Plan|it|Calgary Draft Municipal Development Plan and Transportation Plan

[Bunk]

Discussion on the Plan it Calgary initiative which leads to a new Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and associated Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP)

All the downloadable documents, available here.

http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_780_229_0_43/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Business+Units/Development+and+Building+Approvals+and+Land+Use+Planning+and+Policy/Land+Use+Planning/Plan+It/Plan+It+Calgary+Draft+MDP+and+Draft+CTP+Feedback+Opportunity.htm

[fusili]

Based upon a quick glance, it seems to be a pretty good plan. Will have to give it more of a detailed look later on, but the general idea is something that I would strongly support.

[The Geographer]

The plans for the NCLRT seem much more ambiguous then they used to (which may be a good thing).

In the draft versions of Plan It available before today, it appeared as though a Centre St alignment would be chosen for the Compact or Hybrid model, and a Nose Creek alignment for the Dispersed model. In the primary transit network map available through the link in the OP (the "Part 6: Maps" pdf), there are primary transit lines up both, which might mean that one is BRT and one is LRT. Of course you can't tell which. I would suspect that Centre St. is BRT, simply because it doesn't connect to the SELRT on the map. But then, it didn't connect in the Hybrid or Compact models either, where it was suggested it would be LRT.

Anyone have info on where the planning for this is at now?

[Bigtime]

I skimmed through the first download at work today, will start looking over everything in more detail at home over the week.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ I think the planners realize it is a political decision. Going up Centre St means tough choices for the budget, 20 years out.

There is no way we know enough to make that decision now. We don't need to protect any land along Centre St. to build it so there is not a path dependency issue (further north the land is already protected), at least until the SE LRT starts construction.

The Nose Creek line as LRT likely lives or dies on how busy the West-NE line gets.

[Beltliner]

^^^ The C-Train daily ridership trend that seems to have held since 1996, with the usual assortment of annual peaks and valleys, works out roughly to the following expression:

r'(t',d') = (1.045^(t'-t))r + 7000(d'-d)

where

r = daily ridership
t = Q4 of any given year
d = revenue track length, in miles

Daily ridership per mile is particularly interesting:

1996: 7,227 (18.5 miles)
1997: 7,876 (18.5 miles)
1998: 8,303 (18.5 miles)
1999: 8,270 (18.5 miles)
2000: 8,697 (18.5 miles)
2001: 7,325 (20.6 miles)
2002: 7,971 (20.6 miles)
2003: 7,683 (22.4 miles)
2004: 6,775 (26.2 miles)
2005: 7,218 (26.2 miles)
2006: 7,897 (26.2 miles)
2007: 9,717 (27.9 miles)
2008: 10,663 (27.9 miles)

All the above data derive from APTA Q4 data--to go year by year, just paste http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/xxq4can.pdf into your browser's command line, where xx is the last two digits of the year you have it in mind to review.

What all of this gobbledigook has to do with the point at hand is that if C-Train ridership is any indication, the Centre Street Metro represents a sound investment in the future of Calgary's mass transit system.

[frinkprof]

So does anyone think this may get watered down when it goes to council, and if so, how? What about sent back for more work? I think it will get approved in some form, but what that is, I'm not sure.

[Boris2k7]

So does anyone think this may get watered down when it goes to council, and if so, how? What about sent back for more work? I think it will get approved in some form, but what that is, I'm not sure.

Hard targets are always the first to get watered down. Affordable housing targets, suburban densities, etc.

[bob1954]

There's only one way you can have affordable housing overall, and that is more multi-story, denser, and using of less land... and building a lot of product period!!! There's areas in places like Chicago that I can live cheaper than the damn suburbs!!

[Wooster]

Here's the cost analysis of Plan It. It projects that on infrastructure costs, their recommended scenario saves about $11 billion compared to current trends.

http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/planning/pdf/plan_it/plan_it_calgary_cost_study_analysis_april_third.pdf

[frinkprof]

^Skimmed through it the other day, seems logical.

So when does Plan It go to council? Sometime in June I'm pretty sure.

[Bigtime]

Here are a couple of letters in todays Herald that pertain to Plan It:

Plan on Plan It

Calgary HeraldApril 6, 2009

Re: "Don't crucify public planning," Jeff Kenworthy, Opinion, April 3.

It was a breath of fresh air to read Jeff Kenworthy's piece on sustainable planning and why Plan It is the right blueprint. He provides clear statistical comparisons such as Houstonians driving an average 21,000 km per year as compared to Calgarians who drove an average of 11,000 km per year. Then he paints simple visions of Houston, Stockholm and Calgary. I have not visited Houston or Stockholm, but I would only visit Houston to see what not to do in a planning sense.

Randal O'Toole, of the Cato Institute, touted Houston as the perfect example of good planning arising out of market forces. This may be the case for the developers; however, this is not the vision I hold for Calgary. The Houston model might work well for developers who are happy to develop the suburbs by passing on hidden costs to the inner city. However, loading such direct and indirect costs on taxpayers does not sound like the efficient operation of a free market to me.

Roy Wright,
Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald Link (http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/letters/Plan+Plan/1468111/story.html)

Road map for future

Calgary Herald April 6, 2009

Re: "Who will build the Plan It vision without a market?" Paula Arab, Opinion, March 26.

Paula Arab is confused. She understands a free market requires government intervention such as zoning and urban boundaries. However, she believes Plan It is "offside" with the development industry. Instead, some in the development industry are offside with what Calgarians want. As Arab acknowledges, Calgarians want vibrant, complete communities--inner city and suburban. Many in the development industry are ready and willing to meet that demand. However, a vocal minority want the city to spread further into the countryside, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the roads, transit, schools and other infrastructure those developers will not provide. Plan It is only "fundamentally flawed" for those developers. Except for Randal O'Toole and others from the fringe, experts know a "convoluted report" is needed to provide the future Calgarians want.

