MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So expropriate the land, evict the homeowners, and bulldoze them all?

wtf? No...just let a buyer build something sensible for that arterial road.

btw there is nobody to evict since the listing describes the dwelling as 'unliveable'. But it's great that 75' lot can sit vacant because that lot simply does not make sense for a SFH anymore.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But GGG thinks there shouldn’t be any detached SFH in the near inner city. The only way to achieve that would be by mandate, not the market.

Look at Altadore. It’s far denser than it was in early 90s when I rented by first apartment there. All sorts of condos, walkups, and infills have been built. I’d guess more than a 30 per cent population increase. And yet you still see old original detached homes in the area, many of them evidently owned by people who aren’t wealthy. Why haven’t they sold? Who knows. But unless we start kicking people out of their homes to densify by mandate, densification will happen incrementally and be measured in progress over decades.

Oh, I see, you just want to argue pedantically in bad faith. The market could sort this out fine without draconian zoning.

Maybe, just maybe, GGG means that no lot should be restricted to ONLY be a SFH in that area? Just like Altadore, the market can decide what makes sense for each lot...and many lots that will still mean fully detached. Which is fine.

The problem is that densification isn't happening fast enough because of arbitrary zoning. Change that and it will still happen incrementally and measured...just a lot faster than current.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Oh, I see, you just want to argue pedantically in bad faith. The market could sort this out fine without draconian zoning.

Is it pedantic to assume that when someone says SFH shouldn’t exist in near centre neighbourhoods, they actually believe SFH shouldn’t exist in near centre neighbourhoods? GGG has expressed some pretty strong views on SFH and densification that go beyond just letting the market sort it out. So I’m gonna go with what he actually said vs your interpretation of what he might have really meant.

[PepsiFree]

No, I think GGG meant he wanted to bulldoze those houses with the people inside in the name of density. That’s the most obvious conclusion and the one most worth responding to. As someone who believes that GGG is also planning to go door to door capping all residents prior to demolition, I would like to put forth the argument that murder is “wrong” and killing is “bad” and we should do neither in pursuit of densification. Instead of murder, let’s let the free market decide.

[topfiverecords]

I see this is the thread where our city councillors debate (fight).

Which one of you is Chu?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

I see this is the thread where our city councillors debate (fight).

Which one of you is Chu?

Chu is still trying to figure out how to make an account. The requirement to be over 16 is confusing him.

[topfiverecords]

So with the approval to upzone R-1 to R-CG, the thing I missed through all of this process is will R-2 also upzone to R-CG or remain R-2 because that’s hilarious if they missed that.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Chu is still trying to figure out how to make an account. The requirement to be over 16 is confusing him.

I think he’d have given up after finding out there are no 16 year olds to be found here.

Fun story, saw Chu at the Japanese festival, was hard to not vomit.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

wtf? No...just let a buyer build something sensible for that arterial road.

btw there is nobody to evict since the listing describes the dwelling as 'unliveable'. But it's great that 75' lot can sit vacant because that lot simply does not make sense for a SFH anymore.



Oh, I see, you just want to argue pedantically in bad faith. The market could sort this out fine without draconian zoning.

Maybe, just maybe, GGG means that no lot should be restricted to ONLY be a SFH in that area? Just like Altadore, the market can decide what makes sense for each lot...and many lots that will still mean fully detached. Which is fine.

The problem is that densification isn't happening fast enough because of arbitrary zoning. Change that and it will still happen incrementally and measured...just a lot faster than current.

It's weird though. You say densification is too slow, but plenty of people were sitting on condos near the core that were underwater for years. There was basically no demand and too much supply. Has that situation changed?

[Wormius]

Probably too much supply of one bedroom condos. Good for a single or a couple with no kids.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by pgsieve

Here is your spot! Over under this is bought by PBA within the week?

https://diane-richardson.com/elbow-p...-2k7.100142459

Can we talk about the neighbour 3 doors to the east? What in the mother of sweet #### is that 'corner' lot? A publicly owned and maintained private cul-da-sac because they couldn't come up with another solution for the laneway? Does Elbow Drive's totally only in the name of safety super duper special speed limit* also make it impossible to have a laneway intersect with the road like it does in hundreds of other places in the city with higher speed limits?

*FWIW I'm generally in favour of lower speed limits on residential arterials

Originally Posted by Slava

It's weird though. You say densification is too slow, but plenty of people were sitting on condos near the core that were underwater for years. There was basically no demand and too much supply. Has that situation changed?

Missing middle.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

So with the approval to upzone R-1 to R-CG, the thing I missed through all of this process is will R-2 also upzone to R-CG or remain R-2 because that’s hilarious if they missed that.

Thats a great question. Maybe they'll upzone all RC2 to MC1 at the same time? The increase in allowable density would be approximately proportional...

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Thats a great question. Maybe they'll upzone all RC2 to MC1 at the same time? The increase in allowable density would be approximately proportional...

Council would have to approve in the same format and I don’t see any language in the now approved housing strategy so I think this is something completely missed. Not surprising. You would think the conversation when developing the housing strategy by administration would have started at R-2 to R-CG since it’s the closest step. If everyone just sat there with blank stares while someone got the department to skip to R-1 to R-CG without including R-2 they all should be fired.

