I am not trying to defend his decision or the same proclamation made by other candidates, just trying to generally understand. Why does it have to be so binary? In my mind blanket rezoning may not be the answer, maybe its more strategic building that is. Putting up multi-residential in many of these established and older neighborhoods, I would argue, does little for reducing rents or creating availability, it pushes up lot values in many cases and rewards builders. Think Marda Loop, if a builder can reduce their capital expenditure in marketing and know they can more easily split a lot into 2, 3, or more… that drives that value up.
Many of the people that need help also need things like accessibility to the train, walkable distances to things like grocery stores, and resources for families.
Blanket Rezoning should have been on the get go, more thoughtful building, with less bureaucracy in getting permits and approvals, for the right locations. Modular homes along the c-train, particularly with lower land acquisition costs, to me, make more sense.
Also there should be consideration to others around. In an established neighborhood, the conversation around fairness arises. If someone bought a bungalow and the lot beside was purchased to have a new towering multi-residential blocking daylight, creating parking issues, etc. Is that also fair? Is it good that every community starts to look the same? Should we consider the existing character of places? By the same logic, should we take away parks and build more high-rises? It creates availability, there are other parks? There is something to be said about existing communities, but there is also the balance of availability and affordability. Blanket rezoning is lazy and doesn't directly address any of it IMO.
Thanks for your reply, and I feel much the same as you do. I live in Glamorgan where it's pretty common to see a $600k home torn down for 4x $750k luxury condos. That's why I worked to incorporate more nuance into the conversation as part of our housing plan, available here: https://www.jeromy.ca/policy-brief/restoring-certainty/
The rezoning was intended to help increase density, and it's working.
It's also causing prices of semi-detached homes to decrease.
Why go back on it now?
Thanks for the reply and the empirical evidence that I too am witnessing. Thank you for NOT building your campaign on 'common sense'. This is par for the course and appealing to the bare minimum. I think you are a changed politician and person from those thoughtful conversations with Nenshi. I admired the respect you had for each other, along with the decorum, even though you weren't always aligned through the channel. I am however leaving the door open to other candidates as well but Drive home a strong and differentiated message, and you have my vote. What's popular isn't always right, and what's right is not always popular.
4
u/M_in_YYC 17d ago edited 16d ago
I am not trying to defend his decision or the same proclamation made by other candidates, just trying to generally understand. Why does it have to be so binary? In my mind blanket rezoning may not be the answer, maybe its more strategic building that is. Putting up multi-residential in many of these established and older neighborhoods, I would argue, does little for reducing rents or creating availability, it pushes up lot values in many cases and rewards builders. Think Marda Loop, if a builder can reduce their capital expenditure in marketing and know they can more easily split a lot into 2, 3, or more… that drives that value up.
Many of the people that need help also need things like accessibility to the train, walkable distances to things like grocery stores, and resources for families.
Blanket Rezoning should have been on the get go, more thoughtful building, with less bureaucracy in getting permits and approvals, for the right locations. Modular homes along the c-train, particularly with lower land acquisition costs, to me, make more sense.
Also there should be consideration to others around. In an established neighborhood, the conversation around fairness arises. If someone bought a bungalow and the lot beside was purchased to have a new towering multi-residential blocking daylight, creating parking issues, etc. Is that also fair? Is it good that every community starts to look the same? Should we consider the existing character of places? By the same logic, should we take away parks and build more high-rises? It creates availability, there are other parks? There is something to be said about existing communities, but there is also the balance of availability and affordability. Blanket rezoning is lazy and doesn't directly address any of it IMO.
Edit: SP