MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Wormius]

It’s really why nothing, except adding new lanes to highways, can get done here. You always have a few parties that can kibosh anything. The people who are indifferent to or support projects just don’t come out to the extent that malcontents will.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by edslunch

There's an easy answer for this. Developer should propose projects that fit the current zoning requirements. Step one of project approval...does it meet current zoning (pass/fail). The Marda Loop bloc is zoned for 6 story building. Build out the whole block at 6 stories and make some good $. But no... need 19. A corner lot on my block is zoned for 8 units, but no, the developer wanted 10. So we go through the pantomime of community engagement and protests at council but it still goes through.

And of course, there's also an easy answer to that.
Raise the de jure zoning level to match the de facto zoning level, so that the de jure zoning is actually the right level for enforcement.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

And of course, there's also an easy answer to that.
Raise the de jure zoning level to match the de facto zoning level, so that the de jure zoning is actually the right level for enforcement.

I’m good with that. Uniform standards set periodically by elected officials accountable to the public. If we end up with uniform blocks like in Europe, instead of the patchwork of Fugly bespoke projects that would be OK. As long as they’re western European blocks and not Soviet blocks :-)

[edslunch]

The accountability bit being the one fly in the plan…

[Locke]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I’m good with that. Uniform standards set periodically by elected officials accountable to the public. If we end up with uniform blocks like in Europe, instead of the patchwork of Fugly bespoke projects that would be OK. As long as they’re western European blocks and not Soviet blocks :-)

Silence you! There ain't no Blocks like Soviet Blocks because Soviet Blocks are ABSOLUTELY STANDARD!!!

Frankly they're all kind of bad. Have you seen some of those Public housing blocks in England? They're pretty brutal looking, but the point is they exist and they're cheap like Borscht!

We could employ the Amish and they'd build us a town between Calgary and Airdrie over the weekend.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Every time there's development proposed, people from that community oppose it. They all claim it is for a very good reason and that they're not opposed to density, as long as it happens somewhere else.

True, every project will be opposed by some in the community. But it doesn’t follow that there’s never any legitimate community concerns about a project.

People who were against this project without knowing any of the details are idiots. People who were for the project without knowing the details aren’t necessarily any more insightful or rational.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well it’s lived experience. I drive past this a couple times a day, every day. Look at the map and it’s just plainly evident. Of course the developer stands to make a huge profit selling condos here, so they think it’s fine. The city trots out some study saying traffic was worse in 2014, so apparently that’s fine. It just ignores that in 2014 there was one less turning lane and the traffic was a complete fataing nightmare there, but sure…let’s go back to that?

The truth is, you can be in favour of density, affordable housing and even bike lanes without being in favour of every single project. Some of these proposals are just bad ideas.

That’s the NIMBY argument though. Everyone person opposing anything has a lived experience that they believe is valid. Essentially you are denying the real data because it disagrees with your position.

Traffic will get back to the 2014 level, that’s just what traffic does. As other routes clog the 14th route will become desirable. You can win in traffic’s unless you reduce the average trip length.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s about as relevant as him repeatedly mentioning that people in favour of it don’t even live there. Pretty easy conversation to follow.

That’s the reality of the situation. People nearby are opposed and people who have no impact and face no consequences are in favour. It’s not exactly surprising.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

That’s the NIMBY argument though. Everyone person opposing anything has a lived experience that they believe is valid. Essentially you are denying the real data because it disagrees with your position.

Traffic will get back to the 2014 level, that’s just what traffic does. As other routes clog the 14th route will become desirable. You can win in traffic’s unless you reduce the average trip length.

Ok, show me how that traffic issue is fixed. Show me how adding 3000 people to that corner is a good thing and I’ll change my opinion.

The NIMBY argument is just lazy. There’s literally another tower development that’s in progress equidistant to me and I have zero issue with it. It’s not the density, it’s the location and logistics.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Slava

Ok, show me how that traffic issue is fixed. Show me how adding 3000 people to that corner is a good thing and I’ll change my opinion.

The NIMBY argument is just lazy. There’s literally another tower development that’s in progress equidistant to me and I have zero issue with it. It’s not the density, it’s the location and logistics.

And dont forget the shadows! Damn them shadows!

I think people should take a little drive through that neighbourhood.

My office is in Ogden and they're doing all kinds of work around there and its a nightmare.

I dont live there so I dont have much skin in the game, but again, drive around. Ogden Road is 1 lane in either direction. You're already asking a lot, now you want to plow more traffic through it?

The logistics just dont support that but they're gonna do it anyways.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Slava

Show me how adding 3000 people to that corner is a good thing and I’ll change my opinion.

Ban them from holding driving licenses and give them free bus passes for life.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

That’s the reality of the situation. People nearby are opposed and people who have no impact and face no consequences are in favour. It’s not exactly surprising.

So you think it’s relevant?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Ban them from holding driving licenses and give them free bus passes for life.

Something like that would work itself out anyway. Nobody is buying or renting a place that doesn’t have a parking spot if they need to drive regularly. We lived downtown for a time and there was really no point in having a car.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Ok, show me how that traffic issue is fixed. Show me how adding 3000 people to that corner is a good thing and I’ll change my opinion.

The NIMBY argument is just lazy. There’s literally another tower development that’s in progress equidistant to me and I have zero issue with it. It’s not the density, it’s the location and logistics.

You read the city and developer analysis and found it lacking. Essentially my issue is you are using your lay preception and belief on what will happen when opposing a development. That is NIMBYism. You may be right you may be wrong but without evidence to back your position it’s a NIMBY arguement.

As an aside I would have bought one of those places and gladly dealt with the traffic issues as I moved into retirement. You have Hospital near you, grocery store and park land. Would have been fantastic space for people to live in as opposed to the people who leave every day causing the traffic issue.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Slava

Ok, show me how that traffic issue is fixed. Show me how adding 3000 people to that corner is a good thing and I’ll change my opinion.

The NIMBY argument is just lazy. There’s literally another tower development that’s in progress equidistant to me and I have zero issue with it. It’s not the density, it’s the location and logistics.

I dont see everyone lining up for my 'Flood Sunnyside' proposal.

Bunch of damned NIMBYs....

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Something like that would work itself out anyway. Nobody is buying or renting a place that doesn’t have a parking spot if they need to drive regularly. We lived downtown for a time and there was really no point in having a car.

There were parking spots here though. I would suggest that no one is spending money on a condo overlooking Glenmore Reservoir who’s not going to have a car.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

You read the city and developer analysis and found it lacking. Essentially my issue is you are using your lay preception and belief on what will happen when opposing a development. That is NIMBYism. You may be right you may be wrong but without evidence to back your position it’s a NIMBY arguement.

You know what the real NIMBY position is? Being in favour of this kind of development because it’s in someone else backyard, and their problem.

Anyway, I’ve made my position clear. I don’t think there’s anything to debate here, because council didn’t proceed. I thought for sure they would and I’m as surprised as anyone that this thing is not happening.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont see everyone lining up for my 'Flood Sunnyside' proposal.

Bunch of damned NIMBYs....

Well ya of course we're opposed. We don't want to become Venice. Too many tourists.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Well ya of course we're opposed. We don't want to become Venice. Too many tourists.

We're not talking Venice...we're talking Atlantis.

Wetsuits and airtanks. The whole nine yards.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Locke

We're not talking Venice...we're talking Atlantis.

Wetsuits and airtanks. The whole nine yards.

It would be easier for you to build your new underwater neighbourhood at the bottom of Lake Bonavista.