IanO
Superstar
That's MUCH better than what was recently put next a friend of mine in Queen Alexandra. Zero design effort, an insult to others in the area and a cause for real concern for those wanting to raise the bar.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
policyenthusiast
Active Member
This very well may be the ugliest infill unit I have ever seen in my life.
archited
Senior Member
This is what happens when developers engage in a race to the bottom. Every Edmontonian should be concerned.
Platinum107
Senior Member
The city needs to increase the minimum design standards for infill. Would it be more regulation when the policy has generally been less regulation? And could it slightly slow down the amount of developments? Yes, but there's a give and take here. More density is awesome, but if developers are going to build to the bottom line, we need to raise the bottom line. Personally I'd like to see more high-quality materials and more carefully chosen palettes along with larger windows facing street side in these developments.
BrettB
Active Member
Designs like that would cause me to oppose the zoning bylaw - and I love the thought of greater density.
Platinum107
Senior Member
Along with this, I personally think parking requirements may need to be revisited for residential properties specifically. Commercial properties should still have no parking minimums (it should be up to the businesses to decide how much parking they need), but there is a chance that parking in neighbourhoods could become a big problem in the next decade depending on the amount of infill coming in. There are other ways to help alleviate this, such as with parking permit programs, but even having a 0.5 parking space requirement per dwelling for residential properties could be adequate to avoid issues with this.
I'm not one to advocate for parking, believe me, it's just that Edmonton is still at the beginning of its transition from a car-centric city towards a diversified transportation network. Doing this too fast could lead to serious backlash and a regression to older standards. Just my opinion.
I'm not one to advocate for parking, believe me, it's just that Edmonton is still at the beginning of its transition from a car-centric city towards a diversified transportation network. Doing this too fast could lead to serious backlash and a regression to older standards. Just my opinion.
thommyjo
Senior Member
I agree with the idea of a permit program for street parking. It shouldn’t be free to park 3 vehicles on the road. Give every house a free street permit for 1, then after that have an increasing permit system.
$25/month for a 2nd, $50/month for a 3rd
constance_chlore
Active Member
So who (besides our city councillors) do we contact to voice our opinions? And what should we propose?
constance_chlore
Active Member
Online public engagement is open on two rezoning applications in Belgravia, about a half-kilometer from the LRT station: https://engaged.edmonton.ca/belgravia76avenue
davcocom
Active Member
Is there anything we can do to improve this? It seems like City Council is only focused on improving affordability by increasing the number of units (which I'm in favour of), but the quality of the buildings should also be an important element in growing our city.
policyenthusiast
Active Member
I think the main issue with it is the tiny, lacking windows. It's also the shape a 3-year old would draw if you asked them to draw a house.
It's just too simple and low-effort for how huge it is.
davcocom
Active Member
absolutely! same thing than with bigger developments like Holyrood gardens for example.
David A
Senior Member
Try to make an effort to fit in would also be a big complaint of mine. Are there no design standards for older neighbourhoods?
TAS
Senior Member
Michael Janz brought this issue forward just recently at a committee meeting or maybe it was council - requesting some info. It is recognized designs are an issue.
archited
Senior Member
Back a number of years ago I had a review concept accepted by Los Angeles Municipal government to establish a Restaurant and Hospitality Expediting group that enabled a joint function of Planning and Building & Safety. Prior to its set-up it could take as much as a year to simply get approval through 11 different restaurant governing bodies at the City; after set-up that was reduced to one body and plans could get approved in as little as 3-weeks (including corrections). Something similar could be set up in Edmonton for infill housing which could also include a 3-party design review group. The department would only need 6 or 7 employees (L.A. had six and that's for a City many times larger than Edmonton. The Approval Group could interface with Community Groups related to developments in their area. To pass design review, then, the developer of an infill project would have to get sign-off from both the Community and the 3-party Design group and approval from the on-board in-department Building & Safety engineers. Who besides City Councillors to Contact? -- Kent Snyder is the Branch Manager of Planning and Environment Services for the City of Edmonton; Erik Backstrom is Senior Planner for Planning Strategies at the City of Edmonton (he also leads the city's heritage planning program -- I have had several agreeable zoom meetings with him); Kenan Handzic is the Principal Planner at the City of Edmonton. Call 311 and ask for one of these gentlemen by name or email attention to them at developmentcompliance@edmonton.ca -- if they get enough complaining emails with suggestions for ways to improve the review process for infills then maybe the wheels will turn at City Hall. There are also a number of planners that post on this website -- e.g. @Avenuer, @Greenspace, and (not with the City but in the know otherwise) @CplKlinger -- all should get engaged knowing that the worst that could happen is a "transfer" (not firing).