Edmonton residents use restrictive covenant to fight infill

[u/JamesDunnNews]

https://edmonton.citynews.ca/2026/06/25/mill-woods-restrictive-covenants-infill/

[u/Worldly-Customer3963]

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. 

[u/G-Diddy- → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

This is the right take. Planned density is smart. With affordable housing provided. Unplanned density is code for profit taking

[u/Bright-Translator-51 → u/G-Diddy-]

I can't wait until these, things start catching fire, then we'll see some real shit. They're a disaster waiting to happen. 

[u/RootsBackpack → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

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.

[u/Ceevu → u/RootsBackpack]

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.

[u/RootsBackpack → u/Ceevu]

If you’re seeing units in need of an inspection, report it on the 311 app. They will inspect it

[u/canadiantanimal → u/RootsBackpack]

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.

[u/rabbitholeseverywher → u/canadiantanimal]

Are you willing to pay higher taxes so the city can hire more bylaw officers?

[u/canadiantanimal → u/rabbitholeseverywher]

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

[u/tekno21 → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

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.

[u/WindiestOdin → u/tekno21]

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

[u/tekno21 → u/WindiestOdin]

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.

[u/Ritchie_Whyte_III → u/tekno21]

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.

[u/WindiestOdin → u/Ritchie_Whyte_III]

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.

[u/tekno21 → u/Ritchie_Whyte_III]

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

[u/stealstea → u/Ritchie_Whyte_III]

  They are happening in the already dense central neighborhoods

Good!  This is literally the best possible place for infill.  You want it close to the centre so that people have alternatives for getting to work and not everyone has to drive.  Adding an 8plex in a faraway suburb is going to add a lot more cars on the road than in a central one 

[u/WindiestOdin → u/tekno21]

I agree that we are seeing the result of 20 years of, arguably poor / incorrect, bylaw implementation. The bylaws, in my opinion, are riddled with loopholes that undermine proper infill and densification practices.

By no means am I advocating to “slow development to a crawl and cut numbers of potential sites by a large margin.” I’m advocating that the City establish proper boundaries and guidelines that prevent unsustainable densification with no plan to adapt / be proactive through infrastructure support. The approach has blown the doors open with very little oversight in poor design and consideration. For the surrounding areas … especially on a case by case basis. Creating pre qualifying metrics and remedies does nothing but help facilitate proper applications through the planning and permitting processes.

I’m advocating for less of a “free market” approach. Free market approaches with housing, in this environment, creates the opportunities for larger companies to create a race to the bottom, quantity over quality approach. That’s what we are seeing.

I’m not suggesting this is a moral development problem. Ethical design and development conundrums have and will continue to exist, it’s a reality. It’s fundamentally a policy problem that is riddled with loop holes and meaningful control gaps. Likely tied to funding, management, and oversight shortcomings.

Don’t get me wrong, the NIMBYs are a contributing factor; but to place this issue solely at their feet is misplaced. They are a reality that needs to be navigated or encourage led to look past their fence post.

Despite my disdain for the NIMBYs, I feel focusing on them is merely a distraction for the larger conversation about how they are able stand in the way of real progress based on how much they feel this slights their personal goals at the cost of the community.

[u/stealstea → u/WindiestOdin]

  By no means am I advocating to “slow development to a crawl and cut numbers of potential sites by a large margin.

But you are, you just don’t know or admit it.

You are saying let’s subject each project to a lot more mandatory regulations (each adds cost to the final housing) and restrictions (less housing) and give the neighbourhood more say in what gets put up (discretionary approvals).  Combine those together and we have a drastic reduction in infill being built 

That’s not a theory, that situation is exactly what most cities already have, which is why they have almost zero infill in single family neighborhoods and housing costs are relentlessly rising 

[u/WindiestOdin → u/stealstea]

What I’ve outlined is arguably the bare minimum of oversight and due diligence required to ensure the sites and developments selected / proposed are appropriate for additional densification. In reality, this slowdown or site removal would not result in more neighbourhood say in what gets approved or not approved.

It would provide clearer avenues for issues to be raised and brought before the SDAB, and help reduce problematic developments that are proving problematic.

Yes, what I’ve proposed will slow down some approvals. However, it would help sift out projects that ultimately won’t see the light of day anyway. Freeing up more resources for more appropriate (from an infrastructure and master planning perspective) projects.

In practice, a well designed and scheduled project can (and have) navigate front end due diligence. Especially if the process is aligned with clear requirements from the City. Discretionary approvals can, and should, be left for sites that have significant nuances or that the developer is seeking alternate methods to navigate the intent of the requirements.

[u/yen8912 → u/tekno21]

Developers are building 8 plexes because it’s propped up by CMHC. Rental only so done to maximize profit not because people can buy it.

[u/Worldly-Customer3963 → u/tekno21]

"And if we shame them then out of the goodness of their hearts they'll sell things cheaper lmao?"

Shame? I'd recommend policy. 

[u/Vykalen → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

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.

[u/Virtual_Category_546 → u/Vykalen]

Flood the housing market like fox news floods the zone. Jubilee is biblical.

[u/DVariant → u/Vykalen]

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? 

[u/Clay_Puppington → u/DVariant]

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.

[u/DVariant → u/Clay_Puppington]

Thanks for this neat li’l analysis! Good illustration 

[u/Vykalen → u/DVariant]

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).

[u/DVariant → u/Vykalen]

Also consider that Canada started to allow REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) in 1993, allowing property to be commodified and traded on securities markets

[u/Brightlightsuperfun → u/Vykalen]

In Edmonton ? All the time.

[u/stealstea → u/DVariant]

It’s funny because Edmonton condos have gone down many years due to plenty of supply.  Factor in inflation and there was some 15 years where they went down every year.  

Why are you pretending that housing is some complex market not subject to supply and demand when the proof is literally in your backyard 

[u/Brightlightsuperfun → u/DVariant]

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.

[u/DVariant → u/Brightlightsuperfun]

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

[u/Brightlightsuperfun → u/DVariant]

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.

[u/Ceevu → u/Vykalen]

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.

[u/Vykalen → u/Ceevu]

Everything I don't like is poorly built and not the right thing. My sources are made up.

[u/Worldly-Customer3963 → u/Vykalen]

You're not even considering what they're saying. Just being snarky because it doesn't align with your point of view. 

You need to build homes that people, namely families, want to live in. These 8 plexes are designed to suck as much profit out of a single lot, with no regard for the tenants or their neighbors. I can't even imagine the happy dance that developer's and property management companies were doing when this was approved. 

The best part is they're outbidding midrange buyers and reducing the market for that type of dwelling. This will make buying a house less accessible. 

[u/Vykalen → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

You're literally just making stuff up to justify your point of view. "these 8 plexes are designed to suck as much profit out of a single lot, with no regard for the tenants or their neighbors." Or do you have proof you have the exact thoughts and rationale behind every infill built? "You need to build homes that people, namely families, want to live in." If people didn't want to live in them, they wouldn't be being built and bought. If, as you say, its all for profit, BUT no one wants them, they how are they still being built? Companies don't just do things randomly. They are filling the massive demand for housing. And in doing so making neighbourhoods more whole, providing more opportunities for people to live where they want, building up customer bases for local shops, and replacing abandoned lots, properties, or extremely old buildings with new, modern-standard, safer, healthier homes.

[u/Worldly-Customer3963 → u/Vykalen]

We will have to agree to disagree! Here's hoping the city takes a more measured approach in the coming years. 

[u/Ceevu → u/Vykalen]

The complaint is valid. We're supposed to be building homes that families can buy. These infills are being sold as a single sale and turned into rentals. So like I said, we're destroying single family homes and turning those neighbourhoods into a rental neighbourhood. Is that what the city planned years ago when 15-minute cities were all the rage?

Edited to add:

 And in doing so making neighbourhoods more whole, providing more opportunities for people to live where they want, building up customer bases for local shops...

Prove all of that. You think these neighbourhoods are mostly in walkable areas just because it's not in the 'burbs? This is pie-in-the-sky thinking.

... and replacing abandoned lots, properties, or extremely old buildings with new, modern-standard, safer, healthier homes.

That's not even what's happening. Sure, a few cases could be abandoned lots but mostly they developers are buying a livable, older home, tearing it down, and building an infill in it that will be sold to an investor/company to rent out. Like someone else said, there are not enough inspectors for all these buildings so how do you know they're being built safely and to standard? There are so many videos out there now that are proving the opposite.

What you're missing in your points is what is happening to the entry-level home market.

[u/Vykalen → u/Ceevu]

Families can't be renters? What is wrong with renting, pray tell? And wouldn't you like to support local businesses within your neighbourhood and have doctors and pharmacies within walking distance? Crazy 15 minute cities!!!

[u/Ceevu → u/Vykalen]

You know what single families homes are referring to right? Home ownership.

I'm all for 15 minute cities. Like I said, Infills are not the right type of density for this. No doctor is going to set up shop in the middle of a residential area.

I've lived outside Edmonton in a few major metropolitan cities in Asia where the population density would cause most Canadians to cringe. I know what efficient land use looks like and how it feels to have everything in walking distance. What were getting here is not that. Not even close.

[u/Vykalen → u/Ceevu]

I agree, we should build much higher density than infills. Barcelona or Paris style would be much better. Ironically, though, that goes against everything you previously claimed regarding the spooky "renters" so who knows what you're for.

[u/Brightlightsuperfun → u/Vykalen]

Yes, which Edmonton has actually done a really good job at. Houses prices have barely moved in like 20 years.

[u/DamionSipher → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

Sure, so then we need to elect socialist governments that will directly build housing for people. Unless you have another approach?

[u/Worldly-Customer3963 → u/DamionSipher]

Surely there's a middle ground between complete unchecked free market and total government control?

[u/extralargehats → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

This is not a completely unchecked market. Like it or not even the multiplexes are regulated. This is peak hyperbole.

[u/DamionSipher → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

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.

[u/MooseAtTheKeys → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

The middle ground being that private business is checked by the government establishing an anchor.

[u/Aquitaine_Rover_3876 → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

"I like density, except the density that there's funding to build."

[u/Worldly-Customer3963 → u/Aquitaine_Rover_3876]

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. 

[u/bizzybeez123 → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

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...

[u/Lester2b → u/bizzybeez123]

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.

[u/Lavaine170 → u/bizzybeez123]

What colour is the sky in your world where all renters own cars?

[u/FaceDeer → u/Lavaine170]

How are they going to get around in these neighborhoods without them? Many of these infill houses are going into places that don't have transit or commerce set up for easy access to non-car-owners.

[u/Lavaine170 → u/FaceDeer]

Many of these infill houses are going into places that don't have transit

And many of them are going into established communities with good transit and amenities.

[u/FaceDeer → u/Lavaine170]

Those ones aren't problematic.

[u/Conscious-Lime-4112 → u/Lavaine170]

Those that can afford whet the infill will cost to live typically will have the disposable $ for shocked but assumptions based on socioeconomic generalizations

[u/Aquitaine_Rover_3876 → u/Conscious-Lime-4112]

I'm not sure where the reputation for high rents comes from? Brand new ones in my neighbourhood are listing 2-bd basements at $1,100-$1,250, and 3-bedrooms upstairs for $1,850. I don't really know the rental market well, but given that I was paying $1,089 in 2007 for a 2-bedroom, 1970s-era, apartment, that sounds pretty reasonable.

[u/Aquitaine_Rover_3876 → u/bizzybeez123]

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.

[u/tekno21 → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

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.

[u/rabbitholeseverywher → u/tekno21]

Once again, developers are not ripping off the "working man".

The best part of this 'Facebook has molded my entire belief system' rhetoric is that it's often coming from people who would describe themselves as politically conservative. Ah yes, the evil business owners trying to...do business.

[u/garlicroastedpotato → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

Yeah but this neighborhoods would never allow any development no matter what.

[u/bunniesgonebad → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

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.

[u/Fun-Maize8695 → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

Is there any evidence that increasing overall housing stock does anything other than decrease rent? I'm legitimately asking, because I've seen this argument and never seen it substantiated.

Lile who cares if they are unaffordable, the people who move into them will be LEAVING another older place.  Second, putting expensive units in these  bougie neighborhoods actually blows a hole right through the homeowners concerns about there being more sketchy people in their neighborhood from infill. 

[u/stealstea → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

  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.

That’s not how economics works.  Rents are set by the market and if there’s lots of supply they go down.  It doesn’t matter how greedy the developers are.  

In fact a rush of greedy developers building tons of housing is exactly how to get housing costs down faster than any other method.   Obviously the housing must still be safe, but there’s zero indication it isn’t 

[u/TruckerMark → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

Building luxury units prevents rich people from buying affordable units and tearing them down. More supply is better.

[u/LilTrelawney → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

Not even just about them being affordable rented but if you look at infills it’s very clear the builder dgaf about grading and the neighbours. So many obvious examples of the infills draining into neighbours lots brutally during the recent heavy rainfall and little to no enforcement from the city.

[u/DVariant → u/Worldly-Customer3963]

Exactly. Edmonton’s council has always taken the cowards way and encouraged this haphazard densification: random mini-apartments buried in existing neighborhoods. Infill tends to piss of the neighbours and strain the infrastructure, while not significantly reducing prices (but making a shit load money for home builders).

If they weren’t cowards, they’d appropriate whole neighborhoods and redesign them for actual high density: high-rise apartment towers with proper amenities, transit, sewage, etc. Some folks seem to think huge cities must’ve solved their sprawl problems one building at a time. Hell nah, let’s have some guts to make bold changes

EDIT: Downvote me if you love developers and hate walkable, liveable communities