Infill Development Discussion

[Red Star]

No one is trying to build infill townhouses in deer run... rezoning didn't change where townhouses were being built it just makes it easier and less expensive.

If no one is trying to build rowhouses in Deer Run, then no one should have a problem with reverting to pre-May 2024 zoning laws.

 

[CallmeCatbread]

If no one is trying to build rowhouses in Deer Run, then no one should have a problem with reverting to pre-May 2024 zoning laws.

Except reverting to pre-may 2024 zoning laws would needlessly add time and therefore cost to the development of townhouses. Could rezoning have been applied to targeted neighbourhoods where it is already happening? Sure, but then that would open a giant can of worms over which neighbourhoods deserve to get beaten with the rezoning stick. Better to just rezone the whole city than have that ridiculous debate.

 

[lemongrab]

If no one is trying to build rowhouses in Deer Run, then no one should have a problem with reverting to pre-May 2024 zoning laws.

Reverting isn't the end of the world, it's just a big missed opportunity to be very proactive for the future for once. 30 years from now SFH owners aren't going to be any more eager for their neighbours to lose exclusionary zoning, and at that point there will be a higher probability for imminent change.

The issue obviously isn't Deer Run. It's Glendale (for instance). LRT station is at 'h12' at the top centre of the map. It's less than 500m down to the reserve running E-W through the middle.

2023 maps:

Today:

There was some mention in the council meeting that H-GO wasn't necessarily reverting, but I don't see why that would be the case based on the notice of motion. In any case, this map shows a ton of opportunity being put on the wrong side of bureaucratic hoops. And there are dozens of other maps just like this.

Councillors have suggested they will use LAPs (which don't exist yet in many/most areas) to bring back targeted rezoning. I think this will be way slower and more arduous than they expect.

 

[TooBizzy]

Last thing I'll say is that I think the 'Missing Middle' of housing is an issue that is more pronounced in Vancouver and Toronto as both cities have more developed Transit nodes and more historical single family housing that residents are willing to protect. I also think that the Federal Housing Accelerator Fund was geared towards both those cities than it was towards Calgary or Edmonton.

I'm not saying that Calgary doesn't have a missing middle, but there's so much vacant and underutilized land within the downtown core, the inner city and around C-train stations that should be prioritized in development.

I'm of the mind that we can do both. We can encourage investment in places that already have great amenities and infrastructure, though usually this is risky because these projects will be huge and you can't really project when or if they will happen - and we can also improve places that aren't there yet incrementally, with lots of little projects that are safer, and eventually create a reason for the City to improve transit and infrastructure.

It's a win/win, but if you're of the mind that we should only do one of the two, you should at least let Council know that — Cllr. Ward very angrily voted down an amendment to keep R-CG in areas that are 600m from transit or closer; he said it's "just blanket rezoning under a different name," - Cllr. Dhaliwal (usually supportive of housing) called it "mini-blankets."

The way this Council is headed, we're going to get infill nowhere.

 

[TooBizzy]

Reverting isn't the end of the world, it's just a big missed opportunity to be very proactive for the future for once. 30 years from now SFH owners aren't going to be any more eager for their neighbours to lose exclusionary zoning, and at that point there will be a higher probability for imminent change.

The issue obviously isn't Deer Run. It's Glendale (for instance). LRT station is at 'h12' at the top centre of the map. It's less than 500m down to the reserve running E-W through the middle.

2023 maps:
View attachment 704038
Today:
View attachment 704039

There was some mention in the council meeting that H-GO wasn't necessarily reverting, but I don't see why that would be the case based on the notice of motion. In any case, this map shows a ton of opportunity being put on the wrong side of bureaucratic hoops. And there are dozens of other maps just like this.

Councillors have suggested they will use LAPs (which don't exist yet in many/most areas) to bring back targeted rezoning. I think this will be way slower and more arduous than they expect.

Frankly, R-CG isn't nearly dense enough a base zone for areas like this.

 

[lemongrab]

Frankly, R-CG isn't nearly dense enough a base zone for areas like this.

Prepare to be disappointed by the LAP:

The above is 'Building Scale'. The 'Urban Form' map below seem to get more attention and more frequently referenced in land-use hearings (and it's just easier on the eyes overall), but there are a number of areas scaled lower in building scale than below (though tbf portions of 37th are scaled up for building height).

Of course the maps are just about slightly different things, but they'll both inform the final rezoning. I expect each LAP to be fully re-litigated when it's time to implement the associated land-use maps. And this council has already demonstrated that they'll overrule a brand new LAP when they rejected an 'up to 6 storeys' proposal that was totally in compliance.

 

[TooBizzy]

Prepare to be disappointed by the LAP:

Max 12 storeys at the AMA site is clinically insane.