Edmonton (Alta. ) - 1979 - Downtown housing study_volume 1 (1979-04-01)

'•••• ' L'. '-- •

r7-

SD LIBRARY

:___.•

liii

,717-

' ,fr4. it

1)

•.

I

•

,•

, i...:

,' '..L._. :..4. ,

•

7395

_.,,....•

r-, 41'I ..__.f

r---,

-

rt

If 77 - .1c 0

0462

Downtown housing study R.L. Within Archilec --....

'''', 47. $72.4t.t'

'r

4' ....., . ._ .. ,, rr 7 1, -... .....

• - _ ...-•

-

r Ar

,, -,.•r•

.

-

eor

Vo(e 171ROrinfri .1

"

-

Tr!" -.,;,,-;74."

4

I

'•

• "

se .4.

..-1••c,

•Cr-

Fr ii'-•

.

4

,111110111,

.

_ -

41"

-

:

:-L

•

' '

,

.

rE

••

•

•

I

•

• -RI

44„t ,i +4

714'

4

—•

,

-.011

,

.4.

I

_ '

gk—

t

r_, •

;

_ ,-

,

r— ,

• ovP'

,

-r. I

_

•

PL;

_

—

r"."-• •'',1 4 V0

"rr".• a • ••

IL"

,••

, •••

:11.1k

Cl

A•1 • .

•

r -

,•••:e

7

City of Edmonton

Downtown Housing Study

April 1979

City of Edmonton Planning Department

R.L. Wilkin Architects/Planners 10920 - 88 Avenue Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6G OZ1 403 432-7491

Acknowledgements

Steering Committee A. Preiksaitis, Planning Department, City of Edmonton R. Hudson, Planning Department, City of Edmonton L. Bortoluzzi, Planning Department, City of Edmonton R. Powell, Planning Department, City of Edmonton N. Sabat, Real Estate & Housing, City of Edmonton D. McCullagh, Non Profit Housing Corporation, City of Edmonton S. Trogen, Planning Department, City of Edmonton D. Bairstow, Policy Planning Branch, Alberta Housing & Public Works L. Ho(men, Policy Planning Division, Alberta Housing & Public Works Co-ordinating Planners, City of Edmonton R. Hudson, Principal Planner, Downtown Planning Team, Planning Department L. Bortoluzzi, Planner, Downtown Planning Team, Planning Department

The Consultants wish to thank the following individuals and organizations for their assistance and contributions to the Study.

S.C. Rodgers, General Manager, Planning Department, City of Edmonton D. O'neil, Real Estate and Housing Department J.M. Engelman, Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation T. Fikowski, Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation Superintendent S.L. Stevens, Police Department, City of Edmonton A. Murtty, Planning Department, City of Edmonton W. Candler, Planning Department, City of Edmonton Carl Sorensen, Planning Department, City of Edmonton Urban Development Institute Warren Appraisers (i)

Contents 1.

The Study 1.1 Purposes and Scope of the Study 1.2 Relationship to Planning Programs 1.3 Study Area 1.4 Outline and Method

1 2 4 7

Executive Summary 2.1 Study Conclusions 2.2 Study Recommendations

9 12

Housing in Edmonton 3.1 Evolution of Edmonton 3.2 Residential Role of Downtown 3.3 Implications of Change 3.4 Current Policy Framework

4.

The Case for Housing in Downtown 4.1 The Public Quality of Downtown 4.2 Housing Need 4.3 City Form and Structure 4.4 Downtown as a Place to Live

5.

35 40 46 47 54 71

A Housing Strategy for Downtown 6.1 Basic Premises 6.2 Principles for the Development of Housing in Downtown 6.3 A General Housing Strategy 6.4 A Housing Policy for the Downtown and its Districts 6.5 Housing Implications 6.6 Implications for Land Use Controls 6.7 Environmental Implications

7

31 32 33 34

The Housing Potential of Downtown 5.1 Land Availability 5.2 Development Dynamics of Downtown 5.3 Housing Producers 5.4 Suitability of Downtown for Housing 5.5 Housing Types 5.6 Economic Feasibility of Housing Downtown

6.

21 23 28 29

81 82 83 86 115 118 124

Implementation 7.1 General Housing Principles for Downtown 7.2 Land Use Control System 7.3 District Objectives and Designations 7.4 Other Actions

133 135 137 141

1. The Study

This section sets out the Study's purposes, its geographic focus and its method.

The Study findings should address these problems, having due regard to physical, social, economic and environmental considerations as well as general planning principles adopted by the City of Edmonton."

1.1 Purposes and Scope of the Study Council Motion The Study arose from a motion of City Council on April 26, 1977, "...that the City do a Study, if necessary with the involvement of an experienced consulting firm, which would recommend to Council ways and means of initiating a stimulating residential development in the Downtown Core."

Edmonton is growing and changing rapidly, a situation which provides great promise for the future of the Capital City. Yet there is increasing concern about the fact that the developing Downtown core is at present destined to be a place devoted almost solely to office and other work. In this respect, the City Planning Department noted in its calls for consultants' submissions: "Residential development has become desirable since as more commercial and institutional activity is directed into the Downtown, serious problems that other North American Cities have encountered, have begun to emerge: 0

the activity pattern is becoming too homogeneous, increasingly being dominated by office uses leaving the Downtown with little activity to offer after working hours; and the rapid growth of office uses is likely to strain the existing transportation system causing congestion on vehicular, public transit and pedestrian networks. Downtown residential development would provide a more diversified activity mix. In addition to the housing itself, the residents could provide a substantial market for social, cultural, recreational, economic and educational services which exist in the area, and from a transportation perspective, congestion on the vehicular and public transit networks could be reduced during peak periods.

The study therefore has a number of purposes as defined further in the calls for consultants' submissions: a)

"To examine the existing housing situation and determine the general feasibility of providing housing in Downtown;

b)

To prepare feasible residential designs and building forms for Downtown with: 0

ways and means of initiating them through the various government and private sectors responsible for housing in the Province of Alberta, and implementation through The Land Use Bylaw."

It will be noted that the study covers a very broad range of subjects, particularly with respect to the limitations of time and resources. It has not therefore been possible to cover each matter exhaustively. Rather, the approach has been to deal with each to a level that can give adequate assistance and direction to City Council and staff in formulating the General and Downtown Plans and the new Land Use Bylaw.

Housing and its production cannot be considered in isolation from other considerations and components of city life. Making a mixed use Downtown with a substantial residential role requires the creation of financial, regulatory and physical environments that are conducive to housing production and Downtown residence. Each of these has a direct or indirect bearing on a wide range of other planning matters.

For example, in divising land use strategies for housing it has been necessary to ensure that housing can compete with the commercial development market, while at the same time permitting the necessary space for office space growth. Similarly, the formation of desirable local environments for residence is essential to achieving housing in Downtown. This has led to a series of suggestions for the improvement of districts and streets for all kinds of use, through the institution of urban design plans and regulations.

Recommendations are therefore made in the report on many of the topics to be covered in the City's current planning and regulation programs.

1

1.2 Relationship to Planning Programs

of policies in both the Downtown and General Plans.

Very specifically, the pattern of uses and densities permitted by the present Classifications would need substantial revision. Simple conversion of the present controls into a new format as a Land Use Bylaw will initiate against the development of a diverse mixed-use Downtown with a significant residential function.

The recommendations of this report are therefore particularly critical for the development of the Land Use Bylaw, since a preliminary draft of the Bylaw is being prepared at this time.

The municipal policies and regulations in central Edmonton are now under comprehensive review by the City's Planning staff. This activity has three main components: the General Plan review; the Downtown Plan development; and the construction of a new Land Use Bylaw.

Edmonton's General Plan: The City Planning Department is currently in the process of reviewing Edmonton's General Plan. The Plan will provide a direction to the growth of the City for the next 15 to 20 years. The General Plan would also determine the role of Downtown in the City, and the residential growth it might absorb. The General Plan is due to be published this year.

Downtown Plan: The Downtown Housing Study will be a major component of the Downtown Plan. The Plan will outline recommendations for the growth of Downtown in terms of diverse land uses. The lack of residential development Downtown has been an ongoing concern of the Planning Department, and the Downtown Housing Study is intended to provide recommendations for acheiving a substantial housing component in Downtown.

Land Use Bylaw: The City at present is also in the process of preparing a new Land Use Bylaw as required by the Planning Act, 1977. This Act requires all Municipalities in Alberta to replace their Zoning and Land Use Classifications with a new Land Use Bylaw by March 31, 1980. The preliminary draft of this bylaw is scheduled for May, 1979.

This study is an important element in the above work. It is clear that the present regulatory system in Downtown is fundamentally at odds with an objective to obtain substantial quantities of housing in the area. If such an objective were to be pursued

by Edmonton, then it would affect the basic nature 2

Apart from the three areas of work noted above, a number of other studies have a close relationship to this study. Among these are the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Transportation Plan, CP Railway Relocation Study, River Valley Control Bylaw, Transit Plan and the S.E. Civic Centre Study.

grIS 601- '

L

" L

.2:;:`-.1i11:

L t

'L 1 j

„IF,' . rj1

..1 '

.

Cit; ' - • -

,

1-1

-•

a " iftft l

—L

,L

'

L.,

1.3 Study Area

Edmonton's Downtown Core contains the financial, commercial, governmental, entertainment and cultural centres for the City and for Northern Alberta.

It provides a wide variety of services; the federal, provincial and municipal offices are located here.

Twenty-five percent of the total labour force is employed Downtown, and 750/0 of the City's office space is located here.

Downtown, as defined for this study, is approximately 3/4 square mile in area and is bounded by: North - 105 Avenue (CNR lands) West - 109 Street (CPR lands) South - 97 Avenue (Top of river bank) East - 97 Street.

The study area is separated physically from the surrounding residential neighbourhoods. CPR tracks separate west Downtown from Oliver, a dense residential area with high rise apartments dominating the skyline. On the north side, the CNR tracks create the division between Downtown and Queen Mary Park, a medium density neighbourhood consisting of 3 storey walk-up apartments and older single family houses.

The North Saskatchewan River divides Edmonton's south side from Downtown. Garneau and Strathcona (both medium density neighbourhoods) on the south side of the river each have very distinct characters of their own. Garneau, influenced by the Downtown and its proximity to the University, provides medium to high density residential accommodation - its housing forms vary from single family homes to high rise apartments. Strathcona, the oldest area in the City, has been identified as an Historical Preservation District, and thus has not gone through the radical redevelopment which Oliver and Garneau have experienced. East of Downtown and adjacent to the Civic Centre is the Boyle Street District, mainly a single family area providing housing for transients and low income residents.

4

Sub Study Areas The Downtown Housing Study area can be divided into 6 sub-study areas with varied, differing characteristics. These districts reflect the general use, form, and land values in Downtown and relate very closely to the areas outlined under the existing Land Use Classification Guide:

Civic Centre: The Civic Centre is bounded by 97 Street on the east, 100 Street on the west, CNR on the north and the River Valley on the south. The area consists mainly of civic offices, cultural centres and financial buildings. Most of the Downtown's working population is employed here. Major future developments are planned or are underway in this area, including the South East Civic Centre, the Court House extension and probably the City Hall extension.

The Civic Centre area maintains the highest land values and the highest concentration of densities.

Churchill Square forms the focus of the area, being the only major open space in Downtown. Only a small proportion of the Downtown population live here - mainly in two high-rise apartment buildings, Avord Arms and McDonald Place.

Core Office/Commercial Area: The Commercial/Core Office area as shown on the map consists of the Jasper Avenue strip, continuing along the 101 Street retail area which has been the centre of local/regional shopping since 1900. Most of the area is zoned for high density commercial use, although it consists largely of two storey structures.

