Plan|it|Calgary Draft Municipal Development Plan and Transportation Plan

[MalcolmTucker]

^ That is how it works within one development right now, but since it is incredibly hard to get density approved in existing neighborhoods, nothing would end up being built at all.

[Wooster]

Bigtime, I totally agree with you about the lack of public involvement in the negotiations surrounding that amendment. A real pity.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Even the higher densities currently being built aren't forcing a change in design. Some new communities are designed at a higher density (like 11 UPA instead of the minimum 7 UPA). But what this means in practice is that the plan is 90% single family detached at 6-8 UPA, with a few apartment buildings tucked in the corner to get the density up.

Of course, once the plan's approved, it doesn't matter if the apartment buildings are ever built or not...

Skyview Ranch is less than 50% single family detached, from looking at the area plans. It certainly isn't just "a few apartment buildings tucked in the corner," or, I should say, it won't be when it is built out.

[bob1954]

Fellas, do really beleive the city did good job selling this proposal? I don't think they did. They took the "We're gonna jam this down your throat" wether you like it or not approach. The city could of used these same developers to help sell this thing but the city can't do that because this is the same government that walks allover these guys (developers) with building restrictions, height limits, shadowing nonsense, lengthy permit process, ect..... No wonder developers have taken the anti-government side! Just my opinion, but you can't have it both ways

[Riise]

Originally Posted by bob1954

The city could of used these same developers to help sell this thing but the city can't do that because this is the same government that walks allover these guys (developers) with building restrictions, height limits, shadowing nonsense, lengthy permit process, ect..... No wonder developers have taken the anti-government side! Just my opinion, but you can't have it both ways

Do you mean the same developers that got their own private meeting with the City admin to change targets that had been decided through a consensus at public engagements? Oh yeah, they just walk all over them with their dirty boots... The developers are not anti-government, the government is too handy of a tool to hate. They are simply part of the government, leaders of the Growth Machine coalition.

[Bigtime]

Bob1954: I think you are referring to the small minority of "inner-city big project developers" in your post. As Riise has pointed out the suburban developers definitely have council wrapped around their finger, as shown with their private get together to discuss changes to the plan.

I have a pretty good feeling if you took a roll call of that meeting you wouldn't have found representatives from companies such as:

-Batistella
-Cove
-Balboa
-Anthem
-Procura
-Apex
-Bucci
-Qualex Landmark
-etc etc etc

[sim]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ That is how it works within one development right now, but since it is incredibly hard to get density approved in existing neighborhoods, nothing would end up being built at all.

Hmm, good point.


Too bad, because I would have seen it as a way where suburban developers would almost be forced to subsidize inner city developers to get any growth at all. Thus, a way to make inner city look more attractive (lower prices,) for quality units.

In a teamwork or one developer doing both kinds of developing kind of scenario, they might have to take 5% off the price of inner city stuff and add 5% to the suburban stuff. Result, inner city living gets more affordable, suburban homes cost more, curbing demand, and developer(s) retain profit margins, albeit with some marginal changes to their business model.

[fusili]

You wouldn't have to do any of this is development service agreements actually reflected the true costs of infrastructure. If someone were to do a comprehensive LCA (life cycle assessment) of development in different areas of the city and then development service agreements were based on this, we would see inner city homes become more affordable and suburbs more expensive. Or we can just do away with market regulation altogether for both land use and transportation and the costs of inner city living will become evident immediately. Who wants to pay for toll roads?

The truth really is that the free market does not exist in either the transportation or land use sectors of the economy. People cannot just build skyscrapers anywhere they want because there are significant market regulations to prevent them from doing so. Greenfield developers are not free-market libertarians. They know that current market regulations and distortions benefit them, and so they defend their business in the name of the free market, which could not be further from the truth.

Originally Posted by sim

Hmm, good point.


Too bad, because I would have seen it as a way where suburban developers would almost be forced to subsidize inner city developers to get any growth at all. Thus, a way to make inner city look more attractive (lower prices,) for quality units.

In a teamwork or one developer doing both kinds of developing kind of scenario, they might have to take 5% off the price of inner city stuff and add 5% to the suburban stuff. Result, inner city living gets more affordable, suburban homes cost more, curbing demand, and developer(s) retain profit margins, albeit with some marginal changes to their business model.

[bob1954]

Riise & Bigtime: I might have been a little "Over the top" on what I said, but there bassically is "No" plan now! I don't know the precise amount of cost in-so-far as infrastrcture goes, but it is extremely costly to allow far less densities, that's just a fact. Unforunately, you don't see a lot of these costs until down the road a few years after everything get's built. Then the complaining comes when City government has to raise taxes to plow more snow on the streets that did'nt exisist a few years earlier. A sewer line breaks, power lines go down after a storm, or the streets that need to be repaved and the people living in Eau Claire, East Village have to subsidize all this stuff.. I thought the Calgary city council had more sense of these things! All they have to do is look at most US cities! But instead they were flying to Dubai and the like to get some kind of "How to do-it" plan. Sorry for the "rant"...

[Riise]

Originally Posted by bob1954

Riise & Bigtime: I might have been a little "Over the top" on what I said, but there bassically is "No" plan now! I don't know the precise amount of cost in-so-far as infrastrcture goes, but it is extremely costly to allow far less densities, that's just a fact... But instead they were flying to Dubai and the like to get some kind of "How to do-it" plan.

In your previous post you talked about working with the developers, BT and I were just trying to clarify that most of the developers did not want to help out. To be honest, why would they as they are breaking the bank with the current model. However, in your post that I have quoted above you were more accurate with who the City needed to target; the people who have to pay the price. These people are the same people who are left out of the local governing of their city, which is dominated by those in the growth movement coalition (i.e. developers). The City tried to reach out to these people in Plan It but as we can see through the developer's private meeting with Council, they failed to change the balance of power at City Hall.

[bob1954]

Riise: So the majority of people are speaking out against "Plan it"? I just have a hard time beleiving that. And the stuff the Sun and the Herald, ect. put out does'nt help matters... Maybe Bronco and Dru got a payoff.... ya just never Know.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by bob1954

Riise: So the majority of people are speaking out against "Plan it"? I just have a hard time beleiving that. And the stuff the Sun and the Herald, ect. put out does'nt help matters... Maybe Bronco and Dru got a payoff.... ya just never Know.

No, the people and Members of Council that were in favour didn't get the critical mass needed to get their agenda pushed through. The incumbent coalition mobilized and had enough power to hold firm.

[sim]

Rocky View challenging Calgary's Plan It plans


By Jason Markusoff, Calgary HeraldOctober 28, 2009 4:02 PMComments (2)



CALGARY - Calgary’s rural neighbour is taking the city to a provincial mediator, saying that Calgary’s Plan It development blueprint doesn’t take into account the county’s own growth ambitions.

Rocky View County has filed an appeal with the province’s Municipal Government Board, Reeve Lois Habberfield announced Wednesday.

The county’s beef is that Calgary’s recently adopted 60-year growth plan doesn’t cite the areas the city and county agreed to let the other grow in a 2006 annexation accord.

That agreement states that Calgary would keep growing northwards and in the southeast, while Rocky View’s population would grow primarily in Springbank, Bearspaw and Balzac, three of its communities bordering the city.

Habberfield struck a cordial tone in the statement announcing the appeal. "We are proud of our working relationships with our neighbours and are positive that a jointly agreed solution can be achieved with Calgary through this process," she is quoted as saying in the statement.

Plan It is Calgary council’s latest effort to contain urban sprawl in one of Canada’s most spread-out cities. Developers will continue creating new suburbs on Calgary’s edge under the plan, but they’ll have to build somewhat more densely and focus more on building within existing areas.

Rocky View, meanwhile, is planning for a population explosion in many of its areas to Calgary’s north, east and west. It’s planning for new developments that shirk its farm-and-acreage tradition and venture into condominiums townhouses and suburb-style houses.

jmarkusoff@theherald.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Not quite sure I fully understand this. Is Rocky View worried that PlanIt will create too large of growth in those communities? Would'nt the simple remedy just to not approve of all potential developments?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by sim

Not quite sure I fully understand this. Is Rocky View worried that PlanIt will create too large of growth in those communities? Would'nt the simple remedy just to not approve of all potential developments?

Rockyview is concerned that less growth would happen in these areas, and thus demand for growth in their jurisdiction will decline. You must understand that a large amount of money from development agreements is used by municipalities as funding. Rockyview is anti-PlanIT because it will shift a lot of growth away from their municipality. The same goes for their objection to the Calgary Regional Plan. They see it as a plan to focus growth in Calgary at the expense of other municipalities. In a lot of senses, they are right.

[Wentworth]

Originally Posted by sim

Not quite sure I fully understand this. Is Rocky View worried that PlanIt will create too large of growth in those communities? Would'nt the simple remedy just to not approve of all potential developments?

Here's what they have on their web site: Link

The Notice of Appeal issued outlines Rocky View’s concerns with the exclusion of the mutually agreed growth corridors as identified in the 2006 Calgary/Rocky View Annexation Agreement, contravening the original spirit and intent of this document.

I'm guessing they are concerned about transportation to-from their own communities. Or they were hoping blob$ of land would eventually ab$orbed into Calgary and now they may not.

[bluewaterandsunshine]

Originally Posted by Riise

No, the people and Members of Council that were in favour didn't get the critical mass needed to get their agenda pushed through. The incumbent coalition mobilized and had enough power to hold firm.

That is very sad! That's the day "Sustainable Calgary" went down the drain.

I saw pictures of the community/public involvement of PlanIt and one guy commented that by pursuing this type of development, the city is encroaching on the rights of its citizens to freely choose one's dwelling, or something to that extent.

I thought I bookmarked the page, but I can't find it in my bookmarks. And I can't find it again on google. I must've typed something else than PlanIt.

[Bigtime]

I don't care what Rockyview wants or thinks, they are not the city I live in. I want this city to be the best it can be.

Fuck off Rockyview.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Dado]

Isn't that just a little, I don't know, outdated?

It's interesting, but without a comparison to what happened in the 2000s it's not exactly relevant or even pertinent.

[jawagord]

Interesting critique on the possible costs of Calgary's push to increase core density. Higher housing costs, higher transportation costs, longer commutes, inpediments to new businesses in calgary's future? I think the author is saying Mr. Nenshi "you got some splainin to do"!

http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/...ure-arnott.pdf