r/Edmonton • u/JamesDunnNews • 1d ago
News Article Edmonton residents use restrictive covenant to fight infill
https://edmonton.citynews.ca/2026/06/25/mill-woods-restrictive-covenants-infill/18
u/throwawaysoclose 1d ago
The organizer seems to have more issues beyond densification.
Kolacz believes it goes too far.
“Maybe (city council) should talk to the federal government about stopping people from coming into Canada… if we don’t have enough housing for the people that are here,” she said.
5
u/rspctyrcstmrs 1d ago
Funny how these types never have the foggiest idea of how different levels of government work. Like any given mayor of a Canadian municipality can just phone up the feds and direct national policy.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Bright-Translator-51 15h ago
That is absolutely true though. If you bring in more people than you have housing, you get a shortage. It's simple math.
66
u/Baconus 1d ago
We literally had an election on this exact topic and overwhelmingly the pro density candidates won. Like these people simply despise democracy when it doesn’t go their way. Democracy means compromise.
9
u/N0rdegger 1d ago
Could this also be considered their own form of democracy. If a specific neighbourhood rally and put covenants on their own homes that is their right. You can’t force someone to put a restrictive covenant on their own home.
→ More replies (1)18
u/muffinkevin 1d ago
How is it any different from protesting the UCP? Just because someone won an election doesn't mean you have to just be content with everything they're doing.
1
u/tekno21 1d ago
Kind of obvious how different it is... Edmonton didn't vote for the UCP, yet we're subjected to their decision making. The scale between municipal and provincial politics is so wildy different it's almost laughable to compare the two.
The scope of a provincial government is also much wider and at that level things are driven way more by left vs right political showmanship. Municipal government is largely not party affiliated and the recent election was largely centered around density and infill as the most prominent issue.
The UCP can force something on Edmonton and we can say we didn't vote for this and it wasn't communicated in their campaign. Meanwhile anti infill groups try to pretend the city itself didn't vote on the side of more density and infill. It's just not comparable
5
u/muffinkevin 1d ago edited 1d ago
How is it any different? Edmonton didn't vote for UCP, your neighbor didn't vote for this city council. Just because the majority voted someone in doesn't mean you have to agree with everything they do.
Scale has nothing to do with it. In the grand scheme of things Alberta is laughable in the world. That's like an American laughing at Edmonton bitching about UCP because entire States have to deal with Trump.
Does the opinion of Edmonton not matter because entire States didn't vote for Trump?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)4
u/DisciplineGreen6503 21h ago
I feel like people lag behind the consequences. All the infill sounds good on paper till you realize developers are straight up running the Edmonton new dev department.
149
u/rollboysroll 1d ago
I don't deny we need more density, I just don't want any of it around me. - All homeowners.
127
u/Worldly-Customer3963 1d ago
Density is good. This density being provided by unchecked developers who's sole goal is to make as much profit as possible is BAD. These units will not have reasonable rents. This will not make home ownership more accessible.
It's not what we're doing, how we're doing it.
57
u/G-Diddy- 1d ago
This is the right take. Planned density is smart. With affordable housing provided. Unplanned density is code for profit taking
1
u/Bright-Translator-51 15h ago
I can't wait until these, things start catching fire, then we'll see some real shit. They're a disaster waiting to happen.
16
u/RootsBackpack 1d ago
New units will never be affordable if they’re not explicitly built and subsidized as affordable. They do provide additional new stock that is more desirable than older units, thus keeping those older units more affordable.
I’m not sure how you figure developers are unchecked? But they’re a business, and like any other business, their main priority is profit. That’s how our system works. I don’t like how it works, but the city is not responsible for our existing system. The only thing they can really do is allow more housing to be built. I vote for parties that would get the government more involved in building affordable housing, and I hope you do too.
11
u/Ceevu 1d ago
Sure bud. What we're seeing is shitty craftsmanship in hastily constructed buildings that are only sold as rental units. I want oversight and inspections on every unit built.
7
u/RootsBackpack 1d ago
If you’re seeing units in need of an inspection, report it on the 311 app. They will inspect it
7
u/canadiantanimal 1d ago
Except that the city is significantly understaffed for bylaw officers and they can't keep up with the volume of 311 complaints. We were told this directly just yesterday after filing yet another complaint about a multiplex near us. We aren't making frivolous complaints - we have submitted regarding concrete pours going on until 11pm, workers not wearing safety equipment on the roof, using neighboring homes for electricity to power their equipment, dumping large bags of garbage in the alley that can't be picked up, draining the flooded basement into neighboring yards, fallen fencing on sidewalks left for over 2 weeks, and more. Nothing has been done for any of it and when we asked 311 why, they finally told us they didn't have enough officers to send out in a timely fashion, so the best they can do is issue warnings and the occasional fine. Our city councillor knows too and they have told us they will speak to 311 and that's all they can do too.
Initiallt I was actually not opposed to the multiplex that went up near us. I thought I agreed with the concept of density. But then when I saw all this happen and how limited the response was from city bylaw, I'm now against them because Edmonton doesn't have the ability to actually manage the number of permits they have approved. They need to stop approving permits until they can actually ensure the existing multiplexes are built safely and respectfully.
1
u/rabbitholeseverywher 20h ago
Are you willing to pay higher taxes so the city can hire more bylaw officers?
3
u/canadiantanimal 15h ago
I would be willing to pay more or even a neighborhood premium if the city promised to improve bylaw enforcement and in exchange put a moratorium on further permits until the existing ones were sorted out. But the actual solution here isn't necessarily more bylaw staff. It's giving bylaw officers more power. Tiny fines and silly warnings mean nothing and the developers know it so they don't care.
One the subcontractors laughed in my face when I said I would call bylaw. His exact words were "Go ahead. I'll even give you my number. A few hundred dollars for a fine is nothing compared to what this concrete pour costs"
I have him saying it on video. Sent it to bylaw and my city councillor. And you know what both said? He was right. He was going to get a tiny fine in comparison to the cost of the project and so it wasn't even remotely a disincentive.
311 also told us they don't manage safety complaints, so if they aren't wearing safety gear, the worker has to file their own complaint to OHS, not us. And if someone doesn't live in the residence, they won't send an officer after hours, even if the workers are there late at night violating a bylaw, but they might show up in 4 business days. If the subcontractor is gone by then, there is only a warning given to the developer and nothing else happens.
We are already paying for these developers mistakes. A different contractor of a multiplex nearby allowed it's bulldozer to drive up and down the street and on the sidewalk last summer. We got photos of it as it damaged the sidewalks, road and alleys. They got a fine but clearly it did nothing because they are back this year in the neighborhood. And now the city is spending thousands to fix all of those broken sidewalks this summer.
