News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

Zoning doesn't flood the market. In fact, it will LOWER prices for land to build 6 story units, which all other things being equal should lead to somewhat higher demand.

It also isn't council's job to maintain the price of land speculatively banked for development.
I am not too worried about land prices per se. More worried that there is only so much market demand for this product, and spreading it out over numerous streets in the neighbourhood will mean we never get a truly completed Main Street. Kind of like how we don't have a truly completed TOD. We might end up with only 2-3 more buildings along Edmonton Trail, and 3-4 scattered along 8th Avenue, 12th Avenue, 6th Street NE, etc... Meaning none of them are "finished", as there just wasn't enough demand for the amount of 6 storey (or higher) buildings planned in the area.
 
Is Calgary even decades away from running out of inner city sites with multi-family zoning? Eau Claire, East Village, the Beltline (especially the eastern portion), Mission and Sunalta have enough parking lots and underutilized sites to accommodate tens of thousands of units, perhaps even hundreds of thousands. Other areas such as Altadore, Killarney, Parkdale, Renfrew etc. have long standing ARP's to allow mid-density multi-family. Lots of former industrial land along the railway tracks and places like West Village, Inglewood, Burnsland, Manchester and Alyth could add more without attracting much NIMBY attention. Seems like a lot of fireworks from both sides over a non-issue.
 
look, we just can’t take the risk of Elbow Park turning into a post-apocalyptic hellscape like Hillhurst, where people in $1.4 million single detached houses have to live ON THE SAME STREET as people in $1.2 million semi-detached houses and $1 million row houses.
Given Elbow Park's location, it is more likely to turn into duck habitat.
 
I am not too worried about land prices per se. More worried that there is only so much market demand for this product, and spreading it out over numerous streets in the neighbourhood will mean we never get a truly completed Main Street. Kind of like how we don't have a truly completed TOD. We might end up with only 2-3 more buildings along Edmonton Trail, and 3-4 scattered along 8th Avenue, 12th Avenue, 6th Street NE, etc... Meaning none of them are "finished", as there just wasn't enough demand for the amount of 6 storey (or higher) buildings planned in the area.

Well and if a community has 10 sites suitable for 6 story along 16th avenue and then suddenly has 50 suitable sites throughout the community, 40 of which are on quieter tree-lined streets, I don't think that is going to cause a boom in redevelopment on 16th Ave even if the flood of sites does lower the value of suitable sites somewhat. You're going to want to build on sites with the least negative aspects.

It will also be interesting to see how soon someone applies to upzone a lot adjacent to the new 6 story targeted zones hoping to get council to allow them to bypass the market land value entirely.
 
Is Calgary even decades away from running out of inner city sites with multi-family zoning? Eau Claire, East Village, the Beltline (especially the eastern portion), Mission and Sunalta have enough parking lots and underutilized sites to accommodate tens of thousands of units, perhaps even hundreds of thousands. Other areas such as Altadore, Killarney, Parkdale, Renfrew etc. have long standing ARP's to allow mid-density multi-family. Lots of former industrial land along the railway tracks and places like West Village, Inglewood, Burnsland, Manchester and Alyth could add more without attracting much NIMBY attention. Seems like a lot of fireworks from both sides over a non-issue.

No. In Inglewood alone you could probably build 6 blocks of towers in practically vacant former industrial land.
 
I think Councillor Gondek will put forward a motion to simply allow a built form typology that maintains detached housing and semi-detached. The current lowest density typology in the guidebook allows for 3 storey apartments if I remember. Introducing a newer, lower density typology, that can then be applied to the new local area plans, should calm a lot of the fears.

That said, this typology should have some strong criteria about when and where it applies. Something like at least 2 blocks removed from any collector (transit route), so not fronting these corridors. Nothing adjacent to any commercial or activity center. Really, the center of neighbourhoods like Elbow Park or Britannia, sure. But the homes fronting Elbow Drive (and the alleyway behind those homes) can be the next step up. That would preserve lots of single family homes, but still provide a lot of properties that would allow to be upzoned and redeveloped with intensity.
So, for example:
2.8.h. Lowest intensity, low density residential forms should be supported where the parcel meets one (1) or more of the following criteria:
i. is laneless;
ii. is of a prohibitive parcel shape or size;
iii. is located on a no-through, dead-end or cul-de-sac street;
iv. contains or abuts an escarpment; or,
v. is not located within 600m of a transit stop

1616620823174.png

Basically, in the medium orange communities (pre 1950s), if one thing on that list is true, then rowhouses aren't allowed. If two things on that list are true, then rowhouses and duplexes aren't allowed; only SFD (with secondary or backyard suites) are allowed.
In the light orange (1950s and 1960s) communities, if one thing on that list is true, then only SFD (with suites) is allowed.
In all cases, on collectors, near transit centers, main streets, activity centers, etc., rowhouses would be allowed.

