City of Calgary hurting inner city development

[Design-mind]

I found out today that Brookfield Residential is pulling out of all its inner city developments. We are seriously considering doing the same. The city has added levies to inner city development, and then there are a lot of extras to the inner city. These extras include buying a property with a house value, asbestos abatement, city levies, demolition permits, shutting off utilities, demolition, fencing, tying back into utilities, framing premiums (framers charge more for inner city) etc etc. We are finding that we are at the million dollar mark just to get the basement poured. That means we have to sell it at a premium, which is above most peoples budget.

Another problem we are up against is getting our buildings through the city. It takes longer to get development permits past, when you are dealing with inner city. We are contending the city on two plots of land that we subdivided into three. We plan on building three single family units rather than two duplexes. The city shot this down, but the community association is all for the development, saying that there are far to many duplexes in their neighbourhood. We have followed all the bylaws, but what i did not know is the city has the power to veto the development even if you meet their guide lines.

I have looked at the development plan that Wooster has come up with, and I quite like the ideals in this plan. Would love to see this plan materialize. My question is how is the city going to revitalize the inner city, without pushing the developers out.

Thoughts...

[Spring2008]

I thought Brookfield just launched another TH project in Marda Loop. Crappy to hear though. Sounds like the City`s creating too many barriers when the opposite should be happening.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Design-mind

I found out today that Brookfield Residential is pulling out of all its inner city developments. We are seriously considering doing the same. The city has added levies to inner city development, and then there are a lot of extras to the inner city. These extras include buying a property with a house value, asbestos abatement, city levies, demolition permits, shutting off utilities, demolition, fencing, tying back into utilities, framing premiums (framers charge more for inner city) etc etc. We are finding that we are at the million dollar mark just to get the basement poured. That means we have to sell it at a premium, which is above most peoples budget.

Another problem we are up against is getting our buildings through the city. It takes longer to get development permits past, when you are dealing with inner city. We are contending the city on two plots of land that we subdivided into three. We plan on building three single family units rather than two duplexes. The city shot this down, but the community association is all for the development, saying that there are far to many duplexes in their neighbourhood. We have followed all the bylaws, but what i did not know is the city has the power to veto the development even if you meet their guide lines.

I have looked at the development plan that Wooster has come up with, and I quite like the ideals in this plan. Would love to see this plan materialize. My question is how is the city going to revitalize the inner city, without pushing the developers out.

Thoughts...

I didn't know that you could redevelop a site in a suburban part of the city without tying off the utilities, abating asbestos or even without buying the house first. Sounds like a feudal state, with warlord developers just roaming around, evicting legal residents and knocking their property down. Seriously, you sound like you are blaming the City for a lot of things that are just facts of redevelopment. If you want to build on greenfield, but the site has a high water table or a lot of big rocks in the ground that need to get dug up, is that the City's fault, too?

On the other hand, I 100% agree that the bureaucracy and paperwork (due to NIMBYs) makes redevelopment much more difficult than greenfield. It's not going to be possible to meet any sort of sustainability goals (especially the, um, aggressive goals of PlanIt) as long as it's easier to get the permits to build a thousand units of SFD on greenfield than to build an 8 unit building in the inner city. Particularly if the existing residents continue subsidizing new suburban housing.

Were I the king by right of the Calgary Region (and this is yet another reason I'm not), there would be three classes of development - class 3 is greenfield/exurban sites, class 2 is brownfield or redevelopment in the city, and class 1 is centre city, inner city or TOD node development. The approvals team would always work on class 1 permits before they started on class 2, and class 2 before they started on class 3. But it's pretty silly to expect the government to do what citizens asked for in an extensive consultation process.

[Design-mind]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I didn't know that you could redevelop a site in a suburban part of the city without tying off the utilities, abating asbestos or even without buying the house first. Sounds like a feudal state, with warlord developers just roaming around, evicting legal residents and knocking their property down. Seriously, you sound like you are blaming the City for a lot of things that are just facts of redevelopment. If you want to build on greenfield, but the site has a high water table or a lot of big rocks in the ground that need to get dug up, is that the City's fault, too?

*snip*

Particularly if the existing residents continue subsidizing new suburban housing.

Lol, no I am not blaming the city for these things I am just showing how fast it adds up to over a million dollars without there even being any kind of structure. This is not practical development, hence why a few developers are leaving the inner city projects.

For a developer it is much cheaper creating suburban crap, as permits are pretty much given away when it comes to the suburban wasteland. How is this promoting inner city development. Profits from suburban development are much higher than inner city development. We some how need to turn this around to make an impact and move from urban sprawl to revitalizing inner city neighbourhoods.

[nick.flood]

Originally Posted by Design-mind

I found out today that Brookfield Residential is pulling out of all its inner city developments. We are seriously considering doing the same. The city has added levies to inner city development, and then there are a lot of extras to the inner city. These extras include buying a property with a house value, asbestos abatement, city levies, demolition permits, shutting off utilities, demolition, fencing, tying back into utilities, framing premiums (framers charge more for inner city) etc etc. We are finding that we are at the million dollar mark just to get the basement poured. That means we have to sell it at a premium, which is above most peoples budget.

