darwink
Senior Member
1000%
|
|
|
- Thread starter Urban Outdoorsman
- Start date
There's been some discussion on Nextdoor regarding the guidebook. Some of the people commenting are completely clueless about density....I don't have enough hands for the amount of face palms needed.The pushback against the guidebook is unreal. Apparently some major PAC's are behind the misinformation campaign, buying out space in major publications
The Sprawl: Who's behind the anti-guidebook ads in Calgary?.
Who’s behind the anti-guidebook ads in Calgary? | The Sprawl
Some groups are more transparent than others.www.sprawlcalgary.com
Here you can see one of the users sharing a link to AlbertaProud.
13 reactions, 80 comments.
ca.nextdoor.com
darwink
Senior Member
Only north central calgary can see the post. Screen shot?There's been some discussion on Nextdoor regarding the guidebook. Some of the people commenting are completely clueless about density....I don't have enough hands for the amount of face palms needed.
Here you can see one of the users sharing a link to AlbertaProud.
13 reactions, 80 comments.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Following the logic of many of these anti-guidebook ads and their PACs is interesting. The two themes I am noticing:
1. The whole "it's important to preserve single family homes" and the "big, bad city and it's planners are ruining market choice" argument is all over the place. Ironically, this argument is backwards: effectively these people are asking for massive government intervention in the land development market to restrict development types rather than rely on market choice. Looking at the names of many recent opinion-articles I am pretty confident the loudest voices all know this but the anti-government language plays well to some types (even if they are actually calling for more government regulation).
2. The big uproar and public debate on a fairly boring document seems to be largely explainable from the political gamesmanship going on, exacerbated with our free-for-all, cash-fueled municipal election mess that we are in for thanks to the province's attempt to tip the scales in October.
1. The whole "it's important to preserve single family homes" and the "big, bad city and it's planners are ruining market choice" argument is all over the place. Ironically, this argument is backwards: effectively these people are asking for massive government intervention in the land development market to restrict development types rather than rely on market choice. Looking at the names of many recent opinion-articles I am pretty confident the loudest voices all know this but the anti-government language plays well to some types (even if they are actually calling for more government regulation).
2. The big uproar and public debate on a fairly boring document seems to be largely explainable from the political gamesmanship going on, exacerbated with our free-for-all, cash-fueled municipal election mess that we are in for thanks to the province's attempt to tip the scales in October.
JoeUrban
Active Member
Denser development could work on 20th Ave but one thing that bugs me is through policy (LAP) or ad hoc, allowed density is increased within the North Hill communities while streets like Centre St north of 16th avenue,16th avenue itself, or the large parking lot on 4th NW between 23rd/24th Aves remain wastelands. It feels like there will never be any reason to redevelop there if there's always residential streets ready to be upzoned instead. I would really like if increased density on streets like 20th (in particular 6 story) was paused until there's real action on those other streets that need redevelopment so badly.
darwink
Senior Member
They might have a logical foot to stand on: they know the market cannot support many majority SFH communities over the long term. they also know that property owners will not voluntarily surrender their rights to redevelop using restrictive covenants.Therefor, to have that choice available for the majority, massive intervention is needed.
It is a weird argument to make, but if you believe that SFHs are fundamental to an otherwise small-c conservative environment, it could be justified to take a massive intervention in one area of life to ensure freedom and liberty in all others.
Of course, the logical argument is not the one being made!
JoeUrban
Active Member
JoeUrban
Active Member
Just listening to the first public speaker. Does council even register all of the long 'pre-amble'? I feel like if I was on council and someone had an issue with a policy document I would want them to cut to the chase and point out specific complaints and ideally specific improvements. Especially when there's a zillion people waiting to speak.
Urban Outdoorsman
Active Member
Yeah I'm also listening, I just find it interesting that almost all of the opposition so far has been from residents in the wealthiest communities in the city (mount royal, elboya, etc.).
JoeUrban
Active Member
Well to be fair they were just the first group to speak. I'm curious to if future panels are also groups of communities or if they end up more varied. I'm not clear on how the 'panels' were grouped.
Apparently that was Panel 1 of 25 and there are over 150 people wanting to speak, so I hear through the grapevine.
JoeUrban
Active Member
Another thing I'm noticing is I bet half of the complaints are actually misunderstandings due to complexity or lack of clarity of various guidebook elements, or to be honest misunderstandings about other city policies. I think we have a situation where just in the past week or so a lot of people have become aware of the guidebook and have been trying to digest and understand it and the whole gamut of city planning policies in a very short time with varying success.
JoeUrban
Active Member
I can say with certainty that 'character will change' will not be an influential argument to council
You could expect there would be some of this.
That's pretty much my thoughts also. I mentioned in the Nextdoor debate that my idea of density was small to medium sized developments along corridors roads like 20th ave or Edmonton Trail etc.. with some smaller developments like duplexes etc.. scattered around the neighborhoods along with a few 6 unit developments on some of the corner lots. Definitely would be nice to develop some of the empty lots first. Maybe the city can put together a project where they invest into that.