Summary#

On 2026-09-22, Calgary City Council carried a motion directing City staff to prepare changes to Greater Downtown policies and land use rules for affordable-housing density bonusing, and return by Q2 2027. The goal is to move support for non-market affordable housing to a different density incentive while keeping bonusing focused on other public benefits. The motion, moved by Councillor Chabot, carried 14 to 1; Councillor Johnston voted against.

• City staff must prepare amendments to remove affordable-housing units, cash-in-lieu contributions and contributions to the Affordable Housing Fund from Greater Downtown density-bonus options.
• Staff must develop a density exemption incentive for non-market housing at the same time as those removals. A density exemption means floor area used for non-market housing would not count toward a project’s total density.
• Staff must prepare amendments to replace the existing fund terms of reference with updated Greater Downtown terms. Council did not put the new terms into effect at this meeting.
• Staff must return with the amendments by Q2 2027. The report identifies the Land Use Bylaw and several Greater Downtown area plans as needing amendments.

What it means for you#

• Developers: The current affordable-housing bonusing options are not removed by this decision. They would be removed through later amendments. The proposed exemption’s rules are not yet settled.
• Non-market housing providers: The decision directs staff to develop an incentive that could let non-market housing add floor area without that area counting toward density limits. It does not guarantee approval or funding for any project.
• Greater Downtown housing and fund users: The proposed fund terms would allow the existing cash to be used anywhere in the Greater Downtown, rather than only near the site that generated it. Staff say the money could also be combined with other non-market housing programs where appropriate. The decision does not authorize city-wide use.
• City staff: They must prepare the amendments and develop the incentive, with a return to Council by Q2 2027.

Money#

No cost estimate is provided; City staff say the changes could save staff time, but the amount is unknown.

• The existing Affordable Housing Fund has $1.78 million in cash-in-lieu contributions. The decision does not approve spending it.
• City staff must do the work to prepare amendments and develop the incentive, but the materials do not estimate its cost.
• Staff report that, over the last decade, density bonusing generated $1.78 million in cash and 18 housing units that were nearly at market rates.

What is unclear#

• What rules, eligibility conditions or limits the proposed density exemption would have.
• Whether Council will approve the future amendments or incentive.
• How the updated fund terms will work in detail, including which projects may receive funding.
• How much staff time or money the changes will require, or how much staff time they may save.

Case for#

• City staff say the existing approach delivered only 18 units that were nearly at market rates over a decade, despite significant staff time. They say this supports replacing it with an incentive aimed at non-market housing.
• Staff say excluding non-market housing floor area from density calculations could allow more homes on a site and help providers make better use of grants and public funding.
• Staff say moving the fund’s use across the Greater Downtown could make its existing $1.78 million more flexible, while still directing it toward local-area impacts.

Case against#

• People consulted from development and housing-provider organizations generally said all options for delivering affordable housing should remain available. They supported a transition in principle but wanted more engagement before final amendments.
• Staff warn that if affordable-housing bonusing is removed before an exemption is developed or approved, projects with non-market housing may face additional bonusing costs to reach their required density.
• The new incentive’s rules and the updated fund terms are not yet settled, so their effects cannot be assessed fully.