Within the year, shovels will hit the ground in the largest residential development project Calgary has ever seen. Keystone Hills will consist of 15 neighborhoods, housing 60,000 people and employing 18,000 on 1,000 hectares of land in the city’s far north. The community will be situated along Stoney Trail to its south and bounded by 160th Avenue N and 14th Street N.W. on its north and west edges.
Currently, this is only an Area Structure Plan (ASP), which in itself is not new. ASPs are how the city releases land to housing developers without the risk of a jumbled free-for-all. Tuscany, Seton, Cranston — they were all planned to some degree by the city in conjunction with the companies that ultimately built there.
Keystone Hills is both the largest development and the first to be proposed since the city wrote its current Municipal Development Plan in 2007, which sought to change the way Calgary grows. The 60-year strategy calls for sustainable, dense communities, focused on a variety of transport modes, unlike the expansive auto-centric communities of Calgary’s past. City administration is trying to curb the sprawl that made Calgary a 725 square-kilometre metropolis of only 1.1 million people.
“One thing we have struggled with in Calgary is trying to get sort of more compact development,” says John Hall, Keystone Project Manager for city. “I’m sure people in the ’70s thought they were doing things better than in the ’60s and ’50s. So there’s always sort of an evolution of the mindset in planning; moving forward. But certainly we do think we’re on a better path.”
The city’s goal is to fit a minimum of 20 homes per hectare in Keystone Hills, with more in the high-density “major activity centre” intended to be the area’s focal point. If it sounds like city administrators want to cram people into housing projects, Hall says Calgarians needn’t fear; the density will be similar to other parts of the city.
“Compared to a lot of other North American cities, especially in the western part of North America, Calgary’s densities aren’t actually that low.... If you look at somewhere like Denver, for example, a lot of their suburban areas are hitting five units per acre and we’re quite a bit ahead of that. So we think that the density we’re requiring in Keystone is actually quite easily attainable,” says Hall.
Keystone is only the first stage in an enormous enterprise called the North Regional Context Study, which will house approximately 220,000 Calgarians and be the workplace for 68,000 by 2035.
Calgary will need it. City planners believe the city will continue to swell, hitting 2.5 million by around 2060. Housing strategies such as secondary suites and denser inner-city condominium projects will not be enough to accommodate people even in the near future. Land availability is also tight, leaving the city with little choice but to open land for development on its northern fringe. The North Regional Context Study encompasses 5,700 hectares of land from Country Hills north to Nose Creek, and extending west to Highway 566.
Asad Niazi, the senior community planning manager for Walton Development, says developments in Calgary’s far south and west, such as Seton, are already nearly full. Because of that, investors and home-buyers are already looking elsewhere for a new place to build.
The Keystone ASP has seen constant negotiation between developers, the area’s landowner group and the Calgary Planning and Development Commission, and repeatedly reappeared for debate in council. At this point, the changes to the ASP seem mundane. Niazi says debating the small stuff is necessary because developers need clarity as the city pushes its vision.
“We have new documents all over the place,” says Niazi, explaining that while his company agrees with the MDP in principle, it won’t build without knowing what that vision means in practical terms.
Dennis Doherty is the president of Pacific Investments, another developer that “absolutely” wants a piece of Keystone Hills, but that is also forcing the city to translate its vision.
“Everybody knows that when you develop a piece of land you want to know what will be in your backyard,” he says.
While bureaucrats and businessmen hash out the fine points, Hall admits Keystone Hills has even more unwieldy problems. Most importantly, there is no money in the capital budget to service the area. Roads, sewers and the LRT line that will suck up $154 million of the community’s $282 million infrastructure costs are still not guaranteed.
“In order for any development to proceed, [infrastructure costs must] be identified in a future capital budget, which certainly is a possibility. Or, alternately, developers would have to find an alternative scenario which would allow services to extend into plans without the city having to pay for them.... It’s a real issue and it’s not an issue exclusive to this part of the city,” says Hall.
Along with infrastructure headaches, Hall says the city can’t compel anyone to live according to its ideals. On paper, the heart of Keystone Hills is the major activity centre. This area will contain a major LRT hub, as well as a much higher residential density and small-scale businesses as opposed to big box stores and the associated acres of parking lots, all within easy walking and cycling distance of each other.
