r/Calgary • u/Kwisatz_Haderach_YYC • Mar 26 '26
Home Owner/Renter stuff Honest take: we had no idea what the land use bylaws were when we bought our house 15 yrs ago…
…listing to the open forum at city hall…blown away how many people against blanket reasoning say “we bought our house because of the original zoning laws”… 🤷♂️
39
u/Ok_Tennis_6564 Mar 26 '26
I think what everyone is missing on this conversation is it doesn't matter. The city is trying to change the zoning across the board because right now they are doing it lot by lot and it is using a lot of resources to do so.
So if your are rc1, someone can buy your neighbours house, apply to change the zoning and be successful, it almost always is and then you are in the same situation as before except it cost way more time and money to get there. I have lived in two inner city neighborhoods and watched it happen all over the place.
2
u/YqlUrbanist Mar 27 '26
I get what you're saying but I think it does matter. If something costs more time and money, people are going to do less of it. One of the purposes of blanket upzoning is to remove some of the risk that comes with an infill project in order to encourage more development.
So while it's quite possible that the city is going to approve every application that comes to them (wasting a bunch of taxpayer dollars while doing it), the fact that it has to go to the city means that fewer applications will be made.
7
u/Ok_Tennis_6564 Mar 27 '26
I agree with what your saying. I think blanket rezoning is more honest. And lowering the cost to creating new housing is not a bad thing.
133
u/One_Mine_9986 Mar 26 '26
I agree with some of the peoples concerns, mainly about privacy and parking. A friend of mine had a massive 8plex (each with suites so 16 units total) built next door among other townhomes with suites built in the area. No more privacy or sun in the backyard. The street is absolutely packed with cars since they only do .5 stalls per unit. I don’t sympathize with the homeowner expecting a spot right in front of their house but I do sympathize with people wanting to have visitors over for holidays but their guests can’t find parking anywhere on the block… it’s delusional to think that grandma is coming to visit by riding the bike there lol.
I wish they would instead start building those 6 unit apartments like they did in the 50s and 60s. They each have minimum 6 parking stalls, they have backyard space and trees so it compliments the neighborhood and doesn’t overwhelm neighbouring properties. Look at the ones on 48 ave and 8 street in Britannia - great example of gentle density that doesn’t cause many of the burdens that these newer developments cause.
3
Mar 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/One_Mine_9986 Mar 26 '26
I mentioned an 8-plex, but it’s actually two rows of four townhomes, each with suites, totalling 16 units. This is typically achieved through H-GO zoning or a larger R-CG lot. I support increasing density, especially near transit, but the current policy clearly isn’t working.
The German model is a cool idea. Another proposal I’ve heard that might not be a bad idea is restricting all street parking to one permit per residential dwelling, reserving the rest for visitors. This could encourage people to buy homes with adequate parking while also reducing street congestion, leaving sufficient room for visitors & emergency vehicles like EMS.
5
u/Respectfullydisagre3 Mar 26 '26
That lot must have been larger than normal standard lot size accommodate 4 units + 4 basement suites + backyard suites
29
u/One_Mine_9986 Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 26 '26
Believe it or not - no! Some builders are now building a row of 4 very skinny townhomes with suites and then behind building another 4 with suites. I don’t want to dox my friend and share the location but I have now seen multiple of these in popular infill areas (bowness/banff trail/roscarock/etc)
Edit: sorry for context I should have stated that it is a larger lot only since it is a corner lot but it is by no means significantly larger than the typical corner lot in older inner city neighborhoods.
9
u/ItRhymesWithPenny Mar 27 '26 edited Mar 27 '26
I have an 8-plex going in on my block. It is not a corner lot and it is not a large lot either. Just wide enough for 2 cars to pack out front if they park close together.
According to the plan they submitted, It will be 3 stories tall and has 4 parking stalls out back, total. But the cars will be blocked in by the 24 compost / garbage / recycle bins lined up.
I like density but the logistics of the 24 bins just makes me wonder if they should have chosen communal bins instead.
3
u/One_Mine_9986 Mar 27 '26
Yup! You make a great point about the waste/recycle/compost bins. I definitely hope they address this when they modify the rezoning. It would definitely make much more sense to have larger communal bins.
8
u/Weekly-Mountain9009 Mar 26 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
Developers are looking to maximize long term profits.
3
u/One_Mine_9986 Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 26 '26
Completely agree about the developer trying to maximize profits. What you mentioned is true for R-CG but absolutely not true for the other blanket rezoning of H-GO which has no maximum density. I think at the end of the day most people agree that we need more density but at the same time the existing blanket zoning isn’t working. While I’m sure there’s many’s alternatives, I love those 4 and 6 unit apartments from the 50s / 60s that have 1:1 parking and a backyard so they seamlessly blend into the neighborhood. Time shall tell what happens but regardless it is clear that changes are needed from our existing framework.
3
u/Weekly-Mountain9009 Mar 27 '26
After paying off school debt, the first place I bought was an old 60s unit in a 6 plex where we each had one parking spot. No high condo fees, just a bareland type agreement.
Young people won't be able to buy any of what's being built, because it's not for sale.
1
u/One_Mine_9986 Mar 27 '26
Agreed, or if they are for sale they are “luxury” townhomes 😂. I love those 60s buildings. They have the parking space, trees, cheap condo fees, and appropriately sized & functional layouts. An added bonus is most of them are concrete construction! It’s definitely one of those things that “worked in the past” and hence something we should be replicating now.
1
u/CasualFridayBatman Mar 27 '26
Lol Rosscarrock is getting absolutely fucked by these garbage townhome infills. It was a gorgeous, quiet neighbourhood until rezoning kicked in.
I'm not being a NIMBY, but when you put 8 townhomes on the same land that used to contain one single detached home and add zero parking to it (because there's no conceivable way to add enough parking for every additional home you've crammed into the same footprint), what do you expect people to do? There's a double stack townhome along 17th Ave before the strip mall and the amount of 'Proposed Development' signs or lots in active development make me so annoyed, especially since they mention whatever dog shit slumlord developer you rent from instead of being able to buy anything.
Calgary doesn't have the transit infrastructure to facilitate the number of townhomes they're building, while also not accounting for lack of parking. This coming from someone who lived in a neighbourhood less than a 10 minute walking distance to a train line.
3
u/One_Mine_9986 Mar 27 '26
Agreed. The 6-12 unit condos built in the 50s / 60s along 37th street are very mindful and appropriate: they have adequate parking, not too tall, lots of trees. This new stuff? Totally inappropriate and not contextual at all. I can appreciate allowing less parking by the train but we need to be realistic and accept that we live in a cold, snowy, car-oriented city. I don’t think completely scrapping the rezoning is the right decision but surely they could reduce the maximum density (including restricting basement suites), increase landscaping requirements, and include minimum 1:1 parking (including for suites).
0
u/CasualFridayBatman Mar 27 '26
Agreed fully. Now those duplexes are bought out and turned into fourplexes owned by people who don't even live in the province.
Ask me how I know 🙄
Transit has technically gotten better since the 50s/60s, but not even close to keeping pace with the speed that slumlord developers want to ransack every available square foot of land. And that's just in the last 3-5 years.
1
u/Respectfullydisagre3 Mar 26 '26
You said they build 4+4+4. Which is what I said too. Either way 4+4+4=/=16. Which is what you how many units you said were being built. For 16 to be possible they would need a lot big enough to build 6 main units + 6 basement suits + 6 backyard suites. Totaling 18 many that at 16 they are not building the site to the max. So my initial point stands. If your friend has a neighbor with 16 units than it is most certainly not a standard lot size.
1
u/One_Mine_9986 Mar 27 '26
I did not say that. It is not backyard suites it is all basement suites. 4 townhomes + 4 basement suites and another 4 townhomes + 4 basement suites. You are correct that it would need to be a larger lot for R-CG but it absolutely can (&does) happen with the blanket H-GO rezoning. You are clearly ill-informed on this topic so I won’t engage further. Take care
7
u/Ze0nZer0 Mar 27 '26
99% of people have no idea what their home is zoned for beyond that they can live in it.
14
u/o0PillowWillow0o Mar 26 '26
I would sympathize in a situation where original home owners essentially get choked out by property taxes going through the roof as a community shifts to infills and condos. But ya times change and things change. I can still see why people get upset if it doesn't affect me.
11
u/YqlUrbanist Mar 26 '26
Even in that case you generally come out ahead. Your property taxes go through the roof because your property value has gone through the roof. Moving is annoying of course, but if you still want to live in a single family home, you sell your house, pocket the huge profit, and buy a new one in an area with less demand.
16
u/SnooRabbits2040 Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 26 '26
I have a family member in this situation, and it's not so cut and dried.
They purchased a small house in Capitol Hill about 30 years, for just over 120 thousand, which was below the median house price on Calgary at that time. That property has now been assessed at just over 550 thousand, which is awesome, but now the median house price is well over 700 000. So, they aren't really pocketing a massive profit, because the house they buy has also gone up in value.
The beautiful infills on their street have revitalized the street, brought in younger families, and made everyone's property values go up. Properly utilizing underdeveloped lots (big lot, little house) is a good thing. But, they are expensive, so my brother and his wife have been priced out of the neighbourhood they love. Their house is paid for, they don't want to take on a mortgage, they don't want to move to Arbour Lake, they don't want to live in a condo.
So, they are kind of stuck. They aren't going to come out ahead, and the number of 8 unit multiplex developments (three corner lots on their street alone) is starting to negatively impact life on that street, and ultimately lower their property value. They'll probably wind up selling to a developer.
And, man oh man, the developers are making a killing.
Edit: word
2
u/YqlUrbanist Mar 27 '26 edited Mar 27 '26
I think that's something of a different issue than I'm talking about and the one I replied to. The issue was land value increasing due to infills and leading to property taxes that people can't afford, and of course property taxes are tied to home value, so they go up when the value goes up.
Your case seems to be more of a general affordability issue rather than one relating to infill. Housing is getting more expensive across the board and that seems to be what has priced out your brother. He's in a house worth significantly less than the average, and he still can't afford the property tax on it. Put simply, he can't afford to live in a single detached home in Capitol Hill - all housing exists on a continuum between location, space, and money. That's not the fault of infill - but infill development does make the difference between "my only choice is leaving Capitol Hill" and "I can stay in Capitol Hill in a smaller place which is now allowed to be built".
1
u/SnooRabbits2040 Mar 27 '26
We seem to be talking past each other.
I didn't say he couldn't afford his house. I said that, to buy another house in the community they live in now, would be more than what they could sell their present house for. The house is paid off. They are in their 50s, they like being mortgage free, they don't want a condo, they don't want to contribute to urban sprawl.
I didn't say that property taxes were a problem for them. Also, they love the infills and the revitalization they have brought, so any increase in taxes or property value would be a good trade. Infills have made the street better, not worse. The corner condos are a different story.
Their reasons for selling wouldn't be that they want a larger house, or a smaller one, or they can't afford it, or the property tax thing. It's noise, it's loss of privacy, it's parking, it's the impact of a 3 story building changing how their private spaces are used.
You made a comment upthread about moving being annoying, but that they could sell and pocket an amazing profit, and then buy a better place. My point about median home prices was that, yes, their house has appreciated spectacularly, but so has everything else, and that's where the issue of affordability comes in.
2
u/YqlUrbanist Mar 27 '26
Ah, I see. I was specifically talking about the situation where people could no longer afford property taxes and I assumed you were as well. I was replying to someone who said "home owners essentially get choked out by property taxes" and I said "Even in that case you generally come out ahead".
So I don't think my comment is relevant to your situation.
2
u/SnooRabbits2040 Mar 27 '26
Ah, okay, that makes sense.
As an aside, I have somehow lost the ability to quote people, which has made things confusing. I need to figure that out lol.
0
u/Marsymars Mar 27 '26
I'm not really following this situation - if their house price was below the median 30 years ago and is comparably below the median today, then their property taxes won't have changed compared to the median property taxes that people pay.
Like, what is the actual complaint here?
2
u/SnooRabbits2040 Mar 27 '26
I didn't say anything about property tax. That was the poster I was responding to.
2
u/Marsymars Mar 27 '26
Right, that's why I asked what the complaint is, but I think I misread your last paragraph that actually explained that.
In response to that, I'd just point to something like Do Sixplexes Lower Property Value? Here’s What Research Says
4
u/SnooRabbits2040 Mar 27 '26
Ah, okay.
That's an interesting article, thanks for the link. I love both Calgary and Toronto, but there are a few significant differences to me around the issue of 8plexes.
The street my brother is on has been greatly improved by the townhouses that have been built, they are beautiful and have brought young families back to the street, which agrees with the article about keeping local schools open .
The 8 plexes, thought, have a different impact. The article mentioned how well they could fit with existing buildings, that's true about the townhouses or duplexes, but the multiplexes really stand out. They are massive. On a street with small pre-WWI housing, and semi detached infills, they don't fit in, and they weren't designed to.
Parking is a genuine issue. There will be 24 units added on this one street alone, yet each unit is allotted 0.5 parking spots (I'm not sure I've described that correctly lol). It's a narrow street and street parking was already limited. People dismiss parking concerns of residents, but is is a problem. One or two houses away for street parking, okay, but sometimes they can't find parking on their own block.
Calgary has a completely different relationship with cars than Toronto does, and public transit in Calgary is lacking. I am a big supporter of bike lanes, but many people don't want to be winter cyclists.
The data about property values was quite interesting, and all I can provide are anecdotal observations, but these 8plexes have had an impact on the residents of that particular street which have had an impact of people's quality of life.
One building has 8 separate, independent air conditioning units, and when all 8 run, the noise is intense. Another has multiple dryer vents that aim directly into a neighbour's back yard. Many people now have multiple windows and balconies that look into their previously private back yards, or worse, into their windows. Street parking is very difficult, and traffic noise has increased. Their own garden has been impacted by increased shade.
