Continued from page 31
police, and recreation, aren’t enough to service everybody. Not all infrastructure needs are purely a cost of taking up more land area. “If we add 20 per cent more people to the City of Edmonton, existing infrastructure and services, including schools, police, and recreation, aren’t enough to service everybody. Not all the infrastructure needs are purely a cost due to taking up more land area.” FINDING A BALANCE The challenge is driven by Edmonton’s explosive growth. The city’s population reached 1.2 million in 2025, growing 3.38 per cent year-over-year and 18.3 per cent over the past five years. The change is astounding, and things have moved much faster than anyone anticipated. That growth shouldn’t be framed as an either/or choice between infill and greenfield. What’s needed is a sensitive, responsible approach to both, taking into account the real drivers of demand. I think we need to keep growth as a positive, and not just growing by densifying the core, but growing and allowing people to live where they want to live. At the same time, we have to make growth responsible and affordable for the city for the next generations, so that new areas can be maintained and remain enjoyable to live in.
It’s important for the City of Edmonton to keep enabling infill through supportive policies and targeted infrastructure investment. But that shouldn’t mean limiting greenfield development. Both are necessary to provide the variety of housing options people are looking for. Some of the challenges are just a cost of growing. But if you’re not growing, you’re dying. ■ Alex Gray
BUILDING IN THE CORE I recently moderated a session at the Edmonton Real Estate Forum on exactly this topic, and one of the central issues was the momentum around densifying mature communities. Under Edmonton’s Zoning Bylaw, builders and developers now have far greater flexibility to deliver a range of housing types on sites that were previously limited to single-detached homes. Residents in these mature communities often fear that new infill developments will bring more traffic, extra garbage, or even make their streets less safe due to the added density. While it’s important to densify the core, there are meaningful challenges associated with it. I believe these changes have largely been positive, helping more people access housing in mature neighbourhoods and introducing a broader range of housing options for different incomes and lifestyles. But the transition can be challenging for existing residents. In some cases, a single detached home now sits beside a multi-unit building, which can feel like a significant shift in scale and intensity, changing not just the built form, but the lived experience of the neighbourhood.
There is an additional argument against infill: the core is not necessarily where demand lies. People aren’t moving to Edmonton with the dream of raising their family in an apartment or a condo downtown. They are drawn to the city in large part because of affordability and the ability to own a home. For many households, that means ground-oriented housing, single-family homes, duplexes, or townhouses. As much as we continue to invest in more urban forms, we need to recognize that this remains a core part of what attracts people to Edmonton. THE COST OF GROWTH The premise that greenfield development is too expensive is based on outdated data, and a new report challenges that assumption directly. In 2016, a city report said that taxpayers in other parts of Edmonton would have to pick up a $1.4 billion tab for the development of three new neighbourhoods over the next 50 years: Decoteau in the southeast, Riverview in the southwest, and Horse Hills in the northeast. But a new development report released in July last year by BILD Edmonton Metro challenges that assumption. The Urban Growth Case Study is a data-driven look at how urban expansion is impacting Edmonton’s economy, infrastructure, and communities. The report, which has not yet been verified by the city, shows that newer areas Windermere and Heritage Valley actually bring a positive contribution to the City’s funds. We think that the greenfield areas, now that they’re building out at higher densities, are actually incredibly efficient. The city’s target is 45 units per hectare, which is obviously far denser than what the more mature communities inside the Anthony Hendray ring road would be. The common argument that greenfield means more investment in public services is not always relevant, because population growth demands that investment regardless. If we add 20 per cent more people to the city of Edmonton, existing infrastructure and services, including schools,
realestateforums.com
realestateforums.com
Canadian Real Estate Forums / Spring 2026 32
Canadian Real Estate Forums / Spring 2026 33
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker