News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 9.1K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 10K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.3K     0 

General Infill Discussion

policyenthusiast said:

LDA25-0243 Crestwood Rezoning​


Feedback Link

The City has received a rezoning application from Situate for 14603 - 95 Avenue NW. The current zone is the Small Scale Residential Zone (RS) and the proposed zone is the Small-Medium Scale Transition Residential Zone (RSM h12.0) which would allow:
  • For a range of small to medium scale housing.
  • A maximum height of 12.0 metres. (about 3 storeys)
  • A maximum site coverage of 60%.
View attachment 669456

Corner lot, mid century bungalow, major road access. Easy "yes" imo.
View attachment 669457
Click to expand...
The NE corner has an 8plex and the lot east of that is also an 8plex.

Dense little intersection.
 
constance_chlore said:
Sad to see the character of this neighborhood destroyed. Long-time residents are practically being evicted.
Click to expand...
The character in question:
1753729637164.png
 
Last edited:
policyenthusiast said:
The character in question:
View attachment 669478

"practically being evicted" is better represented as "my neighbours are selling their underbuilt properties for massive profits"
Click to expand...
THE MYTH OF "CONSENSUAL" INFILL
Sellers of underbuilt properties: I consent!
Developer buyers: I consent!
70-year-old neighbor who likes nude sunbathing in their backyard: I DON'T!

ISN'T THERE SOMEBODY YOU FORGOT TO ASK?
 
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. Why does the 70 year old have a right to other people's land just because they would prefer a bit more privacy? Where do you draw the line, should land owners have the right to stop all development or changes next to them? Any amount of development can have perceived "negative impacts" on neighbours, even downzoning, so a city operated based on eliminating any of these perceived negatives would be untenable.

Let's take a look at how this logic can be taken to it's unreasonable conclusion:

"THE MYTH OF "CONSENSUAL" PARKS
Sellers of future parks properties: I consent!
Park users: I consent!
70-year-old neighbor who likes nude sunbathing on their balcony: I DON'T! AND I HATE THE SOUND OF CHILDREN."

Obviously there are some negative impacts of development that can be, and should be attempted to be eliminated, but carte blanche blocking development if there's any negatives makes no sense.
 
EtoV said:
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. Why does the 70 year old have a right to other people's land just because they would prefer a bit more privacy? Where do you draw the line, should land owners have the right to stop all development or changes next to them? Any amount of development can have perceived "negative impacts" on neighbours, even downzoning, so a city operated based on eliminating any of these perceived negatives would be untenable.

Let's take a look at how this logic can be taken to it's unreasonable conclusion:

"THE MYTH OF "CONSENSUAL" PARKS
Sellers of future parks properties: I consent!
Park users: I consent!
70-year-old neighbor who likes nude sunbathing on their balcony: I DON'T! AND I HATE THE SOUND OF CHILDREN."

Obviously there are some negative impacts of development that can be, and should be attempted to be eliminated, but carte blanche blocking development if there's any negatives makes no sense.
Click to expand...
I am 99% certain that @constance_chlore is joking, with that and with the "neighborhood character" bit.
 
Last edited:
constance_chlore said:
THE MYTH OF "CONSENSUAL" INFILL
Sellers of underbuilt properties: I consent!
Developer buyers: I consent!
70-year-old neighbor who likes nude sunbathing in their backyard: I DON'T!

ISN'T THERE SOMEBODY YOU FORGOT TO ASK?
Click to expand...
I know it's not exactly the same thing, but it's funny how we never hear "neighbourhood character" arguments against these rebuilds....

Screenshot 2025-07-28 at 9.01.08 PM.png


Screenshot 2025-07-28 at 9.00.54 PM.png
 
The example above is one of the best before and after examples I have seen, it actually makes skinny homes and dense infill properties look better!

NIMBY will be moving goal posts! lol
 
fromyeg said:
https://edmonton.citynews.ca/video/...421460063&mc_cid=733bff7840&mc_eid=138cb250ca

View attachment 669637

Janz proposing exempting TOD projects from property taxes.
Click to expand...
Idk… TOD is also what funds our LRT (or at least helped justify its build out). We need that revenue. I think substantial completion and lowering density requirements in new suburbs makes more sense. We’ve officially become “dense sprawl” imo, which has most of the downsides of sprawl, and just exasperated by the density. The only positive is tax revenue. But traffic, lack of walkability, lack of reinvestment in core areas and along existing transit….

If we build 0 new apartments outside the henday, those people aren’t all moving to Beaumont. Many would live in apartments built in MWTC, century park, Lewis farms, claireview. We need to refocus where we add density.
 
thommyjo said:
Idk… TOD is also what funds our LRT (or at least helped justify its build out). We need that revenue. I think substantial completion and lowering density requirements in new suburbs makes more sense. We’ve officially become “dense sprawl” imo, which has most of the downsides of sprawl, and just exasperated by the density. The only positive is tax revenue. But traffic, lack of walkability, lack of reinvestment in core areas and along existing transit….

If we build 0 new apartments outside the henday, those people aren’t all moving to Beaumont. Many would live in apartments built in MWTC, century park, Lewis farms, claireview. We need to refocus where we add density.
Click to expand...
Agreed. A property tax exemption wouldn't solve the underlying issues with densification.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top