[AUM]

Glad to see so much support. But I wish they would get off the airport tunnel and focus more on Plan It!

[Bigtime]

I hate the "more people will miss their flights if there is no airport tunnel" line.

Giving yourself enough time to get to the airport, check in, and go through security is YOUR responsibility.

If no tunnel goes forward, then people must plan to leave early enough to ensure they make their flight on time.

Edit: The current lady got pretty worked up over a hole in the ground! Think of the children! We must have the tunnel! :haha:

Edit 2: For the record I am all for the tunnel, but I don't believe the airport authority should be footing any part of the bill. They have given the city plenty of notice on the parallel runway project.

[Bigtime]

Chris Turner of CivicCamp is up now, should be good.

Edit: Let's see if McIver asks him any questions, I'm betting he sits Chris out knowing that his tricks won't work on him.

[You Need A Thneed]

I hate the "more people will miss their flights if there is no airport tunnel" line.

Giving yourself enough time to get to the airport, check in, and go through security is YOUR responsibility.

If no tunnel goes forward, then people must plan to leave early enough to ensure they make their flight on time.

Edit: The current lady got pretty worked up over a hole in the ground! Think of the children! We must have the tunnel! :haha:

Edit 2: For the record I am all for the tunnel, but I don't believe the airport authority should be footing any part of the bill. They have given the city plenty of notice on the parallel runway project.
People will miss their flights is for sure a dumb arguement. You just got to give yourself enough time.

I don't think necessarily that the Airport Authority should HAVE to give their share to get the tunnel built, but I can't see how they wouldn't WANT to do so. Their 35-50 million share would be money very well spent in their eyes, in terms of improving Airport access, especially for the hotels, and other Airport related services, even for developing the future airside services on the East side of the new runway.

The Airport will attract more business if it's related services have easy access. If you make that access difficult, business will suffer.

As for the city, building the tunnel is a no brainer, IMO. The costs of not building it would likely be greater than doing it. The Province and Feds just have to get on board, with their funding. Hopefully, they can find the money despite cutbacks being made in other places.

[Bigtime]

Well McIver tried to tangle with Chris, didn't get what he wanted out of the whole "changing the character of a community" angle.

[mooky]

Who is this guy? He's smart! Sorry, I'm at work so I'm not catching the whole debate, but wow, he knows his stuff.

[Bigtime]

That's Chris Turner, a founding member of the citizens group 'CivicCamp' (http://www.civiccamp.net/blog/). He's also a local author that has written a couple of books about new urban development.

Best of all is he speaks very well in public and helps present this viewpoint in the most positive light possible.

[srperrycgy]

The massive Plan It Calgary proposal would set a framework for the city's growth for the next 60 years

Jeffrey Simpson

Last updated on Tuesday, Jun. 23, 2009 12:25PM EDT


Cities grow incrementally. A park bench here, a particular streetscape there, a zoning change, a new apartment or subdivision, a road widened, a transit line created.

Cities are organic. They change slowly. There are moments, however, when key projects - an expressway, a massive housing development, a huge investment in public transit - can bring dramatic change, for better and worse.

Toronto, for example, will never recover from the Gardiner Expressway, or from its unco-ordinated mishmash of waterfront developments.

Vancouver, by contrast, will benefit for generations from the intelligence of its waterside developments at Coal Harbour and Yaletown.

The essence of Canadian (and North American) cities since the Second World War has grown from the desire for single-family homes in suburbia and the consequent needs of the car, the preferred means of personal transportation.

The shape of every Canadian city reflects these choices that seemed, for so long, cost-free. Recently, however, a few cities have been rethinking sprawl, especially the costs it dumps on municipal governments to service far-flung areas and the environmental costs of all that car travel. Slowly, cities are beginning to wonder about sprawl and, in a few instances, trying to do something about it, however tentatively.

Ottawa City Council, for example, recently rejected its own planning staff's suggestion to add about 800 hectares to the urban area, some of which would be used for more single-family dwellings, despite the council's expressed wish for more intensification. The council did allow about 200 additional hectares by a one-vote margin, a display of how the forces of more sprawl, backed by the development lobby, remain powerful.

In Calgary on Tuesday, the council faces an even more consequential decision, whether to endorse the massive Plan It Calgary proposal that would set a framework for the city's growth for the next 60 years.

As in Ottawa, there are important elements on Calgary Council who believe the market should always prevail. People should choose how they want to live, runs the argument, and the job of the city is to allow those choices to be made. If the people want sprawl - single-family homes, large lots, personal automobile use to and from the from the centre - then so be it.

Plan It Calgary must be adopted at “third reading,” as it's called. Two weeks ago, the plan's proponents figured they had only a one-vote margin.

Calgary's municipal scene shows much more diversity than its federal and provincial politics. There's more intelligent urban thinking than in many Canadian cities.

The in-fill development and intensification around the central core are excellent. So was the development of Chinatown. Three light rapid-transit lines operate, and a fourth is under construction. Compare that to Toronto.

All of Calgary's lines run above ground, unlike the silly Ottawa plan to drill a hugely expensive and unnecessary tunnel under the centre of the city for its first serious light rapid-transit line. Some of Calgary's newer suburbs have an unusually high level of density.

Plan It Calgary tries to outline how Calgary must incrementally change to accommodate 1.3 million more people in the next 60 years.

The emphasis is very much on rapid-transit expansion, density hikes around the LRT stations, much better street design, some new single-family subdivisions to be sure, but generally more intensive development.

For a city where the oil industry did everything possible for years to debunk global warming (an attitude now changed, at least publicly), planners talk on almost every page of Plan It Calgary about making the city “greener” and more energy-sustainable. Says the document: “The impact of fossil fuel use on the environment is well-documented.”

Despite Plan It Calgary's excellent intentions, even if everything went according to its vision - including a population density of 27 people per hectare instead of 20 today - perhaps 60 per cent of trips by Calgarians in 2070 would still be made by car, compared to 77 per cent today.

Public transit is great, and more of it is needed. But changing the kind of cars people drive, and what fuels them, is even more important in reducing emissions.

Plan It Calgary's vision for tomorrow's city is on the right side of the future. Let's hope its proponents prevail today.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/heres-the-plan-calgary-leads-us-all-to-a-greener-future/article1192584/

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

People will miss their flights is for sure a dumb arguement. You just got to give yourself enough time.

I don't think necessarily that the Airport Authority should HAVE to give their share to get the tunnel built, but I can't see how they wouldn't WANT to do so. Their 35-50 million share would be money very well spent in their eyes, in terms of improving Airport access, especially for the hotels, and other Airport related services, even for developing the future airside services on the East side of the new runway.

The Airport will attract more business if it's related services have easy access. If you make that access difficult, business will suffer.

As for the city, building the tunnel is a no brainer, IMO. The costs of not building it would likely be greater than doing it. The Province and Feds just have to get on board, with their funding. Hopefully, they can find the money despite cutbacks being made in other places.
The airport will be paying its fair share if the tunnel is built. The airport head honcho figured that the tunnel would force the airport to build $80 million dollars worth of access roads and interchanges that would be unneeded if the tunnel is not built.

They are fully willing to spend that money if the tunnel is put in. If the airport put in for the tunnel, it would be only fair the city, province, and feds would ahve to put in for the airport access.

[fusili]

I'm curious .... is anyone from SSP Calgary there at the meeting to speak today?

I will be. But I am way down on the "for" list. Probably won't speak until tomorrow or Thursday. Most likely Thursday.

[fusili]

Just to clear some things up:

This is going to be a multi-day event. Council will be in session from:

9:30 to 9:30 on Tuesday
1:00 to 9:30 on Wednesday
9:30 to 9:30 on Thursday
and 9:30 to 9:30 on Friday ... all with breaks at 12:00, 3:13 and 6:00.

Speakers are each given 5 minutes, with those in favour speaking first (I got there at 9:15 and I was #70 to speak in favour). Council does not vote until every person has had their opportunity to speak.

Some aldermen (councillors) are going to move in and out during the proceedings. It may be to go to the washroom, or even to have to go to another event. All of them were there to start, and all of them will be there at the end.

Believe me, it's a marathon. I only went for about 6 hours today, and that was more than enough.

[frinkprof]

I made it down, but I'm even further down the list than fusili. I'm in the 90s, Beltliner is around #80, I think fusili is 70 or so. When I left, there were 99 people on the "in favour" list and 60 on the "opposed" list. They made it through to about $45 on the "in favour" list today.

Chris Turner was indeed very good, as were several other speakers. I really liked the older guy, Dave Matthews, who foreshadowed about the opposing speakers dragging out the word "market" a lot. The lady from Brentwood was really good, as was Peter Rishaug, the Canada Lands representative Ken Toews, and the guy with the banking background (can't recall his name) was great and his material was interesting. Chris Ollenberger from CMLC was a very composed and interesting speaker and brought a good perspective.

Lots of interesting conversation amongst the crowd coming and going from the proceedings as well.

I found Ald. Connelly to have quite a disrespectful tone to some of the speakers when asking questions. I and several people around me were visibly surprised when Linda Fox-Mellway dipped her toe into the debate with a question to Chris Ollenberger. To her credit, she at least spoke more than Ray Jones who I'm convinced could double as a piece of Council Chamber furniture.

[Bigtime]

Wow Fox-Mellway spoke!

I'll be tuning into this again during the day here at work as I can, hopefully a couple of our members here will make it to the podium today.

[Bigtime]

Supporters laud Calgary's Plan It; opponents to have say

By Robert Remington, Calgary HeraldJ une 24, 2009 7:23 AM

CALGARY - The score at deadline was Beautiful Dreamers 39, Evil Profiteers 0, but only because the Evil Profiteers had yet to take the field.

For 12 hours Tuesday, supporters of Plan It--perhaps the most crucial planning document in Calgary history--spoke eloquently about the need to create a more compact and less car-dependent city as envisioned in Plan It, which sets out how the city should develop over the next 50 to 60 years.

Widely criticized by the development industry as a utopian dream that forces people into high-density developments they don't want, Plan It, according to supporters and city planners, could save taxpayers $11 billion in lower infrastructure costs because it would require fewer roads and sewers in coming decades.

The development lobby, represented by the Urban Development Institute and Canadian Home Builders' Association, had yet to speak to the hearing at deadline. They were painted by some Plan It supporters as interested only in protecting their profits by continuing to build California car-culture suburbs.

But other Plan It supporters, including several young presenters, admitted they might want the white-picket-fence suburban dream 20 years from now. The Evil Profiteers, it seems, might not be that evil after all. It was a sensible message--that the city needs developments like Garrison Woods as well as Shawnessy.

Yet it is overwhelmingly clear that the status quo is not an option.

Several Plan It supporters, including Calgary author Chris Turner, rightly said the problem in that past has been that people in Calgary have only been presented with one model--the single family home in the suburbs, he said, adding that Plan It is simply bringing some balance with developments like the highly successful Garrison Woods.

Turner and others, including University of Calgary urban geographer Byron Miller, bluntly told council that Plan It is too timid, and that by the time its vision is realized, it will be too late.

"It's not ambitious enough," said Turner, who wrote the acclaimed book The Geography of Hope: A Guided Tour of the World We Need. "We are looking at a dramatically altered country and city and world in the next 20 years that will make the last few years of upheaval look mild."

Most North American cities were designed and built on a foundation of cheap and plentiful energy. Those days are at an end. As one presenter told council, gasoline in Calgary today is more than $1 a litre--in the midst of a recession, no less. In the long term, it is going only one direction. Up.

Turner has written views similar to those expressed by retired Calgary geologist Dave Hughes. Writing recently in The Walrus, Turner notes that Hughes speaks of the "holy trinity of fossil fuels whose flames have stoked the past 200 years of industrial growth --coal, natural gas, and especially oil--and that . . . there's no possible way to keep running the engine of a modern global economy for much longer at the pace we're burning them."

Turner gave the most animated presentation to council Tuesday, saying the message he is getting from exploration geologists is that the sense of urgency to redesign a more compact city "is more serious than the public realizes."

He, and they, are right. If you want more evidence, pick up Jeff Rubin's Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller. For the flip side of the argument, look up the writings of Randal O'Toole and Wendell Cox, two opponents of "smart growth." Or, listen to what one Calgary developer, Ken Toews, told council Tuesday about Plan It:

"It's a model that can work," said Toews, who built in Garrison Woods.

"We need to re-educate the development community that . . they can make more money," in higher density neighbourhoods, he said. One Garrison Woodstype development has taken off in Denver, even in the recession, said Toews.

"There is incredible opportunity. The market was there all the time, it's just that there was no product."

When the development industry speaks against Plan It, we will hear a lot about letting market forces decide what kind of city we should build, and that 72 per cent of Calgarians want single family homes.

If that's the case, why have prices risen faster in Garrison Woods--300 per cent --than in the suburbs? It was a project that many critics said would never work.

On Tuesday, it was hailed by a Marda Loop business lobby group as the best thing that ever happened to their bottom line.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Link (http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/fp/City+planning+pits+good+versus+evil/1727083/story.html)
_________________________________________________________________

Blueprint for Calgary's growth triggers marathon debate
More than 150 Calgarians hope to speak

By Jason Markusoff, Calgary HeraldJ une 24, 2009 7:13 AM

CALGARY - A controversial plan to make Calgary denser and more pedestrian-friendly over the next six decades has triggered the biggest, broadest public debate City Hall has seen in five years.

Council chambers were packed Tuesday morning, as more than 150 Calgarians were waiting for their chance to speak for or against Plan It.

"I think it's one of the most important subjects the city has to tackle," said Knob Hill resident Pavane Singh, registered to be the 81st person to speak (they were barely past the 30th Tuesday evening).

Singh said he'd try to monitor the progress, but if he can't, a friend will phone to let him know his turn is coming up.

Aldermen have set aside time until Friday--going to 9:30 p. m. each night--to hear the public's views, although some city officials say the hearing may wind down early, depending on public interest.

The last public hearing to draw this much interest was a three-day session in 2004 devoted to a proposed massive community next to Spruce Meadows.

Ald. Gord Lowe offered an old political saying to emphasize what this hearing means: "A failure to plan is a plan for failure."

Property developers and home builders are lining up to oppose the plan's encouragement of less suburban expansion, while many residents oppose the proposal for river crossings over Sandy Beach and Edworthy Park. But the first day of the marathon public hearing was devoted mainly to supporters of Plan It and its attempts to lessen Calgary's car dependence and create more walkable communities.

"Business as usual in this city has no future," said Chris Turner, a Calgary sustainability activist and author of Geography of Hope:A Guided Tour of the World We Need.

Some aldermen pointed out that new suburbs are denser and have more multi-family housing than ones built decades ago. But Turner said there's been minimal progress, lamenting that it's novel for residents of McKenzie Towne in the city's southeast to be able to walk to their neighbourhood pub.

Plan It predicts that Calgary will grow by 1.3 million Calgarians in 60 years, and that half of them can be housed in redeveloped and denser areas in existing communities, rather than in new suburbs on the city's fringe.

The transit network's capacity would quadruple, with several crosstown bus routes with frequent stops all day long.

Many supporters of Plan It argued the blueprint didn't do enough to curb sprawl, not making Calgary as sustainable as they had hoped.

"I wanted to come here and say Plan It should be tougher, but half a pie is better than no pie," Roy Wright said.

Community leaders from Sunalta and Victoria Park said intensification will greatly improve quality of life in those neighbourhoods.

David Low of the Victoria Crossing Business Revitalization Zone said the highrises there are attracting empty-nesters from the suburbs and young members of the city's "intelligentsia" who reject the popular notion that "living well means living big and living large.

Ald. Ric McIver stayed true to his earlier skepticism about Plan It's approach, asking university student Derek Pomreinke if people of his generation will still want backyards for their children.

"I don't think as many people will see it as a necessity," Pomreinke replied, noting good public amenities within walking distance are a good substitute.

McIver also suggested that Plan It's targets for density are so demanding that even Garrison Woods, often cited as the model for redeveloped land in Calgary, wouldn't be accepted.

Mary Axworthy, the city's manager of land use planning, told council Tuesday that the city won't use Plan It to determine which proposed developments it will approve or reject.

Although the blueprint doesn't mention an airport access tunnel, several community and business advocates for that $400-million project spoke at the hearing and demanded Plan It include that extra access to replace the Barlow Trail link.

jmarkusoff@theherald. canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Link (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Blueprint+city+growth+triggers+marathon+debate/1727085/story.html)

[AUM]

SUN ARTICLE

Imaging walking into the Flames dressing room and eavesdropping on a conversation between general manager Darryl Sutter and coach Mike Keenan, who are discussing strategies.

"I can envision Jarome Iginla, taking the puck behind our net and reaching the blue line, he fires a crisp cross-ice pass to Sydney Crosby, who dekes the defender and skates into the opposition end," says Keenan.

"Crosby spies Alexander Ovechkin closing in on the net and nails a pass on the tape, Ovechkin does a spinarama and shelfs the puck in the upper left corner. Game over and the opposition is shut out."

"That's a nice vision, Mike," says Sutter. "But it would be difficult to implement the moves needed to bring in Sidney and Alex and no one knows what it would cost."

"I know," says Keenan. "But it's fun to dream."

Of course that conversation never took place and never will, because, although it probably sounds good to Flames fans, there isn't a business plan that would support all three players being here and even if there was, there would be unintended consequences, such as the cost of Flames tickets going through the roof and a decline in attendance in Pittsburgh and Washington. It simply would not work and neither will Plan It Calgary's vision of a future Calgary, which is as utopian an ideal as Iginla, Crosby and Ovechkin on the same team.

Plan It Calgary is anything but a plan, says Randal O'Toole, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, who was in town this week to talk about his experiences with government planning. O'Toole says Plan It is merely a vision and a flawed one at that, based on 'smart growth' plans in other cities that have proven to not work or accomplish their stated goals.

Plan It will have unintended consequences such as significantly raising the cost of housing, making traffic problems worse rather than better and turning our city into an unattractive place to live and do business. And that, quite simply, should make Plan It unacceptable to all Calgarians.

Whether you were born and raised here or adopted the city as your own as a place of fantastic opportunity and a great place to raise a family -- a city that was founded and has thrived on the entrepreneurial spirit with a get 'er done philosophy that has made us the economic driver of the country and the envy of all other cities in Canada -- you must stand against Plan It.

Our city's free spirit and future are being threatened by a pie-in-the-sky 'smart growth' document that is as far away from being a business plan as you can get.

Plan It is a document that does not document what it will cost to implement the vision, if it had an implementation plan, which it doesn't.

Plan It must be shut out of Calgary's future.

MYKE.THOMAS@SUNMEDIA.CA


Somebody want to respond to this guy and put him in his place....I would but I think I would snap before I get any valid points into his thick skull! I guess this is expected being it is in the SUN.

[Bigtime]

Is that the guy that writes in the 'Homes' section?

I'm pretty sure almost all of his articles over the last few months have done nothing more than slam PlanIt. He doesn't even do a good job of it.

I think the worst part is that I have no problem with the other viewpoint on the issue, but this guy doesn't even want the slightest bit of Plan It to come to fruition.

I won't even waste the time responding to him, when he spends 99% of his time deadset against any part of it what makes you think replying to him will make any shred of difference in his close-minded world?

[Bigtime]

So when does the council meeting start today?

[You Need A Thneed]

If one side (Plan-it) has given reasons why they want to implement their plan ( ie less traffic, less costly in the long term) and the other side (anti plan-it) counters by giving the same outcomes if their side is chosen, don't you think the "anti" people should at least give reasoning for their side?

Plan-it people: We need to do this or else the cost of building the city will be astronomical, and traffic will be terrible. Here's 300 pages of reasoning for why it is so.

Sun writer: Plan it will make everything so much more expensive and traffic would be so much worse. (No reasoning given)

Does the Sun writer really think he can win an arguement like that?

[mooky]

I love how Myke Thomas spouts off Randy O'toole's reich-wing think-tank (isn't that an oxymoron - right wing and think?) rhetoric as if it were fact without even doing any research; but then again, it is the Calgary Scum.

[frinkprof]

So when does the council meeting start today?It starts again at 13:00, runs to 21:30, with breaks at 15:15 (I believe) and at 18:00.

I forgot to mention that when I arrived yesterday and looked at the lists, at the top of the list for the "opposed" side is Jill Van Toll. You may remember her as the first person to speak in opposition of the Brentwood SAP. I wonder if she could repeat her role as the most valuable player for the "in favour" side. Cue Ballbuster Lowe to have a field day.

[Bigtime]

It starts again at 13:00, runs to 21:30, with breaks at 15:15 (I believe) and at 18:00.

I forgot to mention that when I arrived yesterday and looked at the lists. At the top of the list for the "opposed" side is Jill Van Toll, who you may remember was the first person to speak in opposition of the Brentwood SAP. I wonder if she could repeat her role as the most valuable player for the "in favour" side.

1300 eh? Council can't stay up late at night and be ready to go again in the morning? :D

Here's hoping Jill pulls it off again, nothing like starting off the opposed section with some loony non-cohesive arguments! :tup:

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

Is Diane C-U still around, or is she officially on leave to run for provincial office?

[frinkprof]

^She was present yesterday, but didn't seem to ask any questions during the time I was there.

[mersar]

Is Diane C-U still around, or is she officially on leave to run for provincial office?

She doesn't officially go on leave until the byelection is called, likely won't be until September. That said, I doubt most people will even notice her absence then. Global did manage to get a quick sound bite out of her last night, which sounded pretty much like a 'say something without saying anything' comment.

[Bigtime]

...and we're back and talking about the airport tunnel again... grrrrrrr

[Bigtime]

Why can't the mayor step in and stop these negative speakers from speaking during the time allocated for those in favour?

[mooky]

Nasheed did pretty well.

Hmmm, I wonder how long till we get to some of our SSP comrades?

[Bigtime]

Fusili is up right now.

Edit: He dropped some mad stats in his presentation.

[mooky]

aye! That he did, I just hope those stats don't just get sorta glossed over by certain members of council that seem to have there minds made up.

[Bigtime]

Beltliner is up right now.

[mooky]

the dorky kid, or the guy in the blue tie?

I'm assuming the guy in the tie by your timestamp

NM, center streeet metro, its him :)

[Bigtime]

The guy in the blue tie, Will Hamilton.

The dorky kid was good, perhaps leaning a little too much about how anyone with a kid wants a single family home, but his enthusiasm for the plan came through very well.

[O-tacular]

Since I don't know where to go to watch this circus unfold it's nice of you guys to give the play by play. I'm glad I went to support the Brentwood TOD last time, but this just seems way too crazy for me. Anyone know approx. the numbers of supporters vs. detractors? Hopefully the retired and unemployed don't crowd everyone else out (What am I saying I'm now unemployed haha:haha: ). Well I guess I mean the crazy bored unemployed then.

Btw. I'm sure McIver was bought by the home builder's association months ago.

[Bigtime]

Ughh, I'm getting tired of these speakers coming up "in favour" but are just glossing over quickly and getting into stuff they don't like about Plan It.

[mooky]

A fair number of no-shows on the list of speakers, hrm!

