Calgary developer’s caught with pants down - Nenshi white knight or not?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The current zoning at that intersection is C-COR 2, with a height modifier for 28 metres, or about 91 feet tall. IE too tall to build with wood under the current building code, but not tall enough to make anything else economic at that location. If that intersection was zoned for a 20 story buildings there would be one under construction right now, imo.

I like the idea, but I wonder if there are height restrictions there due to proximity to flight paths to airport?

[Titan]

I can appreciate the sentiment behind Fotze's post but I think people tend to forget that the vast road network is not solely for the benefit of the downtown commuter. They benefit the entire economy and that is why they are paid for (primarily) out of Provincial coffers, they benefit the entire province. Can you imagine how Edmonton feels about the roadwork in South Calgary? Also, the hospital kefuffle was during Ralph's watch as Premier. Again, not a City issue, although it directly and immensely affects the city.

As to Nimbyism, I think we can all see it in action and criticize it but who would want a residential tower built across the street from their house, particularly when there were only single family homes there before? I know no one can protect their "area" but it would be quite an adjustment.

As to the c-train to Airdrie, High River and Cochrane idea, I have always wondered why we don't have a go-train type system like they do in Ontario. Make use of the existing tracks and take a massive number of people off the roads. Seems like a win/win to me but I think the City killed this idea because it would affect their own transit utilization.

It would be one thing if we could start over but the retro-active nature of the problem makes a complicated problem seem near impossible.

[onetwo_threefour]

^ I get what you're saying about nimbyism and don't disagree, my only point was that these old RC's add a whole extra level of risk and obstacle for developers that's not easy to manage and some of the communities people have been discussing here like Kensington, Bridgeland, Parkdale, Montgomery, Mount Royal, etc. have a lot of these old RC's out there.

Where you don't have these RC's it's a much more standardized and therefore predictable process that developers can risk-manage.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

^ I get what you're saying about nimbyism and don't disagree, my only point was that these old RC's add a whole extra level of risk and obstacle for developers that's not easy to manage and some of the communities people have been discussing here like Kensington, Bridgeland, Parkdale, Montgomery, Mount Royal, etc. have a lot of these old RC's out there.

Where you don't have these RC's it's a much more standardized and therefore predictable process that developers can risk-manage.

How could one find out more about these, as that's quite interesting. Would you have to go and pull the title for a given property to see where the covenant applies? Or were they applied in a blanket fashion to neighbourhoods when the land was sold?

Also, doesn't a covenant have to have someone on both sides? Could the community association give them up or does it have to be each neighbour within a certain area, or is it more of a "as long as nobody objects" sort of deal.

[MarchHare]

As to Nimbyism, I think we can all see it in action and criticize it but who would want a residential tower built across the street from their house, particularly when there were only single family homes there before? I know no one can protect their "area" but it would be quite an adjustment.

I'm not intending to be sarcastic or snarky, but can you explain why that would be a problem? Why would it require an adjustment if a high rise went up across the street from your home? It's not like your house is being demolished to make room for the high rise, right?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Build at very, very high density in the core, concentrate high density and mixed use in immediate adjacency to major transit, sensitively intensify general inner city communities, take advantage of growth opportunities (such as derelict strip malls in established suburbs), evolve the design and mix of new communities (to be more walkable and transit-friendly for instance) and (hopefully) allow secondary suites everywhere.

This is a great plan, but I haven't seen much progress towards it. How many ARPs have happened under this council/mayor? The only one I recall is North Kelvin Grove, which had exactly zero intensification. And then of course there are the large amounts of R1 zoning directly adjacent to CTrain stations, which is just ridiculous.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm not intending to be sarcastic or snarky, but can you explain why that would be a problem? Why would it require an adjustment if a high rise went up across the street from your home? It's not like your house is being demolished to make room for the high rise, right?

Have to give up nude sunbathing in the back yard.

In all seriousness, people don't like the lack of privacy in their outdoor space and the shadowing effect. The city usually steps zoning down to provide transition in the height of the built form. (IE low rise, then midrise, then high rise)

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm not intending to be sarcastic or snarky, but can you explain why that would be a problem? Why would it require an adjustment if a high rise went up across the street from your home? It's not like your house is being demolished to make room for the high rise, right?

I'll add a few more commonly cited. Traffic, Parking, Noise, Crime, possible obstructed views, and possibly lower property value due to the previously mentioned.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I'll add a few more commonly cited. Traffic, Parking, Noise, Crime, possible obstructed views, and possibly lower property value due to the previously mentioned.

Traffic is a valid complaint and one I hadn't considered since I don't drive.

I'm not sure that a high rise necessarily means more noise, though. Noise by-laws apply equally to people living in multi-unit dwellings, right? And it's not like living on a street with single-family housing guarantees peace and quiet, what with screaming children and loud dogs who bark all night being common complaints among my suburbanite friends.

