The question on many Calgary development minds is: OK, we’ve repealed citywide rezoning… what’s next?

The notion of a replacement for Calgary’s beleaguered citywide rezoning bylaw changes was a common theme throughout the public hearing, in the written submissions and throughout the debate.

Still, while some Calgary city councillors wanted to tinker with the existing rezoning bylaw, Calgary Mayor Jeromy Farkas campaigned on and has since continually reinforced the desire to repeal and then have a replacement.

“Repeal and replace the blanket rezoning bylaw with a more targeted, community-informed strategy that supports gentle density while building a variety of homes at a more affordable price point,” reads Mayor Farkas’s campaign website.

On April 13, several groups came together outside Calgary’s municipal building to hold Mayor Farkas to account.

“Mayor Farkas made a promise to Calgarians when he was running for mayor that he would repeal and replace blanket rezoning,” said Willem Klumpenhouwer, co-founder of More Neighbours Calgary, in a prepared media release that day.

“He’s kept one promise but broken another. Where is the replacement?”

While we don’t know when work on the replacement version will begin (perhaps it’s already started) or end, councillors are confident that common ground on density in neighbourhoods can be found.

Ward 12 Coun. Mike Jamieson, who was a vocal supporter of a citywide rezoning repeal, said that in between now and Aug. 4, when the repeal is implemented, city councillors can come together on the density items that the majority agree upon.

“We need to be a city that does move forward and does develop, and we need to also bring certainty to our businesses, to our development industry, that Calgary is open for business,” he said.

“We do want a beautiful city, but we really have to restrict this blanket approach to everything. It has to go back to community input. That’s the key.”

Pleasing the majority: Coun. Chabot

Ward 10 Coun. Andre Chabot said that he was happy with the repeal decision. When asked if he was confident a new direction could be found amid a large number of people who don’t appear to want any change in their community, he said they’d have to appeal to the majority of Calgarians.

“I agree that there’s no way to please everyone. What you have to do is try and please the majority,” he said.

“Ultimately, we need to increase our intensity of use to make our city more affordable and more sustainable. We can’t just continue to grow out. We have to grow up as well.”

Chabot said a “made in Calgary solution” would be the best path forward.

“That’s going to require a lot of work, and I agree it’s not going to get 100 per cent buy-in, but as long as we can get the majority of the citizens on side, we’ll be able to move forward a lot more effectively and efficiently on a go-forward basis with a strategic-plan-focused method.”

Thankfully, thousands of Calgarians gave them a path forward – literally – with reams of submissions and hours of in-person submissions and questions.

While councillors have their own interpretation of what the majority said they wanted, a full data analysis done by Pixeltree’s Serene Yew pulled out the most common areas where public hearing participants – both for and against – matched in charting a way forward. The top match was Local Area Plans, which was mentioned 385 times among participants.

“These are compromise themes that speakers from different stances independently converged on — ideas with cross-stance support that could represent starting points for council action,” read Yew’s description of the data.

Where can Calgary city council start on a replace?

We’ll look at a handful of the top compromise areas and offer pros and cons of each as part of a replace process.  Note: LWC has removed repeal with a clear replacement, as that’s what’s being discussed in this piece. Also, refine current zoning bylaw was removed because council opted not to follow that path.

Local Area Plans (385 crossovers)

The first, and arguably the most common place to start, would be with Local Area Plans. It was a solution brought up by councillors and speakers alike.

LWC has already examined this tool and how it went from being an ostracized planning exercise to being the belle of the development ball in a post-rezoning world.

Pros: More extensive community input, relatively clear maps showing where density can occur.

Cons: Ambiguity in defining the typology in Neighbourhood Local, Flex, etc. A clearer definition of what low-density means, and therefore a need to outline ‘middle-density’ areas in Local Area Plans (this could be the crux of the debate).

Nodes and corridors (177 crossovers)

If the phrase ‘nodes and corridors’ were a person, it would be tired after the rezoning public hearing. Much like the Local Area Plans, it was often raised as a potential easy win.

It would be great if Calgary’s Municipal Development Plan, or better yet, the Local Area Plans, would address nodes and corridors. It would make this part really easy. Oh, wait… they already do prescribe this, and it’s being done.

Pros: It makes too much sense. It’s already a part of Calgary planning and development.

Cons: Many people expressed concern about the over-concentration in so-called nodes and corridors, and that it creates other issues – noise, pollution, traffic, etc.

Community collaboration (149 crossovers)

On the surface, this sounds like a good idea. Getting the public on board with where development can occur in a community should make the application process smooth sailing… Until you ask someone to accept an eight-plex next to their house, when push comes to shove(l).

Put another way, however, this could mean ensuring that when the community does have concerns about a development, their concerns are directly addressed (and shown that changes have been made).

Pros: If you get buy-in, this limits pushback on proposed developments. There’s an opportunity to reflect concerns back to a community and demonstrate that action is being taken to remedy the issues.

Cons: As Coun. Chabot said, you can’t please everybody, and those who don’t agree may dig their heels in and make it tough for any development to move through. Further, to do proper community consultation, in a way that will appease even the most discerning citizens, it will cost an arm and a leg… meaning more tax dollars.

Infrastructure first development (75 crossovers)

This is another one that sounds good, especially because people will often find the path of least resistance when building up arguments as to why they oppose density. Generally, development should not go in where the infrastructure can’t support it.

Luckily, according to the City of Calgary (and demonstrated in another upcoming analysis piece), roughly 75 per cent of Calgary’s established communities have excess capacity for added density (based on their peak projected population).

Pros: On balance, this makes sense. Worth noting that the City of Calgary already has a stringent redevelopment process for added density. Based on a wide variety of calculations, they determine if there is an infrastructure upgrade triggered.

Cons: Hard to find a con in this one, particularly because Calgary does have an aging infrastructure base, and it’s worthwhile to ensure added density doesn’t exacerbate growing strain on these assets.

There are others, where all three sides were generally in agreement: Prioritizing gentle infill housing (semi-detached, duplexes), and ensuring that there are context-sensitive design and scale limits.  The latter could be covered under community buy-in – particularly as the City of Calgary has a tendency to approve in a density-at-all costs fashion, without paying specific attention to neighbourhood context or scale relative to nearby properties.

Ward 7 Coun. Myke Atkinson said that no matter which way council decided to go, repeal or not, these issues remain.

“The folks who have shown up have vastly said we need to be looking at fixes to the process of construction to minimize impacts on people’s lives,” he said.

“We need to look at fixes to the built form, to look at how this fits contextually into our established neighbourhoods.”

There are other areas where there doesn’t seem to be much common ground: Parking, tree canopy, transit service, etc. LWC will dive into those in the future.

There is a path forward for a replace – should that be the will of council.

As Coun. Jamieson put it, citizens didn’t want to see this sausage made on the floor of council with amendments to the existing bylaw.

If a replacement is in the cards, however, now is the time to start sleeving up the sausage.