Sir Winston Churchill Square

11 lc_

L1.1

IJI 1WL

co *isi 0

104 Ave.

Railway Lands

Warehouse Area

Civic Centre

L E)

1

E— ;-3

I ,1

I

Jaspe

Core Commercial Area

McKay Avenue 97 Ave.

Provincial.

Centre .

SUB=S7LUDI ANIEAS

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

1 5

Core Commercial Area - Jasper Avenue.

Warehouse Area

The area bounded by Jasper Avenue, 99 Avenue and 107 Street - 109 Street is dominated by provincial government offices, due to its proximity to the legislative building. Jasper Avenue provides a link between the two major office concentrations (Provincial Government and Civic Centre) and as such, it appears to be under great development pressure.

the only distinct residential area in Downtown, yet in many respects it lacks a sense of community or neighbourhood. The 10 block area has gone through a physical change from single family and walk-ups to high rise apartments in the last decade.

The residential population has greatly increased during that period, though, in recent years the rate of growth has declined.

There has been very little residential development in this District, the exceptions being two high rise apartment buildings, Place Monte Calm and Cathedral Close. A few examples of low rise residential development above ground floor retail exist in the area.

Provincial Government Centre: The Provincial Government Centre is located west of McKay Avenue and south of 99 Street. The area centres around the Legislative Building, a historical landmark which is located at the south end of 108 Street. A formal landscaping program has been planned for the area north of the Legislative building.

Warehouse Area: The Warehouse Area is bounded by the CNR tracks on the north, CPR tracks on the west, Jasper Avenue on the south and 102 Street on the east. Although the area is known as the Warehouse District, there is not a heavy concentration of warehouses. Auto dealerships and services are the dominant uses in the area close to the 109 Street end. The area east of 105 Street has been undergoing changes in use but not in built form. This part of the warehouse area is dominated by retail, restaurants and professional offices.

Railway Lands: A large portion of Downtown Edmonton's area is occupied by CP Railway and CN Railway (on the west and north boundaries, respectively). The CPR yards are being considered

The residential population of the area has decreased over the last 20 years (although it was never dominated by residential buildings). There have been no new residential developments in the area except the Madison Development Building on 109 Street, now under construction.

McKay Avenue Area: The McKay Avenue area is dominated by high rise residential buildings. This is 6

McKay Avenue Area

1.4 Study Outline and Method

C.N.R. Yard

for relocation and the City of Edmonton is presently negotiating their relocation with CPR. Should the relocation take place, the 23 acre Yard's land will be available for residential and commercial development. As recommended by the OP Railway Relocation Study, the site would provide space for approximately 1500 to 1800 units.

The ON yards extend from 101 Street to 116 Street and consist of approximately 80 acres. The status of the relocation of the CNR yards is not definite, but it is expected that it will occur sometime in the future. The ON yards provide an opportunity for residential development close to the Downtown core.

Rossdale: Rossdale is a residential district separated from Downtown by major roadways and the river bank.

The district was designated as a long range acquisition site for future park development in 1975.

Subsequently, property in the community has been purchased by Parks and Recreation Department. A 15 year protection zone was applied to the residential portion of Rossdale which allows the residents to renovate, but not to redevelop.

Although outside the terms of reference for this study, some suggestions are made herein that both parkland and housing could be developed as consistent and mutually supportive uses.

The Downtown Housing Study deals with the need for the development of a significant housing component in Edmonton's central core, the forces that restrict housing development, and the appropriate measures required to stimulate housing.

The study analyzes in detail the competition of housing with other land uses, and examines its suitability and economic feasibility. It further examines the environmental and land use control implications of providing a substantial amount of housing in the study area. Within the context of providing increased residential development Downtown, it is necessary to study its relationship to other land uses. The study examines in some detail the effective use of mixed use with other primary uses, primarily commercial ones. However, the study is not a PLAN for Downtown; further detailed planning studies are required, as stated in the actions recommended in the Implementation Section of the report.

Approach As previously discussed, the purpose of this study is to examine the feasibility of housing in Downtown, its implications, and ways and means of acheiving it.

The Downtown area was analyzed in detail: the land availability, current development activity, and the potential for development were determined. The infrastructure and environmental capacities were analyzed to determine the suitability of the area for housing.

Various housing types were then examined, mainly medium to high density forms, for their practical applicability in Downtown. Land costs were then examined and the housing types tested in an economic model to determine the feasibility of the various housing types and densities. It was clear

7

that conventionally financed rental housing was not feasible under any of the conditions. This condition is not unique to Edmonton, but is a national phenomenon.

A series of further tests were undertaken, using lower money costs for rental housing. Break-even densities and land values were determined. These were then applied to various districts in Downtown, with varying land costs.

Although the economics of developments formed the basis for the recommended mixes of density and use, it was not the only determinant of recommendations. The urban design criteria and the implications of the resulting built form, use and environment in different districts were of equal importance in determining the suggested density/use mix.

The study is divided into two reports. The main report provides a narrative of the study's findings, conclusions and recommendations for action. The second report, called the 'Technical Appendix', includes various documents and studies that provide background information for the main report.

The main report consists of seven sections.

The first section sets out the study purposes, its geographic focus and its method.

The second section is the Executive Summary, a summary of the study's principal conclusions and recommendations for actions to achieve housing Downtown.

The third section describes growth and change in Edmonton, and the changing role of Downtown.

The fourth section discusses the significance of housing in the Central Core, and its importance at this point in Edmonton's history.

The fifth section analyzes the current characteristics and dynamics of Downtown to determine the area's capacity to accommodate new housing development.

The sixth section outlines a strategy for accommodating housing in Downtown Edmonton.

The seventh and last section outlines a series of recommended actions aimed at expanding the residential role of Downtown.

The technical appendix is a set of reports providing detailed information on Demographic and precinct analyses, land costs and land values, economic feasibility (model and tests), housing types, and Development Review Case studies.

8

2. Executive Summary

This section summarizes the Study's principal conclusions and its recommendations for actions to achieve housing in Downtown.

2.1 Study Conclusions

The following is a summary of the general findings of this study.

1.

Edmonton's Downtown is at a critical stage in its growth and development.

lifestyle, enabling people to live in close proximity to the City's employment concentration and to central urban amenities. That choice is one of the normal civilities of a mature city.

However, over and above these functional benefits, a substantial resident population in Downtown is essential to the area's diversity and liveliness, in and out of working hours, districts and streets can develop their own particular character. Amenities such as restaurants, theatres, and stores, which benefit the working and general city populations, gain constant economic support from their patronage by Downtown residents. The fact that these benefits are difficult to quantify does not make them any less important.

3.

The strength of the local economy, the basic structure of the area, and the availability of a great deal of under-utilized land present the opportunity to develop a diverse, active, and comfortable city core; an urban cultural focus that is worthy of a Capital City. Nevertheless, a series of positive actions are urgently required if the opportunity is to be realized.

2.

The development of substanial quantities of housing is an essential element in the quality of the future Downtown Edmonton.

There are functional reasons for ensuring that the Downtown is a place to live as well as to work. A large reservoir of potential land for housing exists in this area. This land does not require the comparatively high expenses for new transportation and utilities needed to produce housing in new suburban areas; nor does its development entail the consumption of highly valuable farm land. Increasing the resident population downtown will place less burden on the road and transit systems and may to some degree produce, through trips in the opposite direction at peak hours, a more efficient use of existing systems.

Unlike many other areas, redevelopment would not cause significant disruption to the lives of existing residents, since most redevelopment will occur in areas utilized mainly by industrial and commercial uses.

There is a need for housing accommodation that can partially be fulfilled in Downtown, particularly for non-family residences(Section 4.2, Housing Need).

Further, Downtown housing provides a choice of

There is sufficient space available to develop 10,000 to 15,000 housing units in Downtown and to accommodate the needed commercial expansion without undue disruption to the development economy.

Our assessment of land use suggests that the amount of land that can be considered available for redevelopment in the medium and long term is far in excess of the amount that need be reserved for office expansion. Calculations reveal that about 106 acres of land are presently underdeveloped and could be considered available for redevelopment (excluding the C.N.R. and C.P.R. yards). This land would yield about 23 million square feet of floor space. Projections of required commercial floor space for the next 15 years suggest that about 7.9 million square feet may be required, leaving a large capacity for residential development. (See Section 5. 1 "Land Availability").

Furthermore, this residential development can be achieved generally without undue disruption to existing areas, their buildings and uses. This is in contrast to many inner-city situations, where new residential development is often accompanied by the widespread destruction of substantial portions of older neighbourhoods and dislocation in the lives of residents.

4

Infrastructure capacities and environmental quality are generally adequate for residential development.

Utilities and transportation are generally adequate, as are noise and air quality standards. With some

9

public investment, particularly in street improvements and landscaping, appropriate local residential environments can be ensured. (See section 5.4).

5

Notwithstanding the foregoing, little new housing is being developed or is likely to be developed.

The residential potential of large areas of Downtown is being eroded by recent rapid escalation of land prices, prices based on expectations of increasing commercial use in all areas. High interest rates and uncertainty about government programs are severe discouragements, particularly to rental housing production. Inadequate attention to street, building and precinct quality is also acting to dissuade housing.

6

Firm action will be required by the City and other governments if significant new housing and a diverse Downtown are to be achieved.

It is important to note *here that there is a clear issue of municipal choice. If actions are taken with respect to land use regulation, government housing programs and environmental improvements, then there is an excellent chance of achieving a substantial housing component downtown.

On the other hand, if no actions are taken beyond statements of intent, it is likely that Edmonton will quickly develop a centre that is almost solely devoted to office and institutional functions, with the problems that such centres have been shown to bring. For example, if the infusion of housing in the Downtown is to be a real ambition of the City, present land use regulations and procedures being developed in the new Land Use Bylaw will work fundamentally against the policy.

7

The first requirement for the achievement of substantial housing production is to reform present land use regulations and procedures so as to encourage residential development in appropriate areas.

Most parts of Downtown are effectively classified for commercial use, at a density of either 6 to 10 times or 3 times the lot area. Residential development is permitted, but since it is generally far less profitable, it cannot compete with commercial use. The

10

exception is the McKay Avenue Area, but even there spot rezonings from residential to commercial use raise higher expectations of more profitable commercial use. The pattern of raising densities on a site-by-site basis also causes uncertainties and raises expectations for commercial use.

The result is that in most of the Downtown, developers will either choose to develop office space or will hold land vacant or under-utilized for long periods.

To achieve Downtown housing, it will be necessary to control the competition for land in such a way as to provide well defined areas for commercial, residential and mixed use concentration.

Future office development should be directed primarily towards the existing office concentration so as to ensure an efficiently functioning commercial core and to limit the land price competition of such uses in areas proposed primarily for residential or mixed use development. Sufficient capacity must be left in the Financial District to accommodate projected demands for office space.

New housing development should be encouraged in the existing residential area (McKay Avenue) to strengthen the use and character that exists there.

The development of new mixed use, mixed residential and commercial districts in the existing warehouse area and the area south of Jasper Avenue should be stimulated by a combination of new land use permissions, improvements to the public environment and co-ordinated development guidelines.

A major initiative should be taken to co-ordinate the development of the C.P.R. and, eventually, the C.N.R. Yards as places where some housing will be built for families as well as for smaller households.

Such new communities should be built at moderate densities but should utilize low and medium rise building forms.

8

Government assistance through lower interest rates, and/or a mix of commercial and residential uses, are required to make rental housing economically attractive Downtown.

The economic analyses undertaken for this study suggest that a commercial component must be

included in developments in certain areas of the Downtown if housing production is to be more feasible. With the addition of such a component, land cost does not of itself represent an impediment to reasonably priced housing development. Rental housing is not being built in this area largely because of high interest rates. Unless appropriate measures are taken to reduce the effective cost of money, condominium accommodation will mainly be the only housing type developed, and this too in relatively small quantities. While some condominium ownership is desirable downtown, in the long run rental accommodation provides the range and flexibility of housing stock required in a large and growing city. (See section 5.6 "Economic Feasibility of Housing Downtown.")

9.

New housing developed Downtown will most likely be mainly for smaller households and moderate to high income groups. However, to provide a mixed balance of household sizes, and income levels, the City should ensure through monitoring the operation of the various social housing programs for the private sector and through the operation of the Non Profit Housing Corporation, that accommodation for families and low to moderate income occupants is constructed.

High interest rates, a sluggish national economy and uncertainty over federal government programs have tended to discourage rental housing activity all across Canada. Existing provincial programs do, however, considerably improve the feasibility of new rental housing construction in Downtown Edmonton.

The City should, with Alberta Housing and Public Works, monitor the operation of these programs, particularly the CHIP program, to ensure that adequate regulatory flexibility is maintained to encourage housing production. The City Non Profit Housing Corporation should use a number of direct and indirect techniques to develop social housing projects in the Downtown.

10.

development industry of its creativity. It is to perform the crucial co-ordinating role of the municipality in ensuring that individual efforts contribute to precinct and street environments that are distinctive, comfortable and conductive to residence. This mainly involves regulating the form and amenities provided at street level.

Such matters are largely dealt with now through incentives in a negotiating process associated with the review of development applications. The present system has several deficiencies. There are no clearly stated guidelines. Many of the modifications obtained are difficult to justify in terms of the general quality of the public realm. It is also difficult to see the necessity for obtaining such benefits through incentives, provided that they are clearly in the public interest and since they normally do not involve extensive cost to developers. The present system therefore seems ineffective, inequitable and unnecessary in many respects.

It is therefore important that the City's ambitions for the form of developments be clearly defined, justified and explained, and that they be realized through regulation and through discretion that is not associated with density bonuses.

11.

Improvements are required to some streets in the Downtown to create appropriate residential and overall environment. An Urban Design Plan is required as a basis for such improvements.

The concern applies particularly to the Warehouse District where tree planting, pavement and sidewalk improvements are needed. It is essential that such work be done, by degrees, according to a plan that treats each place appropriately, according to its importance in the the general Downtown structure.

Such actions need not be relatively expensive to the municipality, if phased properly. Much can be achieved through the co-ordination of individual developments, so that each contributes to the quality of the street.

Clearly defined and illustrated guidelines are required to regulate the form of new developments, particularly the ways in which they relate to streets.

The purpose here is not to unduly restrict the

11

2.2 Study Recommendations

It is recommended to the Council: 1.

2.

That the housing principles outlined in the executive summary of this report be incorporated as policies in the General Plan and the Downtown Plan, to ensure the development of a substantial housing component in Downtown.

That the strategy for the development of housing in Downtown be implemented by: 1. Changing the land use control system.

2. Adopting the Districts with their objectives and density designations as recommended.

3. Refining the development review process.

3.

That additional actions recommended for the City Non-Profit Housing Corporation, Alberta Housing and Public Works, the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation and the City of Edmonton be endorsed

2.

That projected growth in primary office space be directed primarily into existing areas of office concentration, so as to ensure an efficient Financial District.

3.

That the expansion of such a Financial District be carefully controlled so as not to prejudice the development of housing in surrounding areas.

4.

That existing residential areas be confirmed and protected from major intrusions of commercial or other non-residential development.

5.

That new mixed-use districts be constituted in areas of the Downtown not presently residential in use and character.

6.

That, in such mixed-use districts, the land use and density permissions promote the development of substantial housing components by reducing the competition with other uses that are economically more attractive.

7.

That environmental improvements be made where necessary, including streets, sidewalks and community services, so as to make Downtown attractive to residential development.

8.

That, while housing in downtown will serve primarily small household and moderate to high income groups, appropriate measures must be taken by civic, provincial and other agencies, to ensure that accommodation be available for a broad range of income levels and households.

9.

That a supply of social housing be developed through ensuring that existing assisted rental programs continue to be attractive and feasible in the downtown and through the direct and indirect development activ ty of the City's Non-Profit Housing Corporation.

10.

That, in pursuit of the above principles, the accompanying 'Housing Policy Map' form the City's basic strategy in the deployment of residential development. (Due to existing approved policies and current negotiations in the C.P.R. and C.N.R. Special Development Districts and in Rossdale, it is suggested that a detailed review of these areas be undertaken with reference to overall Downtown housing policy as recommended in this report.)

General Housing Principles for Downtown It is recommended to council that the housing principles outlined below be incorporated in the General Plan and the Downtown Plan, to ensure the development of a substantial housing component in Downtown.

1.

12

That the development of substantial quantities of housing be an essential element to achieve a diverse downtown for Edmonton.

L--JI:RH' itAi

ll 4

, [r-till_14

pi11

T3I ltill-1,1L±11 . II 117 .: 'lLift\11

"

Special Develeroment District Medium Density Resi e:, fiat Secondary Commercial-

- 104 Ave

Special Dev. District (C.P)

171

,Mixed Use District 4'

Medium Density Residential

Emphasis on Family Housing

High Density _ Residential, Seconclawr---7-x-7 -Commercial Component -

Emphasis on Family Housing

Mixed ' Use Dist. 2 High Densi Commercial Residential

Civic .

Centre

-T Distriot • - Eiál

High Density institutional.,..

Commercial-, Residential

High Deriaity Commercial (Residential permitted)

Minor Commercial Jaspe

Mixed Ike Diqriqt High Density Commercial + 'Residential

(4.1

Mixed Use Dist. 3 7-]

Nigh Density Commercial + Residential

I C-1

_ Provincial

McKay Avenue Restdential District High Density Residential minor

R..

Commercial Peed

.0entre „_

'

Ii :,111

Rossdat Possible MedlinDensity Re,siden ial

NORTH

Emphasis on; • Family Housng; L

I

, j;

\

HOUSNO PO=MY

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

2 13

3.

That, in the new Land Use Bylaw, the downtown be instituted as a series of zoned Districts rather than Direct Control Districts, provided that the limited discretion required for the development of review process (outlined later) is available under the legislation for zoned districts.

4.

That Design Guidelines for Downtown generally and for each District specifically be prepared and incorporated into the Downtown Plan, as a supplement to the Land Use Bylaw, in order to guide the design of residential and overall environments.

5.

That the use and density prescriptions for all areas be set out in a Statutory Plan, so as to provide firm density limits for development. It is important that such limits not be relaxed through any procedure, unless thorough planning studies indicate that such changes serve to fulfill the City's policies and objectives, including those that relate to the achievement of residential development.

6.

That the City identify those structures considered to have particular character, merit or identity for preservation and/or incorporation into redevelopment.

7.

That the retention of such structures be encouraged by the provision of a density incentive for their preservation and incorporation in redevelopment; and that such an incentive apply equitably over all parts of Downtown.

8.

That the existing use and density permissions, in areas other than the previosly described "Financial District and Civic Centre District" be substantially reconstructed so as to promote the development of housing.

That public open space requirements be prescribed as general standards for each District, and that open space on each site be evaluated and configured through the discretionary development review process.

9.

That the use and density prescriptions recommended in "District Objectives and Designations", be refined, if necessary, through the current Downtown Plan studies, and eventually incorporated in the new Land Use Bylaw.

That standards for light, view and privacy for residential units be established as performance requirements, and that their application be reviewed on a site-by-site basis, taking into account the particular context of each development.

10.

That performance standards for building form and pedestrian and street amenity be achieved, where appropriate, by prescription, with explicit standards based on urban design policies outlined in a Statutory Plan.

Land Use Control System It is recommended to Council that the strategy for the development of housing in downtown be implemented by changing the land use control system.

Short Term Actions The following are interim measures to be used until the adoption of the new Land Use Bylaw and the Downtown Plan. It is recommended: 1.

That the City consider amending the existing Land Use Classification Guide by instituting the use and density prescriptions recommended in the 'District Objectives and Density Designations', as an interim measure as soon as possible, by reclassifications in the defined: a) Mixed-Use Districts 1, 2, 3 and 4, and McKay Avenue Residential District. b) Special Development Districts C.P.R. and C.N.R. (subject to review).

2.

That, in the proposed Civic Centre and Financial Districts the existing Land Use Classification be maintained, but the existing discretionary controls be used to achieve the objectives outlined for these districts.

Long Term Actions The following recommendations are intended to assist the City in the construction of its new Land Use Bylaw, and in the implementation of the principles previously outlined. It is recommended: 1.

2.

14

11.

That site-by-site review, aimed at ensuring that each development contributes and fits well into its local context, be conducted through a discretionary Development Review Process.

District Objectives and Designations The Housing Policy Map represents a suggested strategy for the development of housing in the Downtown. The Map is based on the fact that the characteristics of various parts of Downtown—existing conditions, development trends and pressures, land costs and the current intentions directly or indirectly indicated by land use classifications—vary greatly from place to place.

In formulating housing strategy, it is vital to distinguish among the various distinctive sub-areas and to design mixes of residential and other uses appropriate to each. This is in contrast to the current classifications which do not adequately distinguish the emphasis and character of the various parts. Housing is a permitted use in all areas at present, but in mOst, it is relegated to a subsidiary or incidental role. The purpose, therefore, is to nominate and stress the particular importance and nature of housing in those areas in which it is appropriate.

The map shows these kinds of Districts: 1. The Financial District: The Financial District essentially confirms the existing high density office core, and is designated as the principal area of future primary office concentration. Land use and density permissions for the area should anticipate and liberally allow for anticipated office space growth. The purpose, then, is to concentrate the main body of office space in this District and thus to take much of the pressure off contiguous areas where the development of housing can be encouraged.

2. Civic Centre District: This district, east of the Financial District is confirmed as an area to be primarily governmental and institutional. However, if the City wants to achieve housing Downtown, the extensive municipal land reserves in the District provide an opportunity to demonstrate this intention.

3. High Density Mixed Use Districts 1,2,3 and 4: These districts surround the Financial District and form a transition between the Financial District and

areas that are predominantly residential. Districts 1, 2 and 3 place emphasis on both residential and commercial uses at high densities. District 4 is essentially a high density residential area, but also includes a base of commercial uses.

4. High Density Residential District: The High Density Residential District in the McKay Avenue area essentially confirms the current classification, though it may be adjusted to permit a minor local commercial component.

5. Medium Density Mixed Use Districts: The CPR and CNR Yards are denoted as Special Development Districts, intended for Medium Density Mixed Use, with the main emphasis on low and medium rise housing.

A suggestion is also made for Council's consideration with respect to possible medium density housing in the Rossdale area, although reliance is not placed on this area to produce a housing strategy for Downtown.

The following are specific objectives and recommended density designations for each of these districts. These take into account Downtown's existing structure, the office core's need for expansion and its location, current land use controls and land cost patterns. (See Section 6.3).

It is recommended that the following District objectives and density designations be set out in the Downtown Plan to guide and control the design and use of regulations for the encouragement of housing development.

The Financial District Objectives 1.

To confirm the District as Edmonton's primary office/retail core.

2.

To provide the necessary expansion space for primary commercial office and retail uses for the forseeable future.

3.

By the provision of such expansion space, to relieve the pressure for primary office development on contiguous areas where lower building densities and the encouragement of housing are major objectives.

4.

To permit compatible high density housing in the District.

5.

