Bob (Robert) Summers

Everything is up and working! We are a go!

I was right in line with Skinners’ goal line in row 12 for goal 3. Time slowed down. It was like a car crash.

While this process sounds unworkable, I am certain that an AI would do a better job marking than 80% of TAs and at least 30% of Instructors. I’m not currently marking essays, but if I were, I think using AI as a first run through and sort would be very helpful.

The health care card addition is nice though.

Bryan, I live in Canada and we do not face the same issue here. With that said, the left needs to recognize how it contributed to Trump getting elected through its own attacks on liberalism (classical liberalism).

I think cancel culture harmed the openness of speech at universities. Many topics deserving of debate became taboo in a very short period of time. This has had a negative impact on the quality of debate and discussion.

The federal government should be working with provincial governments and Universities across Canada to recruit targeted clusters of researchers to each major institution. This is a once in a centre to rapidly advance Canadian innovation.

Canada is in a tough spot now. Had other nations and institutions (Harvard , Law firms, CBS, etc) held firm, the economic and other consequences of Trump’s bullying would have started to really hurt the USA, but we find ourselves rather alone in the fight now which is not a great situation.

There are folks who are upset that Edmonton councillor Tim Cartmell is on a vacation with his family. Being a councillor takes a huge amount of time in one’s life. I think it’s perfectly reasonable that these folks get a break to spend time with their family. It’s a non issue.

This is a great example of why I prefer not having parties with party-line voting in local politics. Councilors are free to vote as they see fit and you get very unusual mixed outcomes like this. Nobody would speak about a Janz, Knack, Principe, Rice, and Salvador voting block.

Got it, sorry for the misinterpretation!

I think it's totally reasonable to take more time to discuss this. With that said, after November we will be dealing with a different group of councilors (who will be selected based upon the feelings of the public). We will probably come out of that election okay, but it's not certain.

We will only know the actual market impacts if the change is made.

If you are an advocate for good urbanism, public perception matters. Toronto made a huge step backwards when Rob Ford was elected. Edmonton has been a leader because it has managed to maintain progress through incrementalism.

The size limits the number of units, but it still allows six to be viable and it's a meaningful increase in density relative to what exists and what was permitted prior to 2024. In Toronto it was kind of a 'fake' expansion of development rights that didn't really allow any change to happen.

Two things are true about Edmonton's zoning bylaw.

There is no 'right' decision today in council.

It's amazing that nearly every speaker is taking positions between 4 and 8 units across most of the city. I wouldn't have believed this could happen 5 years ago.

There are also cases like Toronto which allowed 4 units, but then made the building envelope so restrictive that 4 units were not viable.

Or may the modifier is square meters per unit required. RS u50, RS u75, RS u100, RS u125. I'm just brainstorming here.

The relatively 'flat' RS (small residential) zone in Edmonton may (or may not) need to shift to allowing more or fewer units (perhaps per square meter). If that turns out to be the case, maybe a 'U' modifier gets added. RS u4, RS u6, RS u10...

I'll add that is very strange for me to be on the side of any retreat from liberalizing the zoning bylaw. I've been championing zoning bylaw reform in Edmonton since about 2007. That the debate is now between 4 and 8 units per lot everywhere is almost surreal to me.

Toronto and all of southern Ontario is a basketcase of zoning restriction, slow and unnecessary bureaucratic procedures, development charges, land transfer taxes, and so on. Indeed, the only reason we see high housing demand in Edmonton are people fleeing BC and Ont.

Edmonton also has a LOT of LRT transit with almost nothing but single detached housing in the 800m radius. So, commercial nodes struggle and LRT ridership can be low. We lack the vibrant dense areas of other cities and policy can help create these.

One key factor here is the difference between Edmonton and Toronto. Edmontonians won't walk as far as Torontonians for transit before just staying with their car. Parking is ample and cheap here and winters are colder. Once you are past the 800m mark from an LRT stop, its no different than 10km.

Finally, in a 'good planning' sense, in a highly auto-dependent city like Edmonton, I worry about the rise of density that perpetuates and expands auto-dependency. eightplexes that don't have good transit or amenities within 600 or so meters won't contribute to any mode shift (which is needed)

Politically, it is a very clear message (vs the development requirements). 6 vs 8 is easy to understand. The hard opponents won't be satisfied, but I am hearing a lot of broad opposition from parents around the soccer field which is more important to me than the organized opponents.

Don't get me started on development charges in Ont.

Functionally, there are a few less bins, perhaps a few less cars, and perhaps a little less site activity.

With that noted, the development regulations (setbacks, max length) make 6 the functional max anyway. This just reflects that.

So, the 'right number of units per site' for the RS zone isn't any specific number. The question is really whether or not we are maintaining enough land supply for densification to avoid land price increases.

You could, for example, restrict Glenora, Crestwood, and Aspen Gardens to single detached homes and it wouldn't meaningfully affect affordability in Edmonton. The old ZB which restricted 85% of residential to single homes was too restrictive to maintain affordability.

That surplus means that potential developers have MANY landowners they can buy from. This prevents any price increase due to development rights (a driving cost factor in Ont & BC). My take it that Edmonton is maintaining this surplus regardless of the decision today.

Lots of discussion today in Edmonton City Council about the 'right number of units per lot'. Here is my take. There needs to be a huge surplus of potential sites for denser forms of development (towers, walks ups, row housing, etc).