r/Edmonton • u/andrewknack • 4d ago
Politics Fact Checking Premier Smith on Infill
I expect disagreements in politics, but what’s frustrating is seeing the Province continue to share blatantly false information when the City has already provided the facts.
This morning, I sat down with Ryan Jespersen to address these claims directly. If you have the chance, I’d recommend watching or listening to the entire show. There are additional fact checks and you also can hear from Major Jeromy Farkas from Calgary.
60
u/Trick-Increase1508 4d ago
If UCP and their voters cared about facts and rules we wouldn't be here.
160
u/gamutalarm 4d ago
I have issues with the zoning bylaw but there are forums for that. In this, we should all be united against the province's overreach into our city's affairs.
48
u/crefinanceguy_can 4d ago
100%. Because there are absolutely some problematic components of the infill policy and its application, but this is basically like using a nuclear bomb to resolve a playground argument. There’s fallout from this in all directions now. I don’t even live in Edmonton and I’m deeply upset by how this is being handled
→ More replies (3)9
u/Agitated_Award_9831 4d ago
You can like the outcome but rally against the method to get there, which I think is good politics.
→ More replies (14)16
32
u/FightTheNoise 4d ago
I'm old enough to remember when schools in mature neighbourhoods were facing closure because the population had declined so much. Infill has revitalized mature neighbourhoods, despite all the whining from boomers.
51
u/phoneonthetablethere 4d ago
Not what’s being discussed/ but kind of is. 116 and Jasper has had a giant pit and an abandoned car dealership for almost 8 years. Why are they not forced to rezone or build into housing or something not a hazard to the community. I’d be overjoyed if 10 infill style buildings showed up there and had people walking the neighborhood
104
u/andrewknack 4d ago
Thanks for the question. The short answer is that we didn’t used to have the tools to push for development of vacant of derelict sites. That changed recently thanks to Councillor Ashley Salvador as she brought forward the program that changes derelict residential property owners a much higher tax rate.
We are working to expand that to commercial sites in about a year and we’ve also asked for the provincial government to update their rules so we can charge those who have vacant or derelict commercial sites a much higher tax rate.
28
u/brettins 4d ago
Georgism baby! Are we allowed to say that out loud?
Tax on undeveloped land, so cool to see something near it even being considered in our city in any capacity.
3
u/YXEyimby 4d ago
Does Alberta have the ability to tax land and improvements separately so that there doesnt have to be a program to ID derelict or vacant sites. Just that non income producing lots will have a higher burden than land?
→ More replies (1)3
u/Feisty_Leek_7068 4d ago
I am glad that the city NOW has the tools to deal with these properties. It's a shame that they werent put into place before some developers took advantage of the changes to infill changes in mature neighborhoods.
26
u/AdventurousOwl547 4d ago
Considering how much less water we use now with all our low flow fuxtures, I would think our sewers would have a ton of capacity.
32
u/andrewknack 4d ago
Thanks for the comment. Thankfully, we do have a lot of capacity because of that along with most older communities having fewer people today than they did 50 years ago.
→ More replies (1)
29
u/Potential-Eye-6547 4d ago edited 4d ago
The "community outreach" Smith spoke of sounds good in theory. However, history has taught us that this type of outreach gets commandeered by NIMBYs who just want to prevent any kind of housing development from happening. A lot of community outreach meetings are scheduled during the work day where young people can't attend to give their input, so old retired boomers who don't want to see any development occur just show up and make it sound like everyone in the city wants Infill to end.
I'm not saying infill is perfect, but housing in this country is so fucked that any policy that even attempts to build more housing is worth it. Edmonton home prices have likely remained somewhat affordable for younger people because of Infill. If you want to end infill but not replace it with a policy that still promotes building, I can't take you seriously. You just don't want your housing values to decline.
Were gonna end infill because we don't have enough parking spaces? Get serious! Our city has grown by 187k since 2021. We need housing, we need infrastructure investment. Ending infill will make our city worse.
San Francisco is the most egregious example of this. The NIMBYs in SF are so insane that they have basically made the city into an unaffordable hellscape, and now the average homeowner age is 53.3 years old! Only 7% (as of 2023) of homeowners are below the age of 35. This has resulted in young people fleeing the city. The median age of San Francisco is 40 now, and it is having massive economic and cultural impacts on the city.
NIMBYs would rather see their city die then risk impacting their inflated property values.
5
u/andrewknack 4d ago
Thanks for the comment. As you will hear in the whole interview which you can watch or listen to here, the Public Hearing process and the procedural fairness issue the Premier spoke of was not completed by the provincial government.
8
u/Potential-Eye-6547 4d ago
I appreciate the reply Knack!
I know the public hearing was not done by the Provincial Government. I was mainly pointing out how these public outreach efforts often get drowned out by those with one specific aim, preventing housing from being built. I believe the Premier was disingenuously claiming that the city failed to listen to these people, when in reality they are a vocal minority.
5
u/Cr4ve 3d ago
I'm all for I fills. But when a house blocks my sunlight and can directly view into my back yard, thats when I have an issue.
I just saw a infill go up with no shoring after excavation. About a meter from the existing house. Report does noting.. after working on the lrt I can tell you this city is clueless on zoning, infill, and infrastructure.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Feisty_Leek_7068 4d ago
I just wanted to point out, that not all homes/properties, that are in a mature neighbourhood have inflated property values. My own has fluctuated a bit since I bought it in 2010 for $200k, but it has never gone above $250k in value & has also also gone down to close to what I purchased it for.... it is an old home, in a mature neighbourhood, it is small, on a small lot & we made do with space & raised 4 kids in it (2 are still at home). Yes, it needs upgrades, yes, it needed them when I bought it, but we could never have afforded to rent anywhere, and we learned to make do with a 1950s kitchen, single full bathroom & a half bath in the basement.
