Infill Development Discussion

[Red Star]

Two things regarding rezoning coming out today...

CHMC letter to Calgary city council: Don't reintroduce exclusionary zoning - LiveWire Calgary

It’s the Calgary citywide rezoning / Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) story that won’t go away. In the latest turn of events, city administration and councillors received a letter late Monday that has been interpreted by some as the strongest signal yet that the feds may withhold funding should...

livewirecalgary.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/2021624571951190248

What share of the $20 billion does Calgary receive?

 

[CalgaryTiger]

The mayor and councillors need to articulate what they don't like about blanket rezoning and what they would replace it with. Saying you're going to get rid of something people don't like because as far as I can tell, people said "the homes in my neighbourhood being built are different than my home", isn't good enough.

I've realized that people have a very hard time imagining themselves in someone else's situation. A lot of people do not understand how people can only be a one car house, take the bus to work, ride their bike to work, live in an apartment, live in a basement suite, live in a townhome without a yard. The parking argument is so weak because those same people park multiple cars on the street when they actually do have a garage. The infrastructure argument is also quite weak as a lot of these infill neighbourhoods had a higher population when they were first built. It should also be acknowledged a lot of the pearl clutching happened in neighbourhoods where there was little to no infill proposed following blanket rezoning.

 

[MichaelS]

The mayor and councillors need to articulate what they don't like about blanket rezoning and what they would replace it with. Saying you're going to get rid of something people don't like because as far as I can tell, people said "the homes in my neighbourhood being built are different than my home", isn't good enough.

I've realized that people have a very hard time imagining themselves in someone else's situation. A lot of people do not understand how people can only be a one car house, take the bus to work, ride their bike to work, live in an apartment, live in a basement suite, live in a townhome without a yard. The parking argument is so weak because those same people park multiple cars on the street when they actually do have a garage. The infrastructure argument is also quite weak as a lot of these infill neighbourhoods had a higher population when they were first built. It should also be acknowledged a lot of the pearl clutching happened in neighbourhoods where there was little to no infill proposed following blanket rezoning.

I find the infrastructure defence a bit weak to be honest. "It's fine, more people used to live here, so it will work." is not really the most robust analysis, especially as we see our infrastructure literally crumbling/exploding on us. Given that many areas had small bungalows on 50' lots, but are now seeing much larger buildings with a lot higher lot coverage, what will that do to the permeable surface in the area, and thus, storm infrastructure? I am not opposed to redevelopment, but shouldn't this be looked at?

Same with the mobility options. When more people lived there, the demographics were of housholds with many children, and often a stay at home parent. So, the commuting traffic was likely less than what is occuring with the demographics moving into these new developments. Again, not insurmountable, but shouldn't we at least look at some analysis, and figure out what upgrades we may need to accommodate this growth (extra traffic signals, more frequent bus service, greater 5A network expansion, etc...).

The frustrating thing for me is that it appears none of this technical analysis has been done with blanket rezoning, or with the LAPs that have recently been passed. It all just seems to assume that "it will be figured out later", and when pressed on how, you are usually given a link to a not just bikes video or a Strongtowns post about how densification saves on infrastructure (being a bit facetious, but not much), but never a specific local context technical engineering analysis.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

our infrastructure literally crumbling/exploding on us.

That's more major infrastructure. Watermains still break and they're repaired but do you really think if the infrastructure is at risk of being overwhelmed they wouldn't upgrade it. See the main streets projects, underground infrastructure is a large part of that work.

shouldn't we at least look at some analysis, and figure out what upgrades we may need to accommodate this growth

In my experience the biggest traffic issue in neighbourhoods is school pickup and drop off, not commuting. Also, the biggest thing preventing more frequent buses and more a robust 5A isn't need, it is money.

it appears none of this technical analysis has been done with blanket rezoning, or with the LAPs that have recently been passed.

What is your evidence that this is the case? Having participated in a recent LAP process, these are not just drawings on a piece of paper, professionals with expertise are involved. I'm not sure who people think the city employs but it isn't a bunch of idiots with no credentials or experience.

