News   Apr 03, 2020
 5.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 4.4K     0 

Infill Development Discussion

Looks like the Marda Loop Community Association (MLCA) is actively opposing two mid-block "missing middle" developments by Eagle Crest (LOC2021-0072 / DP2021-3256 (3719 14th Street S.W.) and LOC2021-0065 / DP2021-2902 (1531 33 Ave S.W.)). I expect they will also actively oppose two proposed developments by Oldstreet (LOC2021-0129 / DP2021-6711 (1743, 1747 36 Ave SW) and LOC2021-0173 / DP2021-8079 (1615, 1619 33 Ave SW)).

This is the first time since I moved into the community that I've seen the MLCA actively oppose a development. I suspect it's due to changes in Board/Committee members.
 
Nothing special with this one, but I’ve noticed there are dozens of these type of developments popping up everywhere In neighbourhoods like Capitol Hill , Killarney, Mount Pleasant etc.
I’m curious what everyone thinks of them?

View attachment 383881
These are all over South Calgary, Altadore and Marda Loop (not sure where one ends and the other begins). Design-wise some are awful, like the one here: 5004 21 St SW, Calgary, AB T2T 5B8. Others are better, like the one here: 4929 21a St SW, Calgary, AB T2T 5C2. As infill, four to five properties on a lot where there use to be one house is a big win. As a place to live, maybe better than a condo but look at the back of those places, there is room for maybe a 5'x5' deck, why not push these things up against the sidewalk and give these people some proper outdoor space? The roof top decks do look pretty cool, especially if they're in a place with a view.
 
These are all over South Calgary, Altadore and Marda Loop (not sure where one ends and the other begins). Design-wise some are awful, like the one here: 5004 21 St SW, Calgary, AB T2T 5B8. Others are better, like the one here: 4929 21a St SW, Calgary, AB T2T 5C2. As infill, four to five properties on a lot where there use to be one house is a big win. As a place to live, maybe better than a condo but look at the back of those places, there is room for maybe a 5'x5' deck, why not push these things up against the sidewalk and give these people some proper outdoor space? The roof top decks do look pretty cool, especially if they're in a place with a view.
I agree with the silly useless front lawn v. smaller back comment. That's a huge downside.

However, I recently looked at a few of this type at show homes, the layout of these can be really good. Smaller floorplates but usually not at the expense of losing bedrooms - everything is just tighter and way more space efficient. Also as these type of infills are brand new, everything looks more contemporary, even compared to duplexes and row houses from 5 or 10 years ago. Way different lifestyle than an apartment condo too with your own front and back doors, no one above you etc.

A potential downside for some is they aren't particularly cheap. But - and this is super critical - for Marda Loop, Altadore and many portions of the immediate inner city, they are absolutely one of the only close to affordable, new family-sized options given how expensive everything else is. That's what I like about them.

We don't talk about this enough in affordability is how arbitrarily large most infill houses/townhomes are. Most ground oriented, 2 - 5 unit townhome/rowhouse from 10-20 years ago is about +30% bigger in square footage than the new ones even if they have the same amount of bedrooms, closets and bathrooms. Even if the new ones cost more per sqft, they are literally the only thing close to affordable in a land of +2,500 sqft infills.

That's why choices and housing diversity are so important - almost everywhere people are forced to buy or rent more land and house than they need, often just because of sloppy inefficient designs and layouts, while also being density handicapped by arbitrary land setback/subdivision rules. It's okay to want bigger floor plans, but we shouldn't be naïve on how they run completely counter to affordability, particularly in the highest demand areas. For large portions of people, larger units (and higher costs) prevent them from even having the choice to look at many areas.
 
Last edited:
Looks like the Marda Loop Community Association (MLCA) is actively opposing two mid-block "missing middle" developments by Eagle Crest (LOC2021-0072 / DP2021-3256 (3719 14th Street S.W.) and LOC2021-0065 / DP2021-2902 (1531 33 Ave S.W.)). I expect they will also actively oppose two proposed developments by Oldstreet (LOC2021-0129 / DP2021-6711 (1743, 1747 36 Ave SW) and LOC2021-0173 / DP2021-8079 (1615, 1619 33 Ave SW)).

This is the first time since I moved into the community that I've seen the MLCA actively oppose a development. I suspect it's due to changes in Board/Committee members.
This is why I will not be a member of this community association. Every single one of these locations are great for these types of developments. In their, "What's at stake" section on the petition, I only see 1/5 points that could be a problem:

Drastic density increase (yes, good, vibrancy!)
Changes to existing height, setbacks & lot coverage (good, better use of the land)
Significant loss of sunlight, privacy, green space & mature trees (significant is an overstatement, these four properties are all either next to or near other large developments)
Increase in parking challenges (yes, good, maybe they'll attract people who are not so car dependent or force people to rethink how useful their car is)
Inadequate Waste Management (this is the one I can see being a problem, I'm not sure what the tipping point is from city bins to private pickup is but it should probably be less than it is)
 
This is why I will not be a member of this community association. Every single one of these locations are great for these types of developments. In their, "What's at stake" section on the petition, I only see 1/5 points that could be a problem:

Drastic density increase (yes, good, vibrancy!)
Changes to existing height, setbacks & lot coverage (good, better use of the land)
Significant loss of sunlight, privacy, green space & mature trees (significant is an overstatement, these four properties are all either next to or near other large developments)
Increase in parking challenges (yes, good, maybe they'll attract people who are not so car dependent or force people to rethink how useful their car is)
Inadequate Waste Management (this is the one I can see being a problem, I'm not sure what the tipping point is from city bins to private pickup is but it should probably be less than it is)
Wouldn't that make it worthwhile to be involved with the CA? Someone needs to counter the NIMBY attitudes of all the existing members.
 
