Edmonton (Alta. ) - 1985 - Central district survey of residents (1985 05) by Edmonton Tower Resource Centre Online Library

SD LIBRARY

7370

5737

Central district survey o Edmonton. Planning a

Central District Survey of Residents 1. Telephone Survey Basic Results 2. Neighbourhood Cluster Profiles and Survey Results May 1985

Planning Department

LIBRARY The City of Edmonton

1120.1a .E3 :2C3 1985

)nton

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

1.11111

,(114 .44:'

) )

PREFACE During the month of January, 1985, 292 residents of Central Edmonton participated in a city-wide telephone survey conducted by the Planning Department. The purpose of the survey was to find out public opinion and feelings on major issues and concerns affecting neighbourhoods in Central Edmonton, as well as to help City Council and the Administration decide how to spend your tax dollars. This report is divided into two sections. Section one describes basic and selected survey results. Section two provides background information and survey analysis on five groupings or clusters of residential neighbourhoods. Survey Reliability and Level of Accuracy The survey sample was designed to provide reliable results from residents of nineteen older inner city neighbourhoods. Responses to most questions are within 5% of the responses that would have been obtained if individuals from all the households had been surveyed.

Neighbourhood Clusters and Completed Surveys

Neighbourhood Cluster

Owner Renter Total

I. Central River Valley - Riverdale, Rossdale

2. Downtown Core - Oliver, Downtown, CN Lands, Boyle Street

3. Downtown Periphery - Prince Rupert, Queen Mary Park, Central McDougall, McCauley

20 43 63

4. Central West - Westwood, Spruce Avenue, Delton, Alberta Avenue (includes Norwood) 39 5. Central East - Eastwood, Elmwood Park, Parkdale, Northlands, Virginia Park, Cromdale

A total of 143 males (49%) and 149 females (51%) completed the Central District telephone survey.

180 292

For further information on the Survey Results Contact Stefan Fekner (428-8423), Central District Planning Team.

Department

LIBRARY The City of

29 33 62 112

Planning

Edmonton

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

PAGE

Preface Table of Contents List of Tables and Maps in Section Two Section Two - Neighbourhood Cluster Profiles and Survey Results

Section One - Basic Survey Results I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. 13. 14.

Housing and Population Profile of Respondents Spending on City Services Major Decisions Downtown Revitalization Transit Transportation Crime Community Development Neighbourhood Appearance Urgent Neighbourhood Issues/Problems Shopping Patterns: Identification of Area Where Largest Non Food Dollar Purchases are Made Planning and Development School Closures Child Care for the Household

2 3 5 7 9 II 13 15 17 19 20 21 23 25

Introduction I. Central River Valley Neighbourhood Cluster Profile • • Issues and Comments

27 29 33

36 40

Downtown Core Neighbourhood Cluster Profile Issues and Comments — • • • • • • • ....... •

•

Downtown Periphery Neighbourhood Cluster Profile • • Issues and Comments

44 48

Central West Neighbourhood Cluster Profile Issues and Comments

52 56

Central East Neighbourhood Cluster Profile Issues and Comments -

59 6;3

LIST OF TABLES AND MAPS IN SECTION TWO PAGE TABLES Central River Volley Population and Housing I. Housing Types by Dwelling Units 2. Land Use 3. Support for Various Types of 4. Residential Development Neighbourhood Appearance 5. Downtown Core 6. Population and Housing Housing Types by Dwelling Units 7. 8. Land Use Support for Various Types of 9. Residential Development 10. Neighbourhood Appearance Downtown Periphery II. Population and Housing 12. Housing Types by Dwelling Units 13. Land Use 14. Support for Various Types of Residential Development 15. Neighbourhood Appearance Central West 16. Population and Housing 17. Housing Types by Dwelling Units 18. Land Use 19. Support for Various Types of Residential Development 20. Neighbourhood Appearance Central East 21. Population and Housing 22. Housing Types by Dwelling Units 23. Land Use 24. Support for Various Types of Residential Development 25. Neighbourhood Appearance

PAGE MAPS I.

30 30 30 34 35

37 37 37 42 43

45 45 45 50 51

53 53 53 57 58

60 60 60 65 66

Central District Neighbourhood Clusters and Neighbourhoods

I, 28

Central River Valley 2. Generalized Existing Land Use 3. Local Issues Identification

31 32

Downtown Core 4. Generalized Existing Land Use 5. Local Issues Identification

38 39

Downtown Periphery 6. Generalized Existing Land Use 7. Local Issues Identification

46 47

Central West 8. Generalized Existing Land Use 9. Local Issues Identification

54 55

Central East 10. Generalized Existing Land Use II. Local Issues Identification

61 62

SECTION ONE TELEPHONE SURVEY BASIC RESULTS

MAP 1

CENTRAL DISTRICT NEIGHBOURHOOD CLUSTERS AND NEIGHBOURHOODS -_iia--",........,•"

• it NAIWN d L

.4-""`t.'"W.U-Wa."11NArnAN

.ID iip,c1,-;,,9v,o,. 1I [ii

Ri 41_11 14 11 Nli Ifitik„q B. _ILI

LEGEND Central District Boundary

Neighbourhood Cluster Boundary

PAUNICI L AIRPO

Neighbourhood Boundary

11 11 1' il 'L .t.ii 11 1

1flii 1 !I

11 11 1 _iL_II 11.1 [11_1( 1l. 1111 1 11.(H .11_11_11 11 .1,,,1j tiric I 116E.- NiiI- AL WEST Ii _II 11 A .T_t[01 9D 1,., i 2111.11 1, rilIL 110_ . _11_11 1 L ' JUL11 11 1 -11111 WST WOOb[J 11114

,Til j

It AT '1A- Oiti* :I CENTRAL 'EAST • • " ,_,,,,ft.,... 1(111111 1111,.L1 11 Ii ,• !=v.N.RIL)i.\tA!_11 1! . . 17 _ i _ 11.11.1(11 iiJLILLLU !I 11 il)4, 11 1 1 _NOri trILAI\!DS spilt,),,AvENu if \,.

111 r p p ii

4 _H k ii -1.1 IA '11 1 il_il

1,1 1— if

' I._ —' 1i f -=.1;

. nolti.rN I.; 11 k I CROMD LE VIRGINIA 0-Af Ik .,, • """i

' r"‘ ".' - -

__I —Li_ 11-1, 4*„

RIVER VALLEY (KINNAIRD)

PERIPHERY_ __ _ DOWNTOWN \vo, ,k- _ McSAlJLE.Y _ L i II . 1 1

,__ JLL __

,.,, ()LII.T11/ McDOUGALL 11 i ."-\\: .:11 I .

_I 1-1-

1 LiLl4pric-ill I

!I- till

1— i 1 1 I1 k — Ili_

c'oF4E'' it_pLopm-owN L

JI CENTRAL RIVER VALLEY (VICTORIA)

11 \I-

[11

144 4,

: , - S\ '‘CV 1 -19.1

0111 11=1

rt,

VALLEY

‘1,1iL:VIDALE

SASKATCHtivA

Housing and Population Profile of Respondents (percentages in brackets)

Housing TYPE

NUMBER OF PEOPLE 0_4

NUMBER

Single Detached Semi Detached/Duplex Row Housing/Town Housing Walk-up Apartment High Rise Apartment Suite in a House Other Missing Values

123 17 2 75 57 3 15 0

(42) (6) (1) (26) (19) (1) (5) (0)

TOTAL

292

(100)

5-12

AGE GROUPS 13- I 9 20-39

40-64

65+

One

20 (83)

19 (68)

27 (66)

82 (54)

61 (59)

41 (67)

Two

4 (17)

7 (25)

12 (29)

67 (44)

39 (38)

20 (33)

Three

0 (0)

2 (7)

2 (5)

3 (2)

1 (1)

0 (0)

Four

0 (0)

1 (0)

2 (2)

0 (0)

153

103

(100)

TOTAL 24 HOUSEHOLDS (100)

Housing Tenure (Own/Rent): CATEGORY

Number of People in Households by Age Groups:

NUMBER

Owner Renter Other Missing Values

113 177 2 0

(39) (60) (1) (0)

TOTAL

292

(100)

-2-

Age of the Respondents is:

AGE GROUPS

NUMBER

No Response 13-19 20-39 40-64 65+ Missing Values

0 50 128 63 51 0

(0) (17) (44) (22) (17) (0)

TOTAL

292

(100)

Spending_on City Services (percentages in brackets)

SERVICE

INCREASE

MAINTAIN

DECREASE

NO OPINION

OTHER

NO RESPONSE

Transit

(28)

176

(60)

(7)

(5)

(0)

Fire Protection

(27)

190

(65)

(2)

(6)

(0)

Garbage Collection

(13)

234

(80)

(3)

(I)

(0)

Provision of Parks

117

(40)

154

(53)

(4)

(3)

(0)

Police Protection

118

(40)

165

(56)

(I)

(1)

Social Services

106

(36)

125

(43)

(3)

(17)

(I)

(0)

Road Maintenance

149

(51)

128

(44)

(4)

(1)

(0)

Road Construction

(13)

165

(57)

(22)

(7)

(I)

(0)

144

(49)

138

(47)

(3)

(1)

(0)

Library Services

(17)

211

(72)

(3)

(8)

(0)

Bylaw Enforcement

(21)

164

(56)

(16)

(6)

(1)

(0)

(16)

244

(84)

978

(28)

(53)

201

(6)

172

(5)

(1)

245

(7)

Snow Removal

Other Comments

GENERAL TRENDS

1,850

-3-

TOTAL 3,503 (100)

Other Comments: Spending on City Services â&#x20AC;˘

do not provide tax concessions to businesses, i.e., Fantasyland (16)

increases money spent of enhancing and maintaining an attractive urban environment with special emphasis on the Downtown

do not raise service fares, utility rates or municipal taxes until the local economy improves (11)

Summary: Spending on City Services

City programs should increase employment (5)

Fifty-three percent of Central Edmonton residents wanted to see spending levels maintained. The percentage of residents who wanted to see actual decreases in spending was very much lower than those wanting increases (6% versus 28%).

Police should put more emphasis on serious crimes, crime prevention and citizen education rather than on minor violations, i.e., costly parking tickets (5)

Largest increases in spending included road maintenance (51%), snow removal (49%), provision of parks (40%) and police protection (40%). Largest decrease in spending included road construction (22%) and bylaw enforcement (16%).

engineering and utility field projects need better scheduling, co-ordination and supervision (4) decision making should avoid costly delays and involve a better informed public (3)

The overall message was "hold the line on taxes, but if not, limit taxes to maintain current service levels." It appears, therefore, that the recent budgetary actions of Council in allowing for a minor tax increase in 1985 of 1.5% and 5% for 1985, reflects the opinion of most Central residents.

people should be able to barter personal services as part payment of municipal taxes (3) City Bylaws to control the keeping of animals and animal droppings to avoid sanitation problems (2) general public should be more responsible for maintenance of sidewalks and private property (2) police - reduce police force to one-man vehicles; increase foot patrols; equip police with 10-speed bicycles more mobile libraries DATS (transit) service is not operated economically provide more counselling for new Canadians and the unemployed do away with executive committee of Council

-4-

Major Decisions (percentages in brackets)

DECISION TO

ii)

iii)

iv)

vi)

NO RESPONSE

YES

YES CONDITIONAL

NO OPINION

Remove the Downtown CN and CP railway tracks (except for VIA and LRT).

