News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.7K     0 
I appreciate the thoughtful points being shared in this discussion.

I do prefer the idea of moving to less exclusionary zoning overall where people do have more mixed use options with their property. I think that is a more sustainable way to build a city.

While a typical lot may not be suitable for a school, a daycare could be. So could an office space, physio office, coffee shop and more. And mixed density - preferrably with some appropriate design standards, as well.

I enjoyed living near and walking past some of the old homes in Wihkwentowin that had various uses in them and living on a street that less than half a block away had multiple restaurants, a church and more. I get that is not everyone's preference, but I would argue, again, that it's a more sustainable and healthy way to build a city overall.
 
All restrictions are exclusionary by definition, the main difference here seems to be whether they are made by a government or someone else.

Unfortunately, it could be some of those nice old homes that may be most at threat in the current development free for all.
 
Cluster housing. 150st and 90ave.

😒

Rise needs to go bankrupt. So much of their stuff is trash.

IMG_6196.jpeg
IMG_6194.jpeg
IMG_6193.jpeg
 
kcantor said:
There is much less difference between zoning restrictions and a RC than you are prepared to accept. As just one example, on “my lot” I cannot construct a warehouse, I cannot construct a 12 story residential building, I cannot construct a school, a car dealership or a welding shop etc. etc. etc. Those restrictions mean I don’t actually have the right to decide what to build on my property. Even though I did not agree to put any or all of those restrictions in place, I still need to abide by them and I accepted that when I purchased the lot. That was my choice and if I wanted to do any of those restricted things I was free to pursue them in a location that permitted them. The same thing applies to someone who might purchase the lot when I decide to sell. The benefits of this arrangement are not just to me but to my neighbours as well and it is fitting that they should be able to rely on them after I sell and not solely as long as I choose not to sell and that applies whether they are imposed by zoning or by an RC.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day, we can agree to disagree on the philosophy, but the market usually settles these debates anyway. Even if covenants remain a tool for some, they are ultimately self-defeating for two reasons:

First, they actively reduce property value; most owners aren't incentivized to place a permanent legal shackle on their land that limits its future potential. Second, it is highly unlikely that any modern neighbourhood will ever achieve the 100% buy-in required to truly control an area. Instead of a pristine 'elite' enclave, you simply end up with a messy patchwork of rules that fails to achieve your objective while making the neighbourhood a nightmare to navigate legally.

If you’re okay with your property rights being frozen in amber, that’s up to you, but the rest of the city is moving towards a more flexible and functional path.
 
^^

While you are correct in saying that the market will usually settle these debates, I’m not sure the market will - or even should - perform the way you predict.

Firstly, I’m not convinced that RC’s necessarily result in lower property values and if they did I would think anyone supporting “more affordable housing stock” would support that rather than oppose it.

Secondly, I’m not sure you need “100% buy-in and complete control over an entire modern neighborhood” for RC’s to be effective. You only need enough contiguous lots on any given street within any neighborhood for them to be effective in preserving the character and makeup of those streets.

Thirdly, your “messy patchwork of rules” is not really any different or any more problematic if it incorporates some RC’s than what we already have with our zoning bylaws that provide exemptions or different rules for TOD sites or historically designated buildings or direct control sites or even temporary parking lots for that matter.

Lastly, as for my property rights being potentially “frozen in amber” and potentially its value along with that (although the market as you noted will determine if that or the opposite of that actually takes place in the future) there are some things that are more important in life and life styles than others and I’m perfectly okay with that.
 
kcantor said:
^^

While you are correct in saying that the market will usually settle these debates, I’m not sure the market will - or even should - perform the way you predict.

Firstly, I’m not convinced that RC’s necessarily result in lower property values and if they did I would think anyone supporting “more affordable housing stock” would support that rather than oppose it.

Secondly, I’m not sure you need “100% buy-in and complete control over an entire modern neighborhood” for RC’s to be effective. You only need enough contiguous lots on any given street within any neighborhood for them to be effective in preserving the character and makeup of those streets.

Thirdly, your “messy patchwork of rules” is not really any different or any more problematic if it incorporates some RC’s than what we already have with our zoning bylaws that provide exemptions or different rules for TOD sites or historically designated buildings or direct control sites or even temporary parking lots for that matter.

Lastly, as for my property rights being potentially “frozen in amber” and potentially its value along with that (although the market as you noted will determine if that or the opposite of that actually takes place in the future) there are some things that are more important in life and life styles than others and I’m perfectly okay with that.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is some contradiction in the discussion here. I agree they are exclusionary, so interestingly you tend to see them in areas where housing prices are higher not lower and they tend to maintain not reduce those values.
 
thommyjo said:
View attachment 717395

One more:

Blue: 18 homes replacing 9.
Yellow: 7 homes replaced 2. And 2 large redevelopment sites on 156st (3 lots) and 155st (6 lots). I could imagine both getting midrises for 100-250 units combined.
Green: 160 homes on most recently vacant lands.
Red: 56 homes replacing 7.
Click to expand...
Jasper place seems to have the trifecta of older housing stock, smaller homes, that are on larger lots. It is seeing a lot more infill than other parts of the city because it's cheaper and you can build more on each lot, in general
 
Wax said:
Plus its not stereotypically undesirable like the north is…
Click to expand...
There are some questionable areas nearby, but they are not that large and the areas to the south and west are nice, plus it is fairly close to both downtown and other popular areas of the city.
 
EtoV said:
Jasper place seems to have the trifecta of older housing stock, smaller homes, that are on larger lots. It is seeing a lot more infill than other parts of the city because it's cheaper and you can build more on each lot, in general
Click to expand...
Priority growth area incentives are also likely a factor
 
My god, that's ugly AF! All one needs is one example like this for why people push back against infill.
Those are all clearly revenue generation properties. The landscaping will be a bare minimal and there will be no 'ownership' into the community,.

Might as well put up some portables and call it a day. Thanks, City Hall. You're turning the city I call home into a trailer park.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top