MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You’re right.

But we should also admit that the overwhelming majority of people wouldn’t want an 8-plex built beside their detached home, including the majority of people who denounce NIMBYism.

Very few 8-plexes will be built beside detached homes. They are typically built on corner lots (or oversize lots) and the neighbours are/will soon be infill duplexes/4-plexes.

Whenever you challenge someone to provide an objectionable example it usually ends up being somewhere totally reasonable, like 32nd&17 Ave SW (1 block from Westbrook) or 17th and 4 St NW.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I'm just hoping as everyone argues over this we are quietly putting bike lanes everywhere...

Right through the side yard of your R-CG lot so you don't have to go that one block on the road with those sad SUV owners.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Very few 8-plexes will be built beside detached homes. They are typically built on corner lots (or oversize lots) and the neighbours are/will soon be infill duplexes/4-plexes.

Whenever you challenge someone to provide an objectionable example it usually ends up being somewhere totally reasonable, like 32nd&17 Ave SW (1 block from Westbrook) or 17th and 4 St NW.

I get that. Just pointing out that not wanting an 8-plex beside your house isn’t a moral defect - it’s the default, normal stance of most people.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

They should just cap these things at 2 stories.

- NIMBYs feel like they scored a win
- Affordability is probably improved because right now they are selling 3 story units of larger floor area for higher prices, and this would knock it down to smaller units presumably of slightly lower price
- Less ugly crap will go up

I've said it before and I'll repeat again. It's not height that's the real problem. Allowed height is the same (it's actually a metre different but shhhh) whether it's a single family, a semi-detached or a rowhouse.

The main problems are building depth, and parking.

R-CG multi unit projects can be built between 3.0m (10') from the front property line and 1.2m (4') from the rear property line along with a 6.5m (21') gap somewhere in between.

11.0m (36') building height for the first 60% of the lot depth, and 8.6m (28') for the back 40% of the lot depth.

You essentially end up with a 30'ish flat wall of James Hardy (if you're lucky) down the entire side of your property, and it's just a matter of time before another one gets built on the other side.

On a 50' lot, they're building four single car garages that effectively finish at 10'-6". Nobody is fitting their yachts in these, so it becomes a storage unit and they park on the street.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by gasman

Has anyone looked at a solution where secondary suites (basement) suites would be blanket allowed, but knocking down a SFH and rebuilding an 8Plex would require the full blown review and permit process. Why does it need to be all or nothing?

That's just how it was before the blanket zoning.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Very few 8-plexes will be built beside detached homes. They are typically built on corner lots (or oversize lots) and the neighbours are/will soon be infill duplexes/4-plexes.

Whenever you challenge someone to provide an objectionable example it usually ends up being somewhere totally reasonable, like 32nd&17 Ave SW (1 block from Westbrook) or 17th and 4 St NW.

Say whaaaa? You need to get out and look around. 8-plexes are being built beside detached homes all over.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Say whaaaa? You need to get out and look around. 8-plexes are being built beside detached homes all over.

Yes. Beside old bungalows that will soon be developed themselves.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Yes. Beside old bungalows that will soon be developed themselves.

That there is part of the situation too. Buyer pool is cut, the same way people assess a single family property next to an existing multi unit apartment complex.

Quality of life for the resident is impacted, fair argument or not they will perceive it as a negative impact. Then they’ll look to sell to move to a property, probably less likely to host similar impact from adjacent development (the burbs and beyond). Their resale value took a hit however.

Developers reap the benefit of the previous developers neighbouring work and the chain reaction continues.

And surely there’s many properties opposite to that of a dilapidated bungalow left untouched by a now 85 year old widow being impacted too.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I get that. Just pointing out that not wanting an 8-plex beside your house isn’t a moral defect - it’s the default, normal stance of most people.

Who said it was? I'm saying the most vocal opponents have very little reason to expect 8-plexes near them anytime soon. Of course there are edge cases where some may end up more hard done by than others, but that's society. And most of them will also be shocked to learn that it barely affects their life at all. Aside from scrapping over publicly subsidized car storage of course.