What you're (reasonably) suggesting as a compromise is actually more density than the guidebook has in it already, to my reading at least.
 
It will also be interesting to see how soon someone applies to upzone a lot adjacent to the new 6 story targeted zones hoping to get council to allow them to bypass the market land value entirely.
This.... Or, policy says 6 stories, let's ask for 8-10. Just see what happened with the Main Streets zoning for 17th Avenue SW (between 37th and Crowchild), which called for 6 stories, only to have Truman propose 10 and get it with their project at 29th Street. Or, Marda Loop, where the ARP said 4 stories, but now they are consistently seeing 6 along the north side of 33rd.

Edit, also to your post above, yeah. Thanks for putting in more thought to it than I did.
 
is not located within 600m of a transit stop

This is one error that I think should be corrected in the Guidebook. Typically this would read in other documents as within 600m of an LRT or BRT stop, not transit stop as I believe the entirely of the the city is within 600m of a bus stop.
 
To me the big losers of adjacent 6 story buildings aren't those also in the same zone. Yes they may provide a negative effect but at least your property value should go up so you can cash in as consolation, it's people who live adjacent in a lower density zone.
 
Someone just suggested that an amendment be added that stipulates buildings in neighborhood connector areas can only be two stories larger than neighboring properties, in theory allowing building height to increase as the streets get developed without creating out of place tall buildings. Seems like an interesting idea, any thoughts?
 
Someone just suggested that an amendment be added that stipulates buildings in neighborhood connector areas can only be two stories larger than neighboring properties, in theory allowing building height to increase as the streets get developed without creating out of place tall buildings. Seems like an interesting idea, any thoughts?

Thing is didn't that used to be a requirement, that disparity of height required step downs or similar?

Couple of more thoughts:
- Maybe if implemented should need to be asked for by adjacent owner/resident, so that building height isn't truncated when the neighbours don't actually care.
- Might only apply on a 25 ft segment basis. Eg if you had a 100 ft lot that could accept 6 stories but only one end is adjacent to lower buildings that last 25 ft segment could be lower with the rest at the full height.
 
Last edited:
I am not too worried about land prices per se. More worried that there is only so much market demand for this product, and spreading it out over numerous streets in the neighbourhood will mean we never get a truly completed Main Street. Kind of like how we don't have a truly completed TOD. We might end up with only 2-3 more buildings along Edmonton Trail, and 3-4 scattered along 8th Avenue, 12th Avenue, 6th Street NE, etc... Meaning none of them are "finished", as there just wasn't enough demand for the amount of 6 storey (or higher) buildings planned in the area.
IIRC we're running at about what, 18% developed area for unit growth? We need to be in the mid to high 30s by the middle of next decade, and 50% by 2050. We don't need to concentrate - there will be enough to go around.

Things take time. We should want more organic development.

What we should do is a much better job of knitting the corridors together with streetscapes - then we don't have to be as concerned with getting it all done in 20 years, and gaps.
 
IIRC we're running at about what, 18% developed area for unit growth? We need to be in the mid to high 30s by the middle of next decade, and 50% by 2050. We don't need to concentrate - there will be enough to go around.

Things take time. We should want more organic development.

What we should do is a much better job of knitting the corridors together with streetscapes - then we don't have to be as concerned with getting it all done in 20 years, and gaps.
Well, that is the MDP targets, but is it realistic when Council continues to approve multiple new communities around our borders? And, is openly talking about further annexing county lands to allow planning of even more new communities?

I also wonder, as Doug pointed out, how much "new" land we actually need to accommodate those targets? Think how many thousands up on thousands of units we could fit on just our park and ride lots alone, not including the typical low density commercial that is in place with them. Upzone that, where the proper transit/transportation infrastructure exists (and usually without much community opposition), before you upzone 8th Avenue.

If we run out of lands like that in the next 30 years, I guess the outcome is we will have about a dozen solid, full TODs, plus multiple completed high streets. Nice problem to have, and then we can start looking at some of these neighbourhood connectors and next generation of intensity for some of these other areas.
 

Back
Top