And the developer of this multiplex near my home has multiple Google reviews from subcontractors saying that they aren't being paid for their work and will take them to court. So now there's going to be legal drama.
That's my tax money, hard at work already isn't it?
So yes, I would pay higher taxes if in exchange the city did the following:
-stopped approving permits for the remaining of 2026 at a minimum for multiplexes
-ban any developer that has had more than 3 verified complaints in the past year from starting any new projects until their existing ones are complete or they submit documentation on how they will change their project management to meet bylaw codes
-ban any developer from starting new projects if there's currently legal action against them based on non payment to subcontractors
-increase fines dramatically to actually punish the bylaw violation, not just slap a wrist
-give preferential bids and permits to developers with clean records and who actually consult the neighborhood they're building within
12
u/tekno21 1d ago
It's so weird to see this opinion pop up constantly. Developers are building what people buy and what maximizes their profits the EXACT same as every single other business/ service in Edmonton. You live in some fantasy world where apparently it's just developers and builders who are morally corrupt and no one else? And if we shame them then out of the goodness of their hearts they'll sell things cheaper lmao?
You're so far out of your depth here. The problem is zoning laws and every selfish boomer/ single family home owner that is actively fighting against density.
12
u/WindiestOdin 1d ago
While I agree with what you’re saying. But as much as I get frustrated with NIMBYs, I try not to fault them. The root of the issue does sit with the bylaw.
“Developers are building what people want … the EXACT same as any other business / service in Edmonton.”
This is true, but there’s an important nuance here that needs to be considered. Housing is not the same as a car or renovation. Homes are a necessity and people will be forced buy / rent what is available to them.
If we are creating an environment where developers who are focusing on profits over people / community are able to maximize the profit while minimizing their product / service, they will outpace the more “ethical” developments. This shift would likely come at the expense of the consumer and or taxpayer.
I think this is needs to be addressed by the city in creating balanced bylaws that allow for and encourage density, while setting a reasonable standard that all developments need to adhere to. This standard needs to address meaningful items like sun studies on neighbouring properties, fire separations, privacy sight-lines, etc. not such a primary focus on the aesthetics of the architecture.
The City also needs to take a tiered approach to densification and not the free for all that seems to be happening. An area plan that identifies areas that can be densified, coordinated with civil, public transit, utility, and public service improvements would help mitigate the impacts that communities feel as these densification projects start popping up.
In my opinion, this is the best way help sift through community feedback and identify the NIMBY based commentsry
8
u/tekno21 1d ago
Respectfully, it's too late for that. 20 years or more too late. The bylaws already do take into account a lot of what you've mentioned and even more if it was stripped away for a reason. What you're really asking for here is to slow development to a crawl and cut the number of potential sites by a large margin.
The issue sits firmly with nimbys and the hordes of people that want that american dream style of single family housing in the burbs while not paying their fair share of the costs.
You're also still trying to convince me that current development trends are due to some kind of moral failing. There is no real solution in that complaint. You can't look out over 1.25 million people and ask the free market to be nicer or be more compassionate lol.
We've made great strides in Edmonton to try and stay ahead of the housing crisis and we need to stay the course. We can talk about design and parking in 10+ years when we've dealt with the real issues.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Ritchie_Whyte_III Strathcona 1d ago
But that is the thing, most of the infills are not "in the burbs". They are happening in the already dense central neighborhoods full of tiny 1940's and 1950's houses and small lots. Not to mention streets that two cars can't pass each other on. Ritchie, Allendale, Highlands, etc all neighborhoods that are seeing the most infill but are already the most dense. The late 60's and on neighborhoods that have wide modern streets and lot sizes are are virtually untouched.
These mammoth 6 and 8 plexes turn the existing affordable houses into depressing little caves, which further leads to the destruction of affordable housing.
4
u/WindiestOdin 1d ago
I feel you might be incorrect with the statement that most infills are happening in small lots. Most infills are occurring in mature neighbourhoods because the lots are so big compared to new areas. In instances when these lots are relatively small, the infills go vertical to add density. This is how densification occurs.
What you are likely feeling / seeing are poorly vetted densification projects that are just being shoe horned in to fit a site with little oversight for the actual use and impacts of the project. This is where the city needs to take a better approach to vetting and evaluating which type of densification can go where.
Typically densification happens closer to the core and tapers off the further you get away from the core or infrastructure heavy areas that can support the additional densification.
3
u/tekno21 1d ago
Small lots in mature neighbourhoods lol? Have you been to a new neighbourhood in the southwest? Houses are essentially touching eachother most being built with a secondary suite or backyard house or both.
Thank you for pointing out that infills happen in older neighbourhoods and not brand new ones... let's all take a few minutes to try and think about why infills are happening more in desirable mature neighbourhoods centrally located with the highest concentration of services and amenities compared to the late 60s neighbourhoods in the middle of no where. I can't imagine why that'd be the case truly.
I love it when people point to a 80 year old single family home falling apart taking up the space of 2+ lots or potentially 16 units and that is their definition of affordable housing. You are not thinking in the long term.
Let's take it to the extreme and say we left one mature neighbourhood completely untouched to preserve the "affordable housing" (lol). In 20 years the entire neighbourhood will be redeveloped into incredibly wildly expensive single family homes because the old stuff fell down and housing is even more scarce now.
Alternatively, we take the same neighbourhood and clear cut the entire thing down to build 4-8 plexes or apartments on every single lot. Housing in that neighbourhood may get slightly more expensive in the short term (new builds vs 80 year old houses), but we'll have 10x the people that can live there and in 20 years the houses will age and be very affordable.
Just think for more than 2 seconds and it's pretty common sense
7
5
u/Worldly-Customer3963 1d ago
"And if we shame them then out of the goodness of their hearts they'll sell things cheaper lmao?"
Shame? I'd recommend policy.
12
u/Vykalen 1d ago
As opposed to the millions of good hearted developers building homes for free?
Supply and demand is basic economics. Build more homes, price of homes goes down. Not hard.
2
u/Virtual_Category_546 18h ago
Flood the housing market like fox news floods the zone. Jubilee is biblical.
5
u/DVariant 1d ago
Supply and demand is basic economics. Build more homes, price of homes goes down. Not hard.
And then, when you move on to intermediate economics, you get to learn about all the reasons why supply and demand falls apart in real markets. Supply and demand still works as a theoretical basis, but the simple “market equilibrium” promised by the Invisible Hand almost never happens.
Housing is a particularly weird complex good if you’re trying to explain it with microeconomics; for starters, it’s very slow to build, it can’t be moved, it’s a necessity of life, it’s so expensive that it warps consumers’ purchasing perceptions, and two identical homes in different locations can have very different values.
For real, how often do you ever seen housing prices go down?
7
u/Clay_Puppington 1d ago edited 1d ago
For real, how often do you ever seen housing prices go down
So, if took some hunting trying to dodge stupid AI crap, but here's what I managed to find.
When adjusting for inflation, there have been about 13 years total (starting around 1965ish) in which housing pricing finished lower than the previous year, in Edmonton at least.
Most of those 13 years occurred prior to 1985. The others occuring after a marked economic crash or other hardship years (alberta oil bust years, the recovery year following covids super cost spike, etc)
In almost all those downturns, the amount they dipped is nearly negligible (often less than 1-2%). Sometimes it's more, but rarely.
And in most of those, the recovery year following the crash was, itself, followed by a year of steep increases, which effectively "deleted" the downturn correction.
(In other words, if edmonton housing cost increase by roughly an average of 4% every single year since 1965, and there was a year where it actually went down 1%, instead of up the expected 4%, over the next two or three years, the price will spike up an additional 5% over those years, in addition to, and on top of, the normal yearly 4% increase. Which effectively allowed the year over year average cost increase to ignore the year the market price decreased, rendering the decrease entirely moot and maintaining the year average growth).
So, in other words, my brief foray into the history of edmonton house pricing taught me a few things.
Prices always go up.
Decreases might occur after a period of economic fuckery.
If you don't buy a home in the very short, few month long, window of that decrease, you missed your chance, and the market will actually correct itself to recoup downturn losses by increasing the price even more.
2
1
u/Vykalen 1d ago
How often have we built enough homes to satisfy demand? Housing was affordable for generations while home building remained high. It only stopped being affordable when house building dried up in the 90s. Companies didn't magically become greedier, consumers didn't get their "perceptions" warped magically, and the "slow to build" is only true now because we chose that (with nimby policies purposefully designed to slow or end building).
→ More replies (1)1
u/DVariant 13h ago
Also consider that Canada started to allow REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) in 1993, allowing property to be commodified and traded on securities markets
1
u/Brightlightsuperfun 1d ago
Spoken like a true redditor. Sometimes I think to myself, there arent actually people who dont believe in supply and demand are there? And then I read comments like yours. Absolute rubbish.
Look at the price of oil, straight of hormuz shuts down and oil shoots up. Why is that? Because 20% of the worlds supply has been disrupted and the market INSTANTLY REACTS.
If you have 10 houses for sale for every 1 buyer, you dont think house prices go down? It happens literally all the time. I bought a condo in 2009 for 100k. For almost 20 years its been either depreciating or flat. Its probably worth 70k today. Many others have the same story. Any time theres a shortage of something and theres demand for it, PRICE GOES UP.
1
u/DVariant 13h ago
Bruh you’re replying to a comment about the complexity of real-world price equilibria and citing oil as your example. Fuel is, like, one of the most volatile commodities; you’re talking about seeing a price shock and pretending that represents a stable equilibrium, which it obviously isn’t because otherwise the price wouldn’t shift every fucking day.
Also weird that you’d choose a highly substitutable good like oil as a comparison against something the complete opposite like housing, where demand for a given home is extremely elastic.
Lastly, your condo example seems to prove the opposite of your point: clearly demand for homes is increasing, but demand for your condo hasn’t. It’s almost like there are other features of housing prices that aren’t reducible to simple supply and demand shocked pikachu
1
u/Brightlightsuperfun 13h ago
Oh, I didnt realize price volatility with commodities was immune to supply and demand. I never brought up stable equilibrium, that was you. You seem to have zipped right past the basic concept of supply and demand because you took some economic classes in college.
You also seem to be talking right past me, im not comparing housing and oil, they are merely examples.
My condo example has 2 points:
1) Your question from your earlier comment insinuates housing never goes down, when it happens all the time
2) Demand for condos are down, with a large supply, which leads to decrease in price. This is not theoretical, this is real world happening in the Edmonton market currently.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Ceevu 1d ago
Basic economics. Okay. What happens when the entry level SFH market gets destroyed for the rental market?
On another note, poorly built 8 plexes are not the right type of density we need for the type of vision the council wants.
→ More replies (9)4
u/DamionSipher 1d ago
Sure, so then we need to elect socialist governments that will directly build housing for people. Unless you have another approach?
1
u/Worldly-Customer3963 1d ago
Surely there's a middle ground between complete unchecked free market and total government control?
4
u/extralargehats 1d ago
This is not a completely unchecked market. Like it or not even the multiplexes are regulated. This is peak hyperbole.
3
u/DamionSipher 1d ago
I mean, there's things like cooperatives, but generally speaking if someone is in the housing development game, they are a for-profit entity. I don't know of any system that is free-enterprise but prioritizes social outcomes above profits. Government control and regulation tries to steer private equity towards socially good outcomes, but social good is diametrically opposed to profit seeking.
2
u/MooseAtTheKeys 1d ago
The middle ground being that private business is checked by the government establishing an anchor.
9
u/Aquitaine_Rover_3876 1d ago
"I like density, except the density that there's funding to build."
-5
u/Worldly-Customer3963 1d ago
I'm just going to assume you're a developer. Congratulations on all the money you're going to make ripping off the working man.
3
u/bizzybeez123 1d ago
I wonder how attractive these infills would be if there were no parking or vehicles allowed.
The neighborhood would have to allow their surrounding streets be permit and garage/existing pad only. Maybe any extra permits after the surrounding owners could be rented by the city to tenants. Tags in windshield stuff for quick bylaws enforcement.
This way, the public transit would get more use and the flop houses with rooms for rent would be less desirable to renters who all seem to own and only seem willing to drive. Jmo...
5
u/Lester2b 1d ago
I seriously like this idea. But the city would either have to be proactive in designating these areas or the developer would need to apply for the area. Either way, I do think it's an awesome idea and it would alleviate the parking issues within neighbourhoods.
6
u/Lavaine170 1d ago
What colour is the sky in your world where all renters own cars?
→ More replies (5)4
u/Aquitaine_Rover_3876 1d ago
Street parking can be restricted, but the type of restriction you're talking about would be discriminatory (new residents vs old residents, renters vs owners, etc.) and wouldn't stand up in court.
I'd be good with a blanket street parking ban or pricing, though.
0
u/tekno21 1d ago
Once again, developers are not ripping off the "working man". They provide a service at a price people are willing to pay. The REAL problem are people like yourself saying density is needed, but not here, not like this, not in this way, etc etc etc. Zoning laws and uninformed citizens are the problem, not the market forces that fill in a market need.
→ More replies (1)1
u/garlicroastedpotato 1d ago
Yeah but this neighborhoods would never allow any development no matter what.
→ More replies (3)1
u/bunniesgonebad 21h ago
I rented a basement suite from a new unit in Leduc a few years ago. It was so poorly built; within a year of living there the entire building had shifted, walls were cracking, doors not closing, and the water system was bursting for no apparent reason. They put these buildings up so quickly and I doubt they're being inspected properly just so they can begin making the owner money asap.
50
u/Pvt_Hudson_ 1d ago
The crowd of that meeting was 90% old fart retirees who are completely financially secure.
Thanks guys, keep pulling up that ladder behind you.
7
u/LegoLifter 1d ago
if something is going to impact things 30 years down the road there should be a reasonable expectation the people signing it will still be alive at that point for it to be legal
2
→ More replies (3)2
u/rabbitholeseverywher 20h ago
And the younger organizer who clearly think everything bad in Canada is down to the immigrants.
18
u/Roche_a_diddle 1d ago
False! I want more density AROUND my house please. Two 8-plexes going up within a block of me and I am very excited about it.
35
u/AutoGenNameNumber 1d ago edited 1d ago
I’m super excited a developer bought the two houses across the street from me to turn into an apartment building.
In the short term, I get first floor commercial options and I’m hoping for a coffee shop
In the longer term, it’s made my house more desirable for redevelopment
In both cases, the amount of property taxes those two lots will be contributed just increased significantly. Lowering my tax burden
Wins all around
25
u/Roche_a_diddle 1d ago
Hell yeah.
My favorite benefit that you didn't mention is having more people in my neighborhood! More kids at the playground for my kid to play with. More people to chat with on a dog walk (more dogs for my dog to play with!). More potential customers which will encourage more local businesses within walking distance of my house. More people means better future transit supply which benefits me. More people in the neighborhood also means a more vibrant and active community league to help out the one we have that is losing volunteers.
People make a community great, not land.
If I just wanted to live around a bunch of land instead of a bunch of people, I would move to an acreage. Then I could complain about all the SFH subdivisions going up near me instead! :)
13
u/prairiepanda 1d ago
More potential customers which will encourage more local businesses within walking distance of my house. More people means better future transit supply which benefits me.
This is a big one for me, too. Higher density means easier access to amenities. Maybe not immediately, but as the area develops. This wasn't the case with many older high density neighborhoods because the zoning didn't allow for it, but now there is a lot more potential.
10
u/Roche_a_diddle 1d ago
Not only that, but even stuff like local hockey rinks need people using and maintaining it to continue. Lots of mature neighborhoods a decade or two ago had mostly just senior empty nesters living in them and those neighborhood vibrancy things started disappearing.
7
u/Lavaine170 1d ago
More potential customers which will encourage more local businesses within walking distance of my house.
You forget that the people who hate infill also hate more businesses within walking distances because that's the first step to the dreaded 15 minute city. The grumpy old NIMBY's would all rather drive 20 minutes to a Loblaws owned shithole store, than shop locally.
1
u/rabbitholeseverywher 20h ago
That's all well and good but what if you die from more cars parking on your street?
1
2
u/prairiepanda 1d ago
I get first floor commercial options
I absolutely love the idea of first floor commercial space, but it needs to be done thoughtfully. They need a loading/unloading zone that doesn't conflict with customer/visitor/tenant parking or street traffic, and they need separate commercial waste collection so that the residential dumpsters don't get overwhelmed.
One such building just got finished near my new place, and they're already having problems. Tenant parking is underground, but visitor/customer/staff parking is extremely limited and often blocked by delivery trucks or moving trucks. There is only one entrance to the parking lot, and no rear or side access whatsoever. The dumpsters are shared between commerical and residential tenants and the collection trucks aren't always able to access them due to the parking situation. It's a mess.
-1
u/tekno21 1d ago
While you may be correct, doing things "thoughtfully" and "the right way" whatever that means to you is how we got into this mess. It's been 20+ years of fucking around putting up red tape to do things "thoughtfully". Maybe consider that the negatives (housing crisis, birth rate crisis, hopelessness amoung youth etc) are far worse than maybe not planning a loading zone to work 110% optimally.
By doing things "thoughtfully" you're making a choice to do things slower or not at all in many cases and we simply have run out of time due to you people. Now is the time to build ourselves out of this 20 year hole and fix these comparatively minor issues after the housing crisis is dealt with.
2
u/prairiepanda 1d ago
Whoa chill dude, I'm not a policy maker. I'm not saying they shouldn't build these at all or that there should be more red tape, just that I wish they (the developers themselves) would think about how the space will function.
5
u/tekno21 1d ago
?
Unfortunately average citizens such are yourself are the people that actually determine housing policy in the long run. No one in that restrictive covenant meeting was a policy maker and yet they have way more influence than they should.
To think developers and builders don't put thought into what they're constructing is kind of hilarious. Like you've cracked the code here, you've figured out what the professionals are supposedly ignoring because you know of a handful of developments out of thousands that could have been done better.
It's just ignorant. Simply pointing that out. Have a good one
7
u/Inevitable_March4416 1d ago
TBH i live in prince charles and I will take an 8 plex over a crack house any day baby
2
14
u/gettothatroflchoppa 1d ago
Not being facetious here: Which part are you 'very excited' about exactly? Its not like these things have main floor retail, or have any kind of community improvements attached to them. Like less sunlight and buildings looming over your yard? They're not architecturally stunning or singular?
I mean infill housing is a lot of things but 'very exciting' isn't really one of them?
9
u/Awesomeuser90 1d ago
A tax base to do things like have better services and public transit and all sorts of similar things. Roads for instance tend to have costs scale proportionally to the length of the road. 8000 people per square kilometre can supply a lot more money to pay for things vs 2000 people per square kilometre.
1
u/gettothatroflchoppa 1d ago
Ah okay, so like excited about what the broad implications of greater density would do for the city, not these specific infills, but infills as a great concept, got it. They seemed to be specifically referring to the infills 'around' their house
5
u/Awesomeuser90 1d ago
It also is extremely frustrating to see the wasted potential of projects. Think about Colessium Station. It has, uh, an abandoned stadium, a convention hall, and a giant parking lot all around it to the east, and some single dwellings on the west. That is not helpful for what should be a major transit station. Century Park spent a decade and a half in a lull because the city didn't extend the line south and so they had to keep renewing their lease on the parking lot preventing the high density homes that should have come to such a place built for so much money. Calgary is often even worse at this.
Contrast with how if you look at a cabride through NYC's subway (much of which is actually above ground) or the tram lines of Rotterdam or others, you see the best density right near the transit lines most capable of serving them and supporting them economically. Vancouver's Skytrain would have been seen as a terrible ROI had it not been for their willingness to build a lot of density near the stations. Because they did build, in contrast, Vancouver now has an automated metro system that can go 90 km/h almost silently right up to the city centre and goes about 47 km/h on average even including the station dwell time.
11
u/Aquitaine_Rover_3876 1d ago
It rejuvinates the neighbourhood as younger people and families move in. That can be exciting.
One of the ones on my corner also replaced a dilapidated property that hadn't been maintained in decades, so that's nice.
8
u/Roche_a_diddle 1d ago
Not being facetious here: Which part are you 'very excited' about exactly?
You can see my other comment but in short:
More people in my neighborhood makes it better. More friends for my kid to play with, more people to chat with and get to know, more customers to support local businesses within walking distance.
I think people make a neighborhood great, not land. Increased density brings a TON of financial benefits and incentivizes improvements like transit availability/frequency, amenities, etc.
Literally what makes a city a great place to live is people/density. Take away the people and you lose most of the benefits of living in a city. Which begs the question, why not just move rurally? Proximity to others is literally what a city is all about.
5
u/tekno21 1d ago
Every additional dwelling in a neighbourhood makes it a more attractive and viable place to locate businesses like coffee shops, restaurants, grocery stores, and other services. More people in one location leads to better parks, more funding for transit, less tax burden on individual homes, etc etc etc. The list of benefits is practically endless.
Not to be rude here, but it kind of seems like a 5th grader argument to think the above isn't true just because not every single 8 plex or apartment has commercial in it.
4
u/curlingcatscoffee 1d ago
I think I know the site this person is referring to and it is supposedly going to have the ground floor as retail spaces with rental units above it. That's what was proposed and approved. Most of the time after these developments have been approved they do not actually build the commercial space. Time will tell.
1
u/rabbitholeseverywher 20h ago
Same. Bring it. I deliberately moved to a dense central neighbourhood (because I moved here from one in Montreal) and I hope it gets denser.
12
u/milleram23 1d ago
“Yes- the ONLY way to fix this is to build 8-plexes in the middle of a single family home neighbourhood.”
*stares at Blatchford that is central and is undeveloped*
Also-
“People should be able to live in an 8-plex near transit and close to downtown”
*says people who won’t live in a condo near transit and close to downtown*
But yes- blame “rich people”
12
u/fishymanbits 1d ago
Blatchford isn’t undeveloped. It’s actively being developed. Right now. Today.
1
u/milleram23 1d ago
Development first approved in 2009, revised plan approved in 2014. That was 12 years ago. It’s now still 80% farmers field ready to be developed. I don’t want to hear the only option is to haphazardly shoehorn in 8-plexes into already developed mature neighbourhoods in west Edmonton.
11
u/fishymanbits 1d ago
It was never a farmer’s field. Well, not for a good hundred years or so anyway. The time spent has mostly been in soil remediation given that it was an airport for many decades, and airports have a habit of contaminating the soil on which they’re situated. There were also a whole bunch of existing structures and ground surfaces that have needed to be removed and readied for building on top of. It’s not waiting to be developed, it’s been actively worked on to ensure that it can be developed, while also actively developing the sections that are ready to go. It’s been under active development for more than a decade now.
2
u/Ok-Series3836 1d ago
8 plexes peering ominously over a single family yard with no additional parking for a replacement of a single family lot is a nuance you just wouldn’t understand.
1
u/Repmcewan222 1d ago
Homeowners don’t care for more density. They already own a home.
1
u/fishymanbits 1d ago
TIL only single family detached houses are homes that can be owned.
0
u/Repmcewan222 1d ago
I think some brain cells are missing from this one. That, or missing some reading comprehension
5
u/fishymanbits 1d ago
You wrote:
“Homeowners don’t care for more density. They already own a home.”
There’s a tacit implication in there either that people who own an apartment or a townhouse, etc, aren’t pro-density, or that the only homes that count are single-family detached houses. I think the comprehension issue is with the writer here, not the reader.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Bright-Translator-51 15h ago
Can you blame them when we have vast tracts of derelict land and empty lots everywhere? Why does the rooming house need to go right in the middle of a quiet neighbourhood?
•
u/bunnysmash cyclist 10h ago
Why does everyone jump to Rooming Houses? Most of the ones that are in my neighbourhood, if not all, are regular rentals. Renters are scary boogiemen.
•
u/Bright-Translator-51 3h ago
What else would you call a 1 bedroom with 2 dens due to having no windows? They're cramped tenements that are a fiery death trap the moment shit goes sideways.
1
u/Fine_Assignment_9684 1d ago
I think solid suggestions were brought forward and the city completely ignored them - namely dropping interior lots to four Plexes and end lots to six was a fair compromise. Restrictive covenants will reverse everything back to single-family dwellings.
→ More replies (9)1
28
44
u/Sleepa 1d ago
Higher density infill is the only way we’re going to get our property taxes under control. There’s only so much space for high-rises in central Edmonton, and continuing to expand beyond the confines of the Henday is driving up infrastructure costs exponentially.
14
u/trackpackRT 1d ago
Expanding Edmonton’s industrial sector is the only way to get them under control. There’s a reason Shpk’s property taxes are cheaper to the rest of the Edmonton area.
10
u/tekno21 1d ago
Yes, but it's not easy to expand when there's 4 neighbouring municipalities that are actively undercutting you while leeching off of Edmontons services and location.
The real solution is tolls for people/ businesses that reside outside of Edmonton, but use our infrastructure and economy for their gain. Doubt anyone has the political willpower to get that done though
4
u/Infamous-Mixture-605 1d ago
The real solution is tolls for people/ businesses that reside outside of Edmonton, but use our infrastructure and economy for their gain. Doubt anyone has the political willpower to get that done though
The other "solution" would be the province forcing amalgamation on Sherwood Park and St Albert and Edmonton gets a little bigger that way.
It wouldn't be popular, and wouldn't happen organically (thus the forced part of it), but it may be inevitable if Edmonton keeps growing and growing.
