Infill Development Discussion

[CBBarnett]

My biggest gripe is the placement of them. I think any street that has potential to be a retail corridor should be set aside for higher density development with the possibility of retail, or if not retail, at least an apartment style build. I think the city is blowing a good opportunity by having rowhomes on 19th street. They've been blowing it on 4th street or 20th ave in the NW. by allowing duplexes or when it comes to rowhomes on 4th st nw not having the fronts face onto 4th street and instead having the frontage face onto the avenue and the alleyway.

I think this is more a function about where this kind of density is not allowed, rather than where it is. It's not that we should restrict to apartments only, it's that we shouldn't restrict high density townhomes to mostly only main streets.These new row home developments are great density boosters, but are occurring on the main streets because they have difficultly going into the neighbourhoods themselves. We are seeing a reflection of strong demand for townhomes and ground-oriented stuff outcompeting apartments because they are directly competing in often the only strips of reasonably high-density zoning in many blocks.

I'd prefer to see everything allow this kind of row house development, including main streets and off streets. Political issues aside - I don't see a compelling public good rationale why we would limit small scale apartments and high density row housing anywhere.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I think this is more a function about where this kind of density is not allowed, rather than where it is. It's not that we should restrict to apartments only, it's that we shouldn't restrict high density townhomes to mostly only main streets.These new row home developments are great density boosters, but are occurring on the main streets because they have difficultly going into the neighbourhoods themselves. We are seeing a reflection of strong demand for townhomes and ground-oriented stuff outcompeting apartments because they are directly competing in often the only strips of reasonably high-density zoning in many blocks.

I'd prefer to see everything allow this kind of row house development, including main streets and off streets. Political issues aside - I don't see a compelling public good rationale why we would limit small scale apartments and high density row housing anywhere.

This is a great take but reality, at least in my area, is a little different. What you want is happening in Altadore/Marda Loop along 19th and 20th Streets there are multiple Row/Townhomes going in while 33rd Avenue gets Sarina Apartment after Sarina Apartment. The issue with 33rd is the fact they built multiple duplexes and infills over the last 20 years that will be right next to half block apartments.

 

[adamyyc]

As someone who owns and lives in one of the infills on 33rd, I can tell you what my motivation was when I bought 5-6 years ago). We love the neighborhood and the walkability of Marda Loop, but at the time the same home 2 streets north/south cost $200k+ more.

We took the risk buying our home because at the time, the City was proposing land use changes for the area, and were proposing to upzone 33rd Ave between 14 St and 19 St as M-H1. Our thinking was that eventually, the value of the land beneath our and our neighbours’ infill homes would exceed the value of the homes themselves, once all 50’ lots had been developed.

Unfortunately, the City chickened out and didn’t upzone the whole neighbourhood, just the BIA, and instead of the Mainstreet we are all envisioning, we are getting a mishmash of 5-6 story buildings, and R-CG and H-GO” developments.

I don’t regret our purchase, because I love our home and neighborhood, and have no issue with the increases in density happening around me (I welcome them because they mean more retail, restaurants, and services), but I would get out of the way to make way for more housing on the Main Street if the City would make my property valuable enough for a developer to want to build on it (i.e., higher density).

 

[CalgaryTiger]

As someone who owns and lives in one of the infills on 33rd, I can tell you what my motivation was when I bought 5-6 years ago). We love the neighborhood and the walkability of Marda Loop, but at the time the same home 2 streets north/south cost $200k+ more.

We took the risk buying our home because at the time, the City was proposing land use changes for the area, and were proposing to upzone 33rd Ave between 14 St and 19 St as M-H1. Our thinking was that eventually, the value of the land beneath our and our neighbours’ infill homes would exceed the value of the homes themselves, once all 50’ lots had been developed.

Unfortunately, the City chickened out and didn’t upzone the whole neighbourhood, just the BIA, and instead of the Mainstreet we are all envisioning, we are getting a mishmash of 5-6 story buildings, and R-CG and H-GO” developments.

I don’t regret our purchase, because I love our home and neighborhood, and have no issue with the increases in density happening around me (I welcome them because they mean more retail, restaurants, and services), but I would get out of the way to make way for more housing on the Main Street if the City would make my property valuable enough for a developer to want to build on it (i.e., higher density).

Pardon me for prying but when was your infill built?

Do you think there will be a desire for a developer to pay the higher premium for a newer infill than for multiple 50' lots?

 

[adamyyc]

Pardon me for prying but when was your infill built?

Do you think there will be a desire for a developer to pay the higher premium for a newer infill than for multiple 50' lots?

