Edmonton (Alta. ) -1966-Relocation of fraternity houses in Garneau_ research report no 2 (1966- 07)

4474

D040/3550/1966

RELOCATION OF EDMONTON.-PLANNING .

PLANNING DEPAJRTMENT

LIBRARY TUE MY OF LOU't:INTON

RELOCATION

OF

FRATERNITY

!gin airty; DeponLit. :All:c4

A !

Ttie City of Edukontoto

HOUSES

IN

GARNEAU

CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT EDMONTON ALBERTA 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page SUMMARY INTRODUCTION I. THE NEED FOR RELOCATION II. RELOCATION PROBLEMS A. Limitation of Areas B. .Zoning Problems C. The Necessity of a Temporary Move D. An Example of the Relocation Problem III. THE FUNCTIONS AND NEEDS OF FRATERNITIES IV, FRATERNITIES AS A USE OF LAND A. Compatibility With Other Residential Land Uses B. Solutions to Objections and Incompatibilities V. OFFICIAL POLICIES AND ATTITUDES THAT PERTAIN TO RELOCATION A. The City of Edmonton B. The Provincial Government C. The University Administration D. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation VI. SOME A. B. C.

RELOCATION PROPOSALS AND POSSIBILITIES General Proposals Specific Proposals A Comparison of 116th Street and South Garneau

APPENDIX

iv 1

3 3 4 6 7 10 13 13

16 18 18 20 20 21 23 23 25 29 31

LIST OF DR,:!INGS

Following Page 1. Location of Fraternity Houses

1

2. Staging of University. 2xpansion

2

3.

The University Area

4.

Zoning of University Area

3 4

5.

6.

7.

Land Use Classification Guide of University Area

4

Land Use in Garneau

7

The Relationship of Two Major Proposals to the Campus and Future Planning Developments

25

SUMMARY

Fraternities have been a significant part of student life at the University of Alberta for over thirty-seven years. They occupy individual houses in the residential areas adjacent to the University campus and serve the University by providing housing, parking, dining facilities and centres of social activity for students, Eleven of Alberta's fourteen fraternities are being forced to find new locations due to the University's physical expansion into North Garneau which commences in May, 1967, but the lack of suitable sites is creating a serious relocation problem.

Fraternities and their present locational pattern are characterized by various problems. Most fraternity houses are converted single family structures that are inadequate for fraternity use and consequently suffer from physical deterioration. Other problems originate from the incompatibility of fraternities with other uses of land and include the greater amount and different types of activities that typify Universityoriented residences such as fraternities. The present distribution of fraternity houses constitutes the maximum possible exposure of fraternities to dissimilar residential land uses and hence causes the maximum degree of incompatibility. The best solution lies in the construction of new fraternity houses and grouping them in a separate area.

The creation of a separate area for University-oriented institutional land uses would solve the major problem of incompatibility which exists under the present pattern of location. This would minimize the exposure of fraternities and similar University-oriented residential institutions to other residential land uses and hence minimize any conflict, In addition such a grouping would present the opportunity of developing

efficient and economical centralized facilities of which parking is the most significant and necessary.

All but one of the fourteen fraternities are in the position of having to build new houses and several have made plans for structures specifically suited to their function as fraternity houses. A 1960 amendment to Canada's National Housing Act has made the financing of fraternity houses quite feasible, and the Board of Governors of the University has endorsed the concept of a separate fraternity area and an organized relocation effort.

The combination of the desire to build new fraternity houses, the feasibility of financing, the support of the University and the advantages inherent in a separate grouping of such institutions presents a fine opportunity to realize a major comprehensive development provided that the means are found to assemble an area of land of sufficient size.

Land assembly is the essential element in achieving comprehensive development and it is suggested that the Board of Governors of the University consider requesting the Provincial Government to reserve an area specifically for the development of University-related residential institutions.

Such an area could be designated a Public Works Area as an extension of that currently existing on the north side of 870 Avenue and west of 110th Street.

The most desirable location for the development of an area for University-related residential institutions lies in South Garneau, between 1100 and 1110 Streets and 850 and 870 Avenues. This site is adjacent to the University Campus expansion area and the proposed South Freeway and will likely undergo redevelopment in the near future. South Garneau is

presently experiencing a trend of conversion to higher residential density which relates to the pressure for student accommodation from the nearby University. This trend is causing housing in South Garneau to age prematurely and will be accentuated when University expansion forces the large number of converted uses out of North Garneau.

The development of the South Garneau area should take place in two stages. The first stage should begin as soon as possible and cover the northern block of the two-block area, This block presently accommodates two fraternities and could accommodate most of the fraternities that plan to build immediately. The second stage would consist of the southern block which would be developed as the fraternity system at the University expands. This block presently does not feature the degree of conversion found in the northern block and has therefore not yet experienced such strong pressure for redevelopment.

The comprehensive development of an area for University-related residential institutions will be accomplished through the application of appropriate building standards and subdivision alterations in the South Garneau area. These development standards and subdivision alterations will manifest a comprehensively planned unit of residential structures that will reflect consideration of parking needs, compatibility in the land use pattern, traffic circulation and the amenities of the University area as a whole.

iv INTRODUCTION

Fraternities are social organizations that derive their membership from a University student body. They perpetuate themselves by fulfilling the need for friendship within primary group associations that exists at large institutions such as Universities, Fraternity members are drawn from a wide variety of geographic and social backgrounds and pursue a broad range of academic and extracurricular interests as University students. This diversity within each fraternity is underlain by the belief of members in basic ideals that vary from one fraternity to another but which centre upon the advocation of high standards of character and achievement in University and later life. The pursuit of such ideals is facilitated by the leadership of older members and loyal alumni bodies who offer guidance and maintain fraternity traditions that may have roots in ancient history.

The extent to which fraternities achieve their ideals and consequently play a positive and unique role within a University community can be gauged by the attitude of the University's administration toward them.

