Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

[MichaelS]

I think you are forgetting about markets, supply and demand. If a semi-detached or row house doesn't make economic sense in Deer Run, it won't be built in Deer Run regardless of the zoning.

But if it does make sense, let the market decide where and when this incremental intensification stuff occurs, an arbitrary 1 unit per lot rule imposed by the government is way too heavy--handed when we are only talking about adding 2, 3 or 4 units. There is no justification for that level of micro-management by government. The development process will still be required for all the infrastructure, safety and building code stuff.

With the rules of R-CG, we are actually talking about adding 8 units, given that basement suites are allowed. Might not be a big deal, but it should be pointed out that it is possible that it will be 8 units on each of these lots.

 

[Cowtown]

Unlike other cities, Calgary has plenty of vacant and underutilized inner city land for redevelopment, probably enough for 100K+ units. It also has ability to add millions of units on its fringes. Rather than a blunt approach to project #progressive virtue, the City should focus rezoning on areas of high potential like old strip malls, underutilized school sites and select main streets like its has with 37th Street SW.

I agree 100% the city needs to look into ways to develop those underutilized areas, but having higher zoning only for specific areas is what got us into this problem in the first place. We’ve seen so many land speculators here in Calgary buy lots in developable areas only to sit on the land, waiting for prices to increase.

Eventually we got to the point where we are now where land speculators would rather sit on land and wait for the price to go up. Calgary appears to have lots of developable land, but there really aren’t that many high density zoned parcels in good locations. Not for a city with this many people. Land speculators know this and it’s driving prices up.

 

[CBBarnett]

That is an excellent example. Rather than rezoning SFH in Queensland, Deer Run and Bonavista Downs, why not rezone the excess RoW adjacent to Bow Bottom, as well as some of the alleys and parking that front it for 6 story apartments? A blunt approach like rezoning the entire city to gain an ideological win against SFH owners, when very few of those SFH will actually be replaced at higher density would be pointless.

Why not both?

The whole goal is more freedom of housing choice - some of that can be incremental townhome style infill, others can be re-purposing our wildly overly generous arterial setbacks. Give people options and they will figure it out.

 

[YourBoy007]

42m mixed-use building(s) would be interesting on this property.

DMAP

 

[Calgcouver]

That is an excellent example. Rather than rezoning SFH in Queensland, Deer Run and Bonavista Downs, why not rezone the excess RoW adjacent to Bow Bottom, as well as some of the alleys and parking that front it for 6 story apartments? A blunt approach like rezoning the entire city to gain an ideological win against SFH owners, when very few of those SFH will actually be replaced at higher density would be pointless.

Because mobility engineers make collector/arterial streets into unwelcoming stroads everywhere in this city. You’re trying to to force density onto unhospitable urban arterials like Macleod trail, 16 Ave North or apparently Bow Bottom. I would suggest you push the City to make these even remotely attractive places to redevelop where people in Multifamily buildings aren’t fronting undesirable stroads. Then this strategy of corridor densification works. If you maintain these stroads as horrible places to interface with, expect no density or amenities to follow. Stuffing Multifamily parcels along stroads/highways and other substandard parcels is such a Calgary idea, be better. For many here it seems the mentality is put the multi family in substandard locations where the poors should live, which seems to be the thought process for most developers, the City and SFH residents it seems. Desirable multi family sites are in desirable locations. If you make these locations desirable you’ll see density go there. If it’s an undesirable stroad you’re fucked. So create busier roads that multi family and mixed use projects can interface with or they will all go to less busy and more narrow streets with better access. If this is what you want, I would suggest you push the city to change how busier streets look like and function if you want density on busier streets, as the streets need to be attractive and something you can interface and get access from, from the developers perspective. Until then why would i build on them? They command lower rents and returns, so make these streets attractive propositions to invest in or be located on. And if the street level condition of the street is something you wouldn’t live on, dont ask other people who live in Multifamily developments to live in it. And if you still think that the shape of streets where apartments, townhomes or commercial activity are should be are places that you wouldn’t want frequent or live in, then fuck yourself (not you specifically, but people who think that way).

 

[haltcatchfire]

With the rules of R-CG, we are actually talking about adding 8 units, given that basement suites are allowed. Might not be a big deal, but it should be pointed out that it is possible that it will be 8 units on each of these lots.

How likely is it that we see laneway units over garages tacked onto that eight, even if through a discretionary DP or relaxations?

 

[Calgcouver]

42m mixed-use building(s) would be interesting on this property.

DMAP

Give me a DP or it’s fiction. Just a land lift to forward sell the land. Rezone when you actually plan to build, chumps.

 

[Albertasaurus]

Give me a DP or it’s fiction. Just a land lift to forward sell the land. Rezone when you actually plan to build, chumps.

100% agree. Putting together a DP submission for a large project costs shitloads of time and money and shows at least some degree of commitment. A rezoning application is chump change for these landowners and is just as likely a land lift as an intent to develop anything.

 

[darwink]

IMHO it doesn't make sense to do a blanket zoning upscale of everywhere in the city. Upzoning many areas will only increase the overall use of cars in areas that are poorly served by transit. For example, take this stretch of homes located at Deerfield Circle SE:

It's far away from a rapid transit stop and if row homes were to be built here, it would just add more drivers and strain the road network.

Have to trust in the market that if allowed everywhere it will go mostly where it makes more sense. Typically it will make more sense where land cost is relatively higher.

 

[darwink]

I think it's ridiculous that the vast bulk of a city approaching 2 million people is zoned for single family homes only - but I don't think it's the solution to our housing crisis.

It isn’t a solution on its own, but it is a great help to reduce downward pressure—well off people competing for housing that displaces people down the chain, a kind of reverse filtering.

. In fact, in some cases the opposite: the houses getting torn down in trendy communities like Altadore, South Calgary, Mt Pleasant and Capitol Hill are often older buildings that are a good source of affordable rental units being replaced by $700,000 rowhouses.

More supply helps the market, whether at the low end or the high end. How do we get more older buildings? Turns out new buildings eventually get old! You restrict supply at the top end, many 3, 4 unit houses will end up being replaced by single high end units instead, a far worse outcome. This is common in Toronto.

That's not really helping.

It is.

 

[MichaelS]

How likely is it that we see laneway units over garages tacked onto that eight, even if through a discretionary DP or relaxations?

I am not sure. I don't know if there is a limit on secondary suites. R-CG only allows one "main building" that can then have suites, but would suites above a garage count? Perhaps someone who is more of an expert on the LUB can answer, this is starting to get outside of my wheelhouse.

 

[darwink]

A blunt approach like rezoning the entire city to gain an ideological win against SFH owners, when very few of those SFH will actually be replaced at higher density would be pointless.

it will be so impactful that it is ideological and scary and should not be done due to impacts on sfh neighbourhoods and yet accomplish nothing since the impact will be so low.



A low rate will still mean many units. 0.5% going to side by sides would be more than 2000 units a year net gain. Triplex, 4000, quads, 8000. A mix?

 

[darwink]

but having higher zoning only for specific areas is what got us into this problem in the first place.

what you pronounce as the cause is actually the opposite. If permissive zoning is widespread and rezoning rapid landbanking for flipping makes less sense. Where is the upside? Eliminate the upside and properties will be used productively for as long as possible.

By reducing the barrier to entry, you also increase competition. That means if all of a sudden your buy and bank strategy isn’t making any book gains, and your development opportunities are being outflanked by new entrants willing to take risks—new entrants that wouldn’t have entered the market if it would have taken them 4 years to get shocked in the ground.

 

[CBBarnett]

what you pronounce as the cause is actually the opposite. If permissive zoning is widespread and rezoning rapid landbanking for flipping makes less sense. Where is the upside? Eliminate the upside and properties will be used productively for as long as possible.

By reducing the barrier to entry, you also increase competition. That means if all of a sudden your buy and bank strategy isn’t making any book gains, and your development opportunities are being outflanked by new entrants willing to take risks—new entrants that wouldn’t have entered the market if it would have taken them 4 years to get shocked in the ground.

This is particularly true on the semi-detached and modest infill sub-market where this R-CG up-zoning is targeted, where it's not a whole level more complicated to produce 4 townhomes if you know how to produce 1. Makes barriers to entry fairly low for any small builder, particularly if there's land everywhere available to do a project.

I would guess it would be a bit trickier once you get to that next development scale, as you need a more savvy financial setup, and more sophisticated construction expertise on bigger, more complicated projects (e.g. 6 storey multi-family or concrete). Plus it's a different market segment with it's own consumer demand trends. A citywide MU-1 up zone might have less broad response, as it's not usually the zoning that prevents these from occurring I think?

 

[Cowtown]

what you pronounce as the cause is actually the opposite. If permissive zoning is widespread and rezoning rapid landbanking for flipping makes less sense. Where is the upside? Eliminate the upside and properties will be used productively for as long as possible.

But wouldn’t widespread permissive zoning eventually make all those properties currently allowing high density, cheaper in the end? And wouldn’t that make them cheaper to develop?
I’m going with the theory that currently you have a large part of city zoned for either SFH or the high density, with some areas zoned for medium density. The high density zoned parcels are highly priced because their limited.