2013. No, I don’t think a developer would put a premium on the smaller infill lots,. My thought was that eventually, those 50’ lots will all be redeveloped, and the 25’ infill lots will become the next redevelopment candidates in a desired neighbourhood. I have no interest/plans to move any time soon (this is our 10-20 year home), but it’s hard to estimate what a development horizon might be. Realistically (and some of my neighbours have discussed this), the adjoining infills would sell as a block (one negotiation). But that’s still a long time from now.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

2013. No, I don’t think a developer would put a premium on the smaller infill lots,. My thought was that eventually, those 50’ lots will all be redeveloped, and the 25’ infill lots will become the next redevelopment candidates in a desired neighbourhood. I have no interest/plans to move any time soon (this is our 10-20 year home), but it’s hard to estimate what a development horizon might be. Realistically (and some of my neighbours have discussed this), the adjoining infills would sell as a block (one negotiation). But that’s still a long time from now.

Your neighbours across the alley are not going to love to hear that, at least some of them. I assume the price they would have to pay for multiple 25' foot lots would necessitate them to build at least a mid-rise building as I believe the margins on a 5 over 1 wouldn't be there for it to make sense.

 

[adamyyc]

Your neighbours across the alley are not going to love to hear that, at least some of them. I assume the price they would have to pay for multiple 25' foot lots would necessitate them to build at least a mid-rise building as I believe the margins on a 5 over 1 wouldn't be there for it to make sense.

Agreed. And mid-rise (7-8 stories) would be more easily justified if it were next to a 1+5 rather than a 3-story H-GO. I just think the City missed on the opportunity to upzone the Main Street and now new row housing is going to further impede the complete street that could have been.

 

[Calgcouver]

Agreed. And mid-rise (7-8 stories) would be more easily justified if it were next to a 1+5 rather than a 3-story H-GO. I just think the City missed on the opportunity to upzone the Main Street and now new row housing is going to further impede the complete street that could have been.

Good thread of discussion. I genuinely think the City has no idea what they are doing with the Main Streets policy and don’t understand what they are trying to create. The south has no decent main streets in the inner city that have a proper street wall scale, so the demand is pushed into Marda Loop. Macleod trail is what they talk about but they are completely unwilling to revise the traffic patterns to make it anywhere anyone would ever want to be on foot.

It’s a missing part of our MDP and they don’t want to acknowledge that Macleod Trail isn’t a future Main Street due to what mobility engineers at the city are willing to accept, and because of that we’re fucked. Streets appropriately scaled and with good connectivity are seeing overwhelming demand for mixed use and multifamily redevelopment. Elbow Drive being a Main Street could’ve take pressure off of 33rd, but it’s not a Main Street.

The City doesn’t know how to create useable main streets, only how to safeguard arterial main streets and keep the characteristics of the arterial intact for mobility engineers. They are also terrified of upsetting the communities when redesignating things on main streets (Elbow should be one, so should something like Northmount). But they are completely unwilling to address the road standards to change it that would require traffic calming to make them attractive for residential redevelopment. Oh

So in places like 33rd ave where the urban fabric is good, the street isn’t oversized, there’s a lot of demand to build. 33 ave and 14 st should be continuous mainstreets and then should transition to lower densities across the transect but the City chickened out as adamyyc eluded too.

So on streets with main street characteristics we are seeing a lot of pressure to redevelop (33 ave) vs other would be mainstreets like Macleod trail.

The renovation topic in urban development about the project at the NW corner of southbound Macleod and 17 ave is a great example. They prioritize traffic flow on Macleod to the sole detriment of 17 Ave as a Main Street at a super prominent location. Everything has clearly devolved into mobility engineering safeguarding Macleod trail from occasional garbage removal movements to the entire detriment of the more important 17 ave street interaction and public realm.

Whoever is in charge of urban main streets doesn’t seem to know what they want and they need to define wtf they are. Stop allowing stroad standards to dictate and maybe 33 ave wouldn’t be the only attractive mainstreet to redevelop in all of south calgary.

Fix your approach to your current main streets in the mdp or watch it all concentrate quickly in an area barely designed for it.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Good thread of discussion. I genuinely think the City has no idea what they are doing with the Main Streets policy and don’t understand what they are trying to create. The south has no decent main streets in the inner city that have a proper street wall scale, so the demand is pushed into Marda Loop. Macleod trail is what they talk about but they are completely unwilling to revise the traffic patterns to make it anywhere anyone would ever want to be on foot.

It’s a missing part of our MDP and they don’t want to acknowledge that Macleod Trail isn’t a future Main Street due to what mobility engineers at the city are willing to accept, and because of that we’re fucked. Streets appropriately scaled and with good connectivity are seeing overwhelming in demand for mixed use and multifamily redevelopment. Elbow Drive being a Main Street could’ve take pressure off of 33rd, but it’s not a Main Street.

The City doesn’t know how to create useable main streets, only how to safeguard arterial main streets and keep the characteristics of the arterial intact for mobility engineers. They are also terrified of upsetting the communities when redesignating things on main streets (Elbow should be one, so should Acadia drive and 32nd ave NW etc). But they are completely unwilling to address the road standards to change it that would require traffic calming to make them attractive for residential redevelopment.

So in places like 33rd ave where the urban fabric, the street isn’t oversized, and realistically 33 and 14 st should be continuous mainstreets and then lower densities across the transect to appropriately lower those densities into the neighbourhoods, the City chickened out as adamyyc eluded too.