The first international fraternity established at the University of Alberta in 1929 when the Administration officially sanctioned the concept of fraternities. The fraternity system has subsequently expanded to include fourteen separate fraternities, ten men's and four women's, which have a total membership of over eight hundred students. In the belief that such organizations make large and positive contributions to student life at the University, the Administration and the Interfraternity Council take an active role in promoting the further expansion of the fraternity system at the University.

This policy will ensure the continued growth of the system and consequently reinforce the significance that fraternities have played in the past.

I. 2-12 N:3D -0? a_ZOC,TION

Fraternities have traditionally been accommodated in individual houses, a feature

allows them to remain inde)endent and maintain a

fundamental distinctiveness in terms of the University and the fraternity system as a whole. The ex.?erience on several North American campuses has been that fraternities have established on University land, often organized into a row or village of separate houses. The situation at the University of Alberta has differed in that fraternities have established individually on non-university land, which relates to the relatively informal relationship between fraternities and the University administration.

The need for individual houses and an off-campus location led the fraternities to establish in the residential area immediately east of the University known as North Garneau. This area is one of the City's older residential areas and, since it was an area of upper income.group homes, it features relatively large houses which lend themselves to conversion for fraternity use. Since 1929 the fraternities have undertaken an average of two moves each and, with the exception of one minor move, all have taken place within the Garneau area. The present distribution of fraternity houses is shown on Drawing 1 and reveals a pattern which exhibits two basic characteristics of past and present fraternity locations.

1) Fraternities require a location as near as possible to the academic centre of the campus, although not on the campus, and; 2) Fraternities require relatively large houses to accommodate their functions and activities.

These requirements were adequately fulfilled by the present locations in Garneau, although several fraternities were considering the construction

GARNEAU

MEI HOUSE FOR WHICH APPLICATION TO CONVERT 10 FRATERNITY USE WAS REFUSED

A.aD. 91 AVE;

90

AVE.

89

AVE.

88

AVE.

500

0

(r)

a; o:

SCALE 87

AVE. 0

86

AVE.

85

AVE.

0

Ti .'

FT

ii-ri P

1 1

1

84

AVE.

83

AVE.

82

AVE.

HHIHIHHHII 1-RESEARCH REPORT NUMBER 2 DRAWING

LOCATION OF FRATERNITIES IN THE UNIVERSITY AREA CITY OF EDMONTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DRAWN BY : M. S14.1

.1111Y leitA

-2-

of new houses due to the deterioration and aging of their present structures.

This situation was suadenly altered in 1962, however, by the University's decision to expand eastward into North Garn3au where most of the fraternities were well established. This decision forced the question of relocation upon the majority of Alberta's fraternities, though very little concrete action resulted due mainly to the fact that the University made no definite statement regarding where or when their eastward expansion would begin. This period of uncertainty ended on February 25, 1966 when the University stated they would be undertaking their first stage of expansion in hay, 1967. The program of expansion is illustrated on Drawing 2 which reveals that six fraternities will be affected by the first stage, and eleven in the overall expansion period to be completed by

1973.

The University's definite expan-

sion plan made relocation an immediate concern and the following sections of this report will reveal the complexities of what has emerged as the relocation problem.

GARNEL,U

90

r` I.

.1

88

TI

(/*)

500

?

Cr)

SCALE 8-71•An AV EfIni (\J

0

86

AVE.

85

AVE.

1

r

11111 1

I r.

1 I1 1

84

AVE.

83

AVE.

82

AVE.

111111

11

I

1

I I I

III 1 RESEARCH REPORT NUMBER 2 DRAWING

STAGING OF UNIVERSITY EXPANSION INTO NORTH GARNEAU

2

CITY OF EDMONTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DRAWN RY M S N

I

.1111 Y

oann

-3II. .RELOCATION PROBLEMS

Several problems are encountered in finding new fraternity locations theit compare in favourable terms with present locations. These problems include limitations on the areas available for relocation, zoning restrictions, conflicts in land use, and the type of housing that fraternities are forced to utilize as temporary quarters. The utilization of temporary quarters is necessitated by the move out of North Garneau and the lack of suitable areas in which to re-establish permanently.

A. Limitation of Areas The two basic characteristics revealed by the present fraternity locational pattern are difficult to combine in any other area.

Consideration of the primary characteristic, proximity to the campus, limits the choice of areas to those immediately adjacent to the University - Windsor Park, Belgravia, McKernan and South Garneau which are outlined on Drawing

3.

When the second basic characteristic is considered, that of large, convertible houses, the choice of areas is narrowed further. The western and southern portions of Windsor Park, and Belgravia were developed after 1950 and eastern Windsor Park and the southern portion of McKernan were built up mainly between 1940 and 1950. These areas therefore feature relatively new housing which is dominated by single family homes and a prevalence of bungalow-style houses that do not lend themselves to conversion for fraternity use. South Garneau and the remainder of McKernan are characterized by older houses, the oldest and largest of which are found in the former. Therefore, the area which compares most favourably with

NCRTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER

•

I I NORTH GARNEAU I I .. IL

1

Li

a

LI

SARI/EAU ELSAIENTARV am HACH SCHOOL

I

1T7 ., ;,

E

1 SOUTH GARNEAU a

MED

STRATH-CONA I _r_ E

r I

AV

0

4)1—

IL

a 1

1

1

76

A VE

BELGRAVIA 1

IL

1

1

I

CLEVE/4,7-AP, e JUN/OR HIEN

SCHOOL

F McKERNAN

1 75

AVE

74 AVE.

1

E

ST earffrAes 3cmoot_

ILL6AAVIA 'LEVI-NT/WV SCHOOL

AV%

1 70

10

AVE

RESEARCH REPORT NUMBER 2 DRAWING

UNIVERSITY AREA

3

CITY OF EDMONTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT no Awki

: FPd

I

.1111 V

1004

North Garneau as a site for fraternities is South Garneau, though even this area does not feature an abundance of the larger type of house that fraternities have preferred, B. Zoning Problems The City of Edmonton zoning regulations reinforce the areal limitations confronting fraternity .,7elocation. The zoning classifications which specifically permit fraternity houses are R-3, Residential District and R-4, General Residential District. The distribution of these zones may be seen on Drawing 4* which outlines the City Zoning Bylaw in the University area. The area not covered by the Bylaw is classified under the Land Use Classification Guide which is a means of interim development control pending completion of the Zoning Bylaw. The classification of these areas is shown on Drawing 5.

The distribution of the zones which permit fraternity development is one aspect of the relocation problem. The R-3 area nearest the University lies south of University Avenue in Belgravia, and the nearest R-4 area is found east of 109th Street. Both of these areas are farther from the campus than any fraternity has located to date, and the R-4 area is isolated from the campus by 109th Street and will be virtually cut off when the proposed South Freeway is constructed. The distribution of those zones that permit fraternity development therefore does not recognize that froternities are a University-related use of land, and that the fundamental element in this relationship is proximity.

Another criticizm of City zoning regulations might be the categories of land use classification in which fraternities are placed. *Appendix A lists the zoning classifications utilized on Drawings 4 and 5.

V OR7...

A chewAN RI

A s.ts

RR

~MERU EL EMERY-ARV (aim N/SN SCHOOL.

PROVINCIAL CROWN LAND

U.of A.

V

FEDERU. CROWN LAND

CPOWN LAND

Sc AVENVE

/

AF So AVE

70 AVE

AP 11 A.,NERNAN gLzwfrovrApr

77

AVE •

e JUNIOR NIGH

R3

7. AVE

z

NC-I

7Ar AVE

RC-I 7.0, AVE

,

0.-6RAVIA 01-ZAiLNTAR1 ECHO oz.

R-I

Sr Harms acwoorRC-I

AP

I

ii If

R-1

R-3 RESEARCH REPORT NUMBER 2

DRAWING

ZONING OF THE UNIVERSITY AREA

CITY OF EDMONTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT nAAWKI

Fpj

I

.1111 Y

ICIAg

NORTH s4sK4

CHE w4 ry

veR

A

AVE

BP A.,E

N. B, 1.733404 3444 31.34fatorAmv I. .SC4331.

07 AVE,G0

R

I 1 , 11

REFER ALS1 II-0 NOTE I

ON P.W.D-A.

IN 0.2 .. AVE.

-s

RC-1

00 0

2

7

CU

lap

.9

AecoGEONAN Sc0.0347.4m, autwort Jetraw 30,001.

77 AVE.

743

OLLERAVIA 31.04A7•7347 3coocaoc.

L.

AVE

l!C C C 1C 1C

sr Par333 scAsoc

73 AVE

7.3 AvENG,

/

IC

c-I 7/ AVE

ID 0

70 AVE

R-2

RESEARCH REPORT NUMBER 2

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS ACCORDING TO THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.

DRAWING

5

CITY OF EDMONTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT

(DEALING WITH THOSE AREAS NOT COVERED BY THE ZONING BYLAW)

npiawrd

NY'

N

I

lilY .claa

-5The R-3 zone provides mainly for 7alk-up apartment development and fraternity houses are listed among the permitted transitional uses, The R-4 zone includes fraternities among permitted uses which feature a higher density than those permitted under the R-3 zone. In both cases the zoning regulations place fraternities in a category with apartments. This, however, does not recognize a major difference between these different uses of land. Apartments constitute a profitmotivated type of residential development, while fraternities are an institutional use of land where the residents have central dining facilities and social area. Fraternities are not profit-oriented and this is borne out by their eligibility for mortgages under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's co-operative housing loans. Apartments therefore have an advantae in the purchase of land when compared to fraternities, for they can afford to pay more for a given area of land assuming that each will accommodate the same number of residents.

It is, however, debatable whether zoning should differentiate between uses on the basis of their abilities to purchase land.

What should perhaps be recognized in the zoning regulations is the institutional nature of fraternities as opposed to apartment buildings. This could result in more satisfactory development regulations which would apply to the real needs of fraternities. Since fraternity houses do not require kitchen facilities in each room or suite, as apartments do, a higher occupance densi4 might be allowed. Other facilities such as washrooms and social areas need not be duplicated to the extent they are in apartment buildings, which would allow for further modification of density regulations. Such considerations would contribute

_6_ to somewhat different development restrictions for fraternity houses than those that presently apply to R-3 and R-4 apartment development.

C. The Necessity of a Temporary Move The area which best meets the requirements of proximity to the campus and older, convertible houses is South Garneau and is designated as RC-1, Residential Conversion District, under the Land Use Classification Guide. This classification does not specifically include fraternity houses as a permitted use of land although three fraternities are now established in the area. These include Kappa Alpha Theta, Delta Kappa Epsilon and Kappa Sigma, the latter two of which have moved since the University's declaration of their expansion plans. Both fraternities bought former single family dwellings and carried out extensive renovations and alterations, although they intend to build new houses within the next three to five years. The conversion to fraternity use was possible only through api)eal to City Council, and the construction of new houses would have to be approved in a similar manner. There is, however, no precedent of an application to build a new fraternity house in the area and whether it would be allowed or not is unknown at present.

Fraternities therefore find themselves in awkward circumstances, wishing to construct new houses, and yet not knowing if or where this will be ipossible.

The fraternities now located in South Garneau have made a temporary move but the uncertainty of where and when they will be able to redevelop creates difficulties in deciding on the value they should invest in their temporary quarters. This uncertainty does not foster

positive efforts t 'ard mniutenance and improvement - a feature which is more fully illustrated by fraternity houses in North Garneau. These fraternities, knowin they will be disple.ced shortly, are more than hesitant aeout investing in any sort of improvement to their houses which therefore deteriorate more rapidly than they would under normal circumstances.

D. An Example of the Relocation Problem A recent application to convert a house in South Garneau into a fraternity house provides a fine illustration of the relocation problem. Lambda Chi Alpha has occupied a house in North Garneau for several years - a house which has lately fallen into poor structural condition. The fraternity was understandably reluctant to carry out major repairs for they wished to build a new house and knew they would soon be displaced from North Garneau by the University. The poor condition of the house, however, forced Lambda Chi Alpha into seeking a new location about seven years before their land was actually required by the University. The logical choice for a ne% site was South Garneau where three fraternities were already established. There were several convertible houses for sale and the area was reasonably near the University. The fraternity subsequently purchased an option on a house at 11012 - 85th Avenue and applied to convert the dwelling for use as a fraternity house. This application was refused by the Development Control Officer as a non-conforming land use under the RC-1 zoning classification of the area. Lambda Chi Alpha then appealed to the Development Appeal Board and finally City Council, but their appeal was refused

GARNEAU

INAr 91 AVE.

SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS

1=I

TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS

t=J

CONVERTED,MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND ROOMING HOUSES APARTMENTS HIGH RISE

Mg

COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE BLDGS.

90

PARKING INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS .f,.*;?,

W ] ,k‘,*

I I

1 1

......':!•:i

% Al.

* .::.

V

I AVE.

89

:::::::

VACANT LOTS

•,:::,

8

•

11

1

.... . .

. .1 1 ;.;i.

,. : 88

AVE

f.,. . c,*.

-.., ..

••.•

10= P,M.A

i•s:,

cf)

1 I

V

IMO 4MM am am um am 4ms mi. ems ammo

V

500 SCALE

870..AvE.m T'fil4? ..,.. ,

(DO 10111111 s:?

I ,

AVE.

86 iv: .*:. .,:

•:. :.'

•:_

HIGH RISE APARTMENT UNDER CONST.

M:..,. .....

V

. -: •:,

85

AVE.

••: •

m 0 4,, 84

IF 9

,

6

:••••.vi

AVE.

-., ....,'.,*

;•,?: :. :•Z,

"6:Z.. •":

PARK

83 see

AVE. 1 \I

V 82

AVE. RESEARCH REPORT NUMBER 2 DRAWING

LAND USE

CITY OF EDMONTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT ()PAWN AY 14 cii I

.11.1t Y

ISISA

-8by both bodies.

The case of Lambda Chi Alpha differs somewhat from the cases of other fraternities in South Garneau. The house chosen by L.C.A. is situated in a stable residential area where many of the present residents have lived for many years and relatively few conversions have taken place. In contrast, the block south of 07th Avenue between 110th and 111th Streets, where two fraternities are presently established, is not nearly such a desirable ar2a for slngle family dwellings. The block features a significant amount of conversion to suites and two-family dwellings, and the use of 87th Avenue as a main thoroughfare makes the immediate area less tranquil than those a block or more to the south.

Therefore, the resistance to fraternity development along 87th Avenue was significantly less than that encountered by L.C.A. in the 85th Avenue area.

However, despite this difference between the cases of L.C.A. and other fraternities in South Garneau, the case does raise a number of important points which must be reconciled in the relocation problem.

One such point involves the feeling of resident property owners toward a fraternity establishing in the vicinity. The basic objection relates to the feeling that fraternities detract from the amenity of a residential area - in terms of the physical appearance of houses, the additional activity and noise, the increased number of occupants, and the magnification of the parking and traffic circulation problems. These objections will be more thoroughly discussed and qualified in Section IV of this report.

Another point raised by the Lambda Chi Alpha development application is the immediacy of the relocation problem. The deadline

-9— set by the University for removal cf occupants of North Garneau has pressed eleven fraternities into seeking new locations in the near future. The L.C.A. case, however, flaustrates the difficulties involved in such a procedure.

Finally, the L.C.A. case reveals the type of housing that fraternities are forced to accept - that of converted single family dwellings which fall short both of what fraternities need and what they can afford and desire to develop. All fourteen fraternities except Kappa Alpha Theta, wish to build new houses, planned and arranged around fraternity functions and in conformance with the highest standards of residential amenity. However, the lack of suitable locations has prevented such development and fraternities must continue to occupy temporary and unsatisfactory quarters.

-10III. 2HE FUNGTIONS

1, :1,117)

N=S OF FRLTERNITIES

A fraternity undertakes a wide variety of activities and fulfills a number of functions as a part of the overall University community. Activities encompass athletic, social, cultural, public service and political pursuits, not to mention the fundamental goal of academic achievement. The functions of a fraternity include the provision of a centre from which the above activities may take place - and the provision of housing, parking, and dining facilities for members.

The houses presently occupied by fraternities provide accommodation for an average of fourteen students each and dining facilities for up to thirty or forty. The amount of parking space proviJed by the houses relates to the number of occupants in each house, in accordance with City of Edmonton zoning regulations. In nearly all cases the fraternities are inadequately suited to provide the quantity and quality of facilities they desire for, in utilizing converted dwellings, definite limitations are placed on the facilities they may develop. Most fraternities require larger kitchen and dining areas, more accommodation for living-in members and more parking space, all of which they hope to realize upon construction of new houses.

A recent survey undertaken by the Interfraternity Council Relocation Committee revealed the plans that various fraternities have made regarding new houses. The values of the proposed houses, excluding the cost of land, range from $50,000 to $150,000 and average approximately $80,000. The number of living-in members to be accommodated in these houses averages from 20 to 25, although some of the larger and more expensive houses may find that a higher number of boarders are necessary to meet the construction and maintenance cost of the house. The provision of more parking space is also a matter of concern

-11-

and support has been expressed for some kind of a co-operative venture for parking in the event that fraternities undertake tli't aevelopment of a row or village.

The survey also revealed the type of relocation the fraternities wish to follow, Unanimous ap,,roval was given to a proposal for an organized relocation effort, as long as participation in any such venture was completly voluntary. The most desirable degree of organization was indicated by all but one fraternity to be a row or village, with detached houses built according to individual specifications.

The expansion of the fraternity system at the University may be expected to correspond to the growth of the University student population.

