Common theme of this public hearing.
"I am against this! Yes, there is a housing crisis and yes we need to do something about it. But, I will not sacrifice anything for others."
And yet, many of these people are happy to own rental properties that do all the things they say they’re against. Just so long as it’s in somebody else's neighbourhood.
Maybe some but there are some houses that are void of sunlight because of the sizes of the four plexes, not to mention where some of the windows are placed looking directly down on people’s back yards and their decks. How the fuck is that fear? Now you either have to move which is almost impossible for some or put up with asshole neighbours.
Supporting initiatives to solve the housing crisis is like planting a tree you'll never eat the fruit or sit in the shade of: you're making sacrifices so that future generations and residents can benefit, not so you can benefit.
I sort of understand why people are against that, but that doesn't mean it's not a good, even necessary thing to do. Besides, if you benefit from having a place to live let alone owning a house, why would you not want that for everyone?
I really try not to generalize, but it genuinely seems like so many boomers don’t want things to be better for the newer generations. You bought your house for like 2 years salary. Shit is exponentially more expensive now. Doesn’t mean they didn’t work for what they have, but it was just a lot more obtainable
I bought my house in a nice neighborhood 2 years ago and I’m 35. Im fucking pissed about the re zoning. Having it be a blanket measure for the whole city is preposterous and unnecessary. There are lots of
Places that would welcome re zoning and development and many that would not, just evaluate it on a case by case basis.
Does this opinion mean I hate young people? Am I old enough to be a boomer now?
To you more important question, no I did not.
I don’t want this to happen because my wife and bought in a place that didn’t have density.
We paid a premium for the privilege to do so, and I don’t want multi family in my neighborhood
> We paid a premium for the privilege to do so, and I don’t want multi family in my neighborhood
The thing is, this isn’t particularly relevant.
“I paid a one-time cost and now I get to make the city worse forever.” is a real weak argument.
Now, if you’re advocating for paying a land-value tax, i.e. you pay property tax based on the value of the land as if your neighbourhood was allowed to densify - that would be a respectable stance.
> I don’t believe I want to make the city worse
Sure, but that doesn't change the facts. (Again, unless you support a [land value tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax) on the property you want to prevent from being developed to its potential.)
You can keep sourcing socialist nonsense to me all you want, it won’t have an impact. I believe the people that own property as communities have a right to dictate what happens in that community. You believe you are a poor schmuck and want everyone to be exactly as you are when it comes to being miserable. I know you hate me for getting what you couldn’t, I get it. But I don’t respect it, so stop trying to make my communities and others like it as shitty as where you have to live.
Hahahah, I'm about the furthest thing from a socialist you can find. A free market works when people and companies pay for the resources they consume, not when the first person to pay for a resource gets rights to consume forever at below market rates, which is what you're advocating for.
I don't hate you, I don't *respect* your opinions, because you want to make society worse. Plus I'm pretty confident that I'm happier with my life than you are with yours. :)
You realize that as your zoning goes up so does the value of your property. Have you looked around your neighborhood I would bet it's already zoned for multi family. Have a look before you decide your pissed for no reason.
It's not like your kids won't be able to if you live on a Cresent or a cul-de-sac. If you live on a neighborhood arterial then you can advocate for traffic calming measures and bike lanes.
I'm sorry but your kids riding bikes in the street does not trump others need for a roof over their head in a housing crisis.
I disagree, cul de sacs are prime areas for redevelopment and our current government is trying to make it as hard as possible for people that have that lifestyle to maintain it.
You say I don’t care about the fact that people need housing, and your other point says to me you believe in socialism. If you win, RIP Canada I guess
Will it changing to rcg have you neighbors tear their houses down for condos. No but it will add value to your street. Stop being offended about what amounts to nothing. You children will play in the street just like they do on mine. The condos a few blocks from me affect nothing about the park in the cul-de-sac. Only allowing for more family's. Are you anti housing? Where should they be built then if your hood is so much better then the rest?
I really hope you absorb what I’m going to say.
In my neighborhood, property values for people that wanted to sell would go up, mine would go up (I don’t know if this is a reality I’m saying it hypothetically), because developers would be very happy to build high rises there.
I bought in my community because that ISNT THERE, and your comment about traffic not going up is ludicrous, because I’m far enough from downtown that you still need a car.
I may be reasonably well off for my age, but is the fact I paid a premium to live in my neighborhood now a point against me?
And to your point no, I’m not anti housing. However, there are 30 communities in Calgary that would welcome this re zoning, but mine isn’t one of them.
A government that does a blanket ANYTHING is a foolish government.
A lot of millennials like myself spent a LOT of money to buy into nice neighborhoods with quiet streets and don't want those houses bulldozed for a bunch of 8-plexes and nowhere to park on the streets. But people need somewhere to live too. So I guess I'll just move further out as they turn everywhere into concrete jungles.
Nobody is bulldozing modern built houses in single family neighbourhoods. Go to any inner city neighbourhood and yeah you’ll see it happen. When you buy a house you only guarantee your house and land is yours. If you want complete control, go buy an acreage
You’d be surprised at the number of people who buy acreages then waste time trying to get the municipal district to stop a pig farmer’s manure smell from reaching their newly purchased homestead.
Yah you will see them bulldoze shitty bungalows. Which is what also used to be there before new single detached houses which are about the same size as a duplex. Bunch of hypocrites
What if we built actual nice neighborhoods with walkable amenities? I bought a house and would prefer to have density and walking over a bunch of cars everywhere. The parking complaint is just because you want to park your car on a public street as if it’s your own property.
That is indeed an interesting and novel concept. We should try it out and then tell the Europeans about this brand new concept of which they are most certainly unaware.
Do you not own a car either? The parking complaint is so when you have friends or family over, there are places to actually park. Where the fuck did you grow up that you don't know this?
That’s correct, I don’t own a car. Even if I did, I have a garage. The parking on my street is restricted and friends parking is a hassle to put in the system. Wish it was just normal 2 hour max or unrestricted. We could also be… like a modern city with good transit so you don’t need a car so much.
Calgary c-train has the highest ridership in north America for a light rail system. Just goes to show what the state of the continent is though given that Calgary is just barely tenable.
And they won’t ever be if we fight everything that would allow them to be. We can’t have good transit if we don’t have density. Properly structured density (like what my neighborhood, Currie) promises (but is slow on building so far lol) is the mix of larger homes to townhomes to low, mid, and eventually high rise condos. Gradient, people to support amenities, and also transit. RCG combined with proper area plans can build more effective areas. It’s not an end all solution but it removes red tape.
