News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.9K     0 

Laziness on the part of developers. The more formulaic the end result, the easier it is to make a profit. The 85/15 rule applies here (as with most things) -- most developers just want to make a buck, not bothered by "petty" outside concerns such as aesthetics. Unfortunately it also bleeds down to the Architectural profession where most architects also just want to sustain business without making any design-challenge type waves.
 
Apologies for “cross posting” this but it belongs here as well:

I have been thinking about the proliferation of infill which the new zoning has successfully encouraged and about the quality of the design of some of that infill. Some of it has been outstanding, some of it has been mediocre and some of it is an embarrassment. I know and support the ability to obtain permits with surety and in a timely manner but there is a disconnect here that I think we need to address and I would suggest the following:

1. If the density is the same as what currently exists on the site plus what could be added without demolishing the current density (something I think we should encourage more than we do but that’s perhaps a different discussion), then the DP and BP should be processed as we are currently processing them.

2. If the density is greater than (a), the DP process should include the additional step of obtaining the approval of a “Residential Urban Design Committee” similar to what is required from Urban Design Committee although possibly with a smaller panel that meets more frequently so as to minimize any potential project delay (noting that higher quality design will minimize any potential delay). This would also go a long way to minimizing neighbourhood objections over some of the butt ugly that is being imposed on them now.
 

This could actually be valuable, because once she loses or has her case thrown out there will be an example to point to that her property rights end at her own property line. We have no legal right to sunlight for better or for worse.
Also FWIW as can be seen in the satellite imagery in the link, her own house is in a very non-standard location on her lot, and actually would cast a very large shadow on her own neighbours yard. Talk about a hypocrite!
1746984030689.png
 
If anyone wants to loop in with some opposition to the zoning changes, here’s the biggest group I’m seeing emerging: https://www.saveyeg.com/

They’ve got some events this week and in the future that might benefit from some supportive voices to new housing and that are willing to challenge some of exaggerated claims around parking, traffic, crime, etc.
 
JuliallThat said:

This could actually be valuable, because once she loses or has her case thrown out there will be an example to point to that her property rights end at her own property line. We have no legal right to sunlight for better or for worse.
Also FWIW as can be seen in the satellite imagery in the link, her own house is in a very non-standard location on her lot, and actually would cast a very large shadow on her own neighbours yard. Talk about a hypocrite!
View attachment 650505
Click to expand...
This is one part of infill development which I do understand the NIMBY sentiment on - how it can make some residents no longer able to garden. I have no idea how to refute the argument and I would be equally pissed.
 
Another meaningless award that a majority of people in this city could care less about. The only ones who get off on this stuff are the planners in city administration, and maybe a few posters on this forum.

The new zoning bylaw needs many tweeks and adjustments . Its not even close to being "award winning"
 
Last edited:
_urbanite said:
Another meaningless award that a majority of people in this city could care less about. The only ones who get off on this stuff are the planners in city administration, and maybe a few posters on this forum.

The new zoning bylaw needs many tweeks and adjustments . Its not even close to being "award winning"
Click to expand...
What would you change about the LUB?
 
JuliallThat said:

This could actually be valuable, because once she loses or has her case thrown out there will be an example to point to that her property rights end at her own property line. We have no legal right to sunlight for better or for worse.
Also FWIW as can be seen in the satellite imagery in the link, her own house is in a very non-standard location on her lot, and actually would cast a very large shadow on her own neighbours yard. Talk about a hypocrite!
View attachment 650505
Click to expand...
Important missing context from this article: there was previously a two storey house on the neighbouring property as recently as 2020 which I assume would have shaded a lot of her yard.

Will the new infill shade over her property more than the one previous? Probably. But it does come across disingenuous to act like this was some uninterrupted oasis for the past thirty years.

policyenthusiast said:
This is one part of infill development which I do understand the NIMBY sentiment on - how it can make some residents no longer able to garden. I have no idea how to refute the argument and I would be equally pissed.
Click to expand...

Fights over sunshading have also existed long before any zoning bylaw reform or even "infill" construction... when I lived in Virginia Park, Neighbour #1 owned a bungalow and neighbour #2 owned a two storey directly east. Neighbour #1 demos the bungalow and starts building a two storey house on roughly the same foot print. Neighbour #2 realizes it will block the evening sunlight his backyard garden will receive (and his 2nd floor view, probably more importantly). Goes the nuclear legal route and sues, files for an injunction to construction, etc.

In the end, neighbour #1's two storey house was built anyway and nobody really won besides some lawyers.
 
northlands said:
Important missing context from this article: there was previously a two storey house on the neighbouring property as recently as 2020 which I assume would have shaded a lot of her yard.

Will the new infill shade over her property more than the one previous? Probably. But it does come across disingenuous to act like this was some uninterrupted oasis for the past thirty years.



Fights over sunshading have also existed long before any zoning bylaw reform or even "infill" construction... when I lived in Virginia Park, Neighbour #1 owned a bungalow and neighbour #2 owned a two storey directly east. Neighbour #1 demos the bungalow and starts building a two storey house on roughly the same foot print. Neighbour #2 realizes it will block the evening sunlight his backyard garden will receive (and his 2nd floor view, probably more importantly). Goes the nuclear legal route and sues, files for an injunction to construction, etc.

In the end, neighbour #1's two storey house was built anyway and nobody really won besides some lawyers.
Click to expand...
Yep. The new zoning bylaw allowing an extra 1.5m (?) of maximum building height doesn't really change much, besides making redevelopments more financially viable.
 
From Situate. Curious on your thoughts.

What's Up at Public Hearing on Tuesday
The May 20 City Council Public Hearing has no individual rezoning applications, with Priority Growth Areas taking centre stage.

City Council will discuss Priority Growth Area (PGA) rezonings in three key node and corridor areas: Wîhkwêntôwin Node and 124 Street Corridor, 156 Street and Stony Plain Road Corridors, and the University–Garneau Node. These City-initiated proactive rezonings aim to align zoning with the City Plan by pre-zoning select areas near mass transit for higher-density development—removing the need for landowners to rezone in the future.

There are three important implications to know about:

1. Not all land within the selected areas will be rezoned. The proposed rezonings target the sites with the greatest redevelopment potential, such as those located directly along corridors or within close proximity to mass transit. Check out this interactive map to see the sites proposed for rezoning.

2. The zone being applied to your site might not reflect its full potential. In some cases, Administration is proposing a more limited zone (like RMh16) even where a more flexible zone (like RMh23) could be supported by policy through a site-specific rezoning application.

3. If you own a site with existing low density housing (like a single or semi-detached home), the proposed zoning may restrict your ability to redevelop with new low density housing. The RM zone, for example, has minimum density requirements.

To let Council know your input on the PGA rezonings, submit written feedback by emailing the City Clerk at city.clerk@edmonton.ca with the subject line: "Feedback on Priority Growth Rezonings (Item 3.1 May 20 Public Hearing)" Your input will be included in Council's correspondence package.

You can also speak (in person or virtually) at the public hearing, to do so register in advance here.
 
Random question regarding the above: did the City start considering addition/conversion permits under a different category or why did they go to basically 0 after 2019?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top