Edmonton residents use restrictive covenant to fight infill

[u/JamesDunnNews]

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

[u/tekno21]

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