News   Apr 03, 2020
 7.3K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 7.5K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.5K     0 

General Infill Discussion

I noticed that a concern of the 123 st is a decrease in property values. Without holding back, are the opposers of these projects just stupid?

How on earth could they believe that projects like this or Mercury Block(s) make the area less desirable?
One of the other concerns was "The interior of Oliver should be kept low rise (x2)" as if this project isn't literally half a block off of 124 st, aka the western boundary of wîhkwêntôwin.
 
I think the thought process of these types of people is:

Multi-unit / denser housing = poor people = lower property values

It's an ingrained and harmful idea in North American culture that if you have the money to have a big detached house, you do and if you don't you're poor. If they thought about it for more than 30 seconds, they would realize that this is far from the truth and that actually more units per kilometer increases land value, but the classism (and the association of lower classes with denser housing) is very strong.

Then there are the "preserve neighborhood character" people who's ideas stem from the same place as the "lowering my land values" people: classism. However they don't even bother to make it seem like they're not classist (which often correlates with racist), straight up saying basically that "new residents" would negatively impact the "character" of their neighborhood.
Perhaps where this flawed thinking is coming from is the area is chock full of older three storey walk ups. The obvious flaw in this thinking is they are not building an older three storey walk up.

What are being built are newer, nicer buildings. No, nice, new buildings do not generally attract more poor people, in fact probably the opposite.
 
What are being built are newer, nicer buildings. No, nice, new buildings do not generally attract more poor people, in fact probably the opposite.
Exactly. If you look at the rental prices for the newer units, they're all in the $2000+ for 2 bedrooms (the majority are actually in the $2200-2600 window), whereas in the old walkups you can still find these for $1300-1600 without much effort. If anything, these new buildings have pushed the rental market up by a significant margin (which includes a lot of condos being rented).
I haven't looked into condo prices, but I'll be you that they've gone up in value as well.
 
That's really disappointing. Edmonton has so few character areas, let along ones with character housing.
Agreed. Feels like we're repeating the past a bit here. Tear down the character buildings for modern ones, let them age 30 years, tear down for the next shiny thing. I'm all for density, but there are a couple of beautiful areas we could have at the very least some strict design standards for that are currently very beautiful in a way you can't recreate (Glenora, Highlands, etc.).
 
We all know that the most desirable and historic homes aren't going to be bought and torn down.
We definitely do NOT know that. If their lots are better located, larger or their owners are more willing to sell, they will be bought and torn down, unless they have some sort of protection (historical resource designation or whatever).
I'd be willing to bet money I don't have that people felt exactly like this regarding a lot of the stuff that got torn down in our DT, for example.

As much as I am in favor of infill development, I agree with @IanO and @YegMark. Some neighborhoods have a very distinct character, and a historical/architectural aspect to them that will be entirely lost if we start tearing houses down to build apartments builds and skinny houses. We can increase density gently in places like Glenora or the Highlands by allowing garage/garden suites, basement suites, etc... This sounds like a very reasonable compromise to me, so that we can preserve history.

The "progress for progress" mentality is what doomed our Downtown, and I think it's a terrible mindset to think a city in the long term.
 
A number of historic homes have already been torn down in the area and now more will be. Unfortunately, some people with money don't always have great taste and are just looking for a good location to put up something very suburban and modern looking. It takes effort and work to keep up or enhance a historic home so far a lot of people just easier to tear them down.
 
We definitely do NOT know that. If their lots are better located, larger or their owners are more willing to sell, they will be bought and torn down, unless they have some sort of protection (historical resource designation or whatever).
I'd be willing to bet money I don't have that people felt exactly like this regarding a lot of the stuff that got torn down in our DT, for example.

As much as I am in favor of infill development, I agree with @IanO and @YegMark. Some neighborhoods have a very distinct character, and a historical/architectural aspect to them that will be entirely lost if we start tearing houses down to build apartments builds and skinny houses. We can increase density gently in places like Glenora or the Highlands by allowing garage/garden suites, basement suites, etc... This sounds like a very reasonable compromise to me, so that we can preserve history.

The "progress for progress" mentality is what doomed our Downtown, and I think it's a terrible mindset to think a city in the long term.

I'd be curious to see how many applications for basement suites and garage /garden suites have been made to the city by historical home owners from Glenora since the residents there are the ones who suggested it as a better alternative.

What is going to get the population back up in that community - which has flatlined/decreased since 1970.

Some amazing homes for sure. Fun neighbourhood to bike through.
 
I genuinely believe that the ZBR was a less than reasonable compromise. Glenora residents shouldn't be able to essentially buy their way out of gradually increasing density neighbourhood wide. Apartments, Brooklyn style town homes, CRUs would improve the neighbourhood. And frankly, it's now a major transit corridor, so density near stations is a must.

I grew up in Grovenor, so I'm very familiar with the area. I went to Westminster Jr. High. This is an attempt for the Glenora residents to lock "apartment people" out of the neighbourhood (despite the fact that these apartments are sure to be luxury rentals and condos).
 
I wonder if one of the residents' worries when talking about "character" is not only density but style. It's not a secret that they have been tearing down some properties to redevelop them, and most of the new houses have an ultra-modern look, that doesn't fully fit the historical vibe the neighborhood is going for. And with the generic high-density buildings there has been popping in through the city, they just feel like they will lose all the current charm. I think it could be more interesting to try to find some materiality and look-feel of the new developments that will gain confidence with residents. Showing that a high-density development can fit in their neighborhood.

Here's an example of a trend happening in Europe with new developments against ultra-modern architecture.
1711400359092.png

 
I'd be curious to see how many applications for basement suites and garage /garden suites have been made to the city by historical home owners from Glenora since the residents there are the ones who suggested it as a better alternative.

What is going to get the population back up in that community - which has flatlined/decreased since 1970.

Some amazing homes for sure. Fun neighbourhood to bike through.
My feeling is in that area older SFH is mostly being replaced by newer, sometimes bigger SFH with the same number of people living there or maybe even less.
 
I genuinely believe that the ZBR was a less than reasonable compromise. Glenora residents shouldn't be able to essentially buy their way out of gradually increasing density neighbourhood wide. Apartments, Brooklyn style town homes, CRUs would improve the neighbourhood. And frankly, it's now a major transit corridor, so density near stations is a must.

I grew up in Grovenor, so I'm very familiar with the area. I went to Westminster Jr. High. This is an attempt for the Glenora residents to lock "apartment people" out of the neighbourhood (despite the fact that these apartments are sure to be luxury rentals and condos).
I grew up in Glenora. I went to Glenora school and Westminster junior high. I believe the part of Glenora south of stony plain road should be protected. I have seen several homes, beautiful old homes, replaced by new monstrosities (see 132 street as an example). We don’t have a lot of heritage in the city and I think what heritage we have should be protected. The area north of stony plain road is fair game. Note I grew up in Glenora in the 70s when stony plain road was a dividing line between old Glenora and Glenora (infill in the northern part has blurred the lines between the rich and middle class areas). The part of Glenora north of stony plain road does not have the same type of heritage homes as the part south of stony plain road.
 
I believe the part of Glenora south of stony plain road should be protected. I have seen several homes, beautiful old homes, replaced by new monstrosities (see 132 street as an example). We don’t have a lot of heritage in the city and I think what heritage we have should be protected.
My thoughts exaclty.
 

Back
Top