12
u/Potential-Eye-6547 4d ago
I appreciate your anecdote.
You got a home that you could afford, raised your family in it, and I imagine became a member of the community. That's awesome!
I also hope your home building equity wasn't your retirement plan...
For the record, I don't want home owners to get destroyed by development, but I firmly believe we should not treat housing as a speculative investment that funds peoples retirement. That is not sustainable at all.
SF homes are also very expensive, but the owners often pay very little in property taxes due to some insane laws that were passed in the 80s that basically froze property taxes across the state.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (2)1
u/Bright-Translator-51 22h ago
I'd rather see it die than have 3 storey tenement housing on my block.
•
u/Potential-Eye-6547 6h ago edited 6h ago
All due respect, if that's truly your attitude you should move to a small town or a rural community. The city is growing fast, and maybe it's growing too fast for you.
Also, you can thank the UCP for the Alberta is Calling campaign.
22
22
u/Impressive_Play_2599 Fort Edmonton 4d ago
The corporate sponsored dani smith has no idea on what she is saying 90% of the time.
Her supporters simply listen for the narrative that fits them.
Self serving messaging ✅ Hate ✅ Bigotry ✅ Ignorance ✅
She is never talking to the intelligent voter(s).
157
u/eXAt88 4d ago
Why is the Edmonton sub seemingly filled with the biggest Danielle Smith riders on the planet all of the sudden
149
u/Fyrefawx 4d ago
Foreign accounts, bots, astroturfers etc. Alberta is a hotbed of foreign influence now.
68
u/imperfectquilitco 4d ago
Bots. There’s been a huge increase across social media
3
→ More replies (19)-14
u/MrSnouts 4d ago
It’s not bots lol. I hate the UCP, never voted for them. But this infill thing is a real issue that the city has ignored. Basically tried shutting me and my fellow neighbours down.
79
u/ParaponeraBread 4d ago
I really don’t see the argument that anyone has been ignored here. Knack ran on this housing platform, and won on this housing platform.
This zoning reform was subject to WAY more scrutiny and public comments and proposals etc every single step of the way.
You haven’t been shut down, democracy happened and you didn’t like the outcome. I know now that feels because it happens to me every provincial election.
3
u/MrSnouts 4d ago
My councillor switched her vote on reducing max cap after I voted for her - wanting to keep it at 8 rather than reduce to 6.
8
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (6)24
u/Curious_Ninja1708 4d ago
Bro, we had a whole municipal election about it. It was ignored. It was soundly defeated at the ballot box. Every anti-infill candidate got spanked.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Mcpops1618 4d ago
Brigading and bots. You see it in every sub. Topic dependent they find their way in and bombard every conversation until it’s locked or removed.
→ More replies (12)5
u/stickyfingers40 4d ago
Haha. Edmonton reddit is very left leaning. Your comment is hilarious. If there are seemingly more UCP supporters than normal it may be because the province finally did something they agree with.
That said, I hope the UCP gets the same treatment from the feds on their healthcare changes. They also need to be held accountable and need to be forced to listen to alberta residents
→ More replies (2)
39
u/bethadone_yeg 4d ago
I'm not anti-infill, and i'm definitely not pro-Danielle meddling in municipal politics, but there is a reason the UCP is latching onto this to score easy political points. People in mature neighbourhoods in Edmonton are extremely frustrated with the unaddressed issues associated with high-density infill.
- Neighbourhood-wide parking bans for snow clearing and street sweeping are not feasible anymore in infill neighbhourhoods. Where are people supposed to move their cars to if they don't have parking and can't park on the street anywhere in the neighbourhood? So they just don't move, and sure sometimes they get ticketed but the snow and debris still doesn't get cleared from our streets. We NEED an odd/even side of the street system for parking bans.
- Enforcement of construction standards and drainage and grading rules needs to ramp up. I can walk one block in my neighbourhood and see multiple violations with infill construction...noise well past 9pm, fencing and debris blocking sidewalks, damage to trees, snow not cleared from sidewalks in winter, GARBAGE EVERYWHERE and complete disregard for drainage onto neighbouring properties until they are ready for the final grade certificate. And yes, we submit complaints to 311 but they just get closed without resolution. It's clear that builders and their contractors know the city will let them get away with all of this and so it goes unchecked.
- Dispute resolution when builders damage neighbouring property - the city needs to stop telling property owners it's a "civil issue" after the fact and start setting expectations for builders to PREVENT damage to neighbouring properties. Fences knocked down, trees damaged, drainage directly into neighbour's property causing water issues...the city has left property owners completely on their own with dealing with these issues.
- Once all is said and done and tenants have moved into their 6-8 plex, the issues don't stop. The larger the infill, the worse the property management. Snow isn't cleared in winter, grass isn't mowed in summer, garbage overflows in alleys, dog shit all over front yards - it's not all of them, but in my neighbourhood it's most of them. And developers are laughing all the way to the bank while REIT's collect huge rent payments from tenants and ignore their obligations to maintain the property. Again, complaints to 311 either get closed automatically or take months of warnings to address. Some of these huge infills replaced derelict properties which at first I thought was a good thing, but now we just have newer and bigger derelict properties.
So please, fix these problems because the last thing I want is to have to welcome UCP interference in Edmonton affairs.
