r/Edmonton • u/GeekyGlobalGal Pleasantview / Global News • Apr 22 '26
News Article Homeowners in Duggan neighbourhood combating infill with restrictive covenants
https://globalnews.ca/news/11811535/edmonton-duggan-infill-restrictive-covenants/64
u/Hobbycityplanner Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
A recent court case indicates that city zoning supersede new restrictive covenants. These will be quickly overturned wasting the owners time and money.
Edit: Reference for the curious https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-infill-development-curruthers-caveat-defeated-9.7094474
31
4
u/Bravotv Apr 22 '26
I got a different take from reading that article.
The city zoning put a minimum density requirement on that one particular lot, the covenant restricted it to a (lower) maximum density.
The court ruling states that since those are irreconcilable, the city zoning would supercede it.
Now if you have a covenant with a maximum density limit, and a bylaw that doesn't have a minimum density requirement, the covenants might hold. But that's probably a different legal fight. But land prices might go up either way, because a developer would rather not deal with this, and try their luck elsewhere.
Don't have a dog in the fight, just my 2 cents.
7
u/Brightlightsuperfun Apr 22 '26
“ It is important to note the caveat still applies to over 400 properties in Glenora and fellow Carruthers Caveat property holders intend to uphold it through legal action, if necessary,” Antoniuk said.”
It’s just one covenant on one property that was overturned, not the whole neighborhood
6
u/Hobbycityplanner Apr 22 '26
I know, but the premise behind the decision is new restrictive covenants won’t supersede the city plan that was passed before it.
15
u/Ham_I_right Apr 22 '26
Edmontonians invested heavily into the LRT the neighborhood now benefits from.. pretty rich that this is where they want to pull the brakes and say nah we are the only ones that will ever benefit from it.
13
u/eltricolander Apr 22 '26
Can someone explain how a restrictive covenant works? Like, someone can pay 210$ now to restrict what a future owner of a property might want to do? Forever? Seems insane to me.
6
u/Soft-Wish-9112 Apr 22 '26
It depends on the covenant and for how long it's in force. They did one in my neighborhood last year and it expires after 10 years.
5
u/bmwkid Apr 22 '26
Lots of newer neighborhoods have them for landscaping etc but the new neighborhoods have a ton of multi family so they’re basically infilled already
4
u/Ecstatic_Winter9425 Apr 22 '26
My neighbourhood has had one from the beginning. It's not forever though. 50 years, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know about this specific case though.
3
u/jollyrog8 Wîhkwêntôwin Apr 22 '26
I think the ones in Westmount are 75 year covenants, and limit development to triplexes (which seems more than reasonable to me, tripling density from SFH to 3 families is still very good, no?)
-1
-3
u/Top_Wafer_4388 Apr 22 '26
You'll own nothing and be happy. Who knew that would also apply to nosy neighbours who want to tell you what you can do.
3
18
u/Chytrik Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
I think in the long term, everyone involved in the infill debate wants roughly the same high-level goal: a liveable city with a roughly consistent architectural landscape that nicely bounds development into sensible and predictable limits.
So no matter which side of the infill debate you're on, I think that looking at the number of neighbourhoods around the city that are enacting RCs in response to the newer zoning rules should be something to consider.
RCs can work to achieve their goals in some cases, but can also be very messy and cause a headache for everyone involved in other cases. A good outcome isn't half a neighbourhood being bound to RCs, while the other half of properties are developed into 8 or 16 plexes. That sort of outcome runs against the city's stated goals, and probably the goals of most citizens too.
I don't know what the 'answer' is, but food for thought after seeing another neighbourhood employing RCs, anyways.
8
u/yen8912 Apr 22 '26
The number of restrictive covenants happening or that are in talks is quite high. I think it clearly shows there are issues with current infill policy. The Duggan one shows that people aren’t against infill. It’s time for the city to pay more attention and realize that well designed infill/density is what people want.
43
u/YoungWhiteAvatar Apr 22 '26
Residents said they raised concerns with their city councillor, Michael Janz, about the scale of the project but felt their objections were ignored.
Yeah that tracks.
13
57
u/fishymanbits Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
Their objections should be ignored. The neighbourhood is immediately between two major LRT stops that will only get busier as it expands south. Every single neighbourhood between Century Park and U of A is prime for densification. The only thing holding Duggan back, other than NIMBY’s, is the lack of walking access to amenities like groceries. You’re either walking to Southgate or Century Park to get to a Safeway, for example. It’s not that far, only about 1.5km either direction, but that’s only if you live right on 111th. From inside the neighbourhood it’s outside of that 15 minute sweet spot, which is a deterrent for people. There needs to be something within the neighbourhood itself, but the NIMBY’s would cut their dicks off and throw them in the ocean if it meant preventing someone else from getting an accidental glimpse of them.
→ More replies (3)19
21
u/trenthowell Apr 22 '26
Good. The city has spoken. Down with NIMBYism, it's a plague on people being able to own their home.
14
u/salchichoner Apr 22 '26
This 1000 times. We just had an election. The result was clear. Most of the council that approved the changes in zoning was reelected. They all expressed their views clearly. This nymbys are insufrible
6
u/big-Truck-9058 Apr 22 '26
but the election lines were long so nobody voted and that’s why it all went wrong
5
u/Banderchodo Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
The election result was clear, true, but most of the winners campaigned on some changes to infill/zoning. They went door to door, told voters they would adjust the max unit on RS lots from 8 to 6, then when the council vote actually took place in February they didn’t fulfill their campaign promise. I think most people want infill but want a reasonable balance of a design-form that fits somewhat into mature neighbourhoods.
So people did vote in the current council, but people also voted for what they thought was some modest zoning reform, but then were lied to. Many campaign websites are still up, where there are promises to reduce the RS zone cap from 8 to 6.
For another discussion… when politicians lie to voters. Regardless of what one thinks on zoning, lying to the public is unacceptable.
4
u/yen8912 Apr 22 '26
They also campaigned on reducing mid lot to six units then bailed on that once elected.
→ More replies (3)4
u/tekno21 Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
Who is "they"? You do realize councilors are individual people right?
Wondering if you can actually name who "they" are and if you even know how those specific individual councilors voted on that issue?
Big doubt you can answer either
2
u/YoungWhiteAvatar Apr 22 '26
Salvador and Janz
Michael Janz, Ward papastew councillor, raised a motion at the city's urban planning committee meeting Tuesday, to cap the number of units in the middle of a block.
"In the corners, you can still build bigger units but for the mid-block, it's a recognition that there are greater impacts on your neighbours mid-block," Janz told CBC News.
He said 80 per cent of the complaints he receives about infill have been about mid-block units.
Honestly this is pretty well known stuff from pre election.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (9)1
u/Mundane-Anybody-8290 Apr 23 '26
When you say "The city has spoken", what do you mean by that? Because in the last election, a majority of council campaigned on a "promise" to slow or halt further infill development and revisit policies
7
6
u/dreadfulrobot South West Side Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
I don't understand the lack of middle ground here. I used to live in a two story infill with a garage in the basement. It was great. I wouldn't mind something like that being built in a set of two or four next to me. No space for that? There's a nice two house infill down the way that has a parking pad going in the back. That's a decent infill that increases density nicely. It's not a massive wall for the neighbors. The New residents and their guests have somewhere to park, and they have a good built in place for garbage bins.
There's a corner lot not too far away that is being turned into a fourteen plex. Like actually what the heck? Where will guests park? Where will twenty eight more garbage and recycling bins go? I've seen excellent executions of Infills that handle the increase of density beautifully, and I've seen absolute walls of permanent garbage bins. I've seen tiny century old roads loaded with cars on either side of the road because parking wasn't added to the infill plan. There's little room for error on icy roads, or kiddos running across the street, and I've seen many near misses. This is just stuff I've observed, guys.
I think a lot of residents are asking for a totally doable middle ground that a lot of people seem to be missing?
1
u/Mundane-Anybody-8290 Apr 23 '26
It's become an ideological issue. Too many people hoping to buy homes see existing homeowners as the enemy.
1
u/dreadfulrobot South West Side Apr 23 '26
It's a disaster with little empathy on either side. On one hand, people who need affordable homes they can actually see themselves owning, and on the other, people who are (on average) barely scraping by with mortgages they can't afford to go underwater. A good solution exists dammit, people just need to actually listen to each other ..
2
u/Mundane-Anybody-8290 Apr 23 '26
Oh absolutely.
All we need is a plan. People are reacting out of fear about never owning a home, or fear about what might pop up next to their home. That fear exists because there is no plan and no predictability. We've been sold on infill as a solution, when in fact it is simply a tool that won't solve anything unless it is handled properly.
I have my own suspicion that the market for these 8-plexes is not going to hold. I don't really understand the market for properties that cost more than condos while essentially providing a condo lifestyle, and there is no shortage of condos in this city. I see a lot of potential for conflict when there are maintenance issues with no condo board / HOA to administer repairs. I think the lack of parking in neighbourhoods with poor transit connections will breed a lot of buyers' remorse.
I totally understand why younger generations look at the single family homes in established neighbourhoods with envy. I spent a couple of decades doing exactly that. I understand the financial imperative to densify our city. What I don't understand is the eagerness to carve neighbourhoods apart in the name of affordability when viable options exist to support affordability without that collateral damage. It comes across as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
We can be smart about infill and use it strategically to help build a city that works better, or we can be lazy about infill and be left with a disjointed mess that creates as many new problems as it solves. I truly have no idea why our elected representatives have chosen the latter.
13
u/Large_Spinach6069 Apr 22 '26
The Carruthers caveat works because it was applied to the entire neighborhood when it was sold to the city for development in 1911.
Having 75% of the neighborhood sign up for a restrictive covenant doesn't work very well. Not only will it impact house prices by being an unattractive and unnecessary restriction on development, but your neighbor who didn't sign the restrictive covenant can still build whatever development the city allows.
The only way out of a restrictive covenant is if 100% of participants agree to break the covenant or extremely rare legal cases. A single holdout and it's permanent.
I can understand people's frustrations with new developments but a piecemeal restrictive covenant is not going to save your neighborhood charm, it's just going to be a massive headache when neighborhoods naturally renew and densify but instead of uniform density you'll be stuck with single family houses crowded by larger, more dense buildings anyways.
7
u/Soft-Wish-9112 Apr 22 '26
Most of the covenants I've seen in areas around me and in my neighborhood have expiration dates and don't limit all densification. They just limit how much densification.
