[BrettB]

I love increasing density and I'm glad council voted down some of the recent attempts to scale back zoning, but in that photo, I can understand why people who've loved with their neighbourhood a certain way for 20, 30, or 40 years would be scared of change.

 

[kcantor]

I love increasing density and I'm glad council voted down some of the recent attempts to scale back zoning, but in that photo, I can understand why people who've loved with their neighbourhood a certain way for 20, 30, or 40 years would be scared of change.

There’s a very big difference between being scared of change - as you chose to phrase it - and being opposed to certain types and forms of change.

 

[MacLac]

I used to live in the building in the thumbnail. Nice place. Terrible neighborhood kids, had a bunch of unfixed stray cats in their yard that would generate endless amounts of additional stray cats.

Haha! “Endless amounts of stray cats…”

 

[northlands]

I love increasing density and I'm glad council voted down some of the recent attempts to scale back zoning, but in that photo, I can understand why people who've loved with their neighbourhood a certain way for 20, 30, or 40 years would be scared of change.

For sure. Grovenor is relatively central and about to be located along an LRT line, it only makes inherent sense that it quickly becomes densified through redevelopment of SFH into larger multifamily projects.

That said, I can certainly understand frustrations of neighbouring residents. There's a large list of people decrying the student housing proposal downtown for being big ugly boxes with tiny windows yet you're a NIMBY if you'd prefer to not have a big ugly box with tiny windows built in your neighbourhood/next door.

It's sort of the tale of two infills: plenty of examples of great neighbourhood integration of 6/7/8 plexes by thoughtful developers with a care for their neighbours, and then many more where the only thought put into the project was the bottom line. The developer from the photo posted definitely fits into the latter. Unfortunately, there's a perverse incentive for infill developers to build ugly garbage, because if it does help lower neighbouring property values and/or drives existing neighbouring homeowners to move, it increases opportunities to build more infill.

 

[David A]

For sure. Grovenor is relatively central and about to be located along an LRT line, it only makes inherent sense that it quickly becomes densified through redevelopment of SFH into larger multifamily projects.

That said, I can certainly understand frustrations of neighbouring residents. There's a large list of people decrying the student housing proposal downtown for being big ugly boxes with tiny windows yet you're a NIMBY if you'd prefer to not have a big ugly box with tiny windows built in your neighbourhood/next door.

It's sort of the tale of two infills: plenty of examples of great neighbourhood integration of 6/7/8 plexes by thoughtful developers with a care for their neighbours, and then many more where the only thought put into the project was the bottom line. The developer from the photo posted definitely fits into the latter. Unfortunately, there's a perverse incentive for infill developers to build ugly garbage, because if it does help lower neighbouring property values and/or drives existing neighbouring homeowners to move, it increases opportunities to build more infill.

Unfortunately, the city seems reluctant to regulate either quantity or quality, which I feel will only strengthen the resolve of those against more infill.

 

[constance_chlore]

The Wihkwentowin rezoning application is unsurprisingly for the former Armstrong/Rankine-Hume residence:

Whoa! I had no idea the owner of Stopgap was trying to do something here. I'm excerpting like half the article below because there's a lot of interesting detail.

Council greenlights heritage lot rezoning, bucking city administration

Former Armstrong Residence site now zoned for mixed-use, paving the way for Stopgap Coffee's larger corner cafe

edmontonjournal.com

Council greenlights heritage lot rezoning, bucking city administration​

Edmonton’s normally developer-friendly city administration’s attempt to guarantee heritage protection for a former-Oliver neighbourhood lot was overruled by council Tuesday.

However, the approval for the new corner coffee shop still ensures that any future development will not include any four-storey cube-like construction.

Following a two-hour public hearing, councillors voted 9-3 to rezone a property in Edmonton’s historic Wîhkwêntôwin district to mixed use (MU), defying recommendations from administration to require the developer to be subject to direct control (DC) by the city. [...]

EINS Development Consulting Ltd applied for the change on behalf of the owner of Stopgap Coffee, who wants to build and move into a larger cafe space on the corner lot at 99 avenue and 112 street — formerly where the Armstrong Residence stood. The applicant argued going the DC route would put too much cost onto the project, noting the difference between an MU zoning application and a DC was an additional $3,000 in fees — on top of putting together a design plan to fit with the city’s requirements.

On the list of requirements for the developer are making sure the entrance faces 99 avenue, that the property be set back an additional three metres from the property line, and the outside facade must reflect the brick masonry prevalent throughout the neighbourhood.

EINS founder Ryan Eidick told council those requirements were all doable, the main concern was getting tied up in fees and paperwork.

Wîhkwêntôwin is one of the densest neighbourhoods in Edmonton and many of the homes in the area date back to the city’s early days, with some homes built in 1905. The neighbourhood falls under the purview of the Edmonton Design Committee (EDC), which can place its own restrictions on how the building looks, subject to developer appeal. If EDC’s requirements are appealed, the proposal goes to a subdivision and supply board where residents will have another chance to speak their mind.

 

[johnnyboy]

^ Interesting. I wonder how well that bodes for Leonardo's which is right behind this lot.

 

[johnnyboy]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-city-council-wihkwentowin-rezoning-9.7104730

 

[thommyjo]

For sure. Grovenor is relatively central and about to be located along an LRT line, it only makes inherent sense that it quickly becomes densified through redevelopment of SFH into larger multifamily projects.

That said, I can certainly understand frustrations of neighbouring residents. There's a large list of people decrying the student housing proposal downtown for being big ugly boxes with tiny windows yet you're a NIMBY if you'd prefer to not have a big ugly box with tiny windows built in your neighbourhood/next door.

It's sort of the tale of two infills: plenty of examples of great neighbourhood integration of 6/7/8 plexes by thoughtful developers with a care for their neighbours, and then many more where the only thought put into the project was the bottom line. The developer from the photo posted definitely fits into the latter. Unfortunately, there's a perverse incentive for infill developers to build ugly garbage, because if it does help lower neighbouring property values and/or drives existing neighbouring homeowners to move, it increases opportunities to build more infill.

I think there’s a lot of nimbys in crappy old homes getting a better payday than they would if they “had their way”. I kind of chuckle at some of those people in my neighborhood who made a big stink 3 years ago and then sold to the highest bidder. “These greedy developers” then they did the greediest thing they could vs caring about their neighbours… ironic.

But I can feel for those in newer infills if they have a horribly designed one going in Nextdoor. That’s a different reality to your finances vs an older home. I do wonder if detached or custom built infills will slow down due to uncertainty from all of this. Not saying that’s good or bad, but uncertainty usually slows capital. Do you buy and build on a lot with a rundown home next door when you don’t know what may be built there in 3 years?

 

[constance_chlore]

^ Interesting. I wonder how well that bodes for Leonardo's which is right behind this lot.

Yeah, I don't know. I mean, they're already close enough to be competitors. But I think they attract different crowds.

I'm a bit cynical about EINS's justification here, but I do think the Stopgap owners must know that half the reason people go there is the vibe from the current house itself. If they slapped something up with a bunch of weird multicolored paneling, the charm would be entirely lost.

I do wonder what'll happen to the John T. Ross Residence where they're based now. It's a Municipal Historic Resource, so it should be safe.