Hopefully the "against" crowd is as hard hit by waiting attrition.

Yeah, are they really for it, or just up there to bitch about trivial little things that really don't have any bearing on the overall scope of planit.

[Riise]

Does anyone know which speaker they are on and how many are left? I'd like to know if I have enough time to get ready, head down, and support this biyatch!

[mooky]

Here we go with McIver putting words in peoples mouths and twisting things. damn McIver!

[mooky]

To paraphrase McIver again "we don't know what is going to happen in the future, so lets do nothing"

[wild wild west]

Anyone know approx. the numbers of supporters vs. detractors?

I heard 100 were regisered as speaking in favour, 60 against.

It bugs me how McIver and Chabot are attempting to pick apart arguments made by young people and students in particular who were speaking our in favour of the plan (and then there's that idiot "Dinger" Bell, suggesting people speaking out on Plan|it|should "get a job"). In this era of voter apathy, it is f*cking amazing that some of you young people are so passionate about the future of this city:cheers:

[Riise]

I heard 100 were regisered as speaking in favour, 60 against.

Bigtime was the last "In Favour" speaker on the list and he was #114 IIRC. The other side couldn't even fill in their sheet properly so I can't give a more specific number; WWW is probably close.

[frinkprof]

I missed all the presentations after mine, #94 as I had something else to go to. Good to hear that Riise and Bigtime spoke too. The SSPers I did see, Beltliner and fusili did well.

I was a bit surprised that Connelly, McIver, nor Chabot asked me a question as I think I served up a couple things that were in their wheelhouse for twisting to support their talking points. Ceci was the only one with a question.

[Bigtime]

That was good fun last night! Sorry I couldn't stay after my quick 'n' dirty talk.

For those that didn't catch Riise and myself around 7:20pm last night, here is what brought me down to council.

I got home with my wife around 5:45 or so, and we put on the council hearings on Shaw channel 89. The mayor started calling names of speakers, unfortunately it appeared a lot were not there anymore. So the mayor then started asking for anyone else there to speak in favour. When one lady came up my wife looked at me and said:

She has 5 minutes plus any questions, run down there and speak.

So I bolted out the door and ran over to city hall. I arrived a heavily breathing sweaty mess, and hoped I could use it to my advantage. But no sooner did the last speaker finish up the mayor called for the break until 7:20!

So I had a chance to meet up with Riise, Beltliner, and quite a few members of the CivicCamp group and grab a quick bite to eat before Riise and I spoke after the break.

I thought it was a really great experience, and I was able to give a perspective to council of a family that is CHOOSING to live in a condo even with a child.

[mooky]

I'm sorry I missed that Bigtime, but I'm glad you got a chance to speak. I just wish I could convince my wife to stay living in a condo after we have a kid.

Unfortunately given our situation that we are going to immigrate in one of her relatives as a full time caregiver we'll be required to have a 3 bedroom which might just price us out of a condo downtown/beltline. I'm still hoping to find something inner city in our price range.

[Bigtime]

I mentioned in my talk last night the problem of affordability in the inner city Mooky. How Plan-It could expand those options and help lower prices by making residences other than single family detached more affordable.

[Bigtime]

Council is in session again, the opposed parties are speaking.

Dennis Little with the UDI is proposing a joint City/Developer task force, do they forget that there are actually people living in this city? If business cannot adapt to survive that is their problem, we still need to live in the city that Calgary chooses to become.

Connelly spoon feeding the speaker questions and misinterpreting the affordability stats between Calgary and Vancouver.

Edit: Gord "Ballbuster" Lowe is taking Little to task about this taskforce ignoring the citizens of Calgary.

[Bigtime]

Druh is going for the throat on this little twirp from the UDI.

[shreddog]

I mentioned in my talk last night the problem of affordability in the inner city Mooky. How Plan-It could expand those options and help lower prices by making residences other than single family detached more affordable.
Thanks Bigtime. I wasn't able to attend, but if I had, that would have been my primary point. Currently I live in a duplex infill in Tuxedo and hate it that nowadays, the only other people who afford to move into the other infills on my street (all >700K) are DINKs or retirees while most of the old housing stock is rented as the owners wait for the land to appreciate even more.

It sucks that there aren't as many families with kids in the immediate vincity as you have in the 'burbs since it is such a kid friendly naighbourhood.

My hope is that with greater options, people who currently can only buy into Panor-woods-arado can afford to live inner city.

[KrisYYC]

^is "DINK" an acronym for something?

[Wooster]

Dual Income No Kids.

In other words, the best time of life. :cool:

[fusili]

Hey thanks for speaking Riise and Bigtime. I didn't know you guys were speaking. Too bad I couldn't catch what you guys said. Did anybody else get any questions?

I was really surprised at Chabot. My presentation was on lower-income households and how their expenditures on housing and transportation change based on residential location. Basically I was making the argument that suburban housing is in fact, more expensive than living in the inner city for low-income households, when transportation expenditures are taken into account, and that the cost of owning an automobile is a significant burden on lower-income households. I argued that creating a city with improved transit can lessen this burden. Chabot basically asked me a question so he could state that transit doesn't serve all the needs of lower income households and basically implied that automobile ownership was the solution. He completely missed the point. He basically suggested that the problem (automobile ownership) was the solution. I should sit him down one day and explain to him who his constituency is.

Speaking of which, does anybody know if there will be a recorded version of the hearing available?

[Beltliner]

^^^ Connelly took a swing at Bigtime to try to shore up his argument for families wanting white picket fences, but that was pretty much par for the course for the Ward Sixer this week. Pity it didn't occur to Connelly to ask the new version of Mr Spock about his mother, though. :D

Got some sotto voce attaboys from Kanga Druh and Holy Joe after my turn at the podium, but no questions. Maybe they didn't want to draw on folks who quote Pushkin? ;)

[Bigtime]

Was it really a swing at me? He asked if the inner-city was currently supplying a mutliple variety of housing choices, to which I responded yes.

Unfortunately I wish I could have elaborated on my answer to point out that although those options do exist the price becomes a factor, since supply is so low for those "family" homes (townhomes, single detached, 3 bedroom condos, etc) the prices are ridiculous. However I'm pretty sure in my statement I make reference to Plan-It's ability to bring more choices and thus affordability into the equation. (Mrs. Bigtime PVR'd it, so I'll have to watch again to see if I made that clear)

If anything the one point I wanted to hammer home was that families like Mrs. Bigtime, Littletime and myself do exist in this city, and we don't covet the 'white picket fence' like they assume we do.

Fusili: Druh did ask me the first question, making it very clear that we were going against public perceptions of where people with a child should live.

[mooky]

Wow, Bronco got the last guy (with the english? accent) at the very end to stipulate about risk and make the point its not JUST the industry taking risk that the public takes risk through investment in utilities for new development areas. Good going Bronco!

[frinkprof]

^Yeah I agree, that was a very good point.

[mooky]

I don't get the developers arguments, saying they will respond to the market, argh! Don't they know if we have no choice (which beside a very few limited alternatives we don't) it's not like we can just build the new walkable subdivisions as we don't have the capital. Yeah we can vote with our wallets, but in reality, what choice do we really have . . . Vancouver?

[frinkprof]

Has anyone kept a tally of how many times McIver has said "I don't want to put words in your mouth, but..."

He should wear a sign or something with that written on it, in the interest of time.

[Bigtime]

At the beginning of the supper break yesterday I overheard Ric McIver saying this to a gentleman in regards to Plan-It:

Evolution, not revolution.

I really fail to see how one can refer to Plan-It as revolution, since it is over a 60 year timeframe (and will be revised as we progress) it pretty much fits what evolution means.

In his defense he has asked some good questions to both the supports and opponents of Plan-It, perhaps there is hope for him as well!

[Riise]

Connelly spoon feeding the speaker questions and misinterpreting the affordability stats between Calgary and Vancouver.

