News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 6.8K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.4K     5 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 5K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

So what's a reasonable compromise that lets the repealers save face? Revise RCG to 4 dwellings max and include parking minimums (I abhor parking minimums, but it's not hard to include 4 spots on a lot so whatever, let's mandate Xmas tree storage stalls for now)? Doesn't seem like that would be enough or them...
 
That's the thing. If the repealers were acting in good faith, I would argue that there are tweaks that can be made to the RCG zoning that can easily make this a win-win.

1000054284.jpg


This is the list of gripes that was included in the repeal Notice of Motion. You're telling me that the 15 people on council, with the assistance of all the experts in Admin, can't brainstorm some solutions to all these issues? Of course they can...

The thing is, the repealers don't actually want to. They're not acting in good faith. In their hearts, they are NIMBYs who want neighbourhoods frozen in time. They just can't come out and say they aren't supportive of new infill housing because Pierre Poilevre says he supports infill housing because it actually is the most fiscally conservative approach to city building and the fact we are in a housing crisis because of the status quo necessitates policy changes and they have to pretend to be good little conservatives.

I think the Mayor is missing a huge opportunity to show maturity and good governance by allowing the repeal conversation to occur independent of the replacement conversation. Both should occur ar the same time. Instead we are going to create a period of massive uncertainty for Calgarians and developers, double up the public hearings, which means double the cost and double the time and risk the Federal funding now to boot. It really makes me doubt his sincerity when Farkas says he has a plan for replacement because if he did, he should have brought it forward simulatenously with this repeal motion.
 
DougB said:
Did Toronto with its Liberal MPs lose funding?

www.ctvnews.ca

Ottawa doubles down on threat to reduce Toronto’s housing funding following sixplex vote

Toronto City Council’s recent decision to permit low-rise sixplexes in nine wards, instead of across the city as initially proposed, could cost it nearly $30 million in federal housing funding.
www.ctvnews.ca www.ctvnews.ca
Click to expand...
I appreciate your strong advocacy and support for electing more Liberal MPs in Calgary, but the article you linked sure sounds like Toronto's 2026 funding is also at risk. Neither city has lost a penny... yet.
 
ByeByeBaby said:
I appreciate your strong advocacy and support for electing more Liberal MPs in Calgary, but the article you linked sure sounds like Toronto's 2026 funding is also at risk. Neither city has lost a penny... yet.
Click to expand...
My point is that the Feds can't pull funding from Calgary without pulling it from Toronto. They won't pull it from Toronto as that is its electoral base
 
darwink said:
this is the exact opposite of the program design. Won't relitigate this here, but the number of units built in a given year doesn't demonstrate success or failure of regulatory reform.
Click to expand...
The program is designed poorly, and funds things for specific process instead of results. Again, playing whack-a-mole with policy changes. Cities change zoning then jack up development costs. Calgary has less heritage protection which has helped re-develop downtown parcels much faster, but that's not a HAF criteria, so those units don't count as much as the R-CG rowhouse at the end of the block. Housing is complicated. Even small things like DP and BP approvals, timeliness of utility work all affect housing construction. We should have a fund that directly correlates with units built, because when you build new units and welcome new residents, that's precisely when you need to funds to improve infrastructure, utilities, etc. Paying for performative changes that don't result in actual units in the ground just provides poor incentives.

 
trtcttc said:
The program is designed poorly, and funds things for specific process instead of results.
Click to expand...
I think we mostly agree, but the program has to be designed to fix Toronto and Vancouver, despite the refusal of local governments in BC and the local governments and province in Ontario to fix their major problems.

Alberta is along for the ride and the only result is more freedom and even faster processes from our already good base.

Calgary can just refuse the money! It is an option.

The whole point was past results based programs didn't work, and municipalities complained that units built programs would leave funding subject to market conditions. Municipalities were even rejecting fully funded social housing proposals that the municipalities themselves had applied for funding from the feds and received!

Most municipalities don't recognize that they are major determinants in how much housing gets built via regulations and fees. They can approve all the zoning they want that doesn't pencil. Municipalities can succeed despite bad policies or fail with good policies.

Hence, a program that incentivizes good policies, and forthcoming programs to incentivize much lower fees.
 
darwink said:
I think we mostly agree, but the program has to be designed to fix Toronto and Vancouver, despite the refusal of local governments in BC and the local governments and province in Ontario to fix their major problems.
Click to expand...
From a purely Calgary point of view, the program seems to not recognize the already good base we are starting from and putting all municipalities on the same starting point. But I agree if they held every municipality to the same standard, Vancouver and Toronto would get no funding.
 
I think one could argue that the program design does serve to help improve Calgary's weaknesses. While we have no problem building lots, we have been too reliant on sprawl to do it. Although we've started to turn the tide on that a bit by ourselves, the HAF has certainly boosted those efforts.

Also, we still need every single unit we can get. It would be lovely to get rewarded for already being successful and doing nothing new, but that would be an even worse program design IMO
 
ATB is consolidating all their offices to the Suncor Centre
renx.ca

ATB Financial moving offices to Calgary's Suncor Energy Centre

The multimillion-dollar renovations Brookfield Properties and ARCI are undertaking at Calgary’s Suncor Energy Centre office towers have paid off with a major new tenant: ATB Financial will occupy 173,000 square feet of space in the campus in 2027.
renx.ca renx.ca
 
Interesting. It looks like ATB is consolidating multiple locations into one site, and I'm assuming some of those sites are out of the core, as this move will result in net positive absorption.

The move will consolidate ATB’s multiple Calgary locations into the new office, which will also result in positive net absorption of space in the city’s downtown

Downtown AA space is at around 18% vacancy right now.
 
Surrealplaces said:
Interesting. It looks like ATB is consolidating multiple locations into one site, and I'm assuming some of those sites are out of the core, as this move will result in net positive absorption.

The move will consolidate ATB’s multiple Calgary locations into the new office, which will also result in positive net absorption of space in the city’s downtown

Downtown AA space is at around 18% vacancy right now.
Click to expand...
From their report, looks like AIMCO also took some space last quarter.

1764266676757.png
 
Surrealplaces said:
Interesting. It looks like ATB is consolidating multiple locations into one site, and I'm assuming some of those sites are out of the core, as this move will result in net positive absorption.

The move will consolidate ATB’s multiple Calgary locations into the new office, which will also result in positive net absorption of space in the city’s downtown

Downtown AA space is at around 18% vacancy right now.
Click to expand...
My friend works for ATB and when in the office does not go downtown. Once this move is complete they will.
 
Here's a another on 17th...

The Aurum office just east of Sovereign has a land use in.
Description
A change is proposed at multiple properties (see map) to allow for:
  • commercial and residential uses in street-oriented buildings with commercial uses required at street level, facing the commercial street [Mixed Use - Active Frontage (MU-2f6.5h58) District];
  • a maximum building height of 58 metres (about 17 storeys);

DMap

DMap
dmap.calgary.ca dmap.calgary.ca

Coupled with the DP that's pending decision down the block and the approved land use change at Centre and 17th. This section of 17th seems to have some momentum.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top