The 1965 - 1966 full-time student enrolment at the University was 10,274, of whom over eight hundred or eight percent belonged to fraternities. The proportion of the total number of University students that belong to fraternities therefore falls slightly below the ten percent which the Administration recommends as a desirable proportion. However, this ten percent proportion should be attained when an orderly relocation has been accomplished and the fraternity system may turn its efforts toward expansion. The University has established an upper limit on full-time student enrolment of 18,000 which is expected to be reached by 1973 - 1974,

Assuming that the growth of fraternity

membership will occur in proportion to University growth, over 1,400 students will belong to fraternities by 1973 - 1974. This projection is based on the present ratio of fraternity members to the total number of students. If, however, the recommended level of ten percent fraternity membership is achieved when the University reaches its maximum enrolment, fraternity population will total approximately 1,800, This number of fraternity members

-12-

would require 2.25 times the facilities that are required by the present membership of fraternities.

Considering the extent to which the designs for new houses have been planned and the existence of the general desire to undertake an orL;anized relocation effort, the basic need of fraternities at this time is the provision of an area that would allow such a development to materialize. This area would have to meet such major requirements as proximity to the campus and the provision of ample space for the projected fraternity population, and at the same time it would have to be compatible with the overall land use pattern of its surroundings. The following section will examine certain conflicts that must be settled in the choice of such an area and involves the question of fraternities as a use of land and their compatibility with other uses.

-13-

IV. FRATERNITIQS AS A US2, OF LAND The functions and activities of fraternities discussed in the previous section give an insight into the type of land use that fraternity houses constitute. This section deals initially with the objections raised by residents of an area into which a fraternity attempted to move. These objections will be examined to determine the compatibility of fraternities and residential neighbourhoods and following this examination will be a discussion of how such objections, should they be realistic, be eliminated.

A. Compatibility With Other Residential Land Uses The objections voiced by the residents of 8.5tb Avenue in response to the Lambda Chi Alpha application to establish in the area will be used as a sample of the publics' feelings toward fraternity houses.

The basic objection, raised in Section II, is that fraternity houses detract from the amenity of a residential area and consequently lower the value of the property in the neighbourhood. The manner in which fraternities allegedly cause this deterioration of property values may be examined from the folloying points of view, 1. Physical Appearance The physical condition of fraternity houses and the quality of house and property maintenance has been said to fall below the general standards of the Garneau area. The validity of this contention varies from one fraternity house to another but, in general, fraternity properties do not receive the attention they require. The physical deterioration of certain houses has actually been a major factor in the need to relocate and construct new quarters.

The reasons for the physical deterioration of fraternity houses have been touched upon before. Most fraternities have had to utilize converted dwellings for their activities and si:Ice these housed were constructed for single family use they do not stand up to the heavier usage to which they are subjected as fr-ternity houses. The consequent decline in physical condition is often not properly corrected for one or both of the following reasons: i) nearly all fraternities wish to build new houses suited to their function as soon as a satisfactory area becomes available and therefore minimize alterations and repairs to their temporary quarters; ii)those fraternities in North Garneau know their present house will be taken over by University expansion and that any investment in major repairs would not be recovered in the sale of the house.

Another complaint about the appearance of fraternity houses is that the maintenance of properties is unsatisfactory. This usually relates to the care of lawns during the summer months when the University and the fraternities do not operate at their usual capacity and routine maintenance is often neglected, 2. Amount of Activity Another category of objections concerns the increased activity which characterizes institutions such as fraternities. This is undoubtedly a valid objection in an area of single family dwellings.

Since fraternities average from 65 to 75 members, of whom an average of 14 live in the house, the increase in activity would definitely stand out in an otherwise single family area. Mealtimes and Friday

-15-

and Saturday evenings are the period during which houses are used the most, while at other times activity rarely exceeds what one would expect from a rooming house or small apartment housing a similar number of people. It is the periods of peak activity that lead to comiplaints of the excessive activity in and around fraternity houses.

Associated with the increased activity of fraternity houses is the additional traffic circulation and parking needs that this activity generates. Garneau is characterized by traffic and parking congestion which is caused by student use of on-street parking during the day and evening use by the residents of the increasing number of converted dwellings in the area. Fraternities aggravate the problem during their periods of peak activity and the accommodation of the excessive traffic they generate must be considered a major part of relocation.

3. Type of Activity A third main category of objections toward fraternity houses concerns the type of activities that characterize such institutions. Some fraternities have gained reputations of being noisy and rowdy, though this varies considerably in individua

cases. Such claims may be

granted considerable credence when the nature of fraternity membership is taken into account. Since the membership of fraternities and similar institutions consists of University students who average twenty years of age, the grouping of a number of such individuals in one dwelling place could reasonably be expected to generate more noise and activity than would be normal in a wholly one or two-family residential area. Therefore, the type of activities associated with fraternity houses are another factor which makes fraternities and similar residcrcez

-16-

incompatible with other residential land uses.

B. Solutions to Objections and Incompatibilities The objections to the physical appearance of fraternity properties may be eliminated to varying degrees, depending upon the type of relocation that takes place.. The poor physical condition of present houses should not be expected when new houses, built around fraternity functions, are constructed. If the pride in such structures is not enough to encourage first class maintenance alone, the mortgage commitments that the fraternities will have to make should stimulate more than enough effort to meet mnintenance requirements.

Most other objections toward fraternities can be overcome by a solution which entails a much larger undertaking than simply building new houses and yet requires new houses as a basic element to achieve full success. This solution consists of the separation of fraternities and similar institutions into an area by themselves which would eliminate certain problems in the following manner, A grouping of fraternities would provide the opportunity for joint landscaping and property maintenance which would overcome the present objection to the unkempt appearance of some fraternity properties. Groundskeeping could be arranged by annual contract to a landscaping firm or the University groundskeeping department and thereby eliminate the potential neglect that exists during the summer months.

The segregation of fraternities and other institutions that constitute co-operative non-profit housing would minimize the present objections regarding the amount and type of activity that characterize such institutions. A separate area would feature a uniform use of land

-17-

that would not detract from the amenity of a residential area of a generally different nature. Under present circumstances, fraternities are located haphazardly in an area 'chere neighbouring land uses are not necessarily similar and incompatibility results. The present locational pattern of fraternities constitutes the maximum possible exposure of fraternities to disimilar land uses ad hence causes the maximum possible degree of incompatibility. The segregation of fraternities and other University-related residences would confine their excessive activity to a single area and reduce any incompatibility to a minimum.