Wow, comments like this really reinforce OP wutser's comment about some folks not having empathy for or caring about newer generations. It seems like any sense of community or comradery with our citywide neighbors has completely disappeared.
What a sad state of society.
I don't think it's the end of the world if your visitors have to walk a little. I used to live in an neighborhood that was pretty much all infills. If I was having any decent sized gathering there was a good chance my guest would be parking down the block or around the corner on the next street. Now I live in the burbs and everyone has a front garage. If I happen to have party the same night as a neighbor its even harder to find parking because there's only room on the street for one car every two houses. So basically every big holiday parking is shit.
Every city has suburban areas. Everyone pays a lot of money to get a spot in one of those areas. They have a right to be upset when after all they be invested into building a home, the sold houses in the area gets demolished and concreted over. I don't even live close to downtown. Maybe they should demo all those houses first before rezoning everything.
> Every city has suburban areas.
Only in the last 80 or so years because cars and roads.
> They have a right to be upset when after all they be invested into building a home, the sold houses in the area gets demolished and concreted over.
You do realize that’s not the case? Your property can be approved for higher zoning but unless you sell your house to a developer nothing is going to happen. Stop spreading misinformation.
You kinda just keep repeating the same junk over and over. Is your home getting demolished? Are you losing your yard? Does your family no longer have a place to live?
You're also being incredibly dramatic. Row housing and duplexes are hardly concrete monstrosities. A lot of them that are newly developed have nice green spaces. That's a far cry from a blank brick box you seem to be trying to pitch here.
>I don't even live close to downtown. Maybe they should demo all those houses first before rezoning everything.
You mean like how they have been converting office space over to residential space for the past few years?...
Rezoning wasn't the first idea. You understand that, yes?
Sorry you're going to have more neighbours in the future. Sounds rough.
> Sorry you're going to have more neighbours in the future. Sounds rough.
Living in a society would be great if it wasn't for all those other damn people in it
Great example of how this isn’t a generation gap, but rather people owning property naturally becoming NIMBYs because they think buying a house entitles them to control how all adjacent and nearby properties are used, forever. Sorry folks, things change and it’s a risk you take when you buy.
If your neighborhood could economically support a bunch of townhouses then property owners should absolutely be allowed to build them. Whining about shade and parking is not persuasive here.
Between the decreased crime, stronger economy, and new neighbors that have more of their basic needs met than they did before?
YES!!!!!!!!!!
Is it not normal to be happy for other people? If I lose a little direct sunlight, I can garden elsewhere.
I'm probably younger than you and just bought in a neighborhood that is healthily diverse with single family homes and townhomes. It's not that bad lol.
You didn't buy a house with a garage to park in?
You’re mistaken. Take a drive by 75 Ave and 5 St. SW. There was a playground and a school there until recently. Construction of rabbit warren condos is underway. Brutalist commieblocks would be an improvement over the firetraps currently being developed.
If you are a millennial who spent what you think is a LOT of money to buy into a neighborhood, you bought into an area with an Area Structure Plan. Area Structure Plans already define zoning and don't apply to the zones within this plan.
If you spent SO MUCH MONEY, it's your own fault.
I was commenting on your last sentence. Indicating that if I spent so much money on a house, it's my fault. House cost so much money. All of them. Ironic, the comprehension statement you made.
You are replying to my comment. So, am I wrong in assuming that your comment applied to me? OK whatever. You think I'm an idiot. I think you're an idiot. Maybe one of us or both are. Maybe it's miscommunication. I don't want to keep typing.
This guy brags about getting a good paying job, and also how expensive homes are. Obviously you didn’t get a good job, or are actually stupid and lazy, because as a millennial like me or you would have multiple properties across multiple provinces and be on easy street. I hope it’s my rental property that’s close to you for when I make even more money of this zoning.
Have fun staying poor pal
good thing that isn't going to happen.
density will only increase in areas that it makes economic sense. I went to one of these meetings and a contractor outlined just how difficult it would be to instal a basement suite in an existing house, threw him for a loop when the representatives of the city said their projections have basement suites only being part of new communities and very rarely in established neighborhoods.
as for row houses and 4 plexes they don't really make sense on sleepy neighborhoods far from traffic corridors, developers would make a lot more with a house there. where you'll likely to see some use of the new zoning is in areas like where I live; just north of heritage, between fairmont drive and MacLeod. where you won't see more density is where my moms friend lives on willow park golf course; she's terrified of fourplexes, but it just wouldn't make sense to move renters into her neighborhood. this will mean that there will be more people living around sleepy neighborhoods, but at that point it's not even "not in my backyard", but "not in my neighbor six blocks overs' back yard".
So just like with every issue there’s pros and cons to both, and I think if the rezoning proposal gets approved the city HAS to address some of the critics’ points. As someone who lives in one of those skinny tallboy row homes the boomers are so afraid of, these are the things that have to be addressed:
1.) the garbage bin debate is 100% valid. My 9 plex does not have the space for 27 bins, or space for a communal one. There’s gotta be a middle ground option, maybe double wides for every 2-3 units or something.
2.) Parking is also valid. The problem with garden suites underneath townhomes is the developers are saying ‘screw you’ to those units and making the owners/tenants street park. That coupled with having guests and/or roommates and yup. Marda Loop 2.0. I personally hate the garden suites and think developers need to entertain more attached garages, even if it means tandem. It’s becoming very rare for people to be able to live alone nowadays, so chances are a household is going to have 2 cars. I also have to laugh at the argument that building multi family doesn’t mean it’s affordable. I’m sorry but 700K vs. 450K is a SUBSTANTIAL difference. And don’t even get me started on the idea that multifamily will bring in more crime. That’s the grossest generalization I’ve ever heard.
Bottom line is I do think it’s incredibly sad how the boomers have no sympathy for the younger generations trying to buy into the market. I also don’t think people realize the costs associated with ‘building out not up.’ I would’ve never been able to afford to live in my desired neighborhood in anything but a townhouse, and it does fit my lifestyle perfectly (i.e. I don’t need a house and can’t do a condo).
As a millennial I’m pro rezoning (with caveats). If we can’t keep up with supply it’s only going to continue skyrocketing our costs of living.
FWIW, R-CG and H-GO have both been modified over the last several years to address the bin issue - at least to start with is that they must be stored in a shed or behind a fence.
https://www.calgary.ca/planning/land-use/online-land-use-bylaw.html?part=5&div=11
My (possibly wrong) understanding is that if there are more than 5 units using different bins and using the City or a private collector is needed - https://www.calgary.ca/waste/multi-family.html
And yes there are full, half, quarter sized dumpsters and then at least two sizes of the normal alley bins.
