MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

There's probably some projects that don't even get considered because developers realize they don't have a chance of getting zoning.

I know I for one am finally going to be able to build a townhouse community/drug rehab facility on Elbow Drive backing on to the Calgary Golf & Country club, which I previously wouldn't have considered possible.

100% in favour because NIMBY.

But seriously, that's actually part of what makes me curious. It sounds good to say that we can build anything everything anywhere (basically), but I can't see how some places make affordable housing more prevalent.

[bizaro86]

So, my last comment was pretty glib. There are going to be changes, and some of those changes suck.

As an example: when they bulk-legalized suites the house next door to me sold and the new neighbour put one in. They've had the same tenant ever since. And every night from 10PM-11PM he stands directly under my bedroom window having a loud phone conversation while he smokes. He does this every season, and he owns 3 vehicles, all of which he parks on the street. This has been a non-zero inconvenience for me.

But that probably lets the people next to me afford their place, and gives him somewhere to live. Would I prefer it if the elderly couple who moved out had sold their place to another young family with kids the same ages as my kids? Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately less and less young families can afford to buy a detached single family house.

Edited to add: And this isn't really that big a change. The lot next door to me is about 40 feet by 110 feet. Under current R-C1 zoning they can have 2 units (house and secondary suite). My understanding of the change is that everything switches to R-CG zoning. Under that zoning (with 75 units/ha max density) they could have 3 units (and just barely, any lot even slightly smaller would only be 2). With setbacks, minimum amenity areas, etc I think it would still be extremely difficult to build a 3plex on that lot.

Maybe the impact is bigger on larger/older 50x120 foot lots (which fit a 4plex under the new rules) but to me this doesn't seem like that big a deal.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

So, my last comment was pretty glib. There are going to be changes, and some of those changes suck.

As an example: when they bulk-legalized suites the house next door to me sold and the new neighbour put one in. They've had the same tenant ever since. And every night from 10PM-11PM he stands directly under my bedroom window having a loud phone conversation while he smokes. He does this every season, and he owns 3 vehicles, all of which he parks on the street. This has been a non-zero inconvenience for me.

But that probably lets the people next to me afford their place, and gives him somewhere to live. Would I prefer it if the elderly couple who moved out had sold their place to another young family with kids the same ages as my kids? Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately less and less young families can afford to buy a detached single family house.

Edited to add: And this isn't really that big a change. The lot next door to me is about 40 feet by 110 feet. Under current R-C1 zoning they can have 2 units (house and secondary suite). My understanding of the change is that everything switches to R-CG zoning. Under that zoning (with 75 units/ha max density) they could have 3 units (and just barely, any lot even slightly smaller would only be 2). With setbacks, minimum amenity areas, etc I think it would still be extremely difficult to build a 3plex on that lot.

Maybe the impact is bigger on larger/older 50x120 foot lots (which fit a 4plex under the new rules) but to me this doesn't seem like that big a deal.

40 foot lots in R-CG are tight for multiple units but not impossible but you end up with 15' wide interiors after 4' side yards and exterior wall construction.

It will remain almagamation of adjacent lots where developers will still focus their attention so they can put two 40' lots together and get 4 x 17' wide interiors across the lots. Or over 120' you get 6 x 17.5' wide (interior).

Then double that for the back units.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

40 foot lots in R-CG are tight for multiple units but not impossible but you end up with 15' wide interiors after 4' side yards and exterior wall construction.

It will remain almagamation of adjacent lots where developers will still focus their attention so they can put two 40' lots together and get 4 x 17' wide interiors across the lots. Or over 120' you get 6 x 17.5' wide (interior).

Then double that for the back units.

Definitely - that 3 plex was more theoretical than anything (all I did was max density * area, and did mention that with setbacks it would be tough to actually build that.

In practical terms I agree it's more likely that someone would try and buy 2 parcels and put up 6 units.

[getbak]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1703222792525660462

https://twitter.com/user/status/1703223099699720581

[pgsieve]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

There's probably some projects that don't even get considered because developers realize they don't have a chance of getting zoning.

I know I for one am finally going to be able to build a townhouse community/drug rehab facility on Elbow Drive backing on to the Calgary Golf & Country club, which I previously wouldn't have considered possible.

Here is your spot! Over under this is bought by PBA within the week?

https://diane-richardson.com/elbow-p...-2k7.100142459

[Torture]

Woohoooo!!! Passed!

[getbak]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1703237450813071581

[Bill Bumface]

Elbow Park right now:

Spoiler!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by pgsieve

Here is your spot! Over under this is bought by PBA within the week?

https://diane-richardson.com/elbow-p...-2k7.100142459

This is a great example of an area that should be all row houses. There is no reason for SFHs to exist that close to downtown.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by getbak

https://twitter.com/user/status/1703237450813071581

It annoys me that their plan involves helping people with "first/last month rent" obligations. It is illegal in Alberta to collect last month's rent. That's an Ontario thing. In Alberta you can only collect security deposits in advance.

Maybe they'll pay people's hydro bill also?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is a great example of an area that should be all row houses. There is no reason for SFHs to exist that close to downtown.

Comments like that make me wonder if this more about spite or envy as opposed to affordable housing or helping students and recent immigrants. If that was a new block of townhouses, for example, what would they sell for? $1m each?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Elbow Park right now:

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is a great example of an area that should be all row houses. There is no reason for SFHs to exist that close to downtown.

I think it's a matter of demand, Calgary's multi-million dollar market isn't that hot so residents who can afford them still have detached SF mansion options in choice neighborhoods.

[Vedder]

It’s not even THAT close to downtown, draw that radius in every direction and you’d be wiping out a lot of single family homes lol

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is a great example of an area that should be all row houses. There is no reason for SFHs to exist that close to downtown.

So expropriate the land, evict the homeowners, and bulldoze them all?

[topfiverecords]

Elbow Park has nothing to worry about. At least not until areas like Wildwood, Rosscarrock, Windsor Park, Banff Trail, Highland Park etc. run out of spots to redevelop. The land cost in Elbow Park and other similar areas that are at the highest rung won’t be development targets.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So expropriate the land, evict the homeowners, and bulldoze them all?

The second step feels like a big time waster. We need these houses now! If the squatters don’t leave when they hear the bulldozers coming they’ll have only themselves to blame. Not only would it help create less demand by thinning the buyer’s pool, but haunted row houses will go for a discount that will help with affordability. Win-win.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So expropriate the land, evict the homeowners, and bulldoze them all?

No, but actually let people build this stuff. Have you ever seen what people get dragged through in the permitting process in any of these communities where you have a bunch of wealthy retired lawyers? You're against an army with unlimited expertise, funds and time trying to stop you from doing what you are supposed to be legally allowed to do with your land.

And they are insanely successful at it.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

No, but actually let people build this stuff. Have you ever seen what people get dragged through in the permitting process in any of these communities where you have a bunch of wealthy retired lawyers? You're against an army with unlimited expertise, funds and time trying to stop you from doing what you are supposed to be legally allowed to do with your land.

And they are insanely successful at it.

But GGG thinks there shouldn’t be any detached SFH in the near inner city. The only way to achieve that would be by mandate, not the market.

Look at Altadore. It’s far denser than it was in early 90s when I rented by first apartment there. All sorts of condos, walkups, and infills have been built. I’d guess more than a 30 per cent population increase. And yet you still see old original detached homes in the area, many of them evidently owned by people who aren’t wealthy. Why haven’t they sold? Who knows. But unless we start kicking people out of their homes to densify by mandate, densification will happen incrementally and be measured in progress over decades.