Susan Stratton,
Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald Link (http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/letters/Road+future/1468110/story.html)

[MalcolmTucker]

No one in the development industry seems to bring up the fact that their expert O'toole only supports unbridled suburban development with infrastructure supported solely by user fees.

They distort even his argument, cheery picking what they like, and dismissing what they don't.

[Bigtime]

Alderman raises flags about pushy telephone pollsters
CHQR Newsroom
4/6/2009


Calgary Alderman Druh Farrell says she's concerned about what she refers to as a pushy telephone poll about a controversial development strategy known as 'Plan It Calgary'.

Farrell says she's received a few complaints but has been re-assured the city is not behind it.

She says homeowners are being asked if they want to raise their kids in a highrise jungle.
Another question asks, 'Do you want the city to take away your right to single family housing?'

David Watson, General Manager of Planning, Development and Assessment says the city would never be involved in a pushy telephone poll.
He says the whole thing is concerning because usually research or marketing firms don't ask these kinds of questions.

Critics of the Plan It Calgary strategy don't like the idea of building more dense neighbourhoods within current city limits to reduce the amount of urban sprawl.

The document sets out a plan for development over the next 50 years to accomodate another 1.3 million people.
Link (http://www.am770chqr.com/News/Local/Story.aspx?ID=1079447)
_________________________________________________________________

Hmm, now who could possibly be behind this? :rolleyes:

So can the city find out who is behind this? Then proceed to make that information public to dirt them real good, because we all know that people love groups that call your house with yet another survey.

[frinkprof]

Right to single family housing - how can you take away something that doesn't exist?

[Bigtime]

I really wish that I could get this survey phone call. I'd blast 'em real good.

"Why yes I am about to start raising a family in a highrise jungle. Tell the UDI and CHBA to kiss my ass! Just as not all people want to live in multi-family not everyone wants to live in a single family house on the god forsaken outskirts of the city."

[MalcolmTucker]

It is likely an auto-poll if they are only asking a few questions and their sample is large enough to generate media stories. A poll conducted by people would never leak like this, since people likely to leak would decline to take the poll.

An auto poll, done by a 'demon dialer' is quite an old trick, and a pretty awesome thing for influencing public opinion. However, you do need to nuance your questions enough so that it isn't obvious who commissioned it and it doesn't backfire.

If they think PlanIt is so awful, they should be able to defeat it by presenting the facts. That they cannot shows how desperate they know their fight is.

[Wooster]

I swear the UDI and CHBA are the republican party of the US. Same tactics, same lies.

[DizzyEdge]

You know, I really think that perhaps the city went about this the wrong way.

I truly believe that the average Calgarian is probably indifferent, or against the plan, possibly due to ignorance, but an ignorance that perhaps the city hasn't done a good enough job to fix.

I'm glad they did the study that showed the 11 billion in savings, but doing a study that shows working on the plan is a good idea, after the plan has been worked on for some time and many people have gotten up in arms over it, seems the wrong order. The city really should have determined the problems with sprawl, then announced they were doing a study to determine how best to reduce those problems, then done the study that shows business as usual would cost us $X, but changing processes a, b, and c would save us $11 billion, then had some public debate... seems like things may have gone a lot smoother if this had been the process. My 2 cents anyway :)

[Bigtime]

So this goes before council on Monday the 11th right? What exactly will be decided at that time?

[Beltliner]

So this goes before council on Monday the 11th right? What exactly will be decided at that time?

What's going before City Council next Monday, if the scuttlebutt is to be trusted, is a motion by the usual suspects to send the plan back for another round of consultations, and to put off the actual decision until this fall. As matters now stand, the revised draft comes out on Wednesday, and goes before Gosplankom on 14 May prior to a full public hearing in City Council on 16 June.

[Bigtime]

So would letter writing to council help keep this thing from getting delayed on Monday? Are there any ways to put some pressure on these delayers to communicate that they don't represent all the citizens in this city?

[Beltliner]

Funny you should ask. ;)

You should swing by the CivicCamp Google Group and chip in your $0.02.

[Bigtime]

I have just discovered CivicCamp, one of the fellows on the Ramsay walk yesterday was one of the founders of the group. Some great discussions were had yesterday about everything.

[Doug]

Plan It completely misses the boat in terms of enabling densification rather than simply promoting it. For it to be successful, it needs to be linked to some sort of anti-NIMBY legislation.

[Beltliner]

Looks like the scuttlebutt bore itself out, judging by today's reportage from The Fishwrap (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgary+Plan+development+roadmap+faces+another+delay/1564487/story.html):

City planning roadmap faces another delay

Aldermen seek 'enough' time amid lobbying

By Joel Kom, The Fishwrap

CALGARY -- A landmark city planning document that has drawn intense lobbying from developers and others should be delayed at least three months, several aldermen will argue next week.

Plan It Calgary, the city's vision for development over the next several decades, has already seen some delays over concerns officials weren't doing enough to consult the public.

Developers complained about the plan, which they contended would rob people of the chance to live in single-family homes in suburban neighbourhoods.

It's slated to be up for final approval in June, but a group of four aldermen will ask city council next week to delay that approval until September.

"It's just a matter of making sure we have enough time to look at it," said Ald. Ric McIver, who is proposing the motion along with Ald. Andre Chabot, Ald. Diane Colley-Urquhart and Ald. Joe Connelly.
"We're not saying anything positive or negative. We're just saying this is such an important document that it needs the care and caution due to it."

That didn't fly with Ald. Druh Farrell, who said the time has come to finally make a decision on something the city has been working on for a couple years.

"There have been several delays already, and I don't think a new one has any merit," she said.

Plan It Calgary is being touted as the template for future development in a city that many associate with urban sprawl.

It calls for a denser city built more around transit than roads as a way to accommodate growth.

Groups who have been on opposite sides of the lobbying effort also differed Monday on the value of a delay.

Michael Flynn, executive director of the Urban Development Institute, which represents developers, said he favoured stalling the project.

"I don't think there have been enough opportunities in general to see the latest draft" of Plan It, he said.