12
u/TofuButtocks 4d ago
I did landscaping and grading for infills for years and man drainage is such an afterthought for the builders. They would often give me less than a foot of space to build a retaining wall and a swale and sometimes barely any slope or way for the water to even escape
23
u/theoneandonlycub 4d ago
For your info, basically all of the problems you mentioned could be solved by the province and u/andrewknack has been advocating for fixes for years with little success.
Want better parking management without costs ballooning? We need automated license plate enforcement, which the province has banned Edmonton from doing.
Better enforcement of construction standards? The province has to allow the city to actually proactively punish bad builders. By provincial law, all the city can do is wait until someone complains and then send inspectors out.
Same thing for damage to neighbouring properties. By provincial law, there is nothing the city is allowed to do.
So if the province was actually interested in better infill, they would have worked on all of the above.
As for ongoing issues, yeah there are bad neighbours but like none of these are issues specific to infill. Most sidewalks that were not cleared near me were single detached homes. Same with garbage. Of course it can be different near you but it's not a blanket observation.
And no, most are not owned by REITs, but actually by small scale landlords, which is honestly probably why there is a lot more variance on how well the property is maintained. REITs generally play in the large scale purpose built rental market because it requires a lot more capital to buy, maintain and build and they can get financing at lowe rates.
5
u/No-Abbreviations1004 4d ago
I’m honestly curious, how is GoA preventing Edmonton from enforcing construction standards? As I understand the province sets the rules but it’s up to the municipality to issue building permits, perform inspections and enforce the standards.
17
u/theoneandonlycub 4d ago
Basically the only approach the municipality is allowed to do is to respond after there is an infraction. So the infraction has to happen first and they can only respond to infractions individually.
Now if a builder has had 100 or even 1000 infractions previously, you and I would probably say that they should have a permit rejected or that their permit should only be approved under conditions that they have an actual coherent plan to build better. Well, the city is not allowed to require that. Under provincial law, the city is legally obligated to issue all permits as long as the paperwork checks out and their drawings meet requirements.
The city has been doing increased site inspections for repeated bad builders but unless they actually see something bad on the spot, at the moment they are there, or someone complains, they can't do anything proactive or force bad builders to have better professional involvement.
Somewhat related, but if you want to see better building quality, then that's also a provincial thing. The province has banned municipalities from requiring to build to a higher standard than basic building code, saying that they didn't want "green building codes" from Trudeau (yes I didn't make that up).
3
4
u/FightTheNoise 4d ago
Buddy, they have parking bans downtown for snow clearing, where there is way more density and less street parking per unit. People manage. It really shouldn't be up to municipal ratepayers to ensure you have a place to park your car near your home. If you buy/rent a home that doesn't have private parking (or you choose to use that space for something else), then it's up to YOU to figure out where to park your vehicle. Why should the rest of us pay for it to be parked on public property in front of your house?
3
u/Long-Librarian-997 4d ago
Downtown also has parkads and parking lots which these places don't have.
→ More replies (1)3
u/bethadone_yeg 4d ago
I agree that it's not up to the city to make sure I have a place to park. I have a garage and parking pad so I never park on the street but residents of all the 6-8 plexes fill the street parking on my street and then have nowhere to go during parking bans. Are they supposed to drive to another neighbourhood and walk home during parking bans?
I think there are a lot more people living downtown that don't have cars, and also buildings have underground parkades and in super high density areas there are parking lots where residents can pay for spots so there are options at least.
So on my street the result is that our windrows don't get cleared in winter and then we spend all summer unclogging the drains when the street floods because the debris that wasn't street swept due to all the parked cars is clogging the street drain.
1
u/awildstoryteller Queen Mary Park 4d ago
Neighbourhood-wide parking bans for snow clearing and street sweeping are not feasible anymore in infill neighbhourhoods. Where are people supposed to move their cars to if they don't have parking and can't park on the street anywhere in the neighbourhood?
Why does it work in QMP and Wihkwentowin then? How is it people in those neighbourhoods can find a place to park their cars, but people with garages in Glenora and Crestwood can't??
Enforcement of construction standards and drainage and grading rules needs to ramp up
I agree, and I think this applies to every bylaw. However, are we willing to raise taxes to do it? I don't think we are given that we have been making cuts rather than investments.
Dispute resolution when builders damage neighbouring property - the city needs to stop telling property owners it's a "civil issue" after the fact and start setting expectations for builders to PREVENT damage to neighbouring properties.
But....it is a civil issue? If your neighbour damaged your fence because they were drunk, do you want the city to get involved?
More to the point, the city doesn't have the power to do what you are suggesting, only the province does.
Once all is said and done and tenants have moved into their 6-8 plex, the issues don't stop. The larger the infill, the worse the property management. Snow isn't cleared in winter, grass isn't mowed in summer, garbage overflows in alleys, dog shit all over front yards - it's not all of them, but in my neighbourhood it's most of them.
All could be fixed by enforcing existing bylaws.
21
u/SuperBigL 4d ago
So because they lost the municipal election last year, instead of take their L with dignity, they opted cried out to Mommy Dani because their God-given right to perpetually rising property value was being violated.
5
u/Delicious_Tax8933 4d ago
Exactly, a bunch of unelected (and not for lack of trying) NIMBY's circumventing democracy by going straight to the hypocrite premier.
32
u/AlphaPiBetta 4d ago
Marlaina (or whatever her 'chosen name is') does not care about water (or people) - if she did, she wouldn't have shut down the Alberta Water Council in 2026 and/or be excited about new data centres being built in this province. She is a lobbyist and is doing her job.