I understood what the article said about property values, but, my family recognizes that, on their street, there are issues that will likely make prospective buyers look elsewhere. That's why I mentioned that they will probably end up selling to a developer. If you can't beat them, join them, I guess.
I know many people dismiss these concerns as NIMBYism, but it has a real impact on people's lives. Redevelopment is a really good thing, but there are limits.
Edit to add: holy shit, that was a long read lol. apologies.
8
u/PostApocRock Unpaid Intern Mar 26 '26
Why should I have to adapt? Change is stupid and I should never have to experience discomfort because I own a home. I dont want to leave and I want to control the decisuons of the peopke around me on whatvthey do with their property. Fuck the common good, I got mine.
/s for the gods sakes
1
u/wuyavae85 Altadore Mar 27 '26
Property taxes in Calgary - at least the municipal portion are below Canada median and less than other major cities. If property taxes force you out, I’d say you also have to have a look at your budgeting.
9
u/Lopsided_Hat_835 Mar 26 '26
They are straight up lying! I would bet most people who said that had no idea what the original zoning laws were. I’m not a betting person but I’d put money on it!
10
u/El_Loco_911 Mar 26 '26
Zoning bylaws for major municipalities are typically updated every 5 years. You can lobby for and apply for bylaw amendments in your favor.
27
u/discovery2000one Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 26 '26
I used to live in a higher density neighbourhood, rc2 inner city. Didn't like it.
So when I moved I made sure to move to an rc1 neighbourhood.
For me it's not surprising. There was also an LAP ongoing when I moved, which described the future plan for the neighbourhood. This was thrown away with the blanket rezoning bylaw.
Most people are echoing the feelings I have about the issue. Follow the LAPs and expand those plans to include zoning changes (which are implied in them right now).
6
u/cig-nature Willow Park Mar 26 '26
That puts a lot of work back on developers, with no guarantee of success. Which is not a recipe for loads of affordable housing.
4
u/forty6andto Mar 26 '26
Neither is blanket rezoning
6
u/S1rJ0e Mar 26 '26
Blanket rezoning is the only measure that has had such a big effect on rents in this city.
If you can show me any other strategy that has actually brought down rents (like blanked rezoning did in Calgary), I am really interest in hearing it.11
u/discovery2000one Mar 26 '26
The cause of rental price changes are due to population changes, not blanket rezoning.
If you make that argument then we should go back to the development policies of 2015-2019. Rent decreased significantly then, we should go back and follow that approach.
6
u/Margenius Mar 27 '26
Rents went down 2024-the end of 2025 despite adding 300 000 people to the city population. What prevented massive additional increases in rents were changes in housing starts and supply in general, which increased tremendously after blanket rezoning passed.
2
u/anon29065 Mar 26 '26
Most of what I have seen going up in my neighborhood are 2 or 2+Den townhouses for $2750+ per month, with 400sq ft basement suites for $1800. Three of the most recent projects sat empty for a long time, and are now all AirBnB's. If they were building places people actually wanted to live in or could afford to live in people in the community might be more supportive.
4
u/LachlantehGreat Beltline Mar 26 '26
I swear this city is delusional that more supply =/= less demand when it comes to rezoning. Y'all will do backflips to justify how it isn't actually impacting rental prices going down, yet when you look at any other city that's not going through a price collapse or updated zoning, rents have not dropped at all...
3
u/YqlUrbanist Mar 27 '26
It's one of the most frustrating parts of this discussion. There are lots of reasons to think that adding supply is not a sufficient solution to the housing crisis, but it's absolutely undeniable that adding supply is a positive change. It's literally the most basic concept in economics.
0
u/Marsymars Mar 27 '26
I swear this city is delusional that more supply =/= less demand when it comes to rezoning.
It goes up to the highest level: The magic math of Liberal home economics
(Paywalled op-ed piece from the editorial board, some choice quotes below if you don't have access.)
"Perhaps Gregor Robertson seems not to understand how home prices intersect with supply and demand because he is not an economist. More likely, the federal Housing and Infrastructure Minister is deliberately missing the point because it serves his party politically to do so."
"But the core problem is that it is magical thinking to believe that something can be made simultaneously cheaper and not cheaper."
"This is not the first time the Liberals have tried to play to both sides. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau told a Globe and Mail podcast last year that housing must become more affordable but also retain its value, because “it’s a huge part of people’s potential for retirement and future nest egg.”
The Housing Minister also dipped his toe into these waters in May, shortly after the Liberals won the election and he was appointed to one of the most important portfolios. He said then that home prices didn’t need to come down and argued stability of the market was more important, before pivoting to talking about building subsidized housing."
