News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 4.8K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 6.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 3.8K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

Elbow park development wants to close off road right of way, river access and views from public for gigantic private property.
Thoughts? Wasted land better taxed or the rich pushing too far?


1712114249605.png
 
JoeUrban said:
I think UCP meddling once started will be permanent and constant, no matter the vote outcome that would be a disaster.
Click to expand...
So I don't necessarily disagree it would be a terrible move, but wondering peoples thoughts on the illegality of it and if they will!
 
trtcttc said:
One unintended consequence of this zoning change I am concerned about is developers build R-CG on land that otherwise could use more density. Previously they had to apply for land use change anyways so may have applied for more density, like an MC1 or MC2. But now, they could apply for a DP immediately with R-CG, the barrier to higher density is greater. There should’ve been a concurrent plan to up zone neighbourhood corridors (beyond the Main Street program).

One example is 19th Street NW. Outside of existing retail, everything else is being proposed R-CG, including lots directly north of the 19+2 apartment building and the land near the Kensington intersection (this is being upzoned by RNDSQR in a separate application). There should be upzoning of at least the West side of the street from Kensington to 6th Ave, which is perfect for retail/mixed use by having a laneway (Dairy Lane) parallel to 19th.
Click to expand...
I generally agree, but also have a hard time imagining how this will play out in reality as an issue we actually have to worry about. Or at least, to me it seems more of a missed opportunity broadly than a consequence of R-GC citywide rezoning.

My issue is that essentially all areas of Calgary could use more density. More specifically, existing developed areas of Calgary could use more density. R-CG does this broadly, essentially tripling or quadrupling the zoned capacity of the existing city in one go. If approved, this is a huge win.

Corridors like 19th are a missed opportunity not because of R-CG becoming easier, they struggle because they were never really identified as major corridors at all, regardless of zoning. Further, the population and activity density is so broadly low in so many areas, many corridors don't really have a business case to convert quickly to walkable retail and higher density forms regardless of their zoning. We see tons of vacant parcels in the inner city sitting on density all the time - boom or bust, can't seem to make it work. It doesn't seem the approved density (or lack thereof) is holding back development of more dense formats:

Perhaps more simply both scenarios don't seem to create worse conditions for corridors :
  • Scenario 1: If everything zoned R-CG now quickly develops, the population density is 2 - 3x what it is today. This would trigger all sorts of new demands for different and higher density forms, thus creating momentum on corridors to rezone and develop, including above and beyond R-CG.
  • Scenario 2: rezoning turns out to be incremental and slow, the population density creeps up over a long period of time. The corridors are in no worse state than today.
I think what we really need is to setup the nurturing environment for retail near housing and denser corridors to emerge and create themselves over time, in addition to the ones we have formally identified. This is beyond R-CG I think.
 
Mull said:
f council votes to approve the City wide zoning change, would the UCP have the legal power to nullify the City decision on the basis that the City didn't listen to the will of its people by ignoring the community association's will, in conjunction with choosing to not do a plebiscite?
Click to expand...
The province can remove any power the city has, at any time, for any reason. They just have to draft the action correctly and properly follow procedures to do so legally.

The province has already indicated they view this policy move as improperly and illegally incentivized by the federal government.
 
CBBarnett said:
I generally agree, but also have a hard time imagining how this will play out in reality as an issue we actually have to worry about. Or at least, to me it seems more of a missed opportunity broadly than a consequence of R-GC citywide rezoning.

My issue is that essentially all areas of Calgary could use more density. More specifically, existing developed areas of Calgary could use more density. R-CG does this broadly, essentially tripling or quadrupling the zoned capacity of the existing city in one go. If approved, this is a huge win.

Corridors like 19th are a missed opportunity not because of R-CG becoming easier, they struggle because they were never really identified as major corridors at all, regardless of zoning. Further, the population and activity density is so broadly low in so many areas, many corridors don't really have a business case to convert quickly to walkable retail and higher density forms regardless of their zoning. We see tons of vacant parcels in the inner city sitting on density all the time - boom or bust, can't seem to make it work. It doesn't seem the approved density (or lack thereof) is holding back development of more dense formats:

Perhaps more simply both scenarios don't seem to create worse conditions for corridors :
  • Scenario 1: If everything zoned R-CG now quickly develops, the population density is 2 - 3x what it is today. This would trigger all sorts of new demands for different and higher density forms, thus creating momentum on corridors to rezone and develop, including above and beyond R-CG.
  • Scenario 2: rezoning turns out to be incremental and slow, the population density creeps up over a long period of time. The corridors are in no worse state than today.
I think what we really need is to setup the nurturing environment for retail near housing and denser corridors to emerge and create themselves over time, in addition to the ones we have formally identified. This is beyond R-CG I think.
Click to expand...
Broadly I agree with the citywide zoning change and its necessity, and I don't think the concern I raised outweigh the many benefits of upzoning. While, the boom or bust you identify leaves empty lots, but also gives us high density that matches the area, it just might take a while. Instead of lower density that permanently affects the main street neighbourhoods. One example is 1st Ave south side in Bridgeland between 9 and 9a. A landowner built live work townhomes there 2 decades ago, and that's essentially ended the main street of 1st Ave at 9 street. Maybe those specific decisions are better left for the LAPs, although there's a whole host of other issues with the LAP process.
 
darwink said:
The province can remove any power the city has, at any time, for any reason. They just have to draft the action correctly and properly follow procedures to do so legally.

The province has already indicated they view this policy move as improperly and illegally incentivized by the federal government.
Click to expand...
Didn't Edmonton do a very similar upzoning plan last year? Seems like we just copy what they did 6 months ago (single use ban, rezoning). I don't think the province took any action against the city. While cities are a creature of the province, I don't see it does the UCP much good to be seen as overriding our own elected council regardless of any disagreement with their decisions.
 
darwink said:
AHS if they were to add more facilities in the core, has a perfectly good parking lot at Sheldon Chumir that was retained for exactly this purpose.
Click to expand...
You make it sound as if there's some massive parking lot next to Sheldon Chumir to expand into. If anything it'll just be an expansion of the existing medical centre at that location rather than a proper hospital with emergency wards, ambulance, and beds. If AHS says that location will be an actual Hospital in the future than they're serving up some massive bullshit right there.
 
trtcttc said:
Didn't Edmonton do a very similar upzoning plan last year? Seems like we just copy what they did 6 months ago (single use ban, rezoning). I don't think the province took any action against the city. While cities are a creature of the province, I don't see it does the UCP much good to be seen as overriding our own elected council regardless of any disagreement with their decisions.
Click to expand...

My theory being that
  • this move by Calgary will be unpopular by a >50% of the City
  • the 50% (or more) who don't want it have a lot more money than the people who do (i.e. Mount royal I assume doesn't want this, not to mention its in a swing riding)
  • UCP and NDP both need Calgary for an election.
  • There will be a lot more anger on the side of people who don't want this if it goes through than those who do want it if it doesn't go through. Affordability in housing is driving the young vote but I don't think this will generate the same anger
  • Hence a potential win by the UCP to null the council vote
So... the above has a crap load of assumptions of my view on demographics and politics, many which aren't backed by real data as I am to lazy to look it up, if it exists. And once again, I am not saying I support the UCP nullifying a council vote, just curious of what may happen.

But.... I agree, I forgot about Edmonton which makes targeting just Calgary a lot less politically wise. They need a differentiator between the two cities decisions.
 
trtcttc said:
Didn't Edmonton do a very similar upzoning plan last year? Seems like we just copy what they did 6 months ago (single use ban, rezoning). I don't think the province took any action against the city. While cities are a creature of the province, I don't see it does the UCP much good to be seen as overriding our own elected council regardless of any disagreement with their decisions.
Click to expand...
The province is not limited by time frame. The province most certainly did say the action was in response to improper interference from the federal government.


Just as Smith and other UCPers have eyed Québec with some envy for having its own pension plan, tax collection agency and police force, the premier has also twigged to that province's vaguely titled An Act Respecting the Ministère du conseil executif.

This law prohibits any municipal body from entering into or negotiating an agreement with the federal government or its agencies without express authorization from the Québec government.

At a premiers' conference in November, Smith said Alberta would study adopting a law of its own.

"If defending our jurisdiction by passing legislation similar to Quebec assists us in being able to get fair treatment, then that's what we're going to do," she told reporters.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Duck Lightning said:
You make it sound as if there's some massive parking lot next to Sheldon Chumir to expand into. If anything it'll just be an expansion of the existing medical centre at that location rather than a proper hospital with emergency wards, ambulance, and beds. If AHS says that location will be an actual Hospital in the future than they're serving up some massive bullshit right there.
Click to expand...
Building up is a thing. The core does not need a 'proper' hospital.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top