MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[kevman]

This whole thing is silly. The city wide rezoning just attempted to make things simpler and easier to understand while allowing for an modest increase in density where the market dictated it. Seemed like a win-win.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by kevman

This whole thing is silly. The city wide rezoning just attempted to make things simpler and easier to understand while allowing for an modest increase in density where the market dictated it. Seemed like a win-win.

This is always a weird issue. I think people just want less to no growth, but its disguised in the regulatory regime. It's not even a clear line politically with the left and right tribalism that most things seem to be.

A lot of the right people all of a sudden are in favor of government inefficiency and roadblocks but conversely the more left leaning folks all of a sudden want unfettered capitalism that greasy developers and politicians profit from. But it seems to not be a clear line from I see from people between the two types.

I find it to be a weird issue for me.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by fotze2

This is always a weird issue. I think people just want less to no growth, but its disguised in the regulatory regime. It's not even a clear line politically with the left and right tribalism that most things seem to be.

A lot of the right people all of a sudden are in favor of government inefficiency and roadblocks but conversely the more left leaning folks all of a sudden want unfettered capitalism that greasy developers and politicians profit from. But it seems to not be a clear line from I see from people between the two types.

I find it to be a weird issue for me.

No...we want a workable solution to a housing crisis and see blanket rezoning as one avenue to help with that. If developers are making money, fine, they should, they are doing the work, but that's not the reasoning behind why I, a left leaning folk, want to see rezoning remain.

[Weitz]

I’m not sure it’s related to city wide rezoning but whatever is happening south of 17th ave between 85th street and 69th street is pretty weird. A ton of multi unit development that won’t have enough parking and there’s basically zero transit. The new roads are already filled with parked cars all the time. Just such a weird development.

[Slava]

It might not be the reason, and I understand that, but that’s who really benefits financially from rezoning.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

No...we want a workable solution to a housing crisis and see blanket rezoning as one avenue to help with that. If developers are making money, fine, they should, they are doing the work, but that's not the reasoning behind why I, a left leaning folk, want to see rezoning remain.

My virtue dwarfs yours.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I’m not sure it’s related to city wide rezoning but whatever is happening south of 17th ave between 85th street and 69th street is pretty weird. A ton of multi unit development that won’t have enough parking and there’s basically zero transit. The new roads are already filled with parked cars all the time. Just such a weird development.

Except the LRT line and the 3 bus lines running down 17th to said LRT line, which will also extend to this area eventually?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I do not think that rings true (that this is about telling others what they can and cannot do). Even the progressives that were running in the election spoke to needing a more refined plan than what the previous council rolled out. Having a more refined zoning plan could still consolidate many of the different zoning types but apply them in a less impactful way from community to community.

I know we’ve been over this before and you ignored it then, but what kind of zoning consolidations, specifically?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

I know we’ve been over this before and you ignored it then, but what kind of zoning consolidations, specifically?

They did a lot of consolidations, most of them do not matter to home owners. There was a table that showed it all and I doubt very many people cared about 90% of the zoning changes and consolidations in that document.

At a high level, they could have kept some of the "R"s separate and planned more gradual steps to each:
RC1, SFH => lot splits and skinny SFH with suites
RC2, Infills & connected homes => row housing, etc.

If they had taken a more gradual step with each zoning instead of implementing the sweeping change to RCG, it would have been harder for people to feel picked on, unheard, or for them to push back. The RCG change was minor or nothing to some communities and a massive change to others, which feels unfair to people who bought into those communities and planned their lives around it to have to have a massive change done to them while other communities are unimpacted.

Then, if those "unfair" feelings go away then the rezoning issue would not have been significant enough to sway an election and we wouldn't be talking about repealing the zoning changes.

Or we could ignore the perspective of the other side and call them names. That's fun too. Unfortunately that path is also resulting in a policy (with a good objective) being repealed because of poor execution.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wolven

They did a lot of consolidations, most of them do not matter to home owners. There was a table that showed it all and I doubt very many people cared about 90% of the zoning changes and consolidations in that document.