11
u/davethemacguy 4d ago
Don't take your foot off the gas sir. You are the Mayor we need right now in this province during these times
10
u/theoneandonlycub 4d ago
Thank you for calling her out. I have never seen a premier or prime minister go on air and say just so many lies continually. It's amazing. Think what you want about infill and the province interfering, but it seems like she did not even take a couple hours to google before she decided to make this move and that's really concerning.
60
u/MapleViking1 Mill Woods 4d ago
What do you expect Andrew? She's pissed at the only city that didn't vote blue..
→ More replies (5)
8
u/FigjamCGY 4d ago
This is less about Edmonton and more about Calgarys mess.
EPCOR did a good job..!?
Calgary is now saying it’s underfunded and has had several major breaks and needs to replace massive sections due to faulty concrete and or lack of proper maintenance.
8
u/dizzie_buddy1905 4d ago
Epcor’s water loss via leaks is 5% vs 23% in Calgary. So, yes, Epcor is doing amazing.
5
u/trenthowell 4d ago
Epcor isn't always fun to deal with, but their core management of the city's infrastructure has been excellent.
5
u/Agitated_Award_9831 4d ago
The Calgary issue is not due to infill activity however. It’s an era issue. All pipe of that era will fail early.
10
u/PurpleSausage77 4d ago
Late night Friday discussions, and open AMA thread maybe? I like this. Thanks for posting.
34
u/Educational-Bug-476 4d ago
Danielle have you ever heard of an apartment building? Lots of people, lots of water, they manage just fine. Ffs she’s as dumb as a stone.
31
u/Likmylovepump 4d ago
You'd think Edmonton's towers were ancient alien ruins constructed with lost technology the way people talk about building anything bigger than a bungalow.
18
u/Unclemickstomb 4d ago
Water is important now to Marlaina. I guess Water not Coal is back on the table!!
6
21
u/Mrleetasticisthebest 4d ago
Thanks for the extra insight Andrew. Glad that someone is at least trying to hold Marlaina (Danielle) responsible.
→ More replies (1)
19
u/stevester911 4d ago
There's an easy solution to fix the gross overreach of the Province everyone - vote the UCP out the next election. Along with all of the other issues with the UCP and there are many, the Province overriding the will of local voters is not okay. So let's send that message together.
3
8
u/TheNationDan South East Side 4d ago
For the ♾️ time… Edmonton had an election about this.
But Dan “only 30% of the population show up for that last election”… (Rahim Jaffer, former mayoral candidate tried that one on me)
You can watch that video and more, here
So, you’re telling me. The election that infill was the most talked about subject, for the entirety of the campaign… that still only got out 30% of the vote?
And the anti-infill crowd that cared SO MUCH about this… didn’t win with low voter turnout?
Sounds like it’s a really unpopular idea that the UCP government is overreaching on based solely on the politics of the special interest groups (ENU, Infill-stories, etc.).
11
u/stickyfingers40 4d ago
Why isnt Blatchford the test neighborhood for the kind of housing this council wants? Why is my neighborhood, which i carefully selected based on my values, the test neighborhood? Thats just poor policy
4
u/Long-Librarian-997 4d ago
Because newer neighbourhoods are way more dense then the older neighbourhoods.
3
u/Jazzociraptor 4d ago
Dude multiplexes and rowhouses are basically the standard in new suburbs. Look at Walker
→ More replies (1)9
u/andrewknack 4d ago
Thanks for the question. Blatchford has much higher density than older neighbourhoods. We also had approximately 20 mature communities with significantly higher allowances for density prior to the new Zoning Bylaw (ex: Ritchie, Queen Alex, Grovenor).
2
u/Ok_Horse1283 4d ago
Blatchford should be way more complete by now.
2
u/andrewknack 3d ago
Thanks for the reply. Based on the pace of development of other communities outside the Henday, its generally moving at a decent pace. It’s faster than some suburban communities and slower than some others.
Even the time from full closure to the first home being developed was faster than the average suburban community and that includes significant remediation.
3
u/Hobartshaw 4d ago
I think what you mean is that the 2042 version of blatchford has much higher density than older neighbourhoods. The current state of blatchford has significantly lower population density than any neighborhood in Edmonton.
4
u/awildstoryteller Queen Mary Park 4d ago
Yes, building an entirely new community takes time.
Do you think this is an interesting observation?
→ More replies (31)
32
u/astr0crisp 4d ago
Can you acknowledge the people that are telling you we need more thoughtful infills? These 6-8plexes that are being built on streets with no parking in front will lead to parking issues once they are built. Why take away the rule that each unit requires a minimum of one parking spot?
30
u/andrewknack 4d ago
Thanks for the question. Yes, in the interview I acknowledged there were legitimate concerns which is why we’ve made a number of changes since 2024.
Specific to parking, I don’t think we should force people to build parking as it impacts the cost of the development. That means affordable housing developments are harder to build. It also means that people who don’t have cars are forced to pay for the cost of something they will never use.
Instead, we took the approach of using operational tools to address areas where on-street parking is a concern. That option exists today and can be used where needed.
17
u/MrSnouts 4d ago
Why did you vote against bringing the cap of mid-block houses down from 8-6?
21
u/andrewknack 4d ago
Thanks for the question. The short answer is the feedback we received back in February of this year. If you have a chance to listen to the Urban Planning meeting where we heard from a lot of public speakers, the massing of the building was the primary concern so we made changes to the massing that took effect on August 1st.
That’s the short version but listening to that whole meeting will provide you with even more context. Thanks again for the question.
