Infill and the Edmonton of tomorrow
Today, Executive Committee will discuss a number of important reports that could have a deep and lasting impact on our city’s shape and form. It’s no secret that Edmonton is undergoing tremendous growth and Council is exploring a number of tools to help manage this change, and capitalize on the opportunity. Infill is at the top of my list.
Infill can be a daunting concept for residents of neighbourhoods that appear largely unchanged since the day they were built. When these communities were first developed, they were typically vibrant places anchored by large and growing families, busy retail centres and thriving schools. Over time, however, the demographics of our mature neighbourhoods have changed – most families are smaller, and many more of the households are empty nesters – so the total population has declined by 73,000 people in the last 40 years.
Infill is the help these communities – and our city – needs in order to restore cultural and commercial vibrancy, to support roads, pipes and sidewalks, and especially to justify retaining more schools.
After extensive consultation, the Infill Roadmap coming before Executive contains many community-driven ideas on how to do infill better. My hope is that we swiftly implement all the recommendations in the Roadmap to help change the rules and remove the many barriers to infill that exist today. Specifically, I’m most interested in the recommendations to:
- Work within existing zoning regulations (RF1) to allow narrower lot subdivision to increase density, opportunity, and housing options in more areas;
- Create more opportunities for garage and garden suites in established neighbourhoods;
- Developing an infill-specific team of city staff dedicated to supporting infill development, helping with approvals, sharing information, engaging communities; and
- Build a comprehensive communication strategy around infill to spur information sharing and enhancing communication between the city, builders and residents
I believe the majority of Edmontonians support infill development. However, a lot of the hesitancy I’ve seen over infill has been around communication between developers and residents, and the design of infill houses themselves. The Roadmap contains some good ideas for improving communication between the various groups affected by infill, and a ‘good neighbour construction guide’ to help ensure the process goes more smoothly. However, nothing is more subjective than “good design”, and although regulations help determine the appropriate height, setbacks and footprint of a house, we have to accept that the ‘character’ of a neighbourhood is often undefinable. Neighbourhoods continually change over time and across generations. In fact, some of Edmonton’s oldest neighbourhoods have gone through several eras of change already, each one a reflection of a particular moment in time. This is the ongoing story of community renewal.
On the surface, neighbourhood revitalization appears to be a Catch 22: we need schools to attract families, and we need families to make schools more sustainable. However, designing communities around today’s family is something we can have a positive impact on through focused infill efforts and better transportation planning. Prices of infill housing today are beyond the reach of many families, but by opening up our zoning regulations we bring more development opportunities into the market, and hopefully more competition and innovation, which in turn would introduce more affordable housing options in a truer areas.
We simply can’t continue to build our city and accommodate our growth by developing new neighbourhoods alone. Our suburban neighbourhoods provide great homes, communities and amenities for Edmontonians, but they can’t be the only place where Edmonton’s growth and change occurs. The way we’ll continue to be able to grow a great city in a strong region is by enabling diverse housing options across our entire city. Infill is a crucial piece in building up our established neighbourhoods and further embracing the urban shift that is already underway in Edmonton.
19 thoughts on “Infill and the Edmonton of tomorrow”
Comments are closed.
I applaud efforts to spur infill development in mature neighborhoods, but I am extremely disappointed that at this time, the focus is on lots and areas that developers hope to capitalize on due to high current costs. Our Parkdale neifgborhood was re-zoned RF3 six years ago with none of the care, support and effort that we have seen in this current ddebate. Please ensure moving forward that neighborhoods like Parkdale are treated equally and respectfully in the future. Up to this point I do not feel as though the city has given our area its due consideration
Otherwise, good work. We have seen lots of infill in our area and our neighbors in Alberta Ave have had the highest rate of small scale infill in the city over the last five years. I hope lessons learned here can be implemented elsewhere
I live a block away from the houses pictured at the top of your post. And, we’ve been seeing quite a lot of infill in the area over the last few years in particular. People taking down little war time bungalows and putting up large two story homes in their place.
On the one hand, I’m all for neighbourhood renewal. But, on the other, I don’t see how this is helping with density and infill? I don’t think we’re seeing more people come into the area. They’re just living in bigger houses now.
I do think you’re right in that design is the primary stumbling block. And, I also agree that many people will have a hard time agreeing on what makes good design. But, I disagree with this being something that shouldn’t be considered more fully. If they can implement architectural controls in new neighbourhoods, something similar can be done in mature neighbourhoods too.
