Grandin 4 | 23m | 6s | Westrich Pacific | J+S Architect

[rake]

@Daveography you managed to say very concisely what was going to take me far too much text.

Every policy option is going to have major trade-offs - that's why I proposed a mix of options to find a more reasonable balance. I actually think that you could find a 'bold' enough mix of other alternatives wouldn't you wouldn't even necessitate a greenbelt, but we aren't likely to get them so it makes sense to include one in the mix.

It's worth noting that if my only goal was densification than the greenbelt would work to achieve exactly that, based on your own assessment of the issue - as our bedroom communities see prices rise (as they are likely to given the real development constraints those communities face), new infill developments in Edmonton will look more and more tempting and we no longer have the issue of suburban development undercutting the price of new infill. But that would obviously severely impacts housing affordability in the city. That is not my goal - I want both density and affordability. We are going to need a pretty creative mix of policy options to get us there - there is no single solution that can deliver it.

 

[EtoV]

Limiting sprawl can only be affordable if housing isn't also artificially limited in other ways, (usually through zoning). So far Canadian city that limits Suburban sprawl with greenbelts or other means have seen huge affordability issues purely because they aren't willing to create the policy changes that need to happen to allow for density. If you stop sprawl but only allow densification in a small percentage of your land base then of course new development is going to be expensive. Not only does land become a limited commodity, but so does development potential (see Vancouver). Housing demand exceeds the capacity of the land under current area plans and zoning to meet the it, making it prohibitively expensive. In the Vancouver example, over 70 percent of the cities land mass is still zoned some form of Single Family housing. Opening more of that up to density would reduce the pressure for the areas where density is allowed to meet all the housing demand.

 

[IanO]

Going from 2 (often 3) to 1 car and saving a net of $400-600 a month goes a long way towards bridging that gap.

Again, not for everyone, but far more than people think. That said, we continue to have the 'fortune' of choice versus many larger cities where SFH is simply not attainable.

 

[Daveography]

@IanO Expanding on that point, the cost of even providing parking has a huge detrimental effect on building costs, and therefore affordability. Which is why I was very happy to see open option parking pass Council, while also putting caps on how much parking can be provided within TOD areas.

 

[Daveography]

Affordability of housing can also be a very tricky metric on its own. The fact that average wages have not kept pace with housing costs, for example, is another major problem with no easy solution.

 

[_Citizen_Dane_]

As with the neighbouring site, not much has changed in the last year (the only home they've demolished was done last February). The old Hurtig Residence has been converted into the Westrich Site Office though:

 

[Daveography]

D.5 Grandin 4 (Development Permit)
Jeff Shen - J+S Architects

Motion of support.

CARRIED

https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/PDF/EdmontonDesignCommittee_Minutes_Jan05_2021.pdf

 

[TAS]

It looks like Westrich has changed its mind on this one again. There is now an application to go from DC2 to RA9 with a new height of up to 18 storeys.

 

[cliffapotamus]

RA9 seems like a better use of the site/location. RA7/8 allow for commercial on the ground floor, does RA9 as well? that would be good to see, at least some sort of neighbourhood amenity.

 

[thommyjo]

Yesss. Big fan. Grandin is prime for high density. Loved living in the Hendrix there.

 

[IanO]

Indeed, but it is lacking a few more cafes/walkable amenities.

 

[David A]

It is close to Jasper Avenue, so that is an issue, but there is a lot of residential south of Jasper Ave in that area and looks like density will continue to increase so perhaps it could support more. It could be a good spot for a neighbourhood cafe.

 

[MCXavierL]

Home Improvement Permit
Reference Id: Job No 394614805-002 Description: To demolish a Single Detached House. Location: 10015 - 113 STREET NW Plan 2120958 Blk 12 Lot 45B Applicant: WESTRICH PACIFIC Status: In Plans Examination Create Date: 2021/05/05 Neighbourhood: OLIVER Class Of Permit: Class A
Reference Id: Job No 394617287-002 Description: To demolish a Single Detached House. Location: 10015 - 113 STREET NW Plan 2120958 Blk 12 Lot 45B Applicant: WESTRICH PACIFIC Status: In Plans Examination Create Date: 2021/05/05 Neighbourhood: OLIVER Class Of Permit: Class A

 

[TAS]

According to the city notice I received in the mail on this one, it just says "limited commercial opportunities at grade".

Not sure if that means there likely won't be any commercial for this development.

 

[IanO]

It is close to Jasper Avenue, so that is an issue, but there is a lot of residential south of Jasper Ave in that area and looks like density will continue to increase so perhaps it could support more. It could be a good spot for a neighbourhood cafe.

Bring back Vi's!