Calgary's Guildebook for New Communities

[Mull]

I can't seem to find a thread about this, and when I googled "site:calgarypuck.com guidebook" I found nothing in the last week from other threads, so apologizes if this is a duplicate.

This guidebook may impact the density allocations in a lot of inner City communities, as my understanding it impacts any community with an ARP (Area redevelopment plan) as those ARP's are actual bylaws enacted by the City. When a ARP is revised, is should follow the guidebook in order for council to approve it and make the new ARP a bylaw -I think.

Lots of confusion going on about this guidebook, with of course Farkas and Nenshi fighting on twitter.

A person on Reddit who posted the below news story was wise to also post this City of Calgary Myth document:
https://www.calgary.ca/ca/city-manag...guidebookmyths

Anyway,
Calgary council hits pause on controversial guidebook for communities
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-may-1.5963274

The guidebook can be found here:
https://www.calgary.ca/pda/pd/curren...book#guidebook

The guidebook appears to split the City commnuties with ARP's into two zones:

Zone A - These communities were typically developed prior to 1945 and generally consist of residential lots with lane access, arranged in a grid network of roads. These areas are typically located closest to the Centre City, have generally experienced a longer history of infill redevelopment and have gone through more than one community lifecycle. Zone A is the most appropriate for a range of residential infill

Mount Royal is Zone A

Zone B - one B identifies communities that are generally within the Established Area in the Municipal Development Plan. These communities were typically developed prior to 1970 and generally consist of residential lots with and without lane access, arranged in a modified grid network of roads. There may be a greater portion of irregularly shaped lots than found in Zone A. These areas are the next era of residential development after the Inner City and are located further from the Centre City. Zone B communities have generally experienced limited infill redevelopment but consist of buildings that are typically nearing the end of their first lifecycle (approximately 50 years) and are likely areas for redevelopment. These communities are expected to experience a greater level of residential infill redevelopment in the coming decades.

Britannia is Zone B

[Bunk]

Guidebook for Great Communities. The Guidebook on New Communities is already in place an a volume of the Municipal Development Plan.

Council punted it for a few months to consider some amendments and public feedback, consider doing another round of public engagement.

It's basically an general policy - which provides the "menu" so to speak when the City does local area planning with communities. A lot of the controversy is around whether the lowest density district (which applies primarily to pre-1970s inner city) which is singles, semis and rowhousing, is too permissive of density up to row houses by default, or whether there should be a particular policy district that is exclusively singles and if so, where should that be.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Guidebook for Great Communities. The Guidebook on New Communities is already in place an a volume of the Municipal Development Plan.

Council punted it for a few months to consider some amendments and public feedback, consider doing another round of public engagement.

It's basically an general policy - which provides the "menu" so to speak when the City does local area planning with communities. A lot of the controversy is around whether the lowest density district, and its applicability primarily to the inner city - which is singles, semis and rowhousing, is too permissive of density up to row houses by default, or whether there should be a particular policy district that is exclusively singles.

So here's my question. If I live in Mount Royal, and we are amending our ARP-
Would we need to include allowance for moderate density homes within 600m of a transit stop (i.e. bus stop) as per page 48 in order for the City to approve the modified ARP? I saw this question somewhere else but the user didn't get an answer.

I am not really sure how I feel about that to be honest, I don't live there, but a yes/no answer would provide context on the misinformation floating around.

[bizaro86]

Myth: The Guidebook will force communities to change their make-up by allowing for different types of development than what there is today.

Fact:
The Guidebook encourages diverse housing, amenity, and employment options in our communities. That means we can better retain our current talent and youth, while attracting talent from outside of Calgary. It also allows people to stay in their community as they grow older and through different life stages.

This is from the city's myth document linked above. Basically it seems the concern here is that this will make upzoning easier. The city's response is pretty buzz-wordy (diversity!) but basically says that's the plan.

That's probably a good thing, but some of these answers are pretty disingenuous, imo.

[moncton golden flames]

The document also states "The Guidebook only applies to communities with local area plans that are completed using the Guidebook." Most, if not all ARP's probably have not been created under this Guidebook.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

The document also states "The Guidebook only applies to communities with local area plans that are completed using the Guidebook." Most, if not all ARP's probably have not been created under this Guidebook.

But from what I understand it would include revisions to existing ARP's? I think anyway?

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by Mull

But from what I understand it would include revisions to existing ARP's? I think anyway?

You are probably correct. If the existing ARP is revised under this Guidebook, it will most likely apply.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

You are probably correct. If the existing ARP is revised under this Guidebook, it will most likely apply.

