OPINION: Why blanket upzoning won’t deliver affordability Calgary needs

Contents of the article

Calgary is in the midst of a housing crisis, and two commentators from the Fraser Institute recently argued in these pages that a complete rezoning is needed to build new homes “faster and cheaper.” It's an elegant theory. This is also wrong.

Contents of the article

Calgary has no zoning issues. It has a cost problem and a full zoning increase does nothing to solve it. For several key reasons, wholesale expansion of zones risks making housing more expensive.

Contents of the article

Recommended Videos

Contents of the article

Calgarians have twice rejected full zoning increases.

The authors gloss over the fact that Calgarians have already come out loud and clear for an overall increase in zoning. During the city's longest public hearing in 2024, about 70% of speakers opposed the policy. This opposition was not marginal or ideological. It was broad, coherent and based on real concerns about infrastructure, equity and long-term impacts on the neighborhood.

Voters then reaffirmed that message in the 2025 municipal elections. Most successful candidates publicly campaigned on a promise to repeal the full zoning expansion. Voters relied on these commitments when they cast their ballots. In a representative democracy, these obligations matter. Keeping campaign promises is not toughness; this is democratic accountability. When elected officials change their positions after winning on a clear platform, public trust is undermined. Good housing policy cannot be built on a foundation of broken commitments.

Contents of the article

Total rezoning gives power to speculators

Supporters of the total expansion of zones argue that it “meets the preferences of buyers and tenants.” In practice, this meets the preferences of those who benefit from redevelopment.

Wholesale upzoning in every neighborhood takes planning influence away from communities and away from planners, placing it directly in the hands of developers and, increasingly, investors.

In today's financialized housing market, the average home buyer isn't just competing with other families—he's up against developers and investors who are financed through the Federal Affordable Housing Fund (AHF), which provides money for development through low-interest and forgivable loans. Developers and investors view housing more as a profit-generating asset.
than places where people can build their lives. Redevelopment then follows profit signals that ignore infrastructure capabilities, area livability, and long-term urban planning principles.

Contents of the article

Contents of the article

Increasing zoning could lead to higher land prices, not lower ones

One of the most predictable results of a wholesale expansion of zoning is financialization – the transformation of housing into an object of speculation. When each site has overall potential for redevelopment, land values ​​increase across the board. Rising land values ​​attract buyer-investors. And higher land values ​​require higher sales prices to maintain developer profits.

This model has appeared in US cities, in New Zealand's national expansion strategy and, closer to home, in Edmonton. Infill deregulation and a radical new zoning ordinance coincided with
a surge in investor activity, rising prices in mature neighborhoods and a rapid loss of older, more affordable homes.

Inclusive zoning acts like a lottery ticket stuck to every property. Investors know this.

Contents of the article

Ordinary families end up paying for it.

Population density in mature neighborhoods is not free

The Fraser Institute authors suggest that greater density automatically reduces unit costs. This may be true for new suburbs where developers pay most of the infrastructure costs. But in established areas, the economy is changing.

Multifamily construction typically requires water and sewer upgrades, road repairs, sidewalk replacements, and drainage improvements. Developer fees do not cover these costs. In existing neighborhoods, these costs are not paid by the developer; they are paid for by the city and funded by taxpayers through general taxation.

All-out upzoning is accelerating this infrastructure burden without any plan to pay for it. This means higher capital budgets, higher operating expenses and, inevitably, higher taxes for
every.

Contents of the article

Density can be a good thing. But uncontrolled population density comes at a cost, and Calgarians are already feeling the strain.

If you want affordable housing, control the city budget

There is one factor that affects every homeowner and renter in Calgary: the city's growing burden of taxes and fees. Amazingly, upzoning proponents never mention this.

Consider the proposed budget for 2026:

• A 3.6% increase in blended property taxes, which is about 5.8% for the average single-family home.

• Increase in fees for utilities, waste removal and recycling fees by 3.9%.

• Continued 1% tax shift from businesses to homeowners.

• No significant restrictions on operating expenses.

When taxes and utility bills rise every year, monthly housing costs also rise, regardless of zoning. Landlords pass on these costs to themselves. Homeowners absorb them directly. Young buyers feel them as soon as they move in.

Contents of the article

Zoning changes cannot counteract annual increases in taxes and fees. If cities want to make a meaningful contribution to increasing affordability, the first step is to control their own spending trajectory.

The best way forward

The previous City Council supported a full upzoning as a shortcut to affordability. It did not fulfill this promise. Instead, it led to rising land costs, overloading of infrastructure, deepening
public mistrust and fueled speculation in areas never intended for uncontrolled redevelopment.

Calgary can support more housing without a wholesale zoning expansion. But he needs a city hall that plans with residents, not around them. The path forward cannot rely on large-scale, citywide zoning experiments conducted without broad public support. The most constructive step now is to return council to a neutral point, to the known, stable RC-1 and RC-2 districts that Calgarians have understood and relied on for decades. This reset is a necessary starting point for the next necessary step – creating a responsible, community-supported plan to increase population density while maintaining the qualities that make Calgary neighborhoods livable.

Contents of the article

Building on this stable foundation, Calgary can pursue a balanced and credible strategy, including:

• Targeted rezoning in areas with real infrastructure potential and transit access.

• Incentives for targeted rentals and partnerships with nonprofit affordable housing providers.

• Structured and effective community engagement that gives residents the opportunity to voice their opinions without unduly slowing down needed development.

• Transparent assessment of specific area issues such as water, sewer, roads and emergency services.

• Fiscal discipline so that increases in taxes and utilities do not negate the benefits of new housing.

Calgary can do better and the election results show Calgarians are demanding better.

— Rusty Miller, Robert Lehody, Patricia McCann-Miller, Lisa Poole, Jennifer Baldwin and Chris Davis (Calgarians for Smart Growth)

Contents of the article