But at the very least, most people don't believe the above are literally destroying their neighbourhoods. If so, I think people would have taken the time to vote against this council if their neighbourhood was literally being destroyed.

Thinking more about it, the rhetoric was literally "this council is *destroying* your neighbourhoods via bike lanes, infill, safety, etc".

There are so many takes that are like "it was anti parties or anti UCP no turnout, ergo no mandate"

Taking the worst parts of Alberta fixed term tenancy without the supply to give tenants more leverage.

Imagine if the anti-infill candidates won with 30% turnout. The story would be about how they had such a huge mandate to stop the destruction of the city.

Then there are probably many other reasons.

Also the most prominent opponent party, better Edmonton had Tim Cartmell as leader who seemed intent to self sabotage his own campaign like missing the downzoning vote in July, which split his base, and also saying things like "I am not corrupt" on TV.

A few factors top of mind. There's an incumbent advantage, especially for first time councillors. Based on what I hear and the initial rezoning vote, 11-2, there were more pro-housing incumbents than Calgary.

If I'm reading correctly, there's no limit on number of units allowed beyond what's in building code?