Another problem we are up against is getting our buildings through the city. It takes longer to get development permits past, when you are dealing with inner city. We are contending the city on two plots of land that we subdivided into three. We plan on building three single family units rather than two duplexes. The city shot this down, but the community association is all for the development, saying that there are far to many duplexes in their neighbourhood. We have followed all the bylaws, but what i did not know is the city has the power to veto the development even if you meet their guide lines.

I have looked at the development plan that Wooster has come up with, and I quite like the ideals in this plan. Would love to see this plan materialize. My question is how is the city going to revitalize the inner city, without pushing the developers out.

Thoughts...

Which neighbourhood? I recently assisted a colleague complete this in Crescent Heights. Subdivision, DPs and BPs for all 3 single family approved with no trouble.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by Design-mind

My question is how is the city going to revitalize the inner city.

You cannot be serious.

[Design-mind]

Originally Posted by nick.flood

Which neighbourhood? I recently assisted a colleague complete this in Crescent Heights. Subdivision, DPs and BPs for all 3 single family approved with no trouble.

Renfrew. I just can't believe the power the city has to veto projects when the community wants them. The excuse they gave is it wasn't like anything on the block so it won't fit in. We have met all the city requirements, but since we are the first infills on the block we are getting punished.

[Design-mind]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

You cannot be serious.

Yes seriously. I am not talking downtown I am talking places like Tuxedo, Capitol Hill etc. housing starts in these communities are on the decline. It is only properties bought 3 years ago, that any kind of profits can be made.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Design-mind

Yes seriously. I am not talking downtown I am talking places like Tuxedo, Capitol Hill etc. housing starts in these communities are on the decline. It is only properties bought 3 years ago, that any kind of profits can be made.

Does the city ever do blanket rezoning? Example: West LRT around Shaganappi Point Station. Pretty single / duplexes now, but really should be higher than that with such a significant public investment.

I am wondering (without much knowledge on how this all works) if adding additional density benefits would give more incentive for developers to put up with the crap they get from the community associations. If they are going to oppose everything, might as well let the ones get through have more opportunity to profit by packing in additional units.

Probably would vary neighbourhood by neighbourhood based on where the profit exists, but if it is a million dollars just to get in the ground, I would walk to sell more than 3 units to recapture that cost.

[Design-mind]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Probably would vary neighbourhood by neighbourhood based on where the profit exists, but if it is a million dollars just to get in the ground, I would walk to sell more than 3 units to recapture that cost.

Most of these neighbourhood are usually only RC-2. So bigger projects are declined.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Design-mind

The city has added levies to inner city development.


Thoughts...

Why is that unfair? The urbanista's on this forum want to ensure that the existing tax base does not pay for infrastructure upgrades needed to accommodate new (suburban) development. Why should infrastructure improvements for additional population added to mature areas be any different?

In my case, my clients have to pay levies for recreation, water, transportation, drainage, etc. Not just to pay for the cost of servicing their new development, but to ensure that they contribute their proportion for upgrades at existing (and future) facilities to meet the demand of the population they have added.

If my clients have to pay a levie to pay for an expansion to a water reservoir on the other side of town because they will be adding 2,500 people to the municipality, shouldn't an infill developer who is adding population pay the same rate per person?

The goal should be that existing the existing population does not pay the price of growth. Shouldn't matter where that growth comes from.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Design-mind

Most of these neighbourhood are usually only RC-2. So bigger projects are declined.

Hence my blanket rezoning idea.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Design-mind

I found out today that Brookfield Residential is pulling out of all its inner city developments.

...unless your source is the GM of our infill division (who personally asked me to refute your statement as he is busy scoping out vast amounts of potential infill property from the back of a blacked-out inconspicuous van) your info there is pretty inaccurate...so inaccurate in fact that if you PM me with your property details in Renfrew BRPs infill division might be intersted in taking it off your hands....

[Amsterdamned]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

...unless your source is the GM of our infill division (who personally asked me to refute your statement as he is busy scoping out vast amounts of potential infill property from the back of a blacked-out inconspicuous van) your info there is pretty inaccurate...so inaccurate in fact that if you PM me with your property details in Renfrew BRPs infill division might be intersted in taking it off your hands....

This is great.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

...unless your source is the GM of our infill division (who personally asked me to refute your statement as he is busy scoping out vast amounts of potential infill property from the back of a blacked-out inconspicuous van) your info there is pretty inaccurate...so inaccurate in fact that if you PM me with your property details in Renfrew BRPs infill division might be intersted in taking it off your hands....

Was going to refute this as well. I didn't speak to your GM personally, but one of his staff confirmed it.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Design-mind

Renfrew. I just can't believe the power the city has to veto projects when the community wants them. The excuse they gave is it wasn't like anything on the block so it won't fit in. We have met all the city requirements, but since we are the first infills on the block we are getting punished.

Did you consider appealing the refusal? If you met every rule, it should be an open and shut case with SDAB granting you approval.