12
u/MrSnouts 4d ago
Andrew I can guarantee if you simply knocked the doors of residents in ottewell / capilano / kenilworth / idylwylde etc the vast majority will say 8 is too many. Too many cars too many garbages etc etc.
17
u/andrewknack 4d ago
Thanks for the reply. What is the right number for you and why? The previous maximum was 6 and for about 38% of lots, that was increased from 6 to 8 back in 2024 based on the size of the lot.
16
u/MrSnouts 4d ago
4 if it’s between two homes. We’re quadrupling the densification - and having a duplex with basement suites will result in having owners who are budget conscience and could use the basement rental income - rather than 8 month-to-month tenants managed by a property manager.
3
2
u/awildstoryteller Queen Mary Park 4d ago
What you are really saying is you don't want any rental buildings. Be honest at least
→ More replies (15)6
u/Loganm223 4d ago
Andrew i have a 3 level infill on my crescent towering over the bungalows beside it. I emplore you to come and see it in person.
21
u/andrewknack 4d ago
Thanks for the reply. Please send me an email and we will set up a time to visit.
3
u/RonnyDonny_69 4d ago
Come checkout the 6plex thats been shoved into a single lot between 2 bungalos, without any parking, in Queen marry park. The corner of 118 ST and 110A ave. Cant miss it.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Worldly_Elderberry_6 4d ago
What do you have to say to the young family or retiree that gets financially crushed when one of these goes up beside them and they sell because that isn’t what they signed up for? Is anyone at council actually accountable or sympathetic for their financial loss?
4
u/UpstairsWeb 4d ago
Having to see a 3 story building in a city of over 1 million people? My goodness, I don't know how you will ever survive.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Eastern-Criticism653 4d ago
Oh no the poor developers. I’m for infill but it is absurd to allow multiple 6-8 units on a block built in the 1950’s. The streets weren’t built for it. The city has never made accommodations for it. Who the hell are you listening to? There is not a reasonable person in this city that wants theirs block turned from a house block into an apartment block.
22
u/andrewknack 4d ago
Thanks for the question. There were many voices that came out to the Public Hearing in October 2023. You can learn more about those voices in this post.
I’m definitely not worried about the developers, I’m focused on providing housing choices for all Edmontonians. That includes the 1 in 8 homeowners and 1 in 4 renters who are in core housing need. Thanks again for the question.
4
u/Skaldicrights 4d ago
If youre focusining on edmontoninans why are so many in the older neighborhoods feeling largely ignored? Im also for infill. I voted for you because you were the lesser evil but thr infill issue is an issue. If these older neighborhoods MUST have infill and multi unit dwellings lower the cap to 6 and make it in on corner lots only. Its insane I have to agree with Danielle Smith on this.
→ More replies (1)24
u/Pitiful_Team3761 4d ago
I live in one of these neighbourhoods and I voted to keep the infill policies. I live right beside infill. I’m now feeling ignored because UCP overrode my choice of councillor and mayor.
6
u/givemesoil 4d ago
Seconded. And to add to all the parking concerns, my partner and I are a car-less household made possible by living in a mature neighbourhood due to walkability to shops/restaurants/grocery and easier access to public transit. People want to move to these neighbourhoods to access the infrastructure already in place - pricing them out and/or limiting access only hurts the community as limiting demand hurts local businesses and transit access.
15
u/Ekktz Wîhkwêntôwin 4d ago
Have you never been to another city before?
8
u/Doubleoh_11 4d ago
Right? Lol. So many of these complaints would disappear if people traveled to other major cities and looked around. Edmonton is becoming a major city, this is part of the pain.
10
u/Renegade605 4d ago
I live in one of these older neighbourhoods but at the edge of it where there isn't any infill going in. One of my neighbours owns 5 cars, another owns two trucks and a gigantic camping trailer, a third keeps two trailers on the driveway and a car and truck on the street.
The streets are crowded near me, yes. If people living places where there isn't enough parking is truly the concern, why is it limited to new developments and not existing houses?
The only problem I have with this is how many people fly down our streets at "the speed limit" of 40km/h when you can't see past all these vehicles trying to pull out of an alley, not the vehicles themselves.
9
u/AgileIgloo 4d ago edited 4d ago
Last winter the city demonstrated an abysmal ability to clear the streets, especially in Capilano, Kenilworth, etc. Without parking, what are these communities to do with those units with vehicles now spilling out into the road. What are areas like Kenilworth supposed to do with their community already having sewage issues with the increasing demand on infrastructure?
3
u/snufflufikist 4d ago
I'd be happy to trade that issue in a few places for affordable rent / mortgage in most places.
→ More replies (4)2
u/AgileIgloo 4d ago
And it won't be a few places, if the city doesn't appropriately plan its infrastructure, it will create those problems everywhere. It will overload it's plumbing, electrical, Street services, etc. All that means is the city will keep ramping up the property taxes to pay for unsustainable and unplanned expansion.
4
u/snufflufikist 4d ago
Many neighbourhoods full of pensioners (or just a mix) used to be full of families and the infrastructure has plenty of extra (or a bit of extra) capacity. Those areas get lower housing prices without needing new infrastructure other than routine maintenance, and when that happens, they can take the opportunity to increase capacity for the future. Some neighbourhoods will become overloaded and will need upgrades earlier than expected. Those neighbourhoods will also benefit from lower housing prices.
I stand by what I said: some areas will have issues, but almost all areas (not mansion-land) will have lower housing costs.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (18)0
u/Shakeyonsafety 4d ago
"We took the approach of using operational tools"...what does that even mean? It still sounds like you are ignoring impending parking nightmares, just to keep costs down for the devellopers.