Yet, says Hall, “we certainly can’t force people to work in a certain place, or force businesses to locate in a certain place.” In order to make the MDP happen, the city can only “encourage” people to follow its plans by strategically locating transit routes, requiring developers to only build on more pedestrian and traffic-friendly grid street networks, instead of the confusing curvilinear designs that characterize the past 30 years of construction, and even negotiating incentives for developers in exchange for the kind of neighborhoods the city believes are best.
Developers, such as Niazi, say they are on board with the city’s vision, but they are determined not to move ahead before that vision is clear.
“I keep telling the landowners and also the city: I hope there’s no bruises or anything like that at the end,” he says.


Comments: 19
skcirtap wrote:
on Jul 26th, 2012 at 2:06pm Report Abuse
Suzy Thompson wrote:
page 33 (6.5.1) of the Proposed Keystone Hills Area Structure Plan
(http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.calgary.ca%2fPDA%2fLUPP%2fDocuments%2fPublications%2fkeystone-hills-asp.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1)
Gotcha
on Jul 26th, 2012 at 4:07pm Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
Remember that the presence of Nose Hill Park and Fish Creek Park within Calgary's boundaries skews these stats. And Urbanists have to quit flogging places like Manhattan as anti-sprawl exemplars: most of the people working and shopping in Manhattan actually live in the (suburban) outer boroughs, suburban Long Island, suburban New Jersey, etc. Nor is the European model accurate, as European cities sprawl massively beyond the inner cities where Urbanists make their pilgrimages.
There is NOTHING 'sustainable' about allowing Calgary's metro population to keep growing. The limiting factor is still Southern Alberta's water supply, which is already dangerously overtaxed. Simply put, it is population and NOT density which determines water consumption. Again, ther is no such a thing as 'sustainable growth.'
And Calgarians, Albertans, and Canadians in general have to quit ignoring the elephant in the room: the annual immigration intake. Every year, over 280,000 permanent immigrants and well over 300,000 'temporary' migrants settle in Canadian cities. Look at the demographics of newer communities for a politically incorrect reality check. Until we stand up to the financial-real estate lobbies and severely reduce immigration rates, talk of 'sustainability' is pretty pointless.
on Jul 30th, 2012 at 3:30pm Report Abuse
Clairvoyant wrote:
Soon Council may discover that limiting the construction of parking spaces leads to a shortage of parking spaces. And Council may even discover that putting homes closer together increases fire spread.
"The City's goal is to fit a minimum of 20 homes per hectare" Who is "the City"? The citizens are no longer the City. Most of the people who will live in Keystone would prefer less density, larger lots, similar to the neighbourhoods of the 50s & 60s, but they will not be allowed that choice. Nenshi & Farrell & Carra & the central planners are now "the City". We the citizens are now just obedient sheep.
on Jul 30th, 2012 at 11:37pm Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
Look at the Covewood Park fire, this week. The combination of dangerous materials and construction techniques (used by ALL developers, today, with the blessings of the Province) and density is a perfect firestorm. And this is a compelling reason for residents of established Calgary communities to keep infills out of their neighborhoods. This means calling out the naked influence peddling of Councillors like Druh Farrell, who receive large donations from these developers (e.g., Knightsbridge Homes).
Again, the greenies have to get their heads out of the sand, and admit that there is no such thing as 'sustainable growth.' Even if new developments are packed as dense as Manhattan or Tokyo (and people actually move into them), this won't solve the water issue. To repeat: given Southern Alberta's water supply, Calgary's population can NOT grow much beyond current levels. And the underlying problem is the utterly unsustainable immigration intake, which is something that needs to be addressed at the Federal level. The whole PlanItoid greenwash is nothing more than a ploy to deflect attention from the root cause.
on Jul 31st, 2012 at 3:39pm Report Abuse
cradle_to_cradle wrote:
Someone asked who is "the city"...
Well I ask who in this day and age is "the people"? and did "the people ever run this town and shape its development or has it been the same gang of golf club cronies for the last say 60 years at least.