A separate area would also present the opportunity for co-operative approaches to other problems. The most important problem that could be dealt with collectively is parking for, if the fraternities were located in a relatively compact manner, they could share a large facility such as a parkade which would see double duty when used for general student 'parking during the day. An additional advantage of a compact area for fraternity houses would lie in the potential unity of landscaping that might be achieved and the economy in arranging jointly for groundskeeping and similar services by contract with a lawn service or even the University groundskeeping department.

In summary, this section indicates that the numerous problems and criticisms inherent in the present locationai pattern of fraternities can be eliminated. What remains to be examined is the plausibility of a development taking place that would solve the present problems of location, and which would, at the same time, be satisfactory to the City, the University and the fraternities and also prove to be an economically feasible undertaking.

V. OFFICIAL POLICIES AND ATTITUDES THAT PERTAIN TO RELOCJ=1.TION

A. The City of Edmonton Several major planning objectives hold significance to the fraternity relocation situetion. The following principles and objectives were taken from the draft of EdL:lonton's Proposed General Plan and apply to questions of land use, residential development, urban desiL;n and zoning.

(1) To provide sufficient area for every land use as required by existing needs and anticipated growth.

(2) To eliminate existing conflicts and avoid future conflicts between incompatible land uses.

(3) To provide all people, diverse in social, cultural and economic situations, with the opportunity of having suitable accommodation.

(4) To encoura,e and stimulate comprehensive redevelopment in older residential areas.

(5) To prevent the intrusion of incompatible land uses which would adversely affect the health and amenities of a residential area, or otherwise seriously interfere with the maintenance of property values.

(6) To achieve maximum aesthetic satisfaction in the internal design and overall arrangement of different areas of land use through the implementation of sound urban design principles.

(7) Zoning of residential land should be based on a periodic assessment of the demand for various types of housing accommodation.

There are two means by which the City may undertake the achievement of a particular Plan or development. The most common method of influencing development is zoning, while a more forceful procedure involves the use of a Development Scheme as outlined in The Planning Act of 1963.

Zoning consists of the adoption by Civic bylaw of regulations governing the use of land in a particular area. The bylaw regulations are drafted according to the present use of the land and proposed land use and

they constitute the standard means by which Planning objectives are achieved.

A large portion of the land surrounding the University is presently not covered by the Zoning Bylaw and, when this area is zoned, the objectives listed previously will be utilized in determining the ultimate zoning classifications, The use of the more powerful Development Scheme as a means to achieve a development proposal is outlined in The Planning Act, Section 114.

(1) At any time after the adoption of a general plan or while development control is to be exercised prior thereto, the Council may prepare and by bylaw adopt a development scheme for the purpose of (a) ensuring that any proposal contained or to be included in the general plan will be carried out or will be carried out in a particular manner, or (b) amplify the details of any such proposal, or both.

The Planning Act describes in detail the powers of land acquisition and assembly that a development scheme bylaw carries, and in Subsection 2(d) states that a "council, by a development scheme, may make available any land for agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial, or other uses of any class at any time." A development scheme, therefore, carries a much more positive and strong legal force than zoning bylaws which are merely restrictive, not positive, The statement of the Development Control Officer regarding the refused conversion application of Lambda Chi Alpha may be taken as the City's attitude toward the relocation problem, He expresses concern over the possibility that fraternities may once again develop on a piecemeal and haphazard basis, on small sites with inadequate parking and open space. He

-20suggests that now is the time to alter the situation and attempt some comprehensive type of redevelopment such as a fraternity row to encompass up to two City blocks and provide joint parking and open areas. "UnAl the matter of fraternity houses has been satisfactorily resolved, it is strongly recommended that this particular application (L,CA.) be refused." He mentions in conclusion that the City should not inherit the whole relocation problem and suggests that the University could assist in the provision of land for fraternity houses and similar University-related residences.

B. Provincial Government An even more positive means of achieving a planning proposal than a development scheme bylaw is the designation of an area as a Public Works Area. This procedure allows for expropriation of land and comprehensive redevelopment but the authority to declare a Public Works Area rests only with the Provincial Government. Their use of this procedure has been confined to a few large Government projects, one of which has been the assembly of land in North Garneau to accommodate University expansion. The implementation of the Public ':forks Area method in the assembly of land for fraternities and similar institutions would have to be initiated by a request to the Province by the Board of Governors of the University.

C. The University Administration The governing body of the University of Alberta, the Board of Governors, fully endorses any efforts made by the fraternities toward an organized relocation venture. This support reinforces the earlier statements regarding the University Administration's favourable attitude toward fraternities in general and the relocation problem in particular. The

-21Administration presently hopes to have two new fraternities established at the University durins the next two years and the achievement of a comprehensive fraternity development arising out of relocation would accelerate the L;rowth of the fraternity system. The University cannot, however, provide any form of financial subsidization on behalf of fraternities and similar institutions, so the major contribution they can make toward the relocation effort lies in the assembly of land. Negotiations have not as yet taken place regarding the possibility of the University using, and therefore contributing toward, a large parking facility constructed by the fraternities.

The University also recognizes that in addition to the fraternities a number of similar residences in North Garneau will be affected

by University expansion. Residences operated by religious orders and other organizations, like fraternities, complement the supply of student housing. These institutions should therefore be included in the relocation question as University-related institutional residences.

D. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation The financing of the houses that fraternities intend to build must be fully borne by the fraternities themselves. However, a 1960 amendment to Canada's National Housing Act made funds available for University student housing, and fraternities in Vancouver, B.C. and Guelph, Ontario have qualified to receive mortgages as non-profit co-operative residences.

The mortgages will cover up to 90 percent of all development costs and may be extended over as long a period as fifty years at the prevailing rate of interest. Alberta's fraternities have already applied for mortgages under the student housing plan to achieve the development of adequate houses.

-22The foregoing policies and attitudes may be seen to offer several possibilities regarding a solution to the relocation problem. The next section will discuss various poposals that have arisen in the past few years as suggestions for solving the problem and will include more detailed discussion of two highly favoured proposals.

