MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Then what were they applying to convert?

From what I saw, mostly perimeter lots on busy roads.

Even with main streets opening up the development options, developers would immediately come in and ask for more than the new zoning would allow.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Slava

Just trying to make sense of what you mean here. Are you saying that people shouldn't have campaigned on getting rid of blanket-rezoning and that we can't go back to the way things were?

Not if they also campaigned on lowering taxes.

Originally Posted by Wolven

Absolutely. The last election should not have been a "rezoning" election. So, why was it a rezoning election?

I think that two factors were a big portion of the "why":
1) Had the last council rolled in a more gradual zoning change and worked to get more buy-in from voters then more of them would have been re-elected.
2) Perhaps more importantly, they needed to get more positive results from recent programs (like Main Streets) to demonstrate how these strategies would benefit people and build up a record of success (and trust)

Instead, main streets was a bit of a flop that failed achieve it's goals or demonstrate any value to people and the rezoning was too big of a change (with zero change management) as you could now build an 8plex in the middle of a SFH community. Home owners who had been fighting with the city over renovating their house or building a garage were now suddenly watching developers get away with whatever they want right next door.

Not only was the city not building up proof of success with their strategies but they were giving voters whiplash. If you do not have that trust that your strategies won't suck then when you implement more impactful strategies people will assume that they will only yield the worst results.

IIRC your main complaint on Main Streets is that they didn't immediately turn into the mixed-use utopias as shown in renderings? Which I'd suggest is mostly on you because no one should ever expect reality to match renderings...

But IMO Main Streets have been very succesful. The three projects completed are: Montgomery, 37th St SW(Bow to Richmond), and 17th Ave SW (37th to Crowchild). The two brightest suns on this map showing RCG development are 37th St SW and Montgomery:



People will complain no matter what. Either that we fail to build infrastructure in anticipation of demand, or that we build infrastructure in anticipation of demand and it isn't immediately and fully utilized. Of course we can quibble about every little aspect of the execution, but these are clearly areas where people want to live. Seems like pretty damn clear positive results for your point #2.

Councillors from the wards labeled in red (and Farkas formally of ward 11) are sponsoring the motion to repeal. Pantazopolous of Ward 6 also campaigned on repealing and is likely to vote for it, though he seems pretty reasonable so far and could hopefully persuaded to a scale back rather than repeal. AI also inexplicably changed the titles for Ward 7 and Ward 8 to moon language.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Wolven

From what I saw, mostly perimeter lots on busy roads.

Care less about the where, and more about what zoning were they applying from?

Even with main streets opening up the development options, developers would immediately come in and ask for more than the new zoning would allow.

What zoning was that?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wolven

That percentage is misleading. No developer was ever applying to convert an RC1 bungalow into an 8 plex in the middle of an RC1 neighbourhood because they knew it would be rejected.

And the evidence shows that developers are not turning RC1 bungalows into 8-plexes now. So this is really a case of changing the rules 10 to 20 to 40 years in advance of when lower hanging fruit is more fully built out and the demand for slightly higher density may extend to these areas.

There are still tons of new SFHs getting built in these areas, and from the areas I've perused on DMAP about half of them include a basement or garage suite (which does not always mean it will be tenanted immediately if ever, but it's smart to design it in).


That said, the reasonable solution here is revise RCG to be 4 dwelings max, with 6 or 8 on corner lots. And add back in parking minimums even though parking minimums are the dumbest ####ing thing on earth.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Not if they also campaigned on lowering taxes.



IIRC your main complaint on Main Streets is that they didn't immediately turn into the mixed-use utopias as shown in renderings? Which I'd suggest is mostly on you because no one should ever expect reality to match renderings...

But IMO Main Streets have been very succesful. The three projects completed are: Montgomery, 37th St SW(Bow to Richmond), and 17th Ave SW (37th to Crowchild). The two brightest suns on this map showing RCG development are 37th St SW and Montgomery:

They promoted mixed retail and residential developments to increase the walkability of areas. Then they immediately let the developers off of the hook to deliver that.

It may have been successful in building houses but it was not successful in demonstrating how the city can pitch a strategy and then have it successfully deliver on that strategy to the people (especially the people resistant to said strategy to begin with).

If you pitch an idea and fail to deliver on it then that doesn't make people very receptive to the next, bigger idea that is even more impactful to people.

Then you end up with a rezoning election.

Was there also talk about lowering taxes? I hardly heard that message in the midst of all of the talk of either repealing or fixing the rezoning.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wolven

They promoted mixed retail and residential developments to increase the walkability of areas. Then they immediately let the developers off of the hook to deliver that.

It may have been successful in building houses but it was not successful in demonstrating how the city can pitch a strategy and then have it successfully deliver on that strategy to the people (especially the people resistant to said strategy to begin with).

If you pitch an idea and fail to deliver on it then that doesn't make people very receptive to the next, bigger idea that is even more impactful to people.

Then you end up with a rezoning election.

Was there also talk about lowering taxes? I hardly heard that message in the midst of all of the talk of either repealing or fixing the rezoning.

Mixed use doesn't improve walkability...it just means more people walking. Good sidewalks, good crossings, and slower vehicle speeds are what improve walkability. Montgomery hit on all three, and Montgomery has delivered mixed-use on either side of 45 St (albeit likely planned before main street). Whenever the rest of the retail strip redevelops it will almost certainly be mixed-use, too.

37th and 17th haven't done great at slowing traffic. On 37th its because they want Max Teal to run fast, but the better answer would have been a bus lane. 37th and 19th is new mixed-use. OG Primal Grounds location at 37th and 28th would have been good for mixed-use, but it was redeveloped circa 2020 into denser commercial use. I'm guessing at that time they would have needed to apply for land-use change to do otherwise, that's not necessary today with H-GO, but it will be necessary again after repeal.

Empty CRUs (commercial retail units) are way worse than occupied residential units. I'm not sure occupied CRUs are really any better than occupied residential at this point...we just need more homes. Mixed-use will come when the population demands it.

[Bigtime]

13-2 vote in favour to start to process to repeal:

https://bsky.app/profile/adammacvica.../3ma2lcq6l622z

Councillor Atkinson spitting fire:

"This is irresponsible, and not how you govern properly," Atkinson says. He says governing is coming to the table with a solution and this council needs to fix the rules. He urges council to vote against repeal and work to fix citywide rezoning.

https://bsky.app/profile/adammacvica.../3ma2kr6jiik2z

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Mixed use doesn't improve walkability...it just means more people walking. Good sidewalks, good crossings, and slower vehicle speeds are what improve walkability. Montgomery hit on all three, and Montgomery has delivered mixed-use on either side of 45 St (albeit likely planned before main street). Whenever the rest of the retail strip redevelops it will almost certainly be mixed-use, too.

37th and 17th haven't done great at slowing traffic. On 37th its because they want Max Teal to run fast, but the better answer would have been a bus lane. 37th and 19th is new mixed-use. OG Primal Grounds location at 37th and 28th would have been good for mixed-use, but it was redeveloped circa 2020 into denser commercial use. I'm guessing at that time they would have needed to apply for land-use change to do otherwise, that's not necessary today with H-GO, but it will be necessary again after repeal.

Empty CRUs (commercial retail units) are way worse than occupied residential units. I'm not sure occupied CRUs are really any better than occupied residential at this point...we just need more homes. Mixed-use will come when the population demands it.

You clearly geek out on this stuff far harder than the average person and I do really respect that.

I am trying to express this more from a layman's perspective and convey my understanding as to why most people would not view main streets as a success and how that would tilt their opinion toward the negative before the blanket rezoning conversation even started.

Then when we look at "how" blanket rezoning was implemented and people could start to think on what steps could have been taken to make it less impactful or negatively perceived so that we were not in a position now where the new city council votes 13-2 to start the process of rolling back the rezoning.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

13-2 vote in favour to start to process to repeal:

https://bsky.app/profile/adammacvica.../3ma2lcq6l622z

Councillor Atkinson spitting fire:

"This is irresponsible, and not how you govern properly," Atkinson says. He says governing is coming to the table with a solution and this council needs to fix the rules. He urges council to vote against repeal and work to fix citywide rezoning.

https://bsky.app/profile/adammacvica.../3ma2kr6jiik2z

I'm not sure I like this line of reasoning. We voted for a mayor, not for rezoning. It wasn't a referendum.

[getbak]

https://bsky.app/profile/adammacvica.../3ma2kkjg3s22z

Upon request from Ward 7 Coun. Myke Atkinson, city administration brings up this breakdown of where citywide rezoning enabled redevelopment is happening, and the types of developments going in.

15 total developments across half the city:

• 0 for Wards 2, 3, and 12
• 1 for Ward 13
• 2 for Ward 14
• 4 for Ward 5
• 8 for Ward 10

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wolven

You clearly geek out on this stuff far harder than the average person and I do really respect that.