 

[MichaelS]

What is your evidence that this is the case? Having participated in a recent LAP process, these are not just drawings on a piece of paper, professionals with expertise are involved. I'm not sure who people think the city employs but it isn't a bunch of idiots with no credentials or experience.

First hand experience / involvement.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

My experience was different.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

The written words of the agreement clearly give CMHC full discretion to withhold or reduce funding if they are not satisfied. But I'm sure they'll be swayed but some local exceptionalism argument...

The agreement is more akin to a philanthropy agreement than a typical bilateral contract. A quarter billion dollars aren't typically exchanged based on a dozen bullet points - most of which are like 6 words or less.


It will be interesting to see how it's calculated if it comes to that. The other thing here is that in arguing for the land-use reversion, councillors have bluntly claimed that the rezoning has failed to deliver. We're parsing six word phrases here, but has 'streamlining approvals by undertaking city initiated redesignations' really incentivize 2500 units? IIRC the number specifically attributed to upzoning was quite a bit lower than that, though maybe that number was just limited to R-CG (and H-GO would hit that target?). In any event, there is lots of room for interpretation here, but where the agreement is actually written like a proper contract it gives CMHC sole discretion to do such interpreting.

Local exceptionalism hasn't worked in Toronto or Vaughan, both of which have lost funding. Or ask Red Deer, whose council voted down the blanket zoning change in their agreement and lost every penny.

My guess is that since each municipality submitted a list of proposed policies to CMHC, they didn't feel the need to reiterate them in detail in the contract. It's clear to both sides; the City HAF website right below the link to the contract describes the streamlining approvals as blanket rezoning.

From CBC:

New home numbers hit record high in Calgary last year​

Homes in new communities accounted for 57 per cent of the growth in Calgary's housing supply last year, with the other 43 per cent seen in developed areas. That's a far cry from 2024 when nearly three-quarters of new homes were in new neighbourhoods.

It seems clear that something helped inner city housing very substantially, starting about when the blanket zoning happened. There were ~10K inner city homes built in 2025; at 2024 and earlier proportions that would be ~5K.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

First hand experience / involvement.

Is it possible that some of the analysis you're looking for was done behind the scenes and not shared at the meeting you were at?

 

[trtcttc]

That's more major infrastructure. Watermains still break and they're repaired but do you really think if the infrastructure is at risk of being overwhelmed they wouldn't upgrade it. See the main streets projects, underground infrastructure is a large part of that work.


In my experience the biggest traffic issue in neighbourhoods is school pickup and drop off, not commuting. Also, the biggest thing preventing more frequent buses and more a robust 5A isn't need, it is money.


What is your evidence that this is the case? Having participated in a recent LAP process, these are not just drawings on a piece of paper, professionals with expertise are involved. I'm not sure who people think the city employs but it isn't a bunch of idiots with no credentials or experience.

I agree arguments like parking is overblown. It should be looked at and is via parking and traffic studies. Many homeowners complain "my neighborhood is more busy", but that doesn't mean it is objectively busy via traffic measures.

Schools I have much more sympathy for. Looking at enrollment maps, it's just not true that inner city schools have less students than they used to, they're sometimes the most crowded schools. If I live in a community and have kids, and my school is already at or exceeding capacity, it's very logical to oppose blanket rezoning.

We recently had a LAP done in our area, the Riley Plan. My problem with LAPs is that they are not followed. When a development is actually proposed, developers often ask for a bunch of relaxations, and the city approves them. One recent example is West Nineteenth, which was appealed at SDAB. I have no issue with the development and actually see it as a benefit, but it asks for a bunch of relaxation to the LAP completed less than a year ago and the city approved it. So what was the point of the LAP process?

Another issue I have with LAP is there is no timing. A lot of development in my area say we are on the Primary Transit Network, so they can have less parking than in the LAP/zoning. It is usually referencing the number 1 bus, which is on the "Future ideal PTN map" but is not currently running at PTN frequencies, with no concrete plans to become PTN. So should the development be allowed with PTN parking reductions? It becomes a chicken and egg problem, will more people increase demand for the bus so the city invests in PTN, or will the people realize the bus is not frequent enough so buy a car and the city says ridership doesn't justify increase to PTN frequency?

