Are single-family homes headed to extinction?
New growth guidelines pointing in that direction, Chris Davis writes.
Two years ago Calgary city council considered a major citywide land-use amendment allowing secondary suites in all low-density residential land use districts. I expressed a public concern at that time that this decision failed to fully consider the implications of this decision. There is another initiative before a council committee on Thursday that, with respect to single-family communities, could be characterized as “piling on.”
Since 2018, secondary suite approvals have continued as a trend. Based on the number of appeals (26 in 2018 to 39 in 2019), there has not been a flood of new applications. What has increased, however, is the number of row houses. These are most often seen on block corners in older communities (established pre-1960s) and typically provide for four dwellings, side by side, where only one existed before. Although adding to community housing choices, typical complaints about these structures are that they significantly add to the parking spillover in the surrounding streets and offer minimal outdoor space for the owners and residents.
On Wednesday, a similar change with potentially broad implications was before council’s committee on planning and urban development. City staff were presenting a new Guidebook for Great Communities where city staff are “planning communities in Calgary so they offer more housing, shops, and service choices for the people who live, work and visit them.” As stated by the city, “when a community provides more opportunities, people can live in their neighbourhood regardless of age, income or stage in life.”
A significant concern has been raised by several communities that are predominantly traditional single-family/single-detached dwelling communities that this document may be a further step toward the extinction of the traditional single-family home. The guidebook is a template for the future development and growth of Calgary, based on many of the aspirations in the 2009 Municipal Development
Plan. It discusses things like varied, inclusive and equitable housing options; access to amenities; varied and inclusive spaces; and protection of natural areas. Other things like trying to make better use of our existing infrastructure. If approved, the guidebook will be the foundation for new local community plans and, in the not distant future, a new land-use bylaw.
What should concern residents of low-density communities like Elboya-britannia, Mayfair Bel-aire, Banff Trail, Cambrian Heights and Rutland Park is that the guidelines introduce the concept of an urban form classification system, which has, as its lowest density area, a homogeneous “neighbourhood housing local” district. This district will accommodate not only single-detached dwellings but also all the remaining built forms that the city considers to be low-density residential: semi-detached (side by side), duplex (up-down), row houses, townhouses and mixed-use buildings. While such dwellings are within the city’s definition of low-density “typology,” they are not considered as part of the conventional single-family community mix.
However, residents of the above-mentioned communities and many others developed in Calgary prior to the advent of more robust planning laws, have available a tool that some at city hall incorrectly believe is redundant and unnecessary. They are private development controls, often referred to as “restrictive covenants.” These legal documents were registered on title to every home in the subject community as they were developed (often with the city as the developer) and laid out rules about how homes must be developed. They typically limit the form of home to the “single-family” type. They constitute an agreement between each member of the community and can be enforced through court application, if necessary. They continue to be viable legal planning instruments affecting the current and future development of these low-density residential parts of Calgary.
I expect that those preparing the guidebook did not intend to foster legal action between communities and their residents, but this will likely be the result if the future planning documents flowing from the guidebook do not fully consider and recognize the continued application of such private planning instruments.
It would be a thoughtful recognition by the city to continue to have a land-use “typology” in new planning documents that mirrors the private development controls that still apply in these “covenant communities.” These are not archaic legal tools; they remain viable planning tools, in this case however belonging to the community and its residents and not to city hall.
The council committee hearing on Wednesday was just the first of a long series of steps to be taken in setting new parameters for Calgary’s future growth and development. In moving toward that future, it is equally respectful, pragmatic and progressive to recognize the existing private covenants within our shiny new municipal planning documents.
The small steps taken at the committee meeting will give us further clarity on whether we are choosing a future Calgary where it’s OK to embrace the status quo; where we can proudly say city hall’s future direction was both considerate of, and adaptive to, the concerns of its existing communities and residents.
Chris Davis is a longtime Calgary municipal and planning lawyer currently working in
Fort Mcmurray.