[Out of Towner]

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".

You're right. You don't understand. It's not the responsibility of single family homeowners in Edmonton's established communities to solve what some people perceive as unaffordable housing. If housing is unaffordable, then it's better to remedy that situation by building on under utilized land like the Stationlands project has done. No need to enact zoning bylaws that drive up the price of property in thriving established communities when there are other better options available.

 

[kcantor]

You're right. You don't understand. It's not the responsibility of single family homeowners in Edmonton's established communities to solve what some people perceive as unaffordable housing. If housing is unaffordable, then it's better to remedy that situation by building on under utilized land like the Stationlands project has done. No need to enact zoning bylaws that drive up the price of property in thriving established communities when there are other better options available.

If housing is unaffordable, it's better to remedy that situation on the demand side, not the supply side. What's needed is an increase in the incomes of those who can't afford housing noting that this also means they can't afford food or clothing or transportation or education or medical or dental care and they still won't be able to afford those things if they're provided with "affordable housing". If that needs a universal basic income or something similar, so be it. It's also worth noting that a UBI is transportable so that people can take advantage of jobs or training or educational opportunities that they wouldn't otherwise be able to do because they' can't afford to relocate and give up their subsidized housing and they can't afford to commute from their subsidized housing to those opportunities.

 

[Out of Towner]

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.

A municipal election that turfs all of the half wit councilors who are trying to turn the whole city into a dogs breakfast can't come soon enough. In the mean time it might not be prudent to give them any ideas about zoning industrial parks in Crestwood or Highlands or Strathcona or Windsor Park because there's no guarantee that they wouldn't do it.

 

[constance_chlore]

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.

Sure, but that's not a question of being forced out of your home; it's a question of finding that your home no longer has all the attributes you once found desirable, be that sunlight for gardening, ample street parking, the perception of privacy, etc. It's best if we can satisfy the preferences of as many people as possible, but in some cases you can't. There's a balance to be found, and we can quibble about what it is, but I don't think there's any reason to see the preferences of existing homeowners in an area as a trump card over those who would like to live in inner-city neighborhoods, but can't due to their current lack of stock and consequent unaffordability. To go down that route would mean a continuation of the trends we've already seen: the aging and hollowing-out of inner city neighborhoods, the closure of schools, etc. etc.

Personally, when I walk around a neighborhood like McKernan-Belgravia and I look at all the anti-infill signs, I really can't see what people are objecting to. No doubt there are some really bad, insensitive infills, but I also think there's a lot of catastrophizing about this topic.

If housing is unaffordable, it's better to remedy that situation on the demand side, not the supply side. What's needed is an increase in the incomes of those who can't afford housing noting that this also means they can't afford food or clothing or transportation or education or medical or dental care and they still won't be able to afford those things if they're provided with "affordable housing". If that needs a universal basic income or something similar, so be it. It's also worth noting that a UBI is transportable so that people can take advantage of jobs or training or educational opportunities that they wouldn't otherwise be able to do because they' can't afford to relocate and give up their subsidized housing and they can't afford to commute from their subsidized housing to those opportunities.

Subsidizing the demand side has been tried a million times all over the world and is a consistent failure as a long-term solution (conceding that there may be a limited place for policies like rent control). If there's too little housing for the number of people, no amount of giving would-be buyers money or tax breaks will allow them to fit; it just drives up prices. UBI might be a fine approach to other problems, but it doesn't fix this one.

 

[buildings]

I believe there is an existing thread for infill housing discussions. please use it.

 

[roe_]

So supply shouldn't be increased, but incomes should be subsidized to make properties more affordable? Really?

And people should have a veto over the property rights of a neighbour because they might plan something that doesn't fit in?

At the end of the day, I doubt people will change their minds much on infill. But for all the people who are sure it will ruin our city, I see infill as: a chance to reinvigorate older neighbourhoods, a way to manage the cost of housing, an opportunity for more local and small businesses to thrive, a more environmental approach to housing and a way to accommodate everyone at every stage of life in their own neighbourhood.

 

[thommyjo]

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.

Yes and no. Blanket rezonings help to reduce the impact vs only a small area allowing higher density.

But it’s true, upzoning increases the value of what can be built. However, home prices will still go up even more from limited supply of units. 3-8 units going on 1 property will help affordability more than the 100k increase in vacant land value.

 

[thommyjo]

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.

The 8plexes in Crestwood all the residents are whining about are 2 blocks from the LRT as well as a major shopping centre. There are multiple higher end condo buildings around the very same shopping centre already. Clearly a good area for density.

But I sympathize with the aggressiveness of what was allowed too. 3 story tall, house in the middle of 2 massive buildings. At that point, build a proper apartment…

 

[Out of Towner]

The 8plexes in Crestwood all the residents are whining about are 2 blocks from the LRT as well as a major shopping centre. There are multiple higher end condo buildings around the very same shopping centre already. Clearly a good area for density.

But I sympathize with the aggressiveness of what was allowed too. 3 story tall, house in the middle of 2 massive buildings. At that point, build a proper apartment…

Zoning and architectural controls haven't been lifted in new communities. New community developers still exercise authority over the established set of standards in place. At least I haven't heard of a new community developer selling a lot and then allowing the purchaser to build an 8 plex in the middle of the street. Seems that the public policy objective of providing affordable housing in Edmonton is being placed solely on inner city residents. Perhaps that burden should be expanded to include new communities.

 

[thommyjo]

Zoning and architectural controls haven't been lifted in new communities. New community developers still exercise authority over the established set of standards in place. At least I haven't heard of a new community developer selling a lot and then allowing the purchaser to build an 8 plex in the middle of the street. Seems that the public policy objective of providing affordable housing in Edmonton is being placed solely on inner city residents. Perhaps that burden should be expanded to include new communities.

New communities have apartments, stacked row houses, townhomes, garage suites, basement suites, etc.

Not sure how those aren’t a part of providing affordable housing, as well as supporting overall affordability through density/diversity of housing types/increased overall supply.

Part of the challenge of central areas vs suburbs is land assembly. In a new suburb, you can do a 80 unit townhouse complex. Or make the entire arterial roadway townhomes and the entire pond areas large SFHs. Corners near big roads and commercial can be the 6 story apartments.

Old areas you can only build on what’s sold. Someone might not sell a SFH right next to an LRT stop, even though that makes the most sense for high density. But 2 blocks in you might be able to assemble 2-3 lots all sold at once. And therefore you can fit an apartment there.

 

[Out of Towner]

New communities have apartments, stacked row houses, townhomes, garage suites, basement suites, etc.

Not sure how those aren’t a part of providing affordable housing, as well as supporting overall affordability through density/diversity of housing types/increased overall supply.

Part of the challenge of central areas vs suburbs is land assembly. In a new suburb, you can do a 80 unit townhouse complex. Or make the entire arterial roadway townhomes and the entire pond areas large SFHs. Corners near big roads and commercial can be the 6 story apartments.

Old areas you can only build on what’s sold. Someone might not sell a SFH right next to an LRT stop, even though that makes the most sense for high density. But 2 blocks in you might be able to assemble 2-3 lots all sold at once. And therefore you can fit an apartment there.

Purchase a lot in new community and deviate from the master plan and see what happens. Chances are good that if you built a 8 plex on a lot designated for a single family home, civil proceeding would be initiated against you. The terms of reference in inner city communities have been changed by city council but new community developers still exercise their master planning authority.

 

[thommyjo]

Purchase a lot in new community and deviate from the master plan and see what happens. Chances are good that if you built a 8 plex on a lot designated for a single family home, civil proceeding would be initiated against you. The terms of reference in inner city communities have been changed by city council but new community developers still exercise their master planning authority.

Is the concern affordable housing though? Or who manages density? Or architectural design standards? I’m not sure what your complaint is about.

Cause dense housing is still being build in new suburbs. But in their planning/development phases of course there is some alignment. But slightly older suburbs, if I’m not mistaken, can now see lots of the same infill we are seeing centrally, right?.

 

[Out of Towner]

If one accepts the principal that public policy should be used to help regulate the cost of housing in Edmonton, then the regulations should be applied equally to everybody - but they're not. As mentioned, a new community developer can restrict construction of buildings that don't comply with their master plan for a community. Mature inner city neighborhoods however don't have that safeguard. Any type of housing (up to 8 suites) can be built anywhere without any stringent architectural controls. Apart from the private issues such as shading, parking, privacy, and crime that densification can pose to single family homeowners, the long term result of the kind of public policy that the city has enacted is that Edmonton will look like a disorganized city in Pakistan.

 

[Kosy123]

An 8plex being put up in Crestwood isn't going to lead to Edmonton ending up like Lahore or Karachi, pardon my language but what the fuck even is that comparison

 

[roe_]

If one accepts the principal that public policy should be used to help regulate the cost of housing in Edmonton, then the regulations should be applied equally to everybody - but they're not. As mentioned, a new community developer can restrict construction of buildings that don't comply with their master plan for a community. Mature inner city neighborhoods however don't have that safeguard. Any type of housing (up to 8 suites) can be built anywhere without any stringent architectural controls. Apart from the private issues such as shading, parking, privacy, and crime that densification can pose to single family homeowners, the long term result of the kind of public policy that the city has enacted is that Edmonton will look like a disorganized city in Pakistan.

I think you are confusing concepts. Properties that are zoned for a certain type of development must be treated equally, regardless of whether a parcel in a new or older area. I don't believe most developers in new communities sell raw land, which is why most houses look similar and appear to be more 'intentional'. Unless there is a restrictive covenant on title or some other type of control, once a house is purchased it is not correct to suggest that the zoning rules will be applied differently in old and new neighbourhoods..

I think the primary reason you don't see infill in new communities isn't because they aren't subject to the same rules, it is because the economic life of the buildings is not over. In other words, people aren't generally tearing down 10 year old houses in new neighbourhoods, but they are with 60 year old houses in older areas. As with anything, over time things change and eventually newer areas become older and will be subject to more infill.