(2)

129

(44)

(10)

(29)

(15)

Build housing on the Downtown railway lands if the railway tracks are removed.

(0)

128

(44)

(II)

(33)

(12)

improve Downtown streets and sidewalks for pedestrians, i.e., Jasper Avenue, Rice Howard Way, and enclose some streets for pedestrian malls.

(0)

188

(64)

(12)

(21)

(3)

Complete the River Valley bicycle and hiking trails within Riverdale, Rossdale and west of the Walterdale Bridge.

(0)

225

(77)

(6)

(8)

(9)

Move the Edmonton Municipal Airport and redevelop the land.

(1)

117

(40)

(9)

123

(42)

(8)

Build new housing in the River Valley communities, i.e., Rossdale, Cloverdale.

108

(37)

(10)

132

(45)

(8)

(0)

-5-.

Summary: Major Decisions Residents were put in the shoes of aldermen making major decisions. Six major decisions affecting the Central District were put forward. Greatest support came for completion of the River Valley (Capital City Recreation Parks) bicycle/hiking trails (83% yes) within Riverdale, Rossdale and west of the Walterdale Bridge (below Oliver). Seventy-eight percent of residents surveyed supported Downtown street/sidewalk improvements although a smaller percentage (62%) would support increased expenditures for such improvements in order to revitalize the Downtown. More than half the respondents favoured removal of the Downtown railway tracks (54%) and development of major housing on them (55%). Conditional yes responses (10-11%) typically dealt with the question of who would bear the cost of removing the tracks, future LRT alignments and permitting other non-residential land uses, i.e., commercial, institutional and parking uses. Although new housing in the River Valley communities, such as Rossdale, received strong support, a high percentage (45%) qualified their support in terms of providing open space and recreation linkages as well as the type and density of new housing to be developed. According to the small sample of River Valley residents surveyed, present housing mix was satisfactory (100%) and there was strong opposition (90%) to development of apartment housing. A decision to move and redevelop the Municipal Airport was narrowly supported (49% versus 42%).

-6-

Downtown Revitalization (percentages in brackets)

YES YES NO RESPONSE VERY MUCH GENERALLY

Do you agree with the City helping private business and other groups to improve the Downtown core?

(0)

151

(52)

(31)

NO OPINION

(13)

(4)

Suggested Improvements to the Downtown

INCREASE

MAINTAIN

DECREASE

NO OPINION

OTHER

MISSING VALUE

number and variety of retail stores

137

(47)

134

(46)

(4)

(3)

(0)

ii)

new housing in and adjacent to the Downtown

143

(49)

(34)

(15)

(2)

(0)

improved sidewalks, i.e., tree planting, special brick sidewalks, overhead/underground walkways.

181

(62)

(28)

(9)

(I)

(0)

special attractions, i.e., covered pedestrian malls, new Farmer's Market, Concert Hall.

214

(73)

(20)

(5)

(2)

(0)

parking at reasonable cost.

206

(70)

(22)

(3)

(5)

(0)

vi)

public transportation, i.e., Downtown shuttle bus, subsidized bus or LRT.

135

(46)

121

(41)

(7)

(6)

(0)

security and public safety, i.e., police foot patrols, better street/parking lot lighting.

160

(55)

112

(38)

(3)

(4)

(0)

iii)

iv)

vii)

viii)

other (please specify)

(7)

(I)

(0)

;80

(61)

(30)

(1)

ix)

other (please specify)

(0)

255

(88)

(11)

(1)

-7..

Comments: Downtown Revitalization •

Parking - provide free parking (28); better maintenance and regulation of parking lots (5); reduce parking prices 93); better promotion of sufficient, existing parking (2); more parkades, better signage

Transportation - extend LRT to Oliver; develop a rapid train from Calgary to Edmonton's core; improve traffic flow (3); retain buses on Jasper Avenue preserve heritage resources, i.e., Alberta Hotel (4)

provide heated bus shelters (18) •

extend store hours and increase activities after 6 p.m. (17); develop and promote night life, cultural and live entertainment, festivals and celebrations, tourist attractions, pedestrian activities (13)

western portion of the Downtown needs a strong retail focus, perhaps on the CP railway lands (2)

Summary: Downtown Revitalization

Downtown needs a supermarket (6)

There was very strong support (83%) for Downtown revitalization, although only 36% of residents surveyed shopped Downtown.

Housing - encourage family-oriented housing and supporting public facilities (5); convert warehouse area for housing (2); renovate old buildings for interesting housing

Suggested improvements, in order of highest to lowest preference were: Increase

Business - greater variety of inexpensive and specialty shops (4); develop themes for individual streets, i.e., Bourbon Street (3); more prominent business signs; improve quality of architecture; refurbish many store fronts, including more awnings over individual shops; business should pay a larger share of public (street) improvements

• • •

Public Spaces - upgrade maintenance and cleanliness of streets and public spaces (3); better use of parks (3); improve winter street lighting and Christmas decorations (3); merchants should be more responsible for cleaning up sidewalks (2); extend underground pedways to major buildings and to the McKay Avenue and River Valley residential communities (4) Public Safety - more police foot patrols; a Neighbourhood Watch Program; control prostitution by designating a red light district; police kiosks on pedestrian malls, i.e., RiceHoward Way

-8-

special attractions parking at a reasonable cost improved sidewalk/pedestrian environments security and public safety new housing number and variety or retail stores public transportation

73% 70% 62% 55% 49% 47% 46%

Transit (percentages in brackets)

Frequency of travel by bus or LRT.

Not at all Less than four times per week More than four times per week Missing Values

101 100 87 4

(35) (34) (30) (1)

TOTAL

292

(100)

For those who use transit "Less than four times per week" or "Not at all", the reasons are: Don't know why, 1 just don't Takes too long by bus Service not frequent enough I take my car Fares too expensive Other - Descriptive response - Major events only - Doesn't serve destination - Too many transfers

20 28 9 115 11 37 3 3 1

(9) (12) (4) (51) (5) (16) (1) (1) (I)

TOTAL

227

(100)

For those who use transit "More than four times per week", the satisfaction level with the service in their area is: Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

53 18 8 5

(61) (21) (9) (6)

TOTAL

(100)

2 6 46 70 54 II 78 23

(1) (2) (16) (24) (18) (4) (27) (8)

292

(100)

Length of time willing to wait for a transfer: No response 0-3 minutes 4-6 minutes 7-10 minutes 11+ minutes Transfer not applicable No opinion Missing values TOTAL

-9-.

Comments: Transit •

increase service over the winter; on winter weekends; between 6 and 6:30 a.m., during the evenings

•

LRT needs more cars during the rush hour

•

improve transit scheduling; allow bus drivers more input into route selection/changes

•

express buses should stop at all regular stops during non-rush hours

•

reduce bus fares to 50 cents (2)

•

decrease bus service in the suburbs specific routes/buses - provide bus service for 73 Street/ 112 Avenue; more frequent service between the Downtown and Kingsway Garden Mall; improve bus service to Storyland Valley Zoo during the summer; /13 bus should have more frequent service (3); #2 bus is missed; #6 bus is rather slow on Saturday; # I I bus on I 11 Avenue should provide more frequent service

Summary: Transit Most (70%) Central residents who were surveyed were not regular transit riders. However, 82% of those surveyed who use transit regularly were satisfied with services. The most frequently mentioned reason for not using transit (51%) was the use of a car rather than other factors such as length of time (12%), expensive fares (5%), service frequency (4%) or others. Survey respondents seemed to be more concerned about bus scheduling and routes rather than the length of time they were willing to wait for a transfer. This probably is due to familiarity with transit service provided. The largest percentage of people nevertheless, were prepared to wait 7-10 minutes (24%) and over I I minutes (18%) for a transfer - with the exception of some over the winter months. - I 0-

Survey respondents to the question on Downtown revitalization frequently mentioned (18) heated bus shelters as a suggested improvement.

Transportation (percentages in brackets)

Identification of traffic problems on respondents' local street:

TYPE OF PROBLEM

YES

Traffic Shortcutting Too Much Traffic Ignore Stop/Yield Signs On-Street Parking Other

LOCATION

46 (16) 69 (24) 32 (11) 68 (23) 58 (20)

NO OPINION

138 (47) 126 (43) 145 (50) 115 (40) 87 (30)

103 94 III 105 143

MISSING VALUES 5 (2) 3 (I) 4 (1) 4 (1) 4 (1)

(35) (32) (38) (36) (49)

HIGH MEDIUM LOW NO NO NO MISSING PRIORITY PRIORITY PRIORITY PRIORITY OPINION RESPONSE VALUES TOTAL

Ring Road

(32)

(25) 40

(14)

(16)

(12)

(0)

(I) 292

(100)

Truck Route Between Downtown and the Yellowhead Trail

(16)

(22) 71

(24)

(22)

(15)

(0)

(I) 292

(i00)

Improve Dawson Bridge and the roads leading to it

(18)

(19) 66

(23)

(21)

(18)

(0)

(1) 292

(100)

New Roads over Downtown CN Lands 71

(24) 104

(36) 44

(15)

(11)

(13)

(0)

(1) 292

(100)

Improve East-West Traffic to Bypass the Downtown

(21)

(27) 84

(29)

(12)

(10)

(0)

(I) 292

(100)

Improve North-South Traffic into the Downtown

(18)

(34) 82

(28)

(8)

(11)

(0)

(1) 292

(100)

Other Improvements (Street/Avenue) 37

(13)

(1)

(4)

225

(77)

(1)

(I) 292

(100)

(3)

- 1 1-

Comments: Local Traffic and Transportation There were 58 specific comments on local traffic. They range from enforcement items, i.e., speeding, stunting to operational, i.e., pedestrian crossings, truck routes, signalization and capital/maintenance items, i.e., berm construction, sanding, accident clean up, road repair, new bridges. Most of these items are identified on maps, in Section Two of this Report, which depict local concerns and issues by residential neighbourhood clusters. Summary: Local Traffic and Transportation About a fifth of the residents surveyed expressed some concern with local traffic issues. Primary concerns were too much traffic (24%), on-street parking (23%), traffic shortcutting (16%), traffic ignoring stop/yield signs (1 1%) and other items (20%). Residents were asked their views on potential major transportation improvements in the Central District. I.

Outer Ring Road - There is general support (57% for high to medium priority) for the construction of an outer ring road to help divert traffic around the City.

New Roads over the Downtown CN Lands - Strongest support (60% for high to medium priority) has come for new roads to cross the Downtown CN lands, especially if the lands were to be redeveloped.

Improve North-South Traffic into the Downtown - There was moderate support (52% for high to medium priority) for such improvements although 36% of the respondents gave it a low to no priority rating.

Improve East-West Traffic to Bypass the Downtown - There was modest support (48% for high to medium priority for such improvements while 41% of the respondents gave it a low to no priority rating

-12-

Improve Dawson Bridge and the Roads Leading to It - These improvements were not supported generally with 44% of the respondents giving it a low to no priority as opposed to 37% who gave it a high to medium priority.

New Truck Route(s) between the Downtown and the Yellowhead Trail - Again these improvements were not supported generally with 46% of the respondents giving it a low to no priority as opposed to 38% who gave it a high to medium priority.

Crime (percentages in brackets)

Are you concerned about crime in your neighbourhood? CATEGORY

What type of crime is of greatest concern to you in your area?

