News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.6K     0 

Let this bylaw pass and I will savour the tears of every NIMBY. Sell it online for a profit and build a 6 story mixed use building in the middle of Glenora.

Wtf even is their alternative? Gentle density? I swear I’m so ready to throw hands with these Op-Ed writers.

Honestly should show up to that meeting now with massive pictures of Raymond Block and give all these people a heart attack.
At this stage, given the state of other Cities in Canada, and in the US.
The status quo is a non-option, and what's currently proposed is the compromise. Many of us want to see more much more significant zoning liberalization, but I'll accept the L if it means seeing some actual progress and staying ahead of the housing crisis.

However, convincing the head-nimbys of this is probably too difficult, so distraught about change that they'd see every city locked up like a museum piece.
What matters right now is that council understands the urgency, and allows the current plan to proceed. This zoning renewal has been a years long project involving extensive outreach and discussion.
So long as Council trusts in the process that's taken place over years, trusts in all the hard work the planning team has done, and trusts in the compromises that have already been made then we will be ok. All the leg work has already been done, the outcome is necessarily a compromise, but a necessary one that must proceed.
The author of that article worked for the CoE planning department in the mid 90s... kind of explain a lot about what happened here in Edmonton during that time (nothing).

That's scary. Almost everything they said is wrong. And not just like, a different opinion, but factually wrong in terms of research has found. Sprawl is way more expensive for the City, and artificially restricting land use intensity is costly for anyone who doesnt already own.
Myself and my none "progressive" friends have generally been in favour of this kind of zoning reform. Framing this as some kind of left wing political thing screams desperation. One thing I'm glad of, is that an article like this doesn't change the mind of someone like Janz, he'll probably dig in his heels.

I don't get the obsession with SFHs though. I chose to buy a townhouse instead of a SFH because it fits my lifestyle better. No lawn maintenance, no shoveling walks, etc. I'll make similar choices when I move to Oliver, or wherever I end up in central Edmonton.
My message to Gunter:
Retire, you old git!
Its very frustrating that someone with absolutely no knowledge, experience, or expertise in a subject can write an opinion article like this and it will be taken more serious than the actually experts (many of whom likely had some involvement in the new bylaw mind you). It shows a complete lack of understanding that two lot splits are presented as "proof" that infill is expensive, when it's still a form of housing that's density is artificially limited, resulting in high prices being needed to recover the original cost of land plus the old home. Allowing more density and FAR splits those costs between more units, and allows the prices to actually come down. It also neglects to consider the housing costs of the status quo. For every single infill home that's sold, that's someone that is willing to spend extra money to live closer to the core. If there are no lot splits or infill, does that person simply disappear? No, they compete for the existing housing in the core, pushing up prices even more as there are more people competing fora fixed number of homes.

If this is true, then yeah, I’m not surprised.

Great tweet set. From the original article of that project getting approval from Council in 2016:

A new, temporary home for out-of-town cancer patients was approved Monday for University Avenue, but a concern about privacy for neighbours means it will be smaller than originally proposed.

Instead of being able to accommodate 28 patients looking for a homelike environment while being treated at the Cross Cancer Institute, 20 people will be able to stay. The number of bedrooms was dropped to nine from 14, and bedrooms across the street from a homeowner across the street will only have frosted, narrow slits near the top of the wall.
[Jeanette Boman] said the league was most concerned about protecting the privacy of the neighbour living across the street because she owns her own home. Others living beside the building are renters. The size reduction will also keep the height to 2-1/2 storeys and ensure every bedroom has a parking spot.

For reference, this is the view of that neighbour's house prior to this being approved that they were worried about. They had to scale down the size of the build, the number of people it can accommodate and bedroom window sizing on a temporary home for out-of-town cancer patients because of this one home owner being worried about privacy.


Reading this sort of stuff from really not long ago sure makes me proud of the work being put in to bring this new zoning bylaw to fruition.
Aaron Paquette wrote this on Reddit in response to someone posting a critical article of the new zoning bylaw:

Frankly, if we want a vibrant city with taxes under control delivering more services, and a diverse choice of housing types in the marketplace, the ZBR may not be going nearly far enough.

After more than 5 years of public engagement, it has definitely become a “zoning bylaw by committee”, chipped away and smoothed down over time.

Some of the fear mongering I have seen around this issue is pretty surprising, given the changes suggested not only actually answer the fears presented, but some of those fears aren’t even part of what the ZBR is about.

I am actually at a bit of a loss on this one as it is not a bylaw change that changes the City overnight, but simply allows for smarter growth going forward over the next several DECADES.

I am looking forward to the public hearing where a lot of folks who have maybe been told half truths will hear exactly what the ZBR is all about. It will be nice to give folks some peace of mind.

Another benefit to the public hearing is that there will be some proposed amendments from other Councillors and look forward to digging into that when they shoot their proposed amendments over to my office.

Bylaws are not static but change over time and adjust to practical considerations.

It’s impossible to get any bylaw 100% perfect for two reasons:

1. ⁠There’s no such thing as perfect except for newborn babies.
2. ⁠Until we see real world application of bylaws, no municipality anywhere in the world can make the necessary adjustments to make a new bylaw better. This is especially true on a large scale. Real life experience with a bylaw is a sensible requirement for improvement because that’s the only way you can actually see the multiple variables interacting and reacting in reality.

So while there will be those who say “delay until perfect” in real life that means delay forever.

Since we haven’t had a full scale review and change for literally generations - and we have to adjust to modern challenges and to our better understanding of the municipal development growth Ponzi scheme that currently exists and must stop - we really do have to go forward at some point.

Council already delayed this for a year so that there could be an extra year of engagement.

So, I will keep my mind open, hear all the arguments on all sides of the equation, and make a decision when the time comes.

At this point, I understand the ZBR and think that while not exactly perfect for my personal preferences, it is fairly close.

I am willing to be persuaded, but at this time it looks acceptably sensible.