To improve the quality of the public domain

15

J uzaL't tat L__114Ll_i I U1

r

6

tr- 1,1 CIJ I UlipalL111 tri -11L1_,L3, PI 011 Li I 1 I" 771 17

I

--Special _Deveksment_District _ ON Lands Same as OP

Special Dev. District OP Lands Upto 2-0 FAR (Net) Residential Minor Commercial 71n oeve

I

Mixed Use Dist. _2

_

Mixed Use District 4

5-5 FAR

I

Including 3.5 FA-1,1 Comm.

4-0 FAR Max.

Including 1-5 FA-13 Commercial Max.

Civic Centre

FinariiaI Distriat

<-4-5 FAR Max. Including 2-0 FAA Commercial Max.

Upto 10-0 FA-R Max

Upto 10-0 FAR Max

7

Mixed Use District 1 60 FAR Max

Including 3,5 FAA Commercial Max.

Mixed Use Dist.3 5-5 FA-R Max

tl n

Including 3-0 FAA Commercial

fI

97 Ave. --

1

McKay Avenue Residential District

-1-

30 FAR Max Including 0.5 F.A.R Local Commercial

1 .......

Rossdale

Approx 1.0 FAR Residential

MONTH

_ 1I

Nba BIES aNA"--ONS

(

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

16

3

in the District to provide a suitable shopping, walking and entertainment realm for future Downtown residents.

Density Recommendations Maximum combined commercial and residential density: 6.0 F.A.R. Maximum commercial density: 3.5 F.A.R.

Density Recommendations The 'Proposed Densities' map suggests a maximum density of 10.0 F.A.R. for either residential or commercial uses or a mixture of both. This is considered a reasonable density for the area, one that with proper urban design regulation can be developed into a satisfactory environment. The figure also represents the maximum density presently permitted.

Nevertheless, the density finally adopted must depend to a large degree on studies to be undertaken by City staff on office space projections and urban agglomeration patterns. The limit is therefore tentative.

Mixed Use District No. 2 Objectives 1.

To conserve and enhance the existing warehouse character of the area and its significant older structures in order to constitute an historic district.

2.

To provide a high density mix of commercial and residential development in the District.

3.

To create an area that serves as a transition between the Financial District and the residential areas to the west.

4.

To encourage the existing uses such as restaurants, specialty stores and professional offices and to reinforce the identity of the District.

Civic Centre District Objectives 1.

To reinforce the civic and governmental functions and character of the District.

2.

Encourage the development of a residential component in the District through development on municipally owned land.

Density Recommendations Maximum commercial and residential density: 10 F.A.R. (with the same qualifications as that for the Financial District).

Density Recommendations Maximum combined commercial and residential density: 5.5 F.A.R. Maximum commercial density 3.0 F.A.R. Mixed Use District No. 3 Objectives 1.

To promote the development of a residential component in the District.

2.

To provide for a proportion of general office expansion in Downtown.

3.

To develop a mixed commercial residential character of the District.

Mixed Use District No. 1 Objectives 1.

To promote the development of a significant residential component in the District.

2.

To provide for a proportion of the general office space expansions for Downtown.

3.

To create a transition zone between the Financial District and the McKay Avenue Residential District.

4.

To reinforce the mixed commercial-residential character of the District.

Objectives 1.

To ensure district and street qualities that are distinguished as amenable residential environments.

To develop a substantial new housing component in the District.

2.

To develop housing for a wide range of user and income groups.

5.

Density Recommendations Maximum combined commercial and residential density: 5.5 F.A.R. Maximum commercial density: 3.0 F.A.R. Mixed Use District No. 4

17

3.

To permit limited commercial office and retail components that provide for secondary office space expansion, local retail service and economic support for housing.

2.

To ensure that the District is developed to accommodate a component of family households in close proximity to the Downtown core.

4.

To retain those existing buildings that are considered to have particular architectural or historic merit, and to preserve the historic character and identity of the District.

3.

To provide such accommodation generally in the form of low and medium rise, medium density development.

4.

5.

To provide the improvements necessary for the development of a satisfactory local residential environment.

To ensure that the District has a mixture of development forms, developers and forms of tenure.

5.

6.

To distribute uses and building forms within the District in ways that reinforce the relative importance of primary, secondary and tertiary streets.

To ensure that, when developed, the District will blend with the surrounding areas, through the purposeful deployment of diverse uses, densities and forms.

6.

To create, in the various phases of redevelopment, satisfactory residential, street and park environments.

7.

To provide adequate car parking for new development on a site-by-site basis, bearing in mind its proximity to the Financial District.

Density Recommendations Maximum combined commercial and residential density: 4.0 F.A.R. Maximum commercial density: 1.5 F.A.R. Maximum commercial density in the street-to-lane blocks fronting on 105 and 109 Streets: 2.0 F.A.R.

Density Recommendations Maximum combined net commercial and residential density (with minor commercial component): up to 2.0 F.A.R. Special Development District II (CNR Yards) Objectives 1.

To ensure that redevelopment of the CNR Yards is primarily for residential purposes.

2.

To ensure that the District is developed to accommodate a component of family households in close proximity to the Downtown core.

3.

To provide such accommodation generally in the form of low and medium rise, medium density development.

4.

To ensure that the District has a mixture of development forms, developers and forms of tenure.

5.

To ensure that, when developed, the District will blend with the surrounding areas, through the purposeful deployment of diverse uses, densities and forms.

6.

To create, in the various phases of redevelopment satisfactory residential, street and park environments.

McKay Avenue District Objectives 1.

To reinforce the area as a primary Residential District.

2.

To encourage the development of housing at high densities.

3.

To prevent the intrusion of major office development into the District.

4.

To consider the provision of minor commercial components of retail/commercial uses at ground level, primarily to serve the local residents.

Density Recommendations Maximum combined commercial and residential density: 3.0 F.A.R. Maximum commercial density: 0.5 F.A.R. Special Development District I (C.P.R. Yards)

Density Recommendations Objectives 1.

18

To ensure the redevelopment of the CPR Yards primarily for residential purposes.

Maximum combined net commercial and residential density ( with minor commercial component): up to 2.0 F.A.R.

Rossdale

4.

Review should begin by discussion between City officials and developers at the earliest stage of development design, so as to avoid costly and time-consuming changes at a later stage.

5.

In reviewing development proposals, the City should ensure that it has the benefit of professional urban design advice.

Objectives That Council consider the idea of incorporating some residential development in the riverfront parkland, with the following objectives.

1.

To develop a riverside park close to Downtown.

2.

To develop a component of housing in the District that is sympathetic and reinforces the parkland objective.

3.

4.

To ensure that such housing be primarily ground related and provide a substantial number of units for people with children in close proximity to Downtown.

To consider the provision of certain areas for the accommodation of institutional and governmental uses.

Density Recommendations Should Council decide to include a residential component it is recommended that it be of a density of approximately 1 .0 F.A.R.

Development Review Process

Other Actions Beyond the adoption of Principles for the achievement of Downtown housing and the various actions with respect to Land Use that have been noted to this point, a number of other actions are recommended. These various actions are listed below as ones which should be undertaken by various public agencies.

It is recommended to Council that the following additional actions by the City Non-Profit Housing Corporation, Alberta Housing and Public Works, the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation and the City of Edmonton be endorsed.

The City of Edmonton The following actions are recommended:

It is recommended that a new Development Review Process be designed,. one that is simple, clearly defined, expeditious and equitable.

1.

Such a process should have the following characteristics: 1.

The range of aspects dealt with should be clearly defined and limited. It would cover such aspects as the disposition of entrances and landscaped space in relation to the public street and sidewalk.

2.

The review should be carried out in accordance with guidelines that are clearly set out in the Downtown Plan, so that developers are well aware of the City's ambitions, and requirements.

3.

The process should not be linked in anyway to density or use incentives. Any major ambitions such as the retention of designated structures, which can only be achieved through density incentives, should be achieved through formulae in the Land Use Bylaw.

That a detailed plan be prepared as part of the Downtown Plan, for the improvement of downtown street design, paving and landscaping.

Such a plan would provide the basis for public investment and private development with respect to the form of the street. It is particularly important in the Warehouse District for the creation of a suitable residential environment. In that District, tree planting, for example, would be added to the program already begun in other Downtown districts.

2.

That a study be undertaken of appropriate urban design standards for new developments.

Such a study would have the purpose of identifying appropriate standards and guidelines for incorporation in the Statutory Plan and the new Land Use Bylaw. It would include standards for light, view, air and privacy for new buildings, as well as such

19

the application of the CHIP regulations, particularly in decreasing the percentage of controlled units and/or the degree to which rents for such units are below market levels.

matters as the way new development provided needed public amenities, particularly at street level.

3.

That the City consider the development of a public park of at least one acre in the Warehouse District, either through the acquisition of lands, or through the reuse of existing publicly owned land.

4.

That a study be undertaken of means to reduce the cost of the parking component in new development, including a review of automobile utilization and ownership rates for different unit types in Downtown.

5.

That the City coordinate development of the CPR lands, based on a development plan and land use controls aimed at developing a new low-to-medium rise community that would accommodate families and smaller households with a wide range of incomes.

The City of Edmonton Non-Profit Housing Corporation The following actions are recommended: 1.

That the Corporation take a primary role in ensuring the development of an adequate supply of social housing in the Downtown through: a) monitoring the operation and production of private industry rental housing programs; b) undertaking direct social housing developments on appropriate publicly owned sites; c) issuing proposal calls for joint ventures on appropriate publicly owned sites; d) advertising for turnkey non-profit rental housing proposals on privately owned land.

2.

That a review of all publicly owned land in the Downtown be undertaken to assist in the above.

3.

That appropriate criteria, design guidelines and outline specifications be prepared for the evaluation of joint venture calls and turnkey proposals.

Alberta Housing and Public Works and Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation The following actions are recommended: 1.

20

That flexibility continue to be exercised in

2.

That appropriate changes be made in present lending regulations to permit financing of the residential component of developments with very substantial commercial components.

3. Housing in Edmonton

This section briefly describes growth and change in Edmonton and the changing residential role of Downtown.

The section is set out in four parts.

3.1

describes the City's evolutionâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;its growth and specialization.

3.2

outlines the changing role the Downtown has played as a residential area.

3.3

notes the implications of changes

3.4

describes the current housing policy framework for Downtown.

3.1 Evolution of Edmonton

Edmonton, located on the north side of the North Saskatchewan River, was incorportated as a city in 1904. It had a population of approximately 3,000 at the turn of the century, concentrated in the area around 97 Street and Jasper Avenue. Strathcona, located around 82 Avenue on the south side of the North Saskatchewan River, was amalgamated with Edmonton in 1912. The City grew to a population of 72,000 in 1914, largely due to the expectations of the expanding railway network in Canada. The City grew gradually until the late forties, yet it remained a compact community. City land uses were not segregated formally and the population usually lived close to its place of employment. Some examples of residential housing units above retail stores dating from this early period can still be found along Jasper Avenue and 97 Street. The area south of Jasper Avenue to the Riverbank was the major residential district, Jasper Avenue itself being Edmonton's main street.

In 1947, Edmonton experienced an economic boom due to the discovery of oil in Leduc. Along with the discovery of oil, natural gas and increased mining activity, the population increased rapidly at a rate of 5.8°/o per year up to 1961. During this time, Edmonton experienced great growth in commercial/office development. In 1953, Edmonton decided to build a new City Hall which formed the nucleus of the Civic Centre area. The concentration of offices around the area was the beginning of highly specialized land use. Office development gradually moved westward along Jasper Avenue.

The CN Tower, Edmonton's first real skyscraper, marked the beginning of the office development in the Civic Centre area. The decision of Council to develop the Civic Centre area with public buildings reinforced the desirability of office space adjacent to it.

As the City continued to expand physically,

Downtown became more and more specialized for office/commercial use.

With the continuing growth of the whole province and the Capital City, the City began to spread outwards to provide the necessary housing. The older Downtown housing stock was replaced either by offices (mainly close to the Provincial Government Centre) or by high rise apartments (McKay Avenue area). During the past decade, Downtown Edmonton has gone through a very extensive change in use and form. As a result of the development of new suburban areas, large sprawling shopping centres were built to service these neighbourhoods.

Due to the availability of extensive storage space outside Edmonton's core, warehouse uses in the Warehouse District became less significant for Downtown. Thus light manufacturing and warehouses did not expand with the growing commercial activity in the area. On the other hand, Downtown became more attractive for large financial institutions, for offices for national corporations, and for the offices of the civic and provincial governments. The central area was accessible from all parts of the City; it provided close proximity with other offices and organizations, providing better contact and communication.

These institutions competed with the housing market in terms of land value and utilization, thus forcing housing out of the core (particularly lower density housing)...

Land use classification in the 1960's directed the land uses and growth within Downtown. The Civic Centre area, and the commercial core closer to the centre and the Provincial Government centre, experienced intensive growth. The Warehouse area,

Edmonton circa 1960 21

'lb oho.

410

EDMONTON 1901 )7I*STRATHCONA 1901

1924

1947

1965

1978

CITY GROWTH 19 01 - 1978

22

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEUL EN

3.2 Residential Role of Downtown

Present office/commercial core however, did not experience much in the way of increased development pressure, due to the uncertainty of potential office development.

Residential development continued in the McKay Avenue area, providing high density apartment housing for the growing need for this type of accommodation.

In conclusion, as the City grew, the Downtown became largely dominated by office/commercial uses. This specialization, also experienced in most other growing North American cities, strengthens the role of the City at regional, provincial, and national levels, but, it usually results in less diverse and active downtown areas, ones which are largely deserted after working hours and weekends.

Diversity that is normally obtained through the presence of a variety of city uses is lost; the suburbs become the dormitories for the work force which appears only during the day.

Edmonton is still expanding due to the growing economy in the Province, resulting in high rates of immigration from other provinces. Should the Downtown continue to grow with the above mentioned historic trends, it is not unlikely that the Downtown will substantially lose its remaining diversity and richness and the complexity of environment that makes it attractive as a place to be for people at all times of the day. The residential growth will then continue soley on Edmonton's periphery. Edmonton will be almost without the choice for its population to experience the rich and diverse qualities which urban life can offer.

The Downtown Core of Edmonton houses only approximately 6,290* people, or 1.3% of the City's total population of 471,474. Between 1961 and 1976 the City's population increased from 276,018 to 471,474—an increase of approximately 70%.

However, the Downtown population increased by only 20%. Although the population in Downtown did not greatly increase, its housing structure experienced considerable change. Similar changes also affected surrounding areas such as Oliver and Garneau, due to their close proximity to Downtown.

The major structural change of housing in Downtown is most noticeable by the increased number of units without a corresponding increase in population. The number of Downtown households increased from 2,055 to 3,655; however, the household size decreased from 2.53 to 1.7. This is in contrast to the average household size of 3.0 in the City . The decrease in household size was a result of fewer family units, general decrease in child population, and increase in single person households. The proportion of tenant occupied dwellings increased from 89.6°/o in 1961 to 96°/o in 1976 (contrasting with approximately 60% in the City as a whole).

The changes in the population's characteristics were also reflected in the housing form. Although there was an overall decrease in single family dwellings in the City (63.2% to 54.7%), Downtown experienced a much greater change. According to 1976 Federal census figures, 95°/o of the housing stock in Downtown consisted of apartments (compared to 34% for the overal City). These changes in the housing structure in Downtown have produced a population group which is different from the remaining City. More tenants, more apartments, more single people, more elderly people and fewer children form the population characteristic of downtown. Similar changes, however, have been •Federal Census, 1976

23

LOW DENSITY - PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - UP TO 40 PERSONS PER ACRE. LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY WITH CONVERTED DWELLING & SMALLER APARTMENTS -UP TO 90 PERSONS PER ACRE.

111111111111

MEDIUM DENSITY-UP TO 150 PERSONS PER ACRE.

M

HIGH DENSITY - UP TO 300 PERSONS PER ACRE.

NES BEN7 AL DENS TV

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEUL EN

24

5

Demographic Change Population 1961 1976 % Change Characteristics From 1961

Housing Characteristics

Population

Dwelling Units

City Downtown

281,027 461,361 64% increase 5,207 6,290 21% increase

% population living downtown 1.85%

1.3% 30% decrease

% Of Population Under Age 15

City Downtown % of total units in downtown area

1961 1976 % Change From 1961

76,275 55,485 104% 155,486 increase 2,055 3,665 78% increase 2.7%

2.4% 12% decrease

Housing Stock (% of housing units)

City

33% 24% 9% decrease

Houses

66% 54% 12% decrease

Downtown

10% 4.6% 5.4% decrease

Apartments

27% 34% 7% increase

% Of Population Between Age 20 - 34

Persons/Unit

City

24% 22% 2% decrease

City

3.6 2.9 7% decrease

Downtown

25% 36% 11% increase

Downtown

2.5 1.7 8% decrease

% Of Single Population (age 15 & above)

Unit Ownership

City

16% 23% 7% increase

City

Downtown

34% 46% 12% increase

Downtown

63% 51% 12% decrease 10.4% 3.9% 6.5% decrease

25

.1 II 1

L71

.,..••••:•1•• •

ss a.0

ITI1

'•••, ---:--, ..,N._ "r", -..-----zz-- _--• " 104 Aki,...-'.1,7_._.7. ....., , ri,-7.)--.1 ..'• 1 r-• • • ..11' A ''`-"- .r7.1 I II•'I.:1, 61 ......F-11 711 If lit l'i IL iL I - • 1,9ulP-L - -...1 1,_, ,,, ' I:- ...1

ra-tri: r ill—

El'

X• • i

r

-•

E=1

. _,.., c! , ciff I It_ • *" r:3

f

v1' I P 7 r Vir . r 1 L. 1 II . 1 0 -A L .

Eli j • "I j• _r_ j

. . . , r . ,.1 --, pi

r: S r-Tc F Lf7.-‘'41.

ila, F.,...,:... ., , lif 7:rzl, il,;2.].,.-r-----, i -11.-Fllidli 1 5 J _],--i_ - '61:-;: 0.=1 I, 11,.. !..-: , • !L....

I'lliLi .;,ILL:1" : i, / '. - 1r-]`10 1i [ _ • i-. j „..1."-,1lii., . ....:. ., P' -1 rvip 1 nrT:I--' F—ir ,i—.1 '. -, I l' lin- '111 1-•• -. • 1 4Ir 3 L I c--3 r 11 I 71 i. iF. L-d

,--,, r--, -) I, •

r. ..i, ,r7 I- 1 _ 1.10 )

1

.„-_ir-c- rik,

I I- 1. 1 .,,_„1:11,- . . ' b." ` ii

LI I I..

r‘c ,

'

- At.-il ;1."... .'4 1.. l' ' . . 1..i ::11.1

, ....lirFT: '''

-; .:?. "•-1:.:.:9 : '' r r' 1 ..17' 1:: '• nr 9 r-C. '[.- iiii; EIL11, r ' ; - i ..! r-----tu i.41• ..i

r.7.74.71

r 17, 1. ;)..., . ,...1 . 7 4.7 I 11 I ,td 1:_,11 -,'''''.. = I7--Ji l i.-L '' '. ...r. i'l•.3 1 . .

L, , i. L.. .1 I .1 1 V- I ....,- '.-. ' -.1 . -7-' . -'''..-. / --.• _ t-ii'.-ii.,,•!..L., . :: t_.. iiaiir.r. ' 1 :.

-..1 k - oniii '.

• -- , 7. . . 1; , . iH, ... ii „..il. ;2: ,....! i iii -, " mii , !..moi i ...., r 1: in, 1 . „,,r 11 4-,i, . ' i I ' " i "i 1 . .'

1....:1 -$.4.

• i --,..LEL j I -I 1 ,...: . . ; e_tq L73 [.......:471.4 I NMI.: I : .cl. 4,..'. I in ni 1;m:.! ,:j. m' =g I .: 1 FT)111- i I

it ,t1 ,s .."--•y.

.. 1 9:: ii - ...,. — -ti- , • _ ... F.3„,:,•.: ,t.., ' ' F:irlfi Ki =. gii I: . „.:: ••••-, TS' A. . ' -iii.,,./fi.'. .:•••• i•-..,...-1. , r.,

4

r ii-'•::-.i: .

:1-41.1/ J1Rill .." • !mai inn .0, ,.......1

P"4

no*rm

HOUSONG SINGLE FAMILY / DUPLEX UMMIM \MAW UP

26

0C

1965 HIGH RISE RESIDENTIAL

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

6

,

Om,

FL,. CP cu-rd •

ion

ie±g „

•

, •

ftJT

rill

-la

104

• • 7. q.1" f— i-,71 1.....J u. , :, Lui n7m 1 Ir.: 1 1,,

ni

.rr

i

-

11 :

L

1,4 : 1_ III; 11@g4til L...1. iL...i

L.

r1 .,

1 U L'1---.i.!,..—!. r-7 EJ .1-.

t

B

. le

, 14 -. A.

:

:5-iiil ra rJ, 0 . .

ID • '

. '

I's —

j )4. t _ 1

01 ill-9...:1 .- A-C.:: ,,..

I!

d. •

41...ND :I

''.

97

NOR TN

EMSTEIG HOUSPHO MO:

SINGLE FAMLY / DUPLEX

F7:71 CONVERTED DWELLING

111111111111 WALK UP ME HIGH RISE RESIDENTIAL

R.LWILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES VERMEULEN

7 27

evident in areas such as Oliver, which are directly affected by the proximity of Downtown.

As there is no population income data available for Downtown, it is difficult to determine the income range of its residents. However, it can be assumed that the majority of the population is not in a lower income range. It can also be assumed that a fairly large population of Downtown works within the study area (as 950/0 of the office space in the Edmonton sub-region is provided there).

3.3 Implications of Change

The implication of the changes in the Downtown population structure can be summarized as follows: •

The family size has decreased resulting in a minimal increase in population. This trend will continue as Downtown is more attractive to single people and young couples (compared to families with children).

• The population under the age of 18 has decreased. This is a result of high density housing forms (i.e. high rise) that are not conducive to family living. Moreover, there has been an overall decrease in the population under 18 in the City.

• The percentage of rental housing has increased.

Most of the housing in Downtown does not provide the feeling of a neighbourhood place for people. They choose to live here until they find a 'permanent' home. The length of residency of much of its population is short.

• In recent years, the creation of condominiums has increased the percentage of ownership housing. As the cost of living in single family homes becomes higher some people are moving to condominiums in the Downtown and surrounding area.

• There is a demand for rental housing in Downtown. The vacancy rate of 0 to 10/0 indicates the demand for rental housing in the area.

•

Although no data on income is available, it is quite evident that the household income in the area has increased (reflected in the high rents in the area).

• The relatively small increase in housing as compared to commercial development is developing Downtown into a single-use working centre.

28

3.4 Current Policy Framework There are not at present any specific polices for housing in Downtown. However, some intentions have been indicated in the General Plan. In Chapter 5, the following objectives have been laid out for residential development in the central area: 1.

"The needs of people are diverse and their social, cultural and economic situations differ vastly. This must be accepted and planned for, so that every sector of the population is provided with the opportunity to have suitable accomodation.""

