[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.

 

[Out of Towner]

Unavailable? They just didn't show up!


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.

It's not the responsibility of inner city home owners to accommodate your desire to live in an inner city community. We spent money on commuter bike paths for a reason. That's good enough.

 

[Barnaby]

Since when is zoning deregulation (land use deregulation) "progressive"? What insane world are you living in?

It's libertarian.

 

[constance_chlore]

It's not the responsibility of inner city home owners to accommodate your desire to live in an inner city community. We spent money on commuter bike paths for a reason. That's good enough.

Sure, yeah, no individual strictly has the right to live in a specific place in a specific type of housing. It's the job of the city government to represent what is best for the city and its residents as a whole, which is assuredly not "SFHs only in inner-city neighborhoods forever."

Besides, aren't you invested in trying to gut bike lane funding? Make up your mind.

 

[Out of Towner]

Since when is zoning deregulation (land use deregulation) "progressive"? What insane world are you living in?

It's libertarian.

Since when does an 8 suite infill in the middle of a SFH street respect existing housing and community standards? Constance said that the councilors that didn't vote on the 8 suite bylaw were derelict in their duty. What do you think?

 

[Out of Towner]

Sure, yeah, no individual strictly has the right to live in a specific place in a specific type of housing. It's the job of the city government to represent what is best for the city and its residents as a whole, which is assuredly not "SFHs only in inner-city neighborhoods forever."

Besides, aren't you invested in trying to gut bike lane funding? Make up your mind.

You want to pressure single family homeowners out of their communities. At the same time you want millions spent on miles of commuter bike paths. Those are two conflicting policy objectives.

 

[constance_chlore]

You want to pressure single family homeowners out of their communities. At the same time you want millions spent on miles of commuter bike paths. Those are two conflicting policy objectives.

If single family homeowners want to stay in their communities, they can resort to such strategies as "not selling their house." The rest of the post is a non sequitur so eh.

 

[roe_]

That's what I don't understand about this. People talk about infill like there aren't people wanting to move into them. But we know that infill wouldn't happen if the units couldn't be sold, so there is clearly market demand. What NIMBYS are effectively saying is that "if you can't afford a SFH, go somewhere else".

 

[kcantor]

If single family homeowners want to stay in their communities, they can resort to such strategies as "not selling their house." The rest of the post is a non sequitur so eh.

Except it doesn't quite work like that does it?

There isn't an issue with people not selling their homes, there's an issue with what purchasers of adjacent lots to those homes and allowed replace the previous homes with and we're not talking about incremental changes to front, rear and side yards, we're talking about not having to provide off-street parking and not having adequate garbage and recycling options etc.

What's taking place is insensitive - if not inappropriate - building form and use. It's no different than allowing someone to put a warehouse in the middle of an existing residential neighbourhood and justifying on the basis of the city not having enough light industrial/distribution space.