I think I am correct to suggest, or rather to accuse, most politicians on Calgary city council of not considering the consequences of their actions.
There are some simple exceptions, such as raising taxes or not clearing snow off the roads in winter; the consequences are an unhappy electorate. Villagers wielding pitchforks at the door.
Then there are decisions, such as closing down major roads in Marda Loop to do infrastructure upgrades. Did anyone on council say, “we’ll be killing businesses there and we should have a solution before the construction starts?”
Did anyone say "the proposed density of the redevelopment of the Viscount Bennett school site was much more than the area could accommodate?"
Did anyone say, “changing the name of Fort Calgary to the Confluence ignores the reason the fort was built”?
When the single use bylaw was passed, did anyone say, “So, what you’re saying is Safeway can’t use plastic bags for my groceries, but I can buy a box of plastic bags at Safeway for my groceries”?
And, blanket upzoning, the worst of the not-well-thought-out decisions. Did anyone say, “wait a minute, we’re going to allow developers to wave buckets of cash in front of people to sell their homes, sending the price of land soaring and then build new homes that, by design, have nothing to do with affordability?"
A new report out of Edmonton proves that’s exactly what has happened and has similar ramifications for Calgary.
The report, from the Coalition for Better Infill (CBI), an Edmonton group, is based on reviews of the capital city’s Infill bylaw, the equivalent of Calgary’s blanket upzoning bylaw.
In Edmonton, the 2024 Infill bylaw granted automatic approval for up to eight units on a standard lot in established communities, which the report says caused land values to increase, fueled speculative investor activity, destroyed the stock of naturally affordable homes and mature neighbourhoods were hollowed out by demolitions.
“It’s a common claim that building more infill will reduce problems with housing affordability. This is like claiming that putting more food in grocery stores will reduce problems with urban hunger. It just isn’t that simple. In both cases people in need are left on the outside looking in,” reads the report.
“Walk around your neighbourhood and count the number of infill homes that are cheaper than the old homes they replaced. You won’t find many. It’s not just skinny homes that are more expensive; condos and row houses generally cost more than the apartments and homes they replaced.”
“In a bitter irony, this more expensive infill usually requires the demolition of less expensive homes and apartments. Research by Steve Pomeroy of McMaster University reveals that for every new housing unit built, several existing affordable ones are lost.”
The report has caught the eye of Calgarians for Thoughtful Growth (CTG), a non-profit group formed to fight blanket upzoning, including an ongoing lawsuit against the City of Calgary.
“The parallels between Edmonton’s infill bylaw and Calgary’s blanket upzoning are clear. Both policies rely on the same assumption: that by allowing multi-unit housing across single detached neighbourhoods, affordability will improve,” said CTG in a press release. “Edmonton’s outcome proves otherwise. Edmonton neighbourhoods not only saw rising costs but also declining property values for families living beside eight-plex developments, where privacy, sunlight, and quality of life were eroded.”
“Families are understandably reluctant to buy next door to these oversized boxes. The same adverse impacts of investor incentives, demolition of older affordable homes, and neighbourhood impacts, are already emerging in Calgary.”
The report also demonstrates how national financing tools, such as CMHC’s MLI Select program, amplify the speculative dynamic when combined with permissive zoning.
“Calgary developers and brokers are promoting the same financing model to maximize returns on RCG lots,” says CTG. “Just as in Edmonton, this attracts investors who are motivated by profit margins rather than affordability outcomes. The result is the financialization of local housing: homes treated as investment products rather than places for families to live.”
“Calgary doesn’t need to repeat Edmonton’s mistake,” said Robert Lehodey of CTG. “The evidence from Edmonton is clear: when permissive zoning combines with national financing tools, it fuels investor speculation.”
“Families wanting a home have to compete against investors chasing profit. Without genuine community input, proper infrastructure review, and respect for the heritage and character of our neighbourhoods, densification won’t deliver affordability, it will damage communities and make housing even less attainable.”
Three mayoral candidates in Calgary’s October 20 election have said they would repeal blanket upzoning if elected. They are Jeromy Farkas, Jeff Davison, and Sonya Sharp. In addition, candidates running for council under the Communities First Party and A Better Calgary Party banners have said they will support repealing the bylaw.
If it isn’t repealed, the risks to Calgary housing include lack of affordability and a sidelining of communities' rights, said Scott R. Miller of CTG.
“Our group has carefully reviewed the Better Infill Edmonton (CBI) report and compared its findings under Edmonton’s infill bylaw to Calgary’s experience under blanket upzoning,” said Miller. “The causes and conclusions outlined in the CBI report are directly applicable to Calgary.”