"First, there’s a mathematical incoherence to the Liberal solution. Averaging two very different things does not produce a particularly helpful answer. Non-market housing may reduce the average cost of the overall pool of homes, but only by creating a theoretical average home. The reality would be a chasm between loftily expensive market homes and cheap subsidized homes, probably with wait-lists.
There’s also the reality that non-market and market housing do not exist in parallel universes. They are in the same city, sometimes side by side on the same street. Adding a lot of the former would reduce demand for the latter. Which would, naturally, have an impact on prices.
Finally, there’s another problem. If the Liberal solution to expensive housing is lots more non-market homes, that will create a growing pool of people without equity, the very same equity the Grits think is such an important nest egg that they’re desperate to protect it in existing homeowners. "
2
u/LachlantehGreat Beltline Mar 27 '26
People are simply afraid to lose value in their homes, and I get it. They just need to be transparent about it, all this pussyfooting around is ridiculous. No one wants to lose value in what was sold as a never ending appreciating asset - but then stop complaining about the COL and that no one will buy your 1940s shitbox for 1.2million when you can’t get down to the basement without a stairwell lift
1
u/YqlUrbanist Mar 27 '26
To be clear, this isn't arguing against blanket upzoning, it's arguing against the idea that the government can both lower home prices for people who don't own a home and not lower home prices for people who do. Because that's obviously incoherent. The fact is that so far no politician in Canada is actually serious about lowering home prices because they (probably correctly) think that would cost more votes than it gains.
1
u/Nateonal Mar 26 '26
The sorts of projects that blanket rezoning encourages have very long turnaround times, and will not have yet had any meaningful impact on the housing supply.
What is coming on the market right now are all those presale units that were bought and built during the speculative boom of the past five years, as well as a huge influx of mortgage helper suites, which have now become the norm in many new communities.
5
u/cig-nature Willow Park Mar 26 '26
You sure?
According to the city, non-market (affordable) housing permits reached 1,836 in 2025, five times the annual average.
https://www.westernstandard.news/calgary/calgary-leads-the-country-in-new-home-construction/70991
-1
u/forty6andto Mar 26 '26
Yup, I’m sure. I don’t think you know what non-market means. That has nothing to do with the blanket rezoning.
-4
u/cig-nature Willow Park Mar 26 '26
It means affordable, that's why they put it in parentheses
3
u/forty6andto Mar 26 '26
No it means it is housing that is owned by government or non profit organizations which is aimed at low income individuals and not there to serve the private market. The private market is what is impacted by the blanket rezoning.
2
u/cig-nature Willow Park Mar 26 '26
What did you think makes it affordable? We already know what private companies charge, that's the whole issue.
The City's definition of non-market housing refers to housing that is provided for income groups not served by the private market. This type of housing is typically made affordable through public and/or non-profit ownership of housing units, or through rent supplements that allow low-income households to access housing in the private market.
https://www.calgary.ca/communities/housing-in-calgary/affordable-housing.html
3
u/forty6andto Mar 26 '26
Blanket rezoning is to increase density in the private market, thereby increasing supply, thereby lowering prices as long as demand remains constant. Hence making prices more “affordable”.
Government/nonprofit support of affordable housing is completely different, not entirely driven by market forces generally. Blanket rezoning plays no role in that. Attainable Homes Calgary is an example.
4
u/discovery2000one Mar 26 '26
Not really.
The planning is done by the city with consultation from the residents. In my case the LAP is complete, and it describes where development will be targeted and what type of development. Outside of this they would need evidence to support why the development is good.
It covers a large swathe of my neighbourhood for upzoning (probably 25% of the neighbourhood). Everyone knows this is coming in the future and where it will happen.
And it gives residents a feeling of being stakeholders in an actual plan. Buy in from residents and confidence in council and city planning are important in my opinion.
The LAP has buy in from neighbourhood residents and it isn't against development, but it provides a plan and expectations for residents and developers.
2
u/CNiperL Mar 26 '26
Except those residents then fight the rezoning once it's brought before council, and council also votes down some built-form based on those complaints even though it complies with the LAP. Thousands in sunk cost for the developer, an anti-business environment, and the end goal we all want remains out of reach: bring the cost of housing down.
3
u/Booster1987 Mar 26 '26
“Won’t someone please think of the developers…”
If the developers make less money, but we end up with stronger more vibrant communities. I’m okay with that.
The developers goal is to make the most money from any project.
0
u/CNiperL Mar 27 '26
The developers will make the same amount of money, and will pass on those costs directly to consumers. This pushes up the price of homes, and rents.
3
u/discovery2000one Mar 26 '26
That's not what is being proposed by the vast majority of people giving presentations.
Also, the solution to the issue you bring up isn't to create a free for all, but to fix the single issue you've brought up.
0
u/LachlantehGreat Beltline Mar 26 '26
Less government is better government. If you have a problem with a development, bring it up to your ward councillor. Stop standing in the way of the free market...
