A Balanced Approach to Infill Housing
Policy in brief
Without pitting new neighbourhoods against old, it is time for Edmonton to make adjustments so that it can meet the growing demand for infill housing. Building a more compact and more efficient city means high-rises in a few areas — like downtown and around LRT stations like Century Park and Strathearn — but in other areas, it means narrow-lot houses, semi-detached homes and brownstones for families of all shapes and sizes, as well as more seniors’ housing. This kind of density is critical in making the cost of land more affordable, increasing the efficiency of the infrastructure already in place, and supporting community schools and niche businesses in mature areas.
What we’ll do in the short term
Revise the zoning bylaw so that infill is easier for everyone — from one-off private projects to boutique builders — to build. Meanwhile, the permitting process needs to be reformed to reduce the hassle and cost that turns so many people off building infill projects.
Communities where infill is likely need to be engaged in meaningful discussions about what it will look like, including how and when infill will occur. The city can rally support by providing infrastructure and amenities to push development and help those communities adjust with the effects of taking on more families.
Where we need to be a generation from now
The infill market will have matured and different housing options should be more common in mature areas of the city. No citizen should be forced to leave one area for another because the type of housing they need is not available.
More thoughts from Don
A beautiful house on a 25′ lot in Edmonton. Picture courtesy of Thirdstone Inc. See more info and pics here.
Since the first days of my 2007 City Council campaign, I’ve advocated for greater housing options throughout Edmonton, particularly in established neighbourhoods. I campaigned on “Smart Growth for Ward 5” and, specifically, for accommodating a greater share of Edmonton’s growth within our current footprint.
However, the way to increase housing choice in the mature areas of the city is not by pitting new neighbourhood against old, or by artificially constraining building opportunities in new neighbourhoods, but by broadening opportunity to build in those more mature areas and helping people get through the process more speedily.
Building a more compact and more efficient city means high-rises in a few areas — like downtown and around LRT stations like Century Park and Strathearn — but in other areas it means narrow-lot houses, semi-detached homes, and brownstones for families of all shapes and sizes, as well as more seniors’ housing. And the city-centre airport redevelopment, or Blatchford as it’s been named, can be our Brooklyn — if we do it right.
All of this creates choice for residents, because these are lifestyle options Edmonton needs to offer to attract and retain people seeking a more urban lifestyle.
Further, smart density is critical to making the cost of land more affordable for homebuyers, critical to increasing the efficiency of the infrastructure we already have in place, and critical to supporting community schools and niche businesses in mature areas.
In the past six years, we have made a bit of progress, but not enough. Some of this progress has come from leadership at the City Council level. The Way We Grow plan sets out a more ambitious target, aiming for a minimum 25% share for infill development — a goal I pushed to include in the plan.
In terms of how we get there, in 2009 I initiated a Council inquiry on how we could improve RF5 zoning to better facilitate street-oriented town houses and emerging housing trends. More recently, Council adopted modest changes to the RF1, RF2, RF3, and RF4 zones, plus the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay, that were designed to enhance opportunities for good infill under the conventional zones.
A proposed semi-detatched (side by side) development by Beaverbrook in Riverdale.
Now, it’s time for Edmonton to build on this trend and reach our potential. There is a growing market for infill housing, and the City must do more to facilitate meeting that demand. Aspects of the zoning bylaw still produce unnecessary procedures and barriers — for example, some restrictions put in place under the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay to curtain “monster houses” that were being built in the early 1990s are now making it harder to build good duplexes. Further work is needed on the zoning bylaw to ensure that it better balances opportunity for renewal while still ensuring design quality control.
As mayor, one of my top priorities will be to make building infill easier and more cost-effective, while still ensuring that the outcome is quality and variety, not cheap-looking, cookie-cutter housing. Our zoning bylaw needs to be reviewed to make it easier for everyone — from the young couple redeveloping an infill lot in anticipation of their growing family, to “mom and pop” builders doing a few dozen builds a year, to build good-quality but still affordable housing. Meanwhile, getting through the permit process still takes too long and represents cost and hassle that makes infill less feasible and less competitive — and that requires immediate Council intervention to fix.
A rendering of the Strathearn Heights Transit Oriented Development, which includes family-oriented brownstones, apartments and shopping.
More broadly speaking, all communities in transition need to be meaningfully engaged in discussions about what they want their communities to look like, and about when and where infill might occur. Where infill demand is likely, communities need to help shape the conditions so landowners and families have more clarity about which amenities — such as schools, infrastructure renewal, or space for local business — they can count on into the future. This involves working with school boards, and coordinating among our transportation, parks, and drainage groups, to make sure the right infrastructure is in place to support growth.
For those communities that are more open to infill, the City can rally support with infrastructure and amenities to help catalyze redevelopment, and to ensure the neighbourhood sees benefits and upside to taking on more families. In good faith, the City should put incentives on the table to move the infill conversation beyond fear and NIMBYism.
By the time my children graduate university, different housing options should be more common in mature area of the city. No citizen should be forced to leave one area for another because the type of housing they need is not available. In the next four years, we can take big steps towards achieving that.
Don, did you take the time to drive out and see the actual “photoshopped” house built on a 25′ lot. This has so raised my ire. That is not what it looks like. I know because my elderly parents live in the house directly south (next door, where the “pretend tree” is shown. In real life the house is so close to my parents, who have lived in their home since 1954, that the owner of the narrow home cannot even properly compact the soil on the south side of his house. it is a mess on his side of the fence. Please, at least take the time to research before you blog and propose plans. This “wonderfully innovative narrow house” runs the entire length of the house, blocking off sunlight to my parents’ yard. At 87 years of age, the building of this home has impacted their enjoyment of life and health. Why would you post a photo of a home, built in the city that you want to represent as mayor! without even riding your bike over to see it!!! I cried when they tore down the old house that had stood there for many years. A lady with health issues had lived in that small house as a renter (with her little dog) for years. When the owner of the house sold it, she could not find a place for her and her small dog. My Father offered to pay her down payment and first couple of months rent when she finally found a small apartment that would accept her and her dog. This particular project is not, as depicted in your photo, a poster child for future infill development. It has taken a huge toll on a number of people’s lives. Please be a leader and go and see for yourself what this project really looks like. It is not like the picture.
Councillor Iveson – Firstly thanks for the shout-out on the LG House and for championing quality infill housing and development in general.