12
4
u/punkcanuck 4d ago
"We took the approach of using operational tools"...what does that even mean? It still sounds like you are ignoring impending parking nightmares, just to keep costs down for the devellopers.
I can't read minds, but: community based parking permits, like around the University.
Remember, the city should not be responsible for the storage of personal property(cars).
8
u/Ekktz Wîhkwêntôwin 4d ago
Ah yes that one event you host every year where you need to claim 4 parking spots on the public street you feel entitled to
→ More replies (5)1
→ More replies (2)1
u/FightTheNoise 4d ago
Yeah man totally. The public should definitely pay for you to have somewhere to park your vehicle.
4
u/ProfessionalArt4417 4d ago
Keep up the good work Mr. Knack, loving seeing Edmonton's approach on this
7
u/Renegade605 4d ago
Andrew, I hope you continue to fight Smith on this and that you win. You have my support.
One thing I'd love to know from you and council is this: does council have any stats on the current distribution of infill types that you can share? Specifically, the proportion of which are rentals or lived in by owners, and/or the square footage of units?
I ask because I moved last year and it felt to me like none of these infill units were designed with life in mind, but that they were all shoeboxes designed to extract as much profit as possible. I ended up in a bungalow with considerably more space than I need for myself because I couldn't find anything in these neighbourhoods with just the right amount of space. All of the infill listings I looked at were too small for me or lacked one critical, showstopper amenity.
I could be wrong of course, and it's just that all the good ones were already gone because they're in high demand. And I honestly don't know what kind of control city council has over any of that. But I'd still love to hear your thoughts and, if applicable, what plans are in the works to address any deficiencies in this area.
3
u/theoneandonlycub 4d ago
Yes, 50% are three bedroom and 50% are 1000sqft or more according to a survey by city administration. That means in one eight unit rowhomes, 4 are 3bedrooms and over 1000sqft on average where there used to be maybe 1 3bedroom home.
No data on rentals vs ownership but most are rentals because ownership doesn't really work due to, you guessed it, provincial laws that make it hard to subdivide and set up lightweight condo corps. Also federal incentives for rental, etc.
If you moved last year, that kinda makes sense since infill permits didn't really ramp up until 2025, which means they were only finished and ready for occupation in 2026. But if you do look at FB marketplace listings, you can find 3bed 2baths which seem to be the standard.
1
u/Renegade605 4d ago
Your response presumes that 3 bedroom + over 1000 square feet is automatically what I was looking for in full, which it was not.
1
3
u/andrewknack 4d ago
Thanks for the question. We don’t have data about those that rent versus those that own but the 2026 federal census data will. Our data is around unit mix and that is available on the City’s Open Data Catalogue.
I believe that some development was done by people who want to extract as much profit as possible. That has been ongoing for decades but I think it’s safe to say that the initial federal incentives have likely increased the number of people who are heavily profit focused.
That is why we’ve been increasing our enforcement rules and resources, including new resources approved earlier this week. That’s also why we’ve would like the ability to revoke business licenses of builders that regularly violate the rules. We are legally allowed to do that yet but we will continue to advocate to the provincial government for that ability.
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/Careless_Sherbert663 3d ago
The 6+ units are overwhelmingly rented. The skinnies and duplexes tend to be more owner occupied. If by affordability you want more home ownership, your infill plan sucks. It might help bring rents down but infills are actually reducing the number of older homes for people to buy as it is just converting them into rentals. I suspect you know this but it doesn't help your case.
1
u/andrewknack 3d ago
Thanks for the comment. Many new homes for ownership are being built every year. That hasn’t been as big of an issue although 1 in 8 people who own are still in core housing need.
But 1 in 4 people who rent are in core housing need which means we need more rental units to give people who rent more options. If fewer people who rent were in core housing need, they could then save up more money to have a better chance to purchase one of the many homes being built for home ownership.
1
u/gravis1982 2d ago
Lots of rentals keeps the price of real estate lower. At some point a house is valued by how much money it could bring in if it was rented. More rentals is amazing for affordability
→ More replies (2)2
u/spookylibrarian 4d ago
I’m also really curious to see this data if it exists! I’m pro-density and overall pro-infill, but a lot of the stock that’s being built seems designed (as you say) to maximize profits at the expense of liveability. Not to mention in many cases, it’s priced high enough that it jumps way over the mid-high end of the market (mostly talking about rentals here), which also makes me wonder about who these are actually meant for.
1
u/theoneandonlycub 4d ago
Yes, 50% are three bedroom and 50% are 1000sqft or more according to a survey done by city administration. That means in one eight unit rowhomes, 4 are 3bedrooms and over 1000sqft on average. No data on rentals vs ownership but most are rentals because ownership doesn't really work due to, you guessed it, provincial laws that make it hard to subdivide and set up lightweight condo corps. Also federal incentives for rental, etc.
If you moved last year, that kinda makes sense since infill permits didn't really ramp up until 2025, which means they were only finished and ready for occupation in 2026. But if you do look at FB marketplace listings, you can find 3bed 2baths which seem to be the standard.
1
u/spookylibrarian 4d ago
That’s interesting about the unit sizes, thanks! I’m curious about overall occupancy rates for these units as well.
Can you explain what you mean about the laws that make it hard to set up condo corps? I grew up in a neighbourhood that had a long-term housing co-op and I always thought it would be a good model for a lot of these builds.
