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

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Density in many newer communities is greater than that of many older communities. In the NW, for example, Royal Oak has a density of 3130 people/km2, while the inner city Hounsfield Heights/Briar Hill had a density of only 2460 people/km2, and West Hillhurst has only 2420 people/km2. Even perennial whipping boy of Tuscany has a density of 2756 people/km2. They should probably be complaining about the sprawl of West Hillhurst, and how the people there aren't covering the operating costs of their (now extremely old and inefficient) infrastructure, like old pipes, small neighbourhood schools, etc.

These are some very good stats to look at, density is coming to those communities long considered the core of the inner-city. However the residents there are putting up just as much of a fight as the suburbs they so often love to hate on. Ultimately there is not much they can do as a lot of the rezoning pretty much allows these larger infills and mini-apartment style developments.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

These are some very good stats to look at, density is coming to those communities long considered the core of the inner-city. However the residents there are putting up just as much of a fight as the suburbs they so often love to hate on. Ultimately there is not much they can do as a lot of the rezoning pretty much allows these larger infills and mini-apartment style developments.

That's only true in some areas where an ARP (area redevelopment plan) has already occured, and occured recently.

For example, the Hounsfield Heights Briar Hill ARP is older and has one of it's main goals as "retaining the single family character of the neighbourhood." So all the (large) lots are zoned RC-1. This is a neighbourhood south of 16th Ave NW and adjacent to a train station. The fact that it's zoned like that, very low density, and controlled by nimby's is an outrage. They have a huge amount of city infrastructure (ctrain, library, etc) and only a few people living there.

So that neighbourhood is hating on redevelopment and winning, and is so low density that other areas are subsidizing it. That's just one example, of course, but it's a systemic problem. The video I mentioned above also indicates an ARP takes 2+ years compared to 1.5 years for a new neighbourhood, because people are always objecting to change.

Zoning map found here: http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Docume...f?noredirect=1

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

These are some very good stats to look at, density is coming to those communities long considered the core of the inner-city. However the residents there are putting up just as much of a fight as the suburbs they so often love to hate on. Ultimately there is not much they can do as a lot of the rezoning pretty much allows these larger infills and mini-apartment style developments.

This!

They (inner city residents) want density in the 'inner city' communities.... but they don't want it across the street and they'll appeal it till the cows come home in any feeble attempt to kill the project.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Slava

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.

Only if the City also requires these already developed communities to pay the difference between the subsidized impact fees the developers of their communities paid and the actual impact costs of the development of their communities?

If you are talking about undeveloped communities, I think the City should just have soft and hard infrastructure servicing levels that need to be met by the developers. The City sets the standards and the developers build all of the infrastructure on their dime.

Originally Posted by Slava

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.

Two things, i) if they can afford to live in single-family dwellings when all the costs are included, so be it; and ii) a lot of people haven't been exposed to what multi-family developments can actually look like and the lifestyles they can accommodate.

[Bunk]

I think at fault with regard to reactions of communities to development and density is lack of certainty that comes from our very outdated Area Redevelopment Plans. Of the 32, over half of them are over 20 years old. They don't define clearly where density will go or won't go. As such, when a development comes in, the community fears that the same thing may go everywhere. Once you develop that community vision and provide certainty, communities relax.

In suburbs, actually the densities have reached a point where they become much more sustainable and efficient to serve. I think the current challenges still lie with the lay-out of the streets, how that density is deployed and the accessibility of local recreational and commercial amenities within communities. For instance, the way new suburbs have been designed makes it very, very inefficient to run transit service. Higher density hubs of apartments are located peripherally, rather than centrally within the community near transit, etc. But, these things are all improving too - a good example is the Keystone area, recently approved. In terms of housing mix, Mattamy's "Cityscape" development introduces some pretty innovative new housing types to Calgary.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I watched the video posted above (by mykalberta) and the speaker from the city said something I found interesting around the 37 minute mark. Basically, you can back calculate from his remarks that ~20% of the total property taxes paid in the entire city come from the office buildings in the downtown commercial core. He also had a graph showing that basically the only other types of property that pays for itself tax wise is medium and high rises. Essentially high density downtown subsidizes the rest of the city, including the inner city.