I also don't follow how the existence of higher-density housing automatically leads to greater crime. Are there statistics that back that up?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

^ I get what you're saying about nimbyism and don't disagree, my only point was that these old RC's add a whole extra level of risk and obstacle for developers that's not easy to manage and some of the communities people have been discussing here like Kensington, Bridgeland, Parkdale, Montgomery, Mount Royal, etc. have a lot of these old RC's out there.

Where you don't have these RC's it's a much more standardized and therefore predictable process that developers can risk-manage.

We had a case last year, where the old RC prohibited more than one building on the lot. There was some concern as to whether a duplex was considered "one building". The matter was resolved. I wonder if in other situations, the defence of acquiescence can be raised (if a non-permitted use existed for a very long time). Will title insurers under-write such properties?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

^ I get what you're saying about nimbyism and don't disagree, my only point was that these old RC's add a whole extra level of risk and obstacle for developers that's not easy to manage and some of the communities people have been discussing here like Kensington, Bridgeland, Parkdale, Montgomery, Mount Royal, etc. have a lot of these old RC's out there.

Where you don't have these RC's it's a much more standardized and therefore predictable process that developers can risk-manage.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm not intending to be sarcastic or snarky, but can you explain why that would be a problem? Why would it require an adjustment if a high rise went up across the street from your home? It's not like your house is being demolished to make room for the high rise, right?

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Have to give up nude sunbathing in the back yard.

In all seriousness, people don't like the lack of privacy in their outdoor space and the shadowing effect. The city usually steps zoning down to provide transition in the height of the built form. (IE low rise, then midrise, then high rise)

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I'll add a few more commonly cited. Traffic, Parking, Noise, Crime, possible obstructed views, and possibly lower property value due to the previously mentioned.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Traffic is a valid complaint and one I hadn't considered since I don't drive.

I'm not sure that a high rise necessarily means more noise, though. Noise by-laws apply equally to people living in multi-unit dwellings, right? And it's not like living on a street with single-family housing guarantees peace and quiet, what with screaming children and loud dogs who bark all night being common complaints among my suburbanite friends.

I also don't follow how the existence of higher-density housing automatically leads to greater crime. Are there statistics that back that up?

Which is why it would be awesome to have those places built along major thoroughfares like Edmonton Trail/Centre Street/14th ST/etc.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm not intending to be sarcastic or snarky, but can you explain why that would be a problem? Why would it require an adjustment if a high rise went up across the street from your home?

I'll take a stab at this, some have already been mentioned:

increased traffic (both vehicle and pedestrian),

if it's on the east, west or south you would get shadowing for sure,

increased crime because now you have a 1000 people living across from you instead of ~4,

increased noise (even within bylaw limits) again, simply because of sheer numbers,

far less chance you will "know" your neighbours, so increased exposure to strangers (high importance to young families)

increased lineups at your corner store, gas station, etc.

It's not like your house is being demolished to make room for the high rise, right?

No, but it impacts the number one reason as to why you live there in the first place - because you "choose" to live in a single family home community.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by troutman

We had a case last year, where the old RC prohibited more than one building on the lot. There was some concern as to whether a duplex was considered "one building". The matter was resolved. I wonder if in other situations, the defence of acquiescence can be raised (if a non-permitted use existed for a very long time). Will title insurers under-write such properties?

Title insurance has been hit or miss for me depending on the nature of the RC and the vioation. Case-by-case, and sometimes it's lender only coverage. As far as I know, it doesn't help if your client wants to go sell their non compliant million dollar half-duplex.

Acquiescence is part of a set of arguments I make when I'm seeking to amend these to allow an existing use or porposed use, including the fact that the City's by-laws and development permit process are a more efficient management system than a hodge podge of old RC's, that denying redevelopment in some communities may actually hold down long-term values for all property owners and lead to areas becoming under-utilized or run-down. Ultimately though, the jurisprudence requires that you prove to the Court that it is actually beneficial for the community for these RC's to be removed, which is a really high hurdle, and seems pretty much impossible to meet without support (or at least disinterest after notification) of the other affected owners.

Acquiesence is helpful for an existing use, but doesn't help at all for a proposed use, and those are the ones that affect these development decisions. In some cases, I have seen developers simply willing to take the risk and redevelop in the the face of the RC, with the intention of going back and 'begging forgiveness' afterward by making an application to remove the RC after the fact on the groiunds that it might be easier since they have already jumped through all of the development hoops. To date, none of them have broght the application that I am aware of so I can't comment on the success of that, although it certainly seems risky to me.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This is a great plan, but I haven't seen much progress towards it. How many ARPs have happened under this council/mayor? The only one I recall is North Kelvin Grove, which had exactly zero intensification. And then of course there are the large amounts of R1 zoning directly adjacent to CTrain stations, which is just ridiculous.