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I agree arguments like parking is overblown. It should be looked at and is via parking and traffic studies. Many homeowners complain "my neighborhood is more busy", but that doesn't mean it is objectively busy via traffic measures.

Schools I have much more sympathy for. Looking at enrollment maps, it's just not true that inner city schools have less students than they used to, they're sometimes the most crowded schools. If I live in a community and have kids, and my school is already at or exceeding capacity, it's very logical to oppose blanket rezoning.

We recently had a LAP done in our area, the Riley Plan. My problem with LAPs is that they are not followed. When a development is actually proposed, developers often ask for a bunch of relaxations, and the city approves them. One recent example is West Nineteenth, which was appealed at SDAB. I have no issue with the development and actually see it as a benefit, but it asks for a bunch of relaxation to the LAP completed less than a year ago and the city approved it. So what was the point of the LAP process?

Another issue I have with LAP is there is no timing. A lot of development in my area say we are on the Primary Transit Network, so they can have less parking than in the LAP/zoning. It is usually referencing the number 1 bus, which is on the "Future ideal PTN map" but is not currently running at PTN frequencies, with no concrete plans to become PTN. So should the development be allowed with PTN parking reductions? It becomes a chicken and egg problem, will more people increase demand for the bus so the city invests in PTN, or will the people realize the bus is not frequent enough so buy a car and the city says ridership doesn't justify increase to PTN frequency?

Excellent points about the idealism of LAPs when it comes to what is planned (PTN, 5A) versus the reality. Also appreciate the thoughts on the fact all the work goes into them and then they are not followed as a black and white document but as a guide.

Obviously, like most people here, I'm pro development, but what's brought up by opponents is not exactly constructive. Instead of worrying about parking and infrastructure, my biggest complaints about poorly done infills in my area are the landscaping and affects surrounding property. The landscaping has either ended up dead or was really poorly executed from the beginning. While the design and how it affects neighbouring properties can be hard to grasp from a drawing. My neighbour built an addition that had some very basic drawings, the finished product was much more imposing that even I, someone who watches stuff like this, could grasp. In the end I built a privacy screen so we're not too affected.

 

[trtcttc]

Excellent points about the idealism of LAPs when it comes to what is planned (PTN, 5A) versus the reality. Also appreciate the thoughts on the fact all the work goes into them and then they are not followed as a black and white document but as a guide.

Obviously, like most people here, I'm pro development, but what's brought up by opponents is not exactly constructive. Instead of worrying about parking and infrastructure, my biggest complaints about poorly done infills in my area are the landscaping and affects surrounding property. The landscaping has either ended up dead or was really poorly executed from the beginning. While the design and how it affects neighbouring properties can be hard to grasp from a drawing. My neighbour built an addition that had some very basic drawings, the finished product was much more imposing that even I, someone who watches stuff like this, could grasp. In the end I built a privacy screen so we're not too affected.

I guess it just seems like a pointless exercise. It's pretty obvious the street with the 5 story tall condos and retail should plan to have that, and the single family home street should not. Spend a year doing it, asking for feedback, only for the development approved within the next 12 months to be taller and higher density than what was drawn in the plan, then what's the point of wasting all that time on the "plan"?

I agree there's a lot of unspoken things in the complaints, most prominently that it'll bring lower income people into a higher income neighborhood, especially those with basement suites, so the excuses become "luxury infills that aren't affordable anyways", "parking on a busy street", etc. It is not fashionable to oppose affordable homes, so there's new excuses to do the same. It's the same thing in very liberal cities, where nobody disagree poor people should have housing, it just shouldn't be on my street with mansions. But Calgary has actually built a lot of infills, we frequently lead the nation on a per capita basis on housing starts, and not just single family, but row and apartments too. At our rate of growth, I don't think all the naysayers are simply NIMBYs, but there are legitimate pains with growth that I think residents do have a right to express concern about.