I think the whole urban vs suburban thing is a red herring. Costs are mainly controlled by density, so a low density inner city neighbourhood is more costly and less sustainable than a higher density suburban neighbourhood. And much of the inner city/close in suburbs are currently R1 zoned 50 foot wide lots, which is probably the worst building form possible from a tax perspective. With the new density requirements, condos in saddleridge help pay for the rest of saddleridge.

Density in many newer communities is greater than that of many older communities. In the NW, for example, Royal Oak has a density of 3130 people/km2, while the inner city Hounsfield Heights/Briar Hill had a density of only 2460 people/km2, and West Hillhurst has only 2420 people/km2. Even perennial whipping boy of Tuscany has a density of 2756 people/km2. They should probably be complaining about the sprawl of West Hillhurst, and how the people there aren't covering the operating costs of their (now extremely old and inefficient) infrastructure, like old pipes, small neighbourhood schools, etc.

Check out the zoning map: http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Pages/...aw-1P2007.aspx

All of West Hillhurst is RC-2, and appears to be 95% infilled. Meaning that most of the infrastructure has been upgraded. The city requires you to upgrade the section of sewer, electric, gas, etc when you redevelop. In areas like Renfrew (where I built) it wasn't as bad as it is in areas like Inglewood and Bridgeland, it's piecemeal and it paid upfront, but it does get upgraded.

As for general use infrastructure like schools, I'd love it if we could have more funding put into our schools in the inner city. There are two elementary and one Jr. High school in Renfrew, but the two elementary are special use (girls academy and special needs) so something is going to have to change there soon.

Changes to zoning will be fought against tooth and nail by community associations. I'm not looking forward to that fight.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Bunk

In suburbs, actually the densities have reached a point where they become much more sustainable and efficient to serve. I think the current challenges still lie with the lay-out of the streets, how that density is deployed and the accessibility of local recreational and commercial amenities within communities. For instance, the way new suburbs have been designed makes it very, very inefficient to run transit service. Higher density hubs of apartments are located peripherally, rather than centrally within the community near transit, etc. But, these things are all improving too - a good example is the Keystone area, recently approved. In terms of housing mix, Mattamy's "Cityscape" development introduces some pretty innovative new housing types to Calgary.

Not to mention that developers are constantly fighting against the density requirements. My wife worked in New Comm until she went on maternity leave and has constant battles with applicants about community design and density and the like.

She's on the fence about Stanley. Loves his passion and the fact that he's willing to stand up for the department, but worried about his grandstanding.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Check out the zoning map: http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Pages/...aw-1P2007.aspx

All of West Hillhurst is RC-2, and appears to be 95% infilled. Meaning that most of the infrastructure has been upgraded. The city requires you to upgrade the section of sewer, electric, gas, etc when you redevelop. In areas like Renfrew (where I built) it wasn't as bad as it is in areas like Inglewood and Bridgeland, it's piecemeal and it paid upfront, but it does get upgraded.

As for general use infrastructure like schools, I'd love it if we could have more funding put into our schools in the inner city. There are two elementary and one Jr. High school in Renfrew, but the two elementary are special use (girls academy and special needs) so something is going to have to change there soon.

Changes to zoning will be fought against tooth and nail by community associations. I'm not looking forward to that fight.

That the vast swath of inner city Calgary is zoned R2 for infill is actually really interesting and progressive. The unit density of inner city will close to double over a couple of generations. The 50' original housing stock isn't very good, so it's actually a very good thing that we can refresh the housing stock with a higher quality, higher density product. Very few cities have this same situation.

The growth plan for this city is rather simple and logical.

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.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by fotze

Not sure I would agree. Road spending in overpasses and interchanges in the suburbs dwarf any new roads in the inner city. The money that must have been spent in South Calgary (that whole Marquis of Lorne/22x/deerfoot/South Calgary Hospital Road thingy that is beeing built. Billions must have been spent on that stuff. Hadn't been in that area in years and it made me gasp at how much work is going on there.

You think the inner city road system is a free flowing paradise? It isn't, because all the Cranston peole use the inner city roads as well. At least on the weekends, the inner city folk aren't cramming the Marquis of Lorne trail highway.

I guess you could argue that a LRT is missing, but Jesus Christ thats far, how about an airport too? Should the people of High river get LRT service too, since it is largely paid for by the province and not the city?

I would prefer to raise a family and live in Cancun and commute to Canmore, I think the taxpayers should support that decision by building a high speed link, its a free country.

New hospitals out there vs crowded/old hospitals that are shut down in the inner city?