So on streets with main street characteristics we are seeing a lot of pressure to redevelop (33 ave) vs other would be mainstreets like Macleod trail.

The renovation topic in urban development about the project at the NW corner of southbound Macleod and 17 ave is a great example. They prioritize traffic flow on Macleod to the sole detriment of 17 Ave as a Main Street at a super prominent location. Everything has clearly devolved into mobility engineering safeguarding Macleod trail from occasional garbage removal movements to the entire detriment of the more important 17 ave street interaction.

Whoever is in charge of urban main streets sucks and they need to define wtf they are. Stop allowing stroad standards to dictate and maybe 33 ave wouldn’t be the only attractive mainstreet to redevelop in all of south calgary.

Fix your approach to your current main streets in the mdp or watch it all concentrate quickly in an area barely designed for it.

Very well put @Calgcouver

 

[Surrealplaces]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-restrictive-covenant-housing-affordability-1.6974306

Interesting article on restrictive covenants, for those who aren't familiar with what they are and how they affect development.

 

[adamyyc]

Opinion on blanket R-CG zoning (not surprising - negative):

Opinion: Calgary's R-CG zoning proposal: A housing solution or a recipe for disaster? — Calgary Herald

By Mike Robinson In a city grappling with an affordable housing shortage, the proposed Residential – Contextual Grade-Oriented (R-CG) land use designation has been hailed as a potential solution. However, a closer examination reveals serious concerns that cast doubt on whether this zoning is the...

apple.news

 

[zagox]

Opinion on blanket R-CG zoning (not surprising - negative):

Opinion: Calgary's R-CG zoning proposal: A housing solution or a recipe for disaster? — Calgary Herald

By Mike Robinson In a city grappling with an affordable housing shortage, the proposed Residential – Contextual Grade-Oriented (R-CG) land use designation has been hailed as a potential solution. However, a closer examination reveals serious concerns that cast doubt on whether this zoning is the...

apple.news

My main takeaway is that this debate is not done, it has only started.

Also, this guy's construction company just went bankrupt, I feel like that is relevant context if you are presenting yourself as a housing expert.

 

[Mountain Man]

Not sure Erlton is the best area to use as an argument against, it's already very expensive due to it's location.

 

[CBBarnett]

Opinion on blanket R-CG zoning (not surprising - negative):

Opinion: Calgary's R-CG zoning proposal: A housing solution or a recipe for disaster? — Calgary Herald

By Mike Robinson In a city grappling with an affordable housing shortage, the proposed Residential – Contextual Grade-Oriented (R-CG) land use designation has been hailed as a potential solution. However, a closer examination reveals serious concerns that cast doubt on whether this zoning is the...

apple.news

A few fact checks for this article:

"In the community of Erlton, we have been grappling with the influx of high-density developments for the past 10 years"

There's been no material growth or high density projects in Erlton realized in close to 20 years. The population is up 22 people since 2010, and the number of housing units has actually decreased by 4 over that time, at least until 2019.

This property below is referenced as an example of a bad outcome of R-CG and infill in general. This site, and most of the neighborhood, is M-CG zoned however. It was built in about 2007, so is also not an example of recent development. M-CG allows up to 12m I think, so also not an exception to the bylaw as far as I can tell. Nor is it an example of intensification - the development predates Google Street view, but looking at the aerial photos it appears to be a 1:1 replacement for two old houses.

As for shadowing, shadowing what exactly? The neighbouring existing buildings are larger than the infill, so the new build doesn't actually shadow their yards or properties. Ironically, due to removal of the older trees to build this infill, the neighbours all have less shadows than ever!

An example of gentrification, perhaps, but density increase no.

"On a residential lot that is designed for two toilets, two sinks and one washing machine, multi-family developments of up to eight times that capacity would undoubtedly overload sewer, water, and power systems for the whole neighbourhood. The lack of foresight in this regard raises questions about the City’s planning priorities."

Well, this infill example probably tripled the amount of toilets due to it being a upscale place, but everything in here is pure speculative nonsense. Let's zoom out in the long run on Erlton, as that's the example chosen by the author.

Erlton population declined steadily since it was built - largely due to demographic decline (1960s onward), clearing of old houses/some neighbourhood boundary changes (late 1970s) and final a big bump when the new development came in around Lindsay Park (late 1990s). Essentially all growth is from that 1990s redevelopment, which would have upgraded the utility infrastructure at the time to accommodate.

I am not an engineer - nor is the author of the article - but I am assuming that major developments get reviewed for their utility impacts and charged if upgrades are needed. Meanwhile for everything incremental, the entire community could double in population just to get the pipes back up to 1968 levels of toilet flushes per pipe. There is obviously some gaps here and utilities are a major barrier to more significant redevelopment in some places, but for most low-scale infill I highly doubt it given just how far the demographics have collapsed in most places.

 

[adamyyc]

How dare you use facts, figures and logic!