2.

"Since the framework of an urban area is, in effect, its transportation system, it is essential that the intensity of residential uses be directly related to this system. The areas of highest residential density should be permitted only in close proximity to Downtown where access to the circulation system is at its best."*

These objectives do reflect the intention of the City of Edmonton to provide a choice of suitable accommodation for every sector of population and to provide housing close to the place of work.

However, the current trends do not meet these objectives and it is necessary to reaffirm the policies of Council to provide direction for the development of housing in the City. *Excerpt from Chapter 5, General Plan of Edmonton

29

4. The Case for

Housing in Downtown Edmonton

This section discusses the significance of housing in the Central City and its importance at this stage in Edmonton's history.

This section is set out in four parts.

4.1

deals with the public quality of Downtown.

4.2

discusses the need for housing.

4.3

discusses the general City form in relation to housing provision and outlines the impact of housing on the City structure.

4.4

deals with the local advantages of a Downtown residential environment.

4.1 The Public Quality of Downtown

The quality of any city is judged to a large degree by the character, function, and distinctiveness of its centre. It is there that the whole range of the peoples' activities are focussed, where one finds evidence of the place's origins and past, and where buildings are concentrated around well established, memorable streets and other public places. When people think of any city, they tend to remember first of all its centre. In consequence, the public quality of a city is largely a function of the breadth and depth of the roles played by its core in providing a cultural focus for urban life.

The ability of municipal governments to determine the shape, texture and quality of their cities is certainly limited. Cities are primarily formed and transformed by the development initiatives of private producers who, in turn, are guided in their actions by conditions in the marketplace.

Yet the activities of local governments have far-reaching effects on the quality of the form and life of the city. They design, build and care for the street systems which, in their dimensions and construction, have a profound effect on the kinds of buildings that develop. They control the locations and concentrations of buildings, the uses to which they are put and, indirectly, the kinds of people who use them. They can determine the way buildings relate to one another and to the streets and other public places. These activities have a powerful, formative effect on the ambiance, distinction and comfort of cities. They are perhaps the most important responsibility of local government.

The values that the municipality brings to bear on the process of making regulations are therefore of primary importance. In forming the rules under which land use competition is conducted, the local municipality largely effects the kind of city and downtown that it wants. It is in this context that Downtown housing is considered.

There is ample evidence that the inclusion of a substantial residential population in a city's core is extremely important to its public quality and well-being. The existence of a significant amount of housing within areas that are predominantly of office and commercial use can create conditions that improve the character, vitality and efficiency of a downtown. Cities such as Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Vancouver and Toronto have rediscovered the importance of housing downtown and have taken steps to encourage the development of new housing stock and the rehabilitation of existing housing within their cores.

Housing in mixed use districts can create a broader market for a wide range of shops, restaurants and services for use by the resident population as well as the downtown worker. The infusion of such amenities and the daily activity of residential life increase the vitality and enhance the character of street life. A wider selection of recreational, educational and social services also becomes available in response to the increased residential population. A substantial downtown housing stock expands the variety of choice available with respect to residential environments, offering the opportunity of living Downtown and pursuing a central urban life style.

The existence of housing as an important element in a downtown allows the opportunity for a number of distinct mixed use areas to develop, to complement the other precincts of downtown.

With the establishment of housing, a downtown gains a resident constituency with a very immediate and real interest in the quality of the environment and services in the area. Such a resident group would have significant impact on development strategies for the Downtown and would act as a balance to the interests of developers and other important groups.

In general, residential populations expand the usefulness of a downtown area, making it alive and active throughout the whole of the day, week and year, rather than simply during working hours. This adds to the richness of the area and, incidentally, helps to provide constant surveillance and a feeling of well-being and safety to its streets.

Historically, Downtown Edmonton has been the centre for commercial, retail, governmental and cultural activity for the entire region. It was also the residential focus to a large extent, the area where older, mature residential neighbourhoods existed with the other central functions.

31

As has been noted, that situation is changing with the unprecedented expansion of the City's role as a national financial centre. It appears that this expansion will continue.

On one hand, it presents an extraordinary opportunity to fashion a capital city of great diversity and distinction. There are great areas of land that are either vacant or under-utilized, so that the City can fashion the kinds of diverse precincts, for both living and working, to which other cities aspire.

On the other hand, the strength of the financial economy and recent trends suggest that, without proper management, most of the Downtown will develop as a place with the sole purpose of providing work space. Since there is a great deal of land available in relation to any reasonable office space demand projection, much of that land will remain vacant or underused for a very long period.

Such a situation seems unwise, unnecessary and generally inappropriate for a capital city.

4.2 Housing Need

That there is an overall need for housing in Edmonton and in Downtown is clearly indicated by its low vacancy rates and the spiralling cost of housing in the City. These are likely to continue with the steady growth that is projected for the City.

The General Plan Review projects a need for a total of 101,300 units by 1991. Within this total, 41,000 single family and semi-detached units, 27,000 ground-oriented multiples and 32,600 apartments are needed to accommodate the increase in population. This projected growth, averaging 7,000 units per year, is one of the highest in Canada.

During the past year the need for additional housing in the City has been a concern of both the City Planning Department and City Council. A number of studies, including the General Plan and the Annexation Study, are being undertaken to determine the ways in which the City can accommodate the increasing demand. It is therefore important to the Downtown core to determine if it can assist in providing space for a portion of this increased housing requirement.

There is a serious shortage of housing, particularly rental units, in the City. In October 1978 the vacancy rate was .80/0. Although the January 1979 CMHC survey shows 3%, it is probably a temporary phenomenon. The shortage of rental units has forced average rents up by approximately 8°/o every year, making Edmonton's rents among the highest in Canada. With respect to rental housing, the situation will probably become more acute, since almost none is being built at present. If the demand continues to grow as projected, and an insufficient number of housing units are built, it can be expected that there will be further sharp increases in rents.

Privately-owned housing by itself does not provide a solution to the problem. The prices of single family homes and high mortgage rates have made ownership housing unobtainable for many. The average cost of a house in Edmonton has increased from $60,862 in 1976 to $74,453 in 1978.

32

Moreover, most of the private homes are being developed in outlying suburbs, leaving no alternatives for those people preferring to live in the Inner City.

In a recent study prepared by Clayton Research Associates Ltd. for the City of Edmonton and Alberta Housing and Public Works, it is indicated that there is a need for smaller units in the Inner City areas to accommodate the low and moderate income groups, especially singles. The study further concludes that although AHMC and CMHC are assisting the low and middle income group, housing is still not affordable by many people. It states: â&#x20AC;˘That 40% of low income people cannot qualify for public housing. â&#x20AC;˘A/though ublic housing has been actively promoted in Edmonton, most of it is being built away from services. â&#x20AC;˘Rents are too high for people at the upper end of the low income group.

The expansion of single-family housing in the suburbs will not alleviate the need for the accommodation of small families and single people in the Inner City area. Thus it should be a municipal objective to develop the Downtown area's potential to provide its share of this type of residential accommodation.

4.3 City Form and Structure

Beyond the questions of the inherent quality of the City centre and of the need for housing, there are a number of concerns that relate to the form and structure of the City.

Described in its simplest form, the current City development pattern is that new office space is being built at very high densities almost entirely in the relatively small Downtown, while most new housing is being built in the sprawling new peripheral suburban areas. Some 88% of new housing is being built in these areas, and the City is considering a vast program of expansion in the size of the City through annexation.

While there is a need for new housing areas, the pattern of expansion raises some real problems that must become of increasing concern to the City.

There is, first of all, the high cost of servicing new land, particularly at the densities typical now of new suburban areas. Roads, utilities, and public transportation all must be provided. The classic problem, widely documented, is that the population densities are usually insufficient to support such services, through taxes, fares and other channels, requiring heavy subsidies. Increasing deficits for the Edmonton Transit Systems are an inevitable symptom, and the required subsidies an increasing burden. Further, the increasing consumption of primary agricultural land is a serious concern, particularly when the new use tends to be extremely low density residential development that could be more compact or in some ways accommodated by rebuilding in older areas.

What is occurring is extreme specialization in the City's form and structure, a fact which characteristically has resulted in critical problems in cities' transportation systems. Bus and rail transit systems are inadequately used, being overloaded in one direction in rush hours and under-used in the

33

other. The road systems leading to the downtown work centre become increasingly burdened and inadequate. Travel times become inordinately long for automobile and bus travellers. These conditions normally lead to pressure for major public expenditures on express routes and road widenings, causing major political and environmental stress in the areas through which they would pass. Such changes have not been experienced to any large extent in Edmonton but seem an inevitable part of the City's future.

The incorporation of significant portions of Edmonton's housing growth in Downtown development will not, of course, remove these problems. Perhaps to some extent they are inevitable, though steps can and should be taken at the metropolitan level to reduce their effects by, for example, insisting on more compact new development in new peripheral areas.

Yet, by ensuring that a significant portion of the housing growth is accommodated in Downtown, the problems can be ameliorated. Downtown residents will not significantly increase burdens on the transit systems and roads. Land is available, as noted later in this report, for large infusions of residential development without prejudicing the need to accommodate commercial development. The servicesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;transit, roads and utilitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;are already in place and are generally capable of accepting large new residential loads.

It would therefore seem wise at this time to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that, year by year, a reasonable portion of new housing growth is located in the Downtown, as well as in surrounding Inner-City areas through infill development.

4.4 Downtown as a Place to Live

Living in a central urban environment is certainly not everyone's choice. It is, nevertheless, a distinct life-style which appeals directly to an increasingly large percentage of the population. Providing the choice of such a residential environment is one of the characteristics of any distinguished City.

People living in a major urban centre can be close to their work, usually within walking or relatively short transit distance. They have at their immediate disposal the whole range of amenitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the restaurants, theatres, cinemas, specialized shops, bars, bookstores, and other services. They may own an automobile but do not have the worries of driving and parking it during the work day.

Such advantages appeal pre-eminently to certain contemporary groups in the City population. These are particularly people without young children, alone or in small households, people who do not, at their stage in life, wish to assume the responsibilities of a single family residence or ownership. It has also been found increasingly that the elderly and people whose children have grown up and left home can find central urban life both stimulating and comfortable.

It is therefore of some concern that present trends do not indicate that Edmonton's Downtown will satisfactorily provide the Downtown residential choice. This is a further reason for taking the actions recommended in this report.

34

5. The Housing

Potential of Downtown This section analyses the current characteristics and dynamics of Downtown to determine the area's suitability and capacity for housing development.

5.1

examines the availability of land for housing and other development.

5.2

discusses the current development dynamics influencing housing development.

5.3

describes the activities of Edmonton's public, private and non-profit housing producers.

5.4

examines the suitability of Downtown for housingâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;its infrastructure and environmental capacities.

5.5

sets out a range of housing types that might be suitable in various parts of Downtown.

5.6

examines the economic feasibility of housing in Downtown.

5.1 Land Availability

Perhaps the first question that arises with respect to housing in Downtown is that of the availability of land for residential development. The commercial office and government functions are well established and it is essential that there be room for their growth. This section provides summary of the analysis undertaken to determine the availability of land for all uses.

It is always difficult to assess whether a given piece of land is likely to be developed in the short or longer term. Therefore a number of assumptions must be made. The following have been used for the purposes of this exercise: â&#x20AC;˘ All significant areas of vacant land not a part of a particular development would be available for future development. â&#x20AC;˘ All under-utilized land will be available for development. â&#x20AC;˘ Institutional and historical buildings will be excluded from the calculations.

Although it is difficult to assess which land is under-utilized, it was assumed for the purpose of calculations that the land which is developed at less than 1/3 its existing permitted zoning capacity is available for development in the short term, and that all land developed at less than 1/2 its permitted zoning capacity is available for development over a longer period of time.

