Edmonton (Alta. ) - 1976 - Planning for high density living_a perspective (1976- 11-01)

If,..

PLANNING

FOR

HIGH

DENSITY LIVING A

PERSPECTIVE

flonning

LIB?; The 'Cirr

m.

mm

PREPARED BY= PLANNING

DEPARTMENT

NOVEMBER

1976

INTRODUCTION

Increasingly the general public is inquiring into the principles and rationale as to why we plan our Outline Plan areas in the present manner.

More directly, this questioning becomes related to individual components of our plans of subdivision specifically the spatial distribution of land use functions and densities.

Before one can reasonably discuss the land use functions and densities

of a plan of subdivision one must conceive the plan as a complete entity.

All Outline Plans are based on some concept or principles.

Most of

these concepts or principles have a historical basis from which any spatial analysis must begin.

It is with this historical perspective that I wish to describe how Edmonton's planning principles evolved.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE EVOLUTION OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN IN EDMONTON

General Policy

Edmonton's present policy on the design or spatial distribution of land use functions within our Planned areas is clearly detailed in City Council approved Outline Plans and the General Plan.

City Council has approved a concept of development for Edmonton which is

based on a series of overlapping structures considerate of the key aspect of mobility.

In general; "Starting with the basic element of a

dwelling unit, the physical plan is built on the principle of individual house groupings and clusters of different dwelling types functionally linked together by transportation systems and centred around educational and recreational facilities in such a manner so as to maximize choice

and convenience to the residents while allowing economical provision of servicing programs and facilities," (Mill Woods Development Concept.)

Outline Plans

Subdivision in Edmonton is based on a hierarchy of plans from the largest most conceptual Outline Plan to the most detailed tentative plan of Subdivision.

Outline Plans are comprised of communities.

A community

{15,000 - 20,000) is generally composed of three or four neighbourhoods.

Examples of communities in Edmonton are;

Mill bourne in Mill Woods made

up of three neighbourhood units; and Springfield in West Jasper Place.

In general, each community will focus on a Junior High School and possibly

community level shopping facilities.

Each community is usually delineated

by arterial roadways spaced at one mile intervals.

This is based on our

experience with urban Neighbourhood Plans, subdivision traffic generation and population mobility.

Neighbourhood Plans

Neighbourhood units, three to four to a community, usually consists of

180 - 200 gross acres.

The neighbourhood unit is concentrated on a

neighbourhood centre comprised of educational, recreational, and com munity league facilities and in some instances, incorporating a convenience store.

Each neighbourhood is usually delineated by the one-half mile

spacing of collector level roadways.

Populations of 4,500 - 5,000 will prevail within these neighbourhoods with all neighbourhood facilities easily accessible to all groups irres pective of mobility.

Within neighbourhoods, multi-family accommodations with individual sites

of limited size "functionally related to shopping, public transportation,

and school and parks facilities" (Mill Woods Concept Plan) is encouraged.

Neighbourhood densities will generally range from 20 - 24 persons per gross acre on the periphery with density increasing towards the core.

Historical Development of Edmonton Land Planning Policy

Edmonton's planning principles have developed over a long period of time.

The first real considerations to planned development were conceived

in 1898 by Edenezer Howard in his work entitled "Garden Cities of Tomor

row".

Howard was the first person to acquire and expound a comprehensive

and systematic view of urban growth.

Today we still fumble with the

ideas he originated - Greenbelt, Garden Cities, Satellite Towns, Land Assembly and Neighbourhood and Regional Planning.

Howard envisaged radiating boulevards dividing six "wards" or, as we

would say now, neighbourhoods.

Within these wards four acre sites are

reserved for schools and their playgrounds.

Clarence Perry expanded on Howard's Garden with his now famous statement

of "The Neighbourhood Unit". This was the first definitive description of a compulsory self-contained community within a surrounding urbanized territory, a conmiunity of about 5,000 people on an area of about 160 acres. His plan is based on four general principles:

1.

An elementary school should provide the focus of each neigh bourhood, the school being designed for general coiranunity uses as well as for children.

At a housing density of about ten

families to the acre the school would be accessible to about

one thousand children without any having to walk too far.

2.

Interior streets of the neighbourhood should not be attractive

to through-traffic but useful only for reaching the school,

churches, and community parks at the heart of the neighbour hood. Each neighbourhood unit would be separated from the surrounding city by the main traffic streets.

3.

Shops and apartments should be at the outside corners of the neighbourhood area where the main intersections and heaviest traffic are found.

4.

10 per cent of the land should be reserved for parks and recreation.

These statements have obviously come to be incorporated into our planning today in Edmonton.

Clarence Stein followed with a more sophisticated idea maturing in his perceptive mind.

As an American he could not translate to his own

country the spirit of the "city in a garden" without providing for the motor-car that had come to change our lives; henceforth any idealization of city living must take account of this new phenomenon, not simply banish it to the boundaries of the neighbourhood.

The town of Radburn,

designed in 1928 by Stein and his partner, Henry Wright the landscape architect, offered an entirely new way of living at peace with the automobile.

The idea of the "Radburn Plan" has been received and copied, plagarized,

perverted, misunderstood, and misapplied all over North America and in many other parts of the world.

It is a town turned "outside-in", with

houses turned around so that living and sleeping rooms face towards

gardens and parks, with service rooms facing towards streets.

It is a

town in which roads and parks "fit together like the fingers of your

right and left hands"; the park is the backbone of the neighbourhood, opening into the large spaces at the centre of each superblock and joining with a thread of space to the next park.

This concept has

proven unpopular because of traditional North American attitudes and some servicing problems.

Modified examples of the Radburn Plan can be seen in West Jasper Place.

Following the ideas of Howard, Stein, and Perry, it is obvious that we would have reactionary positions.

These come from individuals such as

Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier.

On the one hand is the massive concrete monolith, the "Unite d'Habitation"

behind Marselles, (Le Corbusier) which expresses the solidarity and impersonality of congregated living.

And on the other hand is "Broadacre

City," (Wright) in which the mid-western American emphasize the release of individuals in spawling property ownership, each going his own way in his own fashion.

On these two positions people tend to take sides in

argument. Undoubtedly there is truth on both sides and the issue is not

so much a matter of conflict as a complement.

It is from these theories that Edmonton has today developed its planning characteristics in newly developing suburban areas.

There can be few disagreements about certain basic factors around which our neighbourhood units develop:

1.

That the elementary school should provide the focus of each neighbourhood.

2.

Interior streets should not be conducive to through-traffic,

but useful only in reaching schools, churches, or parks.

3.

Land should be reserved for parks.

4.

Major shops should be placed at outside corners of the neigh bourhood area where the main intersections and heaviest traf fic are found.

5.

The needs of some households to be particularly close to stores, public transportation, and recreation should be recognized.

6.

All multi-family development should have primary access to a major street.

The flow of traffic from a multi-family area

through a single-family or low density area is considered as having an adverse effect on these residential areas.

7.

Provide the opportunity to develop a variety of dwelling unit

types throughout the metropolitan area including a range of structures from modest homes to high-rise apartments, to meet

the varying needs of all families.

Therefore, it is readily perceived that planning in Edmonton is not

haphazard and without precedence.

Planning today is based on an estab

lished non-stagnant planning process which is continually changing with the times.

EXISTING PERCEPTION OF TODAY'S PLANNING IN EDMONTON

Over the past year, it has become increasingly evident that the citizens

of Edmonton have not understood the planning principles now utilized in Edmonton. The foregoing has provided a historical perceptive into our planning process and a review of certain principles intrinsic to our Outline Plans.

The public today views our neighbourhood areas as ill-conceived and

incompassionate.

They believe densities are high and that the spatial

distribution of multi-family units are anything but adequate.

The densities of all Outline Plan areas are established through the Outline Plan Procedure.

Each Outline Plan is subjected to public

scrutiny and approved by City Council.

