Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Citizens for Responsible Development

  1. #1

    Default Citizens for Responsible Development

    Check out this website. Lots of good information.

    There is also a Petition to sign.


    http://c4rd.ca/

  2. #2
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,819

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zims23 View Post
    Check out this website. Lots of good information.

    There is also a Petition to sign.


    http://c4rd.ca/
    NIMBY's r us.

  3. #3

    Default

    Lots of good misinformation.

    Lots of complaints about how things are done now, but with zero evidence that it's bad, and offers no alternative.

    I like how they claim to know where infill is needed, and that restrictive planning is better at determining where it is needed than the market is.
    There can only be one.

  4. #4

    Default

    Sounds like they advocate more apartments in these older neighbourhoods and less lot splitting. Wouldn't that affect these neighbourhoods more? I read the whole website and e-mailed them out of curiosity as well as general concern. Agree with all of Highlander II's sentiments. While I am appreciative of the participation and involvement of people that do this level of work, I'm deeply concerned about the information they distribute... in this fashion, without a remedy or solution/compromise.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  5. #5

    Default

    I get the impression that many Edmontonians see "infill" as "skinny houses", lot splitting, and larger homes in older 'hood replacing smaller older ones (the initial and I'd say easiest/quickest development under new zoning in Edmonton)... and not apartments, mixed-use, Area Redevelopment Plans, Blatchford (big, expensive, bureaucratic infill that takes years after plans are implemented).
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  6. #6

    Default

    This also irked me: "If infill densification is defensible, responsible development protects the differences between neighbourhoods. For instance, “The City of Vancouver uses community plans to provide clear but flexible frameworks to guide positive change and development in neighbourhoods over a period of approximately 20 – 30 years. Each plan considers long-range and shorter-term goals, and work within broader objectives established for the entire city and at regional and provincial levels. A community plan also recognizes the parts of the community valued by its citizens, and addresses the specific issues and initiatives of each area. Community plans are policy documents that provide guidance and direction on a variety of topics, from land use and urban design, to housing, transportation, and community facilities.”"

    There are in fact of 5 of these "plans" out of I think 25-27 border-defined communities in Vancouver proper, and I'd say many of these plans mimic our ARP's, which are to redevelop aging areas and to provide a mixed-use community that offers a diversity of housing and employment. These are large plans that address major densification and redevelopment. Edmonton simply is allowing SF1 to continue, split large lots and build SF1, to build some duplexes and secondary suites... so I get that they're upset about lot splitting and skinny homes... but the larger picture re-zoning for apartments or commercial in these neighbourhoods along arterials is not here yet... I mean how do you force developers and buyers to go from SF1 all the way to apartments in Station Pointe? It's usually when costs to buy the product changes habits... so is that this group's plan?

    I'm just really confused and concerned about this.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  7. #7
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zims23 View Post
    Check out this website. Lots of good information.

    There is also a Petition to sign.


    http://c4rd.ca/
    okay... i checked out the site.

    yes, there's lots of information (no pun intended). although whether it's good information or not is certainly debatable.

    but, debate notwithstanding, i have to say i take issue when one of your stated goals is "To provide leadership to influence development policy through collaborative actions" yet your group and your group's supporters choose to remain anonymous.

    i always thought "leadership" and "anonymity" were two things that were mutually exclusive

    notwithstanding the anonymity, when your style is one of cherry-picking information and quotations and taking personal potshots wherever you can to try and make a point and create some credibility for yourself, that's really where you lost me.

    the name of your group is laudable - and so might be your objectives for all i know - but before anyone wishes you good luck you probably need to disclose more and accuse less.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  8. #8

    Default

    I wonder how many degrees of separation between this and Curtis Penner.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •