News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.6K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.3K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

Glad to see the exterior is staying mostly the same, I always liked the look of this building. Just something about it being nearly square in shape really appeals to me. Anyone know the exact age of this building? All I can see in the historic aerial images is that it might be an add-on to a pre 1924 building.
 
MichaelS said:
I know we talked about more highrises in Bridgeland in another thread, looks like it might not be too far off from reality:

View attachment 577606
Click to expand...
Just following up about this rezoning application in Bridgeland, it looks like there will be a second one next door / across the street from it, through the Italian Cultural Centre (not yet up on DMap though). It is the same planning consultant, O2, and they have an engagement website for both of these applications, and there will be an event this Thursday for anyone in the area who is interested:
www.engage4thstreet.com

engage4thstreet

www.engage4thstreet.com www.engage4thstreet.com

A few images from the site, keep in mind this is just conceptual as we are only at land use stage right now:
1727131880421.png

1727131912399.png

1727131954455.png

1727131974332.png

1727131994044.png
 
Surrealplaces said:

Another Calgary community turns to restrictive covenants with blanket rezoning in effect​

Lake Bonavista residents launch initiative to prevent multi-family developments​

View attachment 598504
Click to expand...
As a former Lake Bonavista sfh owner, these owners are making an error about what makes LB appealing, an urban land economics error, and might not know that higher density development in LB on a lake access lot does not lead to more lake access units existing. Only one ‘daughter’ unit inherits lake access from the ‘mother’ lake access single family home.
 
darwink said:
As a former Lake Bonavista sfh owner, these owners are making an error about what makes LB appealing, an urban land economics error, and might not know that higher density development in LB on a lake access lot does not lead to more lake access units existing. Only one ‘daughter’ unit inherits lake access from the ‘mother’ lake access single family home.
Click to expand...
You think they're worried about too many people using the lake? They talk about about their large lot sizes and of course community character. Those large lots along acadia drive are prime for something. And if something went in there it wouldn't affect the community at all. Might actually make the promenade more economically viable. If you sign on to this you might make yourself the one house surrounded by townhomes, people need to be told what it looks like to be the last house in a row of townhomes.
 
It's hard to separate the idea of a restrictive covenant from its historical roots: always based in classism and racism. It's pretty difficult to support something that has been so thoroughly leveraged in the past as a tool to entrench dominant groups and marginalize others.

The claimed goals of these groups are always pleasant seeming: "keep the character of the neighborhood"... But once unpacked, are mainly championed by a single group and based in xenophobia and/or white supremacy

But I'm sure it's different this time
Screenshot_20240924-084224.png
 
CalgaryTiger said:
You think they're worried about too many people using the lake? They talk about about their large lot sizes and of course community character. Those large lots along acadia drive are prime for something. And if something went in there it wouldn't affect the community at all. Might actually make the promenade more economically viable. If you sign on to this you might make yourself the one house surrounded by townhomes, people need to be told what it looks like to be the last house in a row of townhomes.
Click to expand...
Ramsayite said:
It's hard to separate the idea of a restrictive covenant from its historical roots: always based in classism and racism. It's pretty difficult to support something that has been so thoroughly leveraged in the past as a tool to entrench dominant groups and marginalize others.
Click to expand...
In addition to the above, from an individual economic standpoint, what benefit would there be to sign on to a restrictive covenant? That's the part I don't get.

You deliberately encumber your own property by adding legal risks that could limit future options - whether you live there for 5 years or 50 years seems like a strange self-defeating move. If I was living in a community where this type of movement was happening, I'd hold out forever - the more people that sign on, the more my property appears relatively unencumbered and should be worth more in the future.
 
Last edited:
Ramsayite said:
The claimed goals of these groups are always pleasant seeming: "keep the character of the neighborhood"... But once unpacked, are mainly championed by a single group and based in xenophobia and/or white supremacy
Click to expand...
If you're actually interested in understanding why people support restrictive covenants, I suggest you listen to them. It might not be as satisfying as short-cutting the discussion with these vague connections to your personal boogeyman of racism, but you will learn something.