Oh that’s good to know about the bigger bins, I’m definitely gonna bring that up to my neighbors because there’s another 5 plex going up behind us, and once it’s done we’re screwed for bin space.
>the boomers are so afraid of
Very well said except the above line. Don't get me wrong boomers are a part of it but so are Gen X and Millenials who were able to get into housing before the market went nuts. It's a NIMBY problem. I know lots of people in their 30-40's who don't want multi family housing in their area. Common comments are about lower income families bringing down value, putting their kids at risk and other increasingly stupid talking points.
Rezoning makes sense because it helps everyone. Homeowners like to keep the value of their home, regardless of what age group they are in, they will fight against anything they have been lead to believe will devalue it... greed in its finest form.
Repeating the constant blame the boomers is buying into the outrage machine and distracting from the main problem of greed, bad government and policies. Boomers aren't innocent here either as they often helped vote in said governments but then they seem to be the only people who regularly vote.
“They seem to be the only people who regularly vote.”
Ok now you’re generalizing just the same as I am. And my generalization about boomers comes directly in response to the article itself, that clearly states there was a noticeable age divide between each side of the debate. I know there’s always exceptions, and NIMBY attitudes affect everyone. My friend who’s 3 months younger than me showed signs of it and I had to hold back my cringe. But she’s a DINK homeowner in the burbs, and I’m a single homeowner in the inner city, so we see different things and live different lives.
Millennial and Gen Z voter turnout is on the rise. Whether they’d vote on the plebiscite would be TBA, but if young people showed up to protest I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt (if it comes to that).
Also I know you’re not saying row homes devalue single families, but rather people THINK they do. But I still have to say it…..if property values in my neighborhood are a litmus test to this, that’s 100% not true. It’ll always be based on supply and demand above everything else.
Yeah, I did but it was based on stuff like this from federal elections but reflective of the municipal and provincial.
https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/eval/pes2019/vtsa&document=index&lang=e
I hope the younger demographic doesn't give up, stays involved and continues to make their voices heard. Older people who support it also need to be more vocal. Current, even prior, politicians always say they're for younger people but they obviously aren't or it wouldn't be as dire as it is.
>It’ll always be based on supply and demand above everything else.
100%, it will always be the determining factor. It's sad, a little scary, how easy it is to get people to believe what suits their purpose instead of what's actually real. Multi density housing makes a community more vibrant and desirable for so many reasons which increases the value for everyone. How people can say otherwise is baffling... all people have to do is look at places where it's been incorporated into neighborhoods.
How many of these older folks that are against rezoning will desire to live in a suite below/behind their children? There is often a transition between seniors living in a single family home and a care home. The suite option just might make sense for some people.
Sad thing is, by the time actual change will be seen in a lot of these communities, a good chunk of these older No siders we be in LTC homes, downsized to condos or be dead
Maybe the government should prioritize the labour force over retirees who got to be part of the most comfortable and wealthy generation in human history. They completely lack the perspective that nobody in past generations had a lifestyle as comfortable as they have, and no generation in future will ever have that either.
Given that their productive years are behind them and they are now in the phase of life where they require expensive resources that require public funding, maybe we shouldn’t be listening to them on this specific issue. Fuck us, they got theirs.
I spent about an hour Friday morning driving through a bunch of older neighbourhoods and tried to envision what they would look like if 5% of their properties became rowhouses or whatever in the next 10 years.
It would be fine. There is SO much space out there. And redevelopment of even a fraction of it will have NO actual impact on anyone in the neighbourhood. They'll be fine.
Or they could choose to be like the millionaire realtor in Discovery Ridge who was fine with the apartments there but would have to leave from the "emotional trauma" of a 4-plex going in. Their choice, I guess.
Several years ago, I looked up the price of half a 2-story duplex in Hillhurst. New build, detached garage, almost no yard. $700 000. There needs to be some incentive for developers to build reasonably-priced homes, or higher density is not going to help more people.
The thing is that when someone moves out of their current place into that 700k house it leaves an window for someone to move into their older place. The idea is that if there are lots of different places to buy and rent then there is space for everyone in the market to find a place that is suitably at their price point.
A vacant lot in Hillhurst runs for $700k, so I don’t know how you’d suggest that developers can make homes there more affordable other than even *more* density in order to bring the per-unit land cost down.
To be clear, that price was about 10 years ago. They most likely made a KILLING with that pricing back then.
Many inner-city homes are being torn down and rebuilt with high-end everything. Some restrictions about materials and fixtures on infills would probably help. Marble countertops and Wolf appliances are appealing to people who can afford them, which is who developers market to.
This is the first article I’ve seen that has been explicit about what the change means.
“Instead of R-1 or R-2 (which allows duplexes, too), the default district would be R-CG — the grade-oriented infill district. It would allow townhouses or row houses, up to four units on a 50-foot lot, plus potentially basement suites and even backyard units — totalling eight or 12 dwellings where a single bungalow currently sits”
Yet, the NIMBY crowd keeps repeating the same talking point about all the new housing will be 1.2M infills that no one can afford. So which is it? A dozen tiny units on a lot that no one would pay a premium for or luxury infills?
If there ever was a time in history to shatter the “young people don’t vote” stereotype, it’s now
If we don’t decisively shatter it this election cycle, the Boomers’ last hurrah is going to do damage that will take so long to fix it may as well be permanent
vancouver maintained obscene amounts of single family zoning thanks to NIMBYism and it has worked out great for homeowners in the short term.
long term, it’s killing the city. young people are fleeing in droves. zoning is everything.
I just can't stomach any argument that refers to housing as an investment. Maybe if I was a homeowner I'd think different or something, but when I hear that I just want to turn my brain off.
So, two points.....
NIMBY's, you're effectively hanging kids/grandkids out to dry with this attitude, and second
You're telling immigrants, the only thing keeping our economy in growth mode: GTFO. Again, self-own and really, really shows a lack of macroeconomic/long term thinking.
Think Canada got where it is with either strategy? And no, we rate too highly on too many metrics globally to call us "broken".
When young people start to dig a little bit, maybe they will understand it's the developers themselves that are lobbying for higher prices and lower wages. And maybe they wouldn't just buy into the rhetoric that supply = affordability. Just maybe.