NUMBER CATEGORY

Yes No Missing Values No Opinion

90 102 1 99

(31) (35) (0) (34)

TOTAL

292

(100)

Do you consider the amount of crime in your neighbourhood to be: CATEGORY

NUMBER

No Response High Medium Low None At All No Opinion Missing Values

0 114 113 61 2 2 0

(0) (39) (38) (21) (1) (I) (0)

TOTAL

292

(100)

-13-

NUMBER

Theft, Break-1n Vandalism/Damage Sex-Related Crimes Assault Other

118 59 23 24 15

(49) (25) (10) (10) (6)

TOTAL

239

(100)

Comments: Crime .

put more emphasis on crime prevention and community controls (4)

discourage transients and bums from living and sleeping in lanes and parks near residential areas (3)

other crimes of concern - drunken drivers, robberies (2), purse snatching (2)

local smaller police stations in residential and high crime areas (2)

more police foot patrols (2)

Summary: Crime Almost a third (31%) of residents surveyed indicated they were concerned about crime in their neighbourhood. Only about 7% however, identified crime as an 'urgent' neighbourhood issue. Theft and break-ins was the type of rime of greatest concern followed by vandalism (25%), assault and sex-related crimes (10%). Several respondents noted a decline in the incidence of crime in their neighbourhood, especially in break-ins, in recent years.

-14-

Community Development (percentages in brackets)

Neighbourhood Rating (Satisfaction)

c. NUMBER

CATEGORY

Neighbourhood Sense of Community (Community Spirit):

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

60 150 69 12 I

(21) (51) (24) (4) (0)

TOTAL

292

(100)

CATEGORY

Community League Importance to Respondents and their Involvement:

COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTE LEAGUE CONTRIBUTE MONEY/FUND CATEGORY IMPORTANT TIME RAISING No Response Yes No No Opinion Missing Values

0 90 182 20 0

TOTAL

292 (100)

(0) (31) (62) (7) (0)

0 140 118 34 0

(0) (48) (40) (12) (0)

0 145 113 34 0

(0) (50) (39) (II) (0)

292 (100) 292 (100)

-15-

NUMBER

No Response Definitely Sense of Community Probably Sense of Community Everyone Goes Own Way Definitely Goes Own Way No Opinion Missing Values

0 47 67 103 61 14 0

(0) (16) (23) (35) (21) (5) (0)

TOTAL

292

(100)

Summary: Community Development I.

Neighbourhood Rating - Seventy-two percent of residents surveyed rated their neighbourhood as good or excellent places to live. A further 24% of residents rated their neighbourhood as fair while only 4% of residents rates their neighbourhood as poor.

Community Spirit - Thirty-nine percent of survey respondents feel that their neighbourhood has some sense of community. Lack of a sense of community is typically found in apartment housing areas and where there are high rates of mobility (change of residence). Less than a third of the District's population, for example, has lived in the same residence for five or more years. Lifestyle (i.e., family versus non-family, marital status) and age (i.e., too old to participate in some community events) may also influence a neighbourhood's sense of community.

Community Leagues - Thirty-one percent of residents surveyed considered their community league to be important. Community leagues are more important generally, to households with children and to people living in housing other than apartment units. Similarly, a number of senior citizens indicated that they no longer participated in the community league since their children had grown up. Several respondents, living in apartment units, identified the need for some type of separate organization to represent apartment dwellers (other than the present community league structure).

Self-Help Program for Parks - About half of the residents we surveyed indicated that they would be willing to donate labour or money, or participate in fund-raising events for the purpose of developing or maintaining the neighbourhood parks.

- 16-

Neighbourhood Appearance (percentages in brackets) The next list of things describes how your neighbourhood looks. Are you satisfied with:

CATEGORY

NO RESPONSE

VERY SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED

VERY DISSATISFIED

NO OPINION

MISSING VALUES

TOTAL

Housing Mix

(0)

(20)

144

(49)

(13)

(7)

(II)

(0)

292

(100)

Location of Public Housing

(0)

(12)

102

(35)

(5)

(4)

129

(44)

(0)

292

(100)

Roadway Design

(0)

(20)

158

(54)

(15)

(6)

(5)

(0)

292

(100)

Location of Schools/ Parks/Public Facilities

(0)

114

(39)

135

(46)

(6)

(3)

(6)

(0)

292

(100)

Tree Planting and Boulevards

(0)

158

(54)

(32)

(8)

(2)

(4)

(0)

292

(100)

Back Lane Lighting/Paving

(0)

135

(46)

(26)

(14)

(10)

(4)

(0)

292

(100)

Other Features

(0)

(2)

260

(89)

(3)

292

(100)

-17-

Comments: Satisfaction with Neighbourhood Appearance There were a considerable number of comments on this subject. In Section Two of this Report, most of these comments are identified on maps, by neighbourhood cluster. Accompanying each map, as well, there is a table which describes residents satisfaction with neighbourhood appearance for each neighbourhood cluster. Summary: Satisfaction with Neighbourhood Appearance We were interested in finding out how satisfied people are with the design or physical appearance of their neighbourhoods. As the accompanying results show, the majority of residents are quite satisfied with the physical appearance of their neighbourhood. A high percentage of residents (44%) had no opinion on the location of public housing. Among some of the more frequent comments are the lack of back lane lighting (30) and paving (17); older homes typically owned by absentee landlords are not maintaining their properties properly (12); better screening is required for the Fort Road and Yellowhead Trail industrial areas (10); and many of the Avenues lack proper sidewalks, trees or boulevards (6). Design Elements

Very Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Housing Mix

20%

49%

Location for Public Housing

12%

35%

Roadway Design

20%

54%

Location of Schools, Parks Public Facilities

39%

46%

Tree Plantings, Boulevards

54%

32%

Back Lane Paving/Lighting

46%

25%

-18-

10. Urgent Neighbourhood Issues/Problems (percentages in brackets)

In your neighbourhood, do you think there are any urgent issues or problems? YES 60

(21)

NO OPINION

NO 215

(74)

(5)

MISSING VALUES 1

(0)

292

The urgent problems or issues were identified/classified to be:

ISSUE/PROBLEM Traffic Crime Basement Flooding No Community Feeling Run Down Appearance Bussing Students Out of the Neighbourhood Poorly Maintained Vacant Lots Other

10 22 1 1 6 0 1 27

(15) (33) (1) (1) (9) (0) (I) (40)

TOTAL

(100)

-19-

TOTAL (100)

I I.

Shopping Patterns: Identification of Area Where Largest Non Food Dollar Purchases are Made (percentages in brackets) LOCATION

NUMBER

Downtown Southgate Mall Whyte Avenue/Old Strathcona West Edmonton Mall Bonnie Doon No Particular Area I don't know Other (Specify) Westmount Mall Londonderry Mall Northtown Mall Northwood-Northgate Malls Beverly Strip (118 Avenue from 34 - 50 Streets) 97 Street from 127 - 137 Avenues 124 Street/118 Avenue Strip Capilano Mall Kingsway Garden Mall Jasper Avenue in Oliver Outside the City Missing Values

106 3 1 9 5 4 I 1 4 20 3 14 2 5 2 I 96 8 5 2

TOTAL

292 (100.0)

(36.3) (1.0) (.3) (3.1) (1.7) (1.4) (.3) (.3) (1.4) (6.8) (1.0) (4.8) (.7) (1.7) (.7) (.3) (32.9) (2.7) (1.7) (.7)

12.

Planning and Development (percentages in brackets)

Assessment of Resident Support for Changes to Homes in their Neighbourhood:

Support for Various Types of Residential Redevelopment: HIGH WALKTHREE/ RISE UP FOUR APART- APARTMENTS MENTS DUPLEXES PLEXES

NO MISSING OPINION VALUES TOTAL

CATEGORY

YES

Small Offices in the Home

160 (55)

90 (31)

42 (14)

0 (0)

292 (100)

Addition to Home

210 (72)

50 (17)

31 (11)

1 (0)

292 (100)

Basement Suites

142 (48)

122 (42)

28 (10)

0 (0)

292 (100)

No Response (0)

(0)

Yes

78 (27)

124 (43)

184 (63)

117 (40)

105 (36)

187 (64)

145 (50)

83 (28)

141 (49)

161 (55)

Yes - Conditions

9 (3)

10 (3)

16 (6)

18 (6)

17 (6)

No Opinion

18 (6)

13 (4)

8 (3)

15 (5)

9 (3)

(0)

292 (100)

Assessment of Residents' Feeling on Whether They Have Influence in Local Planning and Development Decisions: NO MISSING OPINION VALUES TOTAL

CATEGORY

YES

Feel Have Influence

38 (13)

203 (70)

51 (17)

0 (0)

292 (100)

Want More Influence

106 (36)

128 (44)

58 (20)

0 (0)

292 (100)

Support Community 181 League Involvement (62)

36 (12)

74 (26)

1 (0)

292 (100)

ROW/ TOWN HOUSES

Missing Values

TOTAL

-21-

Summary: Planning and Development Only 13% of the residents surveyed felt that they had influence on planning and development decisions in their neighbourhood, yet 36% wanted to have more influence. Furthermore, 62% wanted their Community league to be involved in local planning and development decision. I.

Changes to Homes - Residents were asked if they would support various changes to homes in their neighbourhood. Strongest support came for new additions (72%), followed by small offices in the home (55%) and basement suites (48%).

Residential Redevelopment - If there was to be some type of residential redevelopment in the neighbourhood in the next five years, preferred housing types were as follows: Housing Type Duplex Three/Four Plexes Walk-Up Apartment Row/Town Housing High-Rise Apartment

Yes 69% 46% 46% 36% 30%

No 28% 49% 50% 55% 64%

Most frequent comments typically dealt with existing, surrounding development and the preference of locating three/four plexes at intersections which is a common practice in some areas of the City. In Section Two of this Report, tables on types of residential redevelopment which would be supported by local residents were prepared for each neighbourhood cluster. This was done to more precisely reflect residents' opinions given the location and diversity of different housing types in the District. Residents, for example, living in the Oliver and Downtown residential areas share different views regarding medium and high density development than do residents living in low density residential areas within the District.

-22-

13. School Closures (percentages in brackets) a.

Support for school closures (school operating well below capacity): CATEGORY

NUMBER

Yes No No Opinion

168 96 28

(57) (33) (10)

TOTAL

292

(100)

Support for the retention or demolition of a school building which is to be closed: CATEGORY

Alternative uses for a closed school building:

NUMBER

Demolish Retain No Opinion

29 221 42

(10) (76) (14)

TOTAL

292

(100)

CATEGORY

YES

Government Offices

I (0)

105 (36)

118 (41)

14 (5)

53 (18)

I (0)

Commercial Space

I (0)

124 (43)

100 (34)

16 (6)

50 (17)

I (0)

Local Community Recreation/Social Activities

1 (0)

224 (77)

15 (5)

7 (3)

44 (15)

I (0)

Private Club

1 (0)

180 (62)

52 (18)

10 (3)

48 (17)

1 (0)

Specialized Education

I (0)

233 (80)

9 (3)

3 (I)

45 (16)

I (0)

Private School

I (0)

220 (75)

12 (4)

8 (3)

49 (17)

2 (1)

Senior Citizens' Housing

1 (0)

159 (55)

71 (24)

10 (3)

49 (17)

2 (I)

1245

377

338

TOTAL

-23-

YES NO MISSQUAL- OPIN- INC IFIED ION VALUES

NO RESPONSE

Summary: School Closures Declining school enrollments are a fact of life in many inner city schools. We therefore asked residents if they would support a decision to close the school in their neighbourhood if the school were operating well below capacity. Fifty-seven percent of residents surveyed said they would support school closures; 33% said they would not; and 10% had no opinion. A much higher percentage of respondents would retain (70%) rather than demolish (10%) a school building which is to be closed (14% had no opinion). Previous school closures have included Cromdale Elementary, N.A. Gray Elementary/Junior High, Donald Ross and McKay Avenue Schools. Virginia Park Elementary School is proposed for closure although the School Board has yet to make a final decision. In the event of a school closure, respondents revealed low support for such alternative uses as government offices (36%) and commercial space (43%). There was better support for the other uses which include specialized education (80%), local community recreation/social activities (77%), private schools (75%), private clubs (62%) and senior citizen& housing (55%). Qualified approval of some proposed uses dealt with sufficiency of parking space, conversion costs and compatibility with adjacent residential uses.

