We should learn from Edmonton’s infill errors

Few issues in Canadian cities have resulted in as much debate as infill.

The housing crisis, a middle class increasingly shut out of home ownership and those upset by infills each contribute to the growing disagreements, and anger, around density.

There is perhaps no better example of this than in Edmonton, where updated zoning led to a large increase of infill multiplexes in historically single-family neighbourhoods. The anger surrounding the new builds reached such levels of frustration that multiple highly organized groups formed to protest the developments.

Ultimately, they proved successful in convincing the province to intervene and force the city to roll back its zoning laws.

As Brent Bellamy rightly argued (New council, new opportunities for Winnipeg, Nov. 2), the city of Winnipeg needs to densify. He also astutely noted that this process will be mired down by intense arguments between citizens.

As someone who lived in Edmonton, now calls Winnipeg home and had to confront my own skepticism on infill, I believe there are several lessons we can learn from the Edmonton saga. Cracking down on problem builders, having better communication about the true benefits of infill and pushing aggressively for non-market housing solutions are each key strategies to ensure broader public support and trust in density.

In 2023, Edmonton changed its zoning laws to allow for higher-density multiplex buildings, allowing eight-dwelling units on one lot. This contributed to a record high number of new purpose-built rentals, a welcome result for those in need of homes in certain areas.

But during construction, Edmonton also saw builders not complying with safety regulations, homes next door being damaged and new units turned into short-term rentals. Impeded by the provincial government, Edmonton had little recourse to address these issues, creating a perfect opportunity for all those against to mobilize.

To avoid this, the City of Winnipeg must ensure it has the resources and provincial partnerships necessary to address problem builders with meaningful consequences and expediency. It must also be clear about why it is building infill, showing how it benefits more than just the developers.

A common argument from those opposed to infill is that the housing is expensive, therefore the city is being misleading in its justifications for it. In Winnipeg, we have already seen this become a talking point from those questioning infill because the housing “isn’t even affordable.”

They are right. In many cases what is being built is not affordable. But this doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be built. This criticism confuses two different goals: accommodating more people within the city and ensuring that everyone has access to housing. The city needs to engage in better ways of explaining that infill is not simply about building cheaper housing, but increasing the number of homes so more people can live in the core.

The infills may assist in stabilizing rent, increase tax revenue, lessen environmental impacts and reduce urban sprawl. Failure to effectively communicate this will result in ongoing skepticism. However, simply building more will also not be sufficient to meet the needs of our most vulnerable.

In Edmonton, despite the influx of rentals, one-quarter of Edmontonians still struggle to find housing they can afford. Similarly in Vancouver, vacancy rates remain concentrated at the highest end of the market. If Winnipeg is going to meaningfully tackle the housing crisis, we must recognize that building more houses cannot be the only strategy. The city will need to engage in non-market housing, anti-renoviction laws and short-term-rental deterrents.

Luckily Winnipeg, unlike Edmonton, has a provincial government that is more likely to support it in each of these endeavours. Addressing the housing crisis by equally focusing on our most vulnerable will help ease skepticism that infill is simply a scheme for developer enrichment.

If Winnipeg is to be successful while it grows as a city, it needs to prepare for the inevitable backlash that comes with large infill development. There will be people who always oppose change in any way, but there are also ways to build broader trust with a leery public that has been harmed by the role of developers and the financialization of housing in Canada.

Edmonton’s example shows that changing the zoning will not be sufficient on its own. Maintaining public support will require holding builders accountable, being transparent about what infill can actually accomplish, and ensuring that we continue to aggressively look at non-market options to help those who need them.

I know how difficult it can be to change somebody’s mind about infill. After all, I am a recovering NIMBY myself.

Andrea DeKeseredy is a PhD candidate at the University of Alberta and a lecturer in criminal justice at the University of Winnipeg.