News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.7K     0 

Nope.
 
The Guidebook for Great Communities essentially makes R-CG row-housing the lowest density contemplated in local area plans. Still unclear whether in practice RC1 to RC2/RCG upzoning will be allowed in every neighborhood / on every corner / on every parcel (I don't see the political will for that), but it certainly moves us in that direction.
 
R-CG contains a variety of low density built forms, including single-family homes. A lot of hay is being made over this new guidebook (the engagement could have been smoother for sure). But keep in mind, all new suburban neighbourhoods are R-G zoned, R-1 doesn't really get used anymore. Yet, it is predominantly single family homes that still get built in that zoning in the burbs.
 
The city gained 10,000 single family homes in the past four years alone. And only one townhouse for every four SFD houses. I thought UCP flacks like this guy were in favour of the government getting out of the way and letting private citizens do what they want with their own land?

The restrictive covenants he's talking about in the article have a charming history in Canada; in the classic case a covenant provided that the land could never be sold, used, occupied or rented “by any person of the Jewish, Hebrew, Semitic, Negro or coloured race or blood.” Here in Calgary, in the 1920s, they were used to keep African Canadians from purchasing homes outside the boundaries of the railway yards.
 
We should scrap contextual front setbacks in R-CG and just use or mirror R-G. Also the B.S stepbacks on sideyards in R-CG should die too.

Can anyone justify why i can do a 1m min front setback in R-G in the suburbs, and end up with a 6.5-8.5m front setback on an inner-city rowhome because of contextual setbacks (particularly for a mid-block site)?

All contextual setbacks should be scrapped and replaced with a minimum front setback or build-to line, in my opinion. Don't make it so much easier to build correctly in new suburbs and so shitty and contextual in the inner-city.
 
Last edited:
MichaelS said:
R-CG contains a variety of low density built forms, including single-family homes. A lot of hay is being made over this new guidebook (the engagement could have been smoother for sure). But keep in mind, all new suburban neighbourhoods are R-G zoned, R-1 doesn't really get used anymore. Yet, it is predominantly single family homes that still get built in that zoning in the burbs.
Click to expand...

I presume most of the fuss will be what land use rules will apply in the fancy RC1 neighborhoods in the inner city, e.g. Rosedale, Briar Hill, Mt Royal. You could make a fat profit tearing down rows of ho-hum century bungalows on 50' lots in those areas and doing fancy duplexes or fancy rowhouses instead of fancy giant SFHs. Technically, yes you can tear down new SFHs in R-G neighborhoods next to the farm fields and put up duplexes, but it doesn't pay.
 
zagox said:
I presume most of the fuss will be what land use rules will apply in the fancy RC1 neighborhoods in the inner city, e.g. Rosedale, Briar Hill, Mt Royal. You could make a fat profit tearing down rows of ho-hum century bungalows on 50' lots in those areas and doing fancy duplexes or fancy rowhouses instead of fancy giant SFHs. Technically, yes you can tear down new SFHs in R-G neighborhoods next to the farm fields and put up duplexes, but it doesn't pay.
Click to expand...
My cynical side says there should be a (renewable) 10 year moratorium on any R-CG style development in say 5 communities that want to preserve so-called "neigbourhood character". The catch is that the 5 communities are chosen based on a sealed-bid auction, with the communities bidding on increased property tax rates: sure you can have a ban on duplexes, but it'll cost you. That way, the high-income communities you mention get to preserve their McMansion character but they don't get to keep their free ride, forcing the rest of the city to pay for the sprawl or density that they won't accept. This is de facto the system we currently have, just with backroom pressure, NIMBY campaigns and campaign contributions rather than paying into the public coffers.
 
I think someone had once mentioned on here that some countries like France and Germany tax based on square footage. That is something that might work if factored into the equation...... especially if it was straight up on a per square foot of your lot, with a multiple that factors in percentage of lot space.

For example say the the basic multiplier was 0.8 for all SFH, and your lot was 100' x 50' (6,000 square feet), and you were the only owner on that lot size, (example from University Heights)
0.8 x 6,000 x 1 = $4,800 Divide by 12 would be $400.00 per month.

If all condo owners in a building over 4 floors had a multiplier of 3.0 and the lot was 113' x 320' (36,160 square feet) and you were one of 115 owners
10.0 x 36,160 = $289,280 total, then divide by 115 = $2,515.00, then divide by 12 and $209.00 per month.

I'm not saying those would have to be the numbers, that's just a made up example, but it would help balance it up a bit if taxes were better tied to density.

ByeByeBaby said:
My cynical side says there should be a (renewable) 10 year moratorium on any R-CG style development in say 5 communities that want to preserve so-called "neigbourhood character". The catch is that the 5 communities are chosen based on a sealed-bid auction, with the communities bidding on increased property tax rates: sure you can have a ban on duplexes, but it'll cost you. That way, the high-income communities you mention get to preserve their McMansion character but they don't get to keep their free ride, forcing the rest of the city to pay for the sprawl or density that they won't accept. This is de facto the system we currently have, just with backroom pressure, NIMBY campaigns and campaign contributions rather than paying into the public coffers.
Click to expand...
 
Not a bad idea. It's probably more fair than the market value method used today, and I could see it encouraging density. The issue I see is it's too complicated for the average Joe, and the instant raise in taxes for the SFH owners would cost you your political position.
Surrealplaces said:
I think someone had once mentioned on here that some countries like France and Germany tax based on square footage. That is something that might work if factored into the equation...... especially if it was straight up on a per square foot of your lot, with a multiple that factors in percentage of lot space.

For example say the the basic multiplier was 0.8 for all SFH, and your lot was 100' x 50' (6,000 square feet), and you were the only owner on that lot size, (example from University Heights)
0.8 x 6,000 x 1 = $4,800 Divide by 12 would be $400.00 per month.

If all condo owners in a building over 4 floors had a multiplier of 3.0 and the lot was 113' x 320' (36,160 square feet) and you were one of 115 owners
10.0 x 36,160 = $289,280 total, then divide by 115 = $2,515.00, then divide by 12 and $209.00 per month.

I'm not saying those would have to be the numbers, that's just a made up example, but it would help balance it up a bit if taxes were better tied to density.
Click to expand...
 
Your'e right about the political fallout. People don't like their property taxes raised, and if it was done in order to lower taxes for another group, it would be even worse.
 
You could do it, phase it in over 30 years. The shift would be too stark - there are fixed costs that are caused by any residence existing. There are equity issues on ability to pay that works positively right now for value assessment. Then there is the user's ability to pay. Moving to a mixture of all three would be good. I’d add in an empty bedroom tax too. More than 1 empty bedroom, and you pay an escalating scale per each.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top