[occidentalcapital]

This was discussed today at Urban Planning Committee - documents here: https://pub-edmonton.escribemeeting...English&Agenda=Agenda&Item=24&Tab=attachments

I can't help but think this will end up being a massive windfall to current SFH property owners, and a barrier to entry for anyone not currently in the market. I'm not sure it is wise to delay additional approved development, it seems like it could erode Edmonton's affordability advantage and essentially pushes more people into higher-density living arrangements (which some may like, but others might have preferred to buy a SFH). Wouldn't it just be easier to tax the new areas more? Rather than prohibit development, and potentially send that development to other regional municipalities?

 

[David A]

So, if we are only half as expensive as TO rather than a third, we wont still have an affordability advantage? I don't think so.

 

[Barnaby]

As much as there is an urbanist argument against sprawl, the city is fighting bankruptcy by implementing a policy of this kind. I understand the desirability of a single family home for some, but luxuries come at a price. There will still be affordable SFHs, but they'll be associated with an ever increasing soul crushing commute and higher taxes.

Obviously ANY new areas need to be LRT focused, but if people decide to make the horrible lifestyle decision of moving to Leduc for a marginally better home, then they can enjoy hating traffic forever.

Implement the policy and give the roads diets. Prevent the city from going bankrupt when I'm the average NIMBYs age.

 

[CaptainBL]

As much as there is an urbanist argument against sprawl, the city is fighting bankruptcy by implementing a policy of this kind. I understand the desirability of a single family home for some, but luxuries come at a price. There will still be affordable SFHs, but they'll be associated with an ever increasing soul crushing commute and higher taxes.

Obviously ANY new areas need to be LRT focused, but if people decide to make the horrible lifestyle decision of moving to Leduc for a marginally better home, then they can enjoy hating traffic forever.

Implement the policy and give the roads diets. Prevent the city from going bankrupt when I'm the average NIMBYs age.

You know what makes way way way too much sense in this city considering that we are facing financial shortfalls given sprawl?

1. Finally get over this dream of being a big developer in Blatchford. Sell the land for what it is worth to actual land developers and get an immediate cash inflow that can/should be better put to use for things that are within the city's core competencies. If we are bleeding money than eliminate bleeding money (which Blatchford is) doing things the city should not be doing outside its core competency. This would also serve to 1. increase density 2. reduce the need for infrastructure in the burbs and 3. increase tax revenue from completed homes faster than what is currently happening at the city's Blatchford building pace

2. Repeat the above with the Rossdale, Quarters and Exhibition lands. This city has more developable land in its core than any other major Canadian city (Vancouver and Toronto and even Calgary would kill for the amount of land we have in our core), while also complaining about sprawl. Sell the land to capable developers and/or vend the land into a municipal development corporation in which the city would be the sole shareholder while exiting the land speculating and developing business.

The city is capable of doing this. It sold the Muttart lands to Brookfield, Brookfield developed the lands because it is a capable developer, and the lands have been purchased and are under construction with the Rohit projects and potential Upper Vista project.

I know the city will not do the above on Blatchford and Rossdale and the Quarters because it has already dismissed the idea of a muni dev corp and has dismissed the idea of selling Blatchford to developers to which its your own damn fault if you continue dismissing solutions and crying problems.

 

[thommyjo]

Is there a reason some of the big suburban developers aren’t being given large parcels of blatchford to develop with 200-300 homes at a time? New suburbs have a ton of townhomes, apartments, and denser housing that isn’t far off from the vision for blatchford. To me, it seems like the infrastructure is the key difference. Bland suburban roads vs more urban formats with bike lanes and such. Can’t the city keep those included but get more large scale development from others?

What areas are a part of substantial completion? Is it city wide? Or how do areas like blatchford get counted?

 

[soupcrate]

Is there a reason some of the big suburban developers aren’t being given large parcels of blatchford to develop with 200-300 homes at a time? New suburbs have a ton of townhomes, apartments, and denser housing that isn’t far off from the vision for blatchford. To me, it seems like the infrastructure is the key difference. Bland suburban roads vs more urban formats with bike lanes and such. Can’t the city keep those included but get more large scale development from others?

What areas are a part of substantial completion? Is it city wide? Or how do areas like blatchford get counted?

It's for the new suburbs. The idea is to prevent leapfrog development where multifamily plots (the ones that stop the suburbs from losing even more money than they already are) laying vacant while low density sprawls out further to the airport.

Clr. Salvador has a great writeup on this:

Guiding Growth For Complete Communities

The City of Edmonton is growing and evolving. Where, when and how we grow plays a key role in helping achieve the outcomes in the City Plan. Smart management of growth will help ensure we are building complete communities where residents have access to essential city services like public...

www.ashleysalvador.com

 

[David A]

However, a problem is the city can't totally control leap frog development, as it does not control everything outside its boundaries.

So the dilemma that many metropolitan areas need to deal with - if you are too restrictive, then development could just go to nearby municipal areas outside your control.

I suppose in some places there are more stringent or restrictive regional controls in place by the province (ex. Ontario greenbelt or BC agricultural reserve), but I don't see that happening in Alberta.

 

[thommyjo]

It's for the new suburbs. The idea is to prevent leapfrog development where multifamily plots (the ones that stop the suburbs from losing even more money than they already are) laying vacant while low density sprawls out further to the airport.

Clr. Salvador has a great writeup on this:

Guiding Growth For Complete Communities

The City of Edmonton is growing and evolving. Where, when and how we grow plays a key role in helping achieve the outcomes in the City Plan. Smart management of growth will help ensure we are building complete communities where residents have access to essential city services like public...

www.ashleysalvador.com

Yeah. What’s tricky is that we don’t really need more apartments in chapelle and secord to finish being built. And honestly, them being built could take demand away for what we do need built and occupied…blatchford, TODs, Oliver, downtown, Whyte, exhibition lands, etc.

Will substantial completion help with our core, transit served, amenity rich areas? Or only give more cheapo apartments in car dependent areas that discourage apartment living in places it’s more valuable to city development?

Like at this point, I’m happy for all the suburbs to just be big homes with big yards with price tags in the 800s+ if it means people in the 400k budgets start living more centrally and not just buying the cheapest new pre construction townhomes in the newest suburb.

 

[occidentalcapital]

Yeah. What’s tricky is that we don’t really need more apartments in chapelle and secord to finish being built. And honestly, them being built could take demand away for what we do need built and occupied…blatchford, TODs, Oliver, downtown, Whyte, exhibition lands, etc.

Will substantial completion help with our core, transit served, amenity rich areas? Or only give more cheapo apartments in car dependent areas that discourage apartment living in places it’s more valuable to city development?

Like at this point, I’m happy for all the suburbs to just be big homes with big yards with price tags in the 800s+ if it means people in the 400k budgets start living more centrally and not just buying the cheapest new pre construction townhomes in the newest suburb.

Yeah, and the market agrees with you. Apartments aren't selling well in the suburbs.

I think this policy assumes that planners can never be wrong in terms of the amount of high, medium and low density they plan for in new areas. I think that is a dangerous assumption.

 

[BrettB]

This video could go into any of a number of our Edmonton forums (fora?)

 

[fromyeg]

Video from Michael Janz on the subject.

 

[occidentalcapital]

National media is talking about the PM resigning over the lack of housing supply:

Don Martin: Who will step up to have 'The Talk' with Trudeau?

Ego and vanity are a potent combination in leadership politics, and in his exclusive column for CTVNews.ca, Don Martin writes this condition is infecting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's mindset as he seems deadly serious about seeking re-election in 2025.

www.ctvnews.ca

Meanwhile Edmonton City council looks at a policy to curtail new housing from being built.

 

[TAS]

Meanwhile Edmonton City council looks at a policy to curtail new housing from being built.

That statement has as much validity in my eyes as saying the city of Edmonton doesn't support the police with sufficient funding.

But no doubt the building industry tries to be a strong lobby group that contributes funds to many political campaigns including almost any top contending mayoralty candidate whether they are Nickel, Sohi, Oshry, Krushell, Watson because they want to see them all get elected I guess.

 

[Barnaby]

National media is talking about the PM resigning over the lack of housing supply:

Don Martin: Who will step up to have 'The Talk' with Trudeau?

Ego and vanity are a potent combination in leadership politics, and in his exclusive column for CTVNews.ca, Don Martin writes this condition is infecting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's mindset as he seems deadly serious about seeking re-election in 2025.

www.ctvnews.ca

Meanwhile Edmonton City council looks at a policy to curtail new housing from being built.

This isn't what this policy is about. It's to prevent insolvency.

There is plenty of infill land available for development. Just because buyer preferences and developers want sprawl right now, that doesn't mean that it's financially viable. Offloading bad developments to other areas is a good thing for the city to do. Builders should adapt, like Maclab has. Encore is also doing well in this regard with their infill Townhomes.

People can live in big houses with yards, but they're gonna pay for it somehow.

 

[occidentalcapital]

This isn't what this policy is about. It's to prevent insolvency.

There is plenty of infill land available for development. Just because buyer preferences and developers want sprawl right now, that doesn't mean that it's financially viable. Offloading bad developments to other areas is a good thing for the city to do. Builders should adapt, like Maclab has. Encore is also doing well in this regard with their infill Townhomes.

People can live in big houses with yards, but they're gonna pay for it somehow.

I don't buy the insolvency argument. It is similar to anti-government debt arguments, which suppose that we have to pay back the entire national debt. What those arguments always fail to realize is that inflation reduces the size of debt, and the economy grows so much over time that past debts become insignificantly small compared to future revenues. Cities can and should take on debt to build and renew infrastructure and focus on continuing to grow their overall tax revenue. The other thing that has really hamstrung cities is the over-engineering of everything. It is crazy that we think we have to replace all of our roads and pipes every 50 years. Around the world you have ancient infrastructure thousands of years old that was well-built and in some cases is still functioning today. City council has a responsibility to oversee consultants and engineers and put some pressure on them to come up with solutions other than ripping everything out. If you take the premise that all infrastructure needs to be fully replaced every 50 years of course you will think you are "insolvent", but those assumptions have to be challenged.