Calgary Redevelopment Plans

[Kavvy]

Good day all,

I am looking at Real Estate, and therefore stumbled my way to Calgary's redevelopment plans:

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/P...lications.aspx

However, there is A LOT of plans listed(which is nice, engaged city).

Lots of the plans say they are 25 years - 30 years with no planned dates as of yet.

Does anyone have a list of plans which have been shortlisted by the city?

Thank you!

[CaptainYooh]

You are likely referring to Area Redevelopment Plans ("ARPs"). In theory, ARP is a planing document prepared to provide planning guidelines for property redevelopments within an established (older) area of the City. They take many years of involvement from city planners, politicians, consultants and community volunteers before they get approved. And then, they are, by declaration, supposed to be useful for only 5 or so years (which is rarely, if ever, the case). In essence, they are an effort to supplement Land Use Bylaw by giving it more community context. In practice, unless the City consolidates and owns most of the properties in the area (i.e. East Village), most of these documents are stillborn and an obstacle to redevelopment more than an enabler, because they do not respect the economics of redevelopment for the variety of property owners. If guidelines stated in the ARP are conflicting with project economics, developers apply to have ARP revised, so the decision is always political in the end and depends on the strength of City Council lobbying by developers vs. community activists.

In summary, unless you are dreaming of becoming a property developer and have a specific property in mind, don't pay too much attention to them.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You are likely referring to Area Redevelopment Plans ("ARPs"). In theory, ARP is a planing document prepared to provide planning guidelines for property redevelopments within an established (older) area of the City. They take many years of involvement from city planners, politicians, consultants and community volunteers before they get approved. And then, they are, by declaration, supposed to be useful for only 5 or so years (which is rarely, if ever, the case). In essence, they are an effort to supplement Land Use Bylaw by giving it more community context. In practice, unless the City consolidates and owns most of the properties in the area (i.e. East Village), most of these documents are stillborn and an obstacle to redevelopment more than an enabler, because they do not respect the economics of redevelopment for the variety of property owners. If guidelines stated in the ARP are conflicting with project economics, developers apply to have ARP revised, so the decision is always political in the end and depends on the strength of City Council lobbying by developers vs. community activists.

In summary, unless you are dreaming of becoming a property developer and have a specific property in mind, don't pay too much attention to them.

I really appreciate the insight. Despite their non-implementation, it is nice to read through of what could be.


The one I am really interested in is the 50th ave redevelopment.

Any additional insight into this plan?


Also sorry all, I posted this twice, once here and once in the "I work for the mayor, ask me anything"

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

...The one I am really interested in is the 50th ave redevelopment. Any additional insight into this plan?..

You picked a really good one. This is of the more recent "big ARPs" approved in 2013, if I am not mistaken. A very good example of the massive effort involving everyone but the actual property owners. Most of the lands within 50th Ave ARP that could realistically be re-developed are on the north side of 50th and owned by a utility company (AltaLink), who may or may not decide to do anything with these lands for many years and, by the time they might, economics will change and the visions will likely change. Pretty much all of the lands south of 50th with the exception of parcels adjacent to the Elbow/50th intersection, are individually owned single-family lots, whose owners could care less about the City "vision" for what COULD be developed on their lots. Britannia Shopping centre that is at the Elbow Dr. intersection could get re-developed at some point, I suppose, but the ARP was an absolute waste of everyone's time, I think.

[Bunk]

Most post 2005 or so ARPs are pretty useful in enabling development (think Beltline or Hillhurst/Sunnyside, Brentwood Station ARP, East Village). Older ones (which there are many) were often put in place to try and keep things the same, although many of these areas (think Bankview) change in spite of the ARP, not because of it.

Some of them identify necessary infrastructure, which end up going through the capital budget prioritization processes.