With respect to, “…modest changes to the RF1, RF2, RF3, and RF4 zones, plus the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay, that were designed to enhance opportunities for good infill under the conventional zones”. This may have been the intent but we’re still running into road blocks. One of my clients living on an RF4 zoned lot facing higher traffic corridor just lost an appeal with SDAB to subdivide this property into 25′ wide parcels. Subdivision Authority was in non-support as well as some residents (fear/NIMBYism). Applying sound urban design principles would suggest the subject site is a perfect location and candidate for narrow design houses.
The LG House afforded us the ability to move closer to the core in a desirable neighbourhood; it made great use of infill property, our kids attend St. Vincent School which boost their enrollment, we are less car-dependent (1 vehicle only) and within walking distance to schools and work (I’m self-employed with a studio located on 124th Street).
Overall it has improved our quality of life for our family and we don’t consider it ‘starter house’, we’re here for the long-term; fostering relationships within the community. It is an investment in a family dwelling that we’ll appreciate for our lifetime; and we love our house! If the decision by the SDAB on the RF4 would have had a more favourable outcome, it would have offered other households with the same opportunities.
By celebrating diversity with housing choices, it also means building communities that accept a range of demographic, economic and social classes – something that is critical to the success and longevity of any neighbourhood.
I value your efforts and commitment to making this city greater!…Keep up the great work!
Louis Pereira :: thirdstone inc. [^]
Susanne – I find your comments erroneous and irresponsible with respect to the image used. This is a professional photograph taken by Merle Prosofsky and is no way altered from what is actually built. This wrongful accusation also puts into question your entire motive.
Nonetheless I will greet you with a smile next time i see you!
Louis
A few questions:
1 – how do you address the NIMBY issue. Every densification project has its costs, as higher density means less sunlight and green space to existing neighbours, even while it creates benefits for those who want to buy central property, but are priced out of existing housing stock.
2 – In changing the zoning bylaw, is the minimum parking requirement on the table? When a detached house or duplex in a central mature neighbourhood MUST, by law, have 2 parking stalls (and 1.5 for larger developments), you force residents who maybe don’t want a car at all, and certainly don’t want or need two, to pay tens of thousands of dollars for something they don’t want or need as part of their home.
Susanne, you seem to be arguing against change, rather than against the particular shape change should take. As houses in our older neighbourhoods age, many of them are going to start getting rebuilt, whether we like it or not. I think Don’s arguments in favour of shaping that change to be more affordable, more attractive to families, and more efficient with respect to use of existing city infrastructure, make a lot of sense. However, shadowing, messy side yards, the challenges of finding rental accommodation that is affordable and accepts pets: all of these could be concerns with new houses built on lots of literally any width, in new neighbourhoods or old ones. In fact, they could be concerns with houses built 25, 50 or 100 years ago.
Neil and Don….have you seen this house in real, before you comment. What do you consider affordable housing. the city has this house currently assessed at $707,000. This house built in a narrow lot also has a very large garage attached at the back. it is just one huge building. There is just a few feet of green space in the front yard for their children to play. So, seniors DO NOT MATTER. A house could have been built on this lot, but smaller and AFFORDABLE. Just come right out and say it. Two elderly people do not matter to either Iveson or his campaign team and supporters. The fact that the area between the two properties (on the new owner’s property) cannot be properly compacted. Is this what you’d want. These new neighbours do want and have at least one nice large vehicle and a huge garage built right up against the back of their house. This house does not fit into what I thought infill housing was supposed to be (neither does it fall under NIMBY): it is expensive, has a huge garage and is unable to have the soil properly compacted for safe drainage for both the new and older house due to the fact the house is still too big for the size of the lot.
Tom, please read my comments. You have not seen the house!! if affordable is over $700,000, Iveson should rethink what actual first time home buyers can purchase. Also, I did not say “messy side yard”. Please read up on Alberta building standards to see that the area around a house must be properly compacted. Soil compaction around the foundation of a dwelling has nothing to do with being messy, it is common building practice. My parents had no objection to a house being built in this property. But, this house does not fit into what I thought Iveson’s meant by his plan for infill housing. Will one of you get on his or her bicycle and pedal over and take a look before expressing platitudes. Also, take the time to learn a little bit about house construction and drainage.
Susanne – How unjust and dissolute to think that my kids are less fortunate than others simply due to having a smaller size lot.
Why have my other comments been removed? I have copies of my posts and others and will share with Kerry Diotte, as you’re obviously not interested in the real facts
It’s okay, my comments are back, must have just been refreshing. my apologies.
While I am a big supporter of infill and greater density, I believe it is also important to maintain the dignity of communities while doing it. The particular house to which Susanne takes exception, while attractive in its own right, is in a historic section of the city and is a jarring example of what not to do with infill. Examples such as this serve only to antagonize the community. We have another new build within the Westmount Architectural Heritage Area that simply proves that Council’s designation of the area as DC1 has no effect other than to create obstacles for those who want to maintain heritage characteristics. This is not about affordability of infill or resisting change; this is about capturing and respecting the uniqueness of Edmonton’s neighbourhoods and not encouraging a slap-dash approach to infill or rebuilds. If it is demanded of them, designers and builders can create for affordability AND context.
Louis, I didn’t say your kids are unfortunate. I just don’t think your house is a good example of affordable infill housing. I think it’s advertising for you. I’m also making the point that. Iveson’s campaign for seniors’ housing doesn’t take into considerations seniors wishing to continue to live in their own homes. I believe he talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. I won’t post again as I believe I’ve said all that needs to be said. Louis, last time I saw you I came over and spoke to you and your children. I am neighbourly, but my parents are not doing well. I’d have great difficulty managing to take a photo like the one Don has on his site. My parents’ house is almost right smack up against yours. To those supporting Iveson for affordable infill housing! you might also want to check out the artist rendering of a house in Riverdale. Do you have any idea of the cost of a lot (even subdivided) in Riverdale?
Penny – Thanks for your comments and maintaining respect in the discussion.
It is in my view one of the biggest misconceptions that all ‘mature’ neighbourhoods to be labelled ‘historic’. The very nature of the neighbourhood and in particular our street, has a wide variety of built forms and over the course of many decades, has left a legacy of vernacular styles ranging from craftsman bungalows, to simple unadorned post-war tract houses – no ‘character’, just the simplest built residential form there is – and more recently neo-traditional types. As a result, there is no single house design that could be deemed an appropriate addition to our street in general. In reality we have added more diversity to the existing streetscape because the design is genuine and represents current design and a practice of our time.
The word “Character” which I would personally strike from the MNO, is both subjective and misleading. I’ve seen genuine and authentic 60s ‘atomic’ ranch style homes in Parkview and Laurier-Heights desecrated in the pursuit of ‘maintaining character’. How come there is no policy in place to protect these architectural gems?
