[Surrealplaces]

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.

Not to take this too far off topic, but I sometimes wonder if culture is more the separator than skin color. My inner-city-ish neighborhood was 99.9% white when I moved into it 20 years ago, but now has a mix of varying ethnic groups. The most noticeable change is the amount of people of Indian descent, for example all of the 4 most recent house sales on my street were purchased by people of Indian heritage. An interesting observation I've noticed is that they are all Calgary born and raised who grew up in the NE, but are fairly similar to myself from a cultural point of view.
I haven't dug into it much, but found it to be an interesting observation.

 

[MichaelS]

Speaking of blanket rezoning, the City has started engagement on their new zoning bylaw. If you want to take part, there is a link here:

City Building Phase 4 Event Registration | City Building

Event Registration

engage.calgary.ca

 

[Unknown User]

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.

The erosion in character in Rosedale was occurring well before the blanket rezoning restrictions but the discussion around restrictive covenants has only picked up since then?

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.ca

If you limit zoning to SFH, you're not preventing gentrification of the neighborhood, only limiting it to folks who can afford to do this. An RC for SFH does not prevent older houses from being torn down and replaced by a 3 story modern SFH.

 

[DiscoStu]

You're right, a good chunk of the new single family homes that are replacing the older homes, are almost as bad as generic infills. Money often does not equate to taste, as plenty of monstrosities on Crescent Road demonstrate...

 

[trtcttc]

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.

While I understand people hoping to preserve their neighborhoods, and I don't disagree that should be possible if all neighbors agree. But if that is allowed, we also need to fundamentally redesign our property tax system. In this case, if property owners buy into a system where they pay the full cost of them having a car centric-close to downtown neighborhood then I'm all for it. But without it, it's essentially a subsidization scheme.

 

[trtcttc]

You're right, a good chunk of the new single family homes that are replacing the older homes, are almost as bad as generic infills. Money often does not equate to taste, as plenty of monstrosities on Crescent Road demonstrate...

Saw this in West Hillhurst a few nights ago…

 

[Unknown User]

Saw this in West Hillhurst a few nights ago…
View attachment 599144
View attachment 599145

Someone taking design cues from the Tank Library I see.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

A few thoughts:

• The census tract containing Lake Bonavista (bordered by Macleod, Anderson, Acadia and Fish Creek) is 27.7% people over 65, and 14.6% visible minority; a representative community meeting would have one person with brown skin for every two heads of grey hair, and more than two heads of non-grey hair for every head of grey hair. Look at the picture of the community meeting again.
• The article notes that the residents "have agreed to allow secondary suites in basements and garages." It was only a few years ago that secondary suites were the density monster that would destroy peaceful single-family communities, now the most aggressive SFD supporters accept them completely to the point of writing them in. By 2035, will there be a movement in a rich neighbourhood to have restrictive covenants that still permit 4 storey midrise at 80 UPA?
• Here's the kind of redevelopment that's not "disruptive to the fabric of the community", from Inglewood. The house in the middle is certainly not disrupted; this is the sort of thing that would be completely protected by restrictive covenants.

And if this is what is protected and preserved by restrictive covenants, then it's pretty clear that "neighbourhood character" can't really be a shorthand for a certain type of housing or look or feel, but must be a code for something else.

 

[badc0ffee]

And if this is what is protected and preserved by restrictive covenants, then it's pretty clear that "neighbourhood character" can't really be a shorthand for a certain type of housing or look or feel,

They'd probably counter that, like what it replaced, this building still has 1 family with 4 people, needs 2 parking spots and contributes 2 cars to traffic, or something like that. And faces its own front and back yard.

must be a code for something else.

Why don't you spell it out for us.

 

[DiscoStu]

Why don't you spell it out for us.

Everyone who questions soulless infills and blanket density policies is just a racist, duh.

While I understand people hoping to preserve their neighborhoods, and I don't disagree that should be possible if all neighbors agree. But if that is allowed, we also need to fundamentally redesign our property tax system. In this case, if property owners buy into a system where they pay the full cost of them having a car centric-close to downtown neighborhood then I'm all for it. But without it, it's essentially a subsidization scheme.

How we distribute our taxes is not something I'm particularly familiar with, so you may be right...in the grand scheme, paying for things you use is only fair. Although I'm sure I'm also paying for things I never use or like either...but that's kind of the trade-off living in a society. I don't think there's only one right way to live, and having that some relatively good choices in housing/community types is one of the reasons I like Calgary.

 

[gsunnyg]

Not to take this too far off topic, but I sometimes wonder if culture is more the separator than skin color. My inner-city-ish neighborhood was 99.9% white when I moved into it 20 years ago, but now has a mix of varying ethnic groups. The most noticeable change is the amount of people of Indian descent, for example all of the 4 most recent house sales on my street were purchased by people of Indian heritage. An interesting observation I've noticed is that they are all Calgary born and raised who grew up in the NE, but are fairly similar to myself from a cultural point of view.
I haven't dug into it much, but found it to be an interesting observation.

^ This right here is accurate. I've grown up in the NE for most of my life. However, my cultural values and beliefs align much more with Canadian values and beliefs than those of immigrants. My friends are the same, as they have moved to different parts of the city where there are fewer brown people. I'll probably be moving out of the NE as well. I feel it takes about 1 generation for people to integrate with Canadian values. It's why you visibly see more mixed-race couples in cities where non-European immigration has dated back for decades like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.

 

[maestro]

Mixed coupling could become more of an outlier as the different communities establish populations. I see it in the workplaces of major employers. The overall workforce is diverse. However, the different teams or groups making up that workforce are typically not.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/basement-climate-1.7334854

I found this interesting, the article really leans into climate but wouldn't piles (like we see at Nest) also be more economical for developers. Basemen suites are a density add for developers on infills but the cost savings of not having to build a basement seem to me to be worth adding a third story and shifting the basement suit to a ground floor unit with the larger unit still occupying floors 2 and 3.

What am I missing?

 

[badc0ffee]

Don't we also need basements because the water/sewer utilities have to meet the house a certain distance below ground? You can't just run pipes through a crawl space like you can in parts of the US.

I guess you could build a small vault below ground to avoid that.

 

[CBBarnett]

Don't we also need basements because the water/sewer utilities have to meet the house a certain distance below ground? You can't just run pipes through a crawl space like you can in parts of the US.

I guess you could build a small vault below ground to avoid that.

That's my understanding. Getting beneath the frost-line is the key part which means 4 or 5 feet down at least. You're pretty close to a complete basement just by hooking in the utilities. That said, there's probably a bunch of different ways to achieve the minimum, without necessarily building a full, occupiable basement.

Specifically, the article is actually speaking of only removing basements in floodplains or other "flood prone" areas. This is much more targeted and a reasonable thing to explore, or at least find ways to take the expensive parts that water can easily damage out of harms way. Collectively, if all basements were removed or somehow hardened to not need remediation or at risk of mold from flooding, the collective insurance saving must be absolutely huge.

Relatedly, I have always been surprised there's not more (successful) efforts in design and construction to reduce the risk/impact of water damage. Even relatively minor leaks can cost huge amounts of damage. I know a friend with an upstairs washing machine, a minor hose leak resulted in huge damage to replace the main floor ceiling and clean everything up. And we've all heard the stories of a $100 fixture bathroom faucet leak in an apartment building that damages multiple floors beneath it at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars.

Perhaps it's just a tough problem to solve, but seems like we should be trying harder to actually water and leak proof our buildings give how devastating the impacts are?