Alberta's water supply issue is the number one factor limiting Calgary's growth, but I would suggest that there are many factors including what are we going to do with our waste? Ever visited a landfill? Ive been a carpenter for ten years and have had to visit our landfills frequently over as many years and they never get smaller.
If the landfill is number 2 then transportation is number three. And we will never solve the inefficiency of our transportation by building more roads, or adding more busses to put on the newly added roads. The only solution is to stop building new communities with master plans devised by government and industry. Just stop. The real solution to the slough of bad urban planning in this city is to allow Calgary's pre-existing world class infrastructure to shine. This can be done by building up along the major highway infrastructure and the C-train LRT. The entire Macleod Trail corridor could handle a large number of mid quality units fit for students and middle and high income earners. And more than enough space for low income.
Calgary does not have concrete canyons Ive said this before. You have never seen The housing projects of major cities around the world nor have you walked among the monolithic skyscrapers which seem to stretch far and wide. Calgary's down town is modest and our condo/apartment market is limited. I believe the market is influenced to keep vacancy rates low (not a bad thing) and for the benefit of pre-existing land owners, the major homes manufactures, land developers not to mention the folks in charge of building out the infrastructure (the city) and the subsequent big box stores and international franchises that gleefully take first bid on the real estate.
You are right to say that "urbanists" who are more like urbanite hipster types or new age green propaganda warriors types who are naive to how a actual city (and the world for that matter) functions. Most dont understand that density is not the all and end all in Urban planning. Mixed density is the only way to go. With the end goal being that of increasing the happiness of each human life. And in this day and age the only way to continue progressing in this way is to make the delivery of goods and services more and more efficient. This include water and the removal of waste!
In our climate and with modern building techniques Condos and multifamily mid density development is the absolute best way to do this. It is simply easier and more efficient to heat 60 units and provide services to those units when grouped than it is to heat 60 units all standing individually. Not to mention the benefits to the near by business.
Tokyo and Manhattan are at the center of very old and very developed mega cities which have absolutely developed through the ups and downs of the last century. These mega cities simply cannot be compared to Calgary. The taxes brought in by those jurisdictions are massive and allow for major urban planning and development to occur. Nevermind that Manhattan in the 80's was a mess and no doubt modern Tokyo most likely has some dodgy nooks that no foreigner would care to venture.
A very good point about Nose Hill and Fish Creek Park. Lets not forget also about the many Lake communities and Golf course communities that also take up substantial amounts of land.
Urban issues are of the utmost importance in this the 21st century and if we are to continue to progress into the future we will have to bring together a diverse range people from society to find some common understanding of what makes a great city. And more important than greatness a livable one.
on Jul 31st, 2012 at 8:17pm Report Abuse
Urban_avenger wrote:
The only thing that matters is remaining competitive in a global market and being able to attract workers to your city so that employers and business can continue to make money and pay taxes. If the people who would do such things spend all there income on inefficient development and housing models then the whole market gets dragged down.
The city of the future the city that makes it to the 22nd century will be the one that streamlines the delivery of goods and service and collectively makes its jurisdiction the most efficient and therefore affordable to live and do business. This being done its citizens and its civic institutions and private enterprises will be the wealthiest and happiest in the land of humans.
think and then do...
on Jul 31st, 2012 at 8:46pm Report Abuse
officematt2002 wrote:
Besides that funny how they are creating more sprawl for the sake of showing they are anti-sprawl. Joke.
on Jul 31st, 2012 at 10:31pm Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
Actually, the dirty secret is that the construction industry is responsible for HALF of the non-recyclable waste going to landfills. Build more stuff--including 'dense, walkable communities'--and you generate more waste. Much of that ILLEGALLY-DUMPED material which burned on that Tsuu T'ina landfill and stunk up the South was (surprise! irony!) scrap from developments in the area. The City barely enforces compliance with things like development, or building permits--they don't bother with illegal dumping, either.
