Calgary's Guildebook for New Communities

[Hack&Lube]

Not sure what to think about this, it sounds like there are some secret groups buying full page ads in the paper to protest this. Might just be nimbys or home developer companies doing this.

I do like having some guidelines to increase density but I am a latte sipper and not a yoplait gobber.

[Muta]

I worked on the Westbrook Design Committee LAP using this guidebook. It was tons of fun! I'm also very pro development and growth (similar to Hack&Lube I'm a latte sipper not a YOP gobbler), so there were definitely some disagreements with NIMBY'ers and people opposed to change. I may not agree with them, but I think that discussion brings good perspective.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Not sure what to think about this, it sounds like there are some secret groups buying full page ads in the paper to protest this. Might just be nimbys or home developer companies doing this.

I do like having some guidelines to increase density but I am a latte sipper and not a yoplait gobber.

I'm not opposed to increased density necessarily, but I do think this is being papered over. If the city wants to have a conversation about how we need more density because our current built form is unsustainable without the downtown office towers carrying the freight great, let's do it.

But adding density everywhere under the buzzwordy guise of diverse communities and I'm not surprised people are pushing back.

The biggest issue that has come up is ARPs, which don't really affect the homebuilders do they? If more existing single family homes get turned into multi family in the existing neighborhoods that should increase demand for single family at the edges, which benefits home builders. It would probably decrease demand for multi family at the edges though, which maybe hurts those builders?

[Cappy]

I have been following this one on twitter and the Sprawl had a profile looking into the people behind the full page ad in the newspaper:

https://www.sprawlcalgary.com/whos-b...ry-communities

Surprise, surprise one of the most vocal opponents is Elbow Park Community Association (of the "longest playground zone in Calgary" fame).

The twitter threads from journalist live tweeting the council meetings were pretty informative regarding whom and why people were opposing.

Generic NIMBYs were the biggest crowd - i like density but not in my neighborhood - as well as some opposition focused on the classic right-wing tropes: war on cars, bike lanes, loss of "community".

https://twitter.com/AdamMacVicar/sta...79795467079681

[Muta]

Generic NIMBYs were the biggest crowd - i like density but not in my neighborhood - as well as some opposition focused on the classic right-wing tropes: war on cars, bike lanes, loss of "community".

Sigh.

[Boreal]

They misquoted Brent Todarian and he went off on them.

It’s people like Farkas/Chu and their cohort who spin this toxic nonsense. Either they can’t or don’t want to understand what it requires to organize complexity in city planning.

They epitomize the quote “Evil is the same as stupidity if you judge it by it’s effects”.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1374013155311972356

https://twitter.com/user/status/1374538725397467141

https://twitter.com/user/status/1373328972285501442

[timun]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

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.

Most of Mount Royal south of Prospect Ave is R-C1. Between Prospect, Colborne Crescent and Royal Ave is a DC district, 1Z98. 1Z98 does indeed limit the development to single-family homes, on massive lots. Lot coverage is restricted to a relatively paltry 30-35% threshold, as opposed to the typical 45% for R-C1/R-C2, or even the 40% for R-C1L (Residential-Contextual Large Parcel 1).

Barely anyone has ever applied for a land-use redesignation in Mount Royal because there is another factor at play: restrictive covenants. The original deeds from when the CPR sold the land in the early 20th century limits the area to single-family homes. The community association vociferously opposes any applications for anything else; the only one I know of that actually made it through council was one smaller R-C1 parcel on 14th Street that was redesignated R-C1s.

Frankly there's enough money behind a legal fight over it that no developer has the balls to propose infills in Mount Royal.

[Torture]

I followed most of the hearing and am pro-guidebook. I live in Mount Pleasant and the Guidebook & North Hill Plan set the stage for a more vibrant Centre/4th street/Edmonton Trail with some reasonable density close to those main streets. It doesn't mean that every street is going to become apartment buildings. We need to stop sprawling, we need more diversity in housing types, we can't support the continued infrastructure costs of the suburbs (unless you want to pay more property taxes), the inner city is hollowing out (populations are actually lower than several decades ago in many inner city communities), and limiting sprawl will help to fight climate change.

Anybody that says they weren't consulted or engaged, frankly wasn't listening because the City's been working on this for 5+ years with hundreds of engagement sessions. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean there wasn't engagement.

A large portion of the opposition was from a single community (*cough* Elbow Park *cough*) or based on misinformation from groups like Common Sense Calgary, Save Calgary, Alberta Proud, etc. There was also a significant portion of the opposition that was very "othering", frowning on having renters or folks of a different socio-economic class next door.
I ended up registering to speak in support of the guidebook because of all the nonsense, here's Klaszus of The Sprawl quoting me

https://twitter.com/user/status/1374565934669594626

Anyways, I would rather have seen it approved last night, but at least it's not dead. Punting it to the next election is irresponsible so hopefully they can figure out some amendments that make everyone happy and get this thing passed, it's an important step to develop the city in a more sustainable fashion.

[Hack&Lube]

https://globalnews.ca/news/7718090/c...-farkas-flyer/

Well, at least his ward lines up with all the rich mansion NIMBYs so it's isn't obviously a case of developers pushing money into his pocket

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

https://globalnews.ca/news/7718090/c...-farkas-flyer/

Well, at least his ward lines up with all the rich mansion NIMBYs so it's isn't obviously a case of developers pushing money into his pocket

Some of the rich mansion Ward 11 NIMBYs are also double agents though as they lead development groups and also have financial interests in development city wide.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Torture

Anyways, I would rather have seen it approved last night, but at least it's not dead. Punting it to the next election is irresponsible so hopefully they can figure out some amendments that make everyone happy and get this thing passed, it's an important step to develop the city in a more sustainable fashion.

This is kind of a piss off. The same people who say we need to run the city like a business and cut read tape are now arguing this should go back for more consultation.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

I'm curious, than the Neighborhood Local urban form, the intensity policies sections don't really specify heights for the other Neighborhood forms. The best I can find is the scale modifiers graphic which would suggest that a 6 story development could butt up against a 2 story in the Neighborhood Local form.

Acknowledging that there are certain types who think a even a duplex is the Devil's work - isn't the tricky part of feathering these urban forms next to each other largely linked to height? Massing and shadowing help mitigate this, but height is the crux of many concerns.

I'm curious why they wouldn't have given more definitive guidance to address this boogeyman?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Muta

Sigh.

I wish we had a candidate that would declare a fight with cars.

It always blows my mind that in our civic politics loudest conservatives are generally the loudest against efficient use of tax dollars via the car discussion.

Car's require a massive taxpayer subsidiary from road maintenance emergency services and pollution in our air.

Not sure what policies would have the most benefit to all and least damage to those who could least afford it. This is the key problem to me.

My mind goes to a tax on registering for Cars within the City (if we could get the province to allow), but that is really just a flat tax, and unlikely to impact change. A flat tax hurts those at the bottom the most.

Tolls seem to hurt the people who can least afford it, and we built this City out in a way it seems unfair to simply revert to a system now the demands tolls for those comminuting into the inner City.

I guess the Green Line is the "win/win" idea but would be interested in a candidate with a laundry list of ideas.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Mull

I wish we had a candidate that would declare a fight with cars.

It always blows my mind that in our civic politics loudest conservatives are generally the loudest against efficient use of tax dollars via the car discussion.

Car's require a massive taxpayer subsidiary from road maintenance emergency services and pollution in our air.

Not sure what policies would have the most benefit to all and least damage to those who could least afford it. This is the key problem to me.

My mind goes to a tax on registering for Cars within the City (if we could get the province to allow), but that is really just a flat tax, and unlikely to impact change. A flat tax hurts those at the bottom the most.

Tolls seem to hurt the people who can least afford it, and we built this City out in a way it seems unfair to simply revert to a system now the demands tolls for those comminuting into the inner City.

I guess the Green Line is the "win/win" idea but would be interested in a candidate with a laundry list of ideas.

BuT cYcLiStS DoN't PaY tAxEs!1!1!

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

BuT cYcLiStS DoN't PaY tAxEs!1!1!

I know you're joking, but has anyone actually said this? Is this a real talking point by opponents to bike infrastructure?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Mull

I know you're joking, but has anyone actually said this? Is this a real talking point by opponents to bike infrastructure?

I've heard it so many times over the years. That, and we need insurance, and we need to have registration and plates.


https://torontoist.com/2016/08/myth-...ir-fair-share/

[Bill Bumface]

Don't forget licenses!

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Mull

I know you're joking, but has anyone actually said this? Is this a real talking point by opponents to bike infrastructure?

Oh yes, it comes up more often than you'd want to believe.

[Cappy]

I wonder what percentage of roads are built/maintained using the gas tax plus various drivers fees: 10%?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I wonder what percentage of roads are built/maintained using the gas tax plus various drivers fees: 10%?

If you just simply took combined provincial and Federal excise taxes plus licenses and compared it with spending on roads, it's close to 100%.



Total revenue is about $2.46B in 2019.

Government of Alberta maintenance and capital spending on bridges and roads appears to average about $1.3B/year.



The City of Calgary's net operating budget for streets is about $140M-$150M/year.



Calgary's capital sending for streets for the next several years averages to about $175.2M/year.



If we scale Calgary's spending per capita to the rest of the province, we end up with total spending of around $2.4-2.5B.

People tend to over-estimate the costs of roads, which given how much people and goods they carry are remarkably cheap (for the taxpayer).

If you're looking for a subsidized mode of transport, then that would be transit, especially in recent years as most of North America have lost the ability to build rail affordably.