Now that I've said that, you'll probably put me in the bin with the rest of them, but for everyone else reading, these people are old and want quiet enjoyment of their property. They see places like Marda Loop going from bungalows with large yards to 25 foot infills to 4 plexes and 6 plexes boxing in people's yards and want to avoid that while they still live in the neighbourhood. They want to continue to have the street parking they have today. Call it selfish and classist, anti-environmentalist, short-sighted, financially unsound, sure. These people have a completely different view of what they owe others in terms of sharing their neighbourhood that you do, yes. But if you're going to call this "white supremacy", show your work.
 
I'll speak for myself and say that the Calgary these people live in is not the reality of what the city actually is today. They have likely been here a long time and have lived in Lake Bonavista for awhile. This is a region of close to 2 Million people, it is not realistic to expect your single-family home community, with homes worth close to 1 million dollars to not evolve to meet the moment of a large metropolitan city. People think of infills as a revolution when in reality it is an evolution. If these people did go through Marda Loop, excusing the construction, they would see a bustling community with a variety of housing that welcomes lots of different people that support a variety local businesses (to spite the construction). What's to fear there? This change has happened to Marda Loop over 30+ years with infills beginning in the 90's/00's-ish?

If the goal is to preserve their individual way of life from the city-wide one step up-zoning (which is all it was) a restriction on your individual property isn't going to affect that. And you're gambling that your neighbours will sign up too. Maybe you do get your neighbours to sign up and your way of life is preserved. But I hope the people interested this restriction understand what they're signing up for, I'm not sure they do. All it takes is one or two neighbours to not go through with it and it was all a waste.

The change to neighbourhoods like Lake Bonavista will happen, granted not as quick as people think, why burden the person buying your home with a label that says this property is worth less because you're limited in who can sell it to?
 
Last edited:
CalgaryTiger said:
I'll speak for myself and say that the Calgary these people live in is not the reality of what the city actually is today. They have likely been here a long time and have lived in Lake Bonavista for awhile. This is a region of close to 2 Million people, it is not realistic to expect your single-family home community, with homes worth close to 1 million dollars to not evolve to meet the moment of a large metropolitan city. People think of infills as a revolution when in reality it is an evolution. If these people did go through Marda Loop, excusing the construction, they would see a bustling community with a variety of housing that welcomes lots of different people that support a variety local businesses (to spite the construction). What's to fear there? This change has happened to Marda Loop over 30+ years with infills beginning in the 90's/00's-ish?

If the goal is to preserve their individual way of life from the city-wide one step up-zoning (which is all it was) a restriction on your individual property isn't going to affect that. And you're gambling that your neighbours will sign up too. Maybe you do get your neighbours to sign up and your way of life is preserved. But I hope the people interested this restriction understand what they're signing up for, I'm not sure they do. All it takes is one or two neighbours to not go through with it and it was all a waste.

The change to neighbourhoods like Lake Bonavista will happen, granted not as quick as people think, why burden the person buying your home with a label that says this property is worth less because you're limited in who can sell it to?
Click to expand...
Almost everyone on this forum will agree with the first paragraph, but we all have older folks in our lives and speaking for ones I know, they don't want the new restaurant, coffee shop, etc. but they want parking at the same diner they've gone to for years where they know the owners and regulars around their neighborhood. This is indeed unrealistic in a growing city but I don't think it's unreasonable for them to try to preserve these things, and it isn't out of some hatred of others, racism, etc. (and I don't think you are saying that). I live in an infill, where I probably could not afford the original sized homes in this neighborhood, so I have personally benefitted from upzoning, but I can also see why some people would fight against it.

My question on the covenants which may be ineffective, is what other solutions do they have? From their perspective, they can vote for NIMBY councilors, but other than that, there's not much they can do.
 
trtcttc said:
what other solutions do they have?
Click to expand...
There is nothing you can do.

That is my broad point.

One person or a few people at a community hall cannot stop the development momentum of a city like Calgary. A NIMBY councilor is even a waste because they're one vote on a council. The best thing you can do is work with the agents of change to get the best outcome you can. Covenants can succeed but Lake Bonavista isn't Mount Royal, so the evolution will happen over time piece by piece.

If they have the perspective of wanting to preserve parking at their diner, which btw doesn't exist in Lake Bonavista (IMO a very suburban neighborhood with minimal charm outside the lake and Fish Creek), they have to fight the fights they can win: Individual land use or development permits.

Some places are just good places for infill and you'll fail to come up with a coherent argument against either a land use or development permit. I actually struggle to think of a development in Marda Loop that is out of context for the natural evolution of the neighborhood.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top