MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by timun

WTF are you talking about??!? Of course it's clearly defined: it's in the ####ing Land Use Bylaw!

https://www.calgary.ca/planning/land...?part=5&div=11

Let me try and get our lines of communication sorted out...hopefully without your mean spirited way of expressing yourself.

Does the Rezoning affect the final map we received regarding the Westbrook Communities LAP, wherein the development of rowhouses and townhouses are only supported in certain colored areas?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The bolded is subjective, and without clearly defining where a row house or townhouse is allowed to be built, then theoretically a developer could build one wherever he could pick up a relatively cheap bungalow.

Blanket Rezoning (BZ) is a gift to developers. It allows them to acquire properties in desirable areas, and build a wide range of properties, where they were formerly restricted because of the zoning. They are the ones that are going to benefit the most from BZ.

As I see it, BZ is too abrupt of a change for most of the Calgary homeowners to accept willingly, even with the rapid pace of change in society, and the world. I believe a wiser and smarter way to go about it, would have been to rezone partial areas that are more acceptable to communities, leaving most of the RC1 areas intact, giving assurance to most homeowners that their living environment could not be suddenly disrupted at the stroke of a pen. From what I have learned, that would have been more than enough to satisfy the density requirements. It would also minimize a lot of the negative things that have come with the densification of the older inner core over the past decade.

just my humble opinion

You know what else is subjective? The current zoning! And subjective to what some dudes thought in the 50s and 60s and 70s at that.

It amazes me how much people struggle to imagine how this will play out. It will be relatively slow/steady/sensible. The worst houses in more desirable areas will go first. So if you live beside a hillbilly estate you can celebrate the fact that it will be redeveloped sooner. If you lucked out with quiet Edith and Earl nextdoor for the last few decades then it's more likely their never-renovated house will be a knockdown when they go...what a horrific swing of the pendulum if it's a nice duplex and your new neighbours are accountants or something.

The only reason perfectly good homes are getting knocked down is if they are RC2 right now, because it makes no sense to replace the RC1 absolute ####hole across the street with another SFH.

[getbak]

What a bunch of unhinged lunatics...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1768827198717276345

[timun]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Let me try and get our lines of communication sorted out...hopefully without your mean spirited way of expressing yourself.

Don't blame me for your ignorance.

Does the Rezoning affect the final map we received regarding the Westbrook Communities LAP, wherein the development of rowhouses and townhouses are only supported in certain colored areas?

You mean this map:



?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

There are literally no negative things that have come out of densification of the old inner core over the last decade. Nothing about infills is disruptive to anyone’s living environment except the construction itself. But that has nothing to do with zoning.

This is nimbyism at its finest. MFHs are not a threat to the sanctity of neighborhoods in any way, shape or form.

Walk down Elbow Drive shouting that message and you won't be walking back, commie!

[Muta]

I was on that Westbrook Communities LAP! That was a really fun volunteer experience.

[timun]

So do you want to explain to flamesfever that the "Limited (up to 3 storeys)" built form —the light pink colour that encompasses the vast majority of the area—already includes three-storey rowhouses? Or shall I?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by timun

So do you want to explain to flamesfever that the "Limited (up to 3 storeys)" built form —the light pink colour that encompasses the vast majority of the area—already includes three-storey rowhouses? Or shall I?

Obviously you should do it, but try conversation format.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by timun

So do you want to explain to flamesfever that the "Limited (up to 3 storeys)" built form —the light pink colour that encompasses the vast majority of the area—already includes three-storey rowhouses? Or shall I?

The map you posted does not address the question I asked. Look a little further on in the LAP document.

Check out Attachment 9 IP2022-1146

[Muta]

The limited includes three-storey rowhouses. Sorry, I'm wondering what the issue is here? The Blanket Rezoning doesn't change the approved, outlined built forms for the Westbrook area; if anything, it just reduces red tape during the application process and makes it easier to built already-approved building types. Blanket rezoning is done to make the building process more efficient as the city grows - particularly the inner city, and in places like Westbrook that badly need proper urban gentrification.

Just an FYI, I am very pro-development and pro-gentrification, and was very vocal in supporting those positions on the LAP committee.

There were others that were completely on the other side of the discussion as me (anti-change / anti-development; you could call them NIMBYers by the absolute definition) - and the City did a great job making sure all voices were heard. The LAP that was approved was a consensus report that took in all viewpoints; we all ended up working together to establish the best, viable solution. There are aesthetic guidelines you have to adhere to though; you can't just build an ugly 'corporate castle' with archery towers willy nilly (looking at you, Rocky View County) and think that this is what the new rezoning is going to encourage. There is a Development Permit process still.

I see this Blanket Rezoning as a catalyst for quicker development, which in the era of limited housing options for many in this city, is just another bullet in the chamber to more quickly address that problem. And if you're a property developer, this is good too because you can execute your projects quicker and easier - all within the context of the guidelines set out by the Westbrook LAP. There are many more LAPs on the way, too.

[timun]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The map you posted does not address the question I asked. Look a little further on in the LAP document.

Check out Attachment 9 IP2022-1146

Oh, THIS map. Why I need to go digging for it rather than you presenting it yourself and me having to draaaaaaag out what it is you're getting at... well, anyway, I'll not go on any further in the interest of being "nice".

No, it doesn't change anything in that map. If you knew what "contextual" meant, in the context of the Land Use Bylaw as I pointed out in the first place, you'd know it doesn't.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Slava

For that particular property, but what about adjacent properties?

From our assessment department directly:

“Sales data analyzed by Assessment & Tax does not show a loss in value of properties adjacent to new rowhouses.”

[Slava]

In thinking about this, I suppose it depends on the property getting knocked down and redeveloped.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Slava

In thinking about this, I suppose it depends on the property getting knocked down and redeveloped.

Yeah, it’s worth looking at street view history in places where rowhousing has been built (e.g. clusters in places like Capitol Hill, Mount Pelasant, West Hillhurst, Altadore, what was there before and after redevelopment, in most cases the new units are…much nicer than what was there prior. It’s definitely not the nicest homes getting bought and knocked down first.

[timun]

I suppose it does, doesn't it?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by timun

I suppose it does, doesn't it?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by timun

Oh, THIS map. Why I need to go digging for it rather than you presenting it yourself and me having to draaaaaaag out what it is you're getting at... well, anyway, I'll not go on any further in the interest of being "nice".

No, it doesn't change anything in that map. If you knew what "contextual" meant, in the context of the Land Use Bylaw as I pointed out in the first place, you'd know it doesn't.

And you have the unmitigated gall to call me ignorant. The map you draaaged out shows very specifically where the rowhouses and townhouses are to be supported for development. It also proves that what you posted earlier was completely wrong.

Of course you could apologize, but I don't think you're man enough to ever admit to being wrong.

[timun]

If and when I'm wrong I'll freely admit it, but when it comes to this stuff I have nothing to apologize for.

Let's just say that you're a "visual learner", and without having a map that shows you precisely where the physical constraints of the contextual rules of the bylaw would allow rowhouses to be built in your neck of the woods, you didn't/don't understand.

Whereas I already know the rules as set out in the bylaw, and I can visualize how they are applied in the real world without the aid of a map. So when getbak wrote "It's not like row houses are going to be popping up everywhere. They still have to go through the development approval process and would still need to make sense in context," that makes perfect sense to me. I don't need a map to know what he meant. To me it's very clearly spelled out in the bylaw.


I'll make you a bargain: I'll quite sincerely apologize for being mean to you if you promise to be deferential, rather than obstinate and argumentative, to me and other people in this thread who are more knowledgeable about this stuff than you.

[Mr.Coffee]

Definitely you have something to apologize for. Now it’s time to review what you wrote and see how it could be interpreted as nothing more than being a dick.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Definitely you have something to apologize for. Now it’s time to review what you wrote and see how it could be interpreted as nothing more than being a dick.

It’s just par for the course with this guy.