In addition to Farkas, the councillors sponsoring the motion represent Wards 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14



The vast majority of these wards will be unaffected for decades! Wards 4, 7 & 8 have the strongest intensity of infill, and all elected very progressive councillors. Parts of other wards are strongly affected, too - but I've been looking at Alberta election results down to the polling station level relative to the new electoral districts, and older/infill communities lean more progressive than their newer suburban counterparts (of course NIMBYsm is more strongly correlated to class and generation than just politics, but the point stands).

The people most likely to be affected by this want this. The people least likely to be affected (aside from having their civic services even more heavily subsidized) don't. It's just so incredibly dumb (especially since the councillors listed above all ran on reduced taxes, and this is probably the least fiscally responsible thing a city councillor could ever do)!

[Slava]

^ I don’t buy that for a second. I’m in Ward 11, and I could totally see this happening in my community, because the lots are larger and a developer could easily add multiple units on one lot here. There are some communities in the ward where that isn’t an issue, but others where it would be sooner.

[CliffFletcher]

I expect inner-city communities are less resistant to up-zoning because they have fewer voters living in detached homes, and more of the detached homes in those communities are rentals. I doubt the typical SFH homeowner in Killarney is any more sanguine about the prospect of an 8-plex being built next door than their counterpart in Midnapore.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

That there is part of the situation too. Buyer pool is cut, the same way people assess a single family property next to an existing multi unit apartment complex.

Quality of life for the resident is impacted, fair argument or not they will perceive it as a negative impact. Then they’ll look to sell to move to a property, probably less likely to host similar impact from adjacent development (the burbs and beyond). Their resale value took a hit however.

Developers reap the benefit of the previous developers neighbouring work and the chain reaction continues.

And surely there’s many properties opposite to that of a dilapidated bungalow left untouched by a now 85 year old widow being impacted too.

Their resale value is higher because clearly there is now a positive investment opportunity in putting up 8 plexes that is worth more than the house. If the house alone was worth more no 8 plexes would be built.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by GGG

Their resale value is higher because clearly there is now a positive investment opportunity in putting up 8 plexes that is worth more than the house. If the house alone was worth more no 8 plexes would be built.

No way do you believe a single family with a full lot depth 8 plex (actually 12 units in most) next door will sell for more than a single family with two standard single family either side.

I can tell you guys do love to put lot value dilapidated tear down bungalow in your mind for every example. That isn’t the reality. Perhaps the reality of the first 8 plex (actually 12 units in most) being built. Not the reality of what they’re being built next to.

[Reggie28]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Snip

And most of them will also be shocked to learn that it barely affects their life at all. Aside from scrapping over publicly subsidized car storage of course.

“A vehicle must be operable and moved within 72 hours or it may be considered abandoned and removed as such.*”
https://www.calgary.ca/bylaws/street-use.html

Was it the poster 4x4 who hooked a chain and towed a vehicle from his parking spot? Up the battle between SFH and 8-plexes and give the “abandoned and removed as such” power to the affected homeowner. Maybe even apply salvage rights.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ I don’t buy that for a second. I’m in Ward 11, and I could totally see this happening in my community, because the lots are larger and a developer could easily add multiple units on one lot here. There are some communities in the ward where that isn’t an issue, but others where it would be sooner.

Look for yourself and tell us if it is happening (pretty sure this shows everything from the last 2 years or so; not sure what causes things to fall off here but I saw some back to late 2023):
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/

Perusing the west side of 14th St I saw:
- a few new SFH (and a bunch of additions to existing SFH that are not new living units)
- about a half dozen new garage suites
- One 8-plex on a corner lot in Braeside . Bound on two sides by road and a third side by alley. Tons of street parking available.

The garage suites are great! MIL *shudder*, mortgage helper, or maybe to help an adult child launch (it's years away, but my special needs son will likely need a period of semi-independent living, so this could be a good set up for us).

These huge lots backing on to Glenmore Landing could have handled a lot more density well. Instead the 4700 sq ft 6bed/6bath old house at 1804 is getting replaced with another presumably huge SFH. Which is cool. Next door 1803 is building some sort of addition to the front over the garage (not a new unit). You can see it under construction on satellite view. Also cool.


Redevelopment will happen everywhere, eventually. But I think you can sleep soundly for a while. The thing that makes places like Oakridge and Coach Hill unique is the huge lots and relatively wide spacing between homes. While they could handle a lot more density, I expect this distinguishing feature will be more likely to be preserved with mostly SFH infills. Probably lots of duplexes, too, and even higher density along the main corridors.

