Urb
Active Member
Place your bets!
|
|
|
Urban Development and Proposals Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
jhappy77
Active Member
Why force outer communities to be car dependent? There are still places like Bowness where more growth makes sense, and I'm sure there's many more neighborhoods and areas that also make sense that no one will be able to list off the top of their head. Why not just legalize common-sense building everywhere, and it will naturally occur in places where it makes sense? That's a better approach than micromanagement and over-legislating.
Also many of the strongest opponents to this are in inner city single family neighborhoods like Rosedale and Elbow Park where gradual densification is necessary and totally appropriate.
We are in a housing crisis. I don't think the HOA Karen types realize the extent to which it is screwing over society. I would rather do the right thing here than try to placate the professional whiners crowd. Now's the best time, we likely have the political momentum to win.
CityScapeFan
New Member
It seems like a tricky issue with valid points on both sides. As the date for the public hearing approaches, how can the city best ensure the concerns of all residents are respectfully heard and addressed?
CBBarnett
Senior Member
The government is trying to give people more rights to use their properties. This is a good thing.
The rights we are talking about expanding? Build a few more units on your land if you want, while still being subject to the many, many rules to shape what that looks like. Hardly like we are opening up environmental reserves for coal mining or something drastic .
We should stop micromanaging low density housing and just let it happen. Guess what - all those wealthy neighbourhoods that have typically been opposed to housing in their areas? Turns out they are wealthy and can find other, private means to restrict what they can do with their lands, as is their choice.
The state really doesn’t need to “protect” them by maintaining the current zoning restrictions - there’s no public good benefit for doing so and they will be more than capable doing it themselves anyways.
The rights we are talking about expanding? Build a few more units on your land if you want, while still being subject to the many, many rules to shape what that looks like. Hardly like we are opening up environmental reserves for coal mining or something drastic .
We should stop micromanaging low density housing and just let it happen. Guess what - all those wealthy neighbourhoods that have typically been opposed to housing in their areas? Turns out they are wealthy and can find other, private means to restrict what they can do with their lands, as is their choice.
The state really doesn’t need to “protect” them by maintaining the current zoning restrictions - there’s no public good benefit for doing so and they will be more than capable doing it themselves anyways.
Dārayavauš
Active Member
Can’t we just not have anymore public engagement? No really it was already voted on. Just adopt it already.
Public hearing date is set for Calgary citywide base rezoning - LiveWire Calgary
A public hearing date for Calgary’s controversial city-wide rezoning has been set, but it’s left one councillor wondering if citizens need more time to prepare. During the Dec. 14 Regular Meeting of Calgary City Council, councillors approved April 22, 2024, as the date when the public will have...livewirecalgary.com
During the Dec. 14 Regular Meeting of Calgary City Council, councillors approved April 22, 2024, as the date when the public will have their say on Calgary’s introduction of a base R-CG residential district city-wide.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
This is far too refined of statement to be "Joe Citizen", do you work for the city?
jianxia15
Active Member
Three houses next to the Scarboro 17 are for sales. Hope for an apartment with retail.
Scarboro 17 | 15.85m | 4s | Bow Developments
Zoom
Active Member
TBH in my experience the level of opposition doesn’t vary much from inner-city to outer areas. I can tell you that in Renfrew/Mountview area there is strong opposition. Some people are losing their shit over this. Lol.
Whereas in Huntington Hills mostly ambivalent. Nobody seems to care at all.
I agree, somewhat with regards to density in the outer neighborhoods, as in some aspects, those neighbourhoods are lost causes, especially the ones that were built in the latter half of the 20th century, but there would be no harm in increasing densities in those neighbourhoods. Especially if higher densities can be done along various corridors or busy roads, etc.
AJX
Active Member
I respectfully disagree. Why not make the zoning changes across-the-board, it doesn’t cost anything to upzone throughout the city.
I understand how you feel, and I also think that the many of the outer suburbs are lost causes, but any increase in densification to those neighbourhoods is still good for everybody.
My other concern, and really the bigger concern for me is land prices skyrocketing in those wards that you mentioned because they are the only wards you can densify.
Spreading out the densification allows land prices to stay a little bit lower in the core neighbourhoods and helps increase costs on land for single-family homes in the outer neighborhoods.
darwink
Senior Member
Make it a free for all and the market will do what you want. We just need to trust it. Land costs are relatively low in Calgary, there is little reason to do a 1 to 4 densification in a less desirable location except if forced to by central planners blocking more desirable locations. .