Also, the only redevelopment levy the city charges is the Centre City levy, in the downtown and beltline. They have been charging this for close to ten years I think.

[Design-mind]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

...unless your source is the GM of our infill division (who personally asked me to refute your statement as he is busy scoping out vast amounts of potential infill property from the back of a blacked-out inconspicuous van) your info there is pretty inaccurate...so inaccurate in fact that if you PM me with your property details in Renfrew BRPs infill division might be intersted in taking it off your hands....

Glad this is not true.

I guess this is our companies first kick at the can for infill, and it just seems like little reward for doing infill. We can make 8% profit on suburban development while only making 2-4% on infill, once all is said and done. It seems quite small considering the money is tied up for two to three years. I think there should be more of an incentive to building inner city, but it seems just the opposite.

Thanks for the info.

[Design-mind]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Did you consider appealing the refusal? If you met every rule, it should be an open and shut case with SDAB granting you approval.

Our company has talked about this but that keeps thing tied up for even longer. We will give the community what they don't want and that is a generic duplex, if this does not pass on the third go. Right now the Renfrew Community Association is working with us to try and get our three single family developments through city hall. Fingers crossed.

I hope our company will keep doing inner city as these projects excited me, but our GM is losing faith quickly.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Design-mind

Glad this is not true.

I guess this is our companies first kick at the can for infill, and it just seems like little reward for doing infill. We can make 8% profit on suburban development while only making 2-4% on infill, once all is said and done. It seems quite small considering the money is tied up for two to three years. I think there should be more of an incentive to building inner city, but it seems just the opposite.

Thanks for the info.

Originally Posted by Design-mind

Our company has talked about this but that keeps thing tied up for even longer. We will give the community what they don't want and that is a generic duplex, if this does not pass on the third go. Right now the Renfrew Community Association is working with us to try and get our three single family developments through city hall. Fingers crossed.

I hope our company will keep doing inner city as these projects excited me, but our GM is losing faith quickly.

I would be digging into the reasons doc you should have gotten, there must be some other reason that it doesn't fit, unless you tried to go excessive height. I suspect there's more here than fit as the city has a pretty loose definition of fit (3 storey homes beside bungalows regularly get approved as discretionary apps in my community).

Also check into the ARP, sounds like you may need to redesignate the lot to an R-CG vs R-C2 as the min lot width for R-C2 is wider that you were going for (25' vs. 20').

As to the costs of doing business in the inner-city there really isn't much the city can do about increasing land costs, though you can explore increased density with the CA (I recommend approaching the CA during the pre-app phase) given the right location they may be supportive of it. While inner city development requires more work I think there are rewards for those that can do it well.

[Spring2008]

Something the city's doing that will encourage more inner city development and increase affordability.

Dual permit review tested in Calgary
035GOVERNMENT

by RUSSELL HIXSON Jan 8, 2015

The City of Calgary is trying out concurrent applications, a new way to move developments through the application process quicker.

Concurrent applications mean the rezoning and development permit are considered at the same time rather than one after the other.

Traditionally, a developer has to go through the entire rezoning process before moving forward with a development permit.

Depending on the size and complexity of the project, each application can take up to six months to get city approval.

According to Joachim Mueller, a senior planner with the city, while the concurrent process is more complex and intensive, it can move a project forward months faster.

However, it requires developers to meet and work with city officials early in the process.

He noted that the city is going through thousands of applications each year and wants to make that traffic goes through smoothly.

"The city is really experiencing significant growth and it is a challenge to make sure that growth can be accommodated," Mueller said.

"The city is actively looking at cutting red tape and making things more transparent and more straight forward."

According to Mueller, concurrent application reduces time and cost developers spend trying to get a project approved.

It also allows city staff to give it a more holistic evaluation.

This reduces the amount of red tape and allows needed housing to be built more quickly, without reducing the amount of input the public gets onto future development.

Mueller said it then becomes easier to work collaboratively with developers and communities on a proposed development, because all aspects of it are being discussed at the same time.

One major recent project that has benefited is the proposed West Village Towers.

It is a large development that city council approved last October.

The project will add 584 much-needed residential units, up to two storeys of commercial uses, and likely an urban supermarket to the west end of Calgary's Downtown.

Using the concurrent process, the application took half the time.

Typically, a rezoning can take up to six months to be approved, with the development permit taking another six months after that.

They were able to complete both of these approvals with the West Village Towers in just more than six months. But, taking less time is not the only thing concurrent applications accomplish.

"To enable that scale of development, a land use redesignation was needed," Mueller said. "The developer came to the city very early on. We were able to give them guidance early on. By combining the two processes, we did save them numerous months."

Concurrent applications are just one part of Transforming Planning, a city initiative to change Calgary's planning system.

One of the biggest changes to come from it was a complete reorganization of the department that happened last May.

"It now enables a planner to accompany a project from the very beginning," Mueller said.

"It's a more cohesive structure. It enables us to see if a policy has the desired effect."

http://www.journalofcommerce.com/Gov...ment-1005003W/