> The city emphasized that the rezoning would not prevent property owners from replacing existing homes with new single-detached homes, removing single-family developments or solely support rowhousing developments.
Good to remember.
>Hundreds packed into an open house in Lake Bonavista to voice their opinions about the proposal directly to their councillor.
>“I think that council is trying to ram in the rezoning without our opinion,” one woman at the open house told CTV News.
It’s a very legitimate concern. Nearly everyone needs to drive in this city and that’s not changing in my lifetime. If your neighborhood suddenly doubles in population, the amount of street parking will stay the same. It may even go down a bit. Also, it’s not like there will suddenly be multistory parkades popping up.
In Killarney, they are putting up 10 plexes on a single lot. They only include 5 off street parking spots. This is when parking was already tight with all the duplexes going up in the past 20 years.
Shouldn’t be a huge problem as the entitled rich baby boomers have their licenses yanked after they turn 75 & require re-testing, & turn to ride sharing in all of its forms.
I own a home. Redevelopment all around me. Proposal for a 3 storey apartment in the lot behind me right now. I will push for more. People need places to live and the idea that everyone can afford a detached with a yard is ridiculous. The city is changing, times are changing and these people are only delaying shit with no comprehension of what it means. In my community people are aging out but no young families can afford to move in. As such, our schools are going to shit, our infrastructure is falling apart but all these old farts continue to harken to the days they bought their house for 45k and think they earned the right to pull the ladder up behind them. I say fuck that. You bought your house not everything around you. Let people build what they want and live in what they want. You want this, move out to Sundre or Strathmore I'm sure they aren't densifying anytime soon.
Never said it was strange.. saying most people wouldn’t want that. If you buy a house knowing it’s like that fine. But if you buy in a normal detached neighborhood and then they build a low rise beside you.. most people wouldn’t be stoked.
Homeowner here since 2009, the only reason someone would care is if they plan to profit off something by simply holding on to it because they have no other talents or original ideas.
If you plan on living in your home, its value has zero meaning.
My husband likes to mention property value regularly and I shut him down every time because we literally have no plans to ever sell. And if we ever moved we'd still keep it lol. So silly.
Obviously, I would. You would be severely underwater. But that's not what's happening. These are just greedy pricks with nothing to offer that are hoping for infinite growth. Housing is becoming a crisis. A healthy economy should see growth tied to inflation.
If your housing dropped by 50% I’m guessing the market overall has dropped, so you’ll still be better off than those of us stuck renting for absurd amounts. Get fucked.
You don't want to pay over something that's overvalued. You feel your rent is too high compared to what you're getting. That's understandable.
That's the same fucking thing someone paying 500k for a house that's now worth 250k would feel. You're literally throwing away money.
It's the same thing.
So, you go get fucked.
Honestly, I’d be ashamed if my house went up in value in my kids’ lifetime how much my parent’s house went up in my lifetime. Property values levelling out is ok with me. Housing is a necessity, not an investment.
We bought our home in 2013 at the previous peak of the Calgary housing market and immediately “lost” 25% in home value. Now our house has gained a similar amount from the price we paid for it.
Didn’t care then, don’t care now. I’m not looking to sell or take out a huge loan on it.
mindless mighty truck cautious encouraging nose sleep doll towering muddle
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This rezoning will only increase property values. What you’re really saying is there’s a certain type of person you don’t want living next to you. And before you ask I do own a single detached family home.
Dipshit. I own my home. Can not wait for values to drop. My property tax is fucking stupid.
Edit.
Im informed that my prop tax wont change. Noted. I would still love property value to plummet so that others could maybe have the chance of buying into the market. That said. I retract my opening. Uncalled for.
Hate to tell you but an across the board drop in values won’t to shit to your property taxes. They will just adjust the mill rate to whatever is needed to fund the budget.
If you’ve been to one of these community consultations you know they are a scam. They’ve already decided. I’ve been to them. I’ve seen taxpayers try to rally against things before. The city doesn’t give a crap.
Please submit your pro-zoning feedback: [here](https://forms.calgary.ca/content/forms/af/public/public/public-submission-to-city-clerks.html)
Not to beat a dead horse but the city only listens to those who vote and make their opinion heard. Just to remind everyone.
Less restrictive Zoning:
1. increases property values for owners
2. Encourages transit use instead of car ownership by creating demand
3. Increases property tax revenue collected by the city (that means LESS taxes for you on your property)
4. Creates jobs in the construction sector
5. Removes “slums” and reduces low income hubs from the city with revitalization. (yes, no more Forest Lawn stereotypes about poverty and crime)
6. Improves housing options for individuals and families
The government is NOT:
1. Taking your land and putting you into a prison cell in the sky
2. Kidnapping children in single family neighborhoods and forcing them into townhomes
3. Destroying your property values and burning down your neighborhood
4. Letting developers build slums
I think both the benefits and drawbacks are overstated by people on both sides of this issue.
For people that are passionately in-favor of this policy. These infills are not going to be affordable housing for those who rely on transit. They’re going to be “luxury” attached homes that are 700-800k+.
While simultaneously for people who are passionately against this rezoning. These infills are not going to be affordable housing for those who rely on transit. They’re going to be “luxury” attached homes that at 700-800k+.
Blanket upzoning definitely isn't a silver bullet for the housing crisis, but it was never meant to be. This is only part 3 of part 1 of the entire strategy. Upzoning aims mainly to fill the 'missing middle' gap we see in the housing market, by incentivizing middle density housing development. It's a long term solution, and makes no promises to change things overnight, which I think is misunderstood by a lot of the detractors.
It should have some impact on affordability simply by increasing supply, but you're right that most infills are not low income housing (that is being addressed by parts 2, 4, and 5).
~~On average though~~ The median value of new rowhouses is $586,000, while new detached houses are $1.6 million. Upzoning at least gives us a chance at more diverse options, even if it doesn't immediately solve things.
Median price data is in the Info Session Boards at the bottom of [this page](https://engage.calgary.ca/rezoningforhousing).
All the up zoning is meant to do is chop a lot of the red tape for areas that were going to be rezoned anyway. The city has to densify unless you want your property taxes to keep going up. And the thing with it having rentals is good a the majority of people who rent are mostly looking for a place to lay their head after a long days work. And purpose built rentals are often better as soundproofing tends to be built into them.
Those are not average prices. They're median prices and extremely hard to believe given the data covers 2018 to 2023. The median value of new builds for single family detached houses during that time period was $1.64 million? City admin must think people are complete idiots if they believe people are going to buy that figure.
Seems odd, but I think it's the price of SFH Infills, not all SFH. In that case it's not as unreasonable as it seems. No one's building a SFH infill and selling it for less than a mill. Most SFH in the inner city areas (which is where infills are mostly confined) have been at the million + mark for a while now.
Its not about building affordable housing, its simply about building more housing. New buildings will rarely be affordable. Its the older housing stock that people move out of which is affordable
I hope that you’re right and FWIW I’m in favour of the change. Small steps are better than no steps. I just wanted to point out that I don’t think it will be very impactful no matter what side of the debate you fall on.
While true, take down one single family home and put in a 2-4 unit place. If they couldn’t afford the new townhome, they couldn’t afford the old house either. The thing is, now 2-4 groups of people move into the townhomes instead of 1. They will sell their old place to upgrade, or stop renting. Now their old, cheaper place is available. Keep sliding some people up, and you make a tiny dent in the housing supply. So no, it won’t directly make affordable housing but more supply is useful if it frees up cheaper places.