They are basically guiding statutory policy, as CaptainYooh says, to supplement the land use by-law for the local context. They are all definitely not created equal.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You picked a really good one. This is of the more recent "big ARPs" approved in 2013, if I am not mistaken. A very good example of the massive effort involving everyone but the actual property owners. Most of the lands within 50th Ave ARP that could realistically be re-developed are on the north side of 50th and owned by a utility company (AltaLink), who may or may not decide to do anything with these lands for many years and, by the time they might, economics will change and the visions will likely change. Pretty much all of the lands south of 50th with the exception of parcels adjacent to the Elbow/50th intersection, are individually owned single-family lots, whose owners could care less about the City "vision" for what COULD be developed on their lots. Britannia Shopping centre that is at the Elbow Dr. intersection could get re-developed at some point, I suppose, but the ARP was an absolute waste of everyone's time, I think.

Yeah, that one in particular, is not very useful. A mind-bottling one. At least some stuff right at Elbow drive with those office/retail developments are going ahead and will be great for that area. I can't see much happening along the AltaLink corridor for a long time, if ever.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bunk

... I can't see much happening along the AltaLink corridor for a long time, if ever.

Unless they decide to sell the land and bury the line under 50th Ave. But that's the thing: whenever and if ever that happens, the ARP as it is, will be completely irrelevant.

In general, ARPs are useless to begin with. Good and clearly written Land Use ByLaw district description eliminates any need for an ARP and resulting ambiguities of its interpretation by various stakeholders.

P.S. BTW, not many people even at the City of Calgary still remember that many years ago 50th Ave was initially intended to be an expressway/freeway connecting Deerfoot to Crowchild/Sarcee/Stoney Trails. I still think this would have been functionally excellent and design-ambitious transportation solution that would have had to include a spectacular suspension bridge over Calgary Golf & Country Club and Elbow River.

[Bunk]

^ I think the move toward more typology based policies and plans (such as Main Streets) is a welcome move.

[CaptainYooh]

I don't know. Planning policies are for the most part extremely subjective and driven by political agenda/directives of the moment in time. What good is a policy that makes no economic sense to the property owners? Say, the City develops a policy for Macleod Trail corridor, which is a principal gateway to Calgary Downtown from the south. How useful would it be without real incentives to re-develop and how likely these incentives are to be approved by Council?

I have always been in favour of spot re-zoning based on the merits of each individual proposal. This is a never-ending game and trying to predict and direct how the thousands of pieces of the puzzle are going to be re-developed in time is a losing premise. If the City is keenly intended to re-develop an important area in a concerted and well-planned fashion, the only alternative is to buy the majority of properties out from their owners and get into development business through a development authority (i.e. East Village & CMLC). There are numerous good examples of this approach when a blighted area needs special and additional effort to overcome economic and perception obstacles.

[Kavvy]

Thank you both for your detail replies!

I assumed the ARP was developed with community input, including that of the property owners (excluding AtlaLink in the case of 50th ave).

Really appreciate the insight.

It's too bad, that is an amazing plan for 50th.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

...It's too bad, that is an amazing plan for 50th.

Well... but it's not. The adjacent homeowners were not at all open-minded and receptive to the idea of dense transit-oriented mixed-use development corridor and lobbied hard for the extremely low density housing (single-family or townhomes) along 50th, which is how it has been approved with City Council acknowledging that this battle would have to be re-fought once/if AltaLink decides to sell the lands.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Well... but it's not. The adjacent homeowners were not at all open-minded and receptive to the idea of dense transit-oriented mixed-use development corridor and lobbied hard for the extremely low density housing (single-family or townhomes) along 50th, which is how it has been approved with City Council acknowledging that this battle would have to be re-fought once/if AltaLink decides to sell the lands.

Yes fair enough. I was completely dismissing those who currently would need to sell their home.

I was just being selfish and thinking of those who don't currently live within a 1 block radius.

[CaptainYooh]

No worries. If you are really interested in all this stuff, you should check Area Structure Plan (ASP) documents. They are kinda the same idea as ARP but only for the new communities. ASPs are prepared and approved when a big new area is getting ready for development and they are usually very closely implemented.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I have always been in favour of spot re-zoning based on the merits of each individual proposal. This is a never-ending game and trying to predict and direct how the thousands of pieces of the puzzle are going to be re-developed in time is a losing premise.

Considering how much time it can take to argue that your proposed development aligns with the intent of the Land Use District and seek variances for urban developments that are inherently complex, I often think it would be easier to simply go with a Direct Control District from the start.