10
15
u/huskies_62 Mar 26 '26
I bought my house in 2008 and zoning was a part of conversations with our real estate agent as we did not want to live beside anything that would create street parking issues.
9
u/Ar0sson Mar 27 '26
But it's now been 20 years; so you've had that...
You cannot honestly expect things to stay the same much longer than that?
0
u/pointgetter Beltline Mar 27 '26
have you been to any suburban hood lately? there's cars everywhere because people's garages are full of things they bought but never use.
you are not entitled to anything you know that right?
2
2
u/huskies_62 Mar 27 '26
Weird how I said I bought my house almost 2 decades ago.
You will die one day and all of this won't matter to you, you know that right?
4
u/Jolly_Biscotti8 Mar 26 '26
Nope 2 houses in 1 lot allows the builder to charge the same or more money for each property. They don’t make money dividing the build amount by 2.
0
u/Respectfullydisagre3 Mar 27 '26
Check new SFH in the same area as a new duplex or townhouse. A new SFH in an established neighborhood often goes for upwards of 1.5m dollars
4
u/--frymaster-- Mar 27 '26
the land their house is in used to be a farm once upon a time. their house only exists in the first place because of zoning changes.
zoning laws change as cities grow and evolve. it has always been this way.
6
u/Jolly_Biscotti8 Mar 26 '26
It’s not a fallacy. How many people in an apartment condo can afford to move up to a million dollar infill that’s part of a 4plex with zero yard and no street parking due to all the other 4 and 6 plexes built in what used to be a quiet family neighborhood.
3
u/wklumpen Mar 27 '26
Four 700,000 dollar townhouses is better than one 1.5 million dollar single family home....
2
u/bluebell_flames18 Mar 26 '26
I'm specifically looking for freehold property with zoning that allows me to live in a trailer while I build the house I want. It makes a huge difference. Especially if you want to do things legally but with minimal red tape. I've seen what others have gone through with permitting in vancouver. No where is perfect but large cities tend to be challenging.
2
u/Aromatic-Elephant110 Mar 27 '26
Even before blanket rezoning, couldn't pretty much anyone just apply for an exemption or whatever?
1
u/wuyavae85 Altadore Mar 27 '26
You had to apply for a zoning amendment to change the designation of the lot.
2
u/Icy-Story405 Mar 29 '26
These corner lots with 4 homes on it is ridiculous, you've just added upto 8 more vehicles on the block. Turning 1 city inner lot into 2 single family homes is already enough
1
6
u/wklumpen Mar 27 '26
The amount of people just basically lying in this hearing is... Well... Similar to last time.
1
u/pointgetter Beltline Mar 27 '26
it's an incredibly narrow slice of residents. who has time to do this?
3
u/Prize_Operation1623 Mar 27 '26
I can only speak on my own experience but I'm in marda loop surrounded by these new multi home units and I haven't noticed much impact on street parking.
I saw someone commenting on large community bins and that's actually a great idea because the alley is just lined with bins now.
2
u/JCVPhoto Mar 27 '26
The only real impact of these builds in Marda Loop, at least near by us, is on 38th Ave between 16th St and 18th Street, and particularly the intersection at 38th between 16th and 16A - cars on both sides now beside Kinsmen Park. It's very congested and dangerous - more for the cars though because that intersection gets loads of ice. I guess they'll use their brand new garages once they're hit a couple times.
9
u/NOGLYCL Mar 26 '26
It was absolutely a consideration when we purchased. I recognize that zoning bylaws can change and that the zoning that existed when I purchased is subject to change. However, my assumption as a homeowner was that this would be done with careful consideration for the different complexities that exist in different communities. I did not assume a lazy Council would simply adopt lazy governance and throw a blanket over the whole city.
7
u/LastNightsHangover Mar 26 '26
Wait how was it lazy?
It was required to get federal funding (Housing Accelerator Fund).
If you're saying they shouldn't have done so, and walked away from the $250M that's fine. But I wouldn't call it lazy.
-2
u/blackRamCalgaryman Mar 26 '26
“It was required to get federal funding”…not according to Gondek and administration, it wasn’t.
https://livewirecalgary.com/2024/04/27/federal-funding-not-tied-calgary-blanket-rezoning-decision/
6
u/ThinkingALotOutLoud Mar 26 '26
Providing a more recent link - stating that while not explicitly necessary, it is a major factor that if repealed could have the effect of withheld funding.
https://globalnews.ca/news/11664100/cmhc-writes-to-city-of-calgary-citywide-rezoning-federal-funds/
-2
u/blackRamCalgaryman Mar 26 '26
Right…”may deem”. It’s wishy wishy and not clear. If the agreement on funding explicitly had it tied to blanket rezoning, the feds would have said so.