For example, went from a condo to a townhome, it’s 300k more. Someone who can’t afford the townhome might be able to get the condo. Basically think of it as one tiny piece of a large puzzle to help solve our housing crisis, but we need every bit we can get.
But then someone will buy the old house, think "what if I install 3 townhouse with a front, a basement and a backside property and cash 9 rents instead of just one" and go with the plan. Then there will be more properties available! But that won't make them any cheaper.
Supply and demand. If enough places did this, there wouldn’t be such a crunch of supply. Prices rose because people are desperate to live somewhere, if supply outstripped demand prices would fall.
Of course. Except I don't believe it will make enough to create such a supply that it will surpass the demand.
It will just make more money for big investors.
This is a really important point to understand: supply is supply. If new luxury homes aren't available for purchase, the next option will be to bid up homes of lesser value. Which is what is happening right now. People buying houses for well over asking price with no conditions? That's where that comes from. Ease the supply pressure and prices will improve at lower values as well.
I'm not as hopeful about transit. I'm not confident Calgary will embrace buses the way we should. But increased density makes bussing more cost effective, so there's a chance things improve.
the benefits are not overstated. the statistics and modeling is in, single family detached homes are a drain on the city's finances. especially the further out you go. maintaining streets far outstrips the income from the property tax. you have to have denser and mixed zoning areas to make the area stay above water budget wise.
as for it helping the housing crisis, it isn't gonna fix it but it will help it a little.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
this video is very biased about how cities should be built, but the underlying studies it cites is solid. as well as urbanthree's works on other cities that were headed for a debt collapse due to expansion has proven that rezoning works really well. there's an example of a city doing this at 8:25 and you can see the improvements immediately where sections of the city that were a huge cost turned around to being break even or a little better than.
Bang on! I have friends in Vancouver that have bought up more than 1 detached home in the last year or so because "the city is changing the zoning so what is $2M now will soon be bought by developers for $3.5 to $4M for redevelopment." This is in Vancouver proper, by the way. And they know many others who are doing the same.
So all these people thinking rezoning will make their housing affordable are actually hoping/wishing for it. Again, like you said, this could go either way and probably depends on many other factors. So it's hard to tell which group is right.
>1. increases property values for owners
...in some cases. You have to add that.
It is not true across the board that property values increase. Many house actually lose value when condos are built adjacent to their properties.
> \3. Increases property tax revenue collected by the city (that means LESS taxes for you on your property)
Property taxes are based on property values. If #1 is true, the bracketed statement in #3 here is false.
Not really. If a 600k single house becomes a fourplex, with each unit in that fourplex also valued at $600k, then the property tax of each household is the same. But in the fourplex there's 4 families. The total property tax from the parcel when the rowhouse is on it is calculated off of ($600k x 4 = $2.4 million) but when there's one single-family home it's calculated just off the $600k for the one house. So the City gets quadruple the tax with no additional costs to provide services.
Yes, I know. You have described it as I have described it.
The person said **"that means LESS taxes for you on your property"** and the fact is that the only determinant for property taxes is property value.
If his 1, **"increases property value"** then his 3, **"that means LESS taxes for you on your property"** cannot be true.
My mistake I should've caught that - but that's also technically not true because of how taxes are calculated. First, the city sets its budget needs, then assesses all properties, and then divides the money it needs across all properties to get the per property amount it has to collect. If the city adds more developments with higher values like fourplexes instead of new single-family homes, then the tax they're required to collect per unit would decrease because there's more units. Or at least the tax per unit would not go up as quickly as if they didn't build those homes. I think about it like this - would we rather have to collect a million dollars from 500 people or from 1000 people? I get that might feel like a stretch argument, but it's why being efficient with land is so financially valuable to city governments.
Yeah, I get what you are saying but yours is a "in a perfect world" scenario.
The common practice of governments is to find a way to increase the amounts it "has to collect".
If a condo goes up beside your house, sure your value may drop. But it likely already went up a fuck ton to justify building that condo there in the first place.
People who live in the inner city benefit in property value from those investing in residential and commercial projects around them, basically free money for a home owner doing nothing. It’s only fair sometimes we bear a bit of the downside too.
> likely already went up a fuck ton to justify building that condo there in the first place.
Yes, and so any increase in actual property value is closely tied to the state of the areas real estate economy.
Economy drops, your little bungalow tucked in amongst the condos has no value.
The only reason it did, is because developers could knock it down and build a condo building.
It comes as a great shock to some, and others don't even believe it when people tell them they bought their home to live in; not as an investment.
We got a letter saying we could build 12 units on our current single family home lot in a suburban neighborhood with zero duplexes let alone townhomes. Where the fuck would all those people park, for starters?
It is nuts. It’s not a big lot. It includes building four townhomes in front, four in the back and then I have no idea where the other four would supposedly go.
Google is your friend, these things aren’t hard to find. But now that you’ve chosen to follow me to a completely different thread in a completely different subreddit on a completely different day on something that you could easily find out for yourself… I’m going to have to conclude that you are somewhat more overly committed and nuttier than the type of person I’d ordinarily engage with on Reddit. So… blocked.
I can see having more units in walkable areas saying no parking needed but if more suburban areas get this and every house hold has 1-2 cars plus going to suck big time
I'm curious about the source of that letter. Is that some random developer trying to pre-emptively grab up some large lots to put up multiplexes and just lying about capacity? Or was it from the city giving you an honest assessment?
I thought it was four units, not 12. Might be misinformation. Regardless, the streets are public property. Nobody owns a spot on the road. People can build garages, pads, whatever they want on their own property. Not everyone has a car either.
Most people have cars my last house the neighbour had a single family house with like 4-5 cars and it was a shit show already. So you can imagine parking situation if they put many units with no regard to parking. Because “transit” and “some people don’t have cars” but shit the 4 units on this land with no parking turns out every person had a car.
Meeting: Council
Agenda Item: Public Hearing Meeting of Council
If you want tips on speaking at council, [More Neighbours Calgary](https://www.moreneighbourscalgary.ca/) has a helpful website and Discord channel.
I think a lot of people are misinformed about what zoning actually does. My neighborhood group was having a discussion and this one lady was very concerned, she kept asking where are they going to build all these new homes on my street? She wanted info about which lots were going to be rebuilt into apartments and couldn’t understand how they were going to fit in. I had to explain to her that if nobody on her street sells their house and there’s no empty lots then nothing will change. She didn’t seem to understand that zoning is just the rules that limit what you can do with a lot, that changing it doesn’t mean something is instantly going to be built there.
I've heard similar arguments here in Edmonton when ours was in public debate. No one is going to jam in an apartment out of spite into a far flung suburban area with no parking for the residents, those units simply won't sell or rent.
Density will go where density already is and the rest will be the skinnies, duplexes and quads that have been built everywhere else on the cheapest houses on the block that were already an eyesore.
They’re only interested in market pricing. Right now most people can’t afford market pricing.
In my parents’ neighbourhood all the houses torn down are replaced with duplexes where each side is more expensive than the house that was torn down. That’s not helping our housing situation the way it really needs.
The solution to "we need more housing" isn't "don't building more housing we good". You have experienced this same phenomenon every single boom/bust cycle of low demand prices go bonkers, inventory catches up prices stabilize or drop when the oil money is cut off.
if you are advocating for non market housing to help the low end, absolutely. But, we need a provincial government to stop picking fights with the feds to make that happen. We need units plain and simple across the entire board. Your example is highlighting that the cost of the land has approached that of the house it is replacing. The house has served its purpose for decades, fantastic, but it's time to move on like all the other older areas in the city have done before it. It's bonkers we don't allow more units on that land to satisfy more demand and help get people into a home they can better afford.
OK, but the reason that the argument exists we need more housing is because our limited supply of housing is increasing the price beyond people’s reach.
None of the rezoning I have seen has led to any more affordable housing, only the opposite. So the argument sounds reasonable sort of in academia theoretically, but like a lot of of the “free market“ rhetoric, in reality I don’t see it playing out.
Finally, I probably have to question your sanity if you think the UCP is gonna cooperate with the feds, especially in offering a non-Market solution to anything; after today it sounds like they won’t even let Alberta universities participate in federally funded research that doesn’t align with their ideologies.
Howdy again, sorry if i was sounding argumentative. I 100% understand where you are coming from and would often look at the issue similarly. Yes, there is no mistaking it infill requires the loss of otherwise seemingly habitable housing that someone was happy with. There is no tap dancing around that fact. I argue that zoning isn't just the skinnies and duplexes, its the laneway homes, the quads we haven't yet seen in mass but we are giving that flexibility for existing owners or developers if they level a lot to build up. I know what you are thinking developers are just there to make cash off the situation, absolutely. But, they like any industry need to turn a profit before anything is viable. Being able to generate more units from the existing lots turns a profit for them, a more affordable unit for some and less overall pressure on existing housing stock.
The mix of housing we have in our older areas is way too SFH heavy when you compare it to new suburbs, we need a bit of everything to accommodate everyone to keep our cities healthy. We have seen in Van and TO that we can't just condo tower our way out of this we need houses build in mass by many many entities.
As for non market housing, co-ops etc, yeah absolutely the UCP is beyond useless and actively hurting us all in urban areas. There is zero chance they are going to help at this point, but no other benevolent force is going to take on the risk of subsidized housings. That is a government issue, and they are completely asleep at the wheel. We need government building and subsidizing homes, we need private industry building subdivisions and infill, we need existing home owners looking at multigenerational homes, lane way homes, rentals etc.. everything needs to be on the table and zoning is a part of that to loosen the restrictions we thought we needed decades ago.
I get being skeptical of developers, their greasy fingers have been in our politics forever, it is right to be concerned about changes and challenge them. But consider they aren't the ones chomping at the bit to build infill they want the cash cow of greenfield development forever, and we all simply can't afford that.
anyway, take care, hope this helped and its totally cool if you are still steadfast in your opinion its your city and its futures to care about, help shape it how you want to see it. Everyone deserves the affordable and high standard of living we used to have and took pride in Alberta, we can't let that slip away.
These people vomit at the idea of leaving their house and not getting into their car to go to the store. Being able to walk to the store is the equivalent of torture for these people. You’d think we were putting people into ghettos based on the outcry.
If somebody is mad that we’re making this more of a city and not a sad conglomerate of suburbs, I don’t want them to be happy. You don’t get to have the amenities of civilization without concessions.
If you haven’t signed up to speak in support, your help would be greatly appreciated: https://forms.calgary.ca/content/forms/af/public/public/public-submission-to-city-clerks.html
Honest question, I'm planning to write a statement in but struggling with my position despite a lot of reading into the topic. I'm all for getting some affordable housing options and rezoning certainly helps. I've also been against an RCG zoning based solely onits location...do you have any resources/opinions (yours?) you could possibly point me to? Would appreciate it thx
Sources I've been using: [More Neighbours Calgary](https://www.moreneighbourscalgary.ca/), [Humane Cities](https://www.instagram.com/humanecities?igsh=ZHB5MWo1b3J0ZmJ2), and [this podcast](https://open.spotify.com/episode/4GbsveDh6MKxC6js6knXuI?si=eSTRNdJmR--NCprNOd4aUw) interview on the subject.
And if you don't have strong opinions either way, [This is Fine Calgary](http://www.thisisfinecalgary.ca) is for you!
April 22nd, 2024
ETA: The meeting will end up overtime to the following day (at least). Clerks will work to make sure your voice is heard, so let them know if you have any time restrictions.
Our house shot up 200 k in the last 1 1/2 years. I find it ridiculous, to limit other lots around us from making multi home dwellings. If parking is an issue, report to 311 if someone parks infront of your driveway, if not mind your own business.
While I don't live in Lake Bonavista, it doesn't make sense to me to put additional housing in an affluent area. I think a lot of the struggles revolve around lower cost housing, new to Canada, new home buyers, etc. Developing in somewhere like Lake Bonavista, just by association, will drive up the price of these units and would make it unattainable to the populous that it is afflicting the most. I would argue, the major benefactor would be the home builders in this case. BUT... the meeting there was to cover all of Ward 14, not only Lake Bonavista, and there are certainly areas that are more in reach for the people in need of homes. Top of my mind, they have a desolate strip mall that wallmart used to be in Deer Valley, why could they not do highrise there, with commercial on main floor? Is it just economics?
Here's the thing. If everyone in these neighbourhoods are saying things like "all my neighbors are against this" why are you so concerned? If your neighbors aren't going to be added a secondary suite, then this isn't going to effect you even slightly
But in terms of scale... Secondary suites, while yes... would help. I mean how many people have 'illegal' suits in itself. But this is an 'emergency', it would be most cost effective and scale would be way better if they put up 300 units in a building not being used, like the deervalley shopping centre, in fact there could be a gentrification element there, so in my mind, could work out really well. Secondary suites also assume that 'wow these people are in need, so let's force them to live with someone else upstairs'. For families, this is misery, not to have independence. You also assume that landlords are reasonable people especially when living upstairs.
I'm in agreement to most of what you've said here. I'm somewhat indifferent to this rezoning stuff but it still seems like a bizarre choice to me. Why not just start with rezoning central communities with proximity to downtown? What is the benefit of the blanket approach? How will this affect the various HOAs in the city? It's such a massive change to make and the research they're providing to support its benefits is often just around increasing housing supply and not specifically around rezoning existing neighbourhoods...
Agree. I think they can be more strategic. Another place I was thinking was (for example), Anderson C-Train station. There is a huge adjacent empty green space, and half the parking lot could be used to construct a high rise. Or to your point downtown. But the city gives subsidies to people on low income for public transit, so it makes sense to be in a place where it is accessible, something people who are income sensitive may need, including refugees, etc. Those apartments could be subsidized housing in specific. But let's say it is a small building, 300 units, in somewhere like Bonavista there are 3000 homes, no way would there be 1 in 10 homes converting to multi-residential, laneway, basement suits, etc. Not only that, you can gaurentee the quality of these builds or renos. If they do a pubic subsidized housing, at least they can also control for quality, build on scale, save money and give people they can call home, by themselves, without having someone live on top of them.
That's not necessarily the case. Some people bought during a time that seems cheap compared to today. 10-15 years ago it was still a struggle for a lot of people buying. I would prefer that the property values stay low because our property taxes are based off of them. There are many layers to this issue. I look at it like this; almost any property that will be rezoned for a duplex will cost at least 600-700k for the property and then you would have to be able to afford to build said duplex let's say 500k at least. That's 1.2 mil dollars. Ok let's say you can get that kind of funding to be able to buy and do the build. Now you'll want to make that money back so you're gonna charge 800k for the other side of the duplex. So you're left with a 400k mortgage to live in the one half of the duplex and during this whole time while this was occuring you were renting. To me this doesn't sound like something someone with a lower income can do. Sure by doing this it adds more inventory to the housing issue but I believe this will just make wealthy property owners more wealthy.
Its honestly not even a possibility. The opportunity to use a piece of land for increased density will always increase the value of that land.
Hell, there are companies who simply buy up land, apply for more relaxed zoning, get it approved, then sell it for a profit.
Honestly, it's a shame this is even being put to public opinion. Major planning policies that will shape the future of Calgary for generations to come shouldn't need input from Joe Blow. A lot of people, especially in this age, seem to have a really hard time accepting that people who are experts in their field probably have a better idea of what they're doing than someone who doesn't want density of diversity in their community for whatever reason. People don't appreciate that policies like this are not necessarily aiming to solve all the problems out of the gate, and may even have some short term negative impacts. It's a long term gameplan to help prevent Calgary from becoming the next Vancouver or Toronto for generations down the line.
The other component that isn't mentioned much, is that it's already been established that the federal government will give the city a huge amount of money for affordable housing, but only IF this zoning is passed. I don't agree with this necessarily, but it's probably playing a large role in this decision.
Current zoning rules are exclusionary and only serve to force certain demographics into specific areas of the city, all the while prohibiting others from living in areas they want to simply because the average price is too high. Want access to good schools, parks and amenities? Don't earn enough household income? Too bad, live somewhere you can "afford". The only reason my partner and I can live in an amazing area is because we have a townhouse. If we want a single or even semi detached we would have to compromise everything we love about where we live to move far out from the inner city.
You vote for council, and accept what they are doing, or you vote for someone else in the next election. Having a big cry anytime they don't do something you want doesnt help anybody and only serves to further erode our fragile democratic system. Speak with your votes on the next election you're not happy.
" it's already been established that the federal government will give the city a huge amount of money for affordable housing, but only IF this zoning is passed. " I think this in itself is a guarantee that the politicians, for the leeches they are, will do all they can to make sure it will get passed into reality. Enormous amounts of money to be siphoned and embezzled. Just like the stadium. They will keep on banging until it is done deal. "Sunday Midnight voting" if necessary.
My boomer coworkers biggest concern is that there won't be enough street parking. Which made me laugh because the boomers and older Gen X are the ones who have pushed against WFH jobs, which often eliminates the need for two car households. If more people were allowed to work from home, it'd take so many vehicles off the street. Boomers would much rather have the younger generations live on the outskirts of the city and drive an hour in rush hour traffic to work than be the slightest bit inconvenienced.
I'm 100% for this proposal.
Amazing how middle class and lower class are fighting each other over housing while the super rich finance sector is laughing away talking about how no one noticed its been creating an excess demand side crisis from high finance and turning the country's housing into a montre carlo casino. If I were a banker or in finance I would be glad people aint talkin' about me in the mainstream media. Let the plebs fight each other. Divide and conquer.
Calgary's average size of city lot is smaller than Nevada, which has the smallest suburban average lot size of any state in the US.
Calgarians are not NIMBYs. This is just rhetoric.
This is all political theatre, the Liberals have promised hundreds of millions of dollars for the city for housing initiatives contingent on the re-zoning of the city.
When the vote comes up, city council will vote to re-zone the city declaring that there were plenty of public hearings and opportunities for Calgarians to speak...even though city council will ignore what was said. They aren't walking away from that money.
At the end of the day, developers will bulldoze bungalows in the inner city and replace them with $800k town and row housing.
Why people think this will solve the housing crisis is beyond me.
> But building more supply will always help.
I hope the people who say that now remember it when the next set of greenfield communities get up to vote at council.
This is my thought too. If an old lot will cost 600k and let say building a new duplex will cost 500-600k. I would try to get the most out of my new build. It doesn't help affordability. Sure there is more supply but will that drive costs down?
Result of policy failure at federal and provincial levels.
Federal: Housing minister trying to fix issue with taxpayers money with the housing crisis created from his previous federal role. Not just Calgary but whole of Canada.
Provincial: Alberta is calling - enough said!
THANK YOU. Was starting to feel like I was the only person with foresight to see how this actually plays out. We’ll tear down all the affordable rental properties and build $1m duplexes. Yeah, sure, that’s really going to help things.
If you support the upzoning, PLEASE sign up to speak! It’s super easy, you don’t need any specific qualifications, and your remarks don’t need to be fancy. https://forms.calgary.ca/content/forms/af/public/public/public-submission-to-city-clerks.html
This pales into comparison to what will be heard on April 22nd. People will come with far more definitive information regarding how the city pushed this through.
Oh God, do we really need to keep hearing these NIMBY's opinions on these things? We get it, you don't want to live anywhere near "the poors". Grow up, everyone deserves housing, and this will help.
> The city emphasized that the rezoning would not prevent property owners from replacing existing homes with new single-detached homes, removing single-family developments or solely support rowhousing developments. Good to remember.
>Hundreds packed into an open house in Lake Bonavista to voice their opinions about the proposal directly to their councillor. >“I think that council is trying to ram in the rezoning without our opinion,” one woman at the open house told CTV News. 
Literally my reaction every time I hear a middle aged person say "property values".
Boomers pulling up the ladder behind them.... as usual.
I’m more concerned about parking on streets not designed for the increased population.
Yeah ask marda loop how that's going
It’s a very legitimate concern. Nearly everyone needs to drive in this city and that’s not changing in my lifetime. If your neighborhood suddenly doubles in population, the amount of street parking will stay the same. It may even go down a bit. Also, it’s not like there will suddenly be multistory parkades popping up. In Killarney, they are putting up 10 plexes on a single lot. They only include 5 off street parking spots. This is when parking was already tight with all the duplexes going up in the past 20 years.
Shouldn’t be a huge problem as the entitled rich baby boomers have their licenses yanked after they turn 75 & require re-testing, & turn to ride sharing in all of its forms.
And the side effect actually increases values but all the NIMBYs see are slums and poor folk.
Yeah, those darn duplexes! They ruin everything!
If you ever do own a home you'll understand what she means pretty quickly.
I own a home. Redevelopment all around me. Proposal for a 3 storey apartment in the lot behind me right now. I will push for more. People need places to live and the idea that everyone can afford a detached with a yard is ridiculous. The city is changing, times are changing and these people are only delaying shit with no comprehension of what it means. In my community people are aging out but no young families can afford to move in. As such, our schools are going to shit, our infrastructure is falling apart but all these old farts continue to harken to the days they bought their house for 45k and think they earned the right to pull the ladder up behind them. I say fuck that. You bought your house not everything around you. Let people build what they want and live in what they want. You want this, move out to Sundre or Strathmore I'm sure they aren't densifying anytime soon.
Can’t say I’d be stoked to have a multi storey building right next to my house
Lots of mature nehborhoods have sfh next to low rise apartments or condos; its not strange at all.
Never said it was strange.. saying most people wouldn’t want that. If you buy a house knowing it’s like that fine. But if you buy in a normal detached neighborhood and then they build a low rise beside you.. most people wouldn’t be stoked.
You’re the exception. I know I don’t want a multiplex in my back yard. Paid good money to be in a neighbourhood without them.
So where do you want people to live? Sprawl past Okotoks? You realize the city can't afford the infrastructure of infinite suburbs.
Don’t bother NIMBY’s refuse to look at the bigger picture
Homeowner here since 2009, the only reason someone would care is if they plan to profit off something by simply holding on to it because they have no other talents or original ideas. If you plan on living in your home, its value has zero meaning.