Brand new pools and stuff out there, old dirty decrepit pools in the inner city.

Brand new massive 4 rink complexes like South Fish creek and winsport, versus old dumpy barns with roofs caving in like West Hillhurst or Stu Peppard. Oh Winsport isn't really suburban, well there's a billion dollar 4 lane highway built around the city so people in the north boonies can get there in a snap.

So every new neighborhood should get a library and pool and rink? I don't see any of those in Sunnyside? There is a school that smells like moth balls and hippie.

The thing is, if the inner city does expand Lindsay park, the suburb folk will use it on their lunch hours too. Build it in Mahogany, the guy in Lower mount royal will never even see it, let alone use it.

Of course people understand why people want to live out there, giant, brand new house that costs less and has lower taxes because of that. The people aren't stupid, the inner city ones are the dumb ones.

Better amenities to the suburbs, maybe after you have paid 'the fair share' for 20 years to catch up.

I know, it gets contentious pretty fast! Thing is that if everyone agrees that these suburbs are paying their fair share there can't be anyone on the other side to whinge about how they subsidize anyone.

I'm not even sure where the inner city begins though; I know that say a decade a go places like Kingsland were not inner city, but now apparently they qualify? I have no idea. Like I say, I'm on the verge of moving in closer and the day I do that I will immediately flip to the "you rotten buggers should pay your fair share" side of the argument.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Check out the zoning map: http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Pages/...aw-1P2007.aspx

All of West Hillhurst is RC-2, and appears to be 95% infilled. Meaning that most of the infrastructure has been upgraded. The city requires you to upgrade the section of sewer, electric, gas, etc when you redevelop. In areas like Renfrew (where I built) it wasn't as bad as it is in areas like Inglewood and Bridgeland, it's piecemeal and it paid upfront, but it does get upgraded.

As for general use infrastructure like schools, I'd love it if we could have more funding put into our schools in the inner city. There are two elementary and one Jr. High school in Renfrew, but the two elementary are special use (girls academy and special needs) so something is going to have to change there soon.

Changes to zoning will be fought against tooth and nail by community associations. I'm not looking forward to that fight.

I did link to the zoning map for Hounsfield Heights/Briar Hill in my original post. The fact that West Hillhurst is (apparently) already infilled and still has a lower density than Tuscany suggests to me that West Hillhurst probably isn't zoned densely enough. But if you tried to increase the zoning, you'd hear a hellish complaint of nimbyism.

That's all this whole argument is, really. "I want those damn suburbs to be more dense and pay more taxes, but I don't want any more density near me."

Also, the reason Renfrew has two specialty schools is the community fought tooth and nail against one of the original schools closing, so the CBE put specialty programs there to keep them utilized. The community could have supported one regular elementary, which would have been reasonable, but fought the closures and won. But they'll still fight increases in density that would increase population in the neighbourhood and keep the schools utilized.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bunk

That the vast swath of inner city Calgary is zoned R2 for infill is actually really interesting and progressive. The unit density of inner city will close to double over a couple of generations. The 50' original housing stock isn't very good, so it's actually a very good thing that we can refresh the housing stock with a higher quality, higher density product. Very few cities have this same situation.

The growth plan for this city is rather simple and logical.

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.

I agree with R2 being a great plan, I just think it should be expanded. When was the last time a neighbourhood was rezoned to RC2 from RC1? Is there a reason neighbourhoods like the one I mentioned (Hounsfield Heights/Briar Hill) haven't been upzoned?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I did link to the zoning map for Hounsfield Heights/Briar Hill in my original post. The fact that West Hillhurst is (apparently) already infilled and still has a lower density than Tuscany suggests to me that West Hillhurst probably isn't zoned densely enough. But if you tried to increase the zoning, you'd hear a hellish complaint of nimbyism.

That's all this whole argument is, really. "I want those damn suburbs to be more dense and pay more taxes, but I don't want any more density near me."

Also, the reason Renfrew has two specialty schools is the community fought tooth and nail against one of the original schools closing, so the CBE put specialty programs there to keep them utilized. The community could have supported one regular elementary, which would have been reasonable, but fought the closures and won. But they'll still fight increases in density that would increase population in the neighbourhood and keep the schools utilized.

But just take a look at the lot size in West Hillhurst, how much more dense could it be without building multi family? What's the condo market like these days?

