Miscellaneous

[soupcrate]

Thankful our suburbs aren’t all SFHs. But also so annoying to see tens of thousands of 600-1100 sqft apartment buildings all around the henday. Imagine the people living in those being in more walkable, transit served areas. Blatchford, Oliver, Strathcona, around any LRT stop, etc.

The absorption of rental/apartment residents into these low quality, suburban, car dependent projects is frustrating. I think I’d almost rather just see all the land used up for big homes so density can be concentrated more centrally. Our vibrancy, transit, and local business would likely outweigh the property tax revenue of denser sprawled suburbs.

I feel the exact same way, but I still think the pros of suburban density outweigh the cons:
1. It helps the new neighbourhoods pay for themselves
2. Local retail can become viable, making it easier to live in those areas without a car.
3. Makes bus routes through the suburbs more viable.
4. Adds traffic (and congestion) to local roads, making the suburbs less appealing overall and getting buy in for traffic calming measures.

 

[soupcrate]

RA7 (predominantly) sites that were 'forced' upon developers by ways of ASPs/NSPs are often lamented by those in the industry and difficult to move vis a vis other products.

That's not a bad thing IMO. Suburban homes will always sell in large quantities in Edmonton. Marginally increasing their cost by "forcing" apartment sites on developers won't stop that, and it helps to offset some of the negative externalities of suburban development.

 

[David A]

Edmonton isn't a city with most of the jobs in the core. Many people want to live close to where they work, which here may mean a more suburban location.

However not everyone in these areas wants a single family home. So I would look at this as giving people in these locations more choices, not as forcing apartments sites on developers.

 

[occidentalcapital]

Edmonton isn't a city with most of the jobs in the core. Many people want to live close to where they work, which here may mean a more suburban location.

However not everyone in these areas wants a single family home. So I would look at this as giving people in these locations more choices, not as forcing apartments sites on developers.

They weren't selling/leasing. So the developers wanted to build the product that sells at each price point. I.e. Townhomes or single family. I don't think an apartment in suburbia does much for the city fabric, unless it is TOD.

 

[thommyjo]

I feel the exact same way, but I still think the pros of suburban density outweigh the cons:
1. It helps the new neighbourhoods pay for themselves
2. Local retail can become viable, making it easier to live in those areas without a car.
3. Makes bus routes through the suburbs more viable.
4. Adds traffic (and congestion) to local roads, making the suburbs less appealing overall and getting buy in for traffic calming measures.

I guess the question is, do we want B- quality everywhere? Or some A’s and A+’s for walkability?

What’s the “tipping point” for people living car free? Or Car-lite?

And what about all the businesses grinding to get by in the core who could have 3-5x the customers nearby if we built our density in non greenfield areas.

I just hate that people say “no one wants to live in a box, that’s why downtown is struggling”, when in reality, tens of thousands of people live in those boxes all around the henday…and without the perks that density usually brings!

 

[kcantor]

I guess the question is, do we want B- quality everywhere? Or some A’s and A+’s for walkability?

What’s the “tipping point” for people living car free? Or Car-lite?

And what about all the businesses grinding to get by in the core who could have 3-5x the customers nearby if we built our density in non greenfield areas.

I just hate that people say “no one wants to live in a box, that’s why downtown is struggling”, when in reality, tens of thousands of people live in those boxes all around the henday…and without the perks that density usually brings!

unless i’m mistaken, everyone of those tens of thousands of people chose to buy or rent where they did because (a) there were locational advantages for them and/or things they considered perks that you did not, (b) those things you think of as perks were not particularly desirable for them, and/or (c) the premium cost for downtown was more than they could afford or were prepared to pay.

 

[David A]

Yes, we can't force people to live where we might prefer them to be. In my opinion more density is good whether that be centrally or in other locations.

However, I do feel the big COVID influenced flight to the suburbs and fringes of the last few years is now over, so there will be some return to more central locations in the near future.

 

[thommyjo]

unless i’m mistaken, everyone of those tens of thousands of people chose to buy or rent where they did because (a) there were locational advantages for them and/or things they considered perks that you did not, (b) those things you think of as perks were not particularly desirable for them, and/or (c) the premium cost for downtown was more than they could afford or were prepared to pay.

Definitely true in some cases. But also true that there’s a lot less new stock in central areas and a lot more in the suburbs. Many people are just getting places based on availability and general quadrants of the city based on my experience. If there was less apartment stock in new suburbs, and more centrally, I don’t think you’d see they sit empty while people wait for new units in edgemont and chapelle.

Some new builds are cheaper, but many are 1600-2200 still, not far off from much of the rental market centrally. And I’m not just talking DT, even century park, TOD on new valley lines, etc would be preferential vs 41ave SW and Big Lakes in terms of tax burden.

 

[occidentalcapital]

Definitely true in some cases. But also true that there’s a lot less new stock in central areas and a lot more in the suburbs. Many people are just getting places based on availability and general quadrants of the city based on my experience. If there was less apartment stock in new suburbs, and more centrally, I don’t think you’d see they sit empty while people wait for new units in edgemont and chapelle.

Some new builds are cheaper, but many are 1600-2200 still, not far off from much of the rental market centrally. And I’m not just talking DT, even century park, TOD on new valley lines, etc would be preferential vs 41ave SW and Big Lakes in terms of tax burden.

I agree with you except for one thing which is that theoretically if transit were drastically improved to all the dense outer areas you could see the benefits in those areas that you would normally see in the core.

 

[thommyjo]

I agree with you except for one thing which is that theoretically if transit were drastically improved to all the dense outer areas you could see the benefits in those areas that you would normally see in the core.

Not sure edgemont is capable of transit anywhere close to that of Oliver & Strathcona, century park, or stony plain road tbh. Road design, retail offerings, job centres, education hubs, etc are all non existent for the most part.

 

[Kirkland 808]

BP issued for Row Housing Development on 100A ave just west of 157st

To construct a Multi-unit Housing building (in the form of Row Housing) with 4 Dwellings, and a Secondary Suite for each Dwelling.
To construct a 4 Dwelling unit Row House, Unenclosed Front Porches, rear uncovered decks and Secondary Suites in the basement of each unit. Includes an ASW as per B19-03

 

[Kirkland 808]

Right Next to the Strathearn Heights Development
Probably a 6 Storey building

Major Development Permit

Permit Class	Not Available
Permit Date	(No value)
Status	In Progress
Description of Development	To construct a Multi-unit Housing building (44 Dwellings), and to demolish the existing onsite buildings (2 Single Detached Houses and 2 rear detached garages).
Address	9502 - 86 STREET NW

 

[YEG imagineer]

Two new happenings around Superstore on Gateway. Looks like a pad is being built on the N.E. corner of the Superstore parking lot. No signage of what is proposed that I could see. Second is the Whitemud Inn has fencing around it and there were a few workers around. Not sure if it’s. a demo or rebuild.

 

[MacLac]

Two new happenings around Superstore on Gateway. Looks like a pad is being built on the N.E. corner of the Superstore parking lot. No signage of what is proposed that I could see. Second is the Whitemud Inn has fencing around it and there were a few workers around. Not sure if it’s. a demo or rebuild.

Demo for sure.....a smart little office building is being built there....

 

[Kirkland 808]

Demo for sure.....a smart little office building is being built there....

Anyone got renders or specs