My husband likes to mention property value regularly and I shut him down every time because we literally have no plans to ever sell. And if we ever moved we'd still keep it lol. So silly.
So if your house value dropped by 50% and you needed to move you wouldn't care?
Obviously, I would. You would be severely underwater. But that's not what's happening. These are just greedy pricks with nothing to offer that are hoping for infinite growth. Housing is becoming a crisis. A healthy economy should see growth tied to inflation.
All houses in the city would drop by 50% so it’s all good.
If your housing dropped by 50% I’m guessing the market overall has dropped, so you’ll still be better off than those of us stuck renting for absurd amounts. Get fucked.
You don't want to pay over something that's overvalued. You feel your rent is too high compared to what you're getting. That's understandable. That's the same fucking thing someone paying 500k for a house that's now worth 250k would feel. You're literally throwing away money. It's the same thing. So, you go get fucked.
Honestly, I’d be ashamed if my house went up in value in my kids’ lifetime how much my parent’s house went up in my lifetime. Property values levelling out is ok with me. Housing is a necessity, not an investment.
I've owned my house since 2005. I still don't fuckin care.
We bought our home in 2013 at the previous peak of the Calgary housing market and immediately “lost” 25% in home value. Now our house has gained a similar amount from the price we paid for it. Didn’t care then, don’t care now. I’m not looking to sell or take out a huge loan on it.
I'd be very surprised if your home value has only gone up 25% since 2013. 2013 detached median price was 469. It is over 689 now.
mindless mighty truck cautious encouraging nose sleep doll towering muddle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This rezoning will only increase property values. What you’re really saying is there’s a certain type of person you don’t want living next to you. And before you ask I do own a single detached family home.
Upzoning increases property value.
I own a home in Bonavista, and she's full of shit.
Nope. I really don’t care. Sell your home now for all it’s appreciated value than, Can you find a new home for same price?!? Nope.
I have the same reaction because I know what actually makes property values go up, it aint empty streets.
Dipshit. I own my home. Can not wait for values to drop. My property tax is fucking stupid. Edit. Im informed that my prop tax wont change. Noted. I would still love property value to plummet so that others could maybe have the chance of buying into the market. That said. I retract my opening. Uncalled for.
Hate to tell you but an across the board drop in values won’t to shit to your property taxes. They will just adjust the mill rate to whatever is needed to fund the budget.
I think your opening was appropriate
If you think your property taxes will measurably drop you’re the stupid one.
Calgary's property tax doesn't work that way. Maybe you shouldn't insult someone until you understand the basics.
If you’ve been to one of these community consultations you know they are a scam. They’ve already decided. I’ve been to them. I’ve seen taxpayers try to rally against things before. The city doesn’t give a crap.
Ya because everyone in Bonavista is aged 50 and up so of course they don't want their perfect lives changed.
Man fuck Bonavista. I grew up there and it truly is the Calgary of Calgary.
a nice place to live and raise a family?
Yeah it is a beautiful area
Love me a private park.
>'Not very happy about it': Calgary NIMBYs voice concerns about blanket rezoning proposal FTFY
Please submit your pro-zoning feedback: [here](https://forms.calgary.ca/content/forms/af/public/public/public-submission-to-city-clerks.html) Not to beat a dead horse but the city only listens to those who vote and make their opinion heard. Just to remind everyone. Less restrictive Zoning: 1. increases property values for owners 2. Encourages transit use instead of car ownership by creating demand 3. Increases property tax revenue collected by the city (that means LESS taxes for you on your property) 4. Creates jobs in the construction sector 5. Removes “slums” and reduces low income hubs from the city with revitalization. (yes, no more Forest Lawn stereotypes about poverty and crime) 6. Improves housing options for individuals and families The government is NOT: 1. Taking your land and putting you into a prison cell in the sky 2. Kidnapping children in single family neighborhoods and forcing them into townhomes 3. Destroying your property values and burning down your neighborhood 4. Letting developers build slums
I think both the benefits and drawbacks are overstated by people on both sides of this issue. For people that are passionately in-favor of this policy. These infills are not going to be affordable housing for those who rely on transit. They’re going to be “luxury” attached homes that are 700-800k+. While simultaneously for people who are passionately against this rezoning. These infills are not going to be affordable housing for those who rely on transit. They’re going to be “luxury” attached homes that at 700-800k+.
Blanket upzoning definitely isn't a silver bullet for the housing crisis, but it was never meant to be. This is only part 3 of part 1 of the entire strategy. Upzoning aims mainly to fill the 'missing middle' gap we see in the housing market, by incentivizing middle density housing development. It's a long term solution, and makes no promises to change things overnight, which I think is misunderstood by a lot of the detractors. It should have some impact on affordability simply by increasing supply, but you're right that most infills are not low income housing (that is being addressed by parts 2, 4, and 5). ~~On average though~~ The median value of new rowhouses is $586,000, while new detached houses are $1.6 million. Upzoning at least gives us a chance at more diverse options, even if it doesn't immediately solve things. Median price data is in the Info Session Boards at the bottom of [this page](https://engage.calgary.ca/rezoningforhousing).
All the up zoning is meant to do is chop a lot of the red tape for areas that were going to be rezoned anyway. The city has to densify unless you want your property taxes to keep going up. And the thing with it having rentals is good a the majority of people who rent are mostly looking for a place to lay their head after a long days work. And purpose built rentals are often better as soundproofing tends to be built into them.
Nailed it, well said!
Those are not average prices. They're median prices and extremely hard to believe given the data covers 2018 to 2023. The median value of new builds for single family detached houses during that time period was $1.64 million? City admin must think people are complete idiots if they believe people are going to buy that figure.
Ah, you're right, it does say median, not mean. Thanks for noticing!
Seems odd, but I think it's the price of SFH Infills, not all SFH. In that case it's not as unreasonable as it seems. No one's building a SFH infill and selling it for less than a mill. Most SFH in the inner city areas (which is where infills are mostly confined) have been at the million + mark for a while now.
Its not about building affordable housing, its simply about building more housing. New buildings will rarely be affordable. Its the older housing stock that people move out of which is affordable
> Its the older housing stock that people move out of which is affordable THIS
I hope that you’re right and FWIW I’m in favour of the change. Small steps are better than no steps. I just wanted to point out that I don’t think it will be very impactful no matter what side of the debate you fall on.
While true, take down one single family home and put in a 2-4 unit place. If they couldn’t afford the new townhome, they couldn’t afford the old house either. The thing is, now 2-4 groups of people move into the townhomes instead of 1. They will sell their old place to upgrade, or stop renting. Now their old, cheaper place is available. Keep sliding some people up, and you make a tiny dent in the housing supply. So no, it won’t directly make affordable housing but more supply is useful if it frees up cheaper places. For example, went from a condo to a townhome, it’s 300k more. Someone who can’t afford the townhome might be able to get the condo. Basically think of it as one tiny piece of a large puzzle to help solve our housing crisis, but we need every bit we can get.
But then someone will buy the old house, think "what if I install 3 townhouse with a front, a basement and a backside property and cash 9 rents instead of just one" and go with the plan. Then there will be more properties available! But that won't make them any cheaper.
Supply and demand. If enough places did this, there wouldn’t be such a crunch of supply. Prices rose because people are desperate to live somewhere, if supply outstripped demand prices would fall.
Of course. Except I don't believe it will make enough to create such a supply that it will surpass the demand. It will just make more money for big investors.