-24-

14.

Child Care for the Household (percentage in brackets)

Does someone else look after your children:

NO RESPONSE

DAILY

PART OF THE WEEK

OCCASIONALLY

NEVER

MISSING VALUES

TOTAL

(I)

Of those respondents who use child care services on a "Daily" or for "Part of the Week" basis, the Type of Services used include:

(8)

SERVICE

(3)

(6)

NO RESPONSE

Subsidized Non-Profit Centre Private Centre Baby Sitter in the Home Live In Baby Sitter/Nanny Private Home After School Care Program Other

8 7 5 9 9 7 9

(9)

YES 3 2 5 0 0 3 2

(58) (50) (36) (64) (64) (50) (64)

MISSiNG VALUES

(21) (14) (36) (0) (0) (21) (14)

3 5 4 5 5 4 3

(21) (36) (28) (36) (36) (29) (22)

Of those respondents who use child care services, their satisfaction with these services is:

CATEGORY

NUMBER

No Response Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Missing Values

1 8 2 2 1 0

(7) (58) (14) (14) (7) (0)

(100)

TOTAL

-25-

(73)

119

(100)

TOTAL 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

(100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)

Summary: Child Care for the Household There was a very small response (14) to this question. This reflects, in part, the smaller percentage of preschool and school age children (0-19 years old) in the Central District versus the City average (17% District versus 27% of total population, City). The survey results are therefore meaningful only on a City-wide basis and not for the District only.

-26-

SECTION TWO NEIGHBOURHOOD CLUSTER PROFILES AND SURVEY RESULTS

INTRODUCTION

Neighbourhood Cluster

Today, the Central District of Edmonton, with its Downtown commercial core and surrounding transitional and residential communities comprises about 4 percent (20.69 sq. kilometres) of the area of the City and about 12 percent (67,247) of its population. In this Section of the Report, the 19 residential neighbourhoods (and the CN lands) have been divided into five, relatively similar residential neighbourhood clusters, based on such factors as land use, population, density, growth and development. Each of the five neighbourhood clusters is described in two parts. The first part outlines a brief profile of the neighbourhood cluster, providing information on population (highlights), housing, land use and major City programs or projects. It is intended to assist the Reader in better understanding each neighbourhood cluster. Part two focuses on the specific issues and concerns in each of the neighbourhoods and neighbourhood clusters, which were raised by respondents to the telephone survey.

Central River Valley Rossdale, Riverdale

13.4

2,116

158

Downtown Core - Oliver, CN 47.9 lands, Downtown, Boyle St.

23,495

491

Downtown Periphery - Prince 27.9 Rupert, Queen Mary Park, Central McDougall, McCauley

15,597

556

Central West - Westwood, 33.3 Spruce Avenue, DeIton, Alberta Avenue (includes Norwood)

15,001

451

Central East - Eastwood, Elmwood Park, Parkdale, Northlands, Virginia Park, Cromdale

26.7

11,038

413

32.5

67,247

2,069

Central District Total

-27-

Density Population Area persons/ha 1983 ha

CENTRAL DISTRICT NEIGHBOURHOOD CLUSTERS AND NEIGHBOURHOODS

MAP 1

•wA

.4,-111.1,'" N

ELMWOOD PARK

11,11 11

1-'

LEGEND

1f- 4-4__V

Ii ti Hit 11 WSTWOOD I(

At:A

Central District Boundary - Neighbourhood Cluster Boundary

AMP°

1_11

I I!, II ,I

MUNICI

!'t

#• . •

1 'i ll

EASTWOOD! AN1 : :•

AR„ 77 or vr ,...-• ,,, ,,,.

_ -

I I

•

••

iPPFP

IV 1 Pg

.10‘

RIVER VALLEY (KINNAII1D) RIVER

a a

11_

1.1

r ,

s.".•

roe' ,.•••

01 ‘S '

1"i

.q 1

VALLEY\ '1:11VERDALE ,1)

CORE •

II PTNTC)Wlit

I ::11_1[11 1 J L_ 1

l il

—111111

RIVER VALLEY (VICTORIA)

: ..i

sly"-- -

I DOWNTOWN

Ij 11-11111 ' 11 11 it it I

r—

rat

.RIVER II,//

II I

'FlOSSDALE

—28—

VIRGINIA PARK •1i•."4 %)4

it IJ I I CENTRAL

1 l'a

C.N. LANDS•

11. L'Clit

ill

CROMDALE

.! CENTRAL

4 4 4

IL. 1 1 !

NOTITI LANDS

DOWNTOWN PERIPHERY ',..''''''El------ 0, 4 ' ill lY 4 A . M'c''C

QUEEN MARY PARK II 11114 • la

!!'" :! T.44:4.

C k MDOUGALL I

PARKDALE

CENTRAL EAST

il ii i ii

PRINCE RUPERT

ALBERTA AVy\'IllE , . A •I

'I a

.1 !I

•

I SPIluc,E AVENUE I-

I 11

liCENTRAL WEST ,Y

Neighbourhood Boundary

4 1111ii

Ii i1i 1I It ii

11 11

S4S"TCHEWAN

CENTRAL RIVER VALLEY NEIGHBOURHOOD CLUSTER PROFILE The Central River Valley Neighbourhood Cluster is the smallest of five neighbourhood clusters, in terms of land area and population. The two river valley communities of Riverdale and the much smaller, Rossdale are situated here. Both are low density housing areas with a predominant focus on the North Saskatchewan River. Nevertheless, while Riverdale had a Community Plan adopted by City council in 1977 - establishing it as a viable residential community - Rossdale until most recently was deemed a "non-. viable" community. It became City policy to purchase all the property in these "non-viable" communities over the long term for eventual conversion into city-level parkland. A Community Plan which is now being prepared will establish a new future for Rossdale as a strong viable residential community. Table I reflects, to some degree, the relative viability of the two communities. Population has declined in the past decade. Riverdale has experienced an influx of people, including family households with children (see mobility, 1 year or less; household size). Home ownership is much greater in Riverdale than in Rossdale. Rossdale has a more permanent population in terms of mobility (5 years or greater) but household size is small, indicating a small number of households with children. Table 2 identifies the predominantly low density residential character of the two communities. Riverdale is also the site of the Riverdale and Sundance Community Co-operative housing projects (row/townhouses, walk-up apartments). North Rossdale is the site of some three/four plexes, three walk-up apartments and a high rise apartment building. There is also some vacant land districted (zoned) for high density residential development in the area.

-29-

Table 3 and Map 2 show generalized existing land use. A portion of the Capital City Recreation Park is located in both communities. City-wide recreation facilities, including the Ortona Armoury, Diamond Park and John Ducey Park are located in Rossdale. Rossdale also has large public utilities in the Power Generating and Water Treatment Plants (under expansion) as well as the Firemen's Training Centre. Non-residential uses in Riverdale include the J.B. Little Brickyard and a commercial greenhouse. In February of 1985, City Council approved part one of a two part River Valley Bylaw which gives new direction for a revised river valley policy. Part two involves a Design Competition and the preparation of individual community plans. Other major City programs affecting the two communities include the Dawson Corridor (Transportation) Study - which now has been deferred except for some intersection improvements at 95 St./Rowland Road - and the Capital City Recreation Parks system.

TABLE 1 CENTRAL RIVER VALLEY POPULATION All) HOUSING POPULATION

Neighbourhood

1983 Population

I lousehold Size

MOBILITY (%)

% of % Population Non-Family Change 1971-1981 Households

HOUSING (UNIT SIZE %)

I Year Or Less

Greater Than 5 Years

Studio/1 Bedroom

2-4 Bedrooms

TENURE (%)

Other

Own

Rent

1,571

2.50

-19

Rossdale

545

1.80

-13

TOTALS

2,116

2.18

-17

Riverdale

SOURCE: 1983 Municipal Civic Census 1971 and 1981 Federal Census

TABLE 2 CENTRAL RIVER VALLEY HOUSING TYPES BY DWELLING UNITS

One Unit Dwellings

Two Unit Dwellings

Three/Four Plexes

Row/ Townhouses

Walk-Up Apartments

TOTAL

531

161

167

971

TABLE 3 CENTRAL RIVER VALLEY LAND USE

Institutional

Parks/ Recreation/ Open Space

Other-Vocant, Undeveloped

TOTAL

Transportation

Residential

Commercial

Industrial! Public Utilities

Area (hectares)

158

Percentage

100

Land Use

-30-

GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE CENTRAL RIVER VALLEY CLUSTER

MAP 2 Single & Two Unit Dwellings Multiple Family Dwellings

Recreation, Open Space Nigli Transportation

Low/Medium Rise Apartment

Commercial

I v I Vacant, Undeveloped

144.4.14.01.4 Industrial, Public Utilities

High Rise Apartment

I I .

I * I Institutional

j;Ita •

'a RIVER

SASKATClaw AN

•••

-31-

cOp

LOCAL ISSUE IDENTIFICATION MAP 3 â&#x20AC;¢

CENTRAL RIVER VALLEY CLUSTER Traffic Shortcutting

111 Too Much Traffic V Traffic Failing To Obey Yield Or Stop Signs Parking On Street 1:1 Speeding

71, RIVE VALLEY (KINNAIRD)__-RIVER

Improve access at 89 Street and Rowland Road.

Along the river dead trees and dead fall should be cleared to avoid obstructing the view, this could be summer work for students.

SI /RIVER VALLEY (VICTORIA)

Concern over the future of 3.13. Little lands and the eviction of residents. Concerned over the impact on the community of the Dawson corridor and parkland development.

Concerned about proposed water park on Grierson Hill; doesn't want one like Sylvan Lake.

ISSUE

COMMENTS

PLANNING AND . DEVELOPMENT

Riverdale residents are concerned about the impacts of (i) Dawson corridor improvements; (ii) parkland development involving the use of Gallager Park and the extension of the Capital Recreation City Parks system; (iii) future development on the J.B. Little property and the eviction of residents; and (iv) the proposed water park on Grierson Hill (shouldn't be like the one at Sylvan Lake). Table 4 describes residents' opinions regarding residential development in the future. Residents surveyed generally support maintaining the existing low density character of the two communities. Concern about speeding buses.

TRANSIT â&#x20AC;˘

Have #63 bus service the Riverdale area. Infrequent evening service.

TRANSPORTATION.

Need to improve access from 89 Street at Rowland Road.

NEIGHBOURHOOD. APPEARANCE

Dead trees and other debris should be cleared along the river - this could provide summer work for students. Table 5 describes residents' opinions regarding neighbourhood appearance. While residents surveyed were generally satisfied with their (62%) neighbourhood's appearance, there was a need expressed to provide lighting and paving of some back lanes.