Tarsus
Active Member
I’m of the opinion to change the blanket zoning for all parts of the city. As things progress, most of the high density development will still be in the inner city and core anyways but at least this gives some opportunity for higher density in some of the outer neighbourhoods.
O-tac
Active Member
I was wondering what was going in there. They already started utility and road work I think.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Might not be the place for this, move it if you want...
calgaryherald.com
The first change is a huge issue! Can't say I'm too against the other two:
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.
IMO this speaks to the fact that the city (I say city as an adjective not a noun) needs to significantly intensify its core and surrounding communities and take advantage of its existing service infrastructure to have much more efficient services. I do see the city (noun) trying with its proposal for blanket zoning and conversions.
(I say the below knowing (perhaps just my perception): The City of Calgary is well known as a great place to be employed and could operate much more efficiently. Some would say "it should be operated like a business"; one, I've worked for very inefficient businesses that are nothing to emulate, and two, it isn't a business and can't be because a city (noun) is naturally inefficient (more money will always go out than comes in).)
I think the City of Calgary realizes that it is operating on a tight rope, I see it trying to do better, unfortunately that meant increased property taxes. Some will say that's because of council's pet projects but I respect their effort to city (adjective) build. To me the problem is inefficient city services (see above). They're trying to fix some inefficient services; I'm hoping the Primary Transit Network comes to fruition.
They're also trying to catch up with inefficient sprawl using the increased off-site levy but while they pull on that thread you can't dismiss the need for housing people can afford (something the suburbs do offer). In the article BILD says the increased off-site levy hurts that, which I'm sure it does because it makes new homes more expensive because developers are just going to pass on the cost. So should they just keep the inefficient status quo and concentrate on affordable housing grants (which to change two I guess they don't collect) and let developers build housing people can afford?
The Mayor and Council approvals are already bad so what do you do? I see two choices:
What people (vocal minority) 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
The first change is a huge issue! Can't say I'm too against the other two:
- second change is to repeal a section for inclusionary housing, which allows Calgary and Edmonton to require a developer to provide money (or other resources) to the municipality to go toward affordable housing.
- third changes building code bylaw authority, a provision that allows the cities to pass bylaws legislating energy consumption and heat retention. The province intends to remove this authority “to ensure there is one uniform building code standard across Alberta,” according to the news release.
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.
IMO this speaks to the fact that the city (I say city as an adjective not a noun) needs to significantly intensify its core and surrounding communities and take advantage of its existing service infrastructure to have much more efficient services. I do see the city (noun) trying with its proposal for blanket zoning and conversions.
(I say the below knowing (perhaps just my perception): The City of Calgary is well known as a great place to be employed and could operate much more efficiently. Some would say "it should be operated like a business"; one, I've worked for very inefficient businesses that are nothing to emulate, and two, it isn't a business and can't be because a city (noun) is naturally inefficient (more money will always go out than comes in).)
I think the City of Calgary realizes that it is operating on a tight rope, I see it trying to do better, unfortunately that meant increased property taxes. Some will say that's because of council's pet projects but I respect their effort to city (adjective) build. To me the problem is inefficient city services (see above). They're trying to fix some inefficient services; I'm hoping the Primary Transit Network comes to fruition.
They're also trying to catch up with inefficient sprawl using the increased off-site levy but while they pull on that thread you can't dismiss the need for housing people can afford (something the suburbs do offer). In the article BILD says the increased off-site levy hurts that, which I'm sure it does because it makes new homes more expensive because developers are just going to pass on the cost. So should they just keep the inefficient status quo and concentrate on affordable housing grants (which to change two I guess they don't collect) and let developers build housing people can afford?
The Mayor and Council approvals are already bad so what do you do? I see two choices:
What people (vocal minority) want.
- Continue to operate an inefficient city (no blanket zoning and PTN)
- Change how you operate (blanket zoning and PTN)
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
What a useless provincial government. Worst in Canadian history?
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I've rarely seen one so in the bag of industry that doesn't really need the help (Oil and Gas and developers). Although the Ontario government could give them a run for their money on the developer front.
UCP do not have my interest at heart, they're the puppet of their base. All the NDP are doing is beating the APP horse. The UCP will be able to do whatever they want next year as the NDP will go away for a bit and re-orient themselves after Notley leaves. I am curious what the NDP will come back in 2025 as.