At a high level, they could have kept some of the "R"s separate and planned more gradual steps to each:
RC1, SFH => lot splits and skinny SFH with suites
RC2, Infills & connected homes => row housing, etc.

If they had taken a more gradual step with each zoning instead of implementing the sweeping change to RCG, it would have been harder for people to feel picked on, unheard, or for them to push back. The RCG change was minor or nothing to some communities and a massive change to others, which feels unfair to people who bought into those communities and planned their lives around it to have to have a massive change done to them while other communities are unimpacted.

Then, if those "unfair" feelings go away then the rezoning issue would not have been significant enough to sway an election and we wouldn't be talking about repealing the zoning changes.

Or we could ignore the perspective of the other side and call them names. That's fun too. Unfortunately that path is also resulting in a policy (with a good objective) being repealed because of poor execution.

It's funny that treating all low-density residential the same is "unfair", but picking socalled winners and losers would be more "fair".

It is the unimpacted communities that are raising the biggest fuss here. That's unfair to the rest of us who want a sustainable city.

Originally Posted by Roughneck

I know we’ve been over this before and you ignored it then, but what kind of zoning consolidations, specifically?

My productive solution is the RCG should become max 4 dwelling units (2x2 or 4x1, whatever), with modifiers based on frontag. Set it so corner frontage would bump to 6 or 8, and 8-10 for an oversized lot. Use frontage minus side setbacks so that assembling adjacent lots results in bonus density, too.


But what they really need to take a look it is the land-use vs. development permit process. Council (and neighbours) have too much influence on land-use, and not enough on DP. A lot of the frustration here is misplaced from that process onto rezoning.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

It's funny that treating all low-density residential the same is "unfair", but picking socalled winners and losers would be more "fair".

It is the unimpacted communities that are raising the biggest fuss here. That's unfair to the rest of us who want a sustainable city.

Ignoring the differences or the recent-to-long-term history of communities does not appear to be a winning strategy. It really speaks to a failure in change management and/or a lack of consideration to the differing impact to users.

13-2 vote would suggest that all but 2 of the ridings are sending this message to the last council and the city.

You should really take note that I am not arguing against the objective. To put it into business culture lingo: The "What" is good, it is the "How" that is a failure.

[Bill Bumface]

I was hoping we'd back away from the blanket rezoning to 2 story row houses anywhere and everyone would feel like they won (although in a very expensive fashion). In my opinion, that may have actually been better anyway.

1. You have everyone maxing lot coverage, and we now have 3 story townhouses all over, which are less affordable than 2 story townhouses and thus do less to solve the "missing middle"

2. If we covered the entire city in 2 story townhouses, we still have a massive amount of supply that can come online.

3. Personally, I find neighbourhoods like Garrison Woods that have this form factor all over quite pleasant to stroll around. More of that please.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Ignoring the differences or the recent-to-long-term history of communities does not appear to be a winning strategy. It really speaks to a failure in change management and/or a lack of consideration to the differing impact to users.

What does any of this really mean? IMO this is all very broad stroke generalities that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

Have we been wrong to 'ignore' the history of Killarney or Mount Pleasant or Sunalta or Victoria Park or Ramsay or Erlton?

Is there still a distinction that makes 36 St/ 23 Ave SW (formerly R2) more suitable for higher density than 38 St/23 Ave SW (formerly R-1)? How about 39 West Cedar Rise (R-2) vs 43 West Cedar Rise (R-1)? When they were built circa 2002 there was a difference...for how long do we need to continue to respect that distinction? Exactly what community history do we need to respect and why?

Was a bungalow resident in Montgomery impacted differently than a bungalow resident in Glamorgan will be? Are there inherent characteristics to Bridgeland and its residents that make change more appropriate for them than Haysboro? Are we a different species depending on how long we've lived in a particular neighbourhood?