Let individual communities come up with design guidelines for what they consider to be appropriate for their neighbourhood. People buy into a vision and feel for their community. I agree that infill and increased density needs to happen. But, not at the expense of what came before. Give existing residents some control over what will be happening to THEIR neighbourhoods and I think you will find that this will go a whole lot better. And, with a end result that everyone is more happy with.
What protections will there be to prevent the destruction of enjoyment of property and value of property if these infill plans go through?
I live in a one story bungalow, with similar sized homes on either side. What will prevent the tearing down of the houses on either side and their being replaced with multi-story homes that will tower over mine, block the sunlight into my house and garden, ruining my enjoyment of both? Or for that matter, what prevents the small scale garages from being replaced with 2-story garages to allow for suites, again, ruining my enjoyment of my backyard and the value of my property? We bought in this neighbourhood (Highlands) for a reason — large lots and the enjoyment of a backyard that that comes with — and I don’t want to be driven out of my home so that developers can make pots of money by selling “tall skinny houses” to new people.
“Infill is the help these communities – and our city – needs in order to restore cultural and commercial vibrancy, to support roads, pipes and sidewalks, and especially to justify retaining more schools.”
I entirely disagree. It’s designed to satisfy the greed of developers at the cost of ruining the few neighborhoods with character in this city, turning them into the same bland, cramped cookie-cutter neighborhoods that abound here. Once you ruin the older neighborhoods, you’ll never get them back. This is just a repeat of how Strathcona was ruined forty years ago through the building of those ugly three-flats in the middle of an old residential neighborhood.
“Infill” is hideous. Leave my neighborhood alone!
On the one hand, infill is a good idea: we need to stop sprawl, we need to bring people back to older neighbourhoods (so we don’t lose more schools, especially!), and we need to utilize lots that are currently sitting empty.
HOWEVER: putting up more huge houses on skinny lots doesn’t equal increasing density in a way that allows more people to access home ownership or even housing: all it does is mean that we have more hugeass, ugly wanna-be mansion yuckfests created by developers whose sole interest is in lining their pockets. And it doesn’t do a single thing to address people who are holding on to vacant lots, refusing to do a single thing with them (OHAI former site of the Arlington). It doesn’t address the fact that higher-density equals more apartment buildings, and more low-income/subsidized housing … not more shoddily-built condos. We also need more transit to accommodate increased neighbourhood populations, instead of trying to squeeze yet more people into cars on an already over-capacity transportation hub like oh, say, 118th Ave.
Garden and garage suites are great, but once again, I bet this will come down to certain neighbourhoods only, while others (Terwillegar, I’m lookin’ at you) will continue to whine and moan about even the possibility of opening up their neighbourhoods to “those people.” Infill is a great idea – let’s not ruin it by leaving it up to developers to define what infill means, what it should look like, and how it should integrate with – not replace – a community’s character. And oh yeah, let’s make sure that it extends to all communities, not just those of us in the core.
I agree that neighborhoods should have the final say on the style of the infill proposed. In Highlands and Bellevue we have lots of people improving their properties … and many of the newer infill homes are built in a style that blends with the houses around them … even though some do block light because they come so close to the edge of the property lines. Neighborhoods flourish when people are proud of their own home, and of those around them. Those are the properties that are cared for. It is actually the smaller bungalows that are more affordable for young families … we see people buying and renovating them. Let the neighborhoods have input on the type of infill that blends with the houses around … not individual developers who have no stake in the neighborhood.
So many people, here and elsewhere, keep commenting that these changes will result in houses being closer and closer together. They will not. Our zoning bylaw requires minimum 1.2 m (4 foot) sideyards whether you are building in the suburbs or mature neighbourhoods. This is based on the Alberta Building Code. Nothing in the infill changes proposed recently would change that.
The infill roadmap is fundamentally flawed. A unilateral approach that paintbrushes all “established” neighbourhoods the same is not a plan or a roadmap. Each community needs to be considered and the city needs to take the time to develop a plan that works for each community. Some don’t want it and aren’t designed to handle it. Worse yet, the city hasn’t used effective communication mechanisms to inform the citizens that live in those affected neighbourhoods. As more people are finding out what the roadmap really means, the more upset citizens we have. Take the time to do this right, inform citizens and represent what Edmontonians want to do – not a political agenda.