And, of course, more residents generate more non-recyclable waste...as well as recyclable waste which there isn't a market for (e.g., coloured glass). More people also means more poop, etc., which increases costs for very expensive waste treatment infrastructure. Not to mention rec facilities, police and fire (including specialized equipment for high-rise fires), and so forth. Packing people into tenements like sardines doesn't save much money on these kinds of infrastructure, which are population dependent. But the Urbanists won't wrap their heads around the politically incorrect fact that population growth is the underlying problem, and the banks, REITs, and developers own governments.
on Aug 1st, 2012 at 2:35pm Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
That's another thing about the smart-growthers' agenda: the war on public and private greenspaces. Look at Shawnee Slopes and Highland Park, which the PlanIt Calgary civic government has given the blessing to infill. And it irritates the Farrells and Carras of Council that people actually have private yards, which these people want to see replaced with yardless chipboard firetrap infills, built by their campaign donors. Calgary's Urbanist land use policies have also liquidated the hobby farms and small acreages that used to dot the city. And high density redevelopment obliterated entire historic, detached home communities, in places like Eau Claire. Since our City Council openly admires the urban planning policies of third world cities like Bogota, or New Delhi, this is what they want Calgary to look like:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7010/6629188551_7d749247d0_z.jpg
on Aug 1st, 2012 at 2:49pm Report Abuse
Urban_avenger wrote:
The skinny and tall infills of sunnyside and marda loop arent the best way to go I agree. Its got everything to do with maximizing square footage and therefore private living space and good for the government property taxes.
Population growth is inevitable and if your a humanist and believe in the betterment of mankind and those you love we cant solve the population\immigration issue. All we can do is strive to build the best possible environments to live work and play in.
What is the spice of life? Variety... variety and choice is what will provide the best chance at creating these kinds of environments for people. To create master plans based on one type of housing creates very poor places for people to live.
Landfill waste is generated by everyone!!!! it is absolutely insane how much stuff goes into our landfills! your right the construction industry contributes a huge amount of waste. But seriously what creates more waste... 100 detached houses or 100 units of the same square footage in a multifamily complex. I guarantee that the detached houses create far far more waste.
Waste is a people problem. Not so much a urban planning problem. Same with water. And I wonder who uses the most water? And who throws out the most garbage?
Urban Planning to me is more about quality of life and how quality of life is tied to the delivery or accessibility of goods and services. Time is our greatest commodity. Maximizing our time should be the focus... what do we have to do that will maximize or time and decrease the seemingly mundane inefficiencies of our lives.
Do you realize that both New Delhi has 13 million people living in the metro area and Bogota has over 8 million!!
There is a massive massive difference between 8 to 13 million people and 1 million. We are extremely fortunate to live somewhere that has such an incredibly low population and population density.
Calgary will turn out fine. Its realestate prices that im interested in. Over the next 10, 15 and 30 years which communities will be the winners and which will be the losers.
on Aug 1st, 2012 at 9:58pm Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
Canada's 'native' birthrate is only responsible for less than 30% of our population growth. And Canada's insanely high immigration intake (last year: 280,000 permanent immigrants, plus over 300,000 'temporary' migrants) is NOT inevitable. This was the deliberate work of government policy, with the 250,000+ annual 'target' introduced by the Mulroney government after massive lobbying from the financial-real estate sector. This issue was 'created' by fiat, and can be solved by the same.
"Variety... variety and choice is what will provide the best chance at creating these kinds of environments for people."
Except that consumer choice is really not involved in these Urbanist utopias. Actual condo occupancy rates (as opposed to largely foreign investment) reflect this. There is a serious mismatch between condo construction and actual occupancy, and even the banks are concerned about this. What we're seeing is a high-density bubble, with an Urbanist/'sustainable-growth' veneer, of this sort:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPILhiTJv7E
"Landfill waste is generated by everyone!!!!"
Again, HALF of non-recyclable waste is generated by the construction industry, and demolishing perfectly good bungalows for infill and condo redevelopment isn't helping. Nor is filling up the city with more residents, who produce more (surprise!) waste.
"Same with water."
Again, a POPULATION-driven demand. Cramming a few more hundreds of thousands of people into tenement housing won't make them drink, bathe, and poop less.
"We are extremely fortunate to live somewhere that has such an incredibly low population and population density."
Yes--and let's keep it this way: limit immigration to sane levels and freeze development, and urban sprawl, or unsustainable water consumption and landfill use won't be issues.
"Urban Planning to me is more about quality of life..."