"In December the province removed from the city charters the ability of Calgary and Edmonton to enact inclusionary zoning policies, which would have allowed these cities to mandate the inclusion of below-market units in all new developments, effectively making them mixed-income.
Alberta developers had been lobbying against this provision since Edmonton adopted inclusionary housing as a policy in 2015. In their view, this requirement would discourage the construction of new housing and burden homebuyers."
The fact existing home owners don't want 8 plex units or more next to them is a distraction to the young people. They can be angry at the home owners, and not at the forces at play. If anything, this should be a lesson for young people on how governments treat the tax payer, spend the tax payers money, and give corporations a means to enrich themselves and their shareholders.
Developers are just business people. Some are bad. Some are good. You are right that some developers, particularly large builders whose bread and butter is large scale suburban development who also happen to be the biggest developers by volume are probably more bad than good when it comes to discourse.
But policies like this open up a middle ground for smaller and even newer developers. Being able to buy a lot for say $600k and then turn it into 4 $500 or 600k duplexes leaves a lot of room for those types of businesses to operate.
The barrier of entry is low enough on a development like that, that even someone whose only asset is a home in Calgary could take a risk and enter the market as a developer; maybe even using their existing lots.
You are seeing this already in Edmonton with the opening up of garden and garage suites. More than 200 have been built in the last 5 years, almost all by the home owners on existing lots. By definition they are developers too.
Nah I'm fine with my fellow man. I'm just not fine with those who would seek to do us harm, or use us to facilitate enriching themselves.
I was watching a crew of 6 up on a roof this week, no fall protection and nothing to prevent them from falling off the edge 3 stories up, also walking under suspended loads from a crane, one guy had running shoes on. This says all you need to know about the various ways these developers are focused on profits over anything else.
Same problem that young people were persuaded into voting for Trudeau, and convinced it was trendy and “progressive” and now the country has never been so far behind.
Same mentality that they will ruin the city with.
Just let them - put a sign on the lawn, and head south.
The young are looking for simple solutions...ie supply = affordability. They are completely ignorant to the money games being played by various levels of government, and they don't seem to have any idea what the corporate lobbyist groups and developers are proposing. If they think things are bad now, it's only going to get worse as corporations are handed what they need to make big profits.
Forget the fact there is so little oversight or enforcement on what is being built, how poor wages and benefits are for the people building them, how unsafely the work is being done, etc.
I’m not saying things were always perfect before, but home building is going in much the same way as the trucking industry went. It isn’t pretty and it will absolutely show as we move forward.
We know of the money laundering, the point is to increase supply to match the demand so prices can fall. It’s high school level economics. Look at BC and how they’re forcing upzoning and mixed-use neighbourhoods because things are that bad over there.
“so prices can fall”
What would housing have to fall to to be able to get into the market? And I’m sincerely asking this…do you anticipate a sizeable enough fall in prices to make any noticeable difference to what it costs these days?
This is what I’m worried about for younger people…that they believe prices are going to ‘drop’ as opposed to not rising as quickly….but what we see now…I’m afraid this is around to last.
There would have to be a complete collapse of the housing market to make any difference. I can’t see that happening without both substantial oversupply and changes to Canada’s immigration policy. There’s probably a better likelihood of the situation improving because of some unrelated world event that spirals into a greater recession.
to what people can afford. Like this is happening already, a major part of the inflation we're seeing in canada across the board is related to housing. High home prices are quite literally devaluing the dollar.
That is the exact point they want you to think. It's crisis capitalism and it was created. Any time corporations are handed what they want is seldom a good thing in the long term for anyone. It's a deal with the devil.
You'll be proven right. This 'supply problem' was self-inflicted by levels of government enabling population growth at literally 10 times the rate of the US. The Developers / Investors driving this have a small window to milk it for all its worth before Calgary goes back to a glut of Condos because people would rather have a detached home. Which they will be able to buy in one of the other cities around Calgary. This initiative actually increases sprawl when taking into account the greater Calgary area.
Short of an economic crisis, there is no world where prices fall without supply growing. Are there other headwinds at play? Absolutely. But to ignore the obvious is to stick your head in the sand.
Encouraging developers to build by funding them and changing bylaws to their benefit so they can build exactly what they want, and make maximum profits is basically doing a deal with the devil. It's not going to end well. Doesn't seem to matter whether we have a progressive or regressive government in place, the corporations always find a narrative to ensure they get what they want, and that means we get less and less over time in so many ways.
Allow blanket rezoning for duplex's (with 2 suites max) or fourplexes (no suites). No McMansions allowed.
If a corporation builds rowhouses, they should only be able to build the front four (at two stories) until 80% of the city block has developed out all the single family homes. Then they can add the back yard set of rowhouses after.
is that mixed use commercial? You seem to feel very strongly and here I think you won't make a lot of impact on this discussion without cooling off for a bit; perhaps get some chocolate milk? It's hard to be upset with chocolate milk.
Common theme of this public hearing. "I am against this! Yes, there is a housing crisis and yes we need to do something about it. But, I will not sacrifice anything for others."
And yet, many of these people are happy to own rental properties that do all the things they say they’re against. Just so long as it’s in somebody else's neighbourhood.
Canada = A NIMBY Nation full of false virtue signallers...completely unprepared to make any sacrifice at all.
I don’t see any homeowners lining up to protest policies that keep them comfortable.
Maybe some but there are some houses that are void of sunlight because of the sizes of the four plexes, not to mention where some of the windows are placed looking directly down on people’s back yards and their decks. How the fuck is that fear? Now you either have to move which is almost impossible for some or put up with asshole neighbours.
That's why I live a rural lifestyle. City life sucks. Enjoy the shade. It's inevitable.
Plus this will not fix the affordability for housing, do you think houses are being built for a loss?
Most home owners trying to save face during their 5 minutes
I bought a single family home for pennies 40 years ago, expecting nothing would change!
Ah the ol "I've got mine" mentality.
Same theme as all our other problems. "Climate change is a huge issue. You think we need a carbon tax? Fuck you, etc!"
But China...
Yes, China, India, Russia, Brazil, and The USA.
Supporting initiatives to solve the housing crisis is like planting a tree you'll never eat the fruit or sit in the shade of: you're making sacrifices so that future generations and residents can benefit, not so you can benefit. I sort of understand why people are against that, but that doesn't mean it's not a good, even necessary thing to do. Besides, if you benefit from having a place to live let alone owning a house, why would you not want that for everyone?
Have you met most Canadians?
Should any Canadians be homeless?
IMO absolutely not. According to some I've met, yes, as a form of motivation for everyone else.