But maybe you're on the east side of 14th? Gonna go explore there now. I suspect there is a bit more happening there, but still nothing crazy.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ I don’t buy that for a second. I’m in Ward 11, and I could totally see this happening in my community, because the lots are larger and a developer could easily add multiple units on one lot here. There are some communities in the ward where that isn’t an issue, but others where it would be sooner.

For your sake I hope you live in Kelvin Grove. I never realized how nice it was. 3 new mansions going in there, all with the plans available on dmap.

And a 10+10 going in to 2 lots on a corner by Elbow Dr, across from the skatepark at Wisewood. (but this is all zone H-GO anyways)

A possible 6-plex on 5 St SW...but the permit has been pending now for 17 months "and will be released to the applicant when conditions of approval have been met." Which is evidence the DP process isn't a rubber stamp.

a 4-plex with garage parking for 4 at a corner lot 3 blocks south of that.

An addition (no additional unit) to a pretty modest SFH on a big corner lot . Seems strange the owner isn't being forced to knock it down and build an 8-plex there.

a 4+4 on an oversize corner lot at 5 St & 78th.

And two more similar projects on corner lots nearby...both pending conditions.

And a handful or more secondary suites, new SFH (even more than I expected), additions without new units, and denser projects in H-GO zones along Elbow and Heritage.

So let's hop over to Fairview. About 10 new backyard or secondary suites and a new SFH.

Same trend for Acadia. But also two duplexes (one with basement suites).

And same for Willow Park/Maple Ridge. A bunch of new SFHs and two duplexes.


So in total I think that's one 8-plex approved (on a massive corner lot), and three more 6/8-plexes possibly to come (all of which look like reasonable locations), but they have so far failed to get approval. That's for everything zoned RCG between Glenmore/Deerfoot/Anderson/14th. And a lot more new SFHs and fewer duplexes than I would have expected.

So I'll stand by what I said that Ward 11 is not significantly affected by the socalled '8-plex problem'. But about a hundred properties are taking advantage of backyard suites (probably more flippers adding additional value than existing homeowners, but no way to know for sure, even with computers)

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

...
So I'll stand by what I said that Ward 11 is not significantly affected by the socalled '8-plex problem'.

You said the ward will be significantly unaffected for decades.

Slava said he doesn't believe Ward 11 will be unaffected for decades.

Then you say look for yourself, you're not seeing it happening.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

You said the ward will be significantly unaffected for decades.

Slava said he doesn't believe Ward 11 will be unaffected for decades.

Then you say look for yourself, you're not seeing it happening.

And I stand by that. But what I really said was:

Wards 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
...
The vast majority of these wards will be unaffected for decades!

At the time I meant most of ward 1 (excl. Bowness, and probably Varsity sooner than later) and all of wards 12, 13, and 14. I won't pretend to know the situation in ward 10 - I would glibly say that new investment is probably welcome there, but there are a lot of considerations.

Which leaves ward 11. I figured the Elbow-Macleod areas were probably starting to densify (because of proximity to transit and also because they are the oldest homes), but it turns out its even less than I expected (at least in RCG). So yes I'd still expect that stretch to densify, but the rest of the ward looks to be even "safer" than I thought.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

No way do you believe a single family with a full lot depth 8 plex (actually 12 units in most) next door will sell for more than a single family with two standard single family either side.

I can tell you guys do love to put lot value dilapidated tear down bungalow in your mind for every example. That isn’t the reality. Perhaps the reality of the first 8 plex (actually 12 units in most) being built. Not the reality of what they’re being built next to.

The value of the land whatever dwelling is sitting on is higher because it can be converted into an 8-plex. When you remove that option you reduce the value of that land. You are ignoring the first step in the process here of increasing the land value by permitting the investment type and only looking at the deduction after the 8 plex is built.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by GGG

The value of the land whatever dwelling is sitting on is higher because it can be converted into an 8-plex. When you remove that option you reduce the value of that land. You are ignoring the first step in the process here of increasing the land value by permitting the investment type and only looking at the deduction after the 8 plex is built.

We’re having two different conversations it seems.