I am trying to express this more from a layman's perspective and convey my understanding as to why most people would not view main streets as a success and how that would tilt their opinion toward the negative before the blanket rezoning conversation even started.

Then when we look at "how" blanket rezoning was implemented and people could start to think on what steps could have been taken to make it less impactful or negatively perceived so that we were not in a position now where the new city council votes 13-2 to start the process of rolling back the rezoning.

Respectfully, why should anybody care what you think other people think about this?It's better to just inform yourself, challenge ideas, and adjust your own positions through learning and discussion.

IMO it's usually silly to ascribe thoughts/feelings/motivations/knowledge/ignorance to a broad swath of the population, but I would venture the vast majority have no idea what the 'Main Streets' program is and haven't given more than a passing thought to why streets/sidewalks get torn up and redone. I think most people's understanding on the topic is limited to "they spent a long time tearing up 17th and now they're spending along time tearing up Marda Loop".

I'd also venture that many of the people who complain that infills will break all the infrastructure don't realize that these Main Street projects are done with that in mind and include utility upgrades where necessary. But NIMBY arguments seem immune to facts.

Lastly, it's a little funny that the [alleged] lack of mixed-use put a bee in your bonnet considering your anti-corporate stance. These days mixed-use is mostly big commercial RE firms leasing to out space to big corporate chains. Meanwhile, RCG made it a lot easier for people to run a personal services business out of their home.

Originally Posted by getbak

https://bsky.app/profile/adammacvica.../3ma2kkjg3s22z




15 total developments across half the city:

• 0 for Wards 2, 3, and 12
• 1 for Ward 13
• 2 for Ward 14
• 4 for Ward 5
• 8 for Ward 10

I'm guessing this is developments that are built beyond what the previous bylaw allowed (not just zoning but could also be setbacks/etc)?

I was really hoping someone would bring a motion for revisions to RCG. There's still time for this to happen, but the sooner the better.

[TorqueDog]

Just a thought; a bunch of the wards that elected council members who ran on reverting the blanket zoning are in zones that, quite frankly, we shouldn't really want to build density (yet) in the first place. Building a bunch of high density in the likes of Ward 12, for example, is basically just encouraging sprawl.

Why doesn't the City propose, say, keeping the blanket rezoning in place for the central wards where increasing density is desirable and supported by those council members -- Wards 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 -- and make Wards 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 part of a 'phase 2'? "Okay, fine, we will re-zone only inner city and wards that have shown support for flexible zoning. But when the city needs to grow further outward, your wards are next in line and there's no saying no next time."

It hardly seems reasonable that Wards 7 and 8, which are pretty prime space for density increases and are (largely) supported by the residents, can have that taken away from them by councillors from Wards so far south they require a passport to visit.

[Fuzz]

Get your crazy compromises outa here.

[TorqueDog]

I just thought it was odd that such a thing seemingly hasn't been proposed. I mean, look at the map and the table that getbak posted. With few exceptions, the wards that are hardly even candidates for significant density increases and generate little to no interest in it are also the ones that have a stick up their asses about it. You could make the argument it is just good civil planning to keep it limited to a subset of wards where the infrastructure can best support it at this time.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Just a thought; a bunch of the wards that elected council members who ran on reverting the blanket zoning are in zones that, quite frankly, we shouldn't really want to build density (yet) in the first place. Building a bunch of high density in the likes of Ward 12, for example, is basically just encouraging sprawl.

Why doesn't the City propose, say, keeping the blanket rezoning in place for the central wards where increasing density is desirable and supported by those council members -- Wards 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 -- and make Wards 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 part of a 'phase 2'? "Okay, fine, we will re-zone only inner city and wards that have shown support for flexible zoning. But when the city needs to grow further outward, your wards are next in line and there's no saying no next time."

It hardly seems reasonable that Wards 7 and 8, which are pretty prime space for density increases and are (largely) supported by the residents, can have that taken away from them by councillors from Wards so far south they require a passport to visit.

That's probably fair. At the end of the day, people living in Cranston probably dont have to worry about blanket re-zoning for another 30-50 years, so why should they care.

Only point would be to create TOD space exceptions - but i guess those wouldnt be hard to ram through at some point

[Fuzz]

You do also have to keep in mind that ultimately this is all about telling what others can and can't do, and voters want to wield that power. So not being able to have say over other wards might not feel like a compromise position for them.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You do also have to keep in mind that ultimately this is all about telling what others can and can't do, and voters want to wield that power. So not being able to have say over other wards might not feel like a compromise position for them.