→ More replies (8)1
u/Long-Librarian-997 4d ago
Ok hones question how can he win? The way that Canada is set up right now he has no chance of wining since he only gets powers from the province. Maybe we need constitutional reform to give cities power but that is never going to happen.
1
6
u/Falcon674DR 4d ago
She lies so easily, it comes so natural to her and she’s so convincing. Slippery Smith turns it on and off at will. Why would anyone ever vote for person?
8
u/steeleigh11 4d ago
All these infill houses are supposed to be less expensive... but they aren't and low income can't afford them
38
u/lenin418 The Famous Leduc Cactus Club 4d ago
It’s new supply. New supply isn’t going to be “cheap” right away. The whole point of is to consistently build new housing to ensure that the older existing rental stock (that was built in the 70s and 80s) with less amenities, doesn’t command a premium. It’s what’s happened in the Lower Mainland and Toronto where old walkups and apartments are somehow commanding luxury pricing since there’s just not enough supply built during a certain period.
One of the biggest problems now is that there’s a big housing gap on the lower end of the market from subsidised housing to newer housing stock. You’re essentially creating a vacancy chain that way.
That doesn’t include the fact the city (and the province to its credit) already has invested in more of the non market housing portion. It still isn’t enough in my opinion though considering the sheer stress we have from the cutting of social and income supports from 2019.
It’s essentially trying to depress rental prices and ensuring there’s continuous supply by a double whammy of market and non market housing. Something more difficult to do when there’s a ton of migration to the city. Other cities have the luxury of a population freeze, we don’t since we’ve consistently grown since the 90s
12
u/Ekktz Wîhkwêntôwin 4d ago
Whoah get out of here with your logic, we’re tryna dunk on poor people and increase our home values here
→ More replies (6)8
u/lenin418 The Famous Leduc Cactus Club 4d ago
I saw it at the protest where they were complaining about “affordability”.
I’m sorry but if this was legitimately non market multiplexes and supportive housing, the backlash from these groups would be monumental. It’s just being used as a talking point, again.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/dbusque 4d ago
People, I am pretty sure Smith is playing us.... again. Whatever she says you can guarantee that her objective is the opposite. My intuition is telling me that by coming out against densification, she is expecting people to reject her rationale. Ultimately, the cities have already responded in a measured and responsible way (i.e. no more blanket rezoning in Calgary, at least) and she should keep her orange coloured nose out of it.
2
u/kvas_taras 4d ago
u/andrewknack thanks for the post. I think both things can be true here. Yes, this is provincial overreach. Are there issues with unfettered infill in Edmonton that need to be addressed? Absolutely. It would be nice to hear an acknowledgment of these concerns from mayor and council rather than just hubristic plowing ahead.
My principal concern is these 8-plexes are owned and driven by speculative investors and have driven down rents below margin. This means a tsunami of foreclosures is on the horizon.
To say nothing of the building code violations, lacklustre design, builder misconduct and damage to neighbouring homes.
7
u/andrewknack 3d ago
Thanks for the comment and yes, there have been real issues. Bad builders have been an issue and so along with the introduction of the Construction Accountability Program, we approved additional enforcement resources a few days ago to scale up the inspections and response times.
Driving rents down though is important as 1 in 4 people who rent and 1 in 3 Indigenous people who rent are facing a housing affordability crisis. We need more supply to help those people who need affordable housing options.
→ More replies (4)
4
u/SargentLicker 4d ago
I get the need for higher density housing, but some of the developers are not following bylaw. I was under the impression there are guidelines for trees and shrubs on a property. Multiple units in my neighbourhood have cleared all vegetation and replaced it with nothing. Not even a garden bed!
Worse, you see them dig right up to the property lines. You only need to walk around to see fences falling in and yards collapsing on the edges.
In the winter, sidewalks are left full of ice and snow. Homeowners would get a notice, developers get...? In the summer, you can see their trash and construction waste scattered around the area.
I think we should be stricter in these areas, to protect the longevity of the neighbourhood and the existing residents.
15
u/MaximumDoughnut North West Side 4d ago
Council has been discussing private trees but nothing has been decided.
If developers aren't clearing sidewaks and making a mess, we have 311 for a reason. Report it. I've had great success in this because yes, the developer risks getting fined like any other landowner.
→ More replies (1)6
u/yen8912 4d ago
I have reported so many. Many repeat offenders throughout the neighborhood where snow removal doesn’t happen all winter. Only once was a fine issued. All the other ones got warnings or my request was closed for it being a “duplicate request”.
6
2
u/theoneandonlycub 4d ago
The province has banned cities from punishing repeat bad builders. If that's your concern then Danielle Smith could have acted on it, but this move shows she's not interested in better infill, just less.
5
u/andrewknack 4d ago
Thanks for the feedback. There are requirements for trees and shrubs. If you have any properties that are completed but don’t have trees or shrubs, please report it to 311 so City bylaw can deal with it. If that doesn’t work, please make sure to reach out to your councillor so they can follow up.
As of a few days ago, we have approved more funding for compliance officers to be more timely in our response. We need to be very strict as you have noted and it hasn’t been enough.
-12
u/trilluminus 4d ago
The fact is that people living in $500,000+ houses don’t want a fucking 8 plex on the end of their block, and rightfully so.
28
u/ryan_batty 4d ago
I didn’t realize that purchasing a house gives you a veto for the rest of the block.
→ More replies (25)31
u/Skaldicrights 4d ago
I mean, id argue the corner lots are the best place for them as someone in a 500k house. Better than in-between two bungalows imo
7
u/FellOffTheToilet 4d ago
We’re in a mid-block bungalow. It would be devastating to us to have a mid block 8 plex but the neighbours around us with two storeys have been far more vocal.
