City administration, University of Alberta planning experts like Robert Summers, responsible infill developers such as Jesse Soneff, and community groups like Edmonton Neighbourhoods United, Better Infill, and the Residential Infill Working Group all made the same point: It’s not about stopping development; it’s about making it better. Read More
The recent debate at Edmonton city council over mid-block zoning has been mischaracterized as a numbers game: eight units versus six or four. But it was never just about unit counts. The real issue has always been about how to build density well, respecting neighbourhood context, ensuring quality, and integrating with local character. City administration,

Article content
The recent debate at Edmonton city council over mid-block zoning has been mischaracterized as a numbers game: eight units versus six or four. But it was never just about unit counts. The real issue has always been about how to build density well, respecting neighbourhood context, ensuring quality, and integrating
with local character.
Article content
City administration, University of Alberta planning experts like Robert Summers, responsible infill developers such as Jesse Soneff, and community groups like Edmonton Neighbourhoods United, Better Infill, and the Residential Infill Working Group all made the same point: It’s not about stopping development; it’s about making it better.
Article content
Article content
Story continues below
Article content
A temporary cap was proposed to create space for a more thoughtful process: one that gives both the public and builders clarity, consistency, and standards they can support. Many infill developers already follow good practices. But they also know that when others cut corners and disregard quality or community impacts, it damages the entire industry’s reputation.
Article content
Article content
Article content
We heard from builders who engage meaningfully with residents, who maintain their properties, and who even live in the homes they construct. These are not the problem. They’re the model. But not all developers follow this example. When they don’t, neighbours suffer, and so do the tenants who move into poorly built or poorly maintained units. They deserve better too.
Article content
The real conversation is about quality, context, and communication. That means discussing things like parking, shadowing, drainage, and disruption during construction. These issues matter deeply to residents but are too often brushed aside under the new bylaw in its current form. In older neighbourhoods with combined sewer systems, adding more density without upgrading underground infrastructure can cause real harm. That’s why cities like Toronto and Vancouver require sewer upgrades before higher-density development is permitted. They learned that sloppy or premature density in some neighbourhoods can lead to costly repairs down the road, disruptions for residents and lawsuits.
Article content
Story continues below
Article content
Toronto, for example, had to invest over $1 billion in sewer upgrades after allowing significant residential intensification without first modernizing its infrastructure. The short-term benefits of rushed development were erased by long-term deficits. Doing corrections at intervals along the way helps reduce cost risks and makes the city more affordable down the road.
Article content
Most residents assume the city has necessary guardrails in place. But many of those safeguards were quietly removed with the adoption of the new zoning bylaw. What communities are responding to is not density itself. It is the erosion of oversight.
Article content
In our neighbourhood, we’ve welcomed new homes and new neighbours. We support density. But much of what we admire was built under the previous bylaw, which included development review, infrastructure assessment, and real opportunities for community input. For the past seven years, Edmonton was ahead of the curve nationally on infill in quality, not just numbers. But the benefits of that progress will wane.