Actually, urban planning is about which developer kicked how much dough into whose campaign kitty. University City and Louise Station? Knightsbridge Homes and the LaCaille Group donated thousands to the Druh Farrell Campaign. Infilling the Shawnee Slopes golf course? Naheed Nenshi got one of his largest donations from Geo-Energy. Urban planning is about enriching campaign donors, rather than community needs. Until we have a Federal-style ban on business donations to municipal candidates, this will go on.
on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 1:38pm Report Abuse
dog dog wrote:
Uh, erm... Both cities are very, very old. Far older than a century.
Hey, did you watch Gangs of New York? Did you know that some historians derided the film because it didn't accurately portray the life of the Five Points, because it wasn't violent enough?
"have you ever been through elbow park to marda loop to bankview to the beltline?? that bike ride is one of the best through 4 distinct communities. Each community having its own mix of detached, 4 to 6 unit buildings, and 30 to 60 unit buildings. They also have some of the highest realestate values in the city. "
Yeah, no shit Sherlock. It's high because really rich people live there, because they can afford to. What the hell is your point?
on Aug 6th, 2012 at 5:48pm Report Abuse
dog dog wrote:
Also, "inner city" neighbourhoods like Elbow Park are around 5 houses/hectare.
If you want density, kill the rich people, destroy their houses and build there.
on Aug 6th, 2012 at 5:54pm Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
With comments like that (actually, illegal under the Criminal Code), little wonder people are afraid of socialists.
Again, the only real solution to urban sprawl and other environmental issues is a severe reduction in Canada's immigration intake, coupled with Provincial caps on development. The banks, REITs, developers, and construction companies were actually the ones who lobbied for Canada's quarter million plus annual immigration 'target,' in the first place. And the sky-high real estate prices in high-density communities, like Marda Loop and Eau Claire, have more to do with a foreign speculative bubble than actual residential demand. There has actually been a substantial contraction in the condo market in the last few months, so the bubble has begun to pop. And the freeze on investors' visas will likely accelerate this.
on Aug 7th, 2012 at 4:15pm Report Abuse
dog dog wrote:
Their other choice is to have the city expropriate the property at a cost of a few billion dollars and a few years' worth of time.
That's the problem with urban twits - they don't have a solution to their made up problem.
on Aug 9th, 2012 at 11:48am Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
Even absent a formal property rights clause in the Charter, a la the U.S. Forth Amendment, no court in Canada would allow a Kelo v City of New London-style expropriation for private redevelopment. Such a thing was actually proposed in Delta BC, but the backlash was so severe that people who advocated it ran with their tails between their legs. To reiterate: PROPERTY CAN _NOT_ BE EXPROPRIATED FOR PRIVATE USE--there has to be some public good, like a roadway, or other infrastructure. The Mirabelle Airport, in the Turdeau years, was an infamous example of this. Even farmers and ranchers whose land gets gobbled up into annexations can not be forced by cities to desist from farming, or ranching, and be forced to sell their properties--they do it themselves, to make a buck.
Expropriating properties--or murdering property owners--may be the wet dream of urbanist-socialists and Donald Trump-type developer scumbags alike, but is a non-starter in a Country like Canada, with an English Common Law heritage that respects property rights.
on Aug 9th, 2012 at 6:26pm Report Abuse
Lost In Space wrote:
We are trying to stop Harmony. If anybody is interested - please have a look at our online petition. Would love to see some of the brilliant and relevant comments made here posted on the petition.
https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/county-of-rockyview-government-of-alberta-stop-harmony-village-development-in-the-west-springbank-farming-district
on Aug 16th, 2012 at 3:09pm Report Abuse
Agent666 wrote:
Good point--I signed your petition.
There is NO SUCH THING as 'sustainable growth.' Take Mike 'Beefcake' Homes' Wind Walk development. Even the Alberta Government won't drink his green Kool-Aid, with respect to the proposed groundwater treatment system. At some point, we have to admit that A. too many people are being admitted to the country every year (last year, it was over 280,000 permanent immigrants, plus more than 300,000 'temporary' migrants), and B. the housing and development sector is not sustainable. The housing and real estate industry is a monster that needs to be cut down.
on Aug 18th, 2012 at 1:45pm Report Abuse
Post comment: (Login or Register)