trevorhayden
Active Member
We could supply all of Edmonton's housing needs with row houses in the redeveloping area.
|
|
|
- Thread starter cliffapotamus
- Start date
Gronk!
Senior Member
‘Start pushing back’: Citizen group works to make infill a municipal election issue
Many Albertans know Kevin Taft for his time in politics, he is a former MLA and spent years as leader of the Alberta Liberal Party. Now he is leading a charge against what he calls “massive disruptive” infill in Edmonton.
www.ctvnews.ca
I don't agree with some of Michael Janz's views, but I definitely agree with him that urban sprawl is financially bankrupting the city.
Oilguy
Active Member
Yeah, I truly don’t get Kevin Taft on this issue given his political background. His stance is so nimby and not reflective at all of what is going on, You drive through mckernan and what is generally being torn down are completely crappy war time era bungalows that had no life left in them. What used to happen was they’d get torn down and sime sfh home monstrosity would go in its place, now this is changing, The resulting vibrancy and I think eventual rebirth of local service, shops and cafes will be transformative down the road.‘Start pushing back’: Citizen group works to make infill a municipal election issue
Many Albertans know Kevin Taft for his time in politics, he is a former MLA and spent years as leader of the Alberta Liberal Party. Now he is leading a charge against what he calls “massive disruptive” infill in Edmonton.
I don't agree with some of Michael Janz's views, but I definitely agree with him that urban sprawl is financially bankrupting the city.
That said, there’s definitely some crap being built and so the city does have some responsibility to avoid a race to the bottom here which is where some developers will go,
erudyk_29
Active Member
“People had no idea this was coming. We tried to make the point at city council repeatedly that public awareness was extremely low,” said Taft.
I find the "we never knew this was coming" argument against the ZBL and City Plan to be so hilariously disingenuous.
If you're someone who's even remotely tuned into municipal politics, you should not have been blindsided by this. There was extensive engagement, posters and billboards up all over the city, tons of stuff online about it. People like Taft either had their heads buried firmly in the sand, or, more likely he's just pulling out the classic "you needed to do more engagement" stall/delay tactic.
Also got to love the name "Coalition for Better Infill", when we all know he means "Coalition for no Infill".
I find the "we never knew this was coming" argument against the ZBL and City Plan to be so hilariously disingenuous.
If you're someone who's even remotely tuned into municipal politics, you should not have been blindsided by this. There was extensive engagement, posters and billboards up all over the city, tons of stuff online about it. People like Taft either had their heads buried firmly in the sand, or, more likely he's just pulling out the classic "you needed to do more engagement" stall/delay tactic.
Also got to love the name "Coalition for Better Infill", when we all know he means "Coalition for no Infill".
constance_chlore
Active Member
Yeah, "the community wasn't consulted enough!" is the old reliable line of those who didn't get exactly what they wanted.
JuliallThat
Active Member
It continues to irritate me how they'll give media attention to nimby's like this, and yet we'll never seen an article like "most people are either happy with this or completely neutral to it and so there's no need to go backwards" 
policyenthusiast
Active Member
I think infills are an absolute necessity, from a density and affordability perspective - but still, I get it. The new generation of infills all look the same, and they do not match the existing neighborhood design at all.
That's not to say that they're ugly, but they sure don't blend in.
That's not to say that they're ugly, but they sure don't blend in.
stensby
New Member
All the bungalows in our core neighbourhoods have looked the same for 50+ years, and all new houses in developing suburbs 'look the same'. Why is this only a problem for infills? I see far more variety on infills then the housing they replace due to material requirements and a higher number of boutique builders compared with the large, mass market builders in Edmonton.
policyenthusiast
Active Member
It's not only a problem for infills, and you're illustrating the same point I'm making. People are used to the homogeneity and complain when something deviates from it.
David A
Senior Member
Yes, the current popular styles or fashion really do not blend in well with older or historical buildings, unfortunately they often do stick out like a sore thumb.
Oilguy
Active Member
I’d take a drive down 72nd avenue between 109 and 114. It is a study in different styles, they certainly don’t look the same there. Some look good and fit the areas as well as can be expected, and some that are very poorly executed both in terms of the design and finishes. It can be done well.
erudyk_29
Active Member
I'd say its a big mix too. Some look great, others less so. I do think that the obsession with making them look super modern, definitely makes them standout in 50s and 60s bungalow neighborhoods. More can be done to make them blend in a bit better for sure. The jet black, or pale white flat walls and aggressively box like ones are probably the biggest culprits in my eyes.
JuliallThat
Active Member
I'd love to see the "default" aesthetic for infills to be a bit more traditional and less try-hard. Modern designs can be nice, but modern "designs" plus extreme value engineering look pretty crap. If you're gonna cheap out just stick to the basics and it'll still look fine enough, and at least blend in a bit better.
Also I am so sick of grey everything! A little colour please!
Even ugly infill is good, but still I get why people gripe, some of them are pretty gross.
Also I am so sick of grey everything! A little colour please!
Even ugly infill is good, but still I get why people gripe, some of them are pretty gross.
constance_chlore
Active Member
So what's the background behind why infill houses sort of converged the way they have on this boxy aesthetic?
policyenthusiast
Active Member
My profession isn't real development work, but I can tell you what I've heard. It's two main things:
Utility of space: It is a very tedious and expensive process to turn a large-lot bungalow into a 4-plex or 8-plex, so the cost recovery mandates creating as many reasonably sized units as possible. It's easier to sell eight 250k units than it is to sell four 500k units. The "boxy" shape removes things like large gables, which maximizes the amount of livable space in a given lot.
Efficiency of construction: Square-shaped structures are much easier to frame, and typically require less resources to build.