If there is heritage value to the 80s suburban design of Oakridge (and honestly there might be), we could implement heritage guidelines to ensure new developments retain that character. Just like we've done in Sunnyside and Hillhurst and many other streets built before the post-war boom of more generic bungalows. Thankfully we've got lots of time before we have to worry about losing any of what makes Lake Bonavista so darn 'special'.

[Fuzz]

Maybe we just need to target big open areas with no homes. Thank of how many could fit if you filled in Lake Bonavista, for instance.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I was hoping we'd back away from the blanket rezoning to 2 story row houses anywhere and everyone would feel like they won (although in a very expensive fashion). In my opinion, that may have actually been better anyway.

1. You have everyone maxing lot coverage, and we now have 3 story townhouses all over, which are less affordable than 2 story townhouses and thus do less to solve the "missing middle"

2. If we covered the entire city in 2 story townhouses, we still have a massive amount of supply that can come online.

3. Personally, I find neighbourhoods like Garrison Woods that have this form factor all over quite pleasant to stroll around. More of that please.

I quite like this take. I'm not sure most of Garrison Woods is actually much (if any) shorter than what we see elsewhere. A lot of Garrison is 2.5 or even 3 storeys above grade - and the front setbacks actually look shorter.

But there's a number of things that make it work well there (and I'm not much of an aesthetic/architecure guy so happy to be corrected on any of these points), compared to a shorter+boxier example that is set further back:

- consistency (the whole street being a similar height)
- tall trees (particularly stark in my bad example above)
- boulevard design with said tall trees
- front patios and/or front steps
- peaked roofs, and the third levels are often less imposing
- materials

Hell, this block has big multi-unit 4-storey designs that work pretty well

Modern designs can also work okay, though you really see how much they are helped by height consistency with neighbours; go back to 2020 streetview and it looks much worse. Go back to 2015 and the uphill neighbour looks tall and imposing. I certainly far prefer the newest white houses adjacent to this boxy monstrosity, but one could argue that the other uglier infills paved the way for them. I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping by this post (I probably would too), but this street is a perfect example of how these streets evolve ; despite some interim ugliness the end result is pretty good. Even though a few of them are still butt ugly (ooph, turn around to the other side of the street - except the funny thing there is it's just an ugly renovation as opposed to a new build).


So there is probably a lot more opportunity to be more stringent on aesthetics and design standards when hitting maximum heights, but like anything that is easier said than done.


Lastly, I don't have much of a point here, but this was open on my screen from my previous post and shows that newer developments can look like ####, too (2002 in this case...maybe it's just that a driveway for nothing but a dumpster looks like #### and makes the ####ty house next to it look even ####tier)

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

What does any of this really mean?

A smaller step change for each community from where they were 5 years ago instead of a sweeping policy change across the city.

Something more refined and granular would be harder to rally so much of the city against and likely would not have become a primary election topic.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Maybe we just need to target big open areas with no homes. Thank of how many could fit if you filled in Lake Bonavista, for instance.

I would still point to places like Westbrook as a huge problem for the "shut up and accept the blanket rezoning" position. That field has been empty forever and it is a reminder that while people are being told that they have to adjust their thinking about their homes and communities to meet the new density requirements, this gigantic field has been left empty on top of a C-Train station because... ??!?

I know the details as to what happened there, and that is not the point. The point is that it is too obvious to see that empty lot on your daily commute but then have someone tell you that it is a "dire emergency" that requires a big change to your community that you do not support.

Politically speaking, that empty field and other big empty lots like it, hurts the blanket rezoning argument.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Lastly, I don't have much of a point here, but this was open on my screen from my previous post and shows that newer developments can look like ####, too (2002 in this case...maybe it's just that a driveway for nothing but a dumpster looks like #### and makes the ####ty house next to it look even ####tier)

Its probably a pad for guest parking? Since there are so many single driveways going down that block there is nowhere on the street for a guest to park with 8 houses connected in a row.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Wolven

They did a lot of consolidations, most of them do not matter to home owners. There was a table that showed it all and I doubt very many people cared about 90% of the zoning changes and consolidations in that document.