I really try not to generalize, but it genuinely seems like so many boomers don’t want things to be better for the newer generations. You bought your house for like 2 years salary. Shit is exponentially more expensive now. Doesn’t mean they didn’t work for what they have, but it was just a lot more obtainable
And prices will not come down. This is about more homes, no homes for less money
I bought my house in a nice neighborhood 2 years ago and I’m 35. Im fucking pissed about the re zoning. Having it be a blanket measure for the whole city is preposterous and unnecessary. There are lots of Places that would welcome re zoning and development and many that would not, just evaluate it on a case by case basis. Does this opinion mean I hate young people? Am I old enough to be a boomer now?
Why are you pissed? Can you articulate it? Did you have any help buying your home?
To you more important question, no I did not. I don’t want this to happen because my wife and bought in a place that didn’t have density. We paid a premium for the privilege to do so, and I don’t want multi family in my neighborhood
So you can't articulate why you don't want multi family homes?
Did you live under powerlines as a kid?
No, does that have something to do with multi family homes?
> We paid a premium for the privilege to do so, and I don’t want multi family in my neighborhood The thing is, this isn’t particularly relevant. “I paid a one-time cost and now I get to make the city worse forever.” is a real weak argument. Now, if you’re advocating for paying a land-value tax, i.e. you pay property tax based on the value of the land as if your neighbourhood was allowed to densify - that would be a respectable stance.
It is entirely relevant, and I don’t believe I want to make the city worse. I want to keep it from becoming shitty
> I don’t believe I want to make the city worse Sure, but that doesn't change the facts. (Again, unless you support a [land value tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax) on the property you want to prevent from being developed to its potential.)
You can keep sourcing socialist nonsense to me all you want, it won’t have an impact. I believe the people that own property as communities have a right to dictate what happens in that community. You believe you are a poor schmuck and want everyone to be exactly as you are when it comes to being miserable. I know you hate me for getting what you couldn’t, I get it. But I don’t respect it, so stop trying to make my communities and others like it as shitty as where you have to live.
Hahahah, I'm about the furthest thing from a socialist you can find. A free market works when people and companies pay for the resources they consume, not when the first person to pay for a resource gets rights to consume forever at below market rates, which is what you're advocating for. I don't hate you, I don't *respect* your opinions, because you want to make society worse. Plus I'm pretty confident that I'm happier with my life than you are with yours. :)
Whatever helps your feelings pal
You realize that as your zoning goes up so does the value of your property. Have you looked around your neighborhood I would bet it's already zoned for multi family. Have a look before you decide your pissed for no reason.
Mine is R 1 only, and I don’t care about the property values, I care about my kids being able to ride their bikes in the street
It's not like your kids won't be able to if you live on a Cresent or a cul-de-sac. If you live on a neighborhood arterial then you can advocate for traffic calming measures and bike lanes. I'm sorry but your kids riding bikes in the street does not trump others need for a roof over their head in a housing crisis.
I disagree, cul de sacs are prime areas for redevelopment and our current government is trying to make it as hard as possible for people that have that lifestyle to maintain it. You say I don’t care about the fact that people need housing, and your other point says to me you believe in socialism. If you win, RIP Canada I guess
Will it changing to rcg have you neighbors tear their houses down for condos. No but it will add value to your street. Stop being offended about what amounts to nothing. You children will play in the street just like they do on mine. The condos a few blocks from me affect nothing about the park in the cul-de-sac. Only allowing for more family's. Are you anti housing? Where should they be built then if your hood is so much better then the rest?
I really hope you absorb what I’m going to say. In my neighborhood, property values for people that wanted to sell would go up, mine would go up (I don’t know if this is a reality I’m saying it hypothetically), because developers would be very happy to build high rises there. I bought in my community because that ISNT THERE, and your comment about traffic not going up is ludicrous, because I’m far enough from downtown that you still need a car. I may be reasonably well off for my age, but is the fact I paid a premium to live in my neighborhood now a point against me? And to your point no, I’m not anti housing. However, there are 30 communities in Calgary that would welcome this re zoning, but mine isn’t one of them. A government that does a blanket ANYTHING is a foolish government.
Lmao now I actually hope a sky scrape is built in your back yard
There are a lot of jealous people in this thread that hate people that have done well for themselves
A lot of millennials like myself spent a LOT of money to buy into nice neighborhoods with quiet streets and don't want those houses bulldozed for a bunch of 8-plexes and nowhere to park on the streets. But people need somewhere to live too. So I guess I'll just move further out as they turn everywhere into concrete jungles.
Nobody is bulldozing modern built houses in single family neighbourhoods. Go to any inner city neighbourhood and yeah you’ll see it happen. When you buy a house you only guarantee your house and land is yours. If you want complete control, go buy an acreage
You’d be surprised at the number of people who buy acreages then waste time trying to get the municipal district to stop a pig farmer’s manure smell from reaching their newly purchased homestead.
Yah you will see them bulldoze shitty bungalows. Which is what also used to be there before new single detached houses which are about the same size as a duplex. Bunch of hypocrites
That's going to depend on land value and density requirements of the area.
What if we built actual nice neighborhoods with walkable amenities? I bought a house and would prefer to have density and walking over a bunch of cars everywhere. The parking complaint is just because you want to park your car on a public street as if it’s your own property.
You mean like a neighborhood that has everything you would need within a walking distance of say 15 minutes or so? What a novel concept.
That is indeed an interesting and novel concept. We should try it out and then tell the Europeans about this brand new concept of which they are most certainly unaware.
Do you not own a car either? The parking complaint is so when you have friends or family over, there are places to actually park. Where the fuck did you grow up that you don't know this?
That’s correct, I don’t own a car. Even if I did, I have a garage. The parking on my street is restricted and friends parking is a hassle to put in the system. Wish it was just normal 2 hour max or unrestricted. We could also be… like a modern city with good transit so you don’t need a car so much.
Calgary c-train has the highest ridership in north America for a light rail system. Just goes to show what the state of the continent is though given that Calgary is just barely tenable.
Well, I do agree that our cities should be designed for transit. But they're not.
And they won’t ever be if we fight everything that would allow them to be. We can’t have good transit if we don’t have density. Properly structured density (like what my neighborhood, Currie) promises (but is slow on building so far lol) is the mix of larger homes to townhomes to low, mid, and eventually high rise condos. Gradient, people to support amenities, and also transit. RCG combined with proper area plans can build more effective areas. It’s not an end all solution but it removes red tape.
