MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

They already had gradual steps. And they definitely matter to home owners given by how much council time has been wasted on the changes over the years when somebody proposed a change to one.

So if you're set on R-C1. Then for a gradual change there is R-C1(s) which allows for suites. Then there's R-C1N for lot splits. And R-C1N(s) for a lot split with a secondary suite. And because R-C1 doesn't have the freedom of R1, you need R-C1L to have some rules about houses on a larger land parcel (and of course you'd need R-C1L(s) for that secondary suite, etc.

So what is it that you're actually proposing when you say 'gradual steps'? Gradual steps to what? Your neighborhood likely has a lot of those zoning types. Does everything get bumped up a bit? All R-C1 switches to R-C1(s) which switches to R-C1N(s) -> R-C2 -> R-CG -> M-1 and so forth? If I bought an R-C1 home, planned my life around it even, what are you proposing that becomes? Because I didn't buy R-C1 with the idea of lot splits or suites; if I wanted that I would have bought into an R-C1N(s) neighborhood.

'The consolidations do not matter' and 'just make gradual changes' are inherently incompatible positions, as the consolidations are a result of so many gradual steps being added over the years.

I did not say skip all consolidation, in fact I think I said go ahead with 90% of them, and I did not say take microscopic steps but more refined steps toward density than what the last council implemented.

For example: Merging the RC1s together is a lot less dramatic than merging the RC1s and RC2s into RCG. Then move that consolidated RC1 to a mid-point between RC1 and RCG. Taking gradual steps (without re-splitting the zoning) to make adoption more likely.

The reason to do this: If you cannot get buy-in for your idea and your idea gets repealed then what do you have?

I do not think this has been said yet but if you blow your first implementation with users it gets a LOT harder to bring back the same idea for a second implementation. After the blanket rezoning gets repealed it is going to be very hard to bring it back. That is not good.

If you treat the blanket rezoning as a project, then "repealing blanket rezoning" is the ultimate failure of the project. If I failed a project this hard, I would be hosting the biggest Lessons Learned session to understand all of the errors of the project and come back with a better plan to execute the next time (if there is a next time).

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

As for Westbrook, you're just advocating for the Vancouver and Toronto strategy. Towers and SFHs served by giant highways. No thanks. Westbrook and other TODs will come in time, but we can only build so many towers. There is clear and obvious demand for grade oriented infill.

No, what I am saying is that Westbrook is a huge black eye on getting user buy-in to the whole density emergency topic. Westbrook is not just a giant inner city empty field sitting between two major West-East arteries (Bow Trail and 17th Ave), it is also sitting on top of a train station!

How can you tell people that they have to suck it up and embrace the changes because "we need more houses" when they know that field could easily be a thousand homes? But we can't be bothered right now... It'll happen eventually.... No thanks.

It feels pretty disingenuous.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Maybe we just need to target big open areas with no homes. Thank of how many could fit if you filled in Lake Bonavista, for instance.

#### that. just bulldoze Nose Hill Park. What a useless waste of prime real estate.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

It's funny that treating all low-density residential the same is "unfair", but picking socalled winners and losers would be more "fair".

It is the unimpacted communities that are raising the biggest fuss here. That's unfair to the rest of us who want a sustainable city.




My productive solution is the RCG should become max 4 dwelling units (2x2 or 4x1, whatever), with modifiers based on frontag. Set it so corner frontage would bump to 6 or 8, and 8-10 for an oversized lot. Use frontage minus side setbacks so that assembling adjacent lots results in bonus density, too.


But what they really need to take a look it is the land-use vs. development permit process. Council (and neighbours) have too much influence on land-use, and not enough on DP. A lot of the frustration here is misplaced from that process onto rezoning.

I’d like the development permit process to be simpler but tighter. Meet all zoning requirements and building standards and it’s automatic. Ask for deviations and the process should be soul-destroying and economically punitive. No more cute developer pushing the envelope games to get DC.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

#### that. just bulldoze Nose Hill Park. What a useless waste of prime real estate.

I was wondering who was going to jump on that bait. Thanks for surprising me, you weren't on my list.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wolven

No, what I am saying is that Westbrook is a huge black eye on getting user buy-in to the whole density emergency topic. Westbrook is not just a giant inner city empty field sitting between two major West-East arteries (Bow Trail and 17th Ave), it is also sitting on top of a train station!

How can you tell people that they have to suck it up and embrace the changes because "we need more houses" when they know that field could easily be a thousand homes? But we can't be bothered right now... It'll happen eventually.... No thanks.

It feels pretty disingenuous.

Towers aren't for everyone. There's hundreds of great sites for towers all over the city. But there's no evidence that we're under-supplied. OTOH there's a reason its called the Missing Middle...

Why do the residents of Spruce Cliff and Shaganappi and Rosscarrock in the shadow of these eventual towers need to suck it up more than anybody else?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Towers aren't for everyone. There's hundreds of great sites for towers all over the city. But there's no evidence that we're under-supplied. OTOH there's a reason its called the Missing Middle...

Why do the residents of Spruce Cliff and Shaganappi and Rosscarrock in the shadow of these eventual towers need to suck it up more than anybody else?

First off, anyone living in the area knows that field is a problem. It often turns into a place for drug use and other problems. Developing the field will be welcomed as it will turn the space into something useful and populated instead of a space that you avoid.

Secondly, there are already 2 towers to the north (30 stories each?) and a C-Train station right there. It is the perfect location for the city to make a big statement about housing.

Also, the surrounding lots are already building to density or are not residential so the impact won't be significant:
- North side is Walmart parking lot, the Library and Bow Trail where the existing towers are and a golf course.
- To the east is the two new condo buildings behind the Corus building
- South side is 17th ave and then shops, bank, restaurants
- West has 4 old multi-unit buildings that honestly will get redeveloped once the surrounding area improves. Perhaps they could even be bought and incorporated into the larger project - if that happens then your West neighbours are the Emart, Liquor store, and Part Source who would all welcome more customers.

If you want to get spicy with it, I would (as the city) go get the Federal government grant for building affordable apartments and then make the entire site 'affordable' rentals. Make most of the buildings multi-bedroom (2-4) so that they can be feasible for family dwellings to supplement the missing middle housing. Also, by including 3+ bedroom apartments you are shifting out of the normal Calgary condo market and building replacements to the stand alone homes but without the maintenance of sidewalks, yards, etc.

Put retail on the main floor to cover off all essential shops and services that you would need for a population injection of that size (the federal grants have rules for the shops but do cover a big chunk of that cost too).

Have the city set up a non-profit to run the buildings and in one massive project you can build a huge injection of affordable housing for families that sits on top of the train line and also has bus routes that covers schools and other amenities.