News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 7.2K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.8K     5 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 5.3K     0 

Infill Development Discussion

Came across this website today. Not sure if it's associated with the Take Back Alberta or Take Back City Hall groups but I do find it interesting how rezoning to encourage infill housing creates this weird alliance between progressives and conservatives who typically never see eye to eye. To me, that means it is probably a good policy.

CCHC - Stop the $1 Billion Taxpayer Penalty

Calgary Conservative Housing Coalition: Don't let City Council waste $861M in federal funding. Calculate your tax penalty and contact your councillor before March 23, 2026.
takebackcalgary.ca takebackcalgary.ca
 
outoftheice said:
Came across this website today. Not sure if it's associated with the Take Back Alberta or Take Back City Hall groups but I do find it interesting how rezoning to encourage infill housing creates this weird alliance between progressives and conservatives who typically never see eye to eye. To me, that means it is probably a good policy.

CCHC - Stop the $1 Billion Taxpayer Penalty

Calgary Conservative Housing Coalition: Don't let City Council waste $861M in federal funding. Calculate your tax penalty and contact your councillor before March 23, 2026.
takebackcalgary.ca takebackcalgary.ca
Click to expand...
I think we should try to keep the funding but realistically, if this funding was rescinded, it won't result in tax increases. Most of the funding is going towards increasing housing and those just won't happen.
 
trtcttc said:
I think we should try to keep the funding but realistically, if this funding was rescinded, it won't result in tax increases. Most of the funding is going towards increasing housing and those just won't happen.
Click to expand...
To me these read as a lot of the money is related to infrastructure upgrades, and not having that money would put the city in trouble for those critical lifecycle projects
Screenshot_20260218-112014.png
Screenshot_20260218-112220.png
 
whatchyyc said:
To me these read as a lot of the money is related to infrastructure upgrades, and not having that money would put the city in trouble for those critical lifecycle projects
View attachment 716189View attachment 716190
Click to expand...
The fact that a colour coded chart like that made it into a public report is pretty funny. Not all of these funds are related to rezoning. Cities that don't have citywide rezoning are also receiving HICC and CPTF funding. The HAF funds are most directly at risk, and that's entirely dedicated to affordable housing and permitting reforms. I don't see this council raising taxes to build non-market housing.
 
I would bet money that every single inner city neighborhood will have gained population, with some neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, Killarney or Mount Pleasant seeing increases as high as 25-30% Downtown Commercial core could be as high as 20% depending on the compeltion of some of the conversions.
 
Surrealplaces said:
I would bet money that every single inner city neighborhood will have gained population, with some neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, Killarney or Mount Pleasant seeing increases as high as 25-30% Downtown Commercial core could be as high as 20% depending on the compeltion of some of the conversions.
Click to expand...
I bet the Beltline growth will be close to 20% also. Huge considering it’s already in the low 30,000s.
 
A total examination of the process should have been the outcome, too bad.

livewirecalgary.com

Calgary city council approves the repeal of citywide rezoning - LiveWire Calgary

After two weeks of public hearings, a slew of questions of city administration, a handful of proposed amendments and healthy debate, Calgary city council has repealed citywide rezoning. City councillors wrapped up the repeal process on April 8, 2026, with a vote to revert to the 11 pre-2024...
livewirecalgary.com livewirecalgary.com

"Despite several amendments being put forward, only one survived. It was an initial one from Ward 10 Coun. Andre Chabot, which changed some of the parameters around the R-CG properties, eliminating contextual setbacks, density modifiers and the one limiting rowhouses to one primary building per lot. These were later brought back in a motion arising for further testing.

The second and third readings were also approved."

I don't have time now but need to see the details on this amendment. Eliminating setbacks sounds positive as does allowing more than one primary building per lot but the devil is in the details.
 
Last edited:
The question is...are there even any RCG properties in the city that have not already been/are currently being developed?

It was funny seeing council refuse the amendment to keep zoning based on approved LAPs...several said things like "we need a city-wide plan for this" without a hint of irony.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top