Yes - there's a big need to go through over the next several years and update most, if not all ARPs. There's a major initiative right now called Transforming Planning - the intent of which is to completely reform the current system. This will include the regulatory framework, process, potentially City structure and aim to improve the culture and relationships in the planning system. Part of that is completely changing what an ARP is (simplified structure, but also looking more broadly at mobility and infrastructure requirements to support redevelopment). This is the key regulatory tool that enables redevelopment and we have very few that actually serve that purpose now. One thing Rollin's Civic Camp presentation highlights is how to go about planning for redevelopment - i.e. focus in on that 25 or 30% of a community that might change - the commercial main street, underutilized commercial sites and essentially leave alone the rest which is already stable or already infilling residential.

Transforming Planning
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/Pages/Tran...ormingplanning

This was something that the Mayor initiated - I did a lot of the leg work to set this project up, which strangely, hit the media a while back: http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald...f-47bec5649861

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

How could one find out more about these, as that's quite interesting. Would you have to go and pull the title for a given property to see where the covenant applies? Or were they applied in a blanket fashion to neighbourhoods when the land was sold?

Also, doesn't a covenant have to have someone on both sides? Could the community association give them up or does it have to be each neighbour within a certain area, or is it more of a "as long as nobody objects" sort of deal.

Pretty much, you pull a title, notice it has an old RC on it, pull the RC and see in the RC itself what lands it's registered against. Sometimes it's registered against only the specific lands you're dealing with and you cheer because you can get it off easily. Sometimes it's registered against 2, 3, or half a dozen. Or it might be registered against 20 or 50, or 600 (been there). That's part of the problem with them, they're all over the map and you never know until you look into it. Also, before 2002, a lawyer could pretty much walk into private chambers and have the thing discharged ppon request. So if it was regstered against 100 properties in 1910, it moght only be registered against 85 now, but you have to pull 100 titles at $10 a pop just to find out, so you're into it for $1000 minimum just to figure out the scope of who you might have to notify if you want to change it.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of them registered against dozens or hundreds of properties, and those are the toughest ones to justify trying to change.

As for your question about people on the other side. In theory there was, often CP Rail or the City was the original Vendor of the Lands and had the enforcement rights. However, most or all of these would qualify as what is known as a Building Scheme covenant to which the usual rules of restrictive covenants don't fully apply. With a building scheme covenant, all the properties subject to the RC are both dominant and servient tenements meaning that an affected property owner can sue any other affected property owner who violates the RC or even owns a property that is in violation. That's one of th reasons why you have to notify every affected property owner if you want to change it.

This stuff gets pretty technical and I've actually build a little bit of a side practice in dealing with these RC's, but even I'm still learning how to work around and within these things 10 years after the Potts v McCann decision.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Pretty much, you pull a title, notice it has an old RC on it, pull the RC and see in the RC itself what lands it's registered against. Sometimes it's registered against only the specific lands you're dealing with and you cheer because you can get it off easily. Sometimes it's registered against 2, 3, or half a dozen. Or it might be registered against 20 or 50, or 600 (been there). That's part of the problem with them, they're all over the map and you never know until you look into it. Also, before 2002, a lawyer could pretty much walk into private chambers and have the thing discharged ppon request. So if it was regstered against 100 properties in 1910, it moght only be registered against 85 now, but you have to pull 100 titles at $10 a pop just to find out, so you're into it for $1000 minimum just to figure out the scope of who you might have to notify if you want to change it.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of them registered against dozens or hundreds of properties, and those are the toughest ones to justify trying to change.

As for your question about people on the other side. In theory there was, often CP Rail or the City was the original Vendor of the Lands and had the enforcement rights. However, most or all of these would qualify as what is known as a Building Scheme covenant to which the usual rules of restrictive covenants don't fully apply. With a building scheme covenant, all the properties subject to the RC are both dominant and servient tenements meaning that an affected property owner can sue any other affected property owner who violates the RC or even owns a property that is in violation. That's one of th reasons why you have to notify every affected property owner if you want to change it.

This stuff gets pretty technical and I've actually build a little bit of a side practice in dealing with these RC's, but even I'm still learning how to work around and within these things 10 years after the Potts v McCann decision.

How long have you been waiting to pull the trigger on the obscure little area of the law that you are knowledgable in to be able to sound smart on a hockey message board? I am still waiting for someone to ask about the details of regulatory compliance of a Portfolio Manager and/or Investment Fund Manager. But boy, will I sound smart!!!