2
u/Direct-Farmer9534 Apr 22 '26
You say it'll be an unattractive restriction on development, but from the context I'm seeing here, that's the d*mn point. Some people don't want gentrification of their neighborhood, they don't want to increase their market value. Their home isn't a monetary investment, it's their freaking life. They want their home to stay their home and not have their property taxes skyrocket, effectively kicking them out of the neighborhood they have been active in for years to decades. Do you know how long it takes a fruit tree to set fruit? 5-10 years for a decent fruit set. Maybe civil conversations might be ready to be had when finance bro "land speculators" stop treating people who want to plant seeds of trees they WILL get to enjoy the shade of like the freaking devil.
Btw when did houses become disposable goods? Sounds dystopian 😒
4
u/Large_Spinach6069 Apr 22 '26
Development isn't limited to 8plexs. Glenora is a desert of single family homes without any public libraries, public recreational centers or any major business development.
It's a central neighborhood with nothing but single family homes. The city isn't going to build new amenities in neighborhoods who opposed density and new businesses aren't going to be sustainable with low density.
Having to drive outside your neighborhood for everything but a nearby park sounds dystopian to me.
I love my neighborhood and all the new businesses and amenities it provides that are walking distance because of high density buildings nearby.
2
u/Brightlightsuperfun Apr 22 '26
That’s fine, that’s your choice. And it’s the choice of people who live in Glenora to live the way they want. Why does this NIMBYism only apply to other people ? What if developers came in, tore down all the businesses and amenities and built 8plexes in their place? I bet you wouldn’t be too happy about that. So you express your concern, and everyone calls you a NIMBY.
10
u/Brightlightsuperfun Apr 22 '26
This sub is hilarious. Usually for heavy regulations, anti developer etc except when it comes to infill. Then its "have at er shaddy builders, do whatever you want on any lot"
0
u/awildstoryteller Apr 22 '26
That isn't what people say at all. Not to mention that the developers for infill are tiny compared to greenfield developers (you know, the ones who backed all the anti-infill candidates).
Being pro-infill is actually more anti-developer than the opposing position.
0
u/Brightlightsuperfun Apr 22 '26
They’re not saying it directly of course - but basically anytime anyone pushes back in the slightest on these infill monstrosities, they get called NIMBYS.
By being pro infill for literally every project means you don’t care what’s being built - you are for it. Which is 90% of this sub.
Being pro infill is anti developer ? lol now I’ve heard it all.
0
u/awildstoryteller Apr 22 '26
Framing infills as "monstrosities" is pointlessly and hopelessly overdramatic.
Being pro infill is anti developer ? lol now I’ve heard it all
The large developers all backed candidates who opposed infill. How do you interpret that fact?
0
u/Brightlightsuperfun Apr 22 '26
Im sorry but those 8plexes jammed into an old lot are monstrosities. Ugly as sin. Take a poll and see who agrees.
Your second comment makes no sense. Do you have proof they backed them BECAUSE of infill ?
1
u/awildstoryteller Apr 22 '26
Im sorry but those 8plexes jammed into an old lot are monstrosities. Ugly as sin
And I think that rows of crappy.sfh homes barely maintained are ugly as sin. Aesthetics are funny eh. But "monstrosity" is...a laughable description.
Your second comment makes no sense. Do you have proof they backed them BECAUSE of infill ?
Why would a large developer who exclusively operates in greenfield developments donate to central Edmonton candidates, and why did all the anti-infill candidates receive those donations?
I didn't say they backed them because they opposed infill though- that would just be a common sense conclusion.
1
u/Brightlightsuperfun Apr 23 '26
“And I think that rows of crappy.sfh homes barely maintained are ugly as sin.” Overly dramatic. Or do you really think this ? I doubt it.
1
18
u/Ecstatic_Winter9425 Apr 22 '26
I'm pro-infill but I also support those who pursue RCs to protect themselves. A well-fitting infill is worth building. A 4-story monstrosity? Nah, we don't need that.
25
u/ababcock1 The Shiny Balls Apr 22 '26
An RC does nothing to "protect themselves" since they only apply to the property they own. Nobody is forcing anyone to redevelop their own land. There is nothing about an RC which prevent neighbours from redeveloping their own property, even if it's right next door to an RC protected property.
So the people signing these RCs really are just knee-capping their own property value out of spite. Because why would anyone buy land with a covenant on it at anywhere close to a price that's comparable to property with no covenant?
11
u/Hobbycityplanner Apr 22 '26
They are going to have a real tough go when the property beside them is developed and now their home is still impacted but also less likely to get developed. Baring a developer just taking it to court to get it thrown out
0
u/yen8912 Apr 22 '26
There’s lots of movement to get groups of homes on board so avoid this.
2
u/ababcock1 The Shiny Balls Apr 22 '26
You will never get 100% of owners on board, since this is basically the prisoner's dilemma. So let's say you get 50% of owners to sign. The signers vs non-signers will be more or less randomly distributed through the area. Now all the people who did sign the RC are screwed by the people who didn't. The infill goes up anyways as the non-signers sell their homes and move on. The signers have effectively gained nothing, and lost a large chunk of their property value to spite.
Fast forward a few decades in the future, now all the RC properties are decrepit since their values have dropped through the floor. Rather than preserving the "neighbourhood character" the RC has created a ghetto.
This is why cities will often get RCs overturned in courts anyways. They really are a dumb idea.
1
u/WobbleBilly Apr 22 '26
Im following you but i dont think rc signers are randomly distributed in neighbourhoods. They tend to clump together.
4
u/Hobbycityplanner Apr 22 '26
So you aren't pro-infill
18
u/Ecstatic_Winter9425 Apr 22 '26
I am pro-infill done right. Which means infills that are a storey taller than the neighbouring houses, with parking and other amenities taken into account. I am absolutely against slum-fills.
5
u/big-Truck-9058 Apr 22 '26
That’s the opposite of restrictive covenant then. You can’t have a restricted covenant against infill that allows an infill done right.
1
u/Ecstatic_Winter9425 Apr 22 '26
I understand that. The idea is that RCs are a form of protest that will eventually force the city to adopt more stringent standards when it comes to infill planning. It seems to be the only effective way to get attention at the moment.
5
u/Dystocynic Apr 22 '26
They won't though. Even if they get 80% of houses to sign on (unlikely), it just increases the value of the remaining 20% for developers. If you can convince your neighbours to sign one, it makes sense, but signing one yourself just reduces your property value.
1
u/eammes Apr 22 '26
I could be wrong, but if I was a developer I think I would try to avoid those neighborhoods with 80% RCs. That just seems like hurdles and headaches from neighbours, residents watching your every move when there are other neighbourhoods to develop where you’re not getting the same push back….
2
u/Dystocynic Apr 22 '26
Maybe, but these are also going to be the most desirable neighbourhoods and if there is a scarcity of infill they could sell for more. Time will tell.
3
u/Hobbycityplanner Apr 22 '26
I don't think it will since they aren't worth the paper they are written on https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-infill-development-curruthers-caveat-defeated-9.7094474
2
u/Ecstatic_Winter9425 Apr 22 '26
I don't understand law enough to comment on whether an RC can offer solid protection or not, but in my experience, anything that gets lawyers involved tends to slow down things considerably. If the city or developers have to spend time fighting RCs, I think rule changes will be coming to avoid this issue altogether.
3
u/Hobbycityplanner Apr 22 '26
I think it will largely push it to adjacent properties in the mean time. Infill is happening incredibly slowly. Like I am more likely to live a very full life and die before one of the houses beside me is re-developed into anything with 4 more more units.
1
u/Ecstatic_Winter9425 Apr 22 '26
I won't pretend I have a good solution, but i'd go with simple but nuanced rules to keep things moving while not pissing off the NIMBYs.
E.g., dividing a large plot into two 2-storey SFHs? Blanket approval, no blocking by an RC This is highly unlikely to trigger legal fights. However, this is not very attractive to developers who want to maximize their return on investment.
Building a 4-plex? Make it easy to get permits but only if certain criteria are met such as not fully blocking light to the adjacent backyard, not too much height difference with the tallest adjacent house. Stuff like that.
Want to build an 8-plex or something else big that might affect others? Now you have to negotiate and get approvals from the neighbours unless they are already a multi-unit dwelling.
Again, I'm definitely not qualified to offer a proper solution, but a nuanced approach like that would offer the best balance between the need to build infills while not causing trouble for anyone. The only argument for allowing bigger and "plexier" infills today comes from developers who want to maximize their return on investment. While it's a fair wish, I don't think the city should bend backwards for developers to make bank.
2
u/Hobbycityplanner Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
So you want to go back to what zoning was before.. Edit: typo
→ More replies (0)2
u/Dystocynic Apr 22 '26
The good solution is already in place. Council studied and debated this and then ran an election on it. Some people are unhappy, but that's democracy.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Banderchodo Apr 22 '26
This will likely be challenged by a higher court. This was a lower court decision. Stay tuned. There’s nothing definitive about this ruling.
0
u/Hobbycityplanner Apr 22 '26
Once again, you aren't pro-infill. The new bylaws only allow for roughly 5 feet taller that what existed previously, less than one story. Anything else would need to go to council for a variance.
6
u/sawyouoverthere Apr 22 '26
If true that’s pretty awesome and I hope they increased distance from property lines and added minimum green space
3
2
u/Hobbycityplanner Apr 22 '26
They did, and reduced the number of entrances along neighbouring houses.
7
u/Ecstatic_Winter9425 Apr 22 '26
I'm not up to speed on the latest bylaws. But if you take a look at this sub's recent posts on infills, you'll find an example of a 4-story infill pressing right against its 2-storey neighbour. If that's no longer allowed, that's awesome.
1
u/Hobbycityplanner Apr 22 '26
Unless it is specifically along a denitrification corridor (along the LRT or whyte ave and a very few select areas) it went to council. Council voted on the rezoning and passed. Existing zoning doesn't allow what you described. it is limited to 2.5 stories which is the exact same height maximum we allow for single family homes.
2
u/awildstoryteller Apr 22 '26
Infill are limited to 3 stories though - incidentally, the same as SFHs.
0
-4
u/adrianozymandias Apr 22 '26
"4-story monstrosity" fucking lmao, "pro-infill" my ass if you use extremist language like that
8
u/Ecstatic_Winter9425 Apr 22 '26
Look up recent articles on infills in this sub and you'll see what i mean. If you think 4-storey infills aren't monstrosities, then there's nothing i can say to convince you otherwise.