In that case, unless we want to promote the idea that ARP's from the 90's shouldn't be updated (probably not a good idea for anyone in the City to promote, bad for all of us), it really applies to all ARP's ?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Mull

So here's my question. If I live in Mount Royal, and we are amending our ARP-
Would we need to include allowance for moderate density homes within 600m of a transit stop (i.e. bus stop) as per page 48 in order for the City to approve the modified ARP? I saw this question somewhere else but the user didn't get an answer.

I am not really sure how I feel about that to be honest, I don't live there, but a yes/no answer would provide context on the misinformation floating around.

City Council approves new ARPs (which are now being done several communities bundled together). The Guidebook only applies once a new ARP is in place.

The policy in 2.8 is meant to provide guidance. Zone A is where that moderate intensity, due to the general community characteristics, is most appropriate. But the policy also lays out where exceptions are appropriate based on certain characteristics. All this is applied when the ARP is being crafted in consultation with communities, and is meant to enable considering specific street or community contexts.

For example, in Mount Royal, it is not a typical inner city community in some respects - the street and lot configuration is atypical, and as such it very well might be that lower intensity policy could apply. Again, in the end, Council has purview of ARP approval, and its approval usually requires a pretty high degree of community buy in through the consultation process.

I would also say that in any event the land value of Mount Royal, regardless of policy is very, very unlikely to yield redevelopment of say row houses. It just does not make any economic sense to buy a $2-$3 million property and subdivide for row. There is a reason you virtually never see anyone attempt a zoning change for that - like you do on ubiquitous $650k 50ft corner lots, which is what is actually typical of Zone A and B.

Sorry if that is not a entirely clear explanation, but that is the best I can probably explain it.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

The document also states "The Guidebook only applies to communities with local area plans that are completed using the Guidebook." Most, if not all ARP's probably have not been created under this Guidebook.

In fact none have. Only the "North Hill" area (Renfrew, Mount Pleasant, Capitol Hill etc) was up for approval concurrent with the Guidebook (it was the pilot) but that got delayed as the Guidebook got delayed.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Mull

In that case, unless we want to promote the idea that ARP's from the 90's shouldn't be updated (probably not a good idea for anyone in the City to promote, bad for all of us), it really applies to all ARP's ?

The City has an ~8 year work plan to update all existing ARPs and create new ARPs for areas that currently don't have one.

Here's an example of the new type - which incorporates multiple communities together.

https://calgary.ca/content/dam/www/e...osed-Jan-4.pdf

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Bunk

City Council approves new ARPs (which are now being done several communities bundled together). The Guidebook only applies once a new ARP is in place.

The policy in 2.8 is meant to provide guidance. Zone A is where that moderate intensity, due to the general community characteristics, is most appropriate. But the policy also lays out where exceptions are appropriate based on certain characteristics. All this is applied when the ARP is being crafted in consultation with communities, and is meant to enable considering specific street or community contexts.

For example, in Mount Royal, it is not a typical inner city community in some respects - the street and lot configuration is atypical, and as such it very well might be that lower intensity policy could apply. Again, in the end, Council has purview of ARP approval, and its approval usually requires a pretty high degree of community buy in through the consultation process.

I would also say that in any event the land value of Mount Royal, regardless of policy is very, very unlikely to yield redevelopment of say row houses. It just does not make any economic sense to buy a $2-$3 million property and subdivide for row. There is a reason you virtually never see anyone attempt a zoning change for that - like you do on ubiquitous $650k 50ft corner lots, which is what is actually typical of Zone A and B.

Sorry if that is not a entirely clear explanation, but that is the best I can probably explain it.

Not super clear, but perhaps I am just slow this morning, thank you for the effort. The exceptions you refer to I think are noted on page 48 and when I apply them to Mount Royal, I get moderate density within 600m of a bus stop.

So, I THINK those exceptions don't stop density there.

What I think you're saying is the final blockage to moderate density in a Mount Royal revised ARP, is the fact it wouldn't have community support, and therefore, Council wouldn't approve it.

So.. is this a fair yes or no question then perhaps:

If the guidebook was approved by Council, would council approve a modified ARP for Mount Royal that calls for ONLY single family homes on the existing size lots within 600m of bus stops if that is what the community supported?

Again, as a pleb, not living in Mount Royal, I don't know how I feel, but this answer helps me work through the misinformation.

[PsYcNeT]

90% of the smoke I've seen around this is Save Calgary and their associated #### disturbers having a screech about it as an excuse to further vilify Nenshi. Of course, SC's ultimate goal is to keep lining the pockets of homebuilders and continue the eternal sprawl that is Calgary's suburbs.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

90% of the smoke I've seen around this is Save Calgary and their associated #### disturbers having a screech about it as an excuse to further vilify Nenshi. Of course, SC's ultimate goal is to keep lining the pockets of homebuilders and continue the eternal sprawl that is Calgary's suburbs.