Unlike the Westmount Heritage District (WHD) where property owners are ‘encouraged’ to build within its contextual traditional aesthetic, there are numerous precedents of contemporary built forms throughout Glenora, including many of Edmonton’s finest examples of mid-century modern residences. see – http://capitalmodernedmonton.com/
I understand ‘context’ and i wouldn’t begin to suggest demolishing a house in WHD, and replace it with a modern house – there is a wealth of great examples of craftsman homes there. WHD is a completely different scenario than what’s built along our street. Even newer ‘traditional’ houses built throughout mature communities are festooned with historic inaccuracy in detail and scale. Most unfortunately are designed inappropriately, replacing clapboard siding with imitation vinyl and ornate wood columns with tin metal. The list goes on. Regrettably it is the standard of all newer ‘craftsman’ style homes being constructed whether in mature neighbourhoods or suburban developments – cheap and fake.
Susanne – A professional photographer doesn’t use a ‘point-and-shoot’ camera to create this image so I would completely understand why you couldn’t recreate a similar image yourself.
Tom – Further to Susanne’s great suggestion, I welcome the opportunity to meet with you and to tour the house and property as I have with hundred’s of others.
Louis
Susanne, you can spend $250,000 to build a modest house on a 25′ lot, or you can spend $1,000,000 to build a (skinny) palace on a 25′ lot. The affordability of the approach does not revolve around the assessed value of the completed house, but rather the reduced cost of the LAND.
Louis, thank you very much for the offer. I don’t know when I would be able to take you up on it, but would be very interested to see the house. I will shoot you an email at Thirdstone.
Tom Young, you’re not going to find a lot, even subdivided, in Glenora or Riverdale that will let you build a $250,000 home. You have to buy the lot with either the house already on it (most of these aren’t vacant lots), then pay to demolish and remove the house that is presently on the lot, then subdivide and then build. Add up the costs and your total cost will be far more than $250,000. While infill housing sounds great, it is far from inexpensive. Do some research on the price of older homes in these areas. They aren’t giving them away. The lot with house on it at the time that Louis bought was a small lot that was officially subdivided, I believe around 1968 (could be wrong on date). for many years my oarent’s home (original farmhouse), and the house that Louis bought were on the same piece of property. This is a very old area. I’d like. Iveson to actually run through the actual costs that would be involved for people wanting to purchase land, demolish the existing home, subdivide the lot, and then build two houses on the property. In most areas of the City, I can’t see first timers ending up with only a $300,000 outlay of money/mortgage. I don’t believe Iveson has the experience necessary to lead when he puts this kind of a plan before us without any clues as to what this is actually going to cost. First time home buyers beware of this scheme.
Susanne,
First, Glenora and Riverdale are affluent neighbourhoods, which is why land acquisitions cost as much as they do. This same infill scheme could occur in neighbourhoods like Delton, Parkdale and Alberta Avenue where land prices are significantly lower.
Second, not all homes are future friendly. Many homes in mature neighbourhoods are nearing the end of their lifespans, which means that they require significant investment to remain liveable both now and in the future.
In some cases, it is not financially prudent to maintain these homes because a) year-to-year upkeep is higher, b) equity is lower as your home will not be valued as highly, and c) future resale of the home is greatly diminished. Rebuilding is often the right financial choice in the medium- to long-term.
Third, let’s say that a young couple buys a lot, demolishes the home and subdivides it into two lots. They build a 20′ wide home on one of the 25′ lots. Would they just sit on the other lot, or would they sell it to recoup some of their investment? If they sell it to another young couple, the other young couple has only purchased a 25′ lot and has a blank slate for building.
I appreciate that your parents have been affected by this project, but I think it’s worth noting that their home is an exceptional case due to not having had any previous neighbouring residences. I don’t think it’s fair for you to assume that all infill housing is unaffordable without considering neighbourhood, future land availabilities from subdivision and what kind of house is being built as Tom mentioned at 4:06 pm.
Best,
Jordan
Just to clarify, nothing in the city’s bylaws permits a house on a narrow lot to be any closer to the property line than a house on a wide lot. Any variance would be subject to the same review processes as on any property. Many cities around the world have countless examples of excellent housing on lots less than 50 feet, or even less than 33 feet – and in fact, infill housing which creates viable family housing is being created every day in our own city. What is permitted in Edmonton’s residential zoning bylaw is nothing new, cannot fairly be called a “scheme”, and simply does not merit the level of controversy that it has attracted.
It is not Iveson’s job in his campaign for Mayor to “run the numbers” for us on how much infill housing is going to cost first-time homebuyers – that is being done already every day by homeowners seeking to renovate or rebuild in existing neighbourhoods, and by developers putting up their own capital to pursue this type of model. I would assume by the fact that infill development is still happening that the numbers are proving these projects feasible. Nor is Don putting any specific “plan” before us at this time; he is simply indicating that there is an urgent need to examine ways our administration can incent development that leads to a more compact and efficient city – something that as a taxpayer who will be paying for years to come for the city we choose to build today, I really appreciate. I will assume that Susanne is arguing here that subdivision of 50′ or larger lots will not necessarily result in housing that could be deemed affordable to first-time buyers; yet however you run the numbers, it is guaranteed that by NOT providing the option of subdividing the lot, these hypothetical buyers would be facing double the land cost – easily an additional $150K in most mature neighbourhoods. An infill property resulting from subdivision is obviously MORE affordable than the single-family alternative.
Speaking of costs, the CBC reported today that new, low-density neighbourhoods will cost the city significantly more than infill housing – an average of $1.36 for every dollar in revenue. (article here: http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/edmonton/story/1.1895114) Clearly if we are trying to minimize our tax burden in the long run, a concerted effort needs to be made to direct the unit growth in the city into established areas, and more discussion needs to happen about both what form that growth should take, and what is preventing it from being economically feasible already.
The question is not whether or not infill housing “should” happen, any more than the question is whether we should allow change to happen or permit people and buildings to age. Tremendous demographic and architectural change has already been seen over the years by Edmonton’s mature communities, and undoubtedly will continue into the future. I would like to see the debate in this city become a little more sophisticated, and shift toward a discussion – as Tom suggested – around WHAT this change should look like for the most efficient and liveable version of the future Edmonton.
Susanne, my comment was not directed at your, per say. Replacing a small single family home with a larger one does nothing to improve central property affordability, and I don’t really care one way or the other whether such things get built. But the same complaints you have about this house would apply to projects that, for instance, bought two properties near yours and built a four-plex on it. Which is redevelopment that should be encouraged, but would anger you in exactly the same way.
Seniors matter to the exact same extent as everyone else. Longevity in a neighbourhood does not give anyone special rights or say on its future, and people who could live there in the future are just as big of stakeholders as people who live there now.
I understand what some of you are saying about infill. But why did Iveson choose two pictures of expensive infill housing. Iveson has captioned this topic “policy”, is that not the same as saying its his plan. You’re not going to get a property under about $300,000 (and that’s in a very cheap area). You then have to demolish and remove the old house. No idea of the cost, but can imagine its not cheap. Its an expensive project. I appreciate change happens. This is not my house, but my parents. They both still live there. BTW, when i was a child living in Glenora neighbourhood, there were a number of houses that had two homes on a lot. One house was in front and the other in back. They were small houses and had no garages. As the land became more valuable and people wanted bigger homes, they knocked down the two homes and built larger ones.
Most of the infill houses going up in Old Strathcona and Ritchie are cookie cutter houses that are built to max square footage to provide the largest profit for the builder.
They are generally built to code minimums to maximize profit for the builder.
For the privilege of building on an infill lot the requirement for the infill house should be higher, better than average insulation, quality stucco finish(no vinyl siding) and maybe solar panels or geothermal heating.
In addition it should take into account the effect on the neighbor’s house and property.
Building large crap houses changes the character of the neighborhood more than any other style of home.
Thank you Don, for focusing on quality infill projects as opposed to the ‘cookie-cutter’ homes we are too often seeing being slapped up in our mature neighbourhood.
Susanne,
Did you mean to say that your parents live on the NORTH side of Louis’ property? Because if they do live on the south side of Louis’ property, his house can’t possibly block the sun, which (as far as I know) shines from the east, south, and west. Not the north. Also, why did you assume that Don has not visited this house?
All,
The term “affordable” has a different meaning for every household in this city, depending on the household incomes. And infill housing prices will change depending on which neighbourhood you build in as a result of the varying land prices across different communities. What we need are HOUSING CHOICES in mature neighbourhoods, which we do not have at this moment in many communities. As Susanne illustrated above, the older lady with health issues (and dog) had no housing choices available to her in the community she had lived in for years after the landlord sold the house. If there had been more housing choices, of varying degrees in size/cost, she could have found suitable housing nearby in Glenora. She could have “aged in place” within her community.
A healthy community is a community rich in diversity: housing diversity, cultural diversity, economic diversity, age diversity, and so on. When I read Don’s blog, that is what I hear him saying – we need housing diversity in our neighbourhoods to satisfy the needs of the community.
Great post Don!
Tegan
Don.
I am OK with densification of my area (westwood) so long as three things are banned.
1: No Homes that extend past the front line of neighbouring houses Front yards must remain the same depth along the block to prevent blind spots which lead to increased crime, and the aesthetic problem of a home being hidden in the shadows of it’s neighbour.
2: No front driveways for any property with alley access. Front driveways remove street parking, break up boulevards, increase vehicle-pedestrian collisions, and create traffic blind spots. The back alleys are their for a reason. Lets clear them of snow and ban future front driveways wherever they exist.
3: No mcmansions in modest residential areas, If the goal is densification, these homes certainly do not fit that goal (and are usually the main violators of the front driveway rule)
Please give me your input on thee concerns. Will you promise to maintain the character of these areas through densification, or will you simply let developers do whatever they wish?
Susanne, I was referring simply to construction cost, which is highly variable depending on how large a house you are building, how you decide to finish it, what materials you use, and so on. My intention with that comment was to try to separate the land cost from the construction cost. Subdividing a lot does not cut the cost of an infill home in half, but does cut the cost of the land in half which, as Tai notes above, could amount to as much as $150,000 in savings in a mature neighbourhood. This is actually a huge boon to affordability and could put a new house in a mature neighbourhood within reach of a lot of first-time homebuyers who previously felt forced to purchase in the far-flung suburbs.
Thank you all for your polite and caring responses. Yes, I did mean my parents live on the south side of this home. Brian, thank you for your “no mcMansions” as the home built next to my parents is built within the bylaw setback, but they have no security in their backyard as the home extends the entire length of the lot. While I don’t believe elderly need preferential treatment, the hardship experienced by these seniors who have paid taxes all these years is just wrong. My once cheerful mother often cries. Their health has declined rapidly adding stress also to my brother and I who care for them. They are both physically mobile. The lady (in her 50’s) who had been content living in the small house that had previously been an affordable rental for her suffered from a developmental disorder. She had to leave the neighbourhood where she’d felt safe. I still would like to see Iveson take down the photo of this house as the photo was taken by a professional photographer who was able to somehow change the actual scenario of how these houses interconnect. it does not look like this. Neither is it “typical” infill as this tiny lot has always existed. Diotte came under heavy scrutiny for filming a campaign film in the Blue Plate Diner. Please Don, give me the same courtesy that Diotte offered. Take this photo down.
There is no question subdividing 50′ lots into 2x 25s will result in gentrification of mature neighbourhoods – the reasons are simple – you can’t get around land costs and you can’t get around construction costs.
Simon O’Byrne – an urban planner in Edmonton stated to Council that construction costs for infill at $170/ sq ft and “depending on the quality it could go up from there”;
An individual from the Home Builders Association pegged costs at $200/ sq ft; and
A call to a builder put the cost at $185/ sq ft.
At those rates – and assuming a footprint of 1,100 sq ft, cost to reconstruct the new home will be as high as $220k.
Assuming you purchase a 50′ lot with a single home at $350k and divide that into 2x $175k 25′ lots – the cost for the new skinny home is already at $395k and you haven’t yet figured in costs including:
Demolition;
Landscaping;
carrying costs et al on the land;
building a new garage; and
closing costs on the sale.
The new home is now pushing $500k (depending on what upgrades and design element are incorporated) or about 40% more than purchasing the original single family home on the lot.
But that’s only part of the issue – I’ve consistently said – and we have evidence here to substantiate that position – that the long skinny form does not integrate well with traditional housing in mature neighbourhoods.
That’s the real issue here.
Derrick – How does it not ‘integrate’ well with the neighbourhood?…
Firstly, I just did a quick search on cookie-cutter houses in the burbs and they’re pushing $500K too. We want to give those same couples/families the choice to move closer to the core with an equal if not better house than what they’re being offered in the outskirts of the city. Even better, the people who care to make this happen (including yours truly) are on the verge of making this an even more viable solution for young couples or families to move back into the mature neighbourhoods.