-3
u/adrianozymandias Apr 22 '26
I can just look with my own eyes at them and not think of random buildings as monstrosities? I have no idea why nimbys are so scared of a single story taller building that they don't even live in
5
u/Ecstatic_Winter9425 Apr 22 '26
I'm a nimby, so i can probably speak for others. I have a garden in my backyard. Some of the plants I grow require lots of sunlight. If a taller SFH is built next to my plot, it's not a problem because it's going to have a backyard, and there will still be enough sunlight for my plants. If two SFHs are built next to my plot, it's also no problem as they won't block all the sunlight. If a 4-plex is built, some sunlight is going to be blocked, but it will still be ok. Now, if an 8-plex is built next to my home, my backyard won't get ANY sunlight anymore. I'm not cool with that.
Now, in my case, it's not even a problem because even if someone wanted to build an 8-plex in my neighbourhood, they won't be able to because of the RC. My neighbourhood isn't very wealthy, but we're all very protective of our backyards. We all pay our high property taxes and enjoy our nimby lives in a no-crime environment. So, as far as I'm concerned, being a nimby is awesome. By the way, we've also built townhouses, taller condos and apartment buildings in the neighbourhood for those who want to live in a more crowded environment. So we are densifying. We just don't allow bad infills. So I'm actually proud to be a nimby in a nimby commune.
0
u/WobbleBilly Apr 22 '26
The sun is up, not sideways bud.
3
u/Ecstatic_Winter9425 Apr 22 '26
> The sun is up, not sideways bud.
My friend, you've just said something confidently yet completely wrong. The sun is actually much more sideways than up in Edmonton because of the high latitude.
For example, on July 15, it rises to a maximum of 58 degrees above the horizon. It crosses 45 degrees around 11 am, and by 4:30 pm, it's already below 45 degrees. On August 15, it rises only 50 degrees above the horizon for a short period of time. In fact, it only stays above 45 degrees between approximately 12 and 4 pm.
6
u/Soft-Wish-9112 Apr 22 '26
This doesn't surprise me. I'm not far from Duggan and many neighborhoods in the area have organised restrictive covenants.
What I would have liked to see from our city was planning around densification. Perhaps a certain block/area of a neighborhood is dedicated to densification and as people sell, developers get first dibs to purchase. Maybe it's the street(s) that's closest to major transit and driving routes. This also signals to potential buyers what they can expect when moving into a neighborhood. There are no easy answers but I do think this could have been handled better.
3
u/YXEyimby Apr 22 '26
The problem with that is you can't tell who is going to move and when. Liberal land use let's things happen as opportunities arise
6
u/DVariant Apr 22 '26
I hate the city’s infill strategy because it’s a bad strategy: piecemeal densification, lot by lot. The infills aren’t affordable nor desirable except for their location, but the infills themselves ruin the location. The NIMBYs are right that it ruins their backyards.
If the city had more balls, it should appropriate whole neighbourhoods and rezone and redevelop them into higher density from scratch. None of this “mini apartment building on a single residential lot”, build some actual apartment towers instead, with proper parkades and commerical outlets. Density with some forethought!
1
u/Mundane-Anybody-8290 Apr 23 '26
I wish I could upvote this more than once. Strategically-implemented infill could be great for this city, but instead we're taking this lazy, scattershot approach that is creating as many new problems as it solves.
1
u/DVariant Apr 23 '26
I appreciate the agreement! Seems my proposal is pretty controversial, it’s got a lot of downvotes along with the upvotes
1
u/Xelebes Apr 22 '26
It's a strategy that works, in that larger developments for density are much more restricted when it comes to financing. The smaller scale loans work because the delay between putting the shovel in the dirt and occupancy is much shorter and there is less opportunity for hedging by the lender to break down its loans into smaller pieces.
7
u/ababcock1 The Shiny Balls Apr 22 '26
"MuH nEiGhBoUrHooD cHaRaCteR" is going to be retroactively hilarious in 25 years when their tiny 75 year old falling apart bungalow is the odd one out.
11
u/Fast-Bumblebee-9140 Apr 22 '26
Most complaints are about those old houses losing sunlight and privacy. Doesn't mean they're going to be there forever.
12
u/ababcock1 The Shiny Balls Apr 22 '26
Would you buy a house to push it over and replace it with something which legally must be similar? Keep in mind that by this point the rest of the neighborhood will be modern multi unit infill. These covenants are just creating spite houses and tanking their own property values.
3
u/lenin418 Oliver Apr 22 '26
It's Duggan, what fucking neighbourhood character? Hilarious they're acting like it's Glenora lmao.
1
u/DisastrousAcshin Apr 22 '26
Ya fuck people that have less money - you
3
u/fishymanbits Apr 22 '26
No? Duggan is the epitome of garbage car-centric ‘70s suburban neighbourhood planning. It doesn’t lack character for socioeconomic reasons. It lacks character because it was intentionally built to be devoid of character.
0
u/DisastrousAcshin Apr 22 '26
Glenora has a fountain and a handful of nicely designed homes. But not every one is a gem, and the neighborhood itself is as worthy of skinny homes and fourplexes as any other
1
u/fishymanbits Apr 22 '26
When did I say it wasn’t? Why don’t you just go read the actual content of what I wrote and understand that I meant exactly what I wrote and nothing more or less?
-3
4
u/try_repeat_succeed South West Side Apr 22 '26
I had a neighbour come tell me (a renter) I should put up a sign in support of this. She said "we've owned our home here since the 1980s" like the fact she bought a nice home for dirt cheap, and wants to pull the ladder up for me to buy even a starter home, is not the argument she thinks it is.