This is not to suggest that all land which falls into the above categories need necessarily be available for development. These measures for land utilization are subjective and depend on several other factors, such as the location, demand for space, ownership, etc. (A recent example is the Tegler Building site which under the above mentioned criteria was

Under-utilized Land considered as stable and well utilized. However, it is being considered for redevelopment.) Nevertheless, the assumptions do provide a reasonable basis for assessing the development capacity of the Downtown.

The analysis of the study area found that approximately 171 acres of land are available for development, including the CNR and CPR yards. If the Railway yards are excluded, there are approximately 27.8 acres of vacant land, 44.2 acres of land utilized to less than 1/3 of its capacity, and 34.1 acres of land utilized to less than 1/2 of its capacity. Thus a total of approximately 106 acres of available land has the potential of providing approximately 23.2 million square feet of floor area under presently existing land use classification guidelines. Apart from this, approximately 3.4 million square feet of office space has been approved recently but has not been constructed (which was not included in this calculation to determine land available for future development). Approximately 26.6 million square feet of potential space could, therefore, be developed in the Downtown. The office requirement projections for the next 15 years show a need for approximately 8.9 million square feet of commercial space". A total of 1.3 million square feet of retail space is projected to 1991.

Theoretically, therefore, there are approximately 17.7 million square feet of floor space which could be available for other uses without infringing upon the demand for office and retail space. Furthermore, should the CNR and CPR lands be developed, this could provide approximately 75 acres of additional land.

"Source General Plan Review, office space projections.

35

tr3 11 rn

'oil Ill iri.--111 -E=31

ilL

III

13.--1 14

LILF

D o O E.

•

M3 ,

rt_ i r

H

-11rf I Cr

L 1

Jasp0(10i&T

Lit

--r-F:jr=1-Hi:"L-1:1 r--T.11L,''' R C1 13' 1 ',. _il J-5 1

1 fr IL

7 1 7-1 [1,1 1

1

1 -7-

E , i]I r 1 1 n 17-11 L i_ L [. I

FFrtfr-J

,

,

r : [ .:' L 1, LIF 31 E•

,L

'Li,

T,'" 1 ''Z_

L.]

M 3,, &

97 A.

MORPH

EMST .=AIRTO USE CASS IF CMON

36

R.L. WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

8

Land Use Density/ Permitted Classi- F.A.R. Uses fication

Regulations

04

6:1 to 10:1

No yard requirement.

Commercial No height limit.

Public buildings.

Residential above first floor.

CC

6:1 to 10:1

Same as C4 except residential permitted as special use.

Same as 04.

CM

3:1

Same as 04.

No front & side yard required. Rear yard: 20 at ground floor Ht. limit: 100 ft.

03

3:1

Same as 04.

Same as CM. Ht. limit: 45'.

R6

Residential 300 persons only. per acre.

Front yard: 20 ft.

Rear yard: 25 ft.

Side yard: varies from 5 ft. to 25 ft.

R7

Residential 3:1 or Commercial 300 persons Institutions. per acre.

Same as R6 for residential use. For non-residential uses.

Front yard: 20 ft.

Side yard: 10% width of lot.

Rear yard: 25 ft. wide.

NOTE: Parking requirements Commercial: 1 stall per 1,000 sq. ft.

1 stall per 2,000 sq. ft. if connected to downtown pedway system.

1 stall per 2,500 sq. ft. if connected directly to L.R.T. station.

Residential:

1 stall per bachelor or 1 bedroom unit.

1.5 stalls per 2 bedroom unit.

1.75 stalls per 3 bedroom unit or larger.

Downtown Land Use Classifications

The following analysis by sub-area reveals that the Core/Commercial Area and the Warehouse District provide the major development potential.

Civic Centre: There is a total of 5.1 acres of land available for development. This includes 1 acre of vacant land, 1.86 acres of land developed at less than 1/3 capacity, and 2.2 acres of land developed at less than 1/2. Land for public use such as City Hall, Churchill Square, Convention Centre, etc. are not considered as under-utilized. Taking into consideration the present situation, if it is assumed that only 10% of the available land would be developed for residential uses, at densities of 200

units/acre, this would yield a total of only 100 units.

Core Office/Commercial: This portion of the Downtown has approximately 38.9 acres of land available for development. Out of this, approximately 6.64 acres are vacant, 24 acres are utilized at less than 1/3 their capacity, and 11.1 acres are utilized at less than 1/2 their capacity. The area could provide approximately 12.7 million square feet of spaceâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;enough to accommodate all future demands for office and retail space. It can be assumed that most of this area will be developed for office/retail usesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;however, if only 20% of the land is developed for housing at approximately 200 units/acre, this area could provide a potential of approximately 1500 units under current land use classifications.

Warehouse District: Analysis of the Warehouse Area reveals that approximately 15.8 acres are vacant. Another 17.2 acres of land are developed to less than 1/3 its capacity, and a further 9.2 acres are developed to less than 1/2 capacity. This area could therefore provide approximately 6.89 million square feet of space under current land use classification.

If the vacant land is developed at a density of approximately 100 - 150 units/acre, it could accommodate between 1500 to 2370 units.

Furthermore, if only 50% of the under-utilized sites were redeveloped for housing, it would provide another 1720 to 2580 units. Apart from this, a residential project with 225 units is already under construction. Overall this warehouse area could provide approximately 3445 to 5175 units, which would still allow for adequate commercial development.

McKay Avenue Residential: The McKay Avenue area, already a residential neighbourhood, has approximately 2.8 acres of vacant land, but approximately 12.2 acres of land are utilized to less than 1/3 capacity. The latter includes mainly old single family and converted dwellings, many of them dilapidated structures. If these were redeveloped, and some infill housing developed between the better existing structures, approximately 1500 units (average 100 units/acre) could be accommodated.

A 200 unit project is already under construction in this area.

Railway Lands: There are approximately 75 acres of vacant land which would be available for development when CPR and CNR relocate. If this

37

;u

• JjN

CILLIj le201 •

Hi

la:

—•

Coo 0.

_

\

104 Avei-N.'7-.

I

1

q K... v.

.. ,....i • - n'uli::::i-- 1:13::

41

;• iii :: .1 .;33:0'. .

I.,' • II

I

I -14 .

•

: ,..i..

4.1_

: RI .:I x., ' IR0 Dx..3.-•

..1

..: cr.v.1-;:.4..

,!

1—'--1.: :: c's1% ' :- ....; -2 -7.5.

'

:. •

.

• , i$.:.*: ' :. • El . .::

I ''' I . ' .,.=.: Wi:1Itab:...4,.......:4! :.: -- .taz -7.7F• .cr.7:1 -3, - ,:•%. I ,..:i , 1 - irrni „I I

. .„.„ _

:Jaspet-Ave• :

: figra -!'

Cti:1 ' 7 15 : . •••;;Z:.• ,,I • ::"ii:P L; .:: S. - 1.!:.i.::....1

p43 " • •

k7.3

. Z=•,,••

97

' I. .•:!•,q14 4h -

L.,

"7" "" • • _•• -

NOR rie

'

BUOLIDING REDOKTS 1-3 FLOORS 4-8 FLOCRS

38

IllIllIllIll

9-12 FLOORS 13-20 FLOORS

fa.,

L. WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS 21+ FLOORS

Consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

DEVELOPMENT POTENTUL LAND UTILIZED LESS THAN 1/3 CAPACITY. LAND UTIUZED LESS THAN 1/2 CAPACITY.

RLWILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants

APPROVED

COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

10 39

area is developed at 75 - 100 units/acre, the area in itself can accommodate 5625-7500 units. (The CPR study has suggested a density of 114 units/net acre or 78 units/gross acre).

The above calculations show that there is at least a potential of approximately 12,370 to 15,975 housing units in the Downtown area. In terms of the permitted zoning capacities, the densities assumed are reasonably conservative; the actual potential could exceed these estimates by a considerable margin.

5.2 Development Dynamics of Downtown

Office Space Projection The Planning Department has studied the office space demand projections to 1991. They indicated that approximately 60% of all new office space will be located Downtown—addina a total of

24 20 (9 1 6 LL cn

0

--

12 8 4 0 1975

81

86

As it appears evident that there is adequate space in Downtown for the accommodation of both commercial and residential development, it is important to look at the building patterns presently being constructed.

The Land Use Map shows Downtown Edmonton's land being dominated by commercial use, most of it developed during the last decade. As Alberta's economy continues to draw more people and dr• ••••1 companies to Edmonton, commercial space will ea .1111.• grow correspondingly. This, along with the current Land Use Classifications, make Downtown more attractive economically for commercial use rather than for housing. The existing classifications allow commercial development in every area of Downtown except R-6. Because the economic return on commercial property is more than double that on residential, it is quite understandable that the major 91 component of development in Downtown is commercial. The trends vary from one area to another; therefore, one should examine the factors

Downtown Office Space Projec tions 1976 - 91 approximately 7.6 million square feet of additional space by 1991. Three different projections indicate that the increase in office space in Downtown varies from 5.6 million to 7.6 million square feet between 1976 and 1991.

In addition, the General Plan Review projections for retail space indicate the demand for 1.3 million square feet. In all, approximately 8.9 million square feet of commercial space is projected up to 1991.

Since 1976, approximately 3.4 million square feet of commercial space has been approved, and is now under construction or awaiting construction*. * November 1978.

40

Increasing Development Activity

t

,n

• Llli le3U2

arm _ immitSwirm min

Id'

iI

r'

104 A

•:•iI

EL,TEq •

. ,

Jasper Ave.

,

1

L I JI

Li {14 aff

1

mirri

,

tlar.

....

_ .

••.

-4; 10-10: -

"

z

•. i•• • '1.•

-3

: cat

or t. woo

thl

— I

; :e

ktkP'

3s1

7'7

974#à .• !

,•.

•• •-•-•

• moor.,

AND USE NSTITUTICNAL / PUBLIC WAREHOUSE / INDUSTRIA/

R.LWILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS

comfit:Kw.

MEI

RESIDENTIAL

consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

11 41

Civic Centre from Churchill Square affecting development in the separate sub-study areas of Downtown.

Civic Centre: There has been great activity in the Civic Centre area in the past decade. The buildings' uses consist mainly of hotels, offices, theatres, etc.

The south-east corner of Civic Centre is presently being consolidated for the Federal Government Complex.

There has been no residential development in the area in the last ten years, mainly because of the City's policy that civic buildings will be maintained as the dominant elements of the Civic Centre Plan.* Although the policy further states "commercial, governmental, cultural, residential buildings, public parks, malls and plazas are to be provided for balance, variety and beauty", the possibility of residential buildings has been discarded to date as being economically unfeasible.

Core Office/Commercial: This portion of Downtown has recently experienced extreme development pressure. The area extends from the Civic Centre, along Jasper Avenue to the Provincial Government Centre. The areas adjacent to Government Centre and Civic Centre have become the more desirable areas for commercial development with a concentration of offices for government, financial institutions and large corporate organizations. The land values have increased tremendously, making housing almost an impossible proposition.

There are only two examples of residential developments in the area, one of which is a senior citizens' building. The only developments presently *General Plan 1967, Chapter X.

42

Jasper Avenue east of 101 Street considered feasible in this area by developers are office buildings at 8 to 10 times coverage. As more and more large financial organizations set up their headquarters in Edmonton, and are willing to pay a higher price for 'prestige' locations, it almost obviates the possibility of residential development.

As there is no requirement in the Land Use Classification to provide residential development, it is highly unlikely that any significant amount of housing will be developed here under the current market conditions.