At a high level, they could have kept some of the "R"s separate and planned more gradual steps to each:
RC1, SFH => lot splits and skinny SFH with suites
RC2, Infills & connected homes => row housing, etc.

They already had gradual steps. And they definitely matter to home owners given by how much council time has been wasted on the changes over the years when somebody proposed a change to one.

So if you're set on R-C1. Then for a gradual change there is R-C1(s) which allows for suites. Then there's R-C1N for lot splits. And R-C1N(s) for a lot split with a secondary suite. And because R-C1 doesn't have the freedom of R1, you need R-C1L to have some rules about houses on a larger land parcel (and of course you'd need R-C1L(s) for that secondary suite, etc.

So what is it that you're actually proposing when you say 'gradual steps'? Gradual steps to what? Your neighborhood likely has a lot of those zoning types. Does everything get bumped up a bit? All R-C1 switches to R-C1(s) which switches to R-C1N(s) -> R-C2 -> R-CG -> M-1 and so forth? If I bought an R-C1 home, planned my life around it even, what are you proposing that becomes? Because I didn't buy R-C1 with the idea of lot splits or suites; if I wanted that I would have bought into an R-C1N(s) neighborhood.

'The consolidations do not matter' and 'just make gradual changes' are inherently incompatible positions, as the consolidations are a result of so many gradual steps being added over the years.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

- peaked roofs

This is a really good point. People freaked out about the mid-block 6+6 townhouse on my block, and I do admit it looks like a monster. When you look at the 1910 1.5 story beside it however, the peak roof heights are the same. Peaked roofs with dormers in the shingled section would fit in wayyyy better and still give most of the space.

+1 for the boulevards and trees as well.

I'm actually a fan of the lower front setbacks. The street feels cosier, and backyard space is way more usable anyway.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wolven

A smaller step change for each community from where they were 5 years ago instead of a sweeping policy change across the city.

Something more refined and granular would be harder to rally so much of the city against and likely would not have become a primary election topic.



I would still point to places like Westbrook as a huge problem for the "shut up and accept the blanket rezoning" position. That field has been empty forever and it is a reminder that while people are being told that they have to adjust their thinking about their homes and communities to meet the new density requirements, this gigantic field has been left empty on top of a C-Train station because... ??!?

I know the details as to what happened there, and that is not the point. The point is that it is too obvious to see that empty lot on your daily commute but then have someone tell you that it is a "dire emergency" that requires a big change to your community that you do not support.

Politically speaking, that empty field and other big empty lots like it, hurts the blanket rezoning argument.

There are massive procedural challenges with trying to go granular, and it is super slow. We are still doing granular either way through LAPs/etc, but it is much less productive without being backed up by blanket rezoning. LAPs are incredibly slow, detailed, and resource intensive - which is actually a good thing, but makes it a terrible method for redrawing land-use maps. And it would actually serve to remove a guardrail for moderate density developments. And also you'd have to totally change the LAP process and redo all of the ones we've already done because they don't technically speak the same language as the land-use bylaw (e.g. LAPs deal in storeys, land-use deals in meters)

You can do sweeping incremental changes like R1->R2 and R2->R4 and all the piecemeal stuff consolidates into whatever, but that wouldn't meaningfully improve any process. Most developments bigger than a duplex would still need to apply for further land-use amendments, because these changes wouldn't align with LAPs which outline nodes and corridors for higher density.

The only sensible path here is to scale back RCG definitions.

This house with the teal siding (and all of its neighbours) will revert from H-GO to R1. ####ing lunacy.


As for Westbrook, you're just advocating for the Vancouver and Toronto strategy. Towers and SFHs served by giant highways. No thanks. Westbrook and other TODs will come in time, but we can only build so many towers. There is clear and obvious demand for grade oriented infill.