Opinion: Edmonton needs better infill — not a return to outdated zoning

I build infill housing in Edmonton, and I understand why the debate over the city’s new zoning rules has become so heated. Residents are worried about parking, garbage collection, privacy, sunlight, neighbourhood character and the scale of new buildings beside older homes. Those concerns deserve a serious response.

But returning Edmonton wholesale to its former zoning system would be a serious mistake. The better course is to identify the housing forms causing the greatest concern, improve the standards governing them and preserve the parts of the new system that support responsible growth.

My experience with Belgravia Square shows what thoughtful infill can contribute. The project is a four-storey concrete-and-steel building with a brick exterior, large windows, geothermal heating and cooling, a 72-kilowatt solar array and a rooftop deck. It went through a lengthy rezoning hearing and faced predictions that it would damage the neighbourhood. Instead, it became a high-quality addition to the streetscape, while contributing substantially to the city’s tax base and funding municipal permits and infrastructure improvements.

Since then, hundreds of homes have been added around the Belgravia–McKernan LRT station and the University of Alberta. Building more housing near rapid transit, employment and education is precisely where Edmonton should be directing growth.

Opposition in neighbourhoods such as Parkview and Crestwood is not simply opposition to change. Residents are describing practical problems: too many vehicles competing for curb space, inadequate waste collection, buildings that feel imposing beside modest homes, and the loss of privacy or sunlight. Those issues should not be dismissed. Nor should they be used to justify a blanket reversal of Edmonton’s zoning framework.

Parking is a citywide management issue, not a problem zoning can solve by freezing neighbourhoods in time. Public streets are shared assets. If curb space is scarce, Edmonton should manage it through tools such as permits, time limits, pricing and enforcement. Garbage collection also requires a direct operational solution. Neither problem is fixed by restoring old density limits.

Concerns about building scale are more appropriately addressed through design standards: setbacks, transitions, landscaping, entrances, usable outdoor space and the relationship between a new building and its neighbours. Good infill should fit its context without pretending that established neighbourhoods can never evolve.

The most contentious form appears to be four townhouses combined with four basement suites, producing eight dwellings on a lot while presenting the mass of a tall townhouse project. Rather than overturning the entire zoning system, the province and city should focus on this specific housing form and the standards that permit it.

Two targeted reforms deserve consideration:

1. Require professional architectural involvement for projects containing three or more dwellings, or for larger residential projects up to the applicable building-code threshold. Better professional oversight would improve design quality, life safety, accessibility and neighbourhood fit.

2. Restrict basement suites to detached homes with safe, independent entrances, rather than allowing them beneath duplexes, four-plexes, townhouses or other multi-unit forms. Suites above garages could be treated separately.

These proposals would require careful legal and technical review, but they illustrate the kind of targeted response residents are asking for. They address built form and housing quality without disrupting commercial sites, mixed-use areas, apartment zones, highrise districts or new subdivisions.

At Niche, our approach is different from the townhouse-plus-basement-suite model. One current eight-unit project provides eight family-oriented homes, each approximately 1,440 square feet with four bedrooms, three bathrooms, two storeys and private outdoor amenity space. That kind of infill can add family housing while maintaining a form that belongs in a residential neighbourhood.

Zoning does not govern only infill homes. It also determines whether businesses, commercial properties, mixed-use developments and projects in new communities conform to municipal rules. Reinstating an earlier bylaw without a carefully designed transition could create uncertainty for property owners, applicants, lenders and city staff. Existing approvals, pending applications and legally non-conforming uses would all need clear treatment.

If the province believes Edmonton’s rules require review, it should define the problem narrowly and allow the city to respond through an orderly public process. A temporary pause on the most disputed housing form in affected low-density areas would be more responsible than disrupting every category of development.

The city must continue adding housing. Established neighbourhoods contain schools, roads, transit, pipes and other public infrastructure that can often accommodate more residents efficiently. New infill also broadens the tax base and places more homes near services and employment.

Older houses can have character and value, but many also require major investment in sewer and water lines, insulation, windows, ventilation, radon mitigation and hazardous-material remediation. Redevelopment is not inherently an attack on a neighbourhood. Done well, it renews housing stock and creates homes suited to present-day needs.

Housing supply also matters to renters. If a significant source of new construction is abruptly cut off, vacancies can tighten and rents can rise. The precise effect should be tested with transparent data, not political sound bites, but the direction of the risk is clear: Constraining supply during a housing shortage carries consequences.

The province should not force Edmonton back into an outdated planning framework, and the city should not dismiss residents who dislike the results they see on their streets. Both orders of government can do better.

Review the most contentious forms of infill. Set higher standards for design and professional oversight. Address parking and waste collection directly. Protect ongoing commercial and residential projects with clear transition rules. Then, allow well-designed housing to proceed.

Edmonton does not need a choice between uncontrolled development and no development. It needs better development — and the measured leadership to make it happen.

John Clarke is an Edmonton infill builder and the founder of Niche Development Corp.

We invite you to write letters to the editor. A maximum of 150 words is preferred. Letters must carry a first and last name, or two initials and a last name, and include an address and daytime telephone number. All letters are subject to editing. We don’t publish letters addressed to others or sent to other publications. Email: letters@edmontonjournal.com

Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don’t miss the news you need to know — add EdmontonJournal.com and EdmontonSun.com to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters here.

You can also support our journalism by becoming a digital subscriber. Subscribers gain unlimited access to The Edmonton Journal, Edmonton Sun, National Post and 13 other Canadian news sites. Support us by subscribing today: The Edmonton Journal |The Edmonton Sun.