Summary#

Calgary Council adopted a direction to City staff on September 22, 2026, by a vote of 14 to 1; Councillor Johnston voted against. It does not immediately change the City’s land-use rules: staff must prepare amendments and return to Council by no later than Q2 2027. The stated goal is to support non-market affordable housing through a different incentive and focus density bonusing on other public benefits.

• Staff must prepare amendments to remove affordable housing units, cash-in-lieu contributions, and contributions to the Affordable Housing Fund as density-bonus options in Greater Downtown policies and Land Use Districts. Those options are not removed yet.
• Staff must develop a density-exemption incentive for non-market housing and bring related amendments back at the same time. City staff describe a possible approach as not counting floor area used for non-market housing toward a project’s total density; Council has not approved its details.
• Staff must prepare amendments to replace the fund’s current terms with updated Greater Downtown Affordable Housing Fund terms, based on Attachment 5, and return to Council by no later than Q2 2027. The new terms are not in force yet.

What it means for you#

• Developers in Greater Downtown: The report describes density bonusing as voluntary. The current affordable-housing options remain until Council approves amendments. If it does, developers would no longer be able to choose those options through density bonusing.
• Non-market housing providers and developers: Staff must develop a new incentive, but there is no approved entitlement or process to use it yet.
• Affordable Housing Fund: The report says it holds $1.78 million. Staff are to propose updated terms; the decision does not itself change where that money can be spent.
• Residents and taxpayers: The decision does not directly change rents, housing rights, taxes, or the supply of homes. Any effect on future projects depends on amendments Council has not yet considered.

Money#

The materials identify $1.78 million already in the fund, but give no cost estimate for the work or the proposed changes.

• City staff say removing negotiations over affordable-housing bonuses could reduce staff time and operating costs, and that an exemption could streamline permit processing; no savings estimate is given.
• The decision provides no new funding amount or estimate of the staff cost to prepare the amendments and incentive.

What is unclear#

• What “non-market housing” will mean for eligibility, and what types of homes will qualify.
• How the density exemption would work, including its limits and how it would interact with other density rules.
• When any new rules would take effect. Staff must return by Q2 2027, but Council would still need to consider the amendments.
• The updated fund terms, including who would decide how money is allocated and which programs could receive it. The materials say the proposed terms could allow spending anywhere in Greater Downtown, rather than only near the contributing site, and could allow combining funds with other programs.
• The supplied material does not include the attachments needed to assess the full proposed terms.

Case for#

• City staff found that, over the past decade, density bonusing delivered 18 affordable-housing units that were nearly at market rates and generated $1.78 million in cash. Staff say this took significant time per unit, suggesting the option did little to deliver non-market housing.
• City staff say excluding non-market housing floor area from density calculations could lower land and construction costs per home and help non-profit housing providers make better use of grants and public funding.
• The proposed fund terms could let money support projects across Greater Downtown, rather than only in the immediate area around the contributing site.

Case against#

• City staff warn that if affordable-housing bonus options are removed before a new exemption is developed or approved, projects with non-market housing could face additional bonusing costs to reach their planned density.
• Developers and housing-provider partners contacted by staff said all available affordable-housing options should be kept, regardless of the effort involved. They supported an exemption in principle but wanted more engagement before final amendments.
• Moving fund spending from the immediate neighbourhood around a contributing site to anywhere in Greater Downtown could mean less direct local benefit for the area where the contribution was made.
• Councillor Johnston voted against the decision; the supplied record does not state why.