[Out of Towner]

Limiting housing supply through restrictive anti-density zoning in established neighborhoods doesn't increase property prices? Give me a break with these textbook NIMBY arguments, real estate is not exempt from basic supply-demand economics. I'm super pleased with Qualico's development so far, but the need for reasonable densification with infills is very much present.

Land value is a function of zoning. That's not a NIMBY talking point as you allege. Go to any real estate web site and you will see that the cost of land on a square foot basis increases in concert with its permitted density. So by permitting 8 suite infills anywhere in established neighborhoods, the effect is that it makes single family housing more unaffordable.

 

[Out of Towner]

Yeah, no thanks. Government regulations aren't the answer.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the City grants exclusives to builders on its land developments. I believe that mom and pop builders are restricted from building product in Blatchford for example. It's open shop for mom and pop builders in established neighborhoods but closed shop for them in large developments and sub-divisions. That's government regulation.

 

[Out of Towner]

Hot take: I don't think renters and condo/townhouse owners should be relegated to "low land use value" areas.

You have commuter bike paths to high land use areas. Use them.

 

[whattheheck]

out of towner, your analysis is absolutely correct! But you dare critisize the current progressive group think. So, how dare you!

The inner city is being bought up by developers with deep pockets and they will want to ensure a return in their investment. mom/ pop landlords are disappearing. no more breaks on rent, no more friendly relations with a good landlord. everything is a corporate transaction.

seriously, how does an eight unit 'luxury' apartment in the middle of a community, with no parking actually make it better? it doesn't. those rentals in crestwood, for example, will not be for the average family. the city should have focused density first in the dt and central edm, around certain lrt stations, etc.

why isn't dt seeing any 'infill'? part of the reason is the low hanging fruit council created by deleting zoning all together. why build dt, when you can buy a single family home and build a 'luxury' eight unit apt. i do expect down votes.

 

[Kosy123]

Are we seriously defending mom/pop landlords? Out of anyone I know who's dealt with mom/pop landlords, they've been the most abusive and egregious when it comes to violations, breakdown of tenant relations and lack of maintenance. I don't like the corporatization of housing but larger corporations and enterprises have been more consistent than and responsive than small scale landlords.

"Why isn't dt seeing any infill?"

 

[Gus Haynes]

"There's no downtown infill."

(points to downtown infill)

"No, not like that."

 

[whattheheck]

^there has been no new tower for residential construction erected in the dt core in the last several years.

Developers seek financial incentives to spur downtown housing construction

A tug-of-war over downtown development saw city council and advocates for property developers trade stances over the best way to spur home construction in Edmonton's core.

www.ctvnews.ca

Puneeta McBryan, chief executive officer of Edmonton's Downtown Business Association, told the executive committee while tens of thousands of new units are being built across the city, there have been no housing starts downtown in the last two years.

"If we don’t do anything to make sure that residential development happens, we are building a donut city," McBryan said, adding that while construction costs in Edmonton are about the same as those in Calgary and Victoria, rents on finished housing in the latter two cities "are double or, in some cases, triple."

"The math simply doesn’t work right now for downtown Edmonton," she said. "The land is too expensive, the property taxes are too high, and then building costs and everything else."

Kalen Anderson, the director of the Urban Development Institute - Edmonton Metro, which lobbies governments on behalf of the land development industry, said the city's downtown is struggling mostly due to increasing commercial vacancy rates as well as "a lack of private sector financial viability to support new residential development."


also: https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/resourc...ed-unaffordable-rents-evictions-and-long-term

 

[constance_chlore]

Edmontonians need to recognize that Edmonton is a big city now. If you were to go to Chicago and start talking about the need to keep single-family homes affordable in inner-city neighborhoods, people would look at you like you had seven eyes. Edmonton now has more in common with Chicago than with Red Deer, and that will only get more true every year.

If you want a single-family home in Edmonton... you're in luck because that's still most of Edmonton! But if you feel an inalienable right to a single-family home in an inner-city neighborhood, maybe consider Lloydminster?

The fact that people are even talking about keeping inner-city land values low is nuts. Zero sense of fiscal responsibility.

 

[whattheheck]

^ Edmonton is not Chicago. lol. Chicago is hemmed in by a natural barrier on one side. Going up was a default. And you're also not paying attention: I never said no to density, I said the city should densify where it's needed the most. DT, the quarters, around (some) lrt stations, underused shopping centres, etc. there are plenty of spaces to densify.

why completely upend established communities (where in some cases it's not even needed) by putting in an eight-plex? no thanks.

there seems to also be romantic notion to infill. sure, when covered in good quality materials like brick or stone, with big windows. on a grid street with access to good quality safe clean and frequent transit to walkable amenities.

but the plastic siding covered blobs going up with exposed pressure treated stairs and small windows and crappy rocks for landscaping does not help; going in communities that have the built form for cars, not walking or transit. that's a recipe for disaster.

 

[constance_chlore]

^ Edmonton is not Chicago. lol. Chicago is hemmed in by a natural barrier on one side. Going up was a default. And you're also not paying attention: I never said no to density, I said the city should densify where it's needed the most. DT, the quarters, around (some) lrt stations, underused shopping centres, etc. there are plenty of spaces to densify.

why completely upend established communities (where in some cases it's not even needed) by putting in an eight-plex? no thanks.

Hahaha what? There are three other sides for Chicago to expand into. And it has! If you've ever been to suburban Chicago, you could see that the suburbs go on for what seems like forever, and they're mostly SFHs, as suburbs typically are because that's what suburbs are for.

The question is which of these ways of designing a city makes more sense?

And if what we want is to provide services and be financially sustainable, there's a right answer and it's not particularly close!

there seems to also be romantic notion to infill. sure, when covered in good quality materials like brick or stone, with big windows. but the plastic siding covered blobs going up with exposed pressure treated stairs and small windows and crappy rocks for landscaping does not help.

I'd be glad for you to email your councillor and push for higher design standards. But let's be clear, most of the SFHs they're replacing are not exactly masterpieces.

 

[constance_chlore]

those rentals in crestwood, for example, will not be for the average family.

By the way, the number of 7-8 unit permits in Crestwood is, uh... four. Meanwhile, the population of Crestwood has declined 30% since 1971.

 

[CplKlinger]

I believe that mom and pop builders are restricted from building product in Blatchford for example.

That's incorrect. Anyone can buy land and build at Blatchford; they just need to meet the standards (design, energy, etc). In fact, all of the initial builders at Blatchford were really small operations, because the large players were put off by the district energy system, since they had never dealt with those before. And they are all still working here—except for Mutti, whose houses are crap and unfortunately continue to plague the owners with issues.

 

[Out of Towner]

^ Edmonton is not Chicago. lol. Chicago is hemmed in by a natural barrier on one side. Going up was a default. And you're also not paying attention: I never said no to density, I said the city should densify where it's needed the most. DT, the quarters, around (some) lrt stations, underused shopping centres, etc. there are plenty of spaces to densify.

why completely upend established communities (where in some cases it's not even needed) by putting in an eight-plex? no thanks.

there seems to also be romantic notion to infill. sure, when covered in good quality materials like brick or stone, with big windows. on a grid street with access to good quality safe clean and frequent transit to walkable amenities.

but the plastic siding covered blobs going up with exposed pressure treated stairs and small windows and crappy rocks for landscaping does not help; going in communities that have the built form for cars, not walking or transit. that's a recipe for disaster.

The violation to the Crestwood community was on the news. A moratorium on infill development until after the next municipal election would be helpful as two councilors that may have swung council's decision in a different direct were unavailable to vote. Telling people that desire a single family inner city home in Edmonton to move to Lloydminster because they don't have that right in Edmonton is no solution to the cost of housing. Perhaps the people making that suggestion should instead move to Pakistan so that they can live wherever they please.

 

[Out of Towner]

That's incorrect. Anyone can buy land and build at Blatchford; they just need to meet the standards (design, energy, etc). In fact, all of the initial builders at Blatchford were really small operations, because the large players were put off by the district energy system, since they had never dealt with those before. And they are all still working here—except for Mutti, whose houses are crap and unfortunately continue to plague the owners with issues.

Ok, I wasn't sure about that because its not uncommon for a land developer to give exclusives to a handful of the bigger builders that they work with regularly and then give (sell) the left over poor lots to mom and pop builders.

 

[constance_chlore]

A moratorium on infill development until after the next municipal election would be helpful as two councilors that may have swung council's decision in a different direct were unavailable to vote.

Unavailable? They just didn't show up!

Telling people that desire a single family inner city home in Edmonton to move to Lloydminster because they don't have that right in Edmonton is no solution to the cost of housing. Perhaps the people making that suggestion should instead move to Pakistan so that they can live wherever they please.

Restricting inner-city zoning to SFHs is definitely not a solution to the cost of housing. If we only build SFHs in the inner city, housing in the inner city will become inaccessible to a large majority of Edmontonians because you can only fit so many SFHs in the inner city.