Stationlands Residential Towers | 90m | 25s | Qualico | DIALOG

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    72
Out of Towner said:
I believe that mom and pop builders are restricted from building product in Blatchford for example.
Click to expand...
That's incorrect. Anyone can buy land and build at Blatchford; they just need to meet the standards (design, energy, etc). In fact, all of the initial builders at Blatchford were really small operations, because the large players were put off by the district energy system, since they had never dealt with those before. And they are all still working here—except for Mutti, whose houses are crap and unfortunately continue to plague the owners with issues.
 
whattheheck said:
^ Edmonton is not Chicago. lol. Chicago is hemmed in by a natural barrier on one side. Going up was a default. And you're also not paying attention: I never said no to density, I said the city should densify where it's needed the most. DT, the quarters, around (some) lrt stations, underused shopping centres, etc. there are plenty of spaces to densify.

why completely upend established communities (where in some cases it's not even needed) by putting in an eight-plex? no thanks.

there seems to also be romantic notion to infill. sure, when covered in good quality materials like brick or stone, with big windows. on a grid street with access to good quality safe clean and frequent transit to walkable amenities.

but the plastic siding covered blobs going up with exposed pressure treated stairs and small windows and crappy rocks for landscaping does not help; going in communities that have the built form for cars, not walking or transit. that's a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...
The violation to the Crestwood community was on the news. A moratorium on infill development until after the next municipal election would be helpful as two councilors that may have swung council's decision in a different direct were unavailable to vote. Telling people that desire a single family inner city home in Edmonton to move to Lloydminster because they don't have that right in Edmonton is no solution to the cost of housing. Perhaps the people making that suggestion should instead move to Pakistan so that they can live wherever they please.
 
CplKlinger said:
That's incorrect. Anyone can buy land and build at Blatchford; they just need to meet the standards (design, energy, etc). In fact, all of the initial builders at Blatchford were really small operations, because the large players were put off by the district energy system, since they had never dealt with those before. And they are all still working here—except for Mutti, whose houses are crap and unfortunately continue to plague the owners with issues.
Click to expand...
Ok, I wasn't sure about that because its not uncommon for a land developer to give exclusives to a handful of the bigger builders that they work with regularly and then give (sell) the left over poor lots to mom and pop builders.
 
Out of Towner said:
A moratorium on infill development until after the next municipal election would be helpful as two councilors that may have swung council's decision in a different direct were unavailable to vote.
Click to expand...
Unavailable? They just didn't show up!

Telling people that desire a single family inner city home in Edmonton to move to Lloydminster because they don't have that right in Edmonton is no solution to the cost of housing. Perhaps the people making that suggestion should instead move to Pakistan so that they can live wherever they please.
Click to expand...
Restricting inner-city zoning to SFHs is definitely not a solution to the cost of housing. If we only build SFHs in the inner city, housing in the inner city will become inaccessible to a large majority of Edmontonians because you can only fit so many SFHs in the inner city.
 
constance_chlore said:
Unavailable? They just didn't show up!


Restricting inner-city zoning to SFHs is definitely not a solution to the cost of housing. If we only build SFHs in the inner city, housing in the inner city will become inaccessible to a large majority of Edmontonians because you can only fit so many SFHs in the inner city.
Click to expand...
It's not the responsibility of inner city home owners to accommodate your desire to live in an inner city community. We spent money on commuter bike paths for a reason. That's good enough.
 
Out of Towner said:
It's not the responsibility of inner city home owners to accommodate your desire to live in an inner city community. We spent money on commuter bike paths for a reason. That's good enough.
Click to expand...
Sure, yeah, no individual strictly has the right to live in a specific place in a specific type of housing. It's the job of the city government to represent what is best for the city and its residents as a whole, which is assuredly not "SFHs only in inner-city neighborhoods forever."

Besides, aren't you invested in trying to gut bike lane funding? Make up your mind.
 
Barnaby said:
Since when is zoning deregulation (land use deregulation) "progressive"? What insane world are you living in?

It's libertarian.
Click to expand...
Since when does an 8 suite infill in the middle of a SFH street respect existing housing and community standards? Constance said that the councilors that didn't vote on the 8 suite bylaw were derelict in their duty. What do you think?
 
constance_chlore said:
Sure, yeah, no individual strictly has the right to live in a specific place in a specific type of housing. It's the job of the city government to represent what is best for the city and its residents as a whole, which is assuredly not "SFHs only in inner-city neighborhoods forever."

Besides, aren't you invested in trying to gut bike lane funding? Make up your mind.
Click to expand...
You want to pressure single family homeowners out of their communities. At the same time you want millions spent on miles of commuter bike paths. Those are two conflicting policy objectives.
 
Out of Towner said:
You want to pressure single family homeowners out of their communities. At the same time you want millions spent on miles of commuter bike paths. Those are two conflicting policy objectives.
Click to expand...
If single family homeowners want to stay in their communities, they can resort to such strategies as "not selling their house." The rest of the post is a non sequitur so eh.
 
That's what I don't understand about this. People talk about infill like there aren't people wanting to move into them. But we know that infill wouldn't happen if the units couldn't be sold, so there is clearly market demand. What NIMBYS are effectively saying is that "if you can't afford a SFH, go somewhere else".
 
constance_chlore said:
If single family homeowners want to stay in their communities, they can resort to such strategies as "not selling their house." The rest of the post is a non sequitur so eh.
Click to expand...
Except it doesn't quite work like that does it?

There isn't an issue with people not selling their homes, there's an issue with what purchasers of adjacent lots to those homes and allowed replace the previous homes with and we're not talking about incremental changes to front, rear and side yards, we're talking about not having to provide off-street parking and not having adequate garbage and recycling options etc.

What's taking place is insensitive - if not inappropriate - building form and use. It's no different than allowing someone to put a warehouse in the middle of an existing residential neighbourhood and justifying on the basis of the city not having enough light industrial/distribution space.
 
roe_ said:
That's what I don't understand about this. People talk about infill like there aren't people wanting to move into them. But we know that infill wouldn't happen if the units couldn't be sold, so there is clearly market demand. What NIMBYS are effectively saying is that "if you can't afford a SFH, go somewhere else".
Click to expand...
You're right. You don't understand. It's not the responsibility of single family homeowners in Edmonton's established communities to solve what some people perceive as unaffordable housing. If housing is unaffordable, then it's better to remedy that situation by building on under utilized land like the Stationlands project has done. No need to enact zoning bylaws that drive up the price of property in thriving established communities when there are other better options available.
 
Out of Towner said:
You're right. You don't understand. It's not the responsibility of single family homeowners in Edmonton's established communities to solve what some people perceive as unaffordable housing. If housing is unaffordable, then it's better to remedy that situation by building on under utilized land like the Stationlands project has done. No need to enact zoning bylaws that drive up the price of property in thriving established communities when there are other better options available.
Click to expand...
If housing is unaffordable, it's better to remedy that situation on the demand side, not the supply side. What's needed is an increase in the incomes of those who can't afford housing noting that this also means they can't afford food or clothing or transportation or education or medical or dental care and they still won't be able to afford those things if they're provided with "affordable housing". If that needs a universal basic income or something similar, so be it. It's also worth noting that a UBI is transportable so that people can take advantage of jobs or training or educational opportunities that they wouldn't otherwise be able to do because they' can't afford to relocate and give up their subsidized housing and they can't afford to commute from their subsidized housing to those opportunities.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top