Here is a post long-weekend philosophy question, should the contextual rules, as we currently know them, continue to apply in the developed areas? Note that the zoning bylaw lacks a clear definition of ‘contextual’ on its own, I looked for one. It does refer to ‘contextual’ frequently in terms of height and front setbacks, but excludes architectural style. So contextual as we know it in Calgary applies much less to the design of the building than its placement and roof height (and shape to some extent).
In the classic grid communities, mainly within the rc2 or rc1 zone, bungalows were built in the centre of the plot, meaning smallish back yards and large front lawns. When building today, we tend to want the opposite. That is small front setbacks and larger backyards and more space between the house and lane accessed garage. I vastly prefer the streetscape with homes brought toward the sidewalk, and keep in mind the city usually retains ownership of the first 1-2 meters of space between the sidewalk and the private property line. This further accentuates front setbacks.
This was all decided when land was cheap and plentiful in new suburbs close the city core. Now we have the opposite situation, land is scarce and costly, often priced at $10k per ft of frontage or $100 per square ft of dirt (and up), this is expensive but far less than other Canadian cities. I have had prior infill work negatively impacted by having to setback a new semi detached home adjacent to a very tiny and old house that was in poor condition. End result was the contextual rules led to the new house being set back well into the site and the front lawn was larger than the rear, it appeared that the hose was built in the wrong spot to the eventual buyers, and it created more shade in the property next door.
I would prefer less regulation of new building, and some small modifications to how we do contextual planning. If a new build is to be built beside a very old home with little to no economic value (note some old houses have a negative value of land value minus the cost to remediate and remove), it does not make sense to retain historic setback patterns. For example the old house next door that forces new building to be further set back than optimal could be demolished itself a year or two later, perpetuating a new generation of building with all of the new builds also set back too far. This is just entrenching malinvestment for the next hundred years and undermines the vast amount of work that it takes to rebuild a street one house at a time.
Some rule changes were made on corner lots in RCG type row house builds where the setback issue was even more acute - buildings pushed right up against the garage), yet these would have a large and unused green space at the street not even designed as an outdoor amenity. This was a smart policy move because it gave a lot of numerical guidance of how much a row house project could be pulled to the street. It will also be interesting to see what the upcoming guidebook for great communities has to say about contextual setback.
In multifamily areas undergoing a transition to redevelopment, having any kind of contextual rules is basically impossible. If there was a rigid adherence to contextual rules then nothing could ever be built, and that is an outcome clearly nobody wants. In my view, a mixture of built forms in the inner city it totally appropriate. Walk up flats (almost missing in our infill areas), townhomes, semi’s, and singles can all peacefully coexist. This is a benefit of the new guidebook, it seems to recognize that a homogenous enclave of single detached homes with rigid zoning results in homes that can only be replaced by bigger and more expensive single homes. There is no better way to achieve segregation by economic class within a city than by perpetuating that cycle of only allowing more and more exclusive homes to occupy the lands with the greatest locational appeal (and value). The current trend of nominating mainstreets for city led land use change, and now local area plans (bundling a group of communities together to remove the dated ARP review cycle) has been to me, thus far, continued the trend of ‘ring fencing’ the ‘desirable’ centres of our communities with peripheral density. My objective is to see community built around a vibrant centre, not from the outside in.
here is an extreme example of two buildings with little contextual relationship