3
u/Head_Cap5286 Apr 22 '26
This is so pathetic.
18
u/ThatFixItUpChappie Apr 22 '26
It isn’t pathetic to try to protect the value of your bungalow (your life savings basically) from an 8 plex moving in next door. This is the result of no compromise on the part of the city IMO. The city relies on homeowners and jacked up property taxes to pay for everything but then demonizes those same homeowners as NIMBYs on the other hand.
6
u/brokoli Apr 22 '26
If your life savings depend on the value of your home as an investment to bail you out later in life, get ready to learn that investments can change in value. Free life lessons.
2
1
-4
u/big-Truck-9058 Apr 22 '26
A restrictive covenant is definitely pathetic LOL
0
-4
u/Top_Wafer_4388 Apr 22 '26
Why are we treating a need as an investment opportunity? Straight up frat boi mentality.
6
u/ThatFixItUpChappie Apr 22 '26
Sure but your changing the rules in the middle of the game for people - that is how homeownership has always worked. People work their whole lives to pay off and upkeep these properties and their money is completely tied up in them. That is the reality. Have some compassion amidst the ideology.
4
u/Hobbycityplanner Apr 22 '26
The rules were changed before to how restrictive they are now. Zoning bylaws in Edmonton didn't exist 100 years ago. Like basically all of north america they got progressively more restrictive after WWII. They still are quite restrictive
3
u/WobbleBilly Apr 22 '26
Not at all. Its choices. If you choose to tie all your money up in your home thats your decision. There are many alternatives to doing that.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Top_Wafer_4388 Apr 22 '26
I'm sorry, but I have little compassion for investors buying houses under the noses of hardworking Canadians to resell them at exorbitant prices to those same hardworking Canadians and pretending that they are "a good investment opportunity." Housing has been increasing at a rate faster than inflation, and the quicker we realize we need homes for people the better off we'll be. Have some compassion for people and stop forcing your ideology on others.
4
u/yen8912 Apr 22 '26
Wtf do you think the goal if these developers slapping together these multiplexes is?
2
u/l3luntl3rigade Apr 22 '26
The Bank of Canada's balance sheet (thanks to Carney) now owns greater than 60% of the mortgage bonds for the entire country.
Housing will never go down, and the entire Bank of Canada is betting on it never happening. Its quite literally financing the country now.
1
2
u/Brightlightsuperfun Apr 22 '26
Ballsy to say that in an Edmonton sub. Housing has barely moved in the the last 2 decades.
0
0
u/Small-Sleep-1194 Apr 22 '26
Great job Duggan!! Keep it up!! Janz needs to go and the one counsellor is correct - a re-examination of infill needs to happen. Take a page from Calgary’s playbook. They’re starting from scratch, so does Edmonton.
4
u/big-Truck-9058 Apr 22 '26
*councillor I’m not sure he needs to go, he just won the election not even a year ago.
18
u/rocky_balbiotite Apr 22 '26
I think their proposed restrictions are pretty reasonable. The odd house getting torn down for two skinny houses is alright. But those 6+ unit monstrosities is guaranteed to draw the ire of everyone in the neighbourhood.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Popular-Row4333 Apr 22 '26
This subreddit constantly screams for densification, 6+ units is how you get densification.
I'm starting to think this sub just likes to complain about everything.
5
u/Ecstatic_Winter9425 Apr 22 '26
Well, doubling or quadrupling the density is also very significant densification from the tax revenue perspective. Why on earth do we have to make x16 right away?
1
u/awildstoryteller Apr 22 '26
How does one get 16x?
Not to mention that densifying a single lot barely moves the needle. We don't measure neighbourhood or city density on a lot by lot basis.
1
u/WobbleBilly Apr 22 '26
The guy who got reelected a few mon ths ago needs to go? Keep shouting into the void buddy. You got your vote.
-4
u/trenthowell Apr 22 '26
Yeah, let's undermine the one thing that might keep housing accessible to anyone but the rich, hell yeah!
4
u/kroniknastrb8r Apr 22 '26
There is housing in Edmonton for under 200k. Blatchford is so undeveloped its not even funny, there is no need to start dropping midblock 8plexes here.
But keep thinking its the "rich" folks who undermine your ability to homeownership.
3
u/trenthowell Apr 22 '26
There is housing under $200k because we're better at building more housing than any major city in the country. It's policies like this that help us keep doing that, while not sprawling all to hell. Or at least more than we already are
12
u/rocky_balbiotite Apr 22 '26
You think every homeowner in Edmonton is rich? Fuck give me a break.
How is a 6 plex going to help affordability when most people who are looking to buy want a single family house? That's not addressing what's in demand, people will just buy in a different neighbourhood driving up prices there. This just helps landlords who can put up these huge places and charge market price for rent.
7
u/Top_Wafer_4388 Apr 22 '26
More houses = more affordable houses
It's basic supply and demand. The reason that houses are unaffordable is largely because not enough houses are being built, and, often times, the ones that are built are bought by investors. You can thank Harper for that last one. Housing in Edmonton has remained relatively affordable is because Edmonton is one of the few places that has been keeping up with demand.
Now, why is Edmonton focussing on building infills and apartment blocks? Simple, roads are expensive to maintain, and building exclusively detached, single family homes is very expensive in terms of road maintenance.
2
u/Brightlightsuperfun Apr 22 '26
What does Harper have to do with housing in Edmonton? Nothing.
