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 

Yeah it seems pretty self evident that the new zbl has spurred additional development. Infill has increased noticeably while Greenfield has maintained at a similar rate, meaning that the infill isn't cannibalizing other housing developments.

The number of BPs makes it look like not that much has changed, but the number of units tell a different story.
 
Seeing infill units almost match the number of units outside the Henday for the first time ever should be a milestone moment. That's actually an insane level of growth for infill and something that should be shared as a lesson for other North American cities.

Give 10 years of this and we'll have a vastly different urban fabric based on this kind of development.
 
Kosy123 said:
Seeing infill units almost match the number of units outside the Henday for the first time ever should be a milestone moment. That's actually an insane level of growth for infill and something that should be shared as a lesson for other North American cities.

Give 10 years of this and we'll have a vastly different urban fabric based on this kind of development.
Click to expand...
Would love to see a big drop in apartments built outside the henday. It’s cannibalizing demand for central more, transit served areas (many of which are still “suburban”, not all DT). Blatchford, century park, stony plain road, Michener park, Bonnie doon mall.
 
Last edited:
From the Historic Edmonton FB group. In Highlands neighourhood, 62 st & 111 st. Highlands is sort of like Glenora-lite and definitely needs some more density… but man I sure wouldn’t want to live in the house in the foreground lol

IMG_8200.jpeg
 
In case anyone is interested, City Administration will be finalizing & publishing the 1-year annual report on the ZBR tomorrow. Any changes proposed by administration to the Bylaw will be included in that report. It might be posted on the Council monthly calendar soon, but I'll try to link it here once it's available unless someone beats me to it.
 
Last edited:
northlands said:
From the Historic Edmonton FB group. In Highlands neighourhood, 62 st & 111 st. Highlands is sort of like Glenora-lite and definitely needs some more density… but man I sure wouldn’t want to live in the house in the foreground lol

View attachment 652960
Click to expand...
This one is in my neck of the woods.

This is a good example of how this new zoning bylaw is going way too far. The other side has balconies on the upper 2 levels that look directly into neighouring yards. It's essentially a mini-apartment building smack dab in the middle of a historical residential neighborhood, that has nothing even close to this in scale or size. There's not really any great transit connection (there's 1 bus that goes down 112 ave), and it's not near any amenities. There will be very little parking here. Yes, yes, I know, the lack of parking is moot point for you hardcore urbanists who think everyone living here won't drive, but without any real alternatives to get anywhere from here, guess what? They're going to drive, and there's not enough parking on the street. City admin & council needs to stop burying their heads in the sand over these concerns, because they are real concerns that need to be addressed.

Everyone I've talked around here HATES this project. There's another, similar sized development on 51 st just off Ada Boulevard that's just as imposing, though it's oriented towards a back lane, which separates it from the homes south of it (not as bad).
 
If this keeps on going there will be a backlash, mark my words.

The city needs to understand the difference between central areas with rare historic houses around 100 years old or so, and areas chock full of post WWII tiny bungalows and treat them accordingly.
 
_urbanite said:
This one is in my neck of the woods.

This is a good example of how this new zoning bylaw is going way too far. The other side has balconies on the upper 2 levels that look directly into neighouring yards. It's essentially a mini-apartment building smack dab in the middle of a historical residential neighborhood, that has nothing even close to this in scale or size. There's not really any great transit connection (there's 1 bus that goes down 112 ave), and it's not near any amenities. There will be very little parking here. Yes, yes, I know, the lack of parking is moot point for you hardcore urbanists who think everyone living here won't drive, but without any real alternatives to get anywhere from here, guess what? They're going to drive, and there's not enough parking on the street. City admin & council needs to stop burying their heads in the sand over these concerns, because they are real concerns that need to be addressed.

Everyone I've talked around here HATES this project. There's another, similar sized development on 51 st just off Ada Boulevard that's just as imposing, though it's oriented towards a back lane, which separates it from the homes south of it (not as bad).
Click to expand...
I wholly and entirely agree. It's a bunk spot for this project. If it were at least closer to Concordia instead of being approximately a KM away, it'd make a lot more sense.
 
northlands said:
From the Historic Edmonton FB group. In Highlands neighourhood, 62 st & 111 st. Highlands is sort of like Glenora-lite and definitely needs some more density… but man I sure wouldn’t want to live in the house in the foreground lol

View attachment 652960
Click to expand...
I think it was Knack who had talked about the idea of transition rules where your maximum height is contingent on next door buildings?

So a 2 story build might have a taller 3 story next to it. But a bungalow can’t jump to 3 story neighbour.

Would that solve some of this?

Part of the challenge is also set backs, trees, and window orientation. But how do we regulate all of those without all the “red tape” being added?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top