Generally speaking, densities in Outline Plan areas average 20 - 24 people per gross developable area.

The General Plan prescribes low

density as up to 40 people per net acre.

The Outline Plans are well

within this figure.

There is no real problem of density as such.

The problem must be re

lated to how the public perceives the distribution of populations within neighbourhoods.

It would appear then that residents are generally receptive, except to the problem of perceived densities and location, within our neighbour hoods. The answer to this problem is very difficult.

We must provide

for the option of higher density living as long as there is a need for it, but how and where are we to provide for it in the neighbourhood

unit? This becomes especially difficult when everyone perceives den sities/location in the context of their own beliefs.

And this is the

real problem which must ultimately be addressed.

When reviewing perception we are really considering social and cultural factors and their effect on how man structures his physical and social

environment.

The problem with perception is that we tend to select only

those elements from the environment which interest or appeal to us.

What this says is that no one experiences his immediate environment

exactly as it is and no two persons experience it in precisely the same way.

This is because we all come from varied socio-economic backgrounds,

our experience is different and the environment we live in is in a state

of continual change.

It is precisely because of these factors that Planners are having diffic ulty in justifying subdivision design.

In a city which is growing as rapidly as Edmonton, most people who have moved into our Outline Plan areas have moved from established neighbour hoods.

These new residents have lost the previous spatial equilibrium

of their old neighbourhoods, neighbourhoods which were primarily single family in character.

I call this disassociation.

Depending on their perception of their new residential location, the unfamiliarity is likely to cause varying degrees of confusion.

However, as time goes on, it can be expected that these initial reactions

to their spatial environment, the location of multi-family functions and densities will mellow.

Closely related with the problem of disassociation and resulting percept ual problems is the sociological concept homogeneity.

Sociological studies show that people desire to live in proximity to others

with equal or greater social status in terms of education, occupation, income and a variety of other social indicators.

They desire to live

amongst a group of people v/ith similar lifestyles and aspirations.

Obviously, single family home owners do not see such a community of interest with apartment dwellers.

Similarly, home ov/nership versus

renting is a dividing benchmark in perceived status and shared interests.

The subsidized housing element is completely alienated.

The city by

planning for a diversity of dwelling types in a neighbourhood is planning for a diversity of lifestyles and social hetrogeneity that goes against

the grain of social attitudes developed over a long period of time.

The problem appears to be, what can be done in the present time frame to reduce the perception problem of dissaciation.

It would appear that the quality and control of higher density developments must be given greater priority.

Total design, architectural, building

to building to neighbourhood must be closely considered to give the impression of a lower density and a degree of homogeneity.

Adequate landscaping, up-keep and parking must be more closely scrut inized. In other words, the public must observe these developments as being unobtrusive.

A long range solution relating to the attitudes of a stratified society must be considered at some date given the devious nature of this problem.

The answer is definitely not to spread this high density development uniformly throughout subdivisions.

This would destroy the previously

discussed principles of subdivision design and create a hectic multifacet conflict throughout the neighbourhood that would be unresolvable.

The basic problem that F. J. Blair points out in his book, "Planning Cities," is:

"That residents of detached single-family homes are perman

ent, moral, and responsible; residents of apartments transient, immoral, and irresponsible; and residents of condominiums a little odd."

SUMMARY

1.

There is a problem related to densities inherent in the design of subdivision.

2.

There has been a long and historical basis for the procedures we

use in subdivision design.

3.

Present design has been approved by City Council through their approval of Outline Plans and the General Plan.

4.

The problem appears to be related to how people perceive the phys ical and social components of new residential areas,

5.

{disassociation}

Maturity of the areas and a new found familiarity will mellow opinions.

6.

Iiranediate problems could be reduced through the control of quality developments that are presently perceived.

7.

Long range solutions related to the attitudes of a stratified

society must soon be concerned and applied to the physical aspects of planning.

PAST vji

DISTRIBUTIO

'<'.* O ., C-'

PRESENT

rNTENSIFIED

HOMOGENEOUS