appraiser. Otherwise they have to purchase land on the market like everyone else.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top