-33-

TABLE 4 CENTRAL RIVER VALLEY - SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (percentages in brackets) If there was to be some type of housing project in your immediate neighbourhood during the next five years, would you support new housing for:

HIGH-RISE APARTMENTS

WALK-UP APARTMENTS

DUPLEXES

THREE/FOUR PLEXES

ROW/TOWN HOUSES

No Response

(0)

Yes

(0)

(11)

(89)

(56)

(90)

(89)

(11)

(22)

(44)

Yes-Conditions

(0)

(22)

(0)

No Opinion

(10)

(0)

TOTAL

(100)

-34-

TABLE 5 CENTRAL RIVER VALLEY - NEIGHBOURHOOD APPEARANCE (percentages in brackets) The next list of things describes how your neighbourhood looks. Are you satisfied with:

CATEGORY

NO RESPONSE

VERY SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT VERY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED

NO OPINION

TOTAL

Housing Mix

(0)

(44)

(56)

(0)

Location of Public Housing

(0)

(22)

(44)

(0)

(33)

Roadway Design

(0)

(33)

(56)

(0)

(11)

Location of Schools/ Parks/Public Facilities

(0)

(6)

(22)

(0)

( II)

(0)

Tree Planting and Boulevards

(0)

(78)

(11)

( 1 I)

(0)

Back Lane Lighting/Paving

(0)

(33)

(3)

(22)

(0)

Other Features

(0)

GENERAL TRENDS

(0)

(40)

(32)

(4)

(3)

(21)

-35-

(100)

DOWNTOWN CORE NEIGHBOURHOOD CLUSTER PROFILE The Downtown Neighbourhood Cluster has both the largest population (23,495) and greatest population density (47.9 persons per hectare) of the five clusters. Significant concentrations of high-rise and walk-up apartments are located in the Oliver, Downtown and Boyle St. communities. The Donwtown commercial core accounts for about 28% of the City's total commercial floor space, including half of its office space. The primary focus of this neighbourhood cluster is the Downtown itself and its related impacts on the adjacent areas. Between 1979 and 1981, Area Redevelopment Plans were approved for Oliver, the Downtown and Boyle St./McCauley in response major growth and redevelopment pressures. In Oliver, the the chief concern was the over-concentration of high-rise apartment development. The potential for expansion of the Downtown eastwards was a major concern in the Boyle St. area. Major issues in the Downtown included urban design and architecture, diversification of commercial functions and the promotion of a stronger residential component. The possible redevelopment of the CN lands, for residential, commercial, institutional and public purposes has been a matter of discussion for a number of years now. Table 6 reflects the common pattern of medium/high density residential areas - high mobility, small number of families, high rentership, predominance of studio/1 bedroom units. Although the Central District's population has declined steadily in the past decade, the Downtown Core has managed to roughly maintain its population levels, primarily through an influx of new residents. Oliver's population was the only neighbourhood in the District to see an increase. The population level in Boyle St. has declined significantly due to non-residential redevelopment and the decline of some traditional housing types, i.e., rooming houses. According to Table 8, high-rise (52%) and walk-up (28%) apartments account for about 80% of the dwelling units in the Downtown Core. Most of these dwelling units have been built within the past two decades.

-36-

Table 8 and Map 3 show generalized existing land use. The Downtown is a focus of commerce and government institutions, including both provincial and civic centres. Approximately 60,000 people work in the Downtown and vicinity. It is the home of major civic events and festivals. There are many civic policies and programs affecting the Downtown Core cluster. Among these are the proposed extension of LRT to the Provincial Government Centre, Downtown revitalization projects, i.e., Jasper Avenue street improvements, Rice-Howard Way, Heritage Trail; the development of Chinatown in Boyle St.; and possible redevelopment of the CN and CP railway lands, with the removal of trackage. Major emphasis is being placed on the participation and involvement of both public and private sectors in these developments.

TABLE 6

DOWNTOWN CORE

POPULATION AM HOUSING

MOBILITY (%)

POPULATION

Neighbourhood

% Population % of Change Non-Family Households 1971-1901

1983 Population

Household Size

14,031

1.48

. 69

Oliver Downtown

5,298

1.45

Boyle Street

4,166

1.50

1 Year Or Less

Greater Than 5 Years

Studio/1 Bedroom

-7

-19

CN Lands 23,495

TOTALS

1.49

TENURE (%)

HOUSING (UNIT SIZE %)

-3

2-4 Bedrooms

Other

Own

Rent

SOURCEs 1983 Municipal Civic Census 1971 and 1981 Federal Census

TABLE 7 DOWNTOWN CORE HOUSING TYPES BY DWELLING UNITS

One Unit Dwellings

Two Unit Dwellings

Three/Four Plexes

Row/ Townhouses

Walk-Up Apartments

408

370

117

4,515

Apartments

Collective Residences (Rooming/Boarding Houses, Dormitories)

Others

TOTAL

8,207

1,774

411

15,814

TABLE 8 DOWNTOWN CORE LAN) USE

Land Use

Area (hectares)

Percentage

Parks/ Recreation/ Open Space

Transportation

Residential

Commercial

Industrial/ Public Utilities

227

-37.

Institutional

Other-Vacant, Undeveloped

TOTAL

491 100

GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE MAP 4

DOWNTOWN CORE CLUSTER

Single & Two Unit Dwellings

NION

Multiple Family Dwellings Low/Medium Rise Apartment

Recreation, Open Space

LLff t;Cr '"' ai Transportation v

Commercial

I Vacant, Undeveloped

.91 19004 &MOAK*, Industrial, Public Utilities •

High Rise Apartment

Institutional

'4'41

4v,•044:4

"W4110

-38-

LOCAL ISSUE IDENTIFICATION MAP 5

Improve intensity of street lighting.

DOWNTOWN CORE CLUSTER

The plaza and building at 112 Street and Jasper should be converted into a market style structure like Granville Street. It should be a community meeting place.

Derelict housing at 113 Street and 102 Avenue.

Increase heated bus shelters. Pave and light lane at 103 Avenue and 120 Street. Extend LRT into Oliver and further west. Reduce noxious emissions from Molson Brewery.

Parking restrictions In front of funeral home on 114 Street are unnecessary and should be removed; funeral home has enough off-street parking. warehouses Renovate residential development.

At 124 Street and Stony Plain Road going south you can't turn left. Going west on 104 Avenue you can't turn right; these no-turn lanes are bad.

for

Parking on both sides of 112 Street north of Jasper Avenue is a problem.

The battered women's hostel and the single man's hostel should not be located downtown. The derelict warehouse on 106 Avenue should be torn down. It is a dangerous attraction for kids. 106 Avenue needs repairs. Increase free parking

104 Avenue, from 101-109 Street needs potholes repaired.

downtown.

Improve parking lot adjacent to Eaton's store.

Dangerous intersection at 121 Street and Jasper Avenue.

oncern about major redevelopment pressures reducing existing housing.

116 Street has too much There should be better pedestrian access to the River Valley east of Downtown.

traffic.

Safety problems with the demolition at 100 Avenue and 104 Street.

Too much traffic on Stony Plain Road. Pave and light lane at 103 Avenue and 120 Street.

Cars Ignore yellow signal and speed at Jasper Avenue and 124 Street resulting in several accidents.

Pave and light lane at 122 Street Improve top-of-bank walk on 100 Avenue from 116-121 Street. and 102 Avenue.

Teddy's Restaurant, St. Joseph's Church and the Greek Orthadox Church cause on-street parking problems. Run down city-owned housing on 122 Street. There should be a stop sign on both sides of 116 Street at 102 Avenue because this is a dangerous crossing.

IIM 1

II u

At 118 Street and 100 Avenue, developer has a neglected site, a fence constructed around a large hole. The hole should be filled In.

The entrance to the Convention Centre does not do the structure justice.

I s

There is no sidewalk on the west side of 103 Street between 99 and 100 Avenue.

Improve recreational opportunities below GrIerson Hill.

'so

Eliminate noxious gas smells.

Concern that the new McDonalds store at 117 Street may cause parking overflow.

103 Street Is a dangerous hill and should be- better maintained. The ruts should be fixed and the alley should be sanded.

Repair intersection of 97 Avenue and 105 Street.

Non-metered stalls on 99 Avenue and 110 Street are being used by Provincial Government employees.

Improve sidewalks at 99 and 100 Avenue. There is a confusion of one-way streets south of 99 Avenue.

Complete River Valley trail below Oliver, above Victoria Park.

Extend underground pedways to area, i.e., McKay residential Avenue.

Widen 109 Street bridge. The parking meter at 98 Avenue and 105 Street is riot suited to a residential area. City should build a community, recreational, social centre to serve McKay Avenue Apartment dwellers.

-39-

Traffic Shortuutting

Too Much Traffic

V Traffic Failing To Obey Yield Snow removal needed for 104 Street at 98 Avenue. Poor snow removal on 108 Street.

Or Stop Signs Parking On Street Speeding

ISSUE

PLANNING AND . DEVELOPMENT

COMMENTS

ISSUE

Redevelopment reducing existing homes and apartments are replacing them (2 Boyle Street).

POLICE

COMMENTS

•

Amount of crime a great concern (Boyle Street).

Limit number of duplexes, three/four plexes (Boyle Street).

COMMUNITY Community recreational/social/cultural FACILITIES/PROGRAM facility required in McKay Avenue area (6).

Provide better pedestrian access to Rossdale from the Downtown (3).

More support for immigrant services, social counselling services (3).

Renovate warehouses for housing (3).

Supermarket needed Downtown (4).

Leave McKinnon Ravine as a ravine.

Support non-profit old age nursing home in Chinatown.

Downtown railway lands cultural, retail, parkland (4).

office,

River Valley - no apartments; should be parkland only.

Apartment dwellers need their own organization to speak for them. PARKS AND RECREATION

Extend River Valley trail system westwards, below Oliver (6).

Downtown CP lands - large retail focus.

Parks too far away (Boyle Street).

Retain few remaining houses in Oliver and use for offices and retail uses, if necessary (3).

Improve recreational opportunities below Grierson Hill.

High-rise apartments should have to provide more amenities, grassed areas and setbacks by design/regulation (4).

Concern over lack of tennis courts and poor public skating times (Oliver). TRANSIT

Improve transit service from Downtown to Kingsway Garden Mall.

Duplexes, three/four plexes should only be allowed as renovations to existing buildings (Oliver). Table 9 describes residents' opinions regarding residential development in the future. Over half of the residents support apartment housing while fewer support duplexes, three/four plexes and row/town housing.

-40-

#3 bus should have more frequent service; #2 bus is missed; #6 bus is slow on Saturdays. •

Improve summer bus service to Storyland Valley Zoo.

•

Increase early morning (6-6:30 a.m.) bus service (Oliver).

ISSUE

COMMENTS

•

DATS service is not operated economically.

TRANSPORTATION.

36 specific items were identified and are shown on Map 5.

NEIGHBOURHOOD . APPEARANCE

Street lighting needs to be intensified (4Oliver, 1-Downtown, 2-Boyle Street). Intersection 105 Street.

repairs - 97 Avenue/

•

Convert plaza and building at 112 Street/Jasper Avenue for community meeting space (2-Oliver).

•

Derelict buildings (5-Oliver, Downtown, 2-Boyle Street).

