News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 7.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 37K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 3.7K     0 

I think it would be interesting to study the vehicle/driving habits of these different housing types (I'm sure those studies exist, but not necessarily to the granular level of an infill duplex vs. infill 10-plex next door). I would venture that on overage:

Duplex ($1.5-2M taxable assessment)
- 4 cars: 2 driven daily, 1 moderately, 1 occasionally
- 2+ of these cars are regularly parked on the street
- 4 adults - in terms of spending time/money in the immediate vicinity, let's say: 2 high, 1 moderate, 1 low

10-plex ($4-5M taxable assessment)
- Probably 8-12 cars owned at any given time...let's say 10 (e.g. 6 units=1, 2 units=2, 2 units=0)
- 4 driven daily; 3 moderately, 3 occasionally
- All 5 stalls filled, leaving ~5 cars on the street (2-3 more than the duplex)
- Probably 15+ adults - for local time/money, say: 5 high, 5 moderate, 5 low

So for an extra 2-3 cars driven at peak times and parked on the street, you get 2-3x more property tax and a lot more contribution to local vibrancy. Which isn't to say either is right or wrong, but it seems opponents really struggle to imagine that different developments attract people with different lifestyles/values, nor recognize how much their walkable Sunday morning latté is driven by these folks.

In a contemporary context, the biggest determinant of "livable" housing is if someone can afford to live there. This is especially true for this specific location in Altadore that is largely sandwiched between two of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in Calgary. This isn't Industrial Revolution-era dystopia where we are arguing that houses should have running water to be "livable". The number of parking stalls being 0, 5 or 10 for these townhomes isn't close to a factor in determining "livability". Parking stalls are just an amenity like anything else.

These infills aren't likely to be cheap - but they are the only thing close to affordable, new construction in the area that is ground and family-oriented. Most critically, the supply created today will be yet another option for someone purchasing or renting 20 years from now. Just like how the most affordable options in the area now are the non-mansion infills from 20-30 years ago.
The ground-oriented element is huge IMO, and a particularly scarce option with any kind of affordability.
This is so true with what we see with housing around the city. It's so unfortunate Calgary has miles upon miles of neighborhoods like Ranchlands or Beddington. The new neighborhoods actually have good density, and the older neighborhoods with their grid layout can have updated housing stock, but areas are limited geographically, and don't come cheap. The masses of 1960-2000 aged suburbs are very difficult to change or update the housing stock. and take up enormous amounts of the city. The more recent suburbs won't be easy to change in the future, but at least they have decent density and more diversity in housing than those older suburbs.
I agree. The inner city gets all the attention for the speed and scale of its changes and its typical social crises, but Calgary's true long-term crisis is brewing in the 1960s-2000s burbs farther out.

All that decaying infrastructure in places with not enough people to support itself in the first place, but now with fewer and fewer people and very limited redevelopment potential. It's not a good recipe for long-term community attractiveness and stability.

I think that's a truth that is always so hard for the NIMBY crowd to understand for Calgary: in most cases, if your community isn't growing and diversifying, you are stagnating and declining. You don't actually have an option to remain motionless as a neighbourhood.

The growing part is actually really important in Calgary because our first-generation neighbourhood density was mostly so low that we won't be able to support replacing infrastructure for these communities again (at least not everywhere).

There are communities in many cities that don't seem to grow but remain successful over time. These are actually are very rare in Calgary today - communities of sufficient density, housing diversity, and amenity mix to remain attractive in the long-term to wide ranges of demographics. This is the much-discussed "missing middle" neighbourhood. So many options for housing the neighbourhood is stable - people are always changing in and out, but the housing stock supports everyone.

The good news is we seem to be actually retrofitting quite a few neighbourhoods to something that will be much more stable in the long run. Every 6 storey apartment building in an area that has zero apartments within 2 kilometres is doing it's part.

Marda Loop area's ongoing progression with different and more townhome/ low and mid-density forms is hugely important. What seem to be a giant fight there usually starts popping up with far less fan-fare elsewhere. Overtime each of these developments starts making a difference.
So apparently Greenwich has a younger sibling named Upper Greenwich. Noticed on DMAP that a DP has been released to start stripping and grading work on a huge parcel north of Greenwich.

Started digging around and came across they're website:

Last edited:
I believe there are 5 locations now that are planned with a residential component.

Mission Landing
Winston Heights
Marda Loop

Mission Landing residential was put on hold. Oakridge site is currently under construction. Anyone know if they have found a developer/partner yet?
You are missing one that is planned for Silverton / Silverado.
Calgary needs to fight over-regulation with a vengeance to prevent its housing market from turning into Vancouver.
As if. Calgarians freaked out over the Guidebook for Great Communities thanks to gaslighting. We will just be like Vancouver that way. Without any of some of the proper planning or TODs, they have.
Interesting development out of Edmonton. Seems to go far beyond the tweaks we are planning here in Calgary. I wonder if it will make our Council and Admin more ambitious or if the guidebook discussion has left everyone here running scared.

Calgary is going to fall behind Edmonton if they don't make good steps forward like this.
Calgary is going to fall behind Edmonton if they don't make good steps forward like this.
To be honest, I haven't read through all of the plans of what the city of Edmonton wants to do, and I'm sure others are more up to speed on it, but it looks like quite a broad sweeping change. Calgary needs to increase zoning and encourage density increases, but I wonder if the slower planned approach still isn't the better way to go?
Those who are more in the know on Edmonton's plans can probably shed more light.
Last edited:
Calgary is 20+ years ahead of Edmonton in terms of intensification and just general urban development. Even if they skip up to 15 years behind us, it’s not a big deal. Two livable cities in one province would be great.
I would agree that Calgary, over the last decade or so, has done development "better" than Edmonton, but Edmonton over the last several years or so has been more bold in adopting progressive planning policies.
Edmonton is far more decentralized than Calgary, both in terms of employment concentration and municipal governance, so it faces more battles.

Edmonton has largely bungled rededevelopment of large inner city parcels: the former CN lands along the104th Ave corridor (ex. Grant McEwan University campus, Oliver Square, Stationlands, Brewery District), downtown CP lands (ex. RailTown, Venetian), Riverdale (the Brickyard) and the south side CP lands along Calgary Trail/Gatewat Blvd.

The Ice District is mediocre so far. Only Greisbach has been well executed.

Hopefully Blatchford, redevelopment of the remaining CP lands down to Argyll Road and continued development of U of A South Campus and U of A Farm will turn out well.

Edmonton likely had/has the most inner city land available for redevelopment of any large Canadian city. Calgary could be in that situation if CP ever leaves the Alyth location.