Warehouse Area: The Warehouse Area was once planned for wholesale sales, light manufacturing, and warehouse storage facilities. Due to the availability of cheaper land for storage space outside the Downtown area, warehouses have been gradually moving away from Downtown. There has not been a significant change in the built form within the area, although the uses are changing gradually.

There has been no specific direction for development in this area. This state of uncertainty and the lack of clear policies have left the area almost unchanged. In the last year or so, land speculation has been noticeable in the area, presumably in anticipation of extension of the Business District, resulting in a sudden increase in land values.* Recently, the Planning Department has received many applications for commercial development. The only residential project, now under construction, is a mixed use condominium development on 109 Street, north of Jasper Avenue.

There are two main reasons why housing is not â&#x20AC;˘ See technical Appendix, Chapter 5.

DEVELCDPEMENT ACT w 7Y M

APPROVED

PROPOSED

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU FIARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

43

density and uses also has an impact on building activity. Rezoning from R-6 to R-7 for certain buildings (permitting commercial as well as residential developments), creates expectations for developing more commercial use, which obviously is more economically attractive for the developer. As stated earlier, it is difficult to realize housing if it is in direct competition with commercial use.

In summary, the present development in Downtown concentrates on commercial office space, with very little rental housing because: 1.

Unattractive residential environment in Warehouse Area

2. being built here. First, its present environmental quality is not attractive for housing, and the uncertainty of its future makes it still more difficult.

Secondly, the commercial growth in the City has created expectations amongst the land owners that this area will become part of the Core. These expectations have been further reinforced with the approval of projects like Eaton's Warehouse site and the Madison Development site, approved by the City at much higher densities than permitted under the Land Use Classification Guide. The result is that developers and land owners will wait for the time when they can develop commercial space or sell for profit.

McKay Avenue Residential: This is the only district which has been reserved for residential development. As the residential market did not have to compete with commercial in this area, numerous high rise rental housing units were built in the late 1960's and early 1970's. This growth declined when suddenly, in the early 1970's, the concept of condominium development became popular. As the rents were increasing steadily, the condominiums became attractive both for the home owner and the developer. The increase in interest rates made the building of rental housing units even more difficult.

As a result, for the last few years, only condominiums have been built in the area. As the cost of land is directly passed on to the buyer, land values now are speculated purely for the condominium market. This trend in condominium development has continued until recently, as the demand for condominiums has declined. Therefore, there has been very little building activity in this area.

Similar to other sub-study districts, relaxation of

44

3.

Rental housing is in direct competition for land with commercial or condominium uses, which are economically more profitable.

Market interest rates are too high to develop any kind of rental housing.

The expectations of achieving higher commercial densities or rezoning to commercial use inhibit the development for any other use.

LAND ASSEMBLY PUBLIC OWNED (FEDERAL , PROVINCIAL, MUNICIPAL) PRIVATE OWNED

R.L. WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

13 45

5.3 Housing Producers Vacancy rates of less than 1% indicate that not enough rental housing units are being built. If the situation is left solely to the private market it is unlikely that there will be any increase in rental housing development in the near future, either in Downtown or elsewhere in Edmonton. It is therefore important to examine the problems of the groups that are responsible for developing housing in the City.

Public: The three levels of governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;civic, provincial and federalâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;are responsible for the development of social housing both for rental and home ownership programs. There are approximately 10,130 rental housing units under low and moderate income programs, including community housing, non-profit, CHIP., Limited Dividend and A.R.P., none of which are in the central area.* Most of these units were developed in outlying areas such as Kaskitayo, Londonderry, Primrose, etc. Similarly, under the ownership housing programs such as SHOP., C.H.A.P., D.L.P. and A.H.O.P., most units are located in Millwoods and Clareview (total approximately 4,113 units). In discussions with the City Real Estate and Housing Department and Alberta Housing and Public Works, it was concluded that the cost ceilings on the projects imposed by C.M.H.C. and A.H.M.C. restrict developments in the Inner City area where the land is much more expensive. As a result, all the community housing has been developed on the outskirts of Edmonton.

The only form of government assisted housing developed in Downtown and the Inner City is for senior citizens, at high densities, where land was readily available in quasi-public ownership.

The Core Housing Incentive Program (CHIP.), designed to provide rental housing, has been unsuccessful in providing rental housing in the core area. The public organizations are aware of the importance and demand for housing in Downtown and other Inner City areas; they would like to *See Technical Appendix, Chapter 1, 'Demographic and Market Analysis'.

46

develop a greater number of housing units to provide a balanced growth in the City.

Non-Profit: Non-profit housing and co-op housing have experienced the same problems with cost and program guidelines. To date, non-profit and co-op housing have been built in Millwoods, Westmount and Clareview.

The City of Edmonton has set up its own Non-Profit Housing Corporation, the objective of which is to provide housing for groups and individuals not presently served by the private sector or public agencies. The Director of the program has identified the need to provide non-profit housing in Inner City areas, although the cost and availability of land would be the determining factor for appropriate locations. The initial projects are planned for Neighbourhood Improvement Program areas. Due to the limited funds available and relatively high land costs Downtown, non-profit housing will initially be largely restricted to other areas of the City.

Private Sector: In analysing the development dynamics of Downtown, it is seen that very little housing is being developed privately, apart from some condominium apartments. Meetings with private developers and the Urban Development Institute have revealed that there is very little rental housing being built in the City. High interest rates make it extremely difficult to make any profit on rental housing. Most rental housing built in the rest of Edmonton is under the Assisted Rental Program, CHIP. or M.U.R.B., subsidy mechanisms that provide a tax shelter for the investor.

In conclusion, therefore, two sets of factors act to discourage the development of rental housing Downtown. First, overall interest rates, even those assisted by government programs, are too high to make housing development attractive. Second, the potential alternative of higher yielding uses in the Downtown area has driven up land values and dissuaded developers from residential projects.

5.4 Suitability of Downtown for Housing

It has been noted in the previous chapter that whereas in new peripheral areas services and utilities must be provided, they already exist in Downtown. The following is an examination of those services and utilities.

Water Supply: Most of the water distribution mains within the study area were originally constructed in the early part of the century. At that time, the size of services was more than adequate for the development that existed. It continued to meet the City's needs without improvement until major redevelopment began within the last 20 years.

In discussions with the Water and Sanitation Department, it was revealed that in general there is adequate feedmain capacity in the Downtown area to provide the requirements of any kind of residential development. Recently, however, it has been necessary to replace some water mains with larger diameter piping, in order to meet the fire flow requirements of major developments. The Department already has an overall program for general upgrading of the water main system and upgrading work is being completed as necessary.

Storm and Sewage System: The present system in the Downtown area operates on a combined storm run-off and sanitary discharge flow basis. The Water and Sanitation Department is presently assessing the whole City's sewage system. The Department indicates that although it is possible that the existing combined system may have adequate capacity to accommodate the sanitary sewage flow from the additional housing development proposed, further study would be required to ascertain quantities. Relief work for the Downtown's combined storm and sewage system is scheduled for the period of 1983 to 1988. Its design will be based on

land-use projections prepared by the Downtown Plan and the General Plan. Therefore any improvements, if necessary, to accommodate the housing development in Downtown could be attained within the scheduled relief work.

Natural Gas: The natural gas service is in excellent condition, and its capacities can be increased by increasing the pressure. Therefore, any increase in residential development would not affect natural gas supply. The following map shows the location of the distribution network.

Power and Telephones: These services are provided by the City-owned Edmonton Power and 'edmonton telephones'. These Departments indicate that there would be no problem in servicing extra residential developments Downtown. The location of power lines is the only constraint which would restrict lane closures for comprehensive developments.

Transportation: The Downtown area experiences general congestion on the major arteries during peak hours. This congestion is created mainly by through traffic. The Planning Department is investigating means to improve a central by-pass system to reduce the vehicular trips through Downtown. Certain roadway improvements are already planned for the through streets, e.g. expansion of 109 Street, 97 Street, 104 Avenue, etc. Apart from these improvements the City is trying to encourage transit ridership to offer alternatives to the private car. However, statistics

Peak hour congestion

47

•

•

is ")..J

• . l•

411P

• i 4IIIIIIII•

• • •

•1

•

•

• • .41 •

•

Al p 1

) •

)i

•• 8" - 20" MAINS. s 48" & OVER.

SE EN ''''',..-/

•

WATE 'A

.

1" - 8" MAINS

10- 20 MAINS

mit•

• •

,

••

• •

/ 4.... ....

•

• I •

,••

••••• ••

•

• ••• •

•

•

•

i

N

• •

4.*

S.

•:44.,

'''.7

1_ 4" MAINS OAS

6-10" MAINS 12L16" MAINS

PURL C UN. I' ES

immrs um" in

•

powEEN a

• 4 .,

•••.

7ELEPHOME

POWER TELE PHONE

NM M ME

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

48

•

14-

show that although the transit ridership has increased from 18.60/0 to 21.70/0 (see Technical Appendix) private auto usage has not decreased and the auto occupancy has decreased. It is costly and physically difficult to expand roadway networks to accommodate the increase in traffic. The City must expand the public transit network and increase public transit ridership. The L.R.T. provides some potential to meet this goal.

It is, however, reasonable to assume that the addition of new housing in the Downtown area would not exert further pressure for new road construction or widening (as it would if it were located on Edmonton's periphery). An increase in housing in the area is likely to increase the number of vehicles Downtown. However it would not unduly strain present roadway capacity. It can be assumed that many people living and working Downtown would either walk to work or use public transit facilities (as the transit facilities are conveniently available within a block from all parts of Downtown) and only a minor percentage of people would drive to work. If the people living Downtown work outside the centre, their traffic movement would be in the opposite direction from suburban peak hour traffic coming into the core. This modal split would alleviate the necessity for expansion in the roadway network.

In summary, an increased use of public transit facilities, more people walking to work, and the decreased use of automobiles may act to relieve congestion Downtown.

Parking: It is important to assess the impact of increased residential development on parking in Downtown. A recent Parking Study prepared by the Planning Department states that at present the Downtown area has an overall parking shortage.

Observations drawn from the study of parking trends indicate that: 1.

2.

3.

The daily parking is increasing over supply, causing overflow of daily parking north of C.N.R. There is a shortage of monthly parking.

During winter the daily parkers pay hourly rates to park in commercial lots, eliminating much of the space for hourly parking.

The study recommends formation of a parking agency which would be responsible for the implementation of parking policies and objectives.

The parking demand cannot be analyzed in isolation

as it is related to transportation and land use policies for the whole City. Furthermore, a detailed parking study is not within the scope of this Study.

However, it is reasonable to expect that increased housing Downtown would not affect the demand for daily parking in Downtown (which is normally created by the increased office and retail space). Although there would be an increase in the number of cars Downtown because of increased residential development, there would not be an increase in the demand for daily or short term parking because most of the residents would either walk to work or use public transit.

Schools: There are no schools operating within the study area. The only educational facility presently available in the Downtown area is Aberta College, which provides a high school curriculum on semester basis, both for adults and high school students.

McKay Avenue School served the area until 1963, but due to a drastic drop in its enrollment, the school was phased out. Since 1963 school children have been transported to Oliver School, and McKay Avenue School was made available for special vocational training programs.

Enrollment in the other schools in the central area (e.g. Oliver, Alex Taylor, etc.) has also declined and now they are consequently under-utilized. However, it is difficult to determine how much more enrollment could be absorbed by these schools if family housing were increased substantially Downtown.

Present provincial policies do not encourage development of new school facilities. Instead they prefer to bring under-utilized schools up to their capacity. This applies not only to the Downtown, but also to numerous suburbs where children are now being bussed to schools in other districts. In addