EtoV
Active Member
What's wrong with this? Seems pretty reasonable to me
|
|
|
New Zoning Bylaw
- Thread starter cliffapotamus
- Start date
Barnaby
Senior Member
Doesn't hurt affordability. I'm a fan.
thommyjo
Senior Member
The setbacks aggressively move forward so much you essentially box in the existing neighbors vs a more gradual shift forward that doesn’t leave you with a 2 story, 20ft wall along your entire front yard.
Then the 2 stories mid lot for the 2nd row of housing (and who knows if garage will also have suites), is imposing and impacts the backyards of the neighborhoods quite a bit.
I know we’re mostly yimbys here, but if we don’t want to burn all public trust, this is the sort of stuff that doesn’t have enough ROI in my view. 8plexes on the corner? Go for it. Apartments that add significant density nearby transit or close to existing mixed density areas? Awesome.
But townhomes like this, which so visibly disrupt the look of the street, impact neighbours, etc. just feels unhelpful. Maybe I’m just being a nimby on these ones haha. But I’m much more sympathetic when I bike past projects like this and the famous Crestwood “UP” house to those raising concerns.
The same way we value street oriented design in larger builds, avoiding blank walks, concealed sightlines, integration with nearby buildings…. A build like this disregards most of those principles. The only option for neighboring homes is for them to be redeveloped really.
Then the 2 stories mid lot for the 2nd row of housing (and who knows if garage will also have suites), is imposing and impacts the backyards of the neighborhoods quite a bit.
I know we’re mostly yimbys here, but if we don’t want to burn all public trust, this is the sort of stuff that doesn’t have enough ROI in my view. 8plexes on the corner? Go for it. Apartments that add significant density nearby transit or close to existing mixed density areas? Awesome.
But townhomes like this, which so visibly disrupt the look of the street, impact neighbours, etc. just feels unhelpful. Maybe I’m just being a nimby on these ones haha. But I’m much more sympathetic when I bike past projects like this and the famous Crestwood “UP” house to those raising concerns.
The same way we value street oriented design in larger builds, avoiding blank walks, concealed sightlines, integration with nearby buildings…. A build like this disregards most of those principles. The only option for neighboring homes is for them to be redeveloped really.
policyenthusiast
Senior Member
Is this two townhomes? I'm trying to figure out what that rear structure is that's making the front setback so short.
TAS
Senior Member
Council passed new policy in fall limiting the amount of site coverage. I wonder if this build is following those new restrictions or if it still qualified for previous less restrictive measures?
EtoV
Active Member
I see edmontons current mature neighbourhood front yard setbacks as a condition to be fixed, if I'm being honest. The existing setbacks are restrictive in what it allows you to develop in many neighbourhoods if we were to stick with requiring the same setbacks. Before, when we required homes to essentially match the existing front yard setbacks, when you lot split you would end up with two homes with massive front yards and no back yard (eg. Like the attached picture). Rear yards are far more used than the front yard.
Front yards aren't really a useful anyways, so I don't see a problem with reducing these setbacks city wide. It also has the benefit of giving the street a more urban feel in my opinion.
Front yards aren't really a useful anyways, so I don't see a problem with reducing these setbacks city wide. It also has the benefit of giving the street a more urban feel in my opinion.
thommyjo
Senior Member
2 sets of 3 (unsure on basements). So either 6 or 12 units.
thommyjo
Senior Member
I dont disagree fully. But in this case, there’s no backyard anyways.
And I think front setbacks should be somewhat tied to neighboring properties vs just maximizing what’s allowed on the site based on a standard from the front. Surely you agree that a 20ft, 2 story wall along you entire front yard is less that ideal. Sightlines from your front windows and door are completely blocked.
Seamusmuldrew
Active Member
I understand being put off by the setbacks, but this configuration and design kind of responds to a lot of the other complaints people have.
- It’s not that tall,
- The gap between the buildings provides a break in the massing,
- There aren’t side exits,
- The neighbouring backyard will retain their privacy from what I can see.