Salima Stanley-Bhanji, director of Vibrant Communities Calgary, said a delay would be "disappointing,"but added that if the true intent is to let the public learn more, she'd be open to the group of four's proposal.

[Beltliner]

The revised drafts of the Plan It Calgary docs are now online (http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_766_229_0_43/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Business+Units/Development+and+Building+Approvals+and+Land+Use+Planning+and+Policy/Land+Use+Planning/Plan+It/Plan+It+Calgary+Proposed+Plans.htm)!

[Wooster]

The revised drafts of the Plan It Calgary docs are now online (http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_766_229_0_43/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Business+Units/Development+and+Building+Approvals+and+Land+Use+Planning+and+Policy/Land+Use+Planning/Plan+It/Plan+It+Calgary+Proposed+Plans.htm)!



Hold your horses now! We need to delay this plan further in order to try and beat it into the ground politically and through public relations propoganda! The audacity of the City to try and regulate greenfield development! Utopian Social Engineers!

Wow, the Executive summary, is from the fuuuture - dated May 8. This plan is forward looking!

[Wooster]

The readability of the document has improved over the previous drafts. Content wise, upon first reading it's pretty good.

Unfortunately, they haven't attached the Maps, which makes some things hard to evaluate. In my comments on the previous draft I recommended to separate LRT networks (visually) from the rest of the primary transit network, the text indicates they did this, but the Map is not available to view.

[Beltliner]

The readability of the document has improved over the previous drafts. Content wise, upon first reading it's pretty good.

Unfortunately, they haven't attached the Maps, which makes some things hard to evaluate. In my comments on the previous draft I recommended to separate LRT networks (visually) from the rest of the primary transit network, the text indicates they did this, but the Map is not available to view.

^^^ Phoned up my transportation guy at the city a few minutes ago--the maps should be up later today.

[Wooster]

I wonder if they'll bother thinking about indicating an LRT network beyond the 6 radial legs? How about a circle route and a couple of other cross town routes? What about centre city and inner city streetcars? I notice at least a reference to streetcars/trams as part of the primary transit network and they specifically call out a centre city transit network, which is important. It should be interesting to see these maps. Did you recieve much feedback from your LRT vision document Beltliner?

[Beltliner]

^^^ The proof of the pudding is in the eating, but between our sidebar conversations and the reading between the lines of the CTP narrative, I am cautiously optimistic that some of the key ideas are gaining traction.

Much depends on the maps, of course.


UPPITY DATE: Aw, snap! (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/planning/pdf/plan_it/plans/ctp_maps.pdf)

[mersar]

Looks like they've left the NC running up Nosecreek in the maps, couple other minor adjustments it looks like on the outer edges but nothing much else. Couple known spots such as 162nd Ave SW are identified as mode to be determined, as well as they do show the proposed 50th Ave SW and Shaganappi river crossings along with a huge amount of mode to be determined for existing roadways.

They also show the downtown specific map which looks like the S.A.S. will connect to the NW, with the SELRT on the known alignment ending in Eau Claire.

Regional map looks good (except for the 'New Town' located on Highway 8, I'm assuming they are using that to refer to the core of the development in Elbow Valley, etc). Some of the long term commuter bus routes I'd question, but the initial ones are what have been pushed by the CRP so at least they are both on the same page.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ You can't really realign the LRT in this document, or else you end up the fight being about the LRT. Plus, if you start adding a bunch of extra infrastructure to the '~30% compact' scenario, the cost difference between it and 100% greenfield is smaller.

Centre Street vs Nose Creek will be a political decision in the end, as both routes have certain tradeoffs that are hard to measure in a technical way.

A notice of motion to request that money be put aside for an analysis of the multitude of routing options would be a good idea, but at this point might be a bit of cart before horse.

[Beltliner]

^^^ Just you wait until I finish my spreadsheets and my ROI analysis that'll prove Centre Street blows Nose Creek out of the water.... :D

[Wooster]

Leave your comments on the comments board!

Calgary's blueprint for growth ready for release

Plan It Calgary took years of work

By Joel Kom, Calgary HeraldMay 7, 2009

CALGARY - It's taken more than two years and cost around $6 million, but the blueprint for Calgary's development-- which includes a call for higher-density communities built around transit -- is ready for full public scrutiny.

Wednesday's formal release of Plan It Calgary, a document of more than 200 pages meant to act as a template for building the city over the next six decades, is the culmination of years of city work, months of lobbying by the development industry and others and continuous input from city council.

It now heads to the Calgary Planning Commission on May 14, with a special public hearing scheduled for June 16, though some aldermen want the hearing pushed back to September. And while there's still six weeks --and possibly more--until council has its final say, those who have worked on the plan say it provides a strong vision for Calgary.

"The direction is a more intense city that works better in terms of transit and land use, is more environmentally sound . . . and is slightly less expensive to operate over the long term," said David Watson, the city's general manager of planning, development and assessment.

The proposed blueprint is not vastly different from its predecessors. One change in the final proposal is a statement that development will still occur at the city's edges, Watson said, a nod to the development industry's protests over what it said was too much focus on building up in established communities.

But overall, the call is still for a city with more varied housing, communities centred on recreation and other centres, and a wider range of mobility options that includes everything from walking to driving.

Watson said there will likely be more changes to come.

"I'm not sure the industry will like all of it, and people who supported us all the way probably think we're not going far enough," he said.

That was already evident Wednesday. Dennis Little, the industry's point man on Plan It, said he believes the city's targets for multi-family buildings and density are unachievable, saying single-family homes still need to have more prominence.

"They've indicated to me they haven't addressed our major concern," he said.

Noel Keough, founder of Sustainable Calgary, said he was hoping for a more compact city than the one envisioned in Plan It. "The proposal the city's making is not as ambitious" as it was before, he said.

jkom@theherald.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgary+blueprint+growth+ready+release/1572232/story.html

[Bigtime]

Sixty-year plan better than alternative

By Naheed Nenshi, For The Calgary Herald May 7, 2009

Imagine the following: a government undertakes a giant public consultation program. Some 80 per cent of respondents suggest one particular course of action, which is also the most economically and environmentally sustainable path forward. One stakeholder is, however, upset, seeing its profit imperilled, despite economic studies and examples showing that it could make even more money with a few small changes to the business model.