Include the prospect that they’re less car-dependent with one less vehicle to make a payment on ($), translating into less car insurance payments ($), less gas ($) and even the possibility that they could be moving back into the same neighbourhood where they grew up and have the same support system ($); well, you can see the dollar signs begin to add up in the short-term already. In the long-term the benefits would include reinvesting in the community, making use of existing infrastructure, populating schools that are now struggling to remain open, walking to nearby shops and support local businesses instead of Big-Box franchises; all while becoming a more vibrant and healthier community.
Secondly, a narrow house design can be extremely functional and efficient on a 25′ foot wide lot, with adequate outdoor amenity space – and yes enough for trees, lawn and songbirds too – so entering ‘urban forest’ or ‘carbon dioxide’ and the ‘oxygen’ equation into the debate is weak because the effects would be negligible.
The setbacks, height requirements and site coverage ratios would be no different than any other lot in Mature Neighbourhoods – 28% site coverage for Dwelling and 12% Garage. So adjacent properties would still have plenty of solar access. You’re also referring to them in your blog, as ‘skinny ‘tall’ homes. Well sure they’re narrower but they would be NO taller than any other house on the block. The LG House for instance is well below the max. height allowances. That’s what the DP process is there for…(when it works).
Moreover, with the exception of a few neighbourhoods like Old Glenora and Westmount Heritage District as an example, Edmonton’s housing typology is made up of mostly post-war tract homes, which were necessary to meet housing demands of after WWII – a noble cause yes – but to consider them ‘historical architecture’ is inaccurate at best. These neighbourhoods are prime for infill development and community re-investment. The designs will be flexible to meet differing topographies and existing context.
Lastly, we’re not talking about literally doubling the existing stock in mature areas by saying everything should be 25′ – it won’t happen. Development will happen intermittently and gradually. We’re giving people better choices – that’s it! As these are built, citizens will see the benefits compared with the dehumanizing and de-spiriting effects sprawl has on our city. They will embrace living smarter and will recognise that their enhanced livability is key to their day-to-day existence.
those arguing cost of narrow-lot single-family dwellings are missing the key element of choice in your affordability equation. there are many young singles, families, and couples who are much more enticed by a <1800 square foot home on a narrow lot in a mature neighbourhood that they can have design input on than a larger home in sprawl. i'm assuming both around the $400k mark..
Hello I am excited that you plan on building new housing projects but what are you going to do about funding for the existing housing such as needed renovations for example i live in housing and have for the last 4 yrs i was told i would get new floors when i moved in i have yet to receive them (and i know i probably wont get them till i move out) i am also very certain that they are the same floors that were installed originally almost 45 yrs ago when repairs are done the corners are cut so badly that i could of done a better job with things i could have gotten from the dollar store i am also told by my land lady that there’s no money in the budget they have even gone as far as charging people to have black mold removed and i’m not talking cheep i’m talking like over 2000 dollars if i had to give a guess id say about 75 percent of units in my complex alone have black mold so once again i am glad that you want to build more housing because we do need it but what are you going to do about the existing ones and my other questions is what are you going to do about the schools this yr my sons elementary school cant afford sub teachers so when one is absent the classes get combined and the same goes at lunch time as well if a lunch supervisor is away not only that my sons grade one class is not going on any field trips this year because they cant afford to go any where this year which is really unfortunate as most of them come from the two neighboring housing projects and don’t get to go many places outside of our area and i only ask these things in the interest of the children
Derrick,
First, I think additional questions should be asked. What is the lifespan of the home in question? when it comes to building equity, does it make sense to undergo extensive renovations of the existing home? how long are these renovations projected to extend the lifespan of the home, and how much maintenance will be required for the home?
In some cases it may be that retaining the existing home does not make sense in the long-term fiscally.
Second, the demolition costs of the existing home and associated landscaping will be factored into the cost of selling the second plot of land. If you purchase the land for $350k but demolish and prepare the subdivided lot, it will sell for more than $175k as work has already been done on it.
Third, what will happen to the vitality of these mature neighbourhoods in the long-run if they’re not making themselves amenable to younger people?
Best,
Jordan
Jordan:
I went to school at Acadia – along the street there are a number of homes with the 1967 centennial symbol attached by the front door – that designation was given to those homes because they were standing on July 1 1867 – they are still perfectly liveable.
There are additional costs to the second lot – service hookup alone will cost another $22k – and the existing service – generally clay pipes in older neighborhoods will have to be replaced.
If the developer buys the 50′ lot and divides in half they will develop both sides as that is where the real profit will flow – purchase something for $350k and sell 2x $500+ properties – I get why developers want to get at the RF1 homes – but residents in older neighbourhoods don’t want it because it doesn’t mix well with existing stock.
If a developer were – somehow – able to acquire say an entire block of RF1 then maybe skinny homes could work – that’s what happened in Westmount almost a century ago – developers would buy 2x 50′ lots and subdivide them into 3x 33′ lots. It was done on a larger scale and it has worked – but doing it here and there is not the best mix of form – go ask Louis’ neighbours – there are many posts here on that blog that speak to the incompatibility.
Louis has said houses in the burbs are pushing $500k – homes in QMP, North Glenora Central McDougall can be purchased for somewhere around $350k – even if there are minor alterations or renovations required – its more affordable than a new home in the burbs – or the house you built.
Oh and Louis – Tegan Martin Drysdale has stated before Council she recommends ditching the MNO to allow for built form attractive to buyers.
translated that means bigger than 28% and up to three storeys high.
I can send you the transcript if you like.
Louis:
Reference your statement below:
Include the prospect that they’re less car-dependent with one less vehicle to make a payment on ($), translating into less car insurance payments ($), less gas ($) and even the possibility that they could be moving back into the same neighbourhood where they grew up and have the same support system ($)…
you can’t guarantee any of those things will happen – it’s just as likely and even suggested by Ms Martin-Drysdale that the FLEX option is pathway to affordability – in that scenario there are now effectively 4x units on a lot that used to have 1x home
That will lead to more cars on the streets as there is less room in driveways/garages.
Even if the 2x skinny homes are purchased by single families – it’s unlikely that in McQueen on 109 Ave and 146 Street that people are walking or biking to work/groceries/movies – especially in winter.
Even if people want to live close to downtown – there’s no guarantee they will work downtown – your’s is a “in a perfect world” scenario.
Finally a few questions for you:
1) how much space on your property is there for a tree that could live to 100; and
2) how many cubic metres of solid waste will be shipped to the landfill when the old house is torn down; and
3) how much energy does it take to recycle the concrete from the old basement that will have to be torn out to make way for the two new skinny holes in the ground?
4) how much more water flows from your home directly to storm sewers after a rainfall given the lack of yard/trees to help mitigate said runoff.