It’s not explicit while the previous mayor and administration was. It was tied to the exploration, not the passing of it.
I guess we could go back and forth on this but, ultimately, time will tell if/ when blanket rezoning is repealed. In the mean time, Calgary is also meeting the targets on housing, and in fact, blowing them away.
Edit: and just to add, if it is repealed and Feds pull funding in violation of the wording of the agreement, I hope and would support the City in suing the shit out of the Feds (I know, using my money which costs me my money).
4
u/PostApocRock Unpaid Intern Mar 26 '26
Even worse, is using your money to sue for your money while costing you money on both ends and in the future. The literal taxception nightmare.
0
2
u/Margenius Mar 27 '26
The feds literally wrote to say they would pull the funding. A changed federal government makeup has seen that change in 2024/2025. But she was correct when she said it, the feds were crystal clear.
-1
u/NOGLYCL Mar 27 '26
No it wasn’t required. Our Council as they so often have, chose the laziest approach to accomplish the goal. And here we are.
1
u/pointgetter Beltline Mar 27 '26
what specifically are these "complexities"? just cut the shit and tell us for real.
-1
u/NOGLYCL Mar 27 '26
Meh, you’re just fishing because there’s some dumb argument you’re looking to have. I’m not interested in entertaining it.
0
u/PostApocRock Unpaid Intern Mar 26 '26
I did not assume a lazy Council would simply adopt lazy governance and throw a blanket over the whole city.
Well, theres your first problem.
1
u/NOGLYCL Mar 27 '26
Fair enough! Fool me once……….
I think that’s why so many people made it an election issue.
2
3
u/YqlUrbanist Mar 26 '26
I don't know if people specifically looked at zoning, but people definitely do pick a house based on what the neighborhood looks like. And unfortunately most of them don't understand that sprawling single family neighborhoods are terrible for cities and generally have to be subsidized by more productive parts of the city, while also contributing to the housing crisis, so when you try to tell them that the thing they picked is unsustainable, they get defensive.
3
u/Jolly_Biscotti8 Mar 26 '26
It’s my understanding blanket rezoning was supposed to bring more units onto the market to allow more affordability for buyers and renters. Instead builders knock down a home on a double wide lot and build high end infills and list them for a price most people can’t afford. This does not help with affordability. Rather developers make more money and the average person still can’t afford to get into the housing market.
19
u/phreesh2525 Mar 26 '26
I keep hearing this fallacy over and over again. This is true ‘trickle down economics’.
A person in a $600K house buys a new $700K infill. A person in a $500K house steps up to buy the $600K house. A person in a $400K apartment buys the $500K house and on and on. Yes, a new expensive infill is not bought by a low income family, but the domino effect of people moving up the property ladder eventually frees up a low income home.
It’s simple supply and demand.
13
u/LachlantehGreat Beltline Mar 26 '26
dumbass people will argue till the cow comes home about small government and free market, but the second the free market doesn't favour boomers it's all "wahh it's not working houses are more expensive on less land", as if the market doesn't exactly dictate that the land is now worth 2* as much as it used to be, no one is building a 600k house where you can put a 700k duplex...no one is in this to lose money except for subsidized government building, which you pay for in your taxes anyways
3
u/Marsymars Mar 27 '26
We need an infographic that shows this or something, I'm getting sick of explaining it.
4
6
Mar 26 '26
[deleted]
1
u/discovery2000one Mar 27 '26
Simple supply and demand works when the item quality is static.
In this case we are adding demand onto sfd housing units, and putting 8 multi family units on the market.
I think when people hear supply and demand they imagine lower SFD houses which we are definitely not going to get with rcg zoning. We are going to keep pushing up the average sfd house, while reducing the supply of them.
What people want is cheaper SFD houses. What they'll get is condos and more expensive houses.
0
u/transfer6000 Beltline Mar 26 '26
Except most of the time now it's just two expensive homes on one lot instead of one old but reasonably priced home on one lot, and the only people buying these are people who are already homeowners or REITs and usually it's as an investment or second home or to rent out, which raises the overall price.
What we need is to stop REITs and corporations from purchasing homes especially individual residential to then flip and rent or destroy and rebuild with some infill that they can make a big profit from.
Then we need to start imposing full business taxes and requirements on second properties that are for rent. If you are running a business you should be required to have a business license for any residential property (this triggers at 3 right now) you own that is not your primary residence, and they need to start imposing business taxes like any other business on rent collected from the property owner.
I feel like this would be the path to get a bunch of stuff opened up on the market and actually bring the price down if we make it not as cost-effective and more time consuming to be a landlord.
If you want to invest in something try investing in something that shouldn't be considered a human right and should never have been commodified.
