General Infill Discussion

[Slitch]

MLI Select can provide long-term, low-interest financing with low overhead "down payments" needed - a lot of the emerging projects are from small-scale or even individuals who are new to the industry. I would say that your relative would need to be ready to bear a great deal of risk, so it would likely be worth creating a corporation or LLC to get things off the ground.

I recommend connecting with MDDL to get the "know how" of this development form, and specialized RE financing groups, such as KV Capital to get a more realistic picture of the financial atmosphere and what you can expect. What you're thinking of is absolutely possible, but it's far from easy.

EDIT: I would also flag that you should find out if it's self-defined as "a pretty derelict house" or if it's municipally-defined. The tax implications of owning a derelict home would make it financially prudent to bulldoze ASAP. Not a developer btw.

Oh, this is super insightful actually. I’m a complete layman and had kinda figured this whole space was prohibitively expensive/complicated for individuals to enter but that MDDL group seems to provide exactly the support one might need.

I’m not too familiar with all the particulars of the houses… I should clarify that in this case my “relative” is in fact, actually a pretty distant relative lol. I just became morbidly curious about the whole process.

 

[policyenthusiast]

Request for Proposals: Standardized “Missing Middle” Housing Designs

The City of Edmonton is now accepting proposals for standardized “missing middle” housing designs in the RS zone. As part of an upcoming Fast-track Permit Program, selected designs will be featured in a catalogue that includes others recently released by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

By streamlining permit and approval processes, the Fast-Track Permit Program will help deliver more diverse, high-quality and family-friendly housing that encourages gentle density across Edmonton’s vibrant communities.

The request for proposals closes on Nov. 3, 2025.

Learn more: https://discovery.ariba.com/rfx/23498422

 

[archited]

^ A perfect opportunity for an Edmonton-centric design to gain a toe-hold.

 

[TAS]

Well said by Grow Together Edmonton - the focus should be 800m within transit.

Opinion: Voters backed infill housing: Now let's build it near transit

The infill election is over. The mandate is clear: it's time to build.

edmontonjournal.com

 

[thommyjo]

Well said by Grow Together Edmonton - the focus should be 800m within transit.

Opinion: Voters backed infill housing: Now let's build it near transit

The infill election is over. The mandate is clear: it's time to build.

edmontonjournal.com

I think this is jumping too far ahead and risks losing trust with the public without enough gain. We have SO MUCH vacant land near transit and along main streets. Let’s get those filled in before we stress about getting apartments on the west side of 111st for example.

Once our TODs fill in, then expand the circle.

Our lack of focus and trying to develop everything at once is why we are so pocket-y as a city. Keeping density to a handful of areas gets those filled in nicely first.

 

[Coprolite]

Well said by Grow Together Edmonton - the focus should be 800m within transit.

Opinion: Voters backed infill housing: Now let's build it near transit

The infill election is over. The mandate is clear: it's time to build.

edmontonjournal.com

There doesn't actually seem to be an issue with this, though. The areas where mid-density infill is occurring with any real significance all seem mature neighbourhoods where they have at least high frequency bus routes within 800m. It's not like they're plunking these down out in the cul de sac mazes that are largely incompatible with transit.

 

[policyenthusiast]

I think this is jumping too far ahead and risks losing trust with the public without enough gain. We have SO MUCH vacant land near transit and along main streets. Let’s get those filled in before we stress about getting apartments on the west side of 111st for example.

Once our TODs fill in, then expand the circle.

Our lack of focus and trying to develop everything at once is why we are so pocket-y as a city. Keeping density to a handful of areas gets those filled in nicely first.

Builders won't build brownfield unless it's more profitable than greenfield.

 

[inclusion]

Builders won't build brownfield unless it's more profitable than greenfield.

That is a generalization. There are various-sized development companies in Edmonton, ranging from small to large. Companies will build if it is profitable and they can get financing regardless of location. No one builds in the Quarters because of the uncertainty of one of those two things.

 

[policyenthusiast]

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/observe...blast&utm_campaign=2025-10-hmi_missing_middle

"Edmonton and Calgary lead the way in Missing Middle housing starts, supported by a lower regulatory burden, abundant land availability and favourable policy environments. Meanwhile, Toronto and Vancouver lag where denser forms of housing have historically been more feasible."

 

[David A]

View attachment 690426
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/observe...blast&utm_campaign=2025-10-hmi_missing_middle

"Edmonton and Calgary lead the way in Missing Middle housing starts, supported by a lower regulatory burden, abundant land availability and favourable policy environments. Meanwhile, Toronto and Vancouver lag where denser forms of housing have historically been more feasible."

Many of our older apartments are three story with surface parking on half the lot. There is a huge increase in density by going to say 6 and putting the parking underneath, so the whole lot can have residential and those buildings are not so dramatically different in height from the former.

Not everything has to be very tall to increase density, part of the mistake of Toronto we can learn from was a limited number of areas for density, they have a limited number of areas of very high density and many very low density and not so much else.

 

[policyenthusiast]

Many of our older apartments are three story with surface parking on half the lot. There is a huge increase in density by going to say 6 and putting the parking underneath, so the whole lot can have residential and those buildings are not so dramatically different in height from the former.

Not everything has to be very tall to increase density, part of the mistake of Toronto we can learn from was a limited number of areas for density, they have a limited number of areas of very high density and many very low density and not so much else.

MURB era ripples IMO - underground parking is a huge cost consideration.

 

[EtoV]

View attachment 690426
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/observe...blast&utm_campaign=2025-10-hmi_missing_middle

"Edmonton and Calgary lead the way in Missing Middle housing starts, supported by a lower regulatory burden, abundant land availability and favourable policy environments. Meanwhile, Toronto and Vancouver lag where denser forms of housing have historically been more feasible."

Since early 2024, Burnaby has had some of the best multiplex/missing middle zoning in the country, that allowed for almost 2 FAR in places as it was form/volume based and didnt prescribe a FAR. Even though multiplex zoning was a provincial requirement, I was extremely impressed as they've been hesitant to ever change their single family neighbourhoods and they went above and beyond.

But ...They just walked it back because of public pushback.

I'm glad knack still managed to win the election, because I think introducing too much change too fast can result in such negative public perception, that a politician that wants to undo it all ends up gaining power. Or in Burnabys case the current politicians walk it back to try and maintain power in the next election.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/burnaby-multiplex-housing-changes-9.6944251

 

[kcantor]

Most builders (and one has to differentiate between builders and developers although there is certainly some crossover between the two groups) like nothing more than standard plans to build off of. The only caveat to that is that those plans are often "internal" and not "external". The appeal to standard plans is not just the ease of permitting, it's the familiarity of the plans with all of the various sub-trades in that they've worked out/eliminated the conflicts between trades on executing the plan and they've minimized the waste and maximized the efficiencies in delivering the end product. That may not exist to the same degree with their trades on "external" plans and is also why you want to but the 20th copy of that plan build and not the 2nd. The old adage of "familiarity breeding contempt" does not apply to housing construction where familiarity in fact breeds efficiency. It's that familiarity in the field that is the biggest hurdle to builders taking on a new plan as much as the quality of the plan.

 

[kcantor]

Apologies for interjecting on this conversation. I’ve got a maybe silly question regarding infill that I’m hoping some of the professionals here that are involved in development can provide some insight for me:

I have a relative who essentially inherited two large plots of land (each with a pretty derelict house) in a mature, central neighbourhood in the city. They decided to list the combined plots for a pretty hefty sale price (about $120/sqft) and it looks like a realty group is poised to pick it up with plans to build a mid rise apartment building.

It got me curious if there would’ve been a realistic pathway to retain ownership and build and manage something there themselves? I don’t think they had much capital outside of that land but could that have been enough equity to get financing on some project through CHMC or something? Are there many examples of individuals solely investing in larger real estate projects like this or is it all pretty much left to professional real estate groups?

There's no such thing as a silly question...

There is certainly a realistic pathway (or more than one) for them to retain ownership and build and manage the project. Whether any of those pathways are right for them depends on their level of expertise, their risk profile, their comfort level in not having control over their investment, and their tax situation. Their tax situation is probably the first one that needs better definition including what their cost base is (particularly if they inherited the original cost base). What they don't want to do is convert what would be a risk-free capital gain on the sale of the land to having it treated as income by CRA. They also have to be comfortable putting 100% of the guaranteed return they'll receive on sale at risk if the project is not as successful as anticipated. If it's a two year project, what's at risk is also what those monies would generate if invested elsewhere over the same period of time (again paying attention to how those monies will be taxed - ie as income or as capital gain).

As they move forward through the decision making process and through the development process (if they choose to proceed) they need good tax advice, good legal advice, good construction and budgeting advice, good design advice and they need someone with enough knowledge in each of these areas to provide good oversight in each of these areas and to represent their interests at every stage. There are experienced people that can do this for them but they'll have to recognize that in this area as well as the others, they'll get what they pay for and not paying for it can be very, very expensive. Sometimes the very best projects turn out to be those projects you decide not to do and the only people that can make that kind of recommendation won't be the realtor who wants the sale, the "partner" who has his own interests to protect first (particularly in a GP/LP relationship), the designer who needs the fee (and will work to the fee even if it's insufficient), the contractor who needs the work etc.

You need to keep the old adage in mind that says the safest and easiest way to become a successful small developer is to start as a big one. Having said that, there is nothing as rewarding personally as well as financially as a successful project that performs as initially envisioned for a very long time.

 

[thommyjo]

Builders won't build brownfield unless it's more profitable than greenfield.

Opening up more land (supply) will weaken prices vs constraining land makes it more valuable for higher densities. One of the reasons we see less brownfield midrises is because we allow so many greenfield ones. Adding even more infill areas certainly won’t help.