Opinion: Backward beliefs about housing shaping the debate on rezoning
On the heels of his election, Mayor Farkas spoke about rezoning and what he sees as the problem with the new homes it has helped build in Calgary. Mayor Farkas said that “[rezoning] hasn’t delivered the level of housing at the affordable price point that Calgarians are expecting,”
On that note, Mayor Farkas is right. Rezoning hasn’t made new homes that are cheaper than the ones they’ve replaced. The issue is that it wasn’t designed to do that. Rezoning was designed to prevent older homes from being some of the most expensive houses available.
Housing and cars have a lot in common. Think about when a new car rolls off the assembly line, it’s not supposed to be more affordable than a used car. What the presence of a new car does, however, is cause a chain reaction that lowers the resale value of used cars. Last year’s model doesn’t fetch the same premium that it does now that the new model is out. The model from two years ago also takes a hit. And so on.
If we stopped building cars, the last model off the assembly line would retain its value – and its value might even grow, instead of depreciating. If we took further action to restrict the car market – like only allowing luxury vehicles to be produced, or only allowing new cars to be driven at the edges of the city – the used car market would balloon in value.
So just like cars, every new home built this year becomes an affordable home over time – but only if we keep building. If Calgary stops or slows building, what was built today will remain the most expensive on the market, and Calgarians will be the ones to pay that price.
Dismissing new homes because they aren’t lower priced than post-WWII bungalows is a backward argument that has been promoted by housing opponents for years to obscure the basic economics of housing construction. This conversation heats up especially if the proposed new homes being discussed are diverse choices like duplexes, rowhomes, or multi-generational homes.
Prior to rezoning, when a bungalow was replaced with a new single detached home, the median price was 1.6 million-dollars. Any discussion that makes it easier to (re)build a 1.6 million-dollar home, rather than four $500,000 or $700,000 homes on the same lot, is woefully misguided and is most definitely not concerned about affordability - it's about keeping the past intact at the cost of the future.
Most housing opponents ignore the data and buy into a lie that we can make housing more affordable by changing very little and building even less. Many say we can put the limits back on – push housing near transit, near “corridors and nodes.” The “success” of Vancouver and Toronto in adopting this “tall and sprawl” approach can be read in the headlines of our daily papers. Restricting housing construction in those major cities to tiny units in high-density towers has fueled a speculative condo bubble that has now burst. Only 53 new condo units were sold in Toronto in September.
Does Calgary truly want to repeat the mistakes of Toronto and Vancouver? If we strip away the substance of Calgary’s Housing Strategy, we risk sacrificing our position as a dynamic and affordable major city.
Going back to a time before the Housing Strategy, like the Mayor and six members of council are calling for, we’ll grow to become a city of 2$ million dollars homes long before we become a city of 2 million people.
Mayor Farkas is leading the charge on repealing rezoning, with no clear and public plans for what comes next. No signatories to the motion do.
The housing crisis in Calgary is about to get worse right when it is turning a corner. I feel for the people and families who will again be priced out of homes because of the backward beliefs driving the debate on rezoning for housing.
Courtney Walcott
Originally Published in the Calgary Herald: November 21, 2025
