
Analysis: Why those organizing to curb infill say size, pace, and engagement are top concerns
Those organizing to stop, slow, or change infill told Taproot they want new housing in mature neighbourhoods to be smaller, the pace of developments to calm, and for neighbours to have more say in what gets built in their communities.
As part of our ongoing coverage of this year's municipal election, Taproot is working to explain issues that are dominating election discussions. Infill has taken up a lot of airtime in recent months. Some have said they are angry or sad to see infill housing change their neighbourhoods, while others have urged city council to continue to allow more homes to be built in the city's core to address climate change and a shortage of housing. Others land somewhere between these positions, supporting infill but being frustrated with how it is being built.
The new zoning bylaw, which made it easier to build infill, went into effect on Jan. 1, 2024. In the bylaw's first year, the city approved more than 16,500 new dwelling units, a 30% increase compared to 2023. The proportion of housing units approved in the redeveloping area, the part of the city generally within the boundaries of Anthony Henday Drive, increased. In 2024, 40% of approved housing units were located in the redeveloping area. The city's goal is to add 50% of new housing units through infill in developing areas.
In June, after about 18 months of tracking how the bylaw has changed development in Edmonton, council debated several amendments to it that councillors proposed. The proposed amendments included decreasing the maximum number of units allowed on mid-block lots in the small-scale residential (RS) zone from eight to six and altering the design requirements for rowhouses to make them smaller and have fewer entrances facing neighbouring homes. Council voted to keep the unit maximum the same, but approved the design changes. Coun. Tim Cartmell, who is also running for mayor, introduced a motion calling for a moratorium on development approvals for mid-block properties in the RS zone, which would have been illegal. The motion was ruled out of order.
Taproot spoke with representatives from two groups that voice concerns with infill — Edmonton Neighbourhoods United and the Residential Infill Working Group — to ask what they believe is wrong with Edmonton's approach and what should be done to fix it.
Public engagement
Both groups said residents were not properly engaged or notified of changes coming to their neighbourhoods.
"With something as big as this new zoning bylaw, there should have been a referendum to engage more people before they just rolled this out," Dallas Moravec, the treasurer for Edmonton Neighbourhoods United and a resident of Mill Woods, said. "Now they're trying to do the public engagement piece that they should have done prior to bringing this new zoning bylaw."
The city engaged residents on the new zoning bylaw starting in 2018. It also engaged residents on the City Plan, which helped shape the zoning bylaw. Council approved the City Plan in 2020.
Jan Hardstaff, a Parkallen resident who spoke on behalf of the Residential Infill Working Group, said that because some of the public engagement for the zoning bylaw took place during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, it was not as effective as the workshops and other engagement opportunities the city held in the past. "You'd come together, there'd be industry people there, there'd be community people there, and residents and councillors would come, and we'd all sit in a big room, and we'd go from table to table and talk about different things," Hardstaff said. "It was interactive and it was collaborative, but this wasn't like that."
Moravec said Edmonton Neighbourhoods United is calling for the former version of the zoning bylaw to be reinstated, as that bylaw wasn't "broken" and made it easier for neighbours to make appeals against new builds. Moravec also suggested that wards should be divided into quadrants, and those communities should meet to discuss where infill would be best suited. The city did something similar in 2024 with the priority growth area rezoning project, when residents were able to point to specific lots on a map that they thought would be ideal for increased density. The city collected that input, and after Garneau residents asked for some properties to be removed from the project, the city obliged. Moravec said this was a good example of administration listening to residents.