What Did You Think Blanket Rezoning Was Going to Achieve?
by Melanie Swailes on behalf of the Development and Transportation Committee
Everyone I ask usually answers something like “more affordable housing.†But “more†and “affordable†are two different things: Calgary leads the country in new builds and continues to expand far out into new greenfield areas.1 What we’re missing are the right kind of homes. The R-CG zoning allows up to 3-storey “skinny†rowhouses with basement suites, usually 4 + 4 (4 main units plus 4 basement suites) on a lot, and even 5 + 5 if the lot is larger. Do those work for you?
Maybe you’re a senior wishing to downsize: are you going to move to a 3-storey unit? Maybe you’re a student looking for affordable housing: likely you’ll have to share a 2- or 3-bedroom basement suite, with only window wells for a view. Or you’re a couple with young kids: will a 3-storey model work for you, especially when the price for each unit is higher than the house that previously stood on the property? If the answer to these questions is no, then perhaps the current “built form†of our R-CG buildings isn’t the best model to use. The “built form†describes “what a building looks like, how tall it is, how much land it takes up, how far it is set back from the sidewalk and the street, and how it relates to the other buildings and open spaces around itâ€2.
How important is it for you to have a separate front door versus a shared entry? What if it meant you could have a dwelling that was all on one level? Or a bit more square footage instead of staircases? What about a building that had a raised basement with large windows, and then 2 more storeys, making it lower than some of the 11-meter-high R-CGs? What if each storey only had 2 units on it, for a total of 6 units (not 8)? The basements could have large above-ground windows (instead of wells), the other 2 floors would require using the stairs, but once you are in your unit, you don’t have to continually go up and down. Under the current zoning in Calgary, this isn’t a model that is being built. But could it work?
In Victoria, BC, a relative of mine lived in an older house which had been converted into 4 units. From the street, it just looked like a typical house on the street; inside, there was one common entry area with an open, wide set of stairs to the upper 2 units. Each tenant had a parking spot, the landscaping included large trees and flowers, and any lucky tenant stayed long-term. Compare that to some of the R-CGs in NW Calgary, ones in which all the trees get cut down, only to be replaced by a “stick tree†or two, with a handful of shrubs thrown in. One multi-unit application received in Brentwood required 12 shrubs in total, so the plans included 12 Saskatoon Berry shrubs, placed haphazardly throughout the lawn. That’s not a “landscape planâ€, it is prescriptive adherence to a requirement without thought or care.
In Calgary, in the quest to densify in established areas, the most profit lies in putting 4 + 4 separate housing units onto what was a single house, and the lack of context or sensitivity to the existing area can be abrupt and jarring. I recently read a great article from Strong Towns (an American non-profit organization which “inspires people to take the future of their neighbourhoods, towns and cities into their own hands) entitled “We Can Have Both More Housing and Good Urban Formâ€3
“If we want more density, the density we permit can’t look like a foreign invader. It needs to blend with the neighbourhood. […] It’s both reasonable and not at all difficult to require what is built here to look like a house instead of a bulk storage unit.â€4
Strong Towns advocates for designs that resemble large single-family homes, foster walkability, and do not disrupt the neighbourhood’s existing character. In the 2024 Strong Towns book “Escaping the Housing Trapâ€, author Charles Marohn advocates for the “next increment of development intensityâ€, meaning that: “As a rule of thumb, for a neighbourhood of single-family homes, the next increment must include duplexes and backyard cottagesâ€. Arguably, in Calgary, going from a single-family house to 8 units in an R-CG lies outside of the scope of sensitive or contextual redevelopment. A developer in a brand-new community will never place a large four-plex plus 4 suites directly next to a single-family home, so why is this supposed to be good for an established community?
“Missing Middle†housing was supposed to be about a gradual progression of density that blends seamlessly into a mature community, but instead, some of the recent DP examples I’ve seen feel exactly like the “foreign invader†that Marohn describes. Urban planning should be about asking “does this make sense?†but also adding, “… in this location?†Every community has its own appeal and nuances which a blanket approach can never capture.
On March 23, the Public Hearing for a potential Blanket Rezoning Appeal begins. Consider that maybe it shouldn’t be only a “yes / no†decision, but rather also include changes to the built form – changes that respect existing houses and don’t allow for a new development to overshadow and dwarf the homes next door. Look at other communities around us which have already undergone massive changes. Please speak out and let Council know what you like or don’t like.
References:
1 https://calgaryherald.com/life/homes/white-calgarys-building-boom-leads-the-country-in-2025
3 https://www.strongtowns.org/about
4 https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/3/31/we-can-have-both-more-housing-and-good-urban-form
Click here to the Brentwood Community News home page for the latest Brentwood community updates.