Oh, and I'm happy that the schools are still there, but they will need to change soon. Specialty schools aren't going to work with the number of kids that are popping up in areas like Renfrew.

Your link to the zoning map was in the reply to Bigtime, which was posted while I was composing.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by kermitology

But just take a look at the lot size in West Hillhurst, how much more dense could it be without building multi family? What's the condo market like these days?

Oh, and I'm happy that the schools are still there, but they will need to change soon. Specialty schools aren't going to work with the number of kids that are popping up in areas like Renfrew.

If West Hillhurst is less dense than Tuscany currently, then why shouldn't it have condos? Tuscany has condos. The market argument is a red herring, if condos were built in West Hillhurst, they would sell instantly. A low rise building is going up in Sunnyside (see the real estate forum) and it'll sell very fast.

Originally Posted by kermitology

Your link to the zoning map was in the reply to Bigtime, which was posted while I was composing.

Right, sorry. Too many things going on at once. No problems with a written apology from me...

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by kermitology

But just take a look at the lot size in West Hillhurst, how much more dense could it be without building multi family? What's the condo market like these days?

Well there are already two going up in Kensington right now.

[onetwo_threefour]

One thing not mentioned in the discussion about inner city rezoning/redevelopment that I run into in my practice is the inordinate amount of power that the 70-100 year old CPR and City restrictive covenants registered against vast swathes of these lots gives to NIMBY neighbour's, and conservative community associations.

Due to a 2002 QB court decision in Potts v. McCann and subsequently developed case law, it is fairly difficult to get the old covenants removed to allow anything other than the existing 'sprawl' use. Even if the City approves of a development plan, these old RC's give a NIMBY neighbour a second kick at someone wanting to redevelop a lot into something higher density. Unfortunately, there is no clear path to removing these from title without getting the other owners on board, and I've seen several developers back away from lot purchases in the inner city for exactly that reason. They could acquire the lot(s), spend a bunch of money planning, and then face an injunction disallowing their build and all we can give them is the advice that they can try and spend some extra money to see whether the neighbours are likely going to be on board, and then try and get the RC removed. Given the time frames and notice requirements involved, many developers just decide to try and go find a lot that's not so risky.

Slava mentioned Mt. Royal earlier, and funny enough, the last person to call me on one of these was with respect to a Mt. Royal property, not too far from Prospect Ave.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If West Hillhurst is less dense than Tuscany currently, then why shouldn't it have condos? Tuscany has condos. The market argument is a red herring, if condos were built in West Hillhurst, they would sell instantly. A low rise building is going up in Sunnyside (see the real estate forum) and it'll sell very fast.

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Well there are already two going up in Kensington right now.

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you guys

The Bridgeland/Renfrew area (right at the top of the hill of Edmonton Trail) are seeing multi's go in, right along that urban corridor, which is awesome to see. I want to see densification there because it should encourage more/better business development along Edmonton Trail, which I'd love to see more of.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know, it gets contentious pretty fast! Thing is that if everyone agrees that these suburbs are paying their fair share there can't be anyone on the other side to whinge about how they subsidize anyone.

I'm not even sure where the inner city begins though; I know that say a decade a go places like Kingsland were not inner city, but now apparently they qualify? I have no idea. Like I say, I'm on the verge of moving in closer and the day I do that I will immediately flip to the "you rotten buggers should pay your fair share" side of the argument.

Kingsland is not inner city. There is probably a 15 min drive from Kingsland to the inner city.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you guys

The Bridgeland/Renfrew area (right at the top of the hill of Edmonton Trail) are seeing multi's go in, right along that urban corridor, which is awesome to see. I want to see densification there because it should encourage more/better business development along Edmonton Trail, which I'd love to see more of.

Me too - that is the type of densification we need. No need for blanket smaller highrises deep in the communities of Renfrew, West Hillhurst, ect., but the major roads/intersections should get properly built up.

I'd like to see some real high rises built at the intersection of Edmonton Trail and 16th avenue. 20 story plus. That would draw businesses to that road.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Me too - that is the type of densification we need. No need for blanket smaller highrises deep in the communities of Renfrew, West Hillhurst, ect., but the major roads/intersections should get properly built up.

I'd like to see some real high rises built at the intersection of Edmonton Trail and 16th avenue. 20 story plus. That would draw businesses to that road.

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.

[Knalus]

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.

Bunk - get on it! Rezone that intersection.