Opinion on blanket R-CG zoning (not surprising - negative):
By Mike Robinson In a city grappling with an affordable housing shortage, the proposed Residential – Contextual Grade-Oriented (R-CG) land use designation has been hailed as a potential solution. However, a closer examination reveals serious concerns that cast doubt on whether this zoning is the...
apple.news
A few fact checks for this article:
"I
n the community of Erlton, we have been grappling with the influx of high-density developments for the past 10 years"
There's been no material growth or high density projects in Erlton realized in close to 20 years. The population is up 22 people since 2010, and the number of housing units has actually decreased by 4 over that time, at least until 2019.
This property below is referenced as an example of a bad outcome of R-CG and infill in general. This site, and most of the neighborhood, is M-CG zoned however. It was built in about 2007, so is also not an example of recent development. M-CG allows up to 12m I think, so also not an exception to the bylaw as far as I can tell. Nor is it an example of intensification - the development predates Google Street view, but looking at the aerial photos it appears to be a 1:1 replacement for two old houses.
As for shadowing, shadowing what exactly? The neighbouring existing buildings are larger than the infill, so the new build doesn't actually shadow their yards or properties. Ironically, due to removal of the older trees to build this infill, the neighbours all have less shadows than ever!
An example of gentrification, perhaps, but density increase no.
"
On a residential lot that is designed for two toilets, two sinks and one washing machine, multi-family developments of up to eight times that capacity would undoubtedly overload sewer, water, and power systems for the whole neighbourhood. The lack of foresight in this regard raises questions about the City’s planning priorities."
Well, this infill example probably tripled the amount of toilets due to it being a upscale place, but everything in here is pure speculative nonsense. Let's zoom out in the long run on Erlton, as that's the example chosen by the author.
Erlton population declined steadily since it was built - largely due to demographic decline (1960s onward), clearing of old houses/some neighbourhood boundary changes (late 1970s) and final a big bump when the new development came in around Lindsay Park (late 1990s). Essentially all growth is from that 1990s redevelopment, which would have upgraded the utility infrastructure at the time to accommodate.
I am not an engineer - nor is the author of the article - but I am assuming that major developments get reviewed for their utility impacts and charged if upgrades are needed. Meanwhile for everything incremental, the entire community could double in population just to get the pipes back up to 1968 levels of toilet flushes per pipe. There is obviously some gaps here and utilities are a major barrier to more significant redevelopment in some places, but for most low-scale infill I highly doubt it given just how far the demographics have collapsed in most places.
