Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

[adamyyc]

Re: City-wide R-CG rezoning, I'm all for it. The market will dictate where this redevelopment will occur.

I actually wish the City had gone further and included the rezoning to H-GO in proximity to transit, main streets and other corridors as originally proposed (+1 m for front buildings, +3.4 m for rear buildings, units can be stacked). Looks like this may still occur, but likely through the LAP process (i.e., piecemealed), so the rezoning to H-GO is more contextual. I'd like the City to go further still and rezone to even higher density on these transit, main streets and other corridor, through the LAP process.

 

[O-tac]

For hating big government overreach Danielle Smith loves to interject herself into all kinds of areas she shouldn't. The justice system, AHS hiring, our pension plan, private development and investment in green energy projects....

It's really hard to be worse than the likes of Jason Kenney and Ralph Klein, but man does she excel at corruption and stupidity.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Re: City-wide R-CG rezoning, I'm all for it. The market will dictate where this redevelopment will occur.

I actually wish the City had gone further and included the rezoning to H-GO in proximity to transit, main streets and other corridors as originally proposed (+1 m for front buildings, +3.4 m for rear buildings, units can be stacked). Looks like this may still occur, but likely through the LAP process (i.e., piecemealed), so the rezoning to H-GO is more contextual. I'd like the City to go further still and rezone to even higher density on these transit, main streets and other corridor, through the LAP process.

The city does a poor job of selling things like this to public, speak in simple plain language and in less than ten words, it is an easy sell:

You will pay the city less taxes.

How? Even the long version is easy to understand:

The CofC is already investing and has invested in the central part of the city, more efficient use of those services means you will pay less taxes.

Karen can fight that H-GO and 5-over-1 all she wants, but she is costing you money in taxes.

 

[darwink]

It gets complicated, because it is really easy to fall into the trap that (at the very minimum sound like) you are blaming people rather than what limited choices the government have offered people for the problem.

 

[trtcttc]

The first is regarding off-site levies, which are fees that municipalities charge developers to service a new development and connect it to the city’s infrastructure. The province intends to add a clause that cities cannot compel a development permit applicant to pay the cost of construction or transportation infrastructure by an off-site levy “beyond the applicant’s proportional benefit.”

The province claims the adjusted language “will still allow Calgary and Edmonton flexibility, but will also make sure off-site levies don’t unnecessarily drive up the costs of building new homes.”

The bottom of the article states that the city wants to increase the off-site levy by 8%, which is not an insignificant increase but we well know that the city has likely been losing money servicing newer/developing communities.

I’m not familiar with the current utility costs, but if the city is losing money servicing newer/developing communities then shouldn’t this be a non-issue? Since the off-site levy’s maximum is that it’s revenue neutral and it sounds like it’s not even at that level yet?

Also, how can they even define proportional benefit? Like how much is a school worth? An LRT station? I agree the policy is idiotic and if we start segmenting our tax/development fees by ”proportional benefit” that literally defeats the purpose of progressive taxation.

 

[darwink]

I believe proportional benefit is some ultra specific legal term, used in 'unjust enrichment' cases around development. Not a lawyer, just having a lawyer spouse working from home, you hear some things.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Was curious so went back and looked. Our favorite empty lot at 17th and 1st.
From '95, when the block was occupied.

To 2009, when it looks like the structures are vacant.

And finally, 2010 to today really, except now the funeral home is dead (pun intended).

 

[Albertasaurus]

Letters, Dec. 26: Have your say on city's proposed land-use changes

Readers letters

calgaryherald.com

The not so subtle ways that the herald makes their biases known.

The first letter concerning the rezoning proposal ends with:



Borderline misinformation for the Herald to include this. The people that need to show up are the one's who support higher density, not some 65+ year old millionaires.

At least two of the writers of that letter are well known in Calgary NIMBY circles...fortunately, I think public sentiment (and thus, Council's mindset) have shifted to a point where the land use changes will pass. My only fear is that they kick the can down the road for "further study" if too many whiners show up.

 

[MichaelS]

A bit of TODish happening in a location probably not top of mind. The empty lot to the east of the Westwinds Superstore, in the SW corner of the intersection of 64th Avenue and Caslteridge Boulevard NE, has a DP in:

DMAP

Pretty typical suburban woodframe design, but still hundreds of units within walking distance of the McKnight/Westwinds C-Train station.

 

[Albertasaurus]

Yeah typically banal Carlisle stuff, but good to see high density of multi at this location

 

[ByeByeBaby]

A bit of TODish happening in a location probably not top of mind. The empty lot to the east of the Westwinds Superstore, in the SW corner of the intersection of 64th Avenue and Caslteridge Boulevard NE, has a DP in:

DMAP

Pretty typical suburban woodframe design, but still hundreds of units within walking distance of the McKnight/Westwinds C-Train station.