This Council debate has taught me that Connelly is a fucking cunt. Wow, I may dislike him more than McIvor.



Hey thanks for speaking Riise and Bigtime. I didn't know you guys were speaking. Too bad I couldn't catch what you guys said. Did anybody else get any questions?

I wasn't asked any questions which partially led to my disappointment with my speech. I had originally intended to debunk certain arguments of the Industry lobby but after hearing some of the questions on Tuesday changed my speech to answer some the questions Council directed at past speakers.



^Yeah I agree, that was a very good point.

I think the best point made so far was by Gian Carlo last night. His differentiation between Urbanism and Suburbanism is vital to the successful implementation of Plan It, which should be called 'Do It!'. If I can talk to Gian Carlo before I leave I'd like to recommend that he change the terminology from Urbanism/Suburbanism to People-Oriented Development/Auto-Oriented Development.

[fusili]

After hearing some of those opposed, I have to say I have a lot of sympathy for their arguments. One fellow from Ronmor (retail development) pointed to the difficultly of getting projects in the inner city approved. I would totally agree.

I really wish that the direction of Plan-It was more in line with "If you want to build something in the inner-city, you will get your plans approved in two weeks" kind of thing. What is really needed is to reduce regulatory constraints and delays to development in the existing communities.

[Bigtime]

Couldn't agree more Fusili, of course it is easier for a developer to build and make money on single family when the process is so quick. Look at what has happened to these higher density projects, the build time is so much longer that they can't help but get exposed at some point.

[Strongbow]

Wow, Bronco got the last guy (with the english? accent) at the very end to stipulate about risk and make the point its not JUST the industry taking risk that the public takes risk through investment in utilities for new development areas. Good going Bronco!

...totally disagree, it was a childish remark that Bronco made, the public purse is always taking risk, why is this any different...he tried to take a shot and it made him look dumb...

[Wooster]

There certainly is merit to some of the more sensible 'industry' people - including the issue of the target. The real problem is the people that are scaremongering.

[Strongbow]

After hearing some of those opposed, I have to say I have a lot of sympathy for their arguments. One fellow from Ronmor (retail development) pointed to the difficultly of getting projects in the inner city approved. I would totally agree.

I really wish that the direction of Plan-It was more in line with "If you want to build something in the inner-city, you will get your plans approved in two weeks" kind of thing. What is really needed is to reduce regulatory constraints and delays to development in the existing communities.

...while regulatory streamlining would be a plus it isn't the ultimate answer to the equation, there still needs to be a buyer to make the whole thing work...

[Strongbow]

...Wooster, you'll find amongst the 'industry' that the ambitions of PlanIt are embraced...we all have aspirations to make the world better...the push back is based on the prescriptiveness of the document, as Mr. Brown has recently shown...

[fusili]

After hearing many questions and getting a bit more of an idea of what aldermen's personalities are like, I gotta say I really love Pincott. He really seems to get it. I think he really understands that (some) aspects of Plan-It will make developing in the inner city easier. If you have identified areas of intensification and have supporting policies around those areas, developing in those areas will be much easier. Pincott and Lowe are definitely my favorites.

[Wooster]

I agree, the process of getting better urban development approved must be drastically improved.

That includes 2 things:

making sure that policy and municipal departments allow good development to happen - ie not making innovate development like Garrison Woods take 7 years to approve because of outdated regulations.

and:

To do really good TOD planning, Corridor Planning and other intensification planning that can give communities a better idea of what this means so that some of the forces of NIMYism can be overcome and community buy in can happen. Most really disruptive NIMBYism comes when development and intensification is done ad hoc and there's no clear vision of what it is and how it can potentiall benefit the community. In the absense of that good detailed planning of intensification areas, it will be very difficult to achieve.

[Wooster]

...Wooster, you'll find amongst the 'industry' that the ambitions of PlanIt are embraced...we all have aspirations to make the world better...the push back is based on the prescriptiveness of the document, as Mr. Brown has recently shown...

I tend to sort of agree that the target numbers are not fully thought through in terms of what they actually translate to in terms of housing mix and how many dwelling units that would actually have to be built within the existing built up area to offset population decline.

In Toronto here, there's been huge growth in dwelling units downtown, but in essense the City of Toronto's overall population has remained stagnant because of population decline in the inner suburbs. Really to achieve 33% of the population growth in the existing built up area, probably over 50-60% of actual units built would have to be there.

I would really more like to see an emphasis on targeted density, and more importantly, design considerations for individual new communities.

For intensification efforts, the emphasis should better comprehensive planning (as I described above) and readjustments of certain unrealistic standards like parking #s that would make urban development more feasible and attractive and making approval easier.

Finally, the real focus should be on a realignment of investment which can put urban living and development on a more level playing field. To attract people to live on Centre Street, lots of investment needs to occur - transit, better streetscapes, parks, recreation centres, and other amenities. We can't expect people, en masse to make the choice to live in places like downtown and TODs unless they have those types of things.

If you focus too much on just targets, you may lose out on focusing on how actually to achieve this shift we're talking about. The how is much more important than the what.

[Beltliner]

Little birds just told me MDP and CTP have passed first reading at City Council. :tup:

More to follow anonish.

UPPITY DATE: First reading passed unanimously. Council also passed an omnibus motion referring approximately 75 amendments to MDP and CTP back to Administration for reconsideration and second and third readings before year-end.

[Wooster]

Is there anyway to know what those amendments were?

A significant amount of debate surrounded the growth targets, which in my mind, although somewhat useful, are a tad bit of a distraction from how to actually achieve a truly liveable and sustainable city. I suspect those though will become a subject of amendment. If there are targets, it should probably focus more on the performance of individual developments or a mechanism to realign investment decisions toward intensification efforts.

[Beltliner]

^^^ Aside from the Airport Trail Tunnel being back on the radar and the Sandy Beach and Edworthy Bridges going back into development hell, the earliest I can hazard any guess as to everything on the laundry list will be when they post the unofficial minutes sometime next week. I'll keep digging.

[Bigtime]

I was watching last night as the last couple of opposed speakers said their peace, including that Oscar guy. He was well...just odd. Comparing the city to the communist revolution in Russia shooting the Czar and his family, and then rambling on and on about land the city took away from him and how he has been removed from meetings since.

Eventually his time was up and they cut off his mic, but he just kept talking until Bronco asked him twice to please step down.

Great to see the first reading pass, I'm sure we'll find out what the 75 or so amendments are in the next few days that are to go back to administration.

[mooky]

Did they get through all the presentations last night or are there more scheduled for this morning?

[Bigtime]

All finished as of last night.

[Tobyoby]

Calgary builders fight back at Plan It hearing

Blueprint for growth called 'not workable'

By Jason Markusoff, Calgary HeraldJune 25, 2009


McKenzie Towne features high-density housing. Calgary's building industry warns that the city's growth plan - focused on density and encouragement of multi-family housing - go further than the market will demand in 60 years.

CALGARY - Home-builders and suburban developers began laying out demands for changes to the city’s long-term blueprint for a more compact city, urging much softer density targets and a consultation approach so contentious that even a leading Plan It skeptic on council appeared to disagree.

The industry has coordinated a string of business leaders to speak at Day 3 of the public hearing into Plan It, to try dismantling city staff’s case for a future Calgary with more walkable, Garrison Woods-style communities and a weakening of the dominance of single-family homes in the outskirts.

Jay Westman, CEO of Jayman MasterBuilt, became the latest Plan It opponent to call it “social engineering,” saying Calgary businesses produce standalone houses because people overwhelmingly want them.

“It’s my customer that will lead the change, not a government-imposed policy,” he told council.

But the developers’ association may have ran aground in its bid for a task force to iron out details that excludes members of the public.

