[ChazYEG]

It could also happen that you have the wrong kind of growth, overly dense rental projects in the core, more dense than the plans contemplate or is desired.

This is a very unlikely scenario in almost any major and mid-sized North American city, considering the current level of density in their cores.
Density higher than desired would mean São Paulo, Tokyo or Hong Kong levels of density, with a lack of orderly growth patterns, which I just can't see happening in Edmonton, especially if we consider that there is a lot of power on the council's hand to control the developments that are approved or not in the city.

 

[Greenspace]

^I disagree. Recent approved DCs for some are FARs of 17, such as The Shift or Falcon Towers. These are already higher than the Capital City Dt Plan contemplates. Each one can be debated on it's own merits, those FARs are approaching Manhattan skyline levels. Is that necessary in a suburban city like Edmonton, and will there be more call for higher densities if there's a tax incentive? Posing the question.

 

[ChazYEG]

^I disagree. Recent approved DCs for some are FARs of 17, such as The Shift or Falcon Towers. These are already higher than the Capital City Dt Plan contemplates. Each one can be debated on it's own merits, those FARs are approaching Manhattan skyline levels. Is that necessary in a suburban city like Edmonton, and will there be more call for higher densities if there's a tax incentive? Posing the question.

The whole point is exactly to shift from being a suburban city to a denser, more walkable city, and if we can get our core to Manhattan levels of density, all the better. What is unsustainable, both economically and environmentally, is to let sprawl continue unchecked, like it has been happening in Edmonton.

 

[Greenspace]

^Density at any cost is not necessarily good planning. That's what urban planners thought 10 years ago. Downtown is always going to have the most dense projects, that's how most North American cities have developed. But you also have to look at context, built form --theres not reason some of that density can't be spread out. We're seeing it now in more 'missing middle' type projects, more mid height towers in West Oliver for example. It doesn't have to be 45 storey towers or single family, which has pretty much been Edmonton's model until now.

 

[ChazYEG]

^Density at any cost is not necessarily good planning. That's what urban planners thought 10 years ago. Downtown is always going to have the most dense projects, that's how most North American cities have developed. But you also have to look at context, built form --theres not reason some of that density can't be spread out. We're seeing it now in more 'missing middle' type projects, more mid height towers in West Oliver for example. It doesn't have to be 45 storey towers or single family, which has pretty much been Edmonton's model until now.

And adjusting property taxes in a balanced way can tackle the issue you mentioned, while still pushing for densities as high as possible in the core.

The level of infrastructure serviced to the core is way too high to allow mid-density to happen there, especially if we are looking decades into the future.

 

[Greenspace]

^Densities are already high, as prescribed in zoning. For example, HA is mostly FAR of 14. That's similar to Manhattan.

My question was really about the even higher zoned projects that might be pushed for as a result of taxes purely based on density, which isn't a very good measure of good urban planning.

 

[EtoV]

^Densities are already high, as prescribed in zoning. For example, HA is mostly FAR of 14. That's similar to Manhattan.

My question was really about the even higher zoned projects that might be pushed for as a result of taxes purely based on density, which isn't a very good measure of good urban planning.

You seem to be looking at this as an all or nothing approach. I don't believe anyone is looking to rewrite the tax code in such a way that FARs of 14 are the only attractive option. If the formula is written so poorly that you start getting densities that are too high, you can always modify the weighting so that medium density development becomes an attractive option again

 

[ChazYEG]

^Densities are already high, as prescribed in zoning. For example, HA is mostly FAR of 14. That's similar to Manhattan.

My question was really about the even higher zoned projects that might be pushed for as a result of taxes purely based on density, which isn't a very good measure of good urban planning.

My first big issue with your general line of thought, here, is that you seem to believe that what is in the zoning and the current plan is good and should be followed to the letter, to which I disagree. Until we're able to see every single surface lot or low density commercial in our core become a high density building, either commercial or residential, we'll be nowhere close to taking full advantage from the high level of infrastructure serving the area.

That doesn't mean that we necessarily want to see skyscrapers popping out on every corner of the city, and we'll do very well in keeping neighbourhoods like Westmount, Old Strathcona, Rossdale, Queen Mary Park, Alberta Avenue, for example, for missing middle developments, such as low and mid-rise condos/apartments, row houses, etc...

What is imperative is that we slow, or stop, the sprawl, which is financially, environmentally and I dare say socially harmful.

 

[Greenspace]

^^Agreed. Just posing the question about possible negative effects but perhaps they can be mitigated. I'm not confident in a suburban city like Edmonotn's Council will go for this plan anyways, but who knows.

^I don't think we're very far off in our thoughts on this. Very much agree on the last point.

 

[CplKlinger]

Fort Saskatchewan's City Council will debate the first reading of a proposed bylaw on April 12, which would "provide tax-based incentives to eligible properties within the downtown area to support multi-unit and mixed-use development". As you can see from this map, a significant number of properties would be eligible for such an incentive. Here's context about the affordable housing proposal which led to this motion. This is in addition to a "Downtown Development Grant Incentive" which is coming to Council on May 10.

"The eligibility criteria for projects within the Bylaw includes:

1. projects must be located on a brownfield site as identified within the Bylaw and presented in Appendix B [the map I linked above];

2. projects must be a new construction of mixed-use or multi-unit residential development;

4. projects must be at least 2 stories;

5. projects must create a minimum of:
a. 3 new residential units above ground-floor commercial use for a mixed-use development; or
b. 6 residential units;

6. for mixed-use developments, the residential use must comprise a minimum of 50% of total project area"

 

[TAS]

A consultant’s report produced for the city of Ottawa revealed that it costs the municipality $465 annually per person to service low-density homes on the periphery. But for homes in infill areas, the city takes in $606 more each year per person than it costs to service them.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

I wish the city would publicly outline the costs for Edmontonians of low density homes in newer neighbiurhoods in the suburbs versus how neighbourhoods in the core are subsidizing them.

 

[BASE]

A consultant’s report produced for the city of Ottawa revealed that it costs the municipality $465 annually per person to service low-density homes on the periphery. But for homes in infill areas, the city takes in $606 more each year per person than it costs to service them.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

I wish the city would publicly outline the costs for Edmontonians of low density homes in newer neighbiurhoods in the suburbs versus how neighbourhoods in the core are subsidizing them.

cost to service would be a good one. I think some might be surprised at the costs of some mid-late 20th century neighborhoods vs. Some of the newer areas in the last couple decades that have been built much more densely.

 

[soupcrate]

cost to service would be a good one. I think some might be surprised at the costs of some mid-late 20th century neighborhoods vs. Some of the newer areas in the last couple decades that have been built much more densely.

Yep. The new suburbs are honestly way better than the "og" suburbs in terms of density and bike paths. Just take a look at the cycle path mode on Google maps. The old suburbs are slowly getting better with infill and renewal projects, but it will take a long time yet.

The trouble is the new suburbs are so far out that they are car dependent by necessity, and the lacking infrastructure in the inner neighborhoods prevents people from making safe bike commutes.

If our old (mid-late 20th century) neighborhoods were built to the same spec as our new ones, we would have a fairly solid bike network and respectable density.

 

[EtoV]

New suburbs are denser and more connected, but they still have the same issues of car dependency not only because of their location, but also the location of amenities and commercial areas. Commercial spaces are still hardly ever integrated into the community, restricted to power centers and strip malls on the periphery of developments. Rec Centres are large spaces meant to serve a wide community, most of whom are not within walking or easy biking distance, and have insufficient transit options to get them there in a reasonable timeframe.

Edmonton is not at a density where cars could not be needed for any trips, but we could be building in a way to make them unnecessary for far more local trips in new suburbs, without substantially changing how we develop. For example treating each new suburb like a town with a "Town Centre" form of development where commercial areas and amenities are at the center of the development rather than the peripheries can help reduce the distance for residence, and also help remove barriers of large arterials that can make it daunting to walk or bike even if amenities are close. Many small towns (at least in my experience in BC) tend to be walkable, not because of good design, but by virtue of needing amenities to be local. The town centre has a barber shop, a grocery store, a dentist, a pharmacy etc. because the other option would be having to drive to the next town over for those things. We need to treat our suburbs the same way, planning in a way so that you can meet the majority of your needs within your own community. If we plan our suburbs right, then it doesn't matter where they are located in relation to the city centre, they'll still have access to most of their needs within their own community.

 

[EtoV]

I suppose I did. Still, we're a far way off from creating any 15 minute communities outside the core.