So on Save Calgary, derailing my own thread... how come when I go to the Alberta lobbyist site we can't see who funds them?

I thought they have to declare after x months after the last election?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Mull

So.. is this a fair yes or no question then perhaps:

If the guidebook was approved by Council, would council approve a modified ARP for Mount Royal that calls for ONLY single family homes on the existing size lots within 600m of bus stops if that is what the community supported?

Again, as a pleb, not living in Mount Royal, I don't know how I feel, but this answer helps me work through the misinformation.

I think given the characteristics (curvilinear streets, several streets without lanes, irregular lot shapes), I could easily see an ARP that made it to Council that only had moderate density enabled right on 14th street fronting properties and virtually everything else remained untouched. It's not totally possible to know for sure, because that process plays out through the ARP.

I think a very likely amendment coming to guidebook is clear policy on a single detached district as the lowest and guidance on where that is most appropriate. I would suspect a context like Mount Royal is exactly that kind of place. But that's speculative.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think given the characteristics (curvilinear streets, several streets without lanes, irregular lot shapes), I could easily see an ARP that made it to Council that only had moderate density enabled right on 14th street fronting properties and virtually everything else remained untouched. It's not totally possible to know for sure, because that process plays out through the ARP.

I think a very likely amendment coming to guidebook is clear policy on a single detached district as the lowest and guidance on where that is most appropriate. I would suspect a context like Mount Royal is exactly that kind of place. But that's speculative.

Ok, thank you, this answers my question.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bunk

City Council approves new ARPs (which are now being done several communities bundled together). The Guidebook only applies once a new ARP is in place.

The policy in 2.8 is meant to provide guidance. Zone A is where that moderate intensity, due to the general community characteristics, is most appropriate. But the policy also lays out where exceptions are appropriate based on certain characteristics. All this is applied when the ARP is being crafted in consultation with communities, and is meant to enable considering specific street or community contexts.

For example, in Mount Royal, it is not a typical inner city community in some respects - the street and lot configuration is atypical, and as such it very well might be that lower intensity policy could apply. Again, in the end, Council has purview of ARP approval, and its approval usually requires a pretty high degree of community buy in through the consultation process.

I would also say that in any event the land value of Mount Royal, regardless of policy is very, very unlikely to yield redevelopment of say row houses. It just does not make any economic sense to buy a $2-$3 million property and subdivide for row. There is a reason you virtually never see anyone attempt a zoning change for that - like you do on ubiquitous $650k 50ft corner lots, which is what is actually typical of Zone A and B.

Sorry if that is not a entirely clear explanation, but that is the best I can probably explain it.

All politicians (definitely including city council) like to pass the buck on unpopular decisions. For Covid, Nenshi railed on the province, Kenney complained about the Feds, and Trudeau deferred to the WHO.

Zoning is so obviously a local matter, but council and administration will absolutely point to this approved plan when neighbourhoods don't like their new ARPs.

They're trying to get this approved on a large scale because nobody wants their single family neighbourhood densified, but less people object to hypothetical density affecting someone else. Which makes sense, because living next to more density in a single family home is way worse than living next to other single family homes.

Also, the economics of row housing in Mt Royal would be spectacular. Those lots are huge, and luxury townhouses would sell very well there. Even with M-CG zoning you could probably put 12 units on the average Mt royal lot, which would be very economic in the $2-3MM range.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Also, the economics of row housing in Mt Royal would be spectacular. Those lots are huge, and luxury townhouses would sell very well there. Even with M-CG zoning you could probably put 12 units on the average Mt royal lot, which would be very economic in the $2-3MM range.

I mean, maybe. There has been zero market pressure or even attempted rezonings. Maybe that is because of perceived approval risk today, but I could only see it happening in very small quantities in very specific type parcels.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I mean, maybe. There has been zero market pressure or even attempted rezonings. Maybe that is because of perceived approval risk today, but I could only see it happening in very small quantities in very specific type parcels.

If a domino fell in Mount Royal that someone was able to get townhouses on a Mount Royal full size lot... you're saying you feel that market pressure would be limited to few lots?

I don't agree with that at all.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Mull

If a domino fell in Mount Royal that someone was able to get townhouses on a Mount Royal full size lot... you're saying you feel that market pressure would be limited to few lots?

I don't agree with that at all.

Yeah, thats just objectively wrong. The reason there are no applications is that there is a zero percent chance of getting them approved. IIRC Upper Mount Royal is actually mostly DC zoned with an even more restrictive version of R-C1 that prevents extra huge lots from being subdivided into multiple regular size lots.

If townhouses were possible you'd see lots of lovely large townhouses come up very, very quickly.

It would be great intensification of an inner city parcel, but it would change the character of the neighbourhood as well.