(This is not a jab just in case it is taken that way. More of a comment on the sometimes obscure lives lawyers lead.)

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I like the idea, but I wonder if there are height restrictions there due to proximity to flight paths to airport?

Nope, unless perhaps you were going to build a skyscraper there. I still think it is far enough off the protected areas of the runway to be fine though.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Titan

How long have you been waiting to pull the trigger on the obscure little area of the law that you are knowledgable in to be able to sound smart on a hockey message board? I am still waiting for someone to ask about the details of regulatory compliance of a Portfolio Manager and/or Investment Fund Manager. But boy, will I sound smart!!!

(This is not a jab just in case it is taken that way. More of a comment on the sometimes obscure lives lawyers lead.)

LOL, I do it on a semi-regular basis... I'm quite the real estate nerd, just ask troutman, we have the PM traffic to back it up!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

Careful what you wish for though! While its easy for "inner city" (which seems to be a moving line at the best of times) residents to say the suburbs should "pay their fair share" (whatever that means), the reality is that if you start this the city had better be prepared to offer better amenities to the suburbs.

I know that this won't be popular here, but I'm of the opinion that the suburbs don't have everything that the city should be providing; the transportation network is not up to par, transit is not great once you get away from the LRT and of course there are other amenities that the city provides such as public ice rinks, swimming pools, libraries, etc. If the city is going to take a position that people need to pay their fair share, thats fine. Once that deal is struck though, the city better have some spare change around to address all of these concerns in all of the areas of the city.

I also wanted to make a point that seems largely forgotten here. People simply don't want to raise families in multi-family dwellings. Can it be done? Of course. Some here are doing it and there is nothing wrong with that; its just that there are a lot of us who just don't want that.

On point one: I am fine with better amenities for the suburbs as long as they are paying for them. Why wouldn't I be? Of course, that would be a larger "fair share" than the "fair share" for the current service level.

On point two: it's is important to maintain the distinction between demand and quantity demanded. Quantity demanded is price dependant - i.e. influenced by supply and by taxes/subsidies. Demand is the curve of quantity demanded vs. price. Most people want to live closer to downtown, but end up living further than they'd like because we penalize them economically if they don't.

Just because you want something doesn't mean you should or shouldn't have it. I may want a Peace Bridge on every block, that doesn't mean the city should build them. The question is not what do people want, it's "what are we, as a society and as individuals, willing and able to pay for?" As a city, it makes no sense to pay for sprawl. But if you're willing to pay for it as an individual, by all means you can have it.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I'll take a stab at this, some have already been mentioned:

increased traffic (both vehicle and pedestrian),

An increase in vehicular traffic does not have to be a given if the development is properly designed to be transit-oriented or even car-free. However, there will be usually be at least a small increase. In regards to pedestrian traffic, this will increase but as sidewalks in Calgary are not known for their congestion it's not likely to be an issue. If anything, it can be a positive.

Originally Posted by First Lady

increased crime because now you have a 1000 people living across from you instead of ~4,

An increase in population and density does not lead to an increase in crime. As I alluded to above, an increase in pedestrians can be a positive change as it would lead to there being more people and eyes on the street. The increase in surveillance from more pedestrians and dwelling units facing the streets can act as a deterrent.

When people talk about an increase in density leading to an increase in crime they are often identify a correlation but not causality; there are other variables that are the influencing variable. In these situations, the concentration of low-income individuals is the variable upon which crime is dependant. This is why very dense cities like Hong Kong and Tokyo are among the safest in the World but why Council Estates and The Projects were havens for crime.

Originally Posted by First Lady

if it's on the east, west or south you would get shadowing for sure,

Shadowing can be an issue but loss of amenity is subjective with most homeowners. Technically, it shouldn't be a concern but not everyone is reasonable.

Originally Posted by First Lady

increased noise (even within bylaw limits) again, simply because of sheer numbers,

It will get a bit nosier but design can help mitigate its effect.

Originally Posted by First Lady

far less chance you will "know" your neighbours, so increased exposure to strangers (high importance to young families)

increased lineups at your corner store, gas station, etc.

I'm going to call bollocks on the bolded part. The concentration of young families is what leads to these communal bonds forming and as long as there is a local school and children's activities these families will eventually mingle and congregate. Once again, density can actually help facilitate this as an increase in people in an area will lead to increased opportunities for interaction to occur. You yourself noted one such situation, instead of zipping in and out of the local convenience store two mothers might recognize each other in line and engage in a conversation that results in a play date as their children happen to be in the same class.

Originally Posted by First Lady

No, but it impacts the number one reason as to why you live there in the first place - because you "choose" to live in a single family home community.

They also chose to become Calgarians and the fact is Calgary needs to increase its density. As such, all Calgarians will have to take their fair share. It's what functional communities do.