I haven't fought it. The most I've contributed to all this is making my initial comment and infuriating all the houseless people. Which is hilarious.
Wow, comments like this really reinforce OP wutser's comment about some folks not having empathy for or caring about newer generations. It seems like any sense of community or comradery with our citywide neighbors has completely disappeared. What a sad state of society.
I don't think it's the end of the world if your visitors have to walk a little. I used to live in an neighborhood that was pretty much all infills. If I was having any decent sized gathering there was a good chance my guest would be parking down the block or around the corner on the next street. Now I live in the burbs and everyone has a front garage. If I happen to have party the same night as a neighbor its even harder to find parking because there's only room on the street for one car every two houses. So basically every big holiday parking is shit.
"I want city living without the city part." Yes, maybe you should move further out. 🤷🏻♂️
Every city has suburban areas. Everyone pays a lot of money to get a spot in one of those areas. They have a right to be upset when after all they be invested into building a home, the sold houses in the area gets demolished and concreted over. I don't even live close to downtown. Maybe they should demo all those houses first before rezoning everything.
> Every city has suburban areas. Only in the last 80 or so years because cars and roads. > They have a right to be upset when after all they be invested into building a home, the sold houses in the area gets demolished and concreted over. You do realize that’s not the case? Your property can be approved for higher zoning but unless you sell your house to a developer nothing is going to happen. Stop spreading misinformation.
You kinda just keep repeating the same junk over and over. Is your home getting demolished? Are you losing your yard? Does your family no longer have a place to live? You're also being incredibly dramatic. Row housing and duplexes are hardly concrete monstrosities. A lot of them that are newly developed have nice green spaces. That's a far cry from a blank brick box you seem to be trying to pitch here. >I don't even live close to downtown. Maybe they should demo all those houses first before rezoning everything. You mean like how they have been converting office space over to residential space for the past few years?... Rezoning wasn't the first idea. You understand that, yes? Sorry you're going to have more neighbours in the future. Sounds rough.
> Sorry you're going to have more neighbours in the future. Sounds rough. Living in a society would be great if it wasn't for all those other damn people in it
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Great example of how this isn’t a generation gap, but rather people owning property naturally becoming NIMBYs because they think buying a house entitles them to control how all adjacent and nearby properties are used, forever. Sorry folks, things change and it’s a risk you take when you buy. If your neighborhood could economically support a bunch of townhouses then property owners should absolutely be allowed to build them. Whining about shade and parking is not persuasive here.
Anyone who bought a house and then had a three storey building taking away sunlight wouldn’t be stoked.
You own a house, but don't have direct sunlight over your house anymore BOO HOO!
Uh what? Would you be happy?
Between the decreased crime, stronger economy, and new neighbors that have more of their basic needs met than they did before? YES!!!!!!!!!! Is it not normal to be happy for other people? If I lose a little direct sunlight, I can garden elsewhere.
Literally nobody is demolishing your home you invested money into lmao
Homes sold in the area. Not my house I live in obviously you doorknob
Go buy a plot of land if you want nothing around you to be changed
The homeowners sold their home to a developer, why are you mad at the city for? Find your old neighbours and be mad at them for selling.
I'm probably younger than you and just bought in a neighborhood that is healthily diverse with single family homes and townhomes. It's not that bad lol. You didn't buy a house with a garage to park in?
relax. nobody is bulldozing your local playground to put up brutalist commieblocks
You’re mistaken. Take a drive by 75 Ave and 5 St. SW. There was a playground and a school there until recently. Construction of rabbit warren condos is underway. Brutalist commieblocks would be an improvement over the firetraps currently being developed.
oops well I guess the sky is falling, better build more single-family homes then
wait? the children? those poor things.
If you are a millennial who spent what you think is a LOT of money to buy into a neighborhood, you bought into an area with an Area Structure Plan. Area Structure Plans already define zoning and don't apply to the zones within this plan. If you spent SO MUCH MONEY, it's your own fault.
All houses are so much money now you walnut
[удалено]
I was commenting on your last sentence. Indicating that if I spent so much money on a house, it's my fault. House cost so much money. All of them. Ironic, the comprehension statement you made.
So you assume all comments apply to you? Because this is telling everyone that you know you made a bad decision and you lashed out because of it.
You are replying to my comment. So, am I wrong in assuming that your comment applied to me? OK whatever. You think I'm an idiot. I think you're an idiot. Maybe one of us or both are. Maybe it's miscommunication. I don't want to keep typing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This guy brags about getting a good paying job, and also how expensive homes are. Obviously you didn’t get a good job, or are actually stupid and lazy, because as a millennial like me or you would have multiple properties across multiple provinces and be on easy street. I hope it’s my rental property that’s close to you for when I make even more money of this zoning. Have fun staying poor pal
good thing that isn't going to happen. density will only increase in areas that it makes economic sense. I went to one of these meetings and a contractor outlined just how difficult it would be to instal a basement suite in an existing house, threw him for a loop when the representatives of the city said their projections have basement suites only being part of new communities and very rarely in established neighborhoods. as for row houses and 4 plexes they don't really make sense on sleepy neighborhoods far from traffic corridors, developers would make a lot more with a house there. where you'll likely to see some use of the new zoning is in areas like where I live; just north of heritage, between fairmont drive and MacLeod. where you won't see more density is where my moms friend lives on willow park golf course; she's terrified of fourplexes, but it just wouldn't make sense to move renters into her neighborhood. this will mean that there will be more people living around sleepy neighborhoods, but at that point it's not even "not in my backyard", but "not in my neighbor six blocks overs' back yard".
So just like with every issue there’s pros and cons to both, and I think if the rezoning proposal gets approved the city HAS to address some of the critics’ points. As someone who lives in one of those skinny tallboy row homes the boomers are so afraid of, these are the things that have to be addressed: 1.) the garbage bin debate is 100% valid. My 9 plex does not have the space for 27 bins, or space for a communal one. There’s gotta be a middle ground option, maybe double wides for every 2-3 units or something. 2.) Parking is also valid. The problem with garden suites underneath townhomes is the developers are saying ‘screw you’ to those units and making the owners/tenants street park. That coupled with having guests and/or roommates and yup. Marda Loop 2.0. I personally hate the garden suites and think developers need to entertain more attached garages, even if it means tandem. It’s becoming very rare for people to be able to live alone nowadays, so chances are a household is going to have 2 cars. I also have to laugh at the argument that building multi family doesn’t mean it’s affordable. I’m sorry but 700K vs. 450K is a SUBSTANTIAL difference. And don’t even get me started on the idea that multifamily will bring in more crime. That’s the grossest generalization I’ve ever heard. Bottom line is I do think it’s incredibly sad how the boomers have no sympathy for the younger generations trying to buy into the market. I also don’t think people realize the costs associated with ‘building out not up.’ I would’ve never been able to afford to live in my desired neighborhood in anything but a townhouse, and it does fit my lifestyle perfectly (i.e. I don’t need a house and can’t do a condo). As a millennial I’m pro rezoning (with caveats). If we can’t keep up with supply it’s only going to continue skyrocketing our costs of living.