Michael Flynn, the group’s executive director, reasoned that since developers and home builders shoulder the financial risk for new suburbs, only their representatives should sit down with city staff to find out how Plan It should ultimatley work.

“The way I see it, the taxpayers had a financial risk whenever the city does,” retorted Ald. Ric McIver, who has shared the industry’s concerns that Plan It targets would interfere too much with market choice.

Westman said he hopes to shoot down the argument that suburban developers don’t pay their fair share of infrastructure costs to provide roads, power and other amenities to their communities.

Many aldermen and Plan It supporters have cited City Hall or city-commissioned reports that argue developer levies and charges only cover half the cost of growth, and the city would spend $11 billion less on infrastructure if the compact city Plan It envisions came to be.

Industry players and other critics of Plan It are expected to take all of the third day of the public hearing to plead their case.

The industry also said they’re building smarter suburbs already. Marcello Chiacchia of Genstar Development Co. touted his firm’s south-end Walden community, where 60 per cent of residences are multi-family units like condos or townhouses.

Chiacchia warned that Plan It asks developers to go even further, even if they worry there’s not enough customer demand for that.

In an interview, Chiacchia said more customers prefer suburban alternatives to the standalone house than they used to a decade ago, and that semi-detached homes are outselling detached ones in Walden because they’re more affordable.

“It’s a fluctuating trend,” he said.

Aldermen will likely not fully approve Plan It when they conclude the hearing Friday, but ask city staff to retool the document before a final vote this fall.

jmarkusoff@theherald.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

[wild wild west]

I was watching last night as the last couple of opposed speakers said their peace, including that Oscar guy. He was well...just odd. Comparing the city to the communist revolution in Russia shooting the Czar and his family, and then rambling on and on about land the city took away from him and how he has been removed from meetings since.

Eventually his time was up and they cut off his mic, but he just kept talking until Bronco asked him twice to please step down.

Great to see the first reading pass, I'm sure we'll find out what the 75 or so amendments are in the next few days that are to go back to administration.

Oscar Fech is a bit of a wacko. Apparently he actually owns a lot of land in NE Calgary and is quite wealthy. He speaks at just about every public hearing - and the mayor often has to cut him off. He actually ran for mayor a couple of elections ago.

[frinkprof]

^Ah yeah that guy. Gotta admire his persistence I guess.

Before the 18:00 break there were a few "ordinary" citizens (i.e. not in the development industry) speaking against Plan It. A couple seemed polar opposite to what I presume Bigtime was speaking about, as well as others. "Families will not want to raise kids in apartments or townhouses." "Plan It will take away the dream of a 'piece of paradise' with a lawn and a white picket fence," etc. One guy even said something like "who in their right mind would take public transit?" and seemed to suggest any and all transit expansion plans should be thrown out the window. Then there was one guy who I can only assume was Corndogger or his clone, asking for Plan It to be put to a plebiscite, coupled with the obligitory phrases like "social engineering."

[Bigtime]

I hope I at least allowed council to see that not every family has that dream of a giant yard and white picket fence (do those even exist anymore?), while at the same time saying that Plan-It would not take away a persons choice to have that if they so wished.

Calgary is my paradise, but like many people in my age range they also have a cabin or condo somewhere up in the mountains or on a big prairie lake. So that tends to minimize the urge to have a giant yard at home.

[YYCguys]

I was watching last night as the last couple of opposed speakers said their peace, including that Oscar guy. He was well...just odd. Comparing the city to the communist revolution in Russia shooting the Czar and his family, and then rambling on and on about land the city took away from him and how he has been removed from meetings since.

Eventually his time was up and they cut off his mic, but he just kept talking until Bronco asked him twice to please step down...

It's nice to see the citizens of Calgary interested in the goings on down at City Hall but that guy Oscar is so strange. He attends public hearings almost all the time and has nothing really relevant to say. He is actually disruptive and I sure wish there was a way to just bar him from council chambers?

[wild wild west]

Oscar Fech seems to talk for the sake of talking. I rarely understand the point of what he says. Half the time he'll speak in favour of something and make it sound like he is objecting (or vice versa)

He also goes to most Calgary Planning Commission meetings. You'd think having so much exposure to the goings-on at City Hall, he'd have more relevant things to say. Ah well.

[Wooster]

Calgary softens growth plan in hopes of quieting critics

By Jason Markusoff and Kim Guttormson, Calgary Herald

CALGARY - City hall is aiming to pacify critics of its 60-year growth plan by erasing river crossings from the future Calgary map and softening language around car use and a less sprawling city.

Ahead of a crucial council hearing Monday, city officials modified Plan It Calgary in hopes of tamping down criticism from home builders and developers, as well as some aldermen who agreed the strategy called for radical change to the city's development.

But initial reaction suggests the conflict hasn't yet subsided, potentially leading to a tense council debate over Calgary's future.

The planning department is still drawing industry ire by rejecting calls to do away with Plan It's long-range targets, including one stating that half of future population growth should occur in already-developed areas, rather than mostly in new suburbs.

"No matter what kind of language there is, the numbers are still in the document," said Michael Flynn of the Urban Development Institute-Calgary after seeing the new version on Monday.

The industry has warned targets are market interference and will limit home builders' ability to provide as many single-family homes as buyers want.

Mayor Dave Bronconnier said Plan It has good principles but is flexible enough not to damage the free market.

"It's time to keep a healthy development industry, provide lots of consumer choice, but set the direction with more complete communities and more compact (communities)," he said.

As for the biggest problem residents raised at Plan It's marathon public hearing in June, city staff eliminated proposals for transit-only bridges over Bow River at Edworthy Park and the Elbow at Sandy Beach.

Plan It still states Calgary may need such crossings for buses, pedestrians, cyclists and emergency vehicles sometime in the future, but no longer suggests where they will go.

"We'd be pleased that the plan has taken out specific references to river crossing, within an urban park," said Fred Fenwick, president of the Edworthy Park Heritage Society, who has yet to seen the new document, which will be made public later this week.

The revised version also calls for a tunnel to access Calgary International Airport after the Barlow Trail access closes, but the inclusion doesn't force council to commit to the project and its estimated price tag of up to $500 million.

While most of the main development and density targets remain-- albeit with clear statements they'll be applied broadly, not to individual applications--city staff did grant one clear concession to suburban home builders.

Earlier versions mandated that new suburbs that aren't yet planned out must have 70 residents per hectare, much more densely packed than most new Calgary communities. The new version changed that to 70 residents or employees at local businesses.

"It's to give developers more flexibility-- more jobs, less people, or more people, less jobs," said David Watson, the city's general manager of planning.

The city chose not to erase the targets altogether because of failings of 1995's Go Plan--a blueprint that also tried to ease the trend of Calgary spreading across more surrounding green space. Watson said the city must set a clear direction, but also monitor targets and revise them when the city sees major change, such as the recent economic boom.

According to a city-commissioned study, Calgary could spend $11.2 billion less on roads, fire stations and other infrastructure in the next six decades if it builds the compact city that Plan It envisions, rather than sprawling outward as it has for decades.

Ald. Ric McIver, a key critic of Plan It, said he's still concerned with the proposed pace of change.

"I think we're only fighting about whether it's evolution or revolution, and I'm an evolution believer," McIver said. "I know you can get there faster, but the faster you get there, the more people you hurt along the way."

He cautioned that with stated targets, there's the risk of city planners trying to bring 60 years' change in only five.

Aldermen proposed more than 70 amendments to Plan It, ranging from tweaks to major overhauls.

Ald. John Mar is sure council will want an explanation on which amendments made it into the document and which didn't--and why.

"If not, why not? They should be included so council as a whole can debate the merits on a case-by-case basis," he said, adding he knows some of his requests--including a detailed map of growth in the inner city and how it will affect traffic--weren't done.

The city has spent $6.3 million on consultations, promotion and the creation of Plan It.

kguttormson@thEhErald. canwEst.com

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald


http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Calgary+softens+growth+plan+hopes+quieting+critics/2019008/story.html

[polishavenger]

I love the "free market" argument from UDI. The free market does not exist in city building, the city places a great deal of rules and regulations on what can be built and where, and uses tax policy to either subsidize or incentivize certain built forms. If we had a true free market in Calgary, low density homes and developments would be paying through the nose on property taxes to support the infrastructure and services required to support them.

Also, until recently, Calgary didnt really have any alternatives for people to choose from, it was either the burbs, or high density towers in the core. Sometimes it takes planning to create choice. Just look at how much the break down of home sales has changed in the last decade.

[frinkprof]

Here's an opinion piece from the Herald.

If I had $11.2 billion
By James Schwinn, For The Calgary Herald

September 21, 2009

Take a few minutes to think about what you would do if you had $11.2 billion to spend on this city.

It's worth thinking about because, in a report published earlier this year, the IBI Group concluded the City of Calgary would save $11.2 billion in infrastructure costs and $130 million per year in operating costs over the next 60 years through the adoption of Plan It Calgary -- the city's long-term vision for the development of the municipality.

How could $11.2 billion make a constructive difference in our community?

As of June 30, the assets reported on the balance sheet of Enmax were $3.6 billion. In other words, the infrastructure cost savings alone identified in the IBI Group's analysis of Plan It roughly equate to three times the asset base of our community's principal energy provider.

It's not unreasonable to contemplate the impact that Plan It savings could have if a portion of those savings were used to accelerate the transition of this truly innovative utility into cleaner, more distributed and more sustainable energy production technologies.

Alternatively, think about the impact Plan It savings could have in the area of affordable housing, a need that entities as varied as the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, the Mustard Seed Street Ministry, Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Urban Development Institute tell us we have.

At an average cost of $220,000 per unit, $2 billion of the Plan It savings could be used to produce more than 9,000 additional units of affordable housing.

Today, the Calgary Housing Company manages about 10,000 units of affordable housing and has a waiting list of more than 3,000 applicants.

In order for a municipality to deliver essential services on a cost effective basis, it not only needs to be a prudent manager of its expense budget -- a point that has been well-made on many occasions by Ald. Ric McIver -- it also needs to assure the economic survivability of its finances over the long term through sound capital planning and management.

In this light, it strikes me that an aldermanic vote against Plan It in its current form, or support for amendments that would materially weaken its formulation, would be fiscally irresponsible.

So why has there been resistance on council to Plan It?

In the City of Calgary's "2009 Cost of Growth Review," a comparison of the city's cost for off-site public infrastructure for new subdivisions, revealed a $150,000 per hectare gap between the direct costs of infrastructure and the recovery of those costs from developers.

These findings suggest that for every 1,000 hectares of new subdivisions developed, $150 million of subsidy goes to the greenfield development industry.

I accept that subsidies can make sense, but to make sense, they need to be applied in ways that expand competition, create additional choices for consumers and add to community value.

Unfortunately, subsidies available to greenfield developers in Calgary are not available to their urban counterparts and, therefore, have contributed to a tempering of competition, a reduction of choice and the increase in housing prices.

The irony is that the greenfield development business model entails greater risk than its urban development counterpart. In urban development, a developer has more opportunities and tools available to mitigate risk. Mixeduse applications, multi-market exit opportunities, more robust, pre-existing traffic patterns can be leveraged in positive ways to spread and reduce risk within a project.

It's no wonder greenfield developers everywhere are concerned about the future. Their projects are becoming increasingly more expensive and more difficult to fund because the market has recognized fundamental weaknesses in their business model. Perhaps more than any other single factor, this market response is validation for the direction charted by Plan It.

So it troubles me when I see members of council who tell us they are fiscally conservative, anti tax-and-spend and pro-consumer, shaping their Plan It positions largely on the basis of counsel received from the greenfield development industry.

I certainly don't place the blame for this at the doorstep of the industry. I expect the industry to do whatever it feels is in its best interest.

I do, however, believe our aldermen have a responsibility to their ward constituents and to the residents of Calgary to actively seek "best advice," and I am concerned that not all members of our council are doing that on this important issue.

Support for Plan It in its current form is support for a stronger, more financially sustainable Calgary.

Let your alderman know that's the kind of future you want for your city.

James Schwinn Is The Founder And President Of Aixecar Incorporated And The Former Director And Head Of The Global Conduit Finance Business For Ing/barings. He Is A Former Member Of The Advisory Board Of The Journal Of Risk Finance.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Link (http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/op-ed/billion/2014812/story.html)

[fusili]

:previous: I really like articles like this. The economic rationale for Plan-It makes a lot of sense. While I totally support Plan-It, I wonder what would happen if development agreements were adjusted to actually fully cover the costs of infrastructure (including things like arterial upgrades) while simultaneously development agreements and permit processing for inner-city development was streamlined and adjusted to reflect the use of existing infrastructure. I believe the market would turn around overnight. Just speculating though.

[fusili]

:previous: Just a quick calculation:

Infrastructure gap: 150 000K/hectare = approximately 60K /acre
Average units per acre = approximately 8
Infrastructure subsidy per unit = $7500

Of course, this is not a huge cost, but it adds up. Essentially we are subsidizing greenfield housing at a price of $7500/house. I wonder how much infill development is paying to subsidize this cost?

[Wooster]

Great article, thanks for posting.

[Dado]

The way you can separate true believers in the free market from those who just bandy the term about is to suggest that all roads - yes, all - be privatized and that road owners would be allowed to charge road users in vehicles whatever the market could bear (pedestrians would be unencumbered, so as to maintain traditional mobility rights). The revenue from the sale/lease would be used to pay down municipal debt. New roads would be private from the outset. Collection would soon regularize into one system or another to avoid excessive administration costs. Naturally, the city would be able to collect property tax on roads as well, thereby lowering all other property taxes. And if they think that's absurd, just tell them that that's the way the railways have been forced to operate so it's not without precedent.

Anyone else figure that properties near CTrain stations and the CTrain corridor itself would suddenly become quite valuable? With an incentive to minimize the use of roads for anything, land near anything useful will become more valuable and land uses will also begin to change to both provide more useful things in more places and to better use land.

Of course a simpler solution than privatizing roads would be to toll all roads instead (putting them into the hands of a toll operator under contract), but talking about privatizing first drives home the point - we can't expect a true free market outcome in land use when we don't have a true free market in transportation.

[Bigtime]

I think you just blew my mind Dado.

Very interesting points, and a unique way of looking at the situation.

[fusili]

Great points Dado. The free market does not operate when it comes to transportation. Toll roads are just way to inefficient to operate for the whole city. Changes need to be made to make sure that market externalities are somehow internalized. I am not sure if development levies are the best way. Any other ideas?

[bob1954]

I don't know if the $11.2 billion is correct, but it can't be too far off. It's so simple that the more things are spread out it becomes increasingly more expensive to produce this infrasructure, ect. I beleive some of these people in government and elswere should spend some time in th LA area! Plan-it, sounds to be a good plan... I just wonder how much "Flexibility" their "really" consisidering.

[Ferreth]

Great points Dado. The free market does not operate when it comes to transportation. Toll roads are just way to inefficient to operate for the whole city. Changes need to be made to make sure that market externalities are somehow internalized. I am not sure if development levies are the best way. Any other ideas?

We have the technology today to make it happen - GPS in every car tracking every mile driven, wherever it might be. Charges billed to the car owner monthly. I would say that major roads only would be charged - anything internal to your neighborhood would be covered by your property taxes. Personally, I'd be all for user-pay roads, if I could trust the government to give me back the tax money they no longer would need. :cool:

[Wooster]

Greetings,

Plan It Calgary goes back to City Council on Monday September 28. This is not a public hearing, but you can contact your Alderman. Administration has responded to dozens of recommended changes put forward by Council in June, and put forward a few of their own, resulting in changes and clarifications n some areas.

Many communities will be interested to learn that Airport Trail (i.e. the tunnel) has been included in the transportation plan. The river crossings at 50th Avenue SW and at Edworthy Park have been removed, although it is noted that river crossings will likely be needed in the future. Language that improves sections on community participation in local planning has been included at the Federation's urging. Definitions of density "targets" and intensity "thresholds" have been clarified - industry members have been concerned about these. A follow-up implementation plan, including an ongoing Sustainment Committee that includes stakeholders (presumably the Federation, industry and other groups...) is promised by January 2010. And there is more...

Council will debate these recommendations, and many others that have been proposed by City Council members but were not supported by the Administration, so it could be an interesting couple of days. All the documents, including summaries, red-lined versions of Plan It, and lists of
proposals that were/were not supported by Administration, are available on the City website - I have listed them below. Here is a direct link to the
Plan It documents:

http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_780_237_0_43/http;
/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City%20Hall/Business%20Units/Development%20and%20Bui
lding%20Approvals%20and%20Land%20Use%20Planning%20and%20Policy/Land%20Use%20
Planning/Plan%20It/Plan%20It.htm

If that link doesn't work, go to www.calgary.ca and look under News and
Events.

On the left side of the Plan It page you will find:

Council Report E2009-13
Attachments:
1. MDP Key Issues Summary
2. CTP Key Issues Summary
3. Administration Recommended Amendments to the MDP
4. List of Council-proposed MDP Amendments Not Recommended by Administration
5. Red-line Amendments of the MDP (as per Attachment 3)
6. Administration Recommended Amendments to the CTP
7. List of Council-proposed CTP Amendments Not Recommended by Administration
8. Red-line Amendments of the CTP (as per Attachment 6)

Note: This email has been sent to Presidents, Planning/Development/Civic
Affairs directors, Transportation/Traffic directors, and Environment
directors in our database, but feel free to share it with other board and
committee members. You may get more than one email if you're on more than
one list. Please let us know if your email is changing.

Regards,

Bob van Wegen
FCC Community Planner
244-4111 - extension 203



I'm really glad there will be a follow up implementation plan. I hope it talks about capital spending reallocation to reflect the goals of intensification and transit.

[fusili]

I'm really glad there will be a follow up implementation plan. I hope it talks about capital spending reallocation to reflect the goals of intensification and transit.

For me, this is the most important aspect of the document. Forget density targets for greenfield development or things like that- if you change infrastructure spending, you change development patterns, transit especially. Parks etc helps as well, but putting in public transit to support density will go a long way to change development patterns in this city.

[Bigtime]

So is today the day? Council has PlanIt up on their agenda if I am not mistaken.

[Bigtime]

Calgary council gears up for heated debate on city's future
Three-day battle expected on 100 amendments
By Jason Markusoff, Calgary HeraldSeptember 28, 2009 7:33 AM

CALGARY - As council girds for a gruelling debate Monday on what Calgary's new suburbs, existing communities and transit system will look in the future, both the groups wanting a more compact city and those wanting more ability to grow outward are jeering City Hall's latest tweaks to the growth plan.

Many of Plan It Calgary's key proposals for the city's next 60 years, while sweeping, have drawn little debate and are widely embraced: a network of citywide carpool lanes, a quadrupling of the transit service, more trees around town, better cycling routes and building up areas around hospitals, universities and transit stations.

The debate has now intensified between suburban developers and "smart growth" advocates, focused on a new compromise city planners made around how dense new suburbs should be.

Sustainable Calgary society, a lead Plan It booster, argues the looser rules barely push past the status quo and greatly weaken the blueprint's goal of curbing sprawl. The developers' lobby believes even the softer targets may force developers to build far-flung townhouses and condos people won't want to buy.

"If everybody's ticked off with it, doesn't that then make it the perfect document?" Ald. Brian Pincott observed Thursday.

But he also said officials have "watered down" the plan too much and he'll push to get council to restore the original targets for suburbs that haven't yet been planned and won't get built for another 10 to 15 years.

Some aldermen predict a three-day debate on the nearly 100 amendments council members suggested on Plan It, as lengthy as June's marathon public hearing that saw developers and anti-sprawl Calgarians plead their respective cases.

City planners' latest version of Plan It keeps in place all the 60-year targets--such as boosting citywide population density 35 per cent and fitting half of all new Calgarians in densified existing communities -- but took pains to clarify in the plan that change won't be forced immediately and the city targets could alter over time.

However, in new suburban areas, officials softened the target minimum of 70 residents per hectare, a level far denser than the most condo-friendly Calgary suburbs now in planning stages. Instead, the target is 70 residents or jobs, which Mayor Dave Bronconnier and senior officials said will give developers more flexibility how mixed-use a community is.

Already, developers are planning new communities in the far northeast and southeast of Calgary are much denser than surrounding suburbs and meet that Plan It threshold.

While that's angered Plan It's supporters, the development lobby has been making rounds to aldermen's offices to warn them the plan still reaches the wrong balance.

"They're asking us to plan things that the consumer has generally said, 'I'm not prepared to look at neighbourhoods with that kind of density,' " said Dennis Little, chief negotiator for the homebuilding and developer associations.

His language was markedly different from that of Urban Development Institute's Michael Flynn, who this week said that any targets were unacceptable.

"Targets are OK--everybody sets targets in life," Little said Thursday. "The question is how far, how fast and how much."

Ald. Joe Connelly said he'll ask council to remove the targets from the plan altogether, since communities in his ward oppose the call for more density in their midst.

"We do not have an urban sprawl problem. We have a transportation problem... as in people getting to work in their vehicles, and that's what we've got to address," he said.

"I think Calgarians want to know where we are in six years, not 60."

Noel Keough, chairman of Sustainable Calgary, said he's surprised council's fiscal conservatives are rejecting a plan that a city-commissioned study that said a more compact city will cost ratepayers $11.2 billion less Calgary would need to build fewer roads, sewer lines, fire halls and other infrastructure.

The softer target weakens Plan it, but doesn't render it worthless, he said.

"It is worth keeping, but I sincerely hope that they'll reconsider (the compromise) because it weakens the intent, it weakens the spirit and I don't think it's in line what the values that Calgarians have spoken out for," said Keough.

The revised target would actually have less impact on suburban population density than critics charge, said Mary Axworthy, Calgary's director of land-use planning and policy.

It fits well within Plan It's goal of having people live closer to where they work -- a goal that eases carbon emissions and commuting times, she noted.

jmarkusoff@theherald.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Link (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgary+council+gears+heated+debate+city+future/2041259/story.html)

[Wooster]

So if suburbs are now already being planned and developed to densities that would meet Plan It targest, what exactly is the problem?

[Bigtime]

So if suburbs are now already being planned and developed to densities that would meet Plan It targest, what exactly is the problem?

Exactly.

I heard from someone that works at Jayman homes (IT department) that they have already exceeded the target number of single family homes they were planning on building this year, somewhere in the neighbourhood of ~600 homes. So what did they do after passing that number? Start jacking the prices up on every home afterwards.

So if Jayman can make money at ~600 homes a year, what exactly are they worried about with Plan It?

[Wentworth]

So if suburbs are now already being planned and developed to densities that would meet Plan It targest, what exactly is the problem?

Is putting density on the edge of the city really a smart strategy? Do you not end up with way more vehicle miles travelled this way?

[Wooster]

It's smart if there is effective transit and if there are actual amenities to walk to within these areas.

[MichaelS]

Is putting density on the edge of the city really a smart strategy? Do you not end up with way more vehicle miles travelled this way?

I would say it is smarter than allowing low density developments to continue to grow out on the edge of the city.

[Bigtime]

CivicCamp is "tweeting" the action down at council today:

http://twitter.com/civiccampyyc