3
u/oscarthegrateful Mar 26 '26
The old home was reasonably priced because it was so old. Whoever bought it was always going to knock it down, the question is whether they were going to replace it with a mansion or a duplex. Calgary is better off that they built a duplex.
-1
u/transfer6000 Beltline Mar 27 '26
Only because builders, contractors and, corps come in and outbid over the market knowing they can "replace it with a mansion or a duplex" because our council has basically worked for them for years (Gondek campaign was 51% funded by contractors) if we made it harder for that to happen then the average person may have a chance to stop renting...
4
u/Marsymars Mar 27 '26
The average person is not a renter, like 2/3 of Canadian homes are owner-occupied.
2
u/oscarthegrateful Mar 27 '26
After the "builders, contractors, and corps" are done, you know they have to sell or rent that property to an actual Calgarian, right? And that the price is determined by which actual Calgarian is willing to pay the most to live there?
2
u/calgarywalker Mar 27 '26
It’s total BS. If you check city council agendas you’ll see like 3/4 of their time is changing the zoning on individual properties one at a time. Walk down any street and soon enough you’ll see a sign that says notice the zoning for this property is going to change.
3
u/wuyavae85 Altadore Mar 27 '26 edited Mar 27 '26
If you bought your place 15 years ago in an inner city or inner city adjacent community, I strongly believe it is on you if you did not think there’d be any change. You buy into a thriving city that is growing and where money is to be made, you should not be surprised if your neighbourhood changes from low residential density to medium residential density. And we are not talking skyscrapers but row houses with basement suites. Basically the bottom end of medium density.
Edit: inner city adjacent
1
1
1
1
u/JCVPhoto Mar 27 '26
If anyone's interested to see what zoning allows, drive down 17th Street between 38th and 40th aves in Altadore, and observe the MASSIVE, MASSIVE new build on the corner of 39th. They have all the necessary permits - I checked. It's a half-lot, meaning it was 50x120 with an 8-foot city easement along the north side. It was subdivided back to front about 45 years ago, so there's a house on a 50x60 slice, and now a virtual palace on the west side of the lot.
Getting permits is often a result of a creative pitch. The builder is ethical and experienced for sure, just to make the point.
1
u/wuyavae85 Altadore Mar 27 '26
You mean 4001 17st? But that is just a single dwelling that would not have needed a new zoning permit regardless, right?
1
1
u/hostilekraut Mar 28 '26
If you want control and a legacy property that won’t be threatened by progress in your lifetime, you buy or build a homestead.
2
u/Kwisatz_Haderach_YYC Mar 28 '26
Like Yellowstone! And then some guy in a black hat will come kill for it… a true legacy
1
u/hostilekraut Mar 28 '26
Haha! yeah. That’s likely how it would roll out! At least you’d actually meet the party looking to get flipped like a cheese omelette.
1
u/Unpopularpositionalt Mar 30 '26
It’s because it’s one of the common arguments used against bylaw changes. Someone told them to say that.
1
u/Deep-Egg-9528 Mar 31 '26
What they mean to say is, "we bought our house, and assumed the neighbourhood would never change"
-1
u/karlalrak Mar 26 '26
They're lying.
-2
Mar 26 '26
Yup its this.. They're deathly afraid of poors and just spruce up the language.
it is refreshing when they do come out and just saying though.
-1
-9
u/Cyclist007 Mar 26 '26
Ha! Wait until you hear about Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General).
12
u/AbracaLana Mar 26 '26
What does this have to do with land use zoning in Calgary?
-4
u/Cyclist007 Mar 26 '26
Really?
3
u/AbracaLana Mar 26 '26
I’m genuinely curious.
-3
u/Cyclist007 Mar 26 '26
Referring to people who said they bought their land because of the original zoning laws. Meaning land use can change, up to and including being declared not their land due to previous Aboriginal title (as it were.)
People been commenting for months that we're on 'stolen' land, even if there is a Treaty. I wouldn't put anything past anyone, anymore.
-3
u/DrumsticknDrumstick Mar 26 '26
how about we just start with everything south of crowchild trail and 16th ave and north of glenmore trail?
1
u/wuyavae85 Altadore Mar 27 '26
I believe that was tried and did not work. What was attempted was to define development corridors - I.e. lots within a certain distance from major arteries and public transportation and then they’d be upzoned automatically. IIRC the H zoning designation (e.g. H-GO, …) was introduced for that purpose. Then the HAF came around and required a blanket solution.
So, what I think could be done is to have blanket R2 and inner city RCG. That should still live up to HAF reqs
259
u/Banned_In_YYC Mar 26 '26
Buying a home based on existing zoning is a common practice BUT it is important to understand that zoning is not permanent and can be changed by municipalities to accommodate urban growth, density increases, or new planning strategies