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 

A developer pitched an incentive system in local media to move beyond only the units regulations in the ZBL. What if the ZBL had these incentives for the RS zone:

If 50% of the units have at least 2 bedrooms, you can build 8 units in the building.

If 20% of the units have at least 3 bedrooms, you can build 10 units in the building

If all the units are non-market housing, you can build up to 12 units on a corner lot or if the lot is within 250 meters of a park, school, transit stop, recreation centre, theatre, daycare, or museum.

If the applicant has an approved landscaping plan with softscaping, bike storage, and no driveways, the building can exceed 50% coverage of the lot.
 
^
Combined with CMHC’s MLI program (which is a big contributor to the amount of crap we’re seeing already), these changes would make things worse, not better.

What we’re seeing already is effectively the construction of rooming houses and these changes would just make them bigger and more profitable, not better.
 
trevorhayden said:
Sohi should have used it as a reason to end the session then and there, just to give infill developers more time for 8 unit approvals.

The 6 unit limit will pass. But I suspect this time next year that City Council will be back debating another amendment to allow 8 to 10 units near schools, parks, retail, and bus stops.
Click to expand...
Very possible. The new setback limitations make an eightplex with off-street parking impossible, and the public LOVES when developers make off-street parking.
 
I just sent this email to city council (I took out the preamble and afterword though):

"Watching the debate regarding six units versus eight, I think it is important to consider the approach a small Alberta town took. In 2017, High River approved a new, award-winning Land-Use Bylaw to shape how the town rebuilt after the 2013 flood. Despite the town only having around 13,000 residents at the time, this bylaw is arguably more progressive than Edmonton's; and did not face significant opposition or controversy.

Their bylaw is flexible and non-prescriptive. Not only did it remove minimum parking requirements, it also removed the cap on maximum dwelling units per property; instead regulating the size of buildings, and ensuring building design is high-quality and prioritizes the pedestrian experience. Furthermore, it allows commercial uses in all residential zones; for example, the "Traditional Neighbourhood" zone states that "The overall mix of Uses for this Land Use District should strive for 80.0 percent Residential and 20.0 percent business services." I bolded the qualifier to demonstrate their flexible approach.

I urge you to reach out to councillors or planning staff in High River to learn what they did well and could have done better, how they kept the public on board, and what takeaways we can apply here. If a car-dependent rural town can approve such a progressive zoning bylaw, and maintain it for subsequent years without it becoming a political lightning rod, I feel that there is no reason why Edmonton should be any different."
 
trevorhayden said:
There's nothing inherently wrong with what is being built in existing neighbourhoods. All I see is the pace of change is faster than some expected because some of Edmonton's legendary high growth is now coming to more neighbourhoods.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing wrong with SOME of what is being built in existing neighborhoods but there is A LOT WRONG (no pun intended) with much of what is being built in them.
 
Can anyone explain to me what's the issue with lodging houses? There have been lodging houses for literal centuries, and in fact many more in the past then there are today—many immigrants and arrivals to cities from the country stayed in them at first. If people are willing to accept less space and privacy for lower rent, that sounds like a win-win. Opposition starts to sound like an "I consent / I consent / I DON'T" situation.

If the claim is that in practice, boarding houses tend to be unsafe or poorly maintained, that's a matter for tenant protections. If the claim is that they're ugly, that's a matter for design standards. But I don't get the idea that lodging houses per se should be used as a watchword for bad or exploitative housing.
 
Administration told council that 53 eight-unit mid-block projects were approved in 2024, after the new zoning bylaw went into effect. So far in 2025, there are 103 applications.
 
IMG_9984.jpeg


If Tim Cartmell wants council meetings to run efficiently maybe he shouldn’t be proposing illegal motions that disrupt and prolong the discussion and lead to a number of people coming out to discuss the merits of said illegal motion.

Nice of him to take time out his his busy vacation to post on social media though.
 
So it sounds like he wants to be part of the solution but is part of the problem by NOT going to work. Wish I had their gigs, show up whenever they want? Is this the new standard of being a CIVIC employee now? Really leading by example, now the 10,000's of Union members just went, "Nice! Now we can call in sick whenever we want and show up at our own convenience." Which coincidentally they are already doing.......
 
Last edited:
fromyeg said:
View attachment 664850

If Tim Cartmell wants council meetings to run efficiently maybe he shouldn’t be proposing illegal motions that disrupt and prolong the discussion and lead to a number of people coming out to discuss the merits of said illegal motion.

Nice of him to take time out his his busy vacation to post on social media though.
Click to expand...

Another reason why I won't be voting for Cartman as Mayor of Edmonton.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top