It's remarkable that you can build apartments on a parcel that literally borders one with a train station and still be able to have the front door be a 750m walk from the station platform. The KenTen (10th St/Memorial Dr, formerly home to Julio's Barrio) is closer... to the Kerby LRT station. The Concorde is closer to the Sunnyside LRT station.

Perhaps unrelated:

I suspect the only reason the bike stalls exceed the requirement is they haven't figured out how to make a rack with only one side.

Speaking of parking:

Are tandem stalls like this (at grade, presumably for visitors) a common practice?

Not that I'm upset about a few hundred more units within walking-ish distance of transit... maybe not transit oriented development or even the local special of transit proximate development, but transit proximate-ish?

 

[Surrealplaces]

A bit of TODish happening in a location probably not top of mind. The empty lot to the east of the Westwinds Superstore, in the SW corner of the intersection of 64th Avenue and Caslteridge Boulevard NE, has a DP in:

DMAP

Pretty typical suburban woodframe design, but still hundreds of units within walking distance of the McKnight/Westwinds C-Train station.

It's about as banal as it gets. It's always good to see extra density added to the city in areas where they are replacing an empty lot, and especially when it's not far from an LRT station but I'm not a huge fan of this style of the density to be honest. It's density for the sake of density, and is more or less the modern day form of the Kruschevska/commie block. Still beats an empty lot, but such a shame we are building H-GO on walkable inner city corridors but building these bigger density projects randomly around the outskirts.

 

[artvandelay]

Might not be the place for this, move it if you want...

Mayor Gondek expresses 'concern' about province's proposed changes to city charter

Mayor Jyoti Gondek has concerns about impending changes to the city charter, with proposed revisions from the province to be reviewed.

calgaryherald.com

These are actually welcome changes. Offsites in Calgary are currently reasonable (comparatively) and we should be doing everything we can to keep it that way. See the DCC fiasco in Vancouver for an example of what happens when municipal bureaucrats go buck wild in charging every conceivable cost back to developers - the situation has only been sustained by rapid escalation in housing prices (aka. an unsustainable housing bubble).

The only problem is that the wording is quite vague and thus not likely to have teeth - "beyond the applicant’s proportional benefit” can be interpreted in many ways. There's also zero reason to have multiple different building code (NECB) standards across the province, and if a city wants to incentivizing affordable housing there are many better ways of doing so than essentially levying a tax on new development.

 

[gsunnyg]

A bit of TODish happening in a location probably not top of mind. The empty lot to the east of the Westwinds Superstore, in the SW corner of the intersection of 64th Avenue and Caslteridge Boulevard NE, has a DP in:

DMAP

Pretty typical suburban woodframe design, but still hundreds of units within walking distance of the McKnight/Westwinds C-Train station.

They better fix all the intersection lights around this area. It's a complete mess during peak hours. I live right by this site so it's nice to see the density boost but the infrastructure also needs upgrading.

 

[CBBarnett]

Design is pretty abysmal to be honest. I don't care about cheap materials - which are inevitable - but a complete disdain for how the future residents will be able to connect to where they want to go in any semblance of a direct or quality walking connection is impressive here. Another example of where it's not entirely the development's fault, but they certainly aren't bringing much to the table to help.

Issues:

• No route is direct between any building entrance and and the surroundings you might want to go to.
• Building orientations block all direct routes from the intersection, while also cutting off the direct parking lot pathway to superstore. In this way not only does it make it inefficient for future residents to access grocery and transit, it also makes it less efficient for every person in the surround neighbourhoods too that lose a direct pathway.
• Inward focused parking courtyard and outward facing arterial roads means constant traffic noise and circulation at all times, on all sides. All sidewalks within the site are 1.5m only. Surface parking everywhere, on and off the site.

They better fix all the intersection lights around this area. It's a complete mess during peak hours. I live right by this site so it's nice to see the density boost but the infrastructure also needs upgrading.

Given the level of design at work here, they probably couldn't have made a bigger traffic generator if they tried. It's car-oriented, awkwardly dense, huge amount of parking, contributes to a largely anti-pedestrian context minus a grocery store and LRT at a hefty distance away.

It's the type of development that helps the city overall stats only because it's not built in the literal middle of nowhere like some fringe developments. But that's about all it does that's positive. I am usually pretty pro-density and forgiving to design quirks but this one really doesn't make sense and is a net loss.