What happens next? The government wipes its brow, breathes a sigh of relief, and moves forward? In the case of Plan-It Calgary, something much more insidious is underway.

First, some history: Plan-It is an attempt to enshrine the principles of the City's 100-year vision (imagineCalgary) into the Municipal Development Plan and Calgary Transportation Plan, which are mandated by the province. In some ways, there are not a lot of options for Plan-It--since the imagineCalgary targets are already approved and in place, the Plan-It document needs to fit into their general principles, including sustainability and higher density.

The good news is that almost everyone agrees on what to do. When asked to describe their ideal neighbourhood and their ideal city, people tend to come up with the same concepts --comfortable, safe, walkable, with housing, jobs, and shopping in proximity. Doesn't matter if you are a corporate drone or a free-living artist, a grandmother or an emo kid, conservative or liberal--the kinds of things you value in community are the same, and they are the things that are reflected in Plan-It.

The only folks who are nervous are those in the land development industry, because it means significant changes in how they do business. The current version of Plan-It is a compromise between what the developers were seeking and what the stakeholders were demanding. Nonetheless, it is a bold step in the right direction.

This is what makes the arguments against it so baffling. Some, like Ald. Jim Stevenson, claim that there has not been enough consultation. This is patently wrong. The problem is there has been plenty of consultation; it's just that most who were consulted disagree with the development industry.

Others seem to have issues with the whole concept of a "plan," arguing that 60 years is too long a time frame, or even that the best cities are those with no plan at all. Also false. When a road is built, it will be there forever. We need a long-term plan before we start laying asphalt.

Maybe we should let the "market" decide. The problem is that there is no free market. Let's be clear-- new homes in new suburbs are massively subsidized by existing homeowners as an explicit result of current city policy. (One study in Western Australia suggested a new home costs $86,000 more in infrastructure than one built in an existing neighbourhood). The developers are arguing not for a free market, but for a continued cosy relationship with the city that favours them over all others.

The ugly twin of this argument is the myth that Plan-It means the end of the single-family home. Nonsense. There are many ways to create beautiful, livable communities that happen to feature more people. All Plan-It does is ensure that new suburbs will look more like Garrison Woods and less like Tuscany. Still lots of green space and lots of detached houses, but mixed in with townhouses, duplexes and condos.

What, then, may be the true motivation of the aldermen who are seeking to delay or kill Plan-It, despite already having confirmed its principles?

Perhaps the best answer comes from Ald. Ray Jones, who was quoted in last week's FFWD weekly saying, "I'm kind of more on the development industry's side on this one. They create a lot of jobs for a lot of people and, in particular, I've got two kids that are in the industry. I think jobs are a very important part of livelihoods."

He didn't add, but I will, that the same developers (which employ far fewer people than, say, the nonprofit sector in Calgary) create a lot of value for aldermen, too. Jones raised about $170,000, or 90 per cent of his campaign fund total, from the industry. Suddenly, it all becomes a lot clearer, doesn't it?

Nenshi teaches at Mount Royal College's Bissett School of Business.

(Read The Editorial Board's Differing Point Of View On Plan-it. Go To Licia Corbella's Blog, Corbella Report, At calgaryherald.com)

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Link (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sixty+year+plan+better+than+alternative/1572389/story.html)

[Bigtime]

The motion to delay Plan It is before council right now.

[Bigtime]

Bronco dropping some serious smack on those trying to delay the Plan It hearing. Saying his 11 year old daughter can read 200 pages in 40 days and 40 nights, so why can't they? BURN.

[frinkprof]

Delay passed.

[Bigtime]

Delay passed.

Yes but only delayed until the end of June, not sometime in September. I'll take that as a victory.

[wild wild west]

/\Actually, yes it means September. June CPC instead of this week's CPC means a September Public Hearing of Council.

[Bigtime]

Well then, colour me confused. I couldn't follow what was happening well enough while periodically tuning into the web stream.

[wild wild west]

Nope, actually turns out you are right. Document still going to CPC this week, to Council in June. Twas I that was confused.

And yeah, Bronco positively OWNED when he stepped down from the Mayor's chair. Very good, passionate speech.:tup:

[Bigtime]

Well ok then! Good news!

[Bigtime]

As an aside: Why is it that the better spoken members of council are usually those not being pains in the ass? Listening to Diane CU and McIver stumble through their words doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in their abilities. Then you hear people like Bronco, Druh, and Pincott speak very well and that alone helps sell me on their view.

[Wooster]

Because well spoken people like the Mayor are intelligent, unlike the brain dead aldermen like Diane CU, Chabot, Jones, Fox-Mellway, and McIver.

[wild wild west]

/\You forgot Connelly.

I'd also add Hodges to the "pain in the @ss" list - although I'll admit he's at least intelligent.

[Riise]

Bronco dropping some serious smack on those trying to delay the Plan It hearing. Saying his 11 year old daughter can read 200 pages in 40 days and 40 nights, so why can't they? BURN.

Not to stray too OT but with the way Bronco is pushing certain SmartGrowth policies/issues pretty hard, is anyone else starting to think that this might be his last term in office? It's almost like his attitude is one where he is saying, "I'm not coming back so I can do what I think really needs to be done as I don't need to appease those who put me here."

[Bigtime]

I seriously hope he has another term in him, because right now McIver has played the petty politics enough to probably get himself elected.

It would be the Al Duerr years all over again...

[Beltliner]

Not to stray too OT but with the way Bronco is pushing certain SmartGrowth policies/issues pretty hard, is anyone else starting to think that this might be his last term in office? It's almost like his attitude is one where he is saying, "I'm not coming back so I can do what I think really needs to be done as I don't need to appease those who put me here."