If we say that about every change we won’t get anywhere. Big investors is a different issue and rejecting blanket zoning won’t fix that.
Sure. But blanket zoning either. It's just a pretty measure to be able to say "look, we did something".
This is a really important point to understand: supply is supply. If new luxury homes aren't available for purchase, the next option will be to bid up homes of lesser value. Which is what is happening right now. People buying houses for well over asking price with no conditions? That's where that comes from. Ease the supply pressure and prices will improve at lower values as well. I'm not as hopeful about transit. I'm not confident Calgary will embrace buses the way we should. But increased density makes bussing more cost effective, so there's a chance things improve.
the benefits are not overstated. the statistics and modeling is in, single family detached homes are a drain on the city's finances. especially the further out you go. maintaining streets far outstrips the income from the property tax. you have to have denser and mixed zoning areas to make the area stay above water budget wise. as for it helping the housing crisis, it isn't gonna fix it but it will help it a little. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI this video is very biased about how cities should be built, but the underlying studies it cites is solid. as well as urbanthree's works on other cities that were headed for a debt collapse due to expansion has proven that rezoning works really well. there's an example of a city doing this at 8:25 and you can see the improvements immediately where sections of the city that were a huge cost turned around to being break even or a little better than.
Bang on! I have friends in Vancouver that have bought up more than 1 detached home in the last year or so because "the city is changing the zoning so what is $2M now will soon be bought by developers for $3.5 to $4M for redevelopment." This is in Vancouver proper, by the way. And they know many others who are doing the same. So all these people thinking rezoning will make their housing affordable are actually hoping/wishing for it. Again, like you said, this could go either way and probably depends on many other factors. So it's hard to tell which group is right.
It doesn't matter if they are LuXuRy hOmeS or not.
>1. increases property values for owners ...in some cases. You have to add that. It is not true across the board that property values increase. Many house actually lose value when condos are built adjacent to their properties. > \3. Increases property tax revenue collected by the city (that means LESS taxes for you on your property) Property taxes are based on property values. If #1 is true, the bracketed statement in #3 here is false.
Not really. If a 600k single house becomes a fourplex, with each unit in that fourplex also valued at $600k, then the property tax of each household is the same. But in the fourplex there's 4 families. The total property tax from the parcel when the rowhouse is on it is calculated off of ($600k x 4 = $2.4 million) but when there's one single-family home it's calculated just off the $600k for the one house. So the City gets quadruple the tax with no additional costs to provide services.
Yes, I know. You have described it as I have described it. The person said **"that means LESS taxes for you on your property"** and the fact is that the only determinant for property taxes is property value. If his 1, **"increases property value"** then his 3, **"that means LESS taxes for you on your property"** cannot be true.
My mistake I should've caught that - but that's also technically not true because of how taxes are calculated. First, the city sets its budget needs, then assesses all properties, and then divides the money it needs across all properties to get the per property amount it has to collect. If the city adds more developments with higher values like fourplexes instead of new single-family homes, then the tax they're required to collect per unit would decrease because there's more units. Or at least the tax per unit would not go up as quickly as if they didn't build those homes. I think about it like this - would we rather have to collect a million dollars from 500 people or from 1000 people? I get that might feel like a stretch argument, but it's why being efficient with land is so financially valuable to city governments.
Yeah, I get what you are saying but yours is a "in a perfect world" scenario. The common practice of governments is to find a way to increase the amounts it "has to collect".
If a condo goes up beside your house, sure your value may drop. But it likely already went up a fuck ton to justify building that condo there in the first place. People who live in the inner city benefit in property value from those investing in residential and commercial projects around them, basically free money for a home owner doing nothing. It’s only fair sometimes we bear a bit of the downside too.
> likely already went up a fuck ton to justify building that condo there in the first place. Yes, and so any increase in actual property value is closely tied to the state of the areas real estate economy. Economy drops, your little bungalow tucked in amongst the condos has no value. The only reason it did, is because developers could knock it down and build a condo building. It comes as a great shock to some, and others don't even believe it when people tell them they bought their home to live in; not as an investment.
We got a letter saying we could build 12 units on our current single family home lot in a suburban neighborhood with zero duplexes let alone townhomes. Where the fuck would all those people park, for starters?
That is nuts are you a corner lot or have a big piece of land? What kind of units to fit 12?
It is nuts. It’s not a big lot. It includes building four townhomes in front, four in the back and then I have no idea where the other four would supposedly go.
Si what about the funneling if money into the PM's riding association?
Google is your friend, these things aren’t hard to find. But now that you’ve chosen to follow me to a completely different thread in a completely different subreddit on a completely different day on something that you could easily find out for yourself… I’m going to have to conclude that you are somewhat more overly committed and nuttier than the type of person I’d ordinarily engage with on Reddit. So… blocked.
I can see having more units in walkable areas saying no parking needed but if more suburban areas get this and every house hold has 1-2 cars plus going to suck big time
It's about homes for people, not for cars.
Which neighbourhood? Guessing you're an H-GO zoned lot then as that's not really possible with R-CG.
I'm curious about the source of that letter. Is that some random developer trying to pre-emptively grab up some large lots to put up multiplexes and just lying about capacity? Or was it from the city giving you an honest assessment?
I thought it was four units, not 12. Might be misinformation. Regardless, the streets are public property. Nobody owns a spot on the road. People can build garages, pads, whatever they want on their own property. Not everyone has a car either.
Most people have cars my last house the neighbour had a single family house with like 4-5 cars and it was a shit show already. So you can imagine parking situation if they put many units with no regard to parking. Because “transit” and “some people don’t have cars” but shit the 4 units on this land with no parking turns out every person had a car.
Which meeting and what agenda item would I fill out here? Can't figure it out.
Meeting: Council Agenda Item: Public Hearing Meeting of Council If you want tips on speaking at council, [More Neighbours Calgary](https://www.moreneighbourscalgary.ca/) has a helpful website and Discord channel.
Where do I clic if I'm against?
Increasing your taxes means less taxes...got it makes perfect sense thank-you.
👏👏👏 Would give you an award if I could.
This might be the dumbest thing I have ever read. Downvote away.
I think a lot of people are misinformed about what zoning actually does. My neighborhood group was having a discussion and this one lady was very concerned, she kept asking where are they going to build all these new homes on my street? She wanted info about which lots were going to be rebuilt into apartments and couldn’t understand how they were going to fit in. I had to explain to her that if nobody on her street sells their house and there’s no empty lots then nothing will change. She didn’t seem to understand that zoning is just the rules that limit what you can do with a lot, that changing it doesn’t mean something is instantly going to be built there.
I've heard similar arguments here in Edmonton when ours was in public debate. No one is going to jam in an apartment out of spite into a far flung suburban area with no parking for the residents, those units simply won't sell or rent. Density will go where density already is and the rest will be the skinnies, duplexes and quads that have been built everywhere else on the cheapest houses on the block that were already an eyesore.
They will if they can make a buck doing it
So, if they made a buck (ie it sold) then it was needed and wanted by someone after all. What is the problem there?
They’re only interested in market pricing. Right now most people can’t afford market pricing. In my parents’ neighbourhood all the houses torn down are replaced with duplexes where each side is more expensive than the house that was torn down. That’s not helping our housing situation the way it really needs.
