One of the graces of “older” age is having the time to be cranky about everything. Fortunately, I live in a city whose council affords an endless supply of “things to be cranky about.” The latest target in my house is the proposed rezoning that will be brought to council at a public hearing on April 22 2024. It is worth visiting the housing strategy webpage to understand what is being contemplated.I have read the arguments and now I have a couple of months to formulate my response. Here are the questions that I am mulling on as I prepare my submission. If you have additional thoughts and arguments, please put them in the comments. This is a work in progress.I understand that the changes are desired by the city planners and developers but where is the data to demonstrate what homeowners desire? Is there such data? If not, then are homeowners to be ignored? I ask because, in my experience, “public meeting” means “things we have to do prior to doing what it is we want to do.” Don’t get me going.I find it odd that Vancouver, Edmonton and Toronto have similar strategies to that being proposed by Calgary. What a coincidence that city planners across the country have stumbled across the same strategy at the same time. Who would have thought?Densification of neighbourhoods is not a bottom-up strategy. In my conversations with people in my neighbourhood not once have I had someone say, “You know, the most important thing that the city can do is tear down my one-storey house and put up an 8-plex apartment with no parking!” It never happens. So, it is a top-down strategy driven by people who don’t live in my neighbourhood. Should that concern me?In a world of 15-minute cities, where are we to find, or how are we to develop, community character? Each house is the same with streets ending in similar and, may I say, ugly apartment blocks. It used to be referred to as “little boxes full of ticky-tacky." Has it crossed the minds of our councillors that we don’t really want “little boxes full of ticky tacky” anymore? Perhaps we are ready for a bit of home-grown character in our neighbourhoods.Will parks be next in the relentless pursuit of densification of our city? We clearly have no desire to build community character so why bother with parks? “Let’s put that land to use. What we need is more ticky tacky!”Does no one want larger lots on which to raise their families? Or does everyone want vanishingly small lots with zero lot line apartments? I find it hard to believe that the “picket fence home” is no longer desired by anyone. Will the new Calgary housing stock no longer consider the needs of families that want bedrooms larger than closets and the option to grow a garden? Can our council be fairly accused of being at war with the family? I hesitate to go there, but surely one must see what one sees.I understand that housing is expensive and that most families can only afford small apartments but has the City of Calgary looked at their role in the spiking costs of construction? Studies by the CD Howe Institute indicate that Vancouverites pay nearly $1.3 million more for their homes due to excessive regulation. In Toronto the added cost is $350,000. So, what are the excessive regulations charges in Calgary?Yes, Ms. Gondek. What is the cost in Calgary of unnecessary regulation? Shouldn’t you know such a figure prior to formulating policy for new housing in the city?We live in one of the least densely populated countries in the world. We live near the largest petroleum reserves in the world. And densification of our housing stock is what we absolutely must do? I will be telling our councillors to put aside the ignorant ideologies of the “Chicken Little” Davos crowd and start dealing with the needs and aspirations of Calgarians who want to raise families in something more child-friendly than what is proposed in their housing strategy. Let communities continue to be the arbiters of how ugly they want their neighbourhoods to become. There is no need for a sneaky, top-down densification strategy. Rather, the city council should focus its attention on letting homeowners and developers build communities according to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”, without the egregious regulatory hurdles which impair a free-market housing sector. I look forward to hearing and incorporating your ideas.
One of the graces of “older” age is having the time to be cranky about everything. Fortunately, I live in a city whose council affords an endless supply of “things to be cranky about.” The latest target in my house is the proposed rezoning that will be brought to council at a public hearing on April 22 2024. It is worth visiting the housing strategy webpage to understand what is being contemplated.I have read the arguments and now I have a couple of months to formulate my response. Here are the questions that I am mulling on as I prepare my submission. If you have additional thoughts and arguments, please put them in the comments. This is a work in progress.I understand that the changes are desired by the city planners and developers but where is the data to demonstrate what homeowners desire? Is there such data? If not, then are homeowners to be ignored? I ask because, in my experience, “public meeting” means “things we have to do prior to doing what it is we want to do.” Don’t get me going.I find it odd that Vancouver, Edmonton and Toronto have similar strategies to that being proposed by Calgary. What a coincidence that city planners across the country have stumbled across the same strategy at the same time. Who would have thought?Densification of neighbourhoods is not a bottom-up strategy. In my conversations with people in my neighbourhood not once have I had someone say, “You know, the most important thing that the city can do is tear down my one-storey house and put up an 8-plex apartment with no parking!” It never happens. So, it is a top-down strategy driven by people who don’t live in my neighbourhood. Should that concern me?In a world of 15-minute cities, where are we to find, or how are we to develop, community character? Each house is the same with streets ending in similar and, may I say, ugly apartment blocks. It used to be referred to as “little boxes full of ticky-tacky." Has it crossed the minds of our councillors that we don’t really want “little boxes full of ticky tacky” anymore? Perhaps we are ready for a bit of home-grown character in our neighbourhoods.Will parks be next in the relentless pursuit of densification of our city? We clearly have no desire to build community character so why bother with parks? “Let’s put that land to use. What we need is more ticky tacky!”Does no one want larger lots on which to raise their families? Or does everyone want vanishingly small lots with zero lot line apartments? I find it hard to believe that the “picket fence home” is no longer desired by anyone. Will the new Calgary housing stock no longer consider the needs of families that want bedrooms larger than closets and the option to grow a garden? Can our council be fairly accused of being at war with the family? I hesitate to go there, but surely one must see what one sees.I understand that housing is expensive and that most families can only afford small apartments but has the City of Calgary looked at their role in the spiking costs of construction? Studies by the CD Howe Institute indicate that Vancouverites pay nearly $1.3 million more for their homes due to excessive regulation. In Toronto the added cost is $350,000. So, what are the excessive regulations charges in Calgary?Yes, Ms. Gondek. What is the cost in Calgary of unnecessary regulation? Shouldn’t you know such a figure prior to formulating policy for new housing in the city?We live in one of the least densely populated countries in the world. We live near the largest petroleum reserves in the world. And densification of our housing stock is what we absolutely must do? I will be telling our councillors to put aside the ignorant ideologies of the “Chicken Little” Davos crowd and start dealing with the needs and aspirations of Calgarians who want to raise families in something more child-friendly than what is proposed in their housing strategy. Let communities continue to be the arbiters of how ugly they want their neighbourhoods to become. There is no need for a sneaky, top-down densification strategy. Rather, the city council should focus its attention on letting homeowners and developers build communities according to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”, without the egregious regulatory hurdles which impair a free-market housing sector. I look forward to hearing and incorporating your ideas.
