Despite the recent election bringing fresh faces to Calgary City Hall, the first public hearing of the new council felt strikingly familiar to observers hoping for change in how residential development is handled.
Deja Vu at City Hall
Journalist Jessica Rogers attended her first public hearing since the election, expecting to witness new approaches to residential development after the issue dominated campaign discussions. Instead, she observed processes that closely mirrored previous council practices.
Rogers was advocating for her retired uncle, a 35-year resident of Ramsay, concerning a proposed row house on an adjacent corner lot that required a land-use amendment. The hearing revealed what she described as a systematic approach where city planners frequently recommend individual amendments without meaningful community engagement.
Contrasting Planning Approaches
The current process appears to prioritize working with applicants to secure approval rather than addressing concerns of directly affected neighbors. This marks a significant shift from Rogers' experience twelve years earlier when she needed approval for an attached front garage.
Most proposed amendments that day, including a 12-storey building in Bankview, aligned with existing Local Area Plans (LAPs) and progressed with minimal opposition. However, the Ramsay property in question falls under a longstanding Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP) that doesn't permit the type of row house being proposed.
Critical Moment for Historic Community
Ramsay stands at a pivotal juncture as one of Calgary's most historic and character-rich neighborhoods. The community anticipates major changes including the incoming Green Line LRT, clearance of outdated industrial parcels, and significant infrastructure investments.
This presents a rare opportunity to balance preservation of historic character with meeting Calgary's housing needs. Both residents and local businesses hope to avoid repeating the planning challenges that have affected areas like Marda Loop.
The Ramsay ARP is scheduled for replacement by the Historic Communities LAP, which should provide community input into long-term neighborhood vision. Rogers argued that decisions about appropriate land use should emerge from this comprehensive process rather than through site-specific amendments that pre-empt the LAP's conclusions.
Her request to council was straightforward: defer the amendment decision until the new LAP is finalized. Approving ARP amendments now, she contended, undermines the coordinated planning and community engagement that councillors repeatedly emphasized throughout their election campaigns.