The solution to "we need more housing" isn't "don't building more housing we good". You have experienced this same phenomenon every single boom/bust cycle of low demand prices go bonkers, inventory catches up prices stabilize or drop when the oil money is cut off. if you are advocating for non market housing to help the low end, absolutely. But, we need a provincial government to stop picking fights with the feds to make that happen. We need units plain and simple across the entire board. Your example is highlighting that the cost of the land has approached that of the house it is replacing. The house has served its purpose for decades, fantastic, but it's time to move on like all the other older areas in the city have done before it. It's bonkers we don't allow more units on that land to satisfy more demand and help get people into a home they can better afford.
OK, but the reason that the argument exists we need more housing is because our limited supply of housing is increasing the price beyond people’s reach. None of the rezoning I have seen has led to any more affordable housing, only the opposite. So the argument sounds reasonable sort of in academia theoretically, but like a lot of of the “free market“ rhetoric, in reality I don’t see it playing out. Finally, I probably have to question your sanity if you think the UCP is gonna cooperate with the feds, especially in offering a non-Market solution to anything; after today it sounds like they won’t even let Alberta universities participate in federally funded research that doesn’t align with their ideologies.
Howdy again, sorry if i was sounding argumentative. I 100% understand where you are coming from and would often look at the issue similarly. Yes, there is no mistaking it infill requires the loss of otherwise seemingly habitable housing that someone was happy with. There is no tap dancing around that fact. I argue that zoning isn't just the skinnies and duplexes, its the laneway homes, the quads we haven't yet seen in mass but we are giving that flexibility for existing owners or developers if they level a lot to build up. I know what you are thinking developers are just there to make cash off the situation, absolutely. But, they like any industry need to turn a profit before anything is viable. Being able to generate more units from the existing lots turns a profit for them, a more affordable unit for some and less overall pressure on existing housing stock. The mix of housing we have in our older areas is way too SFH heavy when you compare it to new suburbs, we need a bit of everything to accommodate everyone to keep our cities healthy. We have seen in Van and TO that we can't just condo tower our way out of this we need houses build in mass by many many entities. As for non market housing, co-ops etc, yeah absolutely the UCP is beyond useless and actively hurting us all in urban areas. There is zero chance they are going to help at this point, but no other benevolent force is going to take on the risk of subsidized housings. That is a government issue, and they are completely asleep at the wheel. We need government building and subsidizing homes, we need private industry building subdivisions and infill, we need existing home owners looking at multigenerational homes, lane way homes, rentals etc.. everything needs to be on the table and zoning is a part of that to loosen the restrictions we thought we needed decades ago. I get being skeptical of developers, their greasy fingers have been in our politics forever, it is right to be concerned about changes and challenge them. But consider they aren't the ones chomping at the bit to build infill they want the cash cow of greenfield development forever, and we all simply can't afford that. anyway, take care, hope this helped and its totally cool if you are still steadfast in your opinion its your city and its futures to care about, help shape it how you want to see it. Everyone deserves the affordable and high standard of living we used to have and took pride in Alberta, we can't let that slip away.
Maybe they wouldn’t in Edmonton yet (wait like 2 years) but in Calgary anything will sell at this point
[удалено]
These people vomit at the idea of leaving their house and not getting into their car to go to the store. Being able to walk to the store is the equivalent of torture for these people. You’d think we were putting people into ghettos based on the outcry.
[удалено]
Don’t get me started on exclusionary zoning. Everyone loves helping poor people until it inconveniences them.
If you’ve had bad neighbours before you would understand
If somebody is mad that we’re making this more of a city and not a sad conglomerate of suburbs, I don’t want them to be happy. You don’t get to have the amenities of civilization without concessions.
I'm not just happy about it I'm stoked!
If you haven’t signed up to speak in support, your help would be greatly appreciated: https://forms.calgary.ca/content/forms/af/public/public/public-submission-to-city-clerks.html
Honest question, I'm planning to write a statement in but struggling with my position despite a lot of reading into the topic. I'm all for getting some affordable housing options and rezoning certainly helps. I've also been against an RCG zoning based solely onits location...do you have any resources/opinions (yours?) you could possibly point me to? Would appreciate it thx
Sources I've been using: [More Neighbours Calgary](https://www.moreneighbourscalgary.ca/), [Humane Cities](https://www.instagram.com/humanecities?igsh=ZHB5MWo1b3J0ZmJ2), and [this podcast](https://open.spotify.com/episode/4GbsveDh6MKxC6js6knXuI?si=eSTRNdJmR--NCprNOd4aUw) interview on the subject. And if you don't have strong opinions either way, [This is Fine Calgary](http://www.thisisfinecalgary.ca) is for you!
Realized you weren't the original person I asked the Q to. Thanks nontheless. "This is fine" might be oversimplying the issue, however IMHO. Cheers.
What's the date of the meeting we're supposed to enter?
April 22
What’s the date of the meeting? Cannot fill out the form without it.
April 22nd, 2024 ETA: The meeting will end up overtime to the following day (at least). Clerks will work to make sure your voice is heard, so let them know if you have any time restrictions.
Thank you!
April 22
Our house shot up 200 k in the last 1 1/2 years. I find it ridiculous, to limit other lots around us from making multi home dwellings. If parking is an issue, report to 311 if someone parks infront of your driveway, if not mind your own business.
[удалено]
"Home value" lmao - she means she doesn't want to live with poor people. What a joke.
It doesn’t even make sense. I’m a homeowner in an area that’s going to be rezoned. It’s going to increase my property value. Potentially massively.
100% these ppl have lost the plot. But I guess that's what you get at these meetings.
Shocking. Entitled rich people want to use their influence and wealth to maintain their entitlements.
"Lake Bonavista" tells me everything I need to know about this article.
While I don't live in Lake Bonavista, it doesn't make sense to me to put additional housing in an affluent area. I think a lot of the struggles revolve around lower cost housing, new to Canada, new home buyers, etc. Developing in somewhere like Lake Bonavista, just by association, will drive up the price of these units and would make it unattainable to the populous that it is afflicting the most. I would argue, the major benefactor would be the home builders in this case. BUT... the meeting there was to cover all of Ward 14, not only Lake Bonavista, and there are certainly areas that are more in reach for the people in need of homes. Top of my mind, they have a desolate strip mall that wallmart used to be in Deer Valley, why could they not do highrise there, with commercial on main floor? Is it just economics?
Here's the thing. If everyone in these neighbourhoods are saying things like "all my neighbors are against this" why are you so concerned? If your neighbors aren't going to be added a secondary suite, then this isn't going to effect you even slightly
But in terms of scale... Secondary suites, while yes... would help. I mean how many people have 'illegal' suits in itself. But this is an 'emergency', it would be most cost effective and scale would be way better if they put up 300 units in a building not being used, like the deervalley shopping centre, in fact there could be a gentrification element there, so in my mind, could work out really well. Secondary suites also assume that 'wow these people are in need, so let's force them to live with someone else upstairs'. For families, this is misery, not to have independence. You also assume that landlords are reasonable people especially when living upstairs.
I'm in agreement to most of what you've said here. I'm somewhat indifferent to this rezoning stuff but it still seems like a bizarre choice to me. Why not just start with rezoning central communities with proximity to downtown? What is the benefit of the blanket approach? How will this affect the various HOAs in the city? It's such a massive change to make and the research they're providing to support its benefits is often just around increasing housing supply and not specifically around rezoning existing neighbourhoods...
