One Year In: What’s Happening With Edmonton’s New Zoning Bylaw?

It’s been a full year since Edmonton’s new Zoning Bylaw (Bylaw 20001) came into effect in October 2023 — and with that time has come experience, insight, and a wave of public feedback. After spending the past year talking to thousands of Edmontonians in every corner of the city, one thing has become abundantly clear: this bylaw change is having real, tangible effects on our communities — and not all of them are positive.

The new zoning rules were introduced with bold ambitions: to simplify the development process, encourage housing diversity, and respond to the city’s growing housing crisis. But in reality, it’s left many residents feeling sidelined, confused, and worried about the future of their neighbourhoods.

It’s the number one issue I hear about — more than roads, more than crime, more than affordability. Zoning has become the flashpoint for discussions about who we are as a city and who we want to be. And that’s a problem. Because when a single issue dominates the discourse, we risk electing leaders who campaign on narrow agendas and neglect the broader responsibilities of governance.

So, after one year of implementation, it’s time to ask: Has the new zoning bylaw helped or hurt Edmonton? And what should we do next?

The Promise vs. The Reality

Supporters of the new bylaw say it doesn’t go far enough — that it's still too restrictive, too incremental. They argue that in a housing crisis, we should be removing barriers, not maintaining them.

But here’s the truth: if the new bylaw isn’t helping solve the housing crisis and it’s causing damage to neighbourhood cohesion, character, and livability — then we need to ask: what is it actually achieving?

The bylaw promised clarity, predictability, and more housing options. But instead, many residents are experiencing confusion, frustration, and a deepening sense of being left out of the conversation. People wake up to find four-storey buildings going up beside their single-family homes — with little or no notice. Developers are pushing the limits of the new rules. And residents are wondering if their voices even matter.

This isn’t just a communications issue. It’s a structural problem — and we need to correct course before the damage becomes permanent.

The Core of the Problem: Small Residential (RS) Zoning

At the heart of many concerns is a specific zoning classification: Small Residential (RS). This zone was designed to encourage a mix of housing types, including single-detached, semi-detached, row housing, and low-rise apartments.

On paper, that sounds reasonable. But in practice, the RS zone is being applied in ways that simply don’t fit the existing fabric of many neighbourhoods. Instead of offering a balanced mix, it’s enabling sudden and dramatic changes in density — without community consultation or a proper transition.

The issue isn’t the RS zone itself. It’s the lack of a “step-down” option. Currently, there’s no buffer between traditional single-family homes and more intense developments like small apartments or stacked townhouses. This means developments can jump from a one-storey bungalow to a four-storey complex — literally overnight.

Without a middle-density category, the RS zone becomes a blank cheque for developers. And that’s not what residents signed up for when they bought their homes or invested in their communities.

www.jasonbale.ca

The Solution: Introducing Basic Residential (RB) Zoning

That’s why I’m proposing a new zoning category: Basic Residential (RB).

The RB zone would allow:

• Single-detached homes

• Semi-detached homes

• One secondary suite per lot (with clear minimum lot sizes to avoid overcrowding)

RB zoning would also include strict, easy-to-understand limits on building height, lot coverage, and setbacks — protecting the character of mature neighbourhoods and offering predictability for both residents and builders.

Importantly, I’m calling for all current RS properties to be reclassified as RB unless they meet the criteria for higher-density housing. Any proposal that doesn’t conform would need to go through a public hearing — restoring transparency and accountability to the process.

Yes, this might mean some developers would need to revise their plans or rebuild. But that’s a necessary price to pay to restore public trust, reduce litigation risks, and prevent irreversible harm to our neighbourhoods.

The Forgotten Zones: Industrial and Business Challenges

While most public attention has been focused on residential areas, the new zoning bylaw also made sweeping changes to industrial and commercial zones — and many of those changes are causing quiet chaos for local businesses.

Medium Industrial (IM)

The IM zone has placed overly burdensome requirements on many businesses. Some longtime operators suddenly found themselves out of compliance — unable to expand or even maintain existing operations without navigating a complex rezoning process.

Their only real escape? Rezone into Business Employment (BE) — but that brings its own issues.

Business Employment (BE)

BE zoning is overly broad, trying to cover an enormous range of uses from daycare centres and cafes to light manufacturing and service shops. As a result, it lacks the specificity needed to create predictable development outcomes or support economic growth.

We need to split the BE category into at least two distinct zones: one for small-scale industrial use (like trades, warehousing, or fabrication), and one for general service and commercial use. That would give businesses the clarity they need to grow — and give communities better control over how land is used.

Parking: Let’s Clear Up the Confusion

Much has been made about parking — and rightfully so.

Many residents are frustrated to see new multi-unit developments springing up with no off-street parking, leading to crowded roads, blocked driveways, and conflicts with long-time neighbours.

Let’s be clear: it was the previous Council that removed parking minimums under Bylaw 12800. But it was the current Council that reaffirmed that decision by adopting Bylaw 20001 — which also removed parking requirements.

Their rationale? They claimed it would incentivize the construction of more three-bedroom units and family housing. But so far, we haven’t seen any real uptick in such units — just smaller apartments and more congestion.

My proposal is simple: require one on-site parking stall per unit. If that proves insufficient, let’s revisit the rules. For example, we could consider requiring two stalls for every three-bedroom unit to better support families.

Good policy is based on outcomes — not ideology.

Should We Just Go Back to the Old Bylaw?

Some candidates are calling for a return to the old bylaw. I get the appeal. People are frustrated. They want something familiar. But the reality is, the old bylaw wasn’t perfect either.

It was longer (around 1,400 pages versus the current 1,100), more complicated, and still had its own problems — including missing parking requirements and outdated zoning language.

We don’t need to go backward. We need to move forward with smart, targeted fixes that reflect the needs of today’s Edmonton — not a version of the city from 20 years ago.

Other Bylaws That Need Fixing

Zoning is just one part of the development puzzle. Two other areas are contributing to public frustration and deserve urgent attention:

Public Notification Bylaw

Right now, developers only have to notify residents within 60 metres of a proposed development. In dense urban settings, that might mean just a handful of households are informed — even if dozens are affected.

We need to expand this notification radius and use modern tools — like digital alerts and community dashboards — to ensure people know what’s happening near their homes.

Permitting Process Transparency

The permitting process is opaque, slow, and inconsistent. I’m calling for the City to create a public Gantt chart of the development approval process — so Council, staff, and residents can clearly see where delays occur and how to address them.

Let’s bring the same accountability to bureaucracy that we expect from developers.

What Happens Next?

The June 3 Council meeting will be an important moment. But without meaningful amendments, real public consultation, and a willingness to admit past mistakes, I fear the changes we see will be purely cosmetic.

Edmonton doesn’t need more “pilot projects,” “working groups,” or trial-and-error experiments. We need leadership that understands the details, listens to the public, and isn’t afraid to take bold, corrective action.

I believe we can build a zoning framework that encourages gentle density, protects neighbourhood character, supports local businesses, and brings clarity back to city planning.

But that requires a Council that puts results before rhetoric — and takes responsibility for the policies it enacts.

Let’s Get This Right

The new zoning bylaw was a bold attempt to modernize Edmonton’s development framework. But bold doesn’t always mean better. One year in, it’s clear we need to correct course.

I’m not running on nostalgia or fear. I’m running on the belief that good governance is possible — and that Edmonton deserves better than rushed decisions and top-down planning.

We can fix this. We can restore trust. And we can build a city that works for everyone — one thoughtful bylaw at a time.

If you want to be part of that vision, reach out. Let’s work together to shape the future of Edmonton — with clarity, compassion, and common sense.