It's unwise to rule out a run for the centre seat from Dr No, but the way he stuttered, stammered, and generally flopped about like a gaffed fish after Super Dave gutted the stall-Plan-It motion, any opposing mayoral candidate with an IQ in excess of his shoe size could easily hang Dr No out to dry on the hustings.

Besides--if Dr No were in serious danger of gaining traction as a candidate, Super Dave could play the unfinished business card and run once more and squash the poor fool like a bug.

[Beltliner]

Nope, actually turns out you are right. Document still going to CPC this week, to Council in June. Twas I that was confused.

And yeah, Bronco positively OWNED when he stepped down from the Mayor's chair. Very good, passionate speech.:tup:

And it's now official, folks (http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_766_229_0_43/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Business+Units/Development+and+Building+Approvals+and+Land+Use+Planning+and+Policy/Land+Use+Planning/Plan+It/Plan+It.htm)--Plan It goes to Planning Commission tomorrow, and to a City Council public hearing on 23 June.

Imagine, all that squawk and sturm und drang for a one-week delay, huh?

[Vascilli]

There are now some ads on the ceilings of buses and a stand on 17th Ave in the small park opposite Crave.

[Wooster]

Check out Plan It's new microsite:

http://www.calgary.ca/planit/

I like the "what does a liveable city" before and after images. Very effective.

[wild wild west]

They had Plan|it| ads with a cut-out of two people talking all over Stephen Ave today at lunch.

[Beltliner]

MDP and CTP just cleared Planning Commission 6-1 with a whole whack of teeny tiny insubstantive amendments. Come on down to the big top on 23 June! :D

[KrisYYC]

Off topic but how do you guys watch council in progress? Is it on TV or the web?

[frinkprof]

http://remotecontrol.jetstreammedia....tationID=15083 to stream online. It's only on when council is though, and it's not archived.

I believe they also show it on the Shaw channel, but I'm not sure if they do that for every council meeting.

[Wooster]

So are you guys gonna plan on speaking at public hearing? I think the intelligent depostions from various people really helped propel Brentwood SARP. You know that the UDI, suburban developers will be out in full force opposing.

[Bigtime]

Well once again the fact that these things take place during my workday I most likely will not be able to attend to speak. I am however already drafting my letter of support that I will be sending in to council.

[frinkprof]

Not sure if I'll be in town on that day, but if I am, I might be able to go speak.

[Wooster]

What Plan It are you on?

Experts divided about how to reach city's goals

By Grace Lui, Calgary HeraldMay 16, 2009

As a development manager for Carma Developers, and a former city planning official, Grace Lui offers the following opinions about Plan It, an ambitious proposal by city hall that could affect Calgary's growth for the next 60 years.

Inmy field, lively conversations occur between planners and developers upon hearing the words "Plan It."

Having worked in both the public and private sectors, I find myself regularly challenged to provide a balanced viewpoint between the two sides.

There are areas of consensus.

Both endorse the key directions of Plan It, and agree that we need to grow in a more compact manner. Most agree that Plan It is a worthwhile endeavour and will be approved in some form.

Discussion arises from differing viewpoints on how to get there.

Planners are very good at seeing us for who we "should be."Developers are very good at seeing us for who we are.

Neither group can claim accuracy in predicting what will happen in 30 or 60 years.

Plan It is a visionary document that sets out a 30-year plan, based on a 60-year vision, to be implemented in 10-year increments.

It aims for a more compact city and endorses expansion of our public transit system.

Transportation budgets will maintain existing roads, but will focus more on transit, walkways and cycling routes.

Managed congestion will motivate the shift from autos to walking, cycling and transit.

Under Plan It, the existing road network will be required to accommodate an additional two mil-lion car trips per day.

This assumes that transit use grows 400 per cent, and walking and cycling grows 265 per cent, in 60 years. Plan It will "endeavour to accommodate 33 per cent of Calgary's future population growth within developed areas of the city by 2039."

To understand what that means, realize that since 2006, 21 per cent of all new housing units built in the city have been constructed in the developed areas--and that has equated to minus two per cent population growth. It means that in spite of new units being built in existing areas, we have lost population to new suburbs.

The good news is that City of Calgary predictions for the next five years anticipate 23 per cent of new units to be built in developed areas representing zero per cent population growth. In the past 20-plus years (since 1986), we have averaged less than minus two per cent of new population growth in established communities.

To reach Plan It targets, 65 per cent of new population growth will be accommodated in established areas in 30 years.

Given that we have moved two per cent in the past 20 years, to go from zero per cent today to 65 per cent by 2039 is ambitious.

It challenges us to fundamentally shift how and where we grow, and assumes we will do it quickly.

Achieving these targets will require a streamlined process that removes barriers to development, and provides clarity about where and how much redevelopment will occur in established communities.

Although Plan It identifies some areas, it also relies on local community plans (such as Area Redevelopment Plans) to endorse areas for intensification.

While this respects the low-density character of many established communities, it poses a challenge for developers to overcome the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) issues that get raised through an already lengthy approval process, further pushing out the timeframe for Plan It targets to be met.

Even assuming that approval processes can be shortened to support intensification and redevelopment, will Calgarians support these projects by moving from single-family housing areas into more compact multi-family forms?

City planners believe that significant changes are imminent which will lead this change in behaviour and preference.

The onset of peak oil, an aging population, higher reliance on immigrant populations and a more environmentally-conscious generation will exponentially shift existing behaviours.

Developers and builders make their living through monitoring change in people's preferences and behaviours.

They have found that the inclination to drive, demand parking, and move to single family homes (especially at certain life stages) have remained fairly constant.

Many believe that gas prices have greater impact on driving behaviours than congestion or land use policies -- and that increased fuel prices will only moderate driving, shifting people towards fuel-efficient vehicles sooner than influencing a change towards transit, walking or cycling.

Developers believe that some of these fundamental preferences will continue and barring sudden critical impacts, will only change at glacial speeds.

Ultimately, we are responsible sponsible through our collective actions in determining how far we go and how quickly.