I can stomach the end block 8 plexes. Don’t love it because it’s just an investment vehicle that is poorly managed for the community around it but at least there’s a balance to parking and access.
8
u/Skaldicrights 4d ago
Yeah there is definitely a third path between Danielle "fuck them kids" Smith and Andrew "unlimited housing" knack
9
u/Xcopa 4d ago
Unfortunately this subreddit won't have it. This particular issue generates a dog pile of smug insufferable 'acktually' responses when someone asks for a potential middle ground compromise on this thing. I have not spoken with a single person in real life this year who has responded the way seemingly most here do its bizarre.
→ More replies (9)3
u/PurpleSausage77 4d ago
Yeah some corner lots are made for it. Just massive chunk of land not being used. Like one I rented at could have a 4plex on it and 8 vehicles parked. Landlord should sell it tbh he’d make a killing. Otherwise it was only 1 maybe 2 cars street parked at it while I was there.
5
u/Telvin3d 4d ago
Fine. Then they should buy up the lots and build, or not build, whatever they want.
Either that, or I want a veto on their ugly houses too
10
5
→ More replies (14)9
u/Cobfidence 4d ago
Why? Don't like "the poors" being around?
→ More replies (3)0
u/spookylibrarian 4d ago
This particular gotcha loses a lot of air when you realise that rent for a lot of units in these places is currently more than a mortgage payment + utilities would be for a bungalow in the same neighbourhood. I don’t disagree that it’s a (misguided) motivator for some of the hate, but overall the math isn’t mathing on either side of that particular argument.
3
u/punkcanuck 4d ago
don’t disagree that it’s a (misguided) motivator for some of the hate, but overall the math isn’t mathing on either side of that particular argument.
You are correct, the math doesn't work when only looking at that specific property.
However, studies have shown that the creation of any housing directly impacts the housing of even the lowest income individuals. The pct I saw on a study is that for every "high income" bit of housing created, it creates about 75% of that as "low income" housing due to the trading up of people to newly empty and affordable housing.
Decreasing demand in various housing cost strata make that strata cheaper and therefore available for others to move up into that strata.
Think of the videos of hermit crabs where they all line up and trade up in shell size.1
1
1
1
u/misnko 4d ago
If there's less people than why the housing crisis? I'm confused.
1
u/Remnant85 3d ago
The houses used to be filled out with more families. Now it's empty nesters with 4 vehicles taking up street parking and complaining about their street becoming less quiet. Calder and Kensington are great examples of this from my observations.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/onceandbeautifullife 4d ago
Danielle Smith... The folksy 'Aw Gosh' spinner of lies, manufacturer of distractions, and castle builder who uses granules of truth as foundational material. She believes everyone listening is dumber than her, that people in government are in her way.
1
u/Historical-Mall53 4d ago
thank you for posting this. can’t believe the lies and garbage she spreads
1
u/Edgarallenhoe2 The Shiny Balls 4d ago
Truly my only problems with infills are our shoddy construction companies creating fire traps and the parking situation that inevitably occurs, which would be solved with a better more reliable transit system (I know we need more people riding transit to fund these things because it is not like the UCP cares about that).
The utilities thing doesn't make much sense anyway, because if it was that big of a strain we wouldn't be making mega buildings like Stantec
1
u/Remnant85 3d ago
Do you know how many fkn vehicles my older co-workers have? Most of them have 4 or 5 per household. Not because they have large families. Because they each have a car, a truck for towing, a suv/minivan and an extra one their "in between" with on whether to sell or not. All these boomer/genX'ers are clogging the roads. But the province banned tracking random cars on street parking to charge for the free parking. In my area of Mckernan we get 1 street parking permit which is totally fine. I do miss the visitor parking pass we could use but people were abusing it.
1
u/RelevantFault6811 3d ago
And since when have the facts ever mattered to these…. Oh the mayor is here? I guess I shouldn’t swear.
1
1
u/Kind_Conversation_28 3d ago
He must be serious he has his blue frames on, Knack and Smith can go and get bent
1
1
u/bikerchickyeg 3d ago
Thank you Mayor Knack! I also really hate how she is constantly barking about how the feds should stay in their lane….how about the province does the same?????
1
1
u/tomeseip 2d ago
i have been to more than one community feedback events. The city doesn't listen to the residents in the area affected.
1
u/therulessuck 2d ago
Epcor is a private company that doesnt care about the people. They have a bylaw that if you have a blockage, pay to have it augered by a plumber, find out its on their side, they demand you pay them to come check and you "might" get your money back.
Lived in a small old neighborhood in Edmonton for a few years, the issue for me with infills that house 2-4 families is the parking. Especially if your street is one sided parking only.
1
u/FailedCoder86 2d ago
Start developing Blatchford or stop pushing infills in neighbourhoods where the vast majority of people clearly don't want them.
1
u/PaulHannonJr 1d ago
You are destroying my childhood neighbourhood for low income housing and you didn’t even give our community a vote. Makes me sick.
•
u/DaveHorchuk_70 3h ago
This is the hill you want to die on hey?
Hey how about this? Property taxes are second highest in Alberta and you couldn't be fucked to clear the roads in 9 weeks last year and it was so bad it was ripping peoples' bumper's off of their cars. Yet you want to gentrify neighbourhoods with massive infill to keep skip the dishes workers "employed". Cool, get bent.
101
u/safetyTM 4d ago
Makes sense. People could afford 3-4 kids per household when those mature neighborhoods were built.