•

Extend underground pedways to Rossdal e McKay Avenue and communities.

No boulevards (Oliver). •

COMMENTS

ISSUE

Sidewalk repair, construction 99 Street! 100 Avenue, 103 Street between 99/100 Avenues, 100 Avenue between 116/112 Streets. Remove overhead trolley lines. Retailers should maintain sidewalks in front of their premises (2). Neglected development site with large hole at 118 Street! 100 Avenue.

-41-

•

Table 5 describes residents' opinions of neighbourhood appearance. 66% of residents' surveyed were generally satisfied with their neighbourhood's appearance. Highest dissatisfaction (26%) occurred with roadway design.

TABLE 9 DOWNTOWN CORE - SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (percentages in brackets) If there was to be some type of housing project in your immediate neighbourhood during the next five years, would you support new housing for:

HIGH-RISE APARTMENTS No Response

WALK-UP APARTMENTS

DUPLEXES

THREE/FOUR PLEXES

ROW/TOWN HOUSES

(0)

(1)

(I)

(0)

Yes

(50)

(44)

(38)

(35)

(37)

(40)

(47)

Yes-Conditions

(6)

(7)

(13)

(14)

No Opinion

(10)

(6)

(1)

(100)

TOTAL

-42-

TABLE 10 DOWNTOWN CORE - NEIGHBOURHOOD APPEARANCE (percentages in brackets) The next list of things describes how your neighbourhood looks. Are you satisfied with:

CATEGORY

NO RESPONSE

VERY SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT VERY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED

NO OPINION

TOTAL

Housing Mix

(0)

(15)

(49)

(14)

(7)

(15)

Location of Public Housing

(0)

(4)

(25)

(10)

(0)

(61)

Roadway Design

(0)

(21)

(47)

(17)

(7)

(8)

Location of Schools/ Parks/Public Facilities

(0)

(42)

(44)

(4)

(0)

(10)

Tree Planting and Boulevards

(0)

(51)

(35)

(6)

(3)

(6)

Back Lane Lighting/Paving

(0)

(46)

(32)

(8)

(7)

Other Features

(0)

(3)

(4)

(3)

(87)

GENERAL TRENDS

(0)

131

(26)

170

(34)

(9)

(4)

140

(27)

504

-43-

(100)

DOWNTOWN PERIPHERY NEIGHBOURHOOD CLUSTER PROFILE The Downtown Periphery Neighbourhood Cluster consists of five neighbourhoods just to the north of the Downtown Core Cluster. these neighbourhoods represent areas of transition, from the Downtown Core, in terms of land use, height, density and scale of development. Historically, this is the location of many older, railway-related industries, and commercial office and service businesses which benefit from the close proximity to the Downtown. Residential redevelopment has occurred, resulting in many blocks of walk-up apartments and some remaining pockets of single family housing. Commercial development is largely concentrated on commercial strips along arterial roadways. Redevelopment pressures in the 1970's and early 1980's resulted in the preparation of Area Redevelopment Plans for (Boyle St.) McCauley (1981), Central McDougall (1982) and Queen Mary Park (1985). Today, these communities attract many new Canadian immigrants, single people and married couples, wishing to take advantage of affordable housing, a wide range of city services, and proximity to the Downtown and employment opportunities. Table 11 exhibits the transitional character of this neighbourhood cluster in comparison to the Downtown Core. Population decline in the past decade has been slightly higher. However, mobility (1 year or less) rates and the percentage of renters are reduced in comparison with the Downtown Core. The number of two or more bedroom units is also higher. There is a slightly higher percentage of family households (1.52 vs. 1.49). Table 12 reveals the predominance of walk-up apartments (61%), the introduction of high-rise apartments (7%) and the traditional location of one/two unit dwellings (19%) and rooming/boarding houses (9%) (largely found in McCauley).

-44-

Table 13 and Map 4 show generalized existing land use. Some typical land use patterns have been described previously. Many of the older industrial areas are in decline and are being replaced by other industrial business, commercial office and service uses, and in some cases, residential uses. Commercial strip development is found along 107 Avenue, Norwood Boulevard, 101 Street, 97 Street and 95 Street. Schools and parks are typically located Apartment development is in low density residential areas. concentrated, block by block. The location of the Municipal Airport immediately to the north has impacted the area to the south in terms of building height restrictions, noise, the municipal airport clear zone and operational devices. Major City programs within the Cluster include Water and Sanitation Department's efforts to upgrade the old combined sewers (program deferred by City Council in 1985). The Transportation Department has endeavoured to improve roadway capacity in this Cluster to better serve city-wide functions and to accommodate cross-town traffic which is intended to bypass the Downtown (Downtown Distribution Concept). The Parks and Recreation Department emphasizes rehabilitation and maintenance of existing parks, with some proposed sites for parkland acquisition.

T ABLE

DOWNTOWN PERIPHERY

POPULATION AND HOUSING POPULATION

Neighbourhood

1983 Population

Household Size

MOBILITY (%)

% of % Populatioo: Change Non-Family Household 1971-1981

HOUSING (UNIT SIZE %)

1 Year Or Less

Greater Than 5 Years

Studio/1 Bedroom

2-4 Bedrooms

TENURE (%)

Other

Own

Rent

Queen Mary Park

5,768

1.48

-12

McCauley

4,475

1.41

-II

311

Central McDougall

4,065

1.43

-2

Prince Rupert

1 289 --I-

2.09

-13

TOTALS

15,597

1.52

-9

SOURCE: 1983 Municipal Civic Census 1971 and 1981 Federal Census

T ABLE 12 DOWNTOWN PERIPHERY HOUSING TYPES BY DWELLING UNITS

One Unit Dwellings

Two Unit Dwellings

Three/Four Plexes

Row/ Townhouses

Walk-Up Apartments

1,338

710

224

6,469

Collective Residences High-Rise (Rooming/Boarding Apartments Houses, Dormitories) 756

973

Others

TOTAL

161

10,688

T ABLE 13 DOWNTOWN PERIPHERY LAND USE

Land Use

Area (hectares) Percentage

Institutional

Parks/ Recreation/ Open Space

Other-Vacant, Undeveloped

TOTAL

Transportation

Residential

Commercial

Industrial/ Public Utilities

223

132

556

100

-45-

GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE MAP 6

DOWNTOWN PERIPHERY CLUSTER . I

INUM

Single & Two Unit Dwellings Multiple Family Dwellings

Recreation, Open Space

Low/Medium Rise Apartment

Commercial

Transportation

..................

e* ,

•••44

$# .

pifigg High Rise Apartment

1#•••• #

Vacant, Undeveloped

Industrial, Public Utilities

*1 Institutional

•••••;#

R1.1 ####.

';•!:

"AA • • ft ;

I L-1

• Al1191'i! 10 tor " AB •

too n 44 taga.44

1:f....:,:4 : • „., - 4. I •4" -' V#1 • 41 • .....! alp.

..:r• 4VAWOLin •. z. ..ii4. • ...,z4.7.7.:gi.a..,....,....4.s. - -,.....,,,f•,,,, , .t.t '•••114.14,...31• „„„..,...,,,,.....".

JIIII-V

• , ....-..,....,,,..,4,..-...„ ,„, ',....;.;'`.S..-Ast;,,:. •v. ,'eao,i',,r4.‘":,.k. ....', •tIA2. .4*;..i.ira,,,,,,di ^,--"- -•....-C-.....,)..;Vs we.. :V.:': --"h.'.;...-1.-.-.Z":---. *.". ' ,t• ... Z•A.. . < s V.. .....%).4.,,...1. 01•11.: •1•:::: " 144.* ,

-46-

719, Log-- •-?-1.-- :....

VA1 • .44M. 0/•' 0,;••••Ir 04! • Y•494.t1t4,4"-...-

Ar. ,- ;.,..‹. 4A..- • '

LOCAL ISSUE IDENTIFICATION DOWNTOWN PERIPHERY CLUSTER

MAP 7

• Concerned about vehicle 'stunts' on Airport Road.

Traffic ShorIcuiting

IIII Too Much Traffic 1 Traffic Failing To Obey Yield 1

If Airway Park is to be developed, the community should be involved.

Reduce noise from arterials, 113 Street and the airport.

Or Stop Signs

Eliminate trucks on 116 Street.

▪

It is difficult for pedestrians to at cross at 113/116 Streets 111 Avenue.

Parking On Street

11 Speeding

Reduce truck traffic on 113 Street. Parking in the alley behind Captain John's is a problem. Parking on only one side of 106 Street should be allowed.

Improve 97 Street traffic. Improve quality of 96 Street, e.g., housing, transient and poverty stricken population.

At the intersection of 101 Street and 111 Avenue there should be controls for lane changing; it is quite dangerous.

▪

cCAULEY

\‘-\c \\J r1 I-1r

Difficult for most senior citizens to cross 107 Avenue.

EJ122

Extend underground pedway into residential Valley River communities.

(MEDI MARY PARK

Expand LRT to the south side. On 108 Avenue and 101 Street parking should be restricted to one side of the street.

Concerned about proposed 106/107 Avenue couplet because it would isolate her between two arterials. 107 Avenue needs more trees.

Widen 101 S treet to improve traffic. Improve traffic flow on 109 Street. Expand 109 Street tunnel or replace it with an at-grade crossing. Increase maintenance (sanding and snow removal) on 112 Street.

-47-

The Mac store parking lot (104 Street a nd 107 Avenue) needs repairs. Behind residence (10724-105 Street) the garbage bin should be moved so you can see clearly to leave the parking lot and enter the alley.

COMMENTS

ISSUE

PLANNING AND . DEVELOPMENT

COMMENTS

ISSUE

Concern about encroachment of walk-up apartments (Queen Mary Park).

COMMUNITY FACILITIES/ PROGRAMS

More drop-in centres needed for senior citizens (McCauley). More funding for local cultural groups.

Too many old houses (McCauley). Develop more high-rise apartments (Central McDougall). .

•

Supervisors for parks/schoolgrounds (2). If Airway Park is further developed, the surrounding communities should be consulted (Prince Rupert).

Improve quality of 96 Street; i.e. transient and poor population, deteriorated housing.

More programs involving winter activities for children (Queen Mary Park).

Remove Hudson's Bay caveats (Central McDougall). Build more condominiums with low rents (Central McDougall). Table 14 describes residents' opinions regarding residential development in the future. Duplex development was supported (71%) and a half of those surveyed supported walk-up apartments as well as three/four plexes.

POLICE

PARKS AND RECREATION

TRANSIT

•

More frequent night service for #23 bus.

•

reduce bus fares (3).

•

More frequent winter weekend service. more frequent service on 1 1 1 Avenue from #11 bus.

•

28 specific items were identified by residents and are shown on Map 7.

NEIGHBOURHOOD . APPEARANCE

Back lanes - need lighting (3-Central McDougall, 5-McCauley, I-Prince Rupert, 2-Queen Mary Park); pave lane (Central McDougall).

•

Residents should better maintain their sidewalks and boulevards (4).

Watch

•

upgrade/repair sidewalks (McCauley, 2Prince Rupert, Queen Mary Park).

Concern about drunk drivers (McCauley).

•

Trees - essential feature of urban ecology; 107 Avenue needs more trees (3).

Transients are a nuisance, sleeping in public places, rummaging through garbage cans and occassionally breaking into houses (3). Increase police foot patrols and response time (2-McCauley). Major issue is theft and violent crime (McCauley). •

Increase Programs.

Neighbourhood

-48-

ISSUE

COMMENTS

Street lighting - revert back to white light; improve lighting (McCauley).

Demolish/repair derelict buildings (2McCauley, Queen Mary Park, Central McDougall).

•

Students litter private property behind a bus stop (Central McDougall).

•

Repair Mac store parking lot at 104 Street/ 107 Avenue.

•

Move garbage bin behind residence (107 Avenue/I05 Street) to improve access to lane. Table 15 describes residents' opinions regarding neighbourhood appearance. 60% of residents were generally satisfied with their neighbourhood's appearance. 41% of respondents nevertheless were unhappy about the lack of back lane lighting.

-49-

TABLE 14 DOWNTOWN PERIPHERY - SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (percentages in brackets) If there was to be some type of housing project in your immediate neighbourhood during the next five years, would you support new housing for:

HIGH-RISE APARTMENTS No Response

WALK-UP APARTMENTS

DUPLEXES

THREE/FOUR PLEXES

ROW/TOWN HOUSES

(0)

Yes

(22)

(49)

(64)

(44)

(39)

(71)

(41)

(27)

(42)

(48)

Yes-Conditions

(2)

(1)

(7)

(9)

(5)

No Opinion

(5)

(9)

(2)

(5)

(8)

(100)

TOTAL

_cn_

TABLE 15 DOWNTOWN PERIPHERY - NEIGHBOURHOOD APPEARANCE (percentages in brackets) The next list of things describes how your neighbourhood looks. Are you satisfied with:

CATEGORY

NO RESPONSE

VERY SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT VERY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED

NO OPINION

TOTAL

Housing Mix

(0)

(29)

(32)

(15)

(5)

(19)

Location of Public Housing

(0)

(19)

(29)

(5)

(7)

(41)

Roadway Design

(0)

(22)

(53)

(15)

(2)

(9)

Location of Schools/ Parks/Public Facilities

(0)

(48)

(41)

(2)

(9)

Tree Planting and Boulevards

(0)

(42)

(44)

(5)

(2)

(7)

Back Lane Lighting/Paving

(0)

(32)

(20)

(27)

(14)

(7)

Other Features

(0)

(3)

(2)

(3)

(88)

GENERAL TRENDS

(0)

115

(28)

131

(32)

(10)

(5)

105

(25)

413

-51-

(100)

CENTRAL WEST NEIGHBOURHOOD CLUSTER PROFILE The Central West Neighbourhood Cluster consists of four neighbourhoods which lie just east of the Municipal Airport and north of III Avenue. With the exception of some pockets of older walk-up apartments and row housing, this cluster has a low density residential character. Much of the housing stock is between 20 and 40 years old. There are signs of selective redevelopment and housing rehabilitation, the latter under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) in Alberta Avenue (includes Norwood).

In 1979, Neighbourhood Improvement Plans were approved for Norwood and Alberta Avenue/Eastwood. Capital improvements under these Plans included a new community league building, the installation of back lane lighting, a local traffic plan and expenditures on other local improvements. In conjunction with these Plans, the City promoted the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) - a program of neighbourhood level improvement directed towards the rejuvenation of existing housing.

Transportation plays an important role in defining and influencing this neighbourhood cluster. The Yellowhead Trail and 97 Street very definitely define neighbourhoods. 118 and I 1 1 Avenues have influenced commercial development.

Major transportation improvements in recent years, the expansion of 97 Street south of 118 Avenue and the construction of berms on the west side of 97 Street and barriers/landscaping along the south side of the Yellowhead Trail. This is part of the Transportation Department's Barrier Priorization Program. The Transportation Department is also implementing the recommendations of the Municipal Airport Noise Policy Study in order to reduce the noise and associated impacts originating from the operation of the Airport.

Table 16 demonstrates very well that low density residential areas in the older inner city have an aging and declining population. While household size is still higher (2.41) than in the other neighbourhood clusters in the District, it is still well below the City average (2.62). the percentage of people owning their own homes (33%) and living in the house for more than 5 years (39%) is relatively high within the District (roughly comparable to the Central East Neighbourhood Cluster). Table 17 reveals the predominance of one and two unit dwellings (65%), followed by walk-up apartments (28%) and collective residences (5%, dormitories, rooming/boarding houses). Table 18 and Map 5 show generalized existing land use. Commercial development is represented by the Kingsway Garden Mall and commercial strip development along 1 1 and 118 Avenues. There is some commercial strip development on 97 Street north of The Royal Alexandra Hospital, the Glenrose 121 Street. Rehabilitation Hospital and the Norwood Seniors Extended Care Centre are located near the Municipal Airport. The Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, which is located just to the west, outside the Central West Cluster, has a considerable impact on the surrounding communities.

-52-

TABLE 16

CENTRAL WEST

POPULATION AND HOUSING

POPULATION

Neighbourhood

1983 Population

Household Size

MOBILITY (96)

% Population % of Non-Faulty Change Households 1971-1981

TENURE (%)

HOUSING (UNIT SIZE %)

1 Year Or Less

Greater Than 5 Years

Studio/I Bedroan

2-4 Bedroans

Other

Own

Rent

Westwood

3,302

1.94

-22

Spruce Avenue

2,957

2.28

-25

Dehon

2,303

2.27

-20

.48

Alberta Avenue TOTALS

SOURCEs

6 359

2.50

-26

15,001

2.41

-25

1983 Municipal Civic Census 1971 and 1981 Federal Census

TABLE 17 CENTRAL WEST HOUSING TYPES BY DWELLING UNITS

One 1441 Dwellings

3,106

Two Unit Dwellings

Three/Four Plexes

Walk-Up Apartments

Collective Residences (Rooming/Boarding Howes, Dormitories)

Others

TOTAL

968

1,762

324

6,228

TABLE I 8 CENTRAL WEST LAND USE

Land Use

Area (hectares) Percentage

Industrial/ Public Utilities

Parks/ Recreation/ Open Space

Other-Vacant, Undeveloped

Transportation

Residential

Commercial

181

200

451

100

-53-

Institutional

TOTAL

GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE MAP 8

CENTRAL WEST CLUSTER

Single & Two Unit Dwellings Multiple Family Dwellings Low/Medium Rise Apartment

FiTt 7] High Rise Apartment k.i31Recreation, Open Space. Commercial COO:

655

Industrial, Public Utilities

*1Institutional NtiM Transportation

I v I Vacant, Undeveloped

-54-

LOCAL ISSUE IDENTIFICATION CENTRAL WEST CLUSTER

MAP 9

Concern with noise of CN tracks and Yellowhead Trail. Still need the sound barrier built for the Yellowhead Trail.

â&#x20AC;˘

Need stop sign at 123 Avenue and 103 Street.

Visual barrier needed for industry on Yellowhead Trail.

Traffic Shortcutting

II Too Much Traffic Improve the dangerous corner at 122 Avenue and 101 Street.

Complete the 105 Street overpass to the Yellowhead Trail.

Traffic Failing To Obey Yield Or Slop Signs

123 Avenue has no sidewalk. Synchronize the lights on the Yellowhead Trail.

Parking On Street

Poor maintenance of park at 122 Avenue and 103-4 Street.

Speeding

The median on 107 Street and reduced has 122 Avenue shortcutting by 50%.

- Traffic races on 123 Avenue during the summer.

HUt

Concerned about speeding on 122 Avenue between 107 and 97 Streets.

Increase policing on 97 Street between Yellowhead and 118 Avenue during non-peak hours, and afternoon/evening hours.

Traffic on 122 Avenue should be reduced especially now that the Yellowhead Trail has been completed.

strip, commercial Revitalize 118 Avenue like Whyte Avenue.

Increase pedestrian crossings on 97 Street north of 118 Avenue.

Because of the one-way street confusion traffic accidents are high especially from 118 Avenue.

118 Avenue should be widened or the on-street parking should be banned.

Concerned about no parking regulation in front of house on 117 Avenue.

102 Street between 111 Avenue and 117 Avenue needs resurfacing.

Condemned house (close to 102 Street and 115 Avenue) is an eyesore and it should be demolished.

Remove the flying club from the, municipal airport.

The municipal airport is a nuisance.

A garbage can is needed in front of the store at 101 Street and 115 Avenue.

Pedestrian signal light needed at 112 Avenue and 109 Street. Two hour parking on their street should be enforced because NAIT Concerned about cars speeding on 102 Street in front of two schools. students abuse it.

Parking on both sides of 89 Street should not be allowed in the winter.

Concern about parkland lost w;th widening of 97 Street.

101 Street south of 111 Avenue should be better maintained.

-55-

'Once the police are gone, northbound traffic on 97 Street uses the bps lanes.

COMMENTS

ISSUE

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE

Develop more creative inf ill housing as opposed to more duplexes (3).

Restrict three/four intersections (2). Need to revitalize commercial strip.

plexes

118 Avenue

Table 19 describes residents' opinions regarding residential development in the future. There is strong support for duplexes (71%) and lowest support for high-rise apartments (12%). There was modest support for three/four plexes (39%), row/town housing (35%) and walkup apartments (30%). POLICE

Increase police patrols in the neighbourhood (Westwood). Concerned about purse snatching, holdups and robberies (DeIton). Following a car accident, the City should remove debris from the streets and residential properties (DeIton).

COMMUNITY LEAGUE

Increase funding for facilities and programs. League not interested in new members (Westwood).

PARKS AND RECREATION

Provide supervisors for parks and school grounds. Rinks should not be fenced in; use of rinks too restrictive (DeIton). Parkland lost and not replaced with widening of 97 Street. -56-

COMMENTS

Poor park maintenance at 122 Avenue and 103/104 Street (Westwood). TRANSPORTATION.

31 specific items were identified by residents surveyed and are shown on Map 9.

General (unmapped) comments included improve roadway engineering, including scheduling and phasing of roadway repair; remove the flying club from the Municipal Airport; increase winter bus service (Spruce Avenue).

NEIGHBOURHOOD . APPEARANCE

Back lanes - need paving and lighting (7); need better snow removal and clean up (Alberta Avenue).

Sidewalks and boulevards - repairs needed (Spruce Avenue); Avenues need more sidewalks/boulevards; 123 Avenue has no sidewalk. Demolish condemned house at 115 avenue/IO2 Street. Place garbage can in front of store at 101 Street/115 Avenue. Maintain public housing better. Better enforcement of weed control bylaws. Visual barrier for industries along Yel lowhead Trail. Promote self-beautification projects in the community. Table 20 describes residents' opinions regarding neighbourhood appearance. 60% of residents were generally satisfied with neighbourhoods.

TABLE 19 CENTRAL WEST - SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (percentages in brackets) If there was to be some type of housing project in your immediate neighbourhood during the next five years, would you support new housing for:

HIGH-RISE APARTMENTS

WALK-UP APARTMENTS

DUPLEXES

THREE/FOUR PLEXES

ROW/TOWN HOUSES

No Response

(0)

Yes

(12)

(30)

(71)

(39)

(35)

(82)

(64)

(21)

(50)

(59)

Yes-Conditions

(0)

(1)

(2)

(3)

No Opinion

(6)

(5)

(6)

(8)

(3)

(100)

TOTAL

-57-

TABLE 20 CENTRAL WEST - NEIGHBOURHOOD APPEARANCE (percentages in brackets) The next list of things describes how your neighbourhood looks. Are you satisfied with:

CATEGORY

NO RESPONSE

VERY SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT VERY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED

NO OPINION

TOTAL

Housing Mix

(0)

(23)

(53)

(15)

(2)

(7)

Location of Public Housing

(0)

(15)

(35)

(6)

(3)

(41)

Roadway Design

(0)

(24)

(59)

(9)

(5)

(3)

Location of Schools/ Parks/Public Facilities

(0)

(45)

(42)

(8)

(3)

(2)

Tree Planting and Boulevards

(0)

(70)

(21)

(7)

(0)

(2)

Back Lane Lighting/Paving

(0)

(56)

(23)

(7)

(12)

(2)

Other Features

(0)

(1)

(98)

GENERAL TRENDS

(0)

153

(33)

153

(33)

(8)

(4)

(22)

462

-58-

(100)

CENTRAL EAST NEIGHBOURHOOD CLUSTER PROFILE The Central East Neighbourhood Cluster consists of six neighbourhoods which are in close proximity to the LRT. Like the Central West Cluster, this cluster is predominantly low density residential although recent Area Redevelopment Plans (Parkdale, February, 1982; Coliseum Station, November 1982; Stadium Station, November 1982) have provided for higher density redevelopment around existing and proposed LRT stations. The intent is to work towards a better co-ordinated land use and transportation strategy. Population densities would be increased along major transportation corridors such as the LRT in order to improve the utilization of LRT and other transit services. Table 21 shows a significant population decline (19%) in the past decade. The population is both aging and declining. Residents living in the low density residential areas (i.e., Elmwood Park) generally have a higher household size, a larger number of 2-4 bedroom units, higher ownership patterns and greater stability (more than 5 years at same residence) than those areas (i.e., Cromdale) where apartment development has occurred. The residential community around Northlands has declined substantially due to the expansion of Northlands and further development uncertainty. According to Table 22, major housing types are one unit dwellings (single family housing 44%), walk-up apartments (24%) and two unit dwellings (duplexes 16%). Table 23 and Map 6 show generalized existing land use. Commercial development is limited to 118 Avenue and Fort Road areas. There are major recreational facilities located here with both Commonwealth and Clarke Stadiums and Borden Park. Much of the apartment development is located along 82 Street and north of Jasper Avenue, in Cromdale. The Central East Cluster is well defined by the Yellowhead Trail to the north and the Capilano Freeway and LRT to the east.

-59-

Large recreation/sports facilities and the development of the northeast LRT system, including stations at Stadium and Coliseum have and will continue to greatly influence development within Area Redevelopment Plans for this neighbourhood cluster. Parkdale, Stadium Station and Coliseum Station will attempt to ensure that future growth is directed and concentrated around LRT stations while ensuring that stable low density residential areas are preserved.

TABLE 2 I

CENTRAL EAST

POPULATION AN) HOUSING MOBILITY (%)

POPULATION

Neighbourhood

1983 Population

Household Size

% of % Population Change Non-Fcrn I y 1971-1981 Households

TENURE (%)

' HOUSING (UNIT SIZE %)

1 Year Or Less

Greater Than 5 Years

Studio/I Bedroan

2-4 Bedrooms

Other

Own

Rent

Eastwood

4,000

1.90

-13

Porkdale

2,665

1.72

-24

Elmwood Park

1,690

1.92

-13

Northlands

242

2.03

-48

"irginia Pork

617

1.90

-25

Crorndale

1,824

1.71

-25

TOTALS

11,038

1.85

-19

SOURCE: 1983 Municipal Civic Census 1971 and 1981 Federal Census

TABLE 22 CENTRAL EAST HOUSING TYPES BY DWELLING UNITS

One Unit Dwellings

Two Unit Dwellings

Three/Four Plexes

Row/ Townhouses

Walk-Up Apartments

Collective Residences (Rooming/Boarding Houses, Dormitories)

Others

TOTAL

2,727

1,000

284

1,505

273

359

6,165

TABLE 23 CENTRAL EAST LAND USE

Land Use

Area (hectares) Percentage

Institutional

Parks/ Recreation/ Open Space

Transportation

Residential

Commercial

Industrial/ Public Utilities

166

135

413

100

-60-

Other-Vacant, Undeveloped

TOTAL

GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE MAP 10

CENTRAL EAST CLUSTER

Single & Two Unit Dwellings Multiple Family Dwellings Low/Medium Rise Apartment

Kat High Rise Apartment P.;1.

Recreation, Open Space

Ina Commercial 1,4144 . ,41 .0,4, Industrial, Public Utilities

I * I Institutional Transportation V

Vacant, Undeveloped

-61-

LOCAL ISSUE IDENTIFICATION MAP 11

The industrial areas along the Yellowhead Trail and Fort Road should be screened better.

CENTRAL EAST CLUSTER. Need new sidewalk on 125 Avenue near 80 Street. L_

Older commercial strips (118 and 112 Avenue) should be revitalized.

Iil Li iLl

Traffic Failing To Obey Yield

Parking On Street

lp Speeding

During rush hour LRT needs more cars. The empty city/public building located at 118 Avenue and 82 Street should be used or demolished. Improve congested parking during events around the Stadium, Northlands and Coliseum.

iri

JLJLJLJ

The closure of Safeway on 118 Avenue would have an adverse effect on the neighbourhood.

1[1

at access The temporary 115 Avenue for trucks entering Northlands seems to have become permanent.

On 89 Street parking should not be permitted on both sides of the street. Improve vehicle access to 82 Street from the Avenues.

Truck traffic should be rerouted away from 112 Avenue.

During the summer there is too much traffic on 87 Street.

There should be a service road for homes on 112 Avenue across from Borden Park.

The closure of 04 Street was not properly signed.

Problem with speeding traffic and too much truck traffic on 112 Avenue.

Motorcycles race along 82 Street during the summer.

Because we have no storm sewers, our sewers back up during rain storms.

â&#x20AC;˘

The duplexes on 77 Street have downgraded the area.

IlL

There should be more major shopping facilities in Cromdale close to the LRT. Rezone areas near LRT stations, 82 Street and 119 Avenue for high rises.

Too Much Traffic

Ei < /* Improve vehicle access to Fort Road.

Along 118 Avenue there is too much traffic that should be using the Ye!lowhead Trail.

Wants on-street parking on both sides of 83 Street north of 115 Avenue.

â&#x2013;Ş

Or Stop Signs

liL 111

Increase heated bus shelters. Trees need pruning on boulevard at 87 Street and 121 Avenue.

O Traffic Shoricutting

What happened to the proposed Fort Road Closure?

78 Street is a dead end and should be signed as such. Increase the number of bridges. There should be a pedestrian access to the River Valley east of the downtown, e.g., an underground pedway.

-62-

Parking on 78 Street should be allowed. The long term expansion of the eastern portion of downtown should not disrupt residents.

Snow cleared from street should be dumped in front of borden Park, not on the residential side of the street. Concern for future of neighbourhood due to Northlands and the Capilano Freeway. House repairs and renovations are not done.

ISSUE

COMMENTS

PLANNING AND „ DEVELOPMENT

Revitalize 118 Avenue commercial strip much like Whyte Avenue (3).

•

Develop major shopping facilities near LRT stations (Cromdale).

COMMENTS

Concern about future expansion of Northlands and the Capilano Freeway renovations house repairs and consequently not being done (2 -Virginia Park). Table 24 describes residents' opinions regarding residential development in the future. Largest support was provided for duplexes (71%) while lowest support came for high-rise apartments (16%) and row/town houses (15%).

Apartment buildings should be required to provide more amenities for tenants. •

City should encourage more familyoriented housing and provide amenities (Cromdale, Virginia Park, Parkdale).

•

Encourage better designed inf ill housing.

•

Duplexes on 77 Avenue have downgraded the area (Elmwood Park).

Problems with transients, drunks and motorcycle gangs (Parkdale). •

Place more emphasis on crime prevention through community-based programs.

▪

Closure of Safeway on 118 Avenue would have a bad effect (Parkdale).

Absentee landlords do not properly maintain their properties (Parkdale). Larger lot sizes for duplexes (Parkdale). What happened to Fort Road closure? (Parkdale). •

City should give tax breaks and other forms of assistance to neighbourhood stores.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES/ PROGRAMS

need more mobile libraries. PARKS AND RECREATION

Never informed about apartment development (Eastwood).

Provide pedestrian access to River Valley (Cromdale). Maintain park equipment better, i.e. 118 Avenue/92 Street behind the racquetball courts.

Long term expansion of Downtown eastwards a concern (Virginia Park). City Bylaws should control the keeping of domestic birds and animals (Eastwood).

•

Need more local parks (Elmwood Park). TRANSIT

Increase bus service after 6 p.m. (Eastwood)). Provide bus service for 73 Street and 112 Avenue. #3 bus should have more frequent service (Parkdale).

-63-

ISSUE

COMMENTS

TRANSPORTATION.

33 specific items were identified by residents surveyed and are shown on Map II.

NEIGHBOURHOOD. APPEARANCE

Back lanes - need lighting (2-Cromdale, 1-Elmwood Park, 2-Parkdale, 2-Virginia Park); need paving (1-Cromdale, 2Virginia Park). Decrepit buildings which need to be repaired or demolished (2-Cromdale, 2Virginia Park).

•

Sidewalks (3-Elmwood Park).

•

Few boulevards along the Avenues. Trees need 87 Street/ I 21 Avenue.

pruning

▪

Screen industrial areas along Yellowhead Trail and Fort Road (2).

•

Combined sewer overflows causing sewer backup (Virginia Park). Better enforcement controlling dog droppings.

•

bylaws

Increase street lighting (parkdale). Snow cleared from the street should be dumped on the Borden Park side (west side) instead of the residential side (east). Table 25 describes residents' opinions regarding neighbourhood appearance. 66% of residents surveyed were satisfied with their generally neighbourhood's appearance. Highest dissatisfaction (26%) occurred with roadway design. -64-

TABLE 24 CENTRAL EAST - SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (percentages in brackets) If there was to be some type of housing project in your immediate neighbourhood during the next five years, would you support new housing for:

HIGH-RISE APARTMENTS

WALK-UP APARTMENTS

DUPLEXES

THREE/FOUR PLEXES

ROW/TOWN HOUSES

(0)

Yes

(16)

(41)

(71)

(33)

(15)

(76)

(56)

(21)

(62)

(73)

Yes-Conditions

(3)

(2)

(6)

(2)

(0)

No Opinion

(5)

(2)

(3)

(2)

(100)

No Response

TOTAL

-65-

TABLE 25 CENTRAL EAST - NEIGHBOURHOOD APPEARANCE (percentages in brackets) The next list of things describes how your neighbourhood looks. Are you satisfied with:

CATEGORY

NO RESPONSE

VERY SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT VERY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED

NO OPINION

TOTAL

Housing Mix

(0)

(18)

(62)

(6)

(11)

(2)

Location of Public Housing

(0)

(13)

(48)

(2)

(6)

(32)

Roadway Design

(0)

(16)

(59)

(16)

(10)

(0)

Location of Schools/ Parks/Public Facilities

(0)

(27)

(60)

(6)

(2)

(5)

Tree Planting and Boulevards

(0)

(54)

(29)

(10)

(3)

(5)

Back Lane Lighting/Paving

(0)

(52)

(22)

(13)

(2)

(0)

Other Features

(2)

(0)

(2)

(0)

(94)

GENERAL TRENDS

(0)

113

(26)

177

(40)

(8)

(6)

(20)

441

-66-

(100)