What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    72
whattheheck said:
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.
Click to expand...
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…
 
thommyjo said:
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…
Click to expand...
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.
 
Out of Towner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
thommyjo said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Out of Towner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?.
 
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.
 
Out of Towner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
roe_ said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
roe_ said:
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.
Click to expand...
Land developers absolutely sell "raw" land. It's common practice for them to acquire land, submit plans, go through the approval processes, put in the deep services, curbs and gutters, roads, and then sell lots to builders. Once that happens, a builder is bound to the type of lot they've purchased. There's no such thing as a builder buying a SFH lot and then building an 8 suite dwelling on it. Therefore, a person buying an adjacent lot has a measure of protection that an 8 suiter won't be built next door. Instead it will be a dwelling consistent with what the developer submitted to the city for approval and the city's 8 suite bylaw will be moot until the new build becomes profitable to tear down and rebuild or repurpose. That differs from a vacant inner city lot or a tear down where a builder and developer are one and the same. So the net effect is that established communities are bearing the burden of the city's public policy objective.
 
Out of Towner said:
Land developers absolutely sell "raw" land. It's common practice for them to acquire land, submit plans, go through the approval processes, put in the deep services, curbs and gutters, roads, and then sell lots to builders. Once that happens, a builder is bound to the type of lot they've purchased. There's no such thing as a builder buying a SFH lot and then building an 8 suite dwelling on it. Therefore, a person buying an adjacent lot has a measure of protection that an 8 suiter won't be built next door. Instead it will be a dwelling consistent with what the developer submitted to the city for approval and the city's 8 suite bylaw will be moot until the new build becomes profitable to tear down and rebuild or repurpose. That differs from a vacant inner city lot or a tear down where a builder and developer are one and the same. So the net effect is that established communities are bearing the burden of the city's public policy objective.
Click to expand...
These new developments aren't at end of life. The main reason infill lots are seeing densification is because there's demand, and the structures are in a situation where it's now economical to demolish and replace. The OWNERS are deciding to build something entirely new on THEIR LAND.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top