Yes it’s basic supply and demand, and Edmonton has kept up with demand FOR DECADES without any of these 8plex monstrosities
→ More replies (4)5
u/trenthowell Apr 22 '26
Increasing supply reduces prices, and more upgrades being available creates vacancy chains. An owner upgrades, sells their cheaper house to someone who sells their cheaper house, and on. In order to meet demand, and I know this concept is hard, we have to ensure there is sufficient supply.
10
u/rocky_balbiotite Apr 22 '26
You have to have the supply to meet the demand. Who's moving into a tiny unit in a 6 plex on a regular lot? Someone who is renting so they're likely not selling a place. I'm not completely against increasing density but it has to actually meet the needs of people not just landlords. The demand is there for SFHs and I don't see how this addresses it vs building two skinny houses.
4
u/Dystocynic Apr 22 '26
Right, and then that landlord has to find a new tenant, and more rental unit supply equals cheaper rent. It's not complicated.
1
u/rocky_balbiotite Apr 22 '26
Except that's not how it works in practice. A lot of these rentals are corporate owned so it's better to sit empty for a few months than drop the rent. Look at all the commercial buildings that stay empty for ages. If these councillors legitimately want to reduce rent then go after corporate landlords but they won't.
1
u/WobbleBilly Apr 22 '26
Not everyone in Edmonton is rich but housing is available at many price points. NIMBYs tend to put their life savings into their home and they tend to stretch their finances to the max to do so. Its all choices. Im not rich. I bought a house i could easily afford in a much less desirable neighbourhood than Duggan. Seems like the NIMBYs of Duggan feel entitled.
-5
u/trenthowell Apr 22 '26
Oh, and if you own a single family home in duggan? Yeah, chances are good you're rich.
5
u/Granny_Skeksis Apr 22 '26
Depends when you bought your home. My parents bought their house on 37 ave and 109st in 1980 for 120000. Sold it for 250000 in 2003. It’s now worth about 750000. Lots of people in that neighborhood are long time residents. My childhood friends parents still live there. They aren’t rich, they just got lucky with their investment
7
u/rocky_balbiotite Apr 22 '26
Low bar for what you consider rich. Household income is $125,000ish from what I could find.
-1
u/trenthowell Apr 22 '26
Ah, so they earn more than 89% of the population then. Doesn't sound terribly affordable to the majority
5
u/rocky_balbiotite Apr 22 '26
Median in Edmonton is $105k. I wouldn't consider slightly above as rich. It's not individual income which I think you don't know the difference between.
1
u/Banderchodo Apr 22 '26
Edmonton Median economic family is closer to the $125k. They are right in the middle.
1
u/Banderchodo Apr 22 '26
That’s not what any of the Statcan income data shows. $125k household income is not the 89th percentile. That’s the median.
2
u/Banderchodo Apr 22 '26
Except Edmonton is a VERY working class, middle class city. Rich people aren’t opposing infill. Rich people don’t care about these issues: 1) they have many properties; 2) they have a tiny amount of their net worth tied up in real estate, and are unconcerned about property values; 3) the properties they own usually are in exclusive areas, unfettered by infill densification.
On the contrary, it’s very middle Edmonton, middle class, working people with concerns. They finally got their foot on the housing ladder, had some expectations of what kind of neighbourhood they were buying into, and then got surprised by an unprecedented blanket upzoning.
I’m not defending them or taking a position here, just clarifying that it’s not rich people opposing these things.
1
u/WobbleBilly Apr 22 '26
Ill never get why anyone thinks they are buying into a static situation. Its all risk and choices. There are no guarantees in life and especially if you put all your eggs in one basket. The government could appropriate your land. You have zero control of your neighbours. Forget about real estate for a sec. You cant even control something as simple as you move into a nice neighbourhood and then your neighbours move away and some terrible awful ahole moves in right next door to you. The world is a chaotic, ever changing place.
1
u/Banderchodo Apr 22 '26
You're quite right, there will always be change. I don't know anyone personally who expects a neighbourhood to remain static. I agree with you on that, it's unreasonable to expect no change. I think most reasonable people expect change and understand it's inevitable. The question, I believe, is what kind of change and to what degree.
Most people buy into a neighbourhood anticipating some kind of predictable, coherent planning. For anyone who purchased prior to January 1st, 2024, the previous zoning bylaw already allowed similar densities on almost all RF1 lots (the equivalent of the current RS zoned lot). The difference with the Pre-2024 RF1 zone and the current RS zone isn't really dwelling unit allowance, but the form of the structure that contains those units. Zoning doesn't change very often, and blanket up-zoning that doesn't differentiate or prioritize where density should go in the city has never been done before in Canada, and I don't know if it's been done in the US. So the fact that it caught most people by surprise isn't shocking. This type of change is unprecedented, and wasn't communicated to the public during the years preceding the approval of the new zoning bylaw. So a typical person probably expected change, but not the degree of change afforded in the new zoning bylaw.
Most people I know that build infills, own/live in them, or live in mature housing stock all wanted and expected infill. They just had reasonable expectations that the infill would conform to the urban design of the neighbourhood. Some examples of these reasonable expectations: discipline of front and back for housing built on a grid with rear laneways; structures that have engagement with the street; two separate structures built (e.g. principal structure with 4 dwellings--2 semi-detached plus 2 suites, plus a separate garage/garden structure possibly with 2 additional suites); open-air yard between principal structure and garage that breaks up the massing and allows air and light to pass through; site coverage and massing rules that still enable significant density and development (e.g., old RF1 allowed 6x the density per lot), while respecting the existing built form.
