Albertasaurus
Senior Member
Wow O2 is really pushing the envelope on height. 15 storeys in Kensington, 46 storeys in Beltline and now 26 storeys in Bridgeland.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
darwink
Senior Member
As a former Lake Bonavista sfh owner, these owners are making an error about what makes LB appealing, an urban land economics error, and might not know that higher density development in LB on a lake access lot does not lead to more lake access units existing. Only one ‘daughter’ unit inherits lake access from the ‘mother’ lake access single family home.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
You think they're worried about too many people using the lake? They talk about about their large lot sizes and of course community character. Those large lots along acadia drive are prime for something. And if something went in there it wouldn't affect the community at all. Might actually make the promenade more economically viable. If you sign on to this you might make yourself the one house surrounded by townhomes, people need to be told what it looks like to be the last house in a row of townhomes.
Ramsayite
Active Member
It's hard to separate the idea of a restrictive covenant from its historical roots: always based in classism and racism. It's pretty difficult to support something that has been so thoroughly leveraged in the past as a tool to entrench dominant groups and marginalize others.
The claimed goals of these groups are always pleasant seeming: "keep the character of the neighborhood"... But once unpacked, are mainly championed by a single group and based in xenophobia and/or white supremacy
But I'm sure it's different this time
The claimed goals of these groups are always pleasant seeming: "keep the character of the neighborhood"... But once unpacked, are mainly championed by a single group and based in xenophobia and/or white supremacy
But I'm sure it's different this time
CBBarnett
Senior Member
In addition to the above, from an individual economic standpoint, what benefit would there be to sign on to a restrictive covenant? That's the part I don't get.
You deliberately encumber your own property by adding legal risks that could limit future options - whether you live there for 5 years or 50 years seems like a strange self-defeating move. If I was living in a community where this type of movement was happening, I'd hold out forever - the more people that sign on, the more my property appears relatively unencumbered and should be worth more in the future.
Last edited:
Albertasaurus
Senior Member
I hate to stereotype, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who immediately noted the elderly, white composition of the audience in that picture...
If you're actually interested in understanding why people support restrictive covenants, I suggest you listen to them. It might not be as satisfying as short-cutting the discussion with these vague connections to your personal boogeyman of racism, but you will learn something.
Now that I've said that, you'll probably put me in the bin with the rest of them, but for everyone else reading, these people are old and want quiet enjoyment of their property. They see places like Marda Loop going from bungalows with large yards to 25 foot infills to 4 plexes and 6 plexes boxing in people's yards and want to avoid that while they still live in the neighbourhood. They want to continue to have the street parking they have today. Call it selfish and classist, anti-environmentalist, short-sighted, financially unsound, sure. These people have a completely different view of what they owe others in terms of sharing their neighbourhood that you do, yes. But if you're going to call this "white supremacy", show your work.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I'll speak for myself and say that the Calgary these people live in is not the reality of what the city actually is today. They have likely been here a long time and have lived in Lake Bonavista for awhile. This is a region of close to 2 Million people, it is not realistic to expect your single-family home community, with homes worth close to 1 million dollars to not evolve to meet the moment of a large metropolitan city. People think of infills as a revolution when in reality it is an evolution. If these people did go through Marda Loop, excusing the construction, they would see a bustling community with a variety of housing that welcomes lots of different people that support a variety local businesses (to spite the construction). What's to fear there? This change has happened to Marda Loop over 30+ years with infills beginning in the 90's/00's-ish?
If the goal is to preserve their individual way of life from the city-wide one step up-zoning (which is all it was) a restriction on your individual property isn't going to affect that. And you're gambling that your neighbours will sign up too. Maybe you do get your neighbours to sign up and your way of life is preserved. But I hope the people interested this restriction understand what they're signing up for, I'm not sure they do. All it takes is one or two neighbours to not go through with it and it was all a waste.
The change to neighbourhoods like Lake Bonavista will happen, granted not as quick as people think, why burden the person buying your home with a label that says this property is worth less because you're limited in who can sell it to?
If the goal is to preserve their individual way of life from the city-wide one step up-zoning (which is all it was) a restriction on your individual property isn't going to affect that. And you're gambling that your neighbours will sign up too. Maybe you do get your neighbours to sign up and your way of life is preserved. But I hope the people interested this restriction understand what they're signing up for, I'm not sure they do. All it takes is one or two neighbours to not go through with it and it was all a waste.
The change to neighbourhoods like Lake Bonavista will happen, granted not as quick as people think, why burden the person buying your home with a label that says this property is worth less because you're limited in who can sell it to?
Last edited:
trtcttc
Senior Member
Almost everyone on this forum will agree with the first paragraph, but we all have older folks in our lives and speaking for ones I know, they don't want the new restaurant, coffee shop, etc. but they want parking at the same diner they've gone to for years where they know the owners and regulars around their neighborhood. This is indeed unrealistic in a growing city but I don't think it's unreasonable for them to try to preserve these things, and it isn't out of some hatred of others, racism, etc. (and I don't think you are saying that). I live in an infill, where I probably could not afford the original sized homes in this neighborhood, so I have personally benefitted from upzoning, but I can also see why some people would fight against it.
My question on the covenants which may be ineffective, is what other solutions do they have? From their perspective, they can vote for NIMBY councilors, but other than that, there's not much they can do.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
There is nothing you can do.
That is my broad point.
One person or a few people at a community hall cannot stop the development momentum of a city like Calgary. A NIMBY councilor is even a waste because they're one vote on a council. The best thing you can do is work with the agents of change to get the best outcome you can. Covenants can succeed but Lake Bonavista isn't Mount Royal, so the evolution will happen over time piece by piece.
If they have the perspective of wanting to preserve parking at their diner, which btw doesn't exist in Lake Bonavista (IMO a very suburban neighborhood with minimal charm outside the lake and Fish Creek), they have to fight the fights they can win: Individual land use or development permits.
Some places are just good places for infill and you'll fail to come up with a coherent argument against either a land use or development permit. I actually struggle to think of a development in Marda Loop that is out of context for the natural evolution of the neighborhood.
Chowda7
Active Member
Alberta government settles on Ghost River for site of future flood mitigation reservoir
The Alberta government has chosen the Ghost River location for its future Bow River Reservoir project, the province said Wednesday.
calgaryherald.com
DiscoStu
Senior Member
I wonder if the people who deride these community meetings for being too white, go to a community meeting in a neighbourhood like Temple and complain about everyone being too brown...or go to Richmond BC and complain that its too asian. Something tells me no. Homogenous white neighbourhoods = must be racist. Homogenous non-white neighbourhoods = beautiful multiculturalism!?
It should not be a surprise to anyone that people who share cultures/backgrounds/values congregate together....it's an inherent human trait that happens across all races and cultures, all around the world. In a place like Canada, where our overall national culture and shared history is already quite shallow (and even that seems to be getting diluted), I wouldn't be surprised to see more of this type of cultural/racial segregation as our populations grow.
It should not be a surprise to anyone that people who share cultures/backgrounds/values congregate together....it's an inherent human trait that happens across all races and cultures, all around the world. In a place like Canada, where our overall national culture and shared history is already quite shallow (and even that seems to be getting diluted), I wouldn't be surprised to see more of this type of cultural/racial segregation as our populations grow.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
There is a history of forced segregation that shouldn't be overlooked. Is this that? Probably not. Those people are likely afraid of one thing: Change. There's comfort in having aspects of your culture outside of your country of origin. That likely does attract people to, at least initially, gravitate towards those comforts.
Now, is it just the fear of change... Or is there a little bit of classism in there too? I think that may be closer to the truth. Are rental properties as well taken care of as occupant owned properties, not always. Don't blames the occupant, who likely isn't responsible for property maintenance anyways. Blame the developer and hold them accountable (not actually sure how if poor design of the exterior and landscape are the issue).
Quick aside, I mention this because there is a new townhome rental near me in Marda Loop that was not very well executed. You'd think the developer, making a long term play, would make a better investment in the overall design of the exterior and landscaping but no.
DiscoStu
Senior Member
Not Lake Bonavista...but I live in Rosedale, another neighborhood which is basically all single family units, where I'm hearing way more discussion about covenants. Why? Because of the blanket rezoning, currently there is an 8-unit development being proposed now (replacing one house on a street of single houses). Im not old (well, relatively speaking) or mortified of change...but even to me this feels wildly jarring for this street and community. So I'm not surprised that older people with more time/money are losing their shit and looking at restrictive covenants. When all nuance is lost, people go for the sledgehammer.
I'm sure the blanket rezoning will makes things easier for development, but to me it does seem to disregard context too much. I don't think every neighborhood needs to be the same, or cater to the same goals. It's ok to have ones that are really dense (Beltline/Mission/EV), some cater to younger families or 20 somethings (ie Bridgeland), some that are weird (woo Inglewood/Ramsay!) and some that maintain a more quite/car-centric presence. Choice is good. Not everything needs to be the wet dream of an urban planner.
Here in Rosedale, this is a neighborhood where added density should be done through contextually designed garage suites, or higher-end duplexes that fit in with the more traditional heritage aesthetic. You'll still add that density, but in a way where the character of the neighborhood is preserved. Many curmudgeons would hate that too, but I think generally you would get buy in, especially from the younger people here. Talking amongst all the parents at school, the last thing that most of us want is the for the neighborhood to turn into Hillhurst where the older houses are torn down and replaced by 3 story "modern" shitboxes (I should know, I lived in one). I'm sure that makes us racist/classist, but hey, such is life.
Last edited:
Albertasaurus
Senior Member
All fair points, and as a Mount Pleasant guy I can relate. My biggest gripe with the new infills happening is that none of them pay any respect towards context or aesthetic, they are all white/beige/grey/black stucco boxes that the designers don't make even a token effort to fit into our mostly WW2 era and post-war housing stock. I suppose my particular gripes are much more design-related than density related, but I do lament the gradual erosion of the character that drew us to this neighbourhood in the first place. I'd actually prefer larger projects like Catalyst and Trail 19 permitted along strategic corridors like 20 Av and 4 St, and rowhouses at the corners (but at least try to fit in - less stucco FAAS and Tricor crap please) than the huge and ugly mid block infills we are seeing. In fact it's the mid-block infills that I hate the most, because they are eroding the look and feel of the community without even helping our housing crisis (if anything, they're making it worse by replacing small post-war rentals with ginormous semis at a million bucks a side).
Anyways, that's a bit of a ramble but the lack of "nuance" you speak of is exactly what is turning me off about out approach to housing.