-23VI. SOME 2]LOCTION PROPOSALS AND POSSIEILITIsS A. General Proposals Several suggestions for the solution of the relocation problem have arisen in the past few years, some of which predate the University's 1962 expansion announcement. The settlement of an earlier controversy with the decision to relocate off-campus eliminated certain proposals for on-campus development. However, some proposals are significant regardless of their location and as such deserve discussion in this section.

Certain collective and communal developments have been discussed which feature varying degrees of intimacy and interdependency. These range from a large high-rise structure housing all fraternities and providing centralized kitchen, laundry and recreation facilities, to a group of duplexes accommodating two fraternities per structure and also providing some centralized services, Such proposals compare very favourably with the present scattered form of fraternity development, for they constitute a higher density of residential land use and would permit considerable savings through the numerous centralized facilities providecL However, communal developments have generally been rejected by fraternities because they infringe on the fundamental characteristic of individuality and independence which is maintained within the larger University community. One women's fraternity has indicated a preference for a single structure to house all four women's fraternities. This preference is based primarily on economic considerations and perhaps warrants further discussion among the women's fraternities because there are examples of such developments at other Canadian Universities. The men's fraternities, however, feel that independent houses are a necessity and that any joint

-24-

relocation venture must be carried out in recognition of this need.

Suggestions pertaining to barticular areas for relocation have become the most significant following the concensua of opinion on the most desirable type of development. Each area exhibits definite advantages and disadvantages and will therefore be discussed individually.

The area immediately south of University Avenue in the vicinity of 114th Street has been suggested as a relocation site. This area was built up by the 1940's and is beginning to experience an increase in the number of two-family dwellings. This trend to conversion is a main factor in the area being considered as a relocation site, but several factors outweigh any advantages this area might offer. The average house and lot size is relatively small and a fraternity would require at least two such lots on which to construct a new house, Secondly, the area is more than a convenient walking distance away from the heart of the campus and finally, the area is zoned RC-1 which does not permit fraternity development.

Another suggested relocation site is the University Farm, south of 72nd Avenue and west of 114th Street. This suggestion was prompted by the recent establishment of married students' residences on the University Farm and the major factors which made this site attractive were the feeling that the University would provide relatively cheap land on which to build and that land assembly would be no problem. However, negotiations with the Administration never reached the stage of financial discussion and the availability of cheap land is therefore only a speculative advantage.

Disadvantages of the site are that students would have to reach the carpus

-25by bus or automobile, creating additional traffic and parking complications and the fraternities as a group would be isolated from the active centre of the University. Such isolation would be anathema to both the University and the fraternities as it would detract from student spirit as a whole and lead the fraternity population to think of itself as an entity apart from the campus community. A further drawback involves the potential administrative link between fraternities and the University that might be necessary and which neither really desires.

B. Specific Proposals Two relocation proposals emerge as highly desirable, although the ease with which they might be realized differs to a si,:;nificant degree, These areas are: (1) the west side of 116th Street, between 87th and 91st Avenues, and (2) the area south of 87th Avenue, between 110th and 111th Streets. (Refer to Drawing 7).

1. 116t Street: This proposal involves specifically the two blocks between 116th and 117th Street and 87th and 91st Avenues. Fraternities would ccupy the lots facing onto 116th Street, forming a row for two blocks. Immediately west of the row would be a similar row of faculty housing, facing 117th Street and the first class residential development of Windsor Park. The main advantage of this proposal lies in the proximity of the row to the student heart of the campus, for within a one block radius of the site are found the new Students' Union Bnilding7 the Physical Education Building, the Arena and proposed Stadium, the Jubilee Auditorium, and the Lister Hall Residence Complex. A fraternity

MAJOR INTEPCHANGE UNDER CONSTRUCTION

NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER

--toAo

[8

101

A g

91 113 1

12

01 AVE

77

1 21;

7

IN/N0410.• HARK

dor

AVENUE

L

18 ;

3

ELEMENTARY SCH004

\

E

E30 07 AVENUE

1//////1

MAJOR RELOCATION PROPOSALS

E El

7 Zr .

I/////A AVE

E r‘C Ste

AVENUE

E-111 PROPOSED STADIUM •

PHYSICAL EDUCATION BUILDING

•

ARENA

I:4] PROPOSED ENGINEERING COMPLEX E •

STUDENTS' UNION BUILDING USTER HALL RESIDENCE COMPLEX

70

NORTHERN ALBERTA JUBILEE AUDITORIUM

E== 7s

40.NERNAN ELELIEHVAAV JUN/OR 'NAN SCHOOL

AVE.

k

77

0 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES BUILDING E

74

AGRICULTURE BUILDING

L •

tL

MATHEMATICS -PHYSICS BUILDING

HENRY MARSHALL TORY BUILDING

Ta. AVE

j Avd

0 ARTS BUILDING

sr esremts SCHOOL

IFLSAAVIA CLELAEHTANV AcmOoL

E

CAMERON LIBRARY

0 RUTHERFORD LIBRARY NEDICAL SCIENCES BUILDING

AV%

EDUCATION BUILDING

r-,

LI7j PRoPuSED RESIDENCE CoMPLEX L 'IS] PPOPuSED LAW BUILDING r09i PROPoSED CQNMERCE BUILDING

rid

PROPOSED ARTS BUILDING

121 pRopoSED FINE ARTS SUILDING RESEARCH REPORT NU MSER 2

MAJOR RELOCATION PROPOSALS IN RELATION TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY AREA

DRAWING

7

CITY OF EDMONTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT

row in such a location would provide an energetic nucleus of students to Istimulate interest and activity in student functions and affairs.

In addition, fraternity row and the row of faculty housing would form a graded buffer zone between the University and the remainder of Windsae Park. The proposed Engfueering Complex and proposed Stadium are both to be located on the east side of 116th Street and will undoubtedly create a significant increase in the amount of traffic and parked vehicles in the area, 116th Street will therefore become more heavily used and the construction of the major interchange at Groat Road and Emily Murphy Road bears further testimony to the likelihood that 116t Street will serve as a major traffic route This would make a buffer zone highly desirable in order to protect the first class residential area west of 117th Street and maintain the character and quality of this planned neighbourhood unit.

The disadvantages of the 116th Street site centre upon the legal zoning of the area as RRC-Restricted Residential District. This zoning is realistically based upon the relatively recent construction of housing in the area, the high quality and good condition of housing, and the fact that Windsor Park was planned as a neighbourhood and should be preserved as such for at least the life of the houses within it. A change in the zoning between 116th and 117th Streets to permit fraternity and faculty housing would therefore involve a major planning decision which would hinge upon whether the University's intensive development along 116th Street would indeed justify the creation of a graded buffer zone to protect the remainder of Windsor Park.

2, South Garneau The northern portion of Son tin Garneau is another suggested

-2

relocation area. This area lies within a convenient walking distance of the campus and will even be more strategically located when University expansion has been copleted in North Garneau. The eastern boundary of this area, 1100 Street, will be very definitely established with the construction of the proposed South Freeway. The western boundary of the area should probably be 111th Street due to the high density apartment zone to the west but the possibility of fraternity development still exists in the eastern portion of the block bounded by 86th and 87th Avenues and 111th and 112t Streets, since no apartments have as yet been constructed there. The northern limit of the South Garneau relocation proposal is 87t Avenue, while the southern limit may be either 86th or 85th Avenue, or the lane in between.

This area also possesses several advantages which make it a highly desirable relocation site. Proximity to the campus has already been mentioned, but this is complemented by the housing conditions of the area. South Garneau features the oldest houses and the highest amount of conversion from single family use of any area adjacent to the University except North Garneau. The conversion evident in the area indicates that a residential transition is taking place, which is reflected in the RC-1 zoning classification that designates South Garneau as a Residential Conversion District. This transition consists of an increase in the residential density of the area through the establishment of rented suites and rooms in former single family homes and the conversion of such dwellings into fraternity and rooming houses. The transition is taking place, in part, as a result of the older nature of the area but is mainly due to the influence of the

-28nearby University and the consequent pressure for student accommodation.

It is the transitional neture of the area and the intensity of the pressure to accommodate more students that make this portion of South Garneau a likely relocation site. Although the age of housing in the area does not at this time warrant full redevelopment, conversion in the area will shorten the life expectancy of houses and thereby necessitate some change in the nature of the development., which replaces the obsolete houses. Redevelopment of South Garneau should therefore consist of the higher density of residential land use which present pressures indicate is necessary and, in anticipation of this eventual change, specific zonong regulations should be applied to accommodate redevelopment. It is in the official zoning of South Garneau that one opportunity to realize a major fraternity development exists.

The proposed South Garneau relocation area would serve a number of functions in the overall land use pattern of its surroundings in addition to being an effective means of redevelopment. The area would serve as a buffer zone between the increasingly busy 87th Avenue and any one or two-family residential areas which will be preserved to the south, A fraternity development would also provide some contrast to the high-rise sky-line which is developing between 111th and 112th Streets and at the same time achieve redevelopment of the older residential area. The reorganization of streets and traffic circulation with the construction of the South Freeway will also be possible should a comprehensive redevelopment of northern South Garneau

-29occur. A final advantage enjoyed by this area is the precedent set by the three frternities already established there, which lowers resistance of residents to new fraternities moving in and will facilitate any zoning changes that are found necessary.

C. A Comparison of 116th Street and South Garneau Both areas in question share a number of advantages over other areas. These include proximity to the campus, access to major traffic arteries, provision of a buffer between different land uses and the possibilities of providing the University with parking and residential facilities and making use of University services such as groundskeeping.

It is, however, the individual advantages which determine the most favourable of these two relocation sites.

The need for redevelopment is much greater in South Garneau than Windsor Park and a change in the zoning of Windsor Park to permit redevelopment would be difficult to justify in light of the alternative available. However, the costs of land assembly are quite comparable and suggest that the zoning in Windsor Park actually protects the area from the intrusion of higher economic uses of land that might otherwise occur.

The comparison of property costs may be made on the following basis: Properties along 116th Street have frontages of 50 feet, while South Garneau lots are usually 33 feet wide. Whereas a 50 foot lot would probably be adequate for building a fraternity house, a 33 foot lot would not be adequate and the purchase of a second 33 foot lot would be necessary. If most lots on 116tt Street could be bought within the price range of one property in the area which sold recently for about $50,000, the costs would be significantly less than the cost of two South Garneau lots, which sell

-30-

for about $20,000. This economic disparity is also revealed by a 1964 study of averase unit foot assessment rats, based on a 33 foot unit, which indicated a range of $8o - 00 per foot in South Garneau, compared to 370 - 375 per foot in Windsor Park.

However, the fundamental element in choosing which area is the most suitable relocation site is the anticipated need for redevelopment in South Garneau. Windsor Park will probably remain an attractive residential neighbourhood for many years to come and, although it may enjoy slight economic and locational advantages, the most desirable site from the overall planning point of view is the South Garneau area.

-31APPENDIX A LAND USE ZONES (See Drawings

Classification

L.

and 5)

Description

For Further Information Refer To:

A

Metropolitan Recreational District Zoning Bylaw

AP

Public Parks District

Zoning Bylaw

Cl

Commercial District

ZoningBylaw

C2

Commercial District

Zoning Bylaw

A C2

Commercial District

Land Use Classification Guide

C3

General Commercial District

Land Use Classification Guide

C.U.

University Commercial District

Land Use Classification Guide

R1

Residential District

Zoning Bylaw

R2

Residential District

Zoning Bylaw

R3

Residential District

Zoning Bylaw

Ri+

General Residential District

Zoning Bylaw

25

Medium Density Residential District

Land Use Classification Guide

R6

High Density Residential District

Land Use Classification Guide

RRA

Restricted Residential District

Zoning Bylaw

RRB

Restricted Residential District

Zoning Bylaw

RRC

Restricted Residential District

Zoning Bylaw

RC1

Restricted Conversion District

Zoning Bylaw