Wouldn't that make it worthwhile to be involved with the CA? Someone needs to counter the NIMBY attitudes of all the existing members.
The problem is, I'm too much of an introvert and have too much going on to be an active member. Currently I would only be a member in the sense I would be paying dues and blindly contributing to things like this I don't have time to oppose.
 
Looks like the Marda Loop Community Association (MLCA) is actively opposing two mid-block "missing middle" developments by Eagle Crest (LOC2021-0072 / DP2021-3256 (3719 14th Street S.W.) and LOC2021-0065 / DP2021-2902 (1531 33 Ave S.W.)). I expect they will also actively oppose two proposed developments by Oldstreet (LOC2021-0129 / DP2021-6711 (1743, 1747 36 Ave SW) and LOC2021-0173 / DP2021-8079 (1615, 1619 33 Ave SW)).

This is the first time since I moved into the community that I've seen the MLCA actively oppose a development. I suspect it's due to changes in Board/Committee members.
They wouldn’t be an inner city community association if they didn’t automatically oppose everything lol
 
Interesting that so many inner city people are singing the praises of density, what seem to oppose everything gets developed in their neighbourhood lol.
I suppose it’s probably more a case of the people running the community associations rather than the people who live in the neighbourhood.
 
Interesting that so many inner city people are singing the praises of density, what seem to oppose everything gets developed in their neighbourhood lol.
I suppose it’s probably more a case of the people running the community associations rather than the people who live in the neighbourhood.
Boomers baby, fuck ‘em
1646802998179.gif
 
Interesting that so many inner city people are singing the praises of density, what seem to oppose everything gets developed in their neighbourhood lol.
I suppose it’s probably more a case of the people running the community associations rather than the people who live in the neighbourhood.
It's definitely not the same people.

CAs are one of the weirder quirks of local governance - in that they have only informal power and have no obligation to be representative of a group at all. The counter-point to a perception of NIMBYism everywhere is that someone clearly is living in the tens of thousands of newer, higher density units brought online in the past 20 years. There's also the sampling problem: complaints usually only come from the immediate neighbours and busy-bodies; complements only come from the new owners that don't live there yet.

It seems unlikely that thousands of people move to neighbourhoods with higher densities, including their own property, are also vocally against development. At least at first - give them a few years to settle in :)
 
Boomers baby, fuck ‘em View attachment 384295
When you grow up being told success looks like a big house with some grass and a car for every driving-age person in your house, you tend to believe it. When you make enough money to have those things you do it and can't believe when others want to take it away.

I just have to remember, as a guy in his 30's, how I've been corrupted to believe that success is living in a city with a variety of housing at a range of price points in neighborhoods that are vibrant where you can walk/bike or take transit anywhere.
 
When you grow up being told success looks like a big house with some grass and a car for every driving-age person in your house, you tend to believe it. When you make enough money to have those things you do it and can't believe when others want to take it away.
And super important point - you have all these things and you *perceive* that others want to take it away. No one is forcing you to sell your over-sized, inefficient and super expensive house. It's a pretty delusional and self-centred view for most anti-density voices to claim their way of life is under threat by high-end townhomes being built a block away.

Most ironically, the only exception where your personal SFH way of life is *actually* under direct threat, is from the expropriation requirements of endless highway/road widening to support never-ending, car-centric, low-density sprawl of people that think and want the exact same as you. Not the people in the townhouses.
 
Interesting that so many inner city people are singing the praises of density, what seem to oppose everything gets developed in their neighbourhood lol.
I suppose it’s probably more a case of the people running the community associations rather than the people who live in the neighbourhood.
That's exactly what it is. Everyone I know who lives in these inner city neighborhoods like the new developments, but the leaders of the associations is a different ball of wax. It's a given there will always be people in every neighborhood who oppose development, and the people who usually make up the associations tend to be the squeakiest wheels.
 
I live in a newer infill (semi-detached/duplex) on 33rd Ave SW and fully support these more dense infills (I don't perceive it as someone taking anything away from me). Would I prefer to have my home on a quieter street? Probably. But my home on another street a few blocks north or south would have costed $150k+ more. I also wouldn't have been 500 m walking distance to the amenities I live near now.

I would prefer to see 4-5 story (or higher) condos along 33rd instead of these developments that the CA is opposing, but I appreciate that a mix of housing makes a street more vibrant, and I'd prefer redevelopment of these lots now as opposed to the existing homes being left to fall into disrepair (more than they already are). More people on 33rd, means more vibrancy, means more support for new businesses.
 

Back
Top