So now Elbow Park will have higher density allowance than Bankview.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Council would have to approve in the same format and I don’t see any language in the now approved housing strategy so I think this is something completely missed. Not surprising. You would think the conversation when developing the housing strategy by administration would have started at R-2 to R-CG since it’s the closest step. If everyone just sat there with blank stares while someone got the department to skip to R-1 to R-CG without including R-2 they all should be fired.

So now Elbow Park will have higher density allowance than Bankview.

Definitely seems like this was rushed/not thoroughly considered. The language around last months rent I flagged above, nothing for RC2...

[timun]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Can we talk about the neighbour 3 doors to the east? What in the mother of sweet #### is that 'corner' lot? A publicly owned and maintained private cul-da-sac because they couldn't come up with another solution for the laneway? Does Elbow Drive's totally only in the name of safety super duper special speed limit* also make it impossible to have a laneway intersect with the road like it does in hundreds of other places in the city with higher speed limits?

As someone who drives that intersection often, it's actually one of the few reasonable "traffic calming" measures the City put in ~20 years ago. That intersection used to be a ####-show. The cul-de-sac was previously a one-way from southbound Elbow to westbound Sifton. That corner house's driveway and the alley connected to this one-way link, and you could not see incoming traffic. The whole thing was kind of screwy because it was a turnaround loop for the streetcars way back in the day.

[timun]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

So with the approval to upzone R-1 to R-CG, the thing I missed through all of this process is will R-2 also upzone to R-CG or remain R-2 because that’s hilarious if they missed that.

I don't know what version of the strategy you're looking at, but in the one posted to the City website it reads "Make the base residential district Rowhouse-Ground Oriented (R-CG) with guidance for single, semi-detached, row and townhouses into a single land use district." In other words they're not suggesting upzoning R-C1 to R-CG while forgetting R-C2 entirely: R-C1 and R-C2 both become R-CG, and effectively go bye-bye.

That said, nothing has actually been changed yet. Changes to the LUB will happen later, and I'm sure as details are hashed out that's when you'll see a lot of opposition come out.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by timun

I don't know what version of the strategy you're looking at, but in the one posted to the City website it reads "Make the base residential district Rowhouse-Ground Oriented (R-CG) with guidance for single, semi-detached, row and townhouses into a single land use district." In other words they're not suggesting upzoning R-C1 to R-CG while forgetting R-C2 entirely: R-C1 and R-C2 both become R-CG, and effectively go bye-bye.

That said, nothing has actually been changed yet. Changes to the LUB will happen later, and I'm sure as details are hashed out that's when you'll see a lot of opposition come out.

The base residential zoning is R-1. Then there’s R-1N, R-1s, R-2, R-2M, R-C1, R-C1L, R-C1N, R-C1s, and R-C2 before you reach R-CG.

Throughout the entirety of this there’s been no clarification that everything below R-CG becomes R-CG.

[timun]

It's patently obviously the intent is that everything below R-CG becomes R-CG. You've simply misconstrued the "base residential district" to mean "R-1", i.e. you read it to mean "Make R-1 become R-CG" whereas what it really means is "Make R-CG the lowest-density land-use district and everything below it go away".

FYI R-1 is the "base" district only in "Developing" neighbourhoods, and R-C1 is the "base" in "Developed" neighbourhoods. R-1 does not exist in the "Developed Area", and likewise R-C1 doesn't exist in the "Developing Area". In effect there are a set of land use zones for "old neighbourhoods" (R-C1, R-C1s, R-C1L, R-C1N, R-C2, R-CG) and a set for "new neighbourhoods" (R-1, R-1s, R-1N, R-2, R-2M), and R-1 is for the "new" while R-CG is for the "old". Obviously the City does not intent to replace the "new neighbourhood single-detached zone" with "old neighbourhood rowhouse infill zone".

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by timun

It's patently obviously the intent is that everything below R-CG becomes R-CG. You've simply misconstrued the "base residential district" to mean "R-1", i.e. you read it to mean "Make R-1 become R-CG" whereas what it really means is "Make R-CG the lowest-density land-use district and everything below it go away".

FYI R-1 is the "base" district only in "Developing" neighbourhoods, and R-C1 is the "base" in "Developed" neighbourhoods. R-1 does not exist in the "Developed Area", and likewise R-C1 doesn't exist in the "Developing Area". In effect there are a set of land use zones for "old neighbourhoods" (R-C1, R-C1s, R-C1L, R-C1N, R-C2, R-CG) and a set for "new neighbourhoods" (R-1, R-1s, R-1N, R-2, R-2M), and R-1 is for the "new" while R-CG is for the "old". Obviously the City does not intent to replace the "new neighbourhood single-detached zone" with "old neighbourhood rowhouse infill zone".

It’s only patently obvious in your interpretation of the two generic lines in the strategy. R-2 and R-C2 are not base districts.

[timun]

*siiiiigh* The gist is to unify single-detached, semi-detached, rowhouses and townhouses into one land-use.

I don't know how to dumb this down any further for you.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by timun

*siiiiigh* The gist is to unify single-detached, semi-detached, rowhouses and townhouses into one land-use.

I don't know how to dumb this down any further for you.

If you want to continue to be condescending by all means, but please show more official wording that states what you’ve said because all I see is “Make the base residential district Rowhouse-Ground Oriented (R-CG) with guidance for single, semi-detached, row and townhouses”.

You believe it’s the gist to unify all R into one land-use. If you’re right, you’re right, but you’re still interpreting that and there’s no actual language that makes that so.