Tom, while zoning bylaw requires minimum 1.2 m (4 foot) sideyards by the building code, the problem is that when denied development applications end up in front of SDAB they use their powers to grant variations. Then the developers do not adhere to building codes and due to the backlog on inspections there are developments that become fire hazards.
Helpful article here. Tall buildings do not equal density. It takes overall, long term planning.
http://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/kaid-benfield-how-not-all-urban-density-created-equal.html
Obviously, there has not been enough discussion on infill. A common theme in most of these comments here is that neighbourhoods do NOT trust the City or developers to ‘do it right’. For Queen Mary Park we are strongly opposing infill for the sake of infill. Our neighbourhood has already been ‘densified’ as evidenced by the number of walk-up apartment buildings here. Yet, developers are starting to push to grab our beautiful larger lots and replace the houses with their vision. We only have 300 single-family houses left and these houses are an anchor to the rest of the neighbourhood. To lose them, means we will lose the character of this beautiful and vibrant community.
I agree with April on the SDAB process. Despite the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay in our neighbourhood that prevents rear-drive attached garages on inside lots. we recently lost one of our houses to a developer who is building exactly that. The argument the developer made was that “People do not want large lots with all they yard work and would rather have a larger house with little or no yard work”. Really? Talk about out of touch. Also, the resulting property is 3500 square feet and features a wall of vinyl that will run all the entire length of the property. How does that add to density? How is that affordable? How does that design fit it with the rest of the house styles? Obviously they only wanted the large lot to build another McMansion close to downtown. Despite the land use controls in place, developers continue to get what they want. Without strong and enforced design and land use controls, some developers will continue to build crappy development, with no regard for the long-term impact on the community. They will simply take their cash and walk away.
While I will concede that not all developers are only concerned about profit and some actually take pride in what they build, that does NOT seem to be case the case with all of them. One only needs to look around in mature neighbourhoods to find examples of really poor development that just doesn’t fit in. I wonder why the mature neighbourhoods are so strongly opposed to infill?
In all the discussions and consultations we have had, the theme seems to be more about why we should accept infill rather than what we would like to see.
Our community is considering forming a neighbourhood trust to purchase houses and lots that come up for sale. The thought would be that we sell them back to families or developers with a contract providing either first right of refusal should they be sold again, or if sold to a developer, creating a contract with controls over what the developer will build.
I have lived in Parkallen for 30 years, and would like to provide my perspective as a resident in a mature neighborhood. For those not familiar with the area, Parkallen is a post wartime neighborhood with small lots, modest houses, narrow streets, and some apartment and condos near the elementary school. Oversized infills are being constructed on small (500 sq m) RF1 lots throughout the neighborhood. Many take up the whole lot and don’t fit the neighborhood in terms of size and height. I hear many stories about developers having no regard for the Parkallen Mature Neighborhood Overlay, no or poor consultation with existing neighbors, misleading information about projects, and disrespect to neighbors during construction. New construction in the area has driven prices up, and is making the community less affordable.
For more densification, the City proposes more and taller garage suites and garden suites, on smaller and smaller lots in mature neighborhoods. The November 12, 2014 (draft) bylaw amendment allows garage and garden suites on every lot on the street (not just corner lots) and allows garage and garden suites on 400 sq. m lots (as opposed to 525 sq. m and 460 sq. m. lots, respectively).
I see this draft bylaw amendment as a mechanism that allows for the jamming of two 2 story residences on small 400 sq. m lots, all throughout mature neighborhoods. The City’s proposal has the effect of subdividing all small lots under 400 sq m into two, front to back, (recognizing the ownership of land stays the same. A house in the front (8.5 m high to the mid-roof), and a tall but smaller house in the back alley, up to 6.5 m high. In my opinion, mature neighborhoods were not designed for this, and existing residents that I have polled don’t want this. The impacts of allowing garage and garden suites in addition to the main house on small lots include:
• loss of privacy,
• blocking of sunlight and sight lines,
• traffic and parking congestion on already narrow roadways,
• traffic and parking congestion in alleys that were never designed to accommodate residences,
• driving safety in alleys (particularly in winter),
• security in alleys,
• lack of affordability,
• impacts on City infrastructure (power, sewer, water, roads, etc.),
• lack of affordability
In my opinion, the City’s agenda for garage and garden suites on small lots will ruin the character and appeal of many mature neighborhoods. I think it is being rushed through without proper regard to the impacts on existing landowners, history and character of mature neighborhoods.
To better maintain the character of mature neighborhoods, my thought is to have secondary suites in the main residence, rather than two residences on smaller lots, and the densification of existing RA7 areas.
Steven Ferner
__________________________________
For those interested, a segment of the proposed November 12 (draft) by law 12800 amendment below.
“The Zoning Bylaw 12800 amendment, as outlined in Attachment 1, proposes to remove the location restrictions for Garage and Garden Suites for all low-density residential Zones. Currently Garage and Garden Suites are restricted in low-density residential Zones to certain locations including:
corner sites
sites abutting a service road
sites abutting a lane adjacent to an arterial roadway, or
where the rear or side lot line abuts a site zoned to accommodate Row Housing, Apartment Housing or a Public Park as a Permitted Use or one of the (CS1),(CS2), (CS3), or (CS4) Community Services Zones.
It is also proposed that maximum height of the Garage and Garden Suite and site area be amended. The existing regulations present barriers to Garage Suite and GardenSuite development due to the requirement for such uses to be no higher than the principal dwelling. This creates a disadvantage for sites where the principal dwelling is significantly below the maximum allowable height. Additional limitations include minimum site area regulations that are in some cases more than double what is required to construct single detached housing.
The amendment, proposes to:
reduce the minimum site area from 525 square metres to 400 square metres for Garage Suites (above grade)
reduce the minimum site area from 460 square metres to 400 square metres for Garage Suites (at grade)
increase the maximum height to the lesser of 6.5 metres or 1.5 metres greater than the height of the principal dwelling where the Garage Suite has a roof slope of 4/12 (18.4 degrees) or more
increase the maximum height to the lesser of 5.5 metres or 1.5 meters greater than the height of the principal dwelling, where the Garage Suite has a roof slope of less than 4/12 (18.4 degrees).
Full versions of the bylaw amendment at:
http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/cache/2/01rndnvpmvf5yxvdvsgyxqab/37267211102014094920647.PDF
http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/cache/2/01rndnvpmvf5yxvdvsgyxqab/37267311102014095010287.PDF
The City of Edmonton needs to remain vibrant and in touch with what brings the populace into the city. A newer more upscale living within an established community, close to the heart of the downtown is unstoppable and should be carefully encouraged.
Coming from the east coast, having grown up in the old, and sometimes small, but beautiful Victorian styled houses of mature neighbourhoods, let me be the first to say- these bungalows have GOT to go!
We plan on living and growing a family in whatever neighbourhood we choose for the foreseeable future, probably 10 or 20 years. We are ONLY considering neighbourhoods within reasonable distance to down town, and that have substantial infill happening.
We understand that due to the boom and bust nature of Edmonton’s history, these (for the most part unsightly) bungalows came to be. The economy over the last 10-20 years has pushed their values up, creating a financial dilemma for a family like ours to tear down and rebuild something that looks semi-appropriate in this supposed flourishing city. However, in order for the city’s core neighbourhoods to continue to grow (in value & REAL character), all of these bungalows need to be replaced by updated and appropriate architecture/size/amenities etc..
Completely agree that the neighbourhoods should have a degree of enforceable authority on the architecture to match their neighbours (those boxy modern homes are tacky and of poor taste), but I honestly cringe every time I hear someone mention the word ‘character’ and ‘bungalow’ in the same conversation.
I am disgusted that the City of Edmonton has unilaterally decided that mature neighbourhoods should be subject to infill.
Why doesn’t the City take all of their dedicated-to-infill employees and get them to investigate the thousands of illegal suites and lodging houses, instead of giving endless excuses to poor residents on why the City cannot take swift action, if any action at all to make slum landlords accountable.
Why does the City of Edmonton accuse residents of not being open to change? That’s an pathetic way of forcing residents to waste their time defending themselves as to why they purposely chose a quiet, mature neighbourhood with natural light coming in to their property with beautiful mature trees (which are carelessly being chopped down-for shame), why they chose a neighbourhood with a certain architectural style (infill style is for the most part completely inappropriate) and so on.
Not everyone wants to live in a hip, “urban” manner. Do not dare speak for the long-time residents that have been here for generations that actually built Edmonton Don.
I don’t understand why people are so upset about the infill issue. Can someone please explain to me why so many people think it’s such a bad idea? I ask this question respectfully; I just want to understand the issue.
To all the people that are negatively affected by the infill and are totally upset by the way Iveson and city council have handled this issue, why don’t you get the Alberta ombudsman involved and see if they can help. You can get the number online.