I find it interesting that at the same time YEG is encouraging the use of green roofs on office and high density residential towers to mitigate against just this sort of activity – IDEA is lobbying administration for changes that will put more water into our stormwater systems.
Susanne is right. The house in the picture is my neighborhood and I walk by it daily. Living on the south or particularly the north side of it would be like living next to a twenty-foot-high cement wall that stretches virtually the whole length of the property. Can you imagine living between two such structures? No one would be allowed to build a fence that high. Such a house should definitely not be allowed anywhere but on the extreme north end of a block with a wide easement on the north side, but never in the middle of a block as this one is.
Derrick,
First, affordability isn’t the only criterion people hold when they are choosing their home. What if someone wants to live near the downtown core, but doesn’t want to live in a post-war home that doesn’t meet heritage criteria?
To be frank, older doesn’t mean better when it comes to design standards or liveability–we’re not talking about heritage homes built in the Garneau in every circumstance when we look towards neighbourhoods like Calder, Inglewood or Prince Charles. If someone wants to pay more money to live in a 25′ narrow lot home than an older home, let them do it. It will lead to better equity in the long-term for their investment, give them a custom home designed to their specifications and a location that they specifically wanted…all for the cost of buying a cookie-cutter home in the suburbs.
I’m not denying that buying a mature home would be cheaper than building a new home on a 25′ narrow lot, but the issue shouldn’t be framed around those two. It should be between narrow lots against the suburbs, density against sprawl, design against boring.
Second, there’s no other way to start than “here and there” until the concept of infill housing takes off. Millcreek and Forest Heights are great examples of communities that have “old character” but are seeing a wonderful influx of new infill developments.
Third, the MNO does not govern the 28%/12% for a total 40% coverage rule. RF1 does. http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/InfraPlan/ZoningBylaw/ZoningBylaw/Part2/Residential/110_(RF1)_Single_Detached_Residential_Zone.htm
Fourth, I’m comfortable with a lot originally meant for one family to have four families. Why? It means more people are living near the core, which means less tax money has to be spent servicing sprawl. I appreciate that people in Edmonton are used to a low-density situation, but it’s a privileged one and isn’t viable in the long-term.
Lynda,
Homes in most communities don’t get a lot of sunlight on the sides that face their neighbours…nor do neighbours tend to like windows facing each other where you can peer into someone else’s home. In other words, most homeowners get most of their sun on the streetface and the yardface.
With post-war housing where every home is only one story tall, it’s easier for sunlight to reach the first floor that made side windows viable. With the existing home in question, they were lucky that they got sun on three faces for as long as they did. Most people were never so fortunate.
Thanks,
Jordan
I live in a mature neighbourhood, and bought here 16 years ago prior to having my children and picked the neighbourhood because of the character. It was a choice. We could have bought in the burbs for much less…
I agree we need to stop sprawling and encourage building within our aging neighbourhoods. However, these plans and policies need to be done in conjunction with the existing residents-go through the changes with them.
With recent changes, the reality for me is that if the seniors on either side sell, new houses could be built substantially past the front of my footprint and past the back, cut off my sunlight and make it so that my house is not visible from the street.
What is iresome to us, is that infill plans were created and designed by the residents of these areas at the behest of the City, with an eye on the future and a realization of the changing needs of the city, and these have now been ignored.
Yes things change, but why do we always concentrate on the THINGS and not the people?
Don Iveson,
I have been reading the infill lot discussion, as I decide for whom to cast my mayoralty vote. I am a 20 year resident of Garneau, with the University as my neighbour one block to the west, and constant private development pressures throughout.
The Garneau question for you is one we have been asking the City and its planning department to answer for years, without any, let alone an adequate, response. In the drive to density, when does a neighbourhood become too dense?
What controls does the City have in place to ensure that this does not happen? Blanket infill policy in one neighbourhood is a blessing. In others, like Garneau, it is a curse.
With forethought, Garneau has so far been able to avoid overcrowding while accommodating density. The community put its development goals into the GARP (Garneau Area Redevelopment Plan) years ago to provide a framework for future development. The GARP limits high rise development to certain areas and promotes a mix of residential types in others. It protects a core of historic single family residences that has been the backbone of the community and provides stability and safety for all residents.
This framework was undermined by city council’s vote last year giving blanket permission to develop duplexes on single family lots in all mature neighbourhoods. The existing balanced development in our community has been tipped, and the permission for absentee ownership of those duplexes puts Garneau at greater risk of becoming a student ghetto. University cities in Ontario, and elsewhere, struggle with overcrowding and slum conditions in student ghettos. Absentee landlords and health and safety issues are every day concerns there. For an example of the depths a neighbourhood can descend to, think of the Queen’s U student ghetto and the riots.
Mr. Iveson, you indicated that you did not vote to support the owner as resident requirement for these new duplexes, as it would be difficult to monitor. Equally difficult to monitor is the current legal limit for house occupants in our neighbourhood. But it is there, and it is useful in controlling overcrowding. Now that duplexes are permitted, our community is left with twice the difficulty in monitoring overcrowding. No absentee landlords in the duplexes would have been a useful tool and a guarantee of quality housing and civility of tenants.
Since you and the current last council were party to creating this problem for our neighbourhood, how do you plan to fix it? What limits do you propose to address overdensity problems and the stresses overcrowding blanket infill policies puts on neighbourhoods that are already sufficiently densely developed?
Jordan
The Mature Neighbourhood Overlay (see link below) states:
814 Mature Neighbourhood Overlay
814.1 General Purpose
The purpose of this Overlay is to ensure that new low density development in Edmonton’s mature residential neighbourhoods is sensitive in scale to existing development, maintains the traditional character and pedestrian-friendly design of the streetscape, ensures privacy and sunlight penetration on adjacent properties and provides opportunity for discussion between applicants and neighbouring affected parties when a development proposes to vary the Overlay regulations.
814.2 Area of Application
This Overlay applies to all Sites zoned RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4 and RF5 within the areas shown on the Appendix to this Overlay.
http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/InfraPlan/zoningbylaw/ZoningBylaw/Part2/Overlays/814_Mature_Neighbourhood_Overlay.htm
Link to the area affected is below:
http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/InfraPlan/zoningbylaw/mno.pdf
The issue of cost and affordability was raised by the President of Infill Design Edmonton Association (IDEA) back on 18 March of this year when she said sub-dividing 50′ lots would result in more affordable housing for families in mature neighbourhoods.
It won’t – land costs + construction costs + the developer’s profit margin and other ancillary costs means each new skinny home will be about $140 more to purchase than the traditional home.