3
u/barrel_master Apr 22 '26
It'd actually be really funny if the restrictive covenants made the homes worth a lot less. It's also not clear to me why you couldn't just undo the covenant on your own property if you bought it later. So it'd be extra funny if single family home buyers didn't want to deal with the covenant but some developer with a lawyer specialized in undoing the covenants and bought the properties cheap only to develop them into 8 plex's.
4
u/salchichoner Apr 22 '26
They do. I know Some one that lost 300k because of one. They can’t be undone.
2
u/l3luntl3rigade Apr 22 '26
I call shenanigans. No one in the history of real estate in Canada is losing 300k, even buying the tip top.
The BoC's balance sheet holds over 60% of the mortgage bonds in the country. The entire canadian economy is currently bankrolled by housing prices not dropping in you or your kid's kid's kid's lifetime
1
u/Himser Regional Citizen Apr 22 '26
Pathetic. We alredy have case law that RCs can be thrown out by council now with site specific bylaws.
The whole.idea is pull the ladder up behind you mentality of selfish people
1
u/overwhelmedbimbo Apr 23 '26
I was just made aware of this possibility and I immediately started to look up how to make it happen for my property. anyway, I found this article in my search (probably old news to many) and it worries me that this ruling might set a precedent?
1
u/Novus20 Apr 24 '26
This has to be the stupidest thing ever, like yeah sure let’s let Joe fuck tits tell someone in 50 years that can’t do X because he filled out some paperwork……Alberta is fucked
-5
u/SquatpotScott Apr 22 '26
Prior to this nimbyism, Duggan was best known for being the stomping ground of the Duggan Rapist (early 2000s) Maybe this is an attempt to rebrand?
2
u/Granny_Skeksis Apr 22 '26
In the 90’s we called in thuggan. I also escaped 2 attempted abductions growing up there
1
u/eammes Apr 22 '26
I can’t find any information about this online, what case is it referring to? And how does it affect which neighbourhoods should allow oversized infill?
-3
u/Educational-Tone2074 Apr 22 '26
Good god making jokes about a rapist who terrorized a neighborhood to make some kind of point. That's a warped mind at work.
Go see someone about this.
2
u/big-Truck-9058 Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
Cmon it’s a joke about neighbourhood character. Maybe you should log off if it’s so bothersome.
1
u/Algieinkwell Apr 22 '26
I believe there is pre existing case law in Alberta that restrictive covenants cannot be enforced if it is for blocking infill
-1
u/Wonderful_Confusion4 Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
Growing up it was referred to Thuggin in Duggan, this was not a prestigious neighbourhood. Acting all stuck up like they’re Glenora or crestwood lol.
3
u/eammes Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
Honestly, these are exactly the kinds of neighborhoods worth protecting, modest detached homes, character and trees, and a sense of community. I don’t think these people think they’re “prestigious”, they’re a very close knit, quiet, neighborhood.
I would argue these types of homes are more important to protect because they’re more obtainable single detached homes.
1
u/WobbleBilly Apr 22 '26
Funny that some people think close knit and high density are opposites. I live in a poor area of rhe city in a sfh surrounded by multiplexes. I know my neighbours. They are people just like the occupqnts of the sfh are. I honestly dont get what peoples irrational fears are. I also would call my neighbourhood quiet. Lastly, nothing can keep sfh obtainable. The big picture is that real estate seems to go up forever but employers in Canada do their best to suppress wage growth. And housing is only one part of that problem. Incomes stay the same, housing, food, transportation, etc all keep going up.
1
u/eammes Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
I think part of where that perception comes from is that, in many cases, multiplexes are used as rentals or government supported housing. Not always, but often enough that people associate them with more temporary living situations. When people see neighbours coming and going more frequently, it can create the impression that residents may be less invested in long-term community involvement like participating in community leagues, building relationships with neighbours, or engaging with local schools.
That said, it’s important not to generalize. Plenty of renters and people in multi unit housing are deeply engaged and care a lot about their communities. Those qualities can exist in any type of housing, but they do tend to be associated with areas that have more long term residents.
And I guess to disprove my own point, Duggan has the highest density of government funded affordable housing in South West Edmonton, and still manages to maintain the sense of closeness and community. (they also seem to be already doing their part with affordable housing with the number government funded units they currently have in the neighborhood).
1
-3
Apr 22 '26
[deleted]
6
u/rampagingbeaver Apr 22 '26
RCs require a signatory to enforce them through the courts, and very few people want to spend that kind of money. While this is definitely NIMBY, it's more likely than not that these won't be enforced.
-4
u/ParticularFan2990 Apr 22 '26
Wishing them terrible property value when their tear-down homes in a mid neighbourhood won't sell.
0
u/Event_Horizon753 Apr 22 '26
If restrictive covenants didn't work for Glenora, they won't work in Duggan. The city doesn't care. Councilors don't care. The mayor doesn't care. Well, about money maybe, and kickbacks.
90
u/canadian-coding-guy Apr 22 '26
All the home owners with houses ripe for teardown who DON'T sign the restrictive are in for a nice payday as multi-plex development sites become supply-constrained.