Comments on: The Way we Grow Up: Remarks on the MDP

By: alberta politics notes 2/24/2010 | daveberta.ca

alberta politics notes 2/24/2010 | daveberta.ca — Sun, 30 May 2010 08:05:33 +0000

[...] approved the Municipal Development Plan this week. Councillor Don Iveson has posted some remarks on his blog.- Lethbridge-East MLA Bridget Pastoor scored a win for the Liberal Opposition this week when [...]

By: John K

John K — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:26:25 +0000

The original wording of Section 3.1.1.2 read:
“Encourage 25 percent of city-wide housing unit growth to locate in the Downtown and mature neighbourhoods.”

With your amendment the section now reads:
“Encourage a minimum 25 percent of city-wide housing unit growth to locate in the Downtown and mature neighbourhoods.”

I agree that this is a useful amendment insofar as the policy clarifies that more than 25 percent of new housing unit growth can be located in mature neighbourhoods including Downtown.

But the policy as amended is still aspirational. In order for it to prescriptive, the word “encourage” would need to be replaced with a word such as “require.” Perhaps this further amendment could be proposed prior to third and final reading.

By: Rob McDonald, Strathcona

Rob McDonald, Strathcona — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:24:35 +0000

Rezonings are fine too, when they’re aligned with the intent of the local ARP. If that vision is lacking – and there are places even in Strathcona where that’s so – then some genuine community consultation is needed. For that, the City should hire a contract planner – maybe arms-length funded by the rezoning applicant – to work directly with the host community. I make that suggestion because P&DD’s own staff have not re-earned the public trust that’s been squandered over the last decade. Edmonton has a pretty good Zoning Bylaw. If our own municipal administrators would adhere to both its letter and spirit, we could achieve ample opportunities for densification of our under-developed city centre.

By: Channing

Channing — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:26:41 +0000

Many of the base zoning is zoned as low density residential or small commercial without the ability to do mixed use developments. One area in particular I am looking at not in Strathcona) is perfect for redevelopment, but will need rezoning to create the urban mixed use density that is required.

By: Rob McDonald, Strathcona

Rob McDonald, Strathcona — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:08:35 +0000

CHANNING, Strathcona says Bring on the infill! P&DD has twelve years of their own bullying and hostility to overcome. However, if they play nice now, I believe they’ll find that residents of mature neighbourhoods are sold on the lifestyle and are eager to share it with many others. Beware though, zoning compliance is essential and our Area Redevelopment Plans must be respected. None of Edmonton’s ARPs are truly obsolete but many of them do suffer from deferred maintenance. And forget about writing 3- and 4-lot DC2 zones, just because the base zones aren’t lucrative enough for some developers. Lastly, bring a real architect to the table. Forget the Disneyland replicas – give us contemporary design that’s at least as carefully crafted as the simplest working class bungalows of the 1920s.

By: Dave J

Dave J — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:50:55 +0000

Thanks for your thoughts, Don. In the interests of a balanced and reasoned debate on these issues, I offer you the thoughts of another Edmontonian.

http://tinyurl.com/ye2dsm5

By: Channing

Channing — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:39:32 +0000

25% minimum is an okay start. Hopefully its not a fight to achieve the minimum, but rather a number that gets amended much higher in the near future. The number should be 100% in the not so distant future.

To achieve that we’ll have to have a greater focus on redevelopment planning of existing neighborhoods. The major sticking points, existing landowners and hostile communities, will require a grass-roots sort of approach to development.

By: Rob McDonald, Strathcona

Rob McDonald, Strathcona — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:52:27 +0000

Such refreshing optimism! I can’t link to the motion that amended the infill/sprawl ambitions but I hope it did sharpen the teeth of the MDP in that regard. Watch out for holding up the Strathearn Heights steamroller as an example of good infill planning. If it’s ever built (somewhat doubtful) it may be a lovely development. However, the hostile process that got it to approval was deeply flawed and exhibits another facet of Edmonton’s groaning infrastructure deficit – a decade-long void of community planning.

By: Edmonton’s Municipal Development Plan passes second reading at MasterMaq's Blog

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:46:32 +0000

[...] Don posted his thoughts here. var addthis_pub = 'mastermaq'; var addthis_brand = 'MasterMaq';var addthis_language = 'en';var [...]

By: Valerie Lugonja

Valerie Lugonja — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:39:09 +0000

Thank you for taking the time to write this up after your long day. The issue of support for local sustainable food supply has brought me to this meeting as a teacher of middle school (junior high) students. I have taught for 30 years, mainly English Literature, but the past two years have been fortunate to teach these young people how to cook. They want to learn, but they have no clue how. Most of their parents no longer cook. They buy processed food and heat it up. These students have not been to a garden, or a farm. They do not know where their food comes from, and neither to they value the effort it took to get on their plate – should their plate actually have whole food on it. This is such an important initiative in our city, and I want to say thank you – and I will keep on working as a citizen in this beautiful city to enable it to be a place where out young can experience living in a city that values agriculture as it is the ultimate resource.
Now, I have to get my community moving on the school gardens project I have been trying to initiate for quite some time…
Warmly,
Valerie