The only way to make the new home affordable is to incorporate FLEX principles into construction which effectively turns the home into an over/under duplex with no room for parking extra cars save on the street.
CHMC notes that building FLEX homes is about 6% more expensive than a a non-FLEX design.
Nobody is talking about what the people who are currently living in these neighbourhoods think about these changes – and I know why.
The response at the doors has been virtually unanimous in opposition to the proposed subdivision of lots.
The reasons include incompatibility of the new skinny homes with the existing stock – the negative effects from shading, crowding and loss of mature trees that will result.
You can see from above Lou’s neighbours are not happy with the effects – and he’s built within the MNO regulations.
The President of IDEA advocated on 18 March to remove the MNO and allow infill builders to build taller (up to three storeys) and look at site coverage that will allow for “floor plans that are attractive to families” (bigger that currently allowed under the MNO).
It’s about price, yes – but it’s really about ignoring the wishes and desires of families who have chosen mature neighbourhoods specifically for the additional space that comes with a larger lot.
Are you saying their values, hopes and desires don’t matter? If so please let me – and them – know.
Thanks
JANE
You can’t rely on your ARP for protection. I was in a meeting with the head of Sustainable Development a year ago – a meeting set up by my Councillor who was also in attendance.
We were talking about variances in parking and the creative interpretation of the allowable uses within the Downtown North Edge – the department had varied parking in a three block area by more than 150 stalls in an eight month period.
When writing the DNE we specifically included the provision in the vision that the community did not want any parking variances.
ARPs are – as you know – passed by Council and are therefore the direction of Council.
Given this I asked the head of Sustainable Development “Don’t your Development Officers have to consider the community’s views as expressed in the ARP when considering whether or not to support an application?”
“No” Was his answer.
I’ve spent a long time working in government for elected officials and can tell you that if an unelected public servant said in front of a sitting MLA, MP or Minister that they didn’t have to follow the direction of the government – they wouldn’t be in that position very long.
We need better mechanisms for effecting change in older neighbouhoods – the views of communities – as expressed in ARPs – has clearly been ignored in recent years.
Derrick,
“It’s about price, yes – but it’s really about ignoring the wishes and desires of families who have chosen mature neighbourhoods specifically for the additional space that comes with a larger lot.
Are you saying their values, hopes and desires don’t matter? If so please let me – and them – know.”
I don’t see why their values, hopes and desires have to overrule the values, hopes and desires of people who want to choose mature neighbourhoods specifically for the location. When it comes to my personal views, I don’t think it’s tenable in the long-term for a healthy city to prevent the densification of mature neighbourhoods. I’m not surprised that you and your neighbours seem to be against more dense infill development as it does change how the neighbourhood operates, but I think it’s necessary for Edmontonians to accept a more compact way of living.
We’re unfortunately at odds when it comes to ideology about how mature neighbourhoods should be valued, and I don’t think we’re going to be able to convince each other.
I think it will be an interesting task for Don, were he to be elected, to strike a healthy balance between our views.
Best,
Jordan
As Edmontonians we need to address our spending budget. In relation to beautification projects that really cost more than they are worth. Redoing landscape jobs year after year because the person designated in charge was either to busy to inspect the work or didn’t care because their contract with the city was set. I am a trades person and the work done on portions of the LRT concrete work is appalling to my standard. Would you hire an engineer who has no real life experience other than in a book or computer screen to pour and form your driveway and make sure it looked good? A good way to start is looking to Alberta’s innovative construction leaders with practical, proven experience rather than appoint someone often with a higher than average engineering salary to have that learning curve (that the tax payer has to fit the bill for).
We are the capitol city and should always live to a higher standard. In light of the many complaints from citizens against the police brutality that never gets addressed by the police chief. I myself think that if I have a rotten apple in every dozen and the problem is not addressed its only going to spread like an infection. Most people would agree they would rather be spoken to with dignity from someone with integrity than insults or accusations from a bully. On the other side, good honest police work should be recognized publicly and taught to the next generation of public servants (before learning to fire a weapon or use a baton) These are social concerns and regardless of financial status or demographic everybody should be treated with civility.
Finally and most important education, As a whole in Canada and here we must start by promoting education, particularly mathematics, physics and the sciences. If we wish to remain as a global power, it is going to be through innovation and ingenuity. In no way do I negate the other core curriculum but we can all see that today’s society is dependent on technology and creating the next big thing that will revolutionize our beautiful planet. The ingredients are here in our school systems and that inspiration for greatness lye’s in our educators hands. I believe that teachers should be recognized for inspiring and challenging our young minds in all the districts. Our next generation is our future – lets give them the tools to succeed in an ever changing planet.
Sorry if I got off topic but to me these are things I would vote for.
Louis
In the interest of setting the record straight – can you tell us the square footage of the building and what percentage of the lot is covered by the home and garage – the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay sets max coverage at 28% of the lot for the home and 12% for the garage for a total of 40%.
Does this home meet that requirement?
The new communities are packed in on top of each other, in several areas around the city, especially downtown, there are tear downs of old commercial buildings, churches, walk ups that have given way to high rises or proposed high rises. In older mature neighbourhoods infill needs to be left alone. New communities are fire hazards. I searched very hard to find a large lot in an old community when I moved to Edmonton. Friends shook there head that I was buying a 1969 home for the same price they were building there new home in summerside. Difference is their neighbours are on top of them, they have no yard, shadow is cast so they get no sun. People buy homes for various reasons and it’s about quality of life, my friends moved from an old neighbourhood because they wanted new. I chose to move from newer high density housing in a neighbouring city, to an older mature neighbourhood because of what it had to offer and what I desired in quality of life. You say no one should have to choose where they live. But people do that every day when they choose to buy a home. Infill takes away peoples rights to choose how they wish to live. I have no desire to live in a concrete jungle with 8mil people. There is a reason I do not live in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal. If something like those riverdale houses went up beside me I would be forced to sell MY home and move. I chose Edmonton. I chose my neighbourhood (which I spent months looking for). I chose a quality of life. That city council threatens. There are many areas within the city core that already have high density housing or commercial areas that have fallen vacant. Develop those existing areas further. People choosing to live in those areas already accept this as a live style. Allow the options to remain for those that want some breathing room. 116st and 107ave where the church used to be could easily see another 50-100 housing units be placed. Why does the lot beside my house have to see 2 multistory units instead of 1?
Hi All,
As a home owner in a mature neighbourhood that I grew up in, I have a few comments. The fact that my neighbourhood is now facing ‘revitilization’ and ‘densification’ and substantial rezoning to incorporate the shifting focus of urban centres into functional multi-use community’s excites me.
