Are We Building the Right Types of Housing?
by Melanie Swailes on behalf of the Development and Transportation Committee
Whenever I’m driving down 24 Avenue or 19 Street in Banff Trail, the number of new developments going up where older houses once stood always amazes me. Many are R-CG (rowhouse or townhouse) buildings, often with four or more units on a property, plus the same number of suites. Since August, the City has received about 190 R-CG applications, with the majority in established communities.
Why are these R-CGs concentrated in inner city areas? Primarily because of the large lot sizes (often 50 feet wide), as well as the age of the existing houses, which may be in need of repair or updating. An older house which can be bought cheaper is attractive to a developer to build an R-CG.
Newer R-CGs are a significant change from older, mostly bungalow neighbourhoods. Consider the “built form” – the look and physical shape of the building. Increasingly, the newer R-CGs being built are three storeys, instead of one or two, and rooftop decks are becoming more common. R-CG bylaws allow a building height of 11 meters (36 feet), resulting in a loss of sunlight for the neighbours. R-CG buildings can take up 60% of the lot (compared to 45% for single-family houses), not including protrusions such as bump-outs, stairs, cement sidewalks, or garbage and bike storage. This doesn’t leave much room for trees or landscaping.
Are R-CGs the best housing form to build? In my opinion, there are too many shortfalls. In order to construct a three-storey building with nine- or ten-foot ceiling heights, the number of internal stairs increases. I toured one new R-CG townhouse that had 33 steps from the main floor kitchen to the rooftop deck: not very suitable for anyone with mobility issues, or for families with young children. Each main unit in the R-CG is usually about 1,100 to 1,600 square feet above grade, but much of the space within the homes is taken up by stairs, plus space for utility items (washer and dryer, furnace, water heater) since there is usually a separate basement suite. The basement suites are mostly underground with little natural light, and external cement stairs for access (not ideal in slippery winter conditions). Will these be long-term homes or only stepping points along the way? Aging in place does not seem likely. What about Universal Design guidelines or climate measures such as energy efficiency? With higher ceilings, there is a lot of cubic footage of unusable airspace that has to be heated in winter. Imagine the air conditioning costs to try to cool down third floor bedrooms in the summer, especially when there are no large trees to provide any shade.
The R-CG zoning does succeed in building more units on a property: often the older main house had a basement suite, so the net gain is six dwelling units. The big question is whether these are affordable. Blanket rezoning was initially proposed as part of the City’s Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF), under the premise that increasing housing supply would raise vacancy rates and decrease the cost of buying or renting. Even if the new dwellings being built are expensive, as people move there would be a trickle-down effect, freeing up less-expensive units. This premise of course ignores the likelihood that the remaining less-expensive units will themselves become prime candidates for pricier new developments.
There really is no market incentive for developers to build small or “cheaper”. The new R-CGs do not seem to be “starter” homes: the price for each townhouse is generally at least as high as the entire original house and property. Expecting developers and builders to provide low-cost, affordable housing is unrealistic unless there is an incentive to do so. Simply building more houses doesn’t ensure prices will drop.
As an example, consider Vancouver. Patrick Condon, in his 2024 book Broken City, points out that between 1970 and 2020, Vancouver tripled the number of homes built within its limits, while the population increased by “only” 70%, yet as we all know, Vancouver prices have not come down. In the 2024 Strong Towns book Escaping the Housing Trap, the author advocates that “no neighbourhood can be exempt from change” but also that “no neighbourhood should experience radical change”. The Strong Towns movement considers the “next increment of development intensity” and defines this as, “As a rule of thumb, for a neighbourhood of single-family homes, the next increment must include duplexes and backyard cottages”. Arguably, in Calgary, going from a single-family house to eight units in an R-CG lies outside of the scope of sensitive or contextual redevelopment.
Maybe the solution lies in “gentler” densification. Instead of eight units on a lot, allow for the lot to be subdivided into two properties with “skinny” infills, or allow for duplexes. With secondary suites, this would mean four units on a lot instead of eight. Allow for the residents to have some yard space, instead of cramming as much as possible onto a property. Ensure that housing is sensitive and contextual to what is already there, as is already mandated in the Municipal Development Plan and the Infill Guidelines.
We need more housing, but it has to respect and fit in with what already exists in each community. What would you like to see? How do you think redevelopment in Brentwood should be undertaken? Patrick Condon put it best when he wrote, “we must move beyond the blame game that pits so-called NIMBYs against YIMBYs and frames local democracy as an obstacle to progress. Local residents and their elected officials are not enemies of affordability; they are essential partners in crafting sustainable, inclusive urban policies.”
If you would like to join our Community Association, you are always welcome to do so. Contact the office at [email protected] or at 403-284-3477.
Click here to the Brentwood Community News home page for the latest Brentwood community updates.