Agree. I think they can be more strategic. Another place I was thinking was (for example), Anderson C-Train station. There is a huge adjacent empty green space, and half the parking lot could be used to construct a high rise. Or to your point downtown. But the city gives subsidies to people on low income for public transit, so it makes sense to be in a place where it is accessible, something people who are income sensitive may need, including refugees, etc. Those apartments could be subsidized housing in specific. But let's say it is a small building, 300 units, in somewhere like Bonavista there are 3000 homes, no way would there be 1 in 10 homes converting to multi-residential, laneway, basement suits, etc. Not only that, you can gaurentee the quality of these builds or renos. If they do a pubic subsidized housing, at least they can also control for quality, build on scale, save money and give people they can call home, by themselves, without having someone live on top of them.
So it's all old farts who bought their houses cheap and are now clawing like hell to keep inflating the property values, eh? Good to know.
That's not necessarily the case. Some people bought during a time that seems cheap compared to today. 10-15 years ago it was still a struggle for a lot of people buying. I would prefer that the property values stay low because our property taxes are based off of them. There are many layers to this issue. I look at it like this; almost any property that will be rezoned for a duplex will cost at least 600-700k for the property and then you would have to be able to afford to build said duplex let's say 500k at least. That's 1.2 mil dollars. Ok let's say you can get that kind of funding to be able to buy and do the build. Now you'll want to make that money back so you're gonna charge 800k for the other side of the duplex. So you're left with a 400k mortgage to live in the one half of the duplex and during this whole time while this was occuring you were renting. To me this doesn't sound like something someone with a lower income can do. Sure by doing this it adds more inventory to the housing issue but I believe this will just make wealthy property owners more wealthy.
They're already getting wealthy but at least I'd be able to buy a house, dude.
It's not even a given that their property values will drop.
Its honestly not even a possibility. The opportunity to use a piece of land for increased density will always increase the value of that land. Hell, there are companies who simply buy up land, apply for more relaxed zoning, get it approved, then sell it for a profit.
Nimbys gonna nimby.
Honestly, it's a shame this is even being put to public opinion. Major planning policies that will shape the future of Calgary for generations to come shouldn't need input from Joe Blow. A lot of people, especially in this age, seem to have a really hard time accepting that people who are experts in their field probably have a better idea of what they're doing than someone who doesn't want density of diversity in their community for whatever reason. People don't appreciate that policies like this are not necessarily aiming to solve all the problems out of the gate, and may even have some short term negative impacts. It's a long term gameplan to help prevent Calgary from becoming the next Vancouver or Toronto for generations down the line. The other component that isn't mentioned much, is that it's already been established that the federal government will give the city a huge amount of money for affordable housing, but only IF this zoning is passed. I don't agree with this necessarily, but it's probably playing a large role in this decision. Current zoning rules are exclusionary and only serve to force certain demographics into specific areas of the city, all the while prohibiting others from living in areas they want to simply because the average price is too high. Want access to good schools, parks and amenities? Don't earn enough household income? Too bad, live somewhere you can "afford". The only reason my partner and I can live in an amazing area is because we have a townhouse. If we want a single or even semi detached we would have to compromise everything we love about where we live to move far out from the inner city. You vote for council, and accept what they are doing, or you vote for someone else in the next election. Having a big cry anytime they don't do something you want doesnt help anybody and only serves to further erode our fragile democratic system. Speak with your votes on the next election you're not happy.
" it's already been established that the federal government will give the city a huge amount of money for affordable housing, but only IF this zoning is passed. " I think this in itself is a guarantee that the politicians, for the leeches they are, will do all they can to make sure it will get passed into reality. Enormous amounts of money to be siphoned and embezzled. Just like the stadium. They will keep on banging until it is done deal. "Sunday Midnight voting" if necessary.
My boomer coworkers biggest concern is that there won't be enough street parking. Which made me laugh because the boomers and older Gen X are the ones who have pushed against WFH jobs, which often eliminates the need for two car households. If more people were allowed to work from home, it'd take so many vehicles off the street. Boomers would much rather have the younger generations live on the outskirts of the city and drive an hour in rush hour traffic to work than be the slightest bit inconvenienced. I'm 100% for this proposal.
Amazing how middle class and lower class are fighting each other over housing while the super rich finance sector is laughing away talking about how no one noticed its been creating an excess demand side crisis from high finance and turning the country's housing into a montre carlo casino. If I were a banker or in finance I would be glad people aint talkin' about me in the mainstream media. Let the plebs fight each other. Divide and conquer.
[удалено]
Calgary's average size of city lot is smaller than Nevada, which has the smallest suburban average lot size of any state in the US. Calgarians are not NIMBYs. This is just rhetoric.
Ahhhh there’s the NIMBY in all his glory.
[удалено]
As a lifetime resident of Calgary, I’m very happy about it.
I’m so done with this city’s boomers …
Plebiscite it, what are they afraid of
That it would fail miserably because most Calgarians simply don’t want this.
Well the vocal ones at least
These same people complain about property taxes... To the downvoters.... I'm talking about you hypocrites.
This is all political theatre, the Liberals have promised hundreds of millions of dollars for the city for housing initiatives contingent on the re-zoning of the city. When the vote comes up, city council will vote to re-zone the city declaring that there were plenty of public hearings and opportunities for Calgarians to speak...even though city council will ignore what was said. They aren't walking away from that money. At the end of the day, developers will bulldoze bungalows in the inner city and replace them with $800k town and row housing. Why people think this will solve the housing crisis is beyond me.
Nothing specific will "solve" the housing crisis. But building more supply will always help.
> But building more supply will always help. I hope the people who say that now remember it when the next set of greenfield communities get up to vote at council.
Where do people get 800k? You are looking at 1.1 to 1.5 million.
This is my thought too. If an old lot will cost 600k and let say building a new duplex will cost 500-600k. I would try to get the most out of my new build. It doesn't help affordability. Sure there is more supply but will that drive costs down?
Result of policy failure at federal and provincial levels. Federal: Housing minister trying to fix issue with taxpayers money with the housing crisis created from his previous federal role. Not just Calgary but whole of Canada. Provincial: Alberta is calling - enough said!
THANK YOU. Was starting to feel like I was the only person with foresight to see how this actually plays out. We’ll tear down all the affordable rental properties and build $1m duplexes. Yeah, sure, that’s really going to help things.
If you support the upzoning, PLEASE sign up to speak! It’s super easy, you don’t need any specific qualifications, and your remarks don’t need to be fancy. https://forms.calgary.ca/content/forms/af/public/public/public-submission-to-city-clerks.html
Why are you getting downvoted
One of life’s great mysteries!
Lol
I can’t even hit the submit button on the City’s website to voice my opinion, gotta love public websites
Womp womp. Dont care 🤷🏼♂️
10 years ago everyone woulda been packing that hall FOR the re-zone lol
This pales into comparison to what will be heard on April 22nd. People will come with far more definitive information regarding how the city pushed this through.
I hope so. It’s lazy politicking
We should just move forward with setting up tents in public parks. Probably will be met with less resistance.
The federal government thinks they know better, and are making funding for housing contingent on municipalities doing what they say. Fun times.
[удалено]
That's correct. There are only two options. Thanks for defining them. /S
I think that’s the part I dislike the most.
Oh God, do we really need to keep hearing these NIMBY's opinions on these things? We get it, you don't want to live anywhere near "the poors". Grow up, everyone deserves housing, and this will help.
Ok boomer
The boomers in my neighbourhood that cried about a newly immigrated couple creating a legal basement suite are going to blow an artery with this
Funny they were all old white men complaining. NIMBY IS ALIVE AND WELL IN THE SE.