I can understand the propensity to attach ourselves to what already is, but the climate of urban dynamics are changing, the city is becoming more diverse, and the need to utilize our existing infrastructure and to invite innovation and growth into our mature communities is necessary. The idea that one could create a community that houses low-income, corporate singles, and young families into one thriving ‘body’ is important, and whether we like it or not, sharing our space with others who differ from us in idiology is what living in a large urban centre means.
I have an architectural background, and having driven by ‘thoughtless’ developments in mature neighbourhoods, I can sympathize with those who simply want a human element of discussion present in development in mature neighbourhoods. Urban sprawl, however, is a pandemic in many Urban centres and it creates exhaustive tax burden on taxpayers and does nothing to support and innovate the City these sprawled areas are attached to.
Cost for building projects new and old are completely subjective. The ideology behind Infill projects have been utilized to build low-income housing in large Urban centres around the world, and have been utilized to build multi-million dollar utopias for those with the means to do so.
The real issue here is understanding and accepting that if the city is to grow and experience continued vitality, your neighbourhood cannot and will not remain the same as it always was.
Considerate and thoughtful design is absolutely necessary in mature neighbourhoods, but a shift in perspective may be required to allow us all to share these neighbourhoods with a wider variety of people. Those who are not open to the idea that new people bring with them new ideas into their neighbourhoods are going to be unhappy regardless of what someone else tears down and builds right next to them.
Perhaps the zoning bylaw is really failing inhabitants of mature neighbourhoods by (currently) not providing enough guidance and insight into the impact of new builds, but I think that is Don Iveson’s argument. I think he sees the need for further development on the issue, and that is why he has included the concept as part of his policy scope.
I do not know his entire perspective around urban development and his vision for our City in particular as of yet, but I remain optimistic that this issue is on the table, and a matter he genuinely seems to care about.
My main concern is street parking and traffic. Vancouver’s street parking has gotten out of hand. You remove one home and two cars, you build two new homes and add 4 cars plus. If the new homes have a rental suite you add more families and more cars.
I live in Quebec. We are in the midst of fighting an infill house that was put up. If you would like to follow our horror story. Le Droit newspaper has a great deal of it online. You can use google translate to have it translated to English. As a victim of this infill project, I have to say, the pictures we were shown, and the actual home didn’t quite match up. We have lost sun, privacy, and a great deal to our waterfront property. We now live with a 56 foot long, 3 story high wall in our front yard. NOT HAPPY. This home has taken up every single square inch of lot, and invaded and taken over our home, and our street. Our home is 20 years old 3600 square feet, we really didn’t see it coming down for a long long time. Many of the other houses on this street are the same. We are presently fighting the City and the Urban Planning Department. I am a business owner, I offer and train staff on change. I welcome change, when it makes sense, this does not make sense.
Cheryl, please post a link to the Le Droit article. Google and other sites feature
automatic translation options that will give non-french readers a good sense of
the substance of the story.
Susanne Gale, you are entirely right about how Prosofsky’s carefully arranged
photographs conceal just HOW CLOSE this building is to the house to the left
(north). What is more, it utterly blocks sunlight from your parents home and
yard – this is no different than if a 10 meter high fence had been built 2 meters
away from the exterior of your parent’s home.
Google Earth satellite views of 133 st, (between 105 ave and 106 ave) perfectly
illustrate the massive shadow cast by this facility. Whatever gardening your folks
did in their back yard will have been utterly sabotaged.
What was the City Development Officer that signed off on this variance thinking?
Where was the Community League President and the other residents who would
have had the opportunity to object (at least under the present RF1 Zoning Bylaw
provisions that the Mayor, members of the Executive Committee, the President
of the EFCL and all the planners, architects, developers and property speculators
are so eager to eliminate)?
Such a shame to think of the deleterious effect this development will have on
the value of your parent’s property. The only buyer that would willingly settle
for living in the eclipse of LG House will be one who expects a sizable discount
for doing so.
A thoughtless, inconsiderate and selfish development. Hardly a model for
affordable Infill. Expensive, inefficient. Bad for the block. Bad for Glenora.
Bad for Edmonton.
I am seeing opposite to your vision actually happening in my neighbourhood of Parkallen, where the developer frenzy that is occurring in anticipation of your “relaxed bylaw”. The prices are being driven sky high and the new development is larger and larger all the time.
The proposed 2 storey garage suites in backyards simply are not accommodated by the small lot sizes that predominate the wartime mature neighbourhoods. When this type of development happens, the neighbours lose their privacy and their sunlight as these excessive developments crowd the space. The affordability is lost, as most of this new development pushes property prices sky high and many modest affordable homes are bulldozed in the name of developer profit. Many of your constiuents are outraged and i did a mini poll of my immediate neighbours, 12 out of 13 were opposed to 2 storey structures being built in back yards in our community. I will undertake to poll the whole neighbourhood and respectfully would ask that city council consider the actual lot sizes when allowing for more development and footprint coverage with buildings. We are losing too many mature trees and losing the affordable housing that already exists. Your plans may backfire, so I caution you to move slowly and not to be too hasty in these amendments, since many desirable modest neightbourhoods will soon become elitist and unaffordable for the average homeowner. I think that any amendments that go forward should be done as a trial first in select areas in order to first determine whether or not they will achieve the desired outcomes. I’m all in favor of suites being allowed in RF1 neighbourhoods, but with these new Mcmansion homes, surely the suites could be located in some part of the 3000 sq ft or more that these new homes have already.
On my 500 sq m lot, i recently built a single car garage and i have exactly 25 feet of lawn left between my house and the garage (and the garage is only 22 ft long and 18 ft wide)
That is how tight the space is on this size of a lot and I cannot imaging looking out my back windows and viewing a 2 storey structure with windows looking into my home at less than 40 feet away. This is the reality, the vision is one thing, and the reality is another. One size does not fit all and I believe your electorate will rapidly dwindle if these developer driven amendments are put into practice with much more comprehensive consideration.
Infill housing is a concept that is best applied to either vacant lots, abandoned buildings, or wide open areas such as the recently closed Downtown City Airport but not mature neighborhoods with existing housing for the following reasons. Mature neighborhood infills overwhelm the existing utility infrastructures to failure; parking over density causes home owners unnecessary stress; building size/height plus industrial cube shapes make other existing character structures look out of place; the choice of space separation with nature is removed; and the democratic zone rights of the original, long term residents are ignored.
A sensible approach to infill continues to be an important topic to meet demand as the density rises in mature neighbourhoods. Thanks for the overview