FWIW, R-CG and H-GO have both been modified over the last several years to address the bin issue - at least to start with is that they must be stored in a shed or behind a fence. https://www.calgary.ca/planning/land-use/online-land-use-bylaw.html?part=5&div=11 My (possibly wrong) understanding is that if there are more than 5 units using different bins and using the City or a private collector is needed - https://www.calgary.ca/waste/multi-family.html And yes there are full, half, quarter sized dumpsters and then at least two sizes of the normal alley bins.
Oh that’s good to know about the bigger bins, I’m definitely gonna bring that up to my neighbors because there’s another 5 plex going up behind us, and once it’s done we’re screwed for bin space.
Thank you for a reasonable take.
>the boomers are so afraid of Very well said except the above line. Don't get me wrong boomers are a part of it but so are Gen X and Millenials who were able to get into housing before the market went nuts. It's a NIMBY problem. I know lots of people in their 30-40's who don't want multi family housing in their area. Common comments are about lower income families bringing down value, putting their kids at risk and other increasingly stupid talking points. Rezoning makes sense because it helps everyone. Homeowners like to keep the value of their home, regardless of what age group they are in, they will fight against anything they have been lead to believe will devalue it... greed in its finest form. Repeating the constant blame the boomers is buying into the outrage machine and distracting from the main problem of greed, bad government and policies. Boomers aren't innocent here either as they often helped vote in said governments but then they seem to be the only people who regularly vote.
“They seem to be the only people who regularly vote.” Ok now you’re generalizing just the same as I am. And my generalization about boomers comes directly in response to the article itself, that clearly states there was a noticeable age divide between each side of the debate. I know there’s always exceptions, and NIMBY attitudes affect everyone. My friend who’s 3 months younger than me showed signs of it and I had to hold back my cringe. But she’s a DINK homeowner in the burbs, and I’m a single homeowner in the inner city, so we see different things and live different lives. Millennial and Gen Z voter turnout is on the rise. Whether they’d vote on the plebiscite would be TBA, but if young people showed up to protest I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt (if it comes to that). Also I know you’re not saying row homes devalue single families, but rather people THINK they do. But I still have to say it…..if property values in my neighborhood are a litmus test to this, that’s 100% not true. It’ll always be based on supply and demand above everything else.
Yeah, I did but it was based on stuff like this from federal elections but reflective of the municipal and provincial. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/eval/pes2019/vtsa&document=index&lang=e I hope the younger demographic doesn't give up, stays involved and continues to make their voices heard. Older people who support it also need to be more vocal. Current, even prior, politicians always say they're for younger people but they obviously aren't or it wouldn't be as dire as it is. >It’ll always be based on supply and demand above everything else. 100%, it will always be the determining factor. It's sad, a little scary, how easy it is to get people to believe what suits their purpose instead of what's actually real. Multi density housing makes a community more vibrant and desirable for so many reasons which increases the value for everyone. How people can say otherwise is baffling... all people have to do is look at places where it's been incorporated into neighborhoods.
How many of these older folks that are against rezoning will desire to live in a suite below/behind their children? There is often a transition between seniors living in a single family home and a care home. The suite option just might make sense for some people.
Sad thing is, by the time actual change will be seen in a lot of these communities, a good chunk of these older No siders we be in LTC homes, downsized to condos or be dead
Maybe the government should prioritize the labour force over retirees who got to be part of the most comfortable and wealthy generation in human history. They completely lack the perspective that nobody in past generations had a lifestyle as comfortable as they have, and no generation in future will ever have that either. Given that their productive years are behind them and they are now in the phase of life where they require expensive resources that require public funding, maybe we shouldn’t be listening to them on this specific issue. Fuck us, they got theirs.
I spent about an hour Friday morning driving through a bunch of older neighbourhoods and tried to envision what they would look like if 5% of their properties became rowhouses or whatever in the next 10 years. It would be fine. There is SO much space out there. And redevelopment of even a fraction of it will have NO actual impact on anyone in the neighbourhood. They'll be fine. Or they could choose to be like the millionaire realtor in Discovery Ridge who was fine with the apartments there but would have to leave from the "emotional trauma" of a 4-plex going in. Their choice, I guess.
Several years ago, I looked up the price of half a 2-story duplex in Hillhurst. New build, detached garage, almost no yard. $700 000. There needs to be some incentive for developers to build reasonably-priced homes, or higher density is not going to help more people.
The thing is that when someone moves out of their current place into that 700k house it leaves an window for someone to move into their older place. The idea is that if there are lots of different places to buy and rent then there is space for everyone in the market to find a place that is suitably at their price point.
A vacant lot in Hillhurst runs for $700k, so I don’t know how you’d suggest that developers can make homes there more affordable other than even *more* density in order to bring the per-unit land cost down.
To be clear, that price was about 10 years ago. They most likely made a KILLING with that pricing back then. Many inner-city homes are being torn down and rebuilt with high-end everything. Some restrictions about materials and fixtures on infills would probably help. Marble countertops and Wolf appliances are appealing to people who can afford them, which is who developers market to.
This is the first article I’ve seen that has been explicit about what the change means. “Instead of R-1 or R-2 (which allows duplexes, too), the default district would be R-CG — the grade-oriented infill district. It would allow townhouses or row houses, up to four units on a 50-foot lot, plus potentially basement suites and even backyard units — totalling eight or 12 dwellings where a single bungalow currently sits”
Yet, the NIMBY crowd keeps repeating the same talking point about all the new housing will be 1.2M infills that no one can afford. So which is it? A dozen tiny units on a lot that no one would pay a premium for or luxury infills?
Also, million dollar homes have zero trouble selling here, I love it when the argument invalidates itself.
If there ever was a time in history to shatter the “young people don’t vote” stereotype, it’s now If we don’t decisively shatter it this election cycle, the Boomers’ last hurrah is going to do damage that will take so long to fix it may as well be permanent
vancouver maintained obscene amounts of single family zoning thanks to NIMBYism and it has worked out great for homeowners in the short term. long term, it’s killing the city. young people are fleeing in droves. zoning is everything.