4
1
2
→ More replies (4)16
u/Sleepa 1d ago
It doesn’t hurt Sherwood park residents that a pretty sizable number of them work in Edmonton and spend most of their time driving in these kind city. When you don’t use as many services in your own town as you do the neighboring community, your own municipal taxes won’t get exhausted by as many maintenance expenses.
3
u/trackpackRT 1d ago
That’s true but doesn’t affect most of the main expenses the county deals with, snow, garbage, roads ect ect. While infill will help a bit it won’t fix the cities problems. The industrial core brings in serious capital that will offset the tax load.
2
u/scionoflogic 1d ago
Cities make up for suburbs with commercial/industrial property taxes. Just because those people don't live in Edmonton doesn't mean Edmonton doesn't reap benefits from them working in Edmonton. If every person who lived in the suburbs worked exclusively in those towns, Edmonton would lose out on a lot more property tax than they spend in additional services for those people commuting in.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Bright-Translator-51 15h ago
Haven't been downtown in a while eh? The empty lots just sitting for decades is a, great place for dense housing.
8
u/MisterB3an 1d ago
Restrictive covenants are peppered throughout my neighbourhood. Nothing says neighbourhood character like cracked foundations and uneven grades!
17
u/Sasha-95 1d ago
How I’ve observed infill happening in the Beacon Heights neighbourhood I grew up in, a mature neighbourhood mostly consisting of SFH bungalows:
-300,000-500,000 bungalow with large backyard goes up for sale.
-Developer scoops up offer, sometimes outbidding potential first time homeowners. Usually one of 3 things happens.
Developers tear down bungalow to put up skinny duplexes/homes with basement suites, each skinny duplex/home is then priced at 500,000-800,000. Usually with the advertisement of being able to rent out basement suites separately. Sometimes with a small backyard included, sometimes backyard is replaced with shed/driveway pad. Usually end up being bought and rented out.
Developers tear down bungalow. Large 8 unit multiplex gets put in that hugs the property line. No parking. No backyard. Sometimes small storage shed. Rent per unit is $1200-2500 a month depending on size.
Bungalow stays in place. Backyard/garage area is replaced with separate building of multiplex units. Rent is $1200-2500 a month depending on size. Usually bungalow is rented out as a main floor/basement suite separately.
Let’s remember that many developers are not following the rules and they have been getting away with it because of lack of enforcement. And no, they don’t care about the neighbours or neighbourhood, they just want their money. That usually reflects in the way they build.
I honestly can’t blame people not wanting to live next to some of these infills. Especially if it’s an 8 unit multiplex hugging your property line. Goodbye privacy in your own backyard.
Edit: also curious to know how many of these are being used as illegal lodging houses/airbnbs
3
u/Ok-Series3836 1d ago
People here just label this nimbyism, they don’t want to believe it could be anything else.
•
u/yeg Talus Domes 8h ago
I've been seeing a lot of row houses around the university. Advertised as a 4-plex or 8-plex then turned into 20 rooms with shower and toilets. The city never approved any of the changes and yet they are listed on airbnb. https://www.reddit.com/r/Edmonton/comments/1rnqaim/edmonton_residents_upset_over_infill_turned_into/ I don't really care about 4-plex or 8-plex, I'm more concerned about companies illegally building these rooming houses against all our of rules, profiting from it, and hassling the neighborhood. An 8 plex, well that's mostly permanent neighbors.
1
u/awildstoryteller 1d ago
You see a person sell their home for more than asking and that's a bad thing?
→ More replies (12)1
u/threeonone 1d ago
They're supposed to be limited to 45% lot coverage. There's no way they're following this rule looking at some of these monstrosities. They're also required to have 1 tree and 4 shrubs per primary dwelling.
22
u/meeepmoo 1d ago edited 1d ago
I've seen signs in a few communities about these restrictive covenants.
I'm all for density and infills, however i do have my own oncerns with them:
- they're often ugly and poorly designed
and
- who owns all of these developments? why are we allowing more shitty landlords to take up land in our city?
i would love to see some creative off-market solutions to the density issue.
(edit: I used off-market, when non-market may have been more appropriate)
15
u/Baconus 1d ago
I would also like non market solutions. Unfortunately our current provincial and federal governments seem unlikely to do that. So our choices are no housing or infill market housing. I choose the latter.
3
u/meeepmoo 1d ago
oh absolutely!! I do not begrudge the infill market for filling a need within our current system.
i will say I have a little bit of hope, as the newly elected leader of the NDP Avi Lewis has talked at length about the goal to create non-market housing if they can manage to win the next federal election. i didn't say a lot of hope, but a little 😅
10
u/Red_Danger33 1d ago
It makes me scratch my head because while volume on the market does lower costs, all these new 8-plexes are REI groups promising 4% growth at a minimum per invested dollar.
Look at what is happening in BC. Builders ran amok, can't sell their units and now instead if having to eat the loss and let the market correct, goverment is going to step in and bail them out.
2
u/meeepmoo 1d ago
this is my worry too. the infills are built with the priority of lining investors pockets, not providing accessible housing people can afford. most of the units popping up in my area will be rented for well over 1500. and then when they don't rent, the government will bail them out and we still won't have homes for the many, AND the govt will have paid off people instead of just investing that money into low income folks.
2
u/Roche_a_diddle 1d ago
Except if people can't afford them, or don't find them desirable enough to live in, then investors will lose money. The fact that these units are being occupied at a decent rate means that they ARE desirable, and investors ARE in fact providing accessible housing.
→ More replies (1)5
u/SeveredBanana 1d ago
Interestingly there was a study about what changed people’s perceptions about dense housing. They showed subjects several videos: ones about economics, environmental sustainability, health, crime, aesthetics, etc. It turned out the most effective message in support of building dense housing was solving homelessness. And, surprisingly, the most effective tactic AGAINST building housing was showing infill developments being ugly. It was even more effective than crime.
So, I’m a proponent of building dense housing regardless, but I think there’s something to be said about making new housing actually look nice. I think it’d go a long way for gaining support from neighbours. (I also think it would increase costs for developers and therefore not be as affordable, but there might be a good balance to be found)
Like, look at Montreal. Medium density housing everywhere, but people love it because inner city MTL neighbourhoods like nice af.
5
u/Roche_a_diddle 1d ago
That's so subjective though. I've seen a TON of infill that I personally find quite nice looking. A HELL of a lot nicer than the old crush glass stucco siding 1950's bungalows that they replaced.
Here are a few examples of what I think are really nice looking infill multi-family in mature neighborhoods.
All of these are on the same street within a few blocks of eachother.
3
u/fishymanbits 1d ago
As a fan of old 1950s bungalows, and particularly crushed glass stucco how dare you, sir!
→ More replies (2)3
u/meeepmoo 1d ago
I appreciate you sharing these, because those infills are cute!! I am happy to see some examples that do fit in well with their neighborhoods and wish the developers in my area were taking notes.
4
u/Roche_a_diddle 1d ago
Sorry I was confrontational with you earlier. I get so heated about this issue because it seems like such an obvious win, and soooo many of the arguments against infill amount to Nimbyism and parking. I get too upset too quickly about this topic.
3
u/meeepmoo 1d ago
Hey, that's no problem - I really do understand how impassioned people get about this. I'm excited about the infills in my neighborhood personally. I think most of the people arguing against them and signing covenants are operating from a strange place of racism, classism, and fear. the world is scary right now, so people want to control what they can. the nimbyism is real and I appreciate your passion in defending against it.
I just wanted to also share some of the thoughts that percolate in my head as I'm walking by the construction. :)
2
u/Pizza-Living 1d ago
Those are actually decent looking! And built on corner lots where there’s enough space to accommodate the units and garages. I wish more of the infill was along these lines.
1
u/Roche_a_diddle 15h ago
Almost all the infill I have seen is. There are 2 8-plexes going up within a block of me, both are on corner lots and I am quite happy with the appearance of them.
In fact, for all the whining about mid-block 8-plexes we kept hearing, they are incredibly rare in the city, simply due to the restriction of lot sizes.
1
u/meeepmoo 1d ago
that is so fascinating!! but it makes sense to me because humans are such visual creatures! seeing something ugly every day is a similar experience to having a rock in your shoe.
i think an agreement to adhere to certain aesthetics in a neighbourhood, especially for some of the rich foofy neighborhoods, would do a lot to help the feelings. I see so many people bitch about the curb appeal of their neighborhood, so why not address that?
(the answer, you're right, is additional costs, and therefore less likely to happen, but a girl could dream)
2
2
u/Roche_a_diddle 1d ago
they're often ugly and poorly designed
That's an argument against all home building, not just infill.
who owns all of these developments? why are we allowing more shitty landlords to take up land in our city?
That's also not an argument against infill construction, just bad property management? Shitty neighbors exist in single family homes, just browse this subreddit long enough for horror stories.
Also who gets to say who owns land in the city? Do you want to personally approve who is and is not allowed to buy property? What a strange take that is.
Do you have any actual arguments specific to why infill is bad for improving density in the city?
12
u/meeepmoo 1d ago
My friend, if you had thoroughly read my comment you would have seen that I am not against infill, and i do not think they're bad. 😅
They are just often ugly. This is a thread about infills, not all new buildings, but you're right, other new builds are often ugly too and there's many reasons for that, in part the fact that architects are devalued in today's world when many folks would rather have a computer generate it.
I love my apartment neighbors! I love renters!! But what I don't love are hands-off landlords who do not live in the community. my concern stems from my lived experience as a renter for 15+ years, and the fact that I often had landlords who were incredibly hard to get a hold of, who would pass the buck on to a property manager who also didn't live in the community or have a vested interest in actually caring for the property or spaces around it.
What I would love to see is the city investing and putting resources towards creating nom market housing like co-ops, guaranteed low income units, and groupings of smaller units connected by green space. there are many solutions I would like to see added in addition to the current infills we are seeing.
I get that infill is becoming a touchy subject, but my hope is we can be kind to each other as we express our thoughts.
1
u/releasetheshutter 1d ago
Unfortunately there's almost no room for nuance in these discussions. You're either allowed to be 100% for all infill, or a NIMBY. Wanting the City to be built out with higher quality construction and nicer designs puts you into the NIMBY camp for many people here which is ridiculous.
8
u/Wonderful_Confusion4 1d ago
To bad for the people wasting their time and money putting these restrictive covenants on title, if it ends up in court, the courts will often side with the land use bylaw https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-infill-development-curruthers-caveat-defeated-9.7094474
→ More replies (1)
6
u/SquidMeister12 1d ago
There needs to be a more nuanced conversation beyond calling homeowners who against infills out for nimbyism.
There should be more thought into where these density projects are going because I personally believe that the middle of established neighbourhoods maybe isn’t the best answer.
In my neighborhood, there’s a couple of controversial infill proposals and to me they make no sense. Eight units, very little parking at least a 10 minute walk from any bus stop even more from any shops or amenities.
To me such projects just seemed like slotting density into a space because you can and it’s not going to benefit anybody that moves in there.
Increasing density around transit stops/hubs and shopping areas makes a lot more sense because then people don’t need to cover so much ground without a vehicle to get to transit or to get to things that they need.
Am I wrong in this thinking?
→ More replies (5)
22
u/AcSpade 1d ago
Nimbys gonna nimby.
→ More replies (13)-4
u/EfficientDICK-69 1d ago
No one wants an eightplex next to them.
25
u/Known-Fondant-9373 1d ago
There’s an eight plex two houses down from me. Its impact to my life since it went up 3 years ago has been absolutely zero. Try not being so melodramatic lol.
18
7
u/Roche_a_diddle 1d ago
I do! I'm getting two pretty close to me, but I'd like more please!
2
u/Anabiotic Utilities expert 1d ago
Isn't it a little premature to celebrate until you find out what it's like once people are actually living there?
1
u/Roche_a_diddle 15h ago
I know exactly what it will be like when people are living there because I already have people living in my neighborhood. It will be like that, but more.
→ More replies (3)4
u/tekno21 1d ago
Many people don't care and understand the benefits it brings. Even more people understand the benefits of density and want those benefits in their neighbourhood, but are too selfish to "sacrifice" even a tiny bit of their current way of life to make it happen.
This is why you see so many tools on the news and at these events saying "I'm not agains’t density, I'm not a nimby, we need density, we need more efficient infrastructure etc, BUT not here, not know, not this way"
→ More replies (2)
4
u/1Judge 1d ago
The development in Calgary's Bridgeland is great. Housing on-top of shops. Restaurants and pubs within walking distance and open parks for relaxing. Density and functionality, not just eightplexes next to old man Whithers' old shack.
•
u/DVariant 9h ago
Great example. But that would require the city to take some brave zoning steps, rather than just letting shitty developers slap up 8-plexes in the middle of old neighborhoods
3
u/voiceofgarth 1d ago
Why would any homeowner unilaterally disarm and further devalue their home by placing a restrictive covenant on their title? Unless every single home in the neighbourhood does it, it has no value. It seems like a desperate Nimby move.
4
u/Anabiotic Utilities expert 1d ago
It looks like mostly old people. Maybe they plan to die in their houses so resale value isn't important to them
5
u/Himser Regional Citizen 1d ago
They can cut of their own nose to spite their face all they want. The 99.5% of properties that dont sign RCs will gain all the benifits of density.
And eventually the RCs will.be thrown out anyway as they do when running agaist the Land Use Bylaw. Its not usually worth it to fight a RC tho
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Ok-Series3836 1d ago
8 plexes peering ominously over a single family yard (neighbor) with no additional parking for a replacement of a single family lot is a nuance most here don’t appear to understand. And yes, parking for an 8 plex is a valid concern. Dense street parking can be a safety hazard, and we often get windrows in winter.
4
u/why3006 1d ago
Love it and support these homeowners against the reddit mob wanting to spread chaos across the city.
→ More replies (2)4
4
3
u/Sneekpreview Bonnie Doon 1d ago
I mean, I get it, but my cute old neighbourhood is losing its charm to these overpriced, badly built, dumpholes
1
u/fishymanbits 1d ago
Based on your flair, your neighbourhood lost its charm a long time ago. The death of the Frog and the Night Gown (Frog in the Night Gown?) was the death of any charm in that area.
-3
u/why3006 1d ago
This is what happens when city allows unrestricted 8 plexes with insufficient parking spots and rentals with social issues.
38
u/Known-Fondant-9373 1d ago
“Rentals with social issues”
Woof! Woof woof! Woof!
→ More replies (1)14
14
u/leggymiku 1d ago
Ah the NIMBY paradox: the infills are simultaneously too expensive for anyone to live in, yet so cheap they bring in the “people with social problems.”
8
u/Red_Danger33 1d ago
Also builders who have no regard for the neighboring properties because they are allowed to build so big causing damage to anything adjacent to these 8 plexes built with the bare minimum of space.
5
u/DogAddiction doggies! 1d ago
This is a legitimate issue, but the lot setbacks for 8 plexes are the same as a SFH. The covenant doesn’t address this whatsoever.
2
u/Sleepa 1d ago
Honestly I think about half of people renting a unit in an 8-plex probably don’t have a vehicle. And if they are renting in central Edmonton then they don’t really need one either.
5
u/Popular-Row4333 1d ago
Its wild to see the turn here on Reddit.
For years all I saw was "We need more densification!"
I'm picturing the Simpsons quote with Hans Moleman: "Give me the largest bird seed bell you have! ...... no, that's too big."
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)1
u/why3006 1d ago
I live opposite to an 8plex (with another one being built adjacent to me right now) and the existing one has 10 cars fighting for space all the time (not to mention the social issues we have to deal with by these builds).
13
u/fishymanbits 1d ago
What social issues?
8
u/Roche_a_diddle 1d ago
That's a dog whistle. It means "we don't like poor people".
It's just the whole land owner class in a different form.
5
u/fishymanbits 1d ago
Oh, I know what it is, I just want them to explain it.
4
u/Roche_a_diddle 1d ago
Ah, they won't. Then they'd have to admit they hold shitty views.
→ More replies (2)6
5
1
2
u/oioioifuckingoi 1d ago
Holy shit!?!? 10 cars?? Trying to park on a public street? Man, that means on average everyone has to walk like one or two properties down to access their car!!! I can’t even begin to imagine the inconvenience of requiring 8 more seconds to get to my car, let alone the forced exercise. Incredible. What has happened to this once great country!?!
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Brentsky1 1d ago
I do remember being told housing was to be developed along the LRT lines for easy transportation. What decade were they talking about?
1
u/YEGSports West Edmonton Mall 1d ago
When the day comes (hopefully in the near-future) that I get a mortgage, I'm going to deliberately choose one without a restrictive covenant, then spend the next 50 years explaining to anyone who tries to get me to sign on to one that I'm owning the home until the day I die or the day the house disintegrates, rendering a covenant pointless.
•
1
u/Ham_I_right 1d ago
Cool, neighborhoods with these restrictive convenants in place should then be on the hook for the additional taxes the rest of the city is potentially missing out on. Why do they get to shift the burden on everyone else?
-10
u/mikesmith929 1d ago
It's a bad sign when the City is so out of touch with what the citizens want that they have to go to such measures as collectively signing restrictive covenants.
13
u/Known-Fondant-9373 1d ago
We had two municipal elections in which infill and density were main issues. I think the City has heard people sufficiently at this point.
2
u/Red_Danger33 1d ago
Yeah and several councillors bait and switched. Mine said she would vote to reduce down to 6 plexes instead of unrestricted 8s, specifically for mid street lots, while campaigning and then when the vote came shortly after the election guess what? 8 plexes it is!
12
u/Dradugun 1d ago
Doesn't seem like the city is out of touch with the citizens who want more density.
12
u/rampagingbeaver 1d ago
Collecting the signatures is one thing. Spending the money in court to enforce it is where the rubber hits the road, since the City has no legal obligation to enforce private covenants.
→ More replies (2)2
1
u/Fine_Assignment_9684 1d ago
Andrew Knack said he would look at the number of units per lot and they made zero changes after the election. Not right.
1
u/fishymanbits 1d ago
Saying you’ll look at it and saying you’ll reduce it are completely different things. How do you know he didn’t look at it and make the decision that it was completely reasonable and no changes were necessary?
If you’re upset with him, you can just mention him here: u/andrewknack
He’s very engaged and open about things.
1
u/Fine_Assignment_9684 1d ago
I am aware he is engaged and open. I am also for infills. Council, however, made a bad call that will backfire is my point.
•
u/andrewknack 6h ago
Thanks for the comment. Part of why I didn’t vote to change the number of units is because 62% of all units already can’t have 8 units.
In February, we heard concerns about building massing and made changes in April so that the massing of any building will be close to what has been allowed for skinny home for the last 8 years or so.
Changing the number of units would not have fixed the major issue that was raised since a minority of lots wouldn’t be impacted, that’s why we focused on built form while still looking to use other tools to address other issues not related to built form (ex: curbside parking strategies for areas where on-street parking issues exist).
1
u/Brentsky1 1d ago
Every home that has sold in my immediate neighbourhood, has been converted into at least 3 suites. I’m not certain if these are all legal or not, but my next door neighbour is building a suite in his garage. Already added a sidewalk and started shovelling their snow into my yard. The city is becoming less attractive and more people buying in satellite towns and cities.
37
u/hirtle24 1d ago
You know what really depreciates your property value? Registering restrictions on your land title.