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

[Beltliner]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

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:

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!

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Beltliner

The revised drafts of the Plan It Calgary docs are now online!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

^^^ 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!

[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....

[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/Ca...232/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

[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.