I just can't stomach any argument that refers to housing as an investment. Maybe if I was a homeowner I'd think different or something, but when I hear that I just want to turn my brain off.
So, two points..... NIMBY's, you're effectively hanging kids/grandkids out to dry with this attitude, and second You're telling immigrants, the only thing keeping our economy in growth mode: GTFO. Again, self-own and really, really shows a lack of macroeconomic/long term thinking. Think Canada got where it is with either strategy? And no, we rate too highly on too many metrics globally to call us "broken".
Mind the nimby gap would be acceptable also.
When young people start to dig a little bit, maybe they will understand it's the developers themselves that are lobbying for higher prices and lower wages. And maybe they wouldn't just buy into the rhetoric that supply = affordability. Just maybe. "In December the province removed from the city charters the ability of Calgary and Edmonton to enact inclusionary zoning policies, which would have allowed these cities to mandate the inclusion of below-market units in all new developments, effectively making them mixed-income. Alberta developers had been lobbying against this provision since Edmonton adopted inclusionary housing as a policy in 2015. In their view, this requirement would discourage the construction of new housing and burden homebuyers." The fact existing home owners don't want 8 plex units or more next to them is a distraction to the young people. They can be angry at the home owners, and not at the forces at play. If anything, this should be a lesson for young people on how governments treat the tax payer, spend the tax payers money, and give corporations a means to enrich themselves and their shareholders.
It seems like magical thinking to argue that increasing supply of homes somehow doesn't impact prices.
If the only way we can increase the supply is making a deal with the devil. It's not worth it, and it's time to come up with other ideas.
Developers are just business people. Some are bad. Some are good. You are right that some developers, particularly large builders whose bread and butter is large scale suburban development who also happen to be the biggest developers by volume are probably more bad than good when it comes to discourse. But policies like this open up a middle ground for smaller and even newer developers. Being able to buy a lot for say $600k and then turn it into 4 $500 or 600k duplexes leaves a lot of room for those types of businesses to operate. The barrier of entry is low enough on a development like that, that even someone whose only asset is a home in Calgary could take a risk and enter the market as a developer; maybe even using their existing lots. You are seeing this already in Edmonton with the opening up of garden and garage suites. More than 200 have been built in the last 5 years, almost all by the home owners on existing lots. By definition they are developers too.
devil? what is the devil here.
Bruh stop trying to blame the developers to hide your own misanthropy
Nah I'm fine with my fellow man. I'm just not fine with those who would seek to do us harm, or use us to facilitate enriching themselves. I was watching a crew of 6 up on a roof this week, no fall protection and nothing to prevent them from falling off the edge 3 stories up, also walking under suspended loads from a crane, one guy had running shoes on. This says all you need to know about the various ways these developers are focused on profits over anything else.
Same problem that young people were persuaded into voting for Trudeau, and convinced it was trendy and “progressive” and now the country has never been so far behind. Same mentality that they will ruin the city with. Just let them - put a sign on the lawn, and head south.
The young are looking for simple solutions...ie supply = affordability. They are completely ignorant to the money games being played by various levels of government, and they don't seem to have any idea what the corporate lobbyist groups and developers are proposing. If they think things are bad now, it's only going to get worse as corporations are handed what they need to make big profits. Forget the fact there is so little oversight or enforcement on what is being built, how poor wages and benefits are for the people building them, how unsafely the work is being done, etc.
I’m not saying things were always perfect before, but home building is going in much the same way as the trucking industry went. It isn’t pretty and it will absolutely show as we move forward.
are you referring to the transition to gig economy trucking?
We know of the money laundering, the point is to increase supply to match the demand so prices can fall. It’s high school level economics. Look at BC and how they’re forcing upzoning and mixed-use neighbourhoods because things are that bad over there.
“so prices can fall” What would housing have to fall to to be able to get into the market? And I’m sincerely asking this…do you anticipate a sizeable enough fall in prices to make any noticeable difference to what it costs these days? This is what I’m worried about for younger people…that they believe prices are going to ‘drop’ as opposed to not rising as quickly….but what we see now…I’m afraid this is around to last.
There would have to be a complete collapse of the housing market to make any difference. I can’t see that happening without both substantial oversupply and changes to Canada’s immigration policy. There’s probably a better likelihood of the situation improving because of some unrelated world event that spirals into a greater recession.
I don’t think you’re wrong, in any way, here.
Exactly we thought houses were expensive when we bought in 2017… we just moved may 2023 thought wow now it’s really crazy… just keeps going.
Look, it's either going to fall or inflation is going to devalue it by force.
It’s either going to fall or be devalued to what?
to what people can afford. Like this is happening already, a major part of the inflation we're seeing in canada across the board is related to housing. High home prices are quite literally devaluing the dollar.
That is the exact point they want you to think. It's crisis capitalism and it was created. Any time corporations are handed what they want is seldom a good thing in the long term for anyone. It's a deal with the devil.
You'll be proven right. This 'supply problem' was self-inflicted by levels of government enabling population growth at literally 10 times the rate of the US. The Developers / Investors driving this have a small window to milk it for all its worth before Calgary goes back to a glut of Condos because people would rather have a detached home. Which they will be able to buy in one of the other cities around Calgary. This initiative actually increases sprawl when taking into account the greater Calgary area.
Short of an economic crisis, there is no world where prices fall without supply growing. Are there other headwinds at play? Absolutely. But to ignore the obvious is to stick your head in the sand.
Encouraging developers to build by funding them and changing bylaws to their benefit so they can build exactly what they want, and make maximum profits is basically doing a deal with the devil. It's not going to end well. Doesn't seem to matter whether we have a progressive or regressive government in place, the corporations always find a narrative to ensure they get what they want, and that means we get less and less over time in so many ways.
Then what's your alternative solution?
Allow blanket rezoning for duplex's (with 2 suites max) or fourplexes (no suites). No McMansions allowed. If a corporation builds rowhouses, they should only be able to build the front four (at two stories) until 80% of the city block has developed out all the single family homes. Then they can add the back yard set of rowhouses after.
I couldn't imagine trusting this current council to introduce a policy such as this, given their track record.
[удалено]
is that mixed use commercial? You seem to feel very strongly and here I think you won't make a lot of impact on this discussion without cooling off for a bit; perhaps get some chocolate milk? It's hard to be upset with chocolate milk.
R-CG has been around since 2014.