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.

Also, the interactions between the citizens, developers, and the city seems to be problematic and leaves people feeling unheard.

Bowness resident Bruce Graham, former president of Calgary Economic Development, wrote the following letter to city council providing his opinion and explaining his experience as a citizen with blanket rezoning. The issue is currently being debated at city hall, including whether the city’s blanket rezoning policy should be repealed.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Not exactly sure what the unit of measure on this heat map was shown, and the URL indicates it was created by googles AI, so I am not sure if the accuracy is 100%.

But anecdotally I live in the northern part of ward 2, and 4/29 house on my block have been suited within the last year. Maybe in the view of development permits that's only development to accommodate 5% population growth, while going into Bowness or Bridgeland where they tear down 5 houses to put up a 20 unit condo building looks like 200-300% growth. But I guess the differences are important. A 20 unit condo building comes with a parking plan, is often sold for walkability or proximity to transit. While the basement suites trigger a very lively conversation about people boxing in driveways, leaving their cars parked on snow routes, street sweeping routes...

I think this heat map should the issues concentrated in specific areas, but the effect of blanket rezoning was certainly felt city wide.

For me the solution might be a clear set of rules that has more detailed scenarios than people are thinking. I really believe a ton of the problem here comes down to parking, at least for the suburbanites. In ward 2, I suspect if you were to setup a rule that required unobstructed parking stalls, For single detached homes, 1.5 stalls/unit, or 1/2 stalls/bedroom most of the complaints would go away (I don't think you can count 2 in the driveway / 2 in the garage, because they block eachother in, that's not how parking access works with 2 separate households). On my block again for example all of the houses have a 2 car front drive and alley access. I suspect if the 4 suites were made to put a parking pad in the back while they are developing, people wouldn't even notice that they were suited. Rules could be different for areas with different transit access, or proximity to city center, or different for Condos / Townhouses.... People just need a clear set of rules that takes peoples concerns into account, rather than saying anythings allowed as long as you throw a public engagement billboard up for a couple of weeks.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by #-3

But anecdotally I live in the northern part of ward 2, and 4/29 house on my block have been suited within the last year.

What's your existing zoning? There is a chance this development was unrelated to the city wide rezoning and is a permitted use (building permit only).

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by #-3

Not exactly sure what the unit of measure on this heat map was shown, and the URL indicates it was created by googles AI, so I am not sure if the accuracy is 100%.

But anecdotally I live in the northern part of ward 2, and 4/29 house on my block have been suited within the last year. Maybe in the view of development permits that's only development to accommodate 5% population growth, while going into Bowness or Bridgeland where they tear down 5 houses to put up a 20 unit condo building looks like 200-300% growth. But I guess the differences are important. A 20 unit condo building comes with a parking plan, is often sold for walkability or proximity to transit. While the basement suites trigger a very lively conversation about people boxing in driveways, leaving their cars parked on snow routes, street sweeping routes...

I think this heat map should the issues concentrated in specific areas, but the effect of blanket rezoning was certainly felt city wide.

For me the solution might be a clear set of rules that has more detailed scenarios than people are thinking. I really believe a ton of the problem here comes down to parking, at least for the suburbanites. In ward 2, I suspect if you were to setup a rule that required unobstructed parking stalls, For single detached homes, 1.5 stalls/unit, or 1/2 stalls/bedroom most of the complaints would go away (I don't think you can count 2 in the driveway / 2 in the garage, because they block eachother in, that's not how parking access works with 2 separate households). On my block again for example all of the houses have a 2 car front drive and alley access. I suspect if the 4 suites were made to put a parking pad in the back while they are developing, people wouldn't even notice that they were suited. Rules could be different for areas with different transit access, or proximity to city center, or different for Condos / Townhouses.... People just need a clear set of rules that takes peoples concerns into account, rather than saying anythings allowed as long as you throw a public engagement billboard up for a couple of weeks.

Heatmap is from a city report from last month. I just used AI to change the applicable ward titles to red.

Sounds like you are in an R-G zone (pretty much identical to RCG, just that RCG is for established areas while RG is for developing areas). I believe all communities approved in the last ~10 years or so have had R-G as the base zoning. And that won't be changing if the repeal goes through (though there are some places that went from R-1 to R-G that will change back).