The fundamental expectations tations of Plan It require more than public support at a hearing -- they require market support to see it through to success.

Passing the plan will not automatically make it happen.

We cannot force developers opers to bring forward projects that are not market-supported -- even visionary developers need financial support.

Planners cannot socially engineer people into desired behaviours through policy.

Council cannot mandate market trends to happen.

A balanced approach should sustain all forms of development, allowing people to choose what forms to support, and to change that support over time.

We should ensure that each form of growth pays for itself-- to a large degree, this is already happening.

Specific, measurable targets like population growth are difficult to predict on 30 and 60 year time horizons.

Visionary, long-term plans need to set clear direction, but they need to be broad enough to stand the test of time.

There is no status quo; things change.

The decisions we make as Calgarians will lead the pace

of change: everything else will follow from that.

Grace Lui is currently a development manager with Carma Developers. She recently worked at the City of Calgary developing transit-oriented developments and industrial land. Previous to that, she worked as both a private and public planner.

---------

IN SHORT

If you want to make your views known on Plan It: On May 6, as part of Plan It, the city released copies of the Pro-posed Municipal Development Plan and the Calgary Transportation Plan. The plans are expected to go to a public hearing of council June 23. To view these plans, go to Calgary.ca and click on the Plan It link. Comments for consideration at the public hearing must be received by the City Clerk's Office prior to 10 a. m. on June 11.

Email:city clerk@calgary.ca

Mail: City Clerk,

#8007 P. O Box 2100, Station M, Calgary,

AB T2P 2M5.

Tel: 403-268-5861. Fax: 403-268-2362.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/op-ed/What+Plan/1602435/story.html
========================

Overall, a very sensible Op-Ed by Grace Liu.

To me the focus on the "targets" for growth numbers somewhat misses the point. I think where the targeting should really be occurring is in the investment decisions the City makes. It should be about giving growth within the city's boundaries every chance for success. If you build truly great infrastructure and amenities and put in a planning framework that facilitates growth, either the market will respond or it won't.

A target of 33% is somewhat arbitrary and actually impossible to predict. A suppose a stated target or goals is somewhat worthy and perhaps useful, but what really should be in the forefront of their mind is to put the conditions in place and make the necessary investments simply to encourage as many as they can to live in the core, on transit lines or within the existing built up area.

[Bigtime]

Developers join forces to fight plan

Calgary Herald June 3, 2009

Politics - Meetings labelled a "call to action" are normally the bane of developers--gatherings of frustrated community members with a laundry list of reasons why a project shouldn't go forward.

But there were dozens of developers and home builders Tuesday at such a session of their own, rallying against the city's proposed long-term blueprint for less sprawl and denser development.

The event, closed to reporters, was the latest in the industry's lobbying efforts against plan it Calgary. Developers and home builders were instructed on how to effectively voice their opposition at a June 23 public hearing.

Organizers distributed an information package with pre-written letters to send to aldermen, warning plan it will limit growth of suburban single-family homes and "Calgary will become a less desirable place to live and less attractive to new people and new business."

The city has launched an advertising campaign to sell Plan it to Calgarians. One ad depicts a 1950s-era couple scoffing that Calgary would never reach one million people.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Link (http://www.calgaryherald.com/News/Developers+join+forces+fight+plan/1657584/story.html)
_________________________________________________________________

So the meeting was closed to the media eh? No surprise there, probably discussing how this plan would actually force them to do more than turn out acre after acre of cookie cutter houses and pocket a whole bunch of money.

I fail to see how Plan It would be a hindrance to attracting new business. Let's see, more people living in a 'slightly' smaller area so in theory more customers closer to my new business to spend their money...yeah that won't work at all... :rolleyes:

On the people side, I guess everyone secretely loves spending hours of their day in traffic on their commute. Who knew we were all so happy doing that? Thanks for letting me know developers, big pat on the back for ya! I definitely wouldn't want to live in an area that has more services and transportation options within walking distance. :rolleyes:

Damn I put a few rolleyes on my response.

[Wooster]

A message from the Plan It Calgary Facebook page.

Remember that emails in support of Plan It need to be forwarded to cityclerk@http://www.facebook.com/l/;calgary.ca by 10am Thursday, June 11, 2009 to be included in the publicly circulated agenda for the Plan It public hearing.
Please cc themayor@http://www.facebook.com/l/;calgary.ca and alderweb@http://www.facebook.com/l/;calgary.ca and use "Plan It Response" in the subject line of your email.

Circle Tuesday, June 23, 2009 on your calendar and add Wednesday, June 24, 2009 for good measure. The Plan It public hearing opens in Council Chambers at 9:30am on the 23rd and runs until every Calgarian who wishes to speak to Council about Plan It has had their 5 minutes at the microphone. Please consider making a presentation, even if that means walking up to the mike to say "I support Plan It." We really do have a voice in the future of our city and we mean that literally!

[Beltliner]

^^^ Keep those cards and letters coming, folks!

Please accept this letter as my public statement of support for the Municipal Development Plan and the Calgary Transportation Plan that are being brought forward to City Council as a result of the Plan It Calgary consultation process.

The Municipal Development Plan and the Calgary Transportation Plan represent a critical milestone in Calgary’s progress and history. For the first time, transportation and land use planning have been considered as part of a broader whole with a longer and more strategic view, and this perspective greatly benefits both the Calgary Transportation Plan and its companion Municipal Development Plan. Moreover, the results of the Plan It Calgary process mark a significant change in the policy direction of this city by describing explicitly the value proposition of a sustainable and humanely scaled transportation and land use system to the residents of this municipality and this region. In a world where the price of doing nothing is ultimately far greater than what a city and its people can bear, the Municipal Development Plan and the Calgary Transportation Plan gives Calgarians a tangible and viable new direction for local development that will simultaneously support the prudent stewardship of municipal infrastructure funding and expand the range of housing, transportation, and civic participation opportunities in neighbourhoods responding fully to their environments and to economies of scale in service delivery. Put simply, the passage of the Municipal Development Plan and the Calgary Transportation Plan will ensure the successful setting of the stage for this city’s effective and responsible growth over the next ten years, and also ensure the successful painting of the necessarily broad strokes for this city’s development strategy over the subsequent fifty years.

I would be delighted to discuss this issue in further detail before City Council on 23 June. Please feel free to contact me if in the interim you should require any additional information about this issue. Thank you once more for the opportunity to make the case for the value of the Plan It Calgary process, and for the passage of the Municipal Development Plan and the Calgary Transportation Plan.

[Riise]

^^^ Keep those cards and letters coming, folks!

Would you mind if I used that Товарищ?

[frinkprof]

Spoke with one alderman tonight who speculated that Plan It would pass the first reading on the 23rd/24th, albeit with some amendments (he said he had a couple in store), and be back at council as early as the fall for second and third readings.

Anyone going to make an appearance at council on the 23rd and/or write letters?

[You Need A Thneed]

I imagine there's going to be a bunch of people at the plan-it discussion next week to get the Airport Trail tunnel back on the plans.

www.yestunnel.com (http://www.yestunnel.com)

[Wooster]

Whoever talks, mention the NCLRT for Centre Street!

[Bigtime]

I imagine there's going to be a bunch of people at the plan-it discussion next week to get the Airport Trail tunnel back on the plans.

www.yestunnel.com (http://www.yestunnel.com)

Well it sounds like the airport tunnel people may be sidetracking a lot of the Plan-It discussion that will start tomorrow.

Anyone want to wager a guess on how many days it is going to take for everything to happen?

[mersar]

Well at last the city admin people are figuring 2+ days minimum now. Seems another group has been pretty vocal about the proposed bridge crossings over the Bow and Elbow and are going to make their presense known tomorrow.

[fusili]

Spoke with one alderman tonight who speculated that Plan It would pass the first reading on the 23rd/24th, albeit with some amendments (he said he had a couple in store), and be back at council as early as the fall for second and third readings.

Anyone going to make an appearance at council on the 23rd and/or write letters?

I am going to be giving a speech. Just my five minutes of fame...(yeah right)

[Bigtime]

I'll be watching as much of it as I can online. What time does it start?

[Bigtime]

Calgary planners say their vision will save $11B

By Jason Markusoff, with files from Joel Kom, Calgary Herald June 23, 2009 6:48 AM

CALGARY - Calgarians will use a marathon public hearing that starts today to alternately praise and decry a 60-year vision of their city as more compact and less car dependent, but they shouldn't expect their aldermen to render judgment on it this week.

Senior city sources predicted that after the likely multi-day hearing, the controversial Plan It Calgary strategy will be reconsidered for months by the city administration that developed it, to try resolving the problems that have made it so divisive.

Property developers and home builders decry Plan It's targets for density and limiting new suburban subdivisions, while residents who oppose sprawl and car-dominance have backed the plan.

City staff say Plan It would save Calgary an estimated $11 billion over the plan's six decades, since a less expansive city would need fewer new roads, transit stations, sewer pipes and fire halls.

The bulk of the epic stack of 585 public comments sent to aldermen on Plan It are resident opposition to a pair of bridges--over the Bow River at Edworthy Park and over the Elbow at Sandy Beach -- that would be for transit and emergency vehicles only.

Mayor Dave Bronconnier acknowledged the plan has been polarizing.

"Will all parties like the outcome? That I don't know," he said in an interview. "But what I do know is we can't keep with the current trend of sprawling in all directions."

Several aldermen have decried Plan It as social engineering (:rolleyes: ) that would drive up prices by limiting the number of single-family homes in Calgary.

Bronconnier said it's important to hear all sides at the public hearing, "and sometime between now and the end of the year conclude and move forward."

jmarkusoff@theherald.canwest.com---------

What Calgarians Think . . .

Joey Stewart Kingwell, Retiree, Glengarry

"Thank you for thinking of the future," kingwell writes at the end of her letter to aldermen. She's a former oilpatch worker, gardener and avid cyclist, and she's watched her inner-city neighbourhood get denser over the 45 years she's lived there, with many of the multi-family redevelopments plan it envisions throughout the city. To kingwell, it's transformed an aging neighbourhood into one where young families have returned. "It's a livelier, better place to live," she told the herald. "We've got strollers, we've got runners, we've got cyclists. . . . Everything about our neighbourhood feels richer." she's also encouraged by the proposals to build a more extensive network of cycling pathways and lanes in the next six decades. Even if she won't be alive to see that reshaped Calgary, she's happy future generations will inherit it.

Howard TSE, Purchasing Manager, Panorama Hills

"As a resident of Calgary and an owner of a single-family home, I cannot imagine, let alone fathom the possibility of raising my young family in a traffic-congested area with limited mobility," tse writes to council. Like most of the public commenters who oppose the plan it vision, tse works in the home-building/ development sector (although unlike many of them, he acknowledges his affiliation in his letter). However, he's mostly commenting from a personal perspective, he said in an interview. Tse argues the plan's call for half of all new residences to be built in existing communities will mean far more condo-style homes than people actually want, making the more popular choice--standalone houses--more expensive. Opposition would be more widespread if people understood the plan, he said. "More people know about toothpaste (fluoride) in water than they do about this plan for the city," he said. "It which will ultimately affect our lifestyles. Choice is going to be limited, for my kids in particular."

Felicia Esposito, Event Marketer, Wildwood

Esposito moved to this west-end neighbourhood five years ago because she loved walking her dog in edworthy park. She and dozens of neighbours flooded the city with letters warning that plan it's proposed bridge through the park and over the bow river would spoil their beloved green space. "I love Calgary, but we don't have to develop it to the point of not having these spaces around us," she said. In the 1990s, aldermen rejected another plan's call for a full traffic bridge spanning the park and the river, as well as ones over sandy beach, weaselhead flats and other parks. The fact this bridge would be more carefully designed, not be built for decades and only allow buses and emergency vehicles hasn't soothed opponents. "To have transit go by there every 10 minutes doesn't give me a good feeling that it's any better."

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Link (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Planners+their+vision+future+will+save+billion/1723382/story.html)
_________________________________________________________________

So as Mersar has pointed it out it appears that a lot of people are either writing in or coming down to speak about those proposed bridges over the parks. So that plus the airport tunnel people...will people even be discussing the bulk of the report? Or is it going to get sidetracked for a couple of smaller issues within it? (well not small issues I know, but we are talking about 2 bridges and 1 tunnel in a giant report)

At least with the people 'for' the plan getting to speak first it can hopefully build enough positive momentum to help dissuade some of the more ridiculous 'against' speakers that we all know will come out of the woodwork for this.

[MalcolmTucker]

I think that transportation/infrastructure took out the airport tunnel, and put in those bridges for the specific reason to cause a fight. No one is complaining about the huge high order transit network, HOV network, and bike lane network, which all mean giving up road lanes.

Very strategically planned I have got to say.

Plus, if 95% of the presentations against are about these two issues, the majors density one will fall by the wayside in the medias mind, council can ask for the report back with just the minor changes, and pass it.

[Bigtime]

I think that transportation/infrastructure took out the airport tunnel, and put in those bridges for the specific reason to cause a fight. No one is complaining about the huge high order transit network, HOV network, and bike lane network, which all mean giving up road lanes.

Very strategically planned I have got to say.

It's too early in the morning for me, I don't quite follow how taking out the tunnel and adding these bridges helps anything.

Or are you saying that they did it to distract from everything else in the plan like the HOV network and bike lanes?

[MalcolmTucker]

Yes. And they can trade it back to 'compromise', instead of getting rid of something they actually wanted.

[Wooster]

I don't think those bridges are particularly essential to the transit network. There's got to be alternatives. If that was one of the major "Concesssions" in the plan to take them out, I wouldn't be upset. It is a bit of a red herring.

One thing I think that may end up going is the targets for inward vs. outward growth. In reality these targets aren't anything tangible, just an aspiration. A long as in practice the City is truly following through and doing what it can to intensify the core and existing built up area, what happens in terms of proportions, will happen.

[Bigtime]

It begins...

[mooky]

What's the link again so I can stream city council hearings? I'll remember to bookmark it this time.


Please and Thanks.

[Bigtime]

http://www.calgary.ca/cws/councilWebCast.html

[srperrycgy]

Channel 89 on Shaw Digital Cable as well.

[mooky]

Well, I'm at work, so that's not going to work, and I'm one of those old dinosaurs that refuses to switch to digital until they pry my analog cable out of my cold dead hands :D But nice to know it's yet another reason to maybe upgrade before then. I still lament the day they took NASA TV off the analog spectrum. :(

Channel 89 on Shaw Digital Cable as well.

[frinkprof]

I can't make it down until 15:30 or so, anyone think I'll still be able to get in the "in-favour" line?

[Bigtime]

Garth Atkinson of the CAA laying the smackdown on council for never doing anything about the runway tunnel, even after writing them and coming to council for the last 7 years to tell them this will be happening.

[frinkprof]

Is it just me or are the people who just want to see the airport tunnel just getting into the "in-favour" line, or did council schedule some time at the start specifically for the tunnel issue?

[MalcolmTucker]

I would rather have them in the 'in-favour' line rather than the anti line. It is the difference of baby or the bath water. It frames the first day of council as about Airport Trail instead of as density, which is a great thing.

Edit: Was the tunnel added back in at CPC? If so, that is great. Explains why they are in favour.

[Bigtime]

It appears that way.

[frinkprof]

I would rather have them in the 'in-favour' line rather than the anti line. It is the difference of baby or the bath water. It frames the first day of council as about Airport Trail instead of as density, which is a great thing.I was just unsure if there was time officially allotted in the agenda specifically for this issue is all. I agree with your statement above about it being better to have them in the "for" line and the optics of having it be about the airport tunnel rather than density. I still frown upon people just getting in that line in order to go earlier though when really they just care about one specific issue - the airport tunnel.

[Bigtime]

I really wish the pro speakers would mention that quite a few of us are perfectly happy having kids and staying in the inner city and even beltline in the future.

[Bigtime]

I also wish some of these speakers could go toe to toe with McIver and not get baited into him putting words in their mouths.

[mooky]

Some of these Alderman are very glib and smug. Wow!

[Bigtime]

I really wish I could take the time to be able to go down and speak, I'm not speaking highly of myself but I could twist the words and shoot right back at McIver. It is so obvious to see the bait in his questions, I hate how these speakers fall for it.

[mooky]

Who's the old guy with the bad comb-over? He has fired out baited questions as well, and man, he and McIver suck. Can I safely assume they are both anti-planit and will be voting against the resolution?

[Bigtime]

I think you mean Chabot, the other very vocal older alderman is Gord "Ballbuster" Lowe (white hair and beard). He is usually a pretty good guy when it comes to questioning, he was excellent during the public hearing for the Brentwood TOD.

[srperrycgy]

The other comb-over, Hodges isn't there. He must have a serious health issue for him not to be there.

[mooky]

Yeah! Must be Chabot. Lowe seems fair with his questions, he seems to truly want honest answers, not be leading the question to an "aha, gotcha" like Chabot and McIver.

I think you mean Chabot, the other very vocal older alderman is Gord "Ballbuster" Lowe (white hair and beard). He is usually a pretty good guy when it comes to questioning, he was excellent during the public hearing for the Brentwood TOD.

[mooky]

I'm curious .... is anyone from SSP Calgary there at the meeting to speak today?

[Bigtime]

I belive Frinkprof was trying to make it down, and Fusili is there too if I recall correctly.

I sent in a letter of support for PlanIt since I was unable to be there.

One of these days I'll make it down and give 'em the Bigtime show :cool:

[Bigtime]

...and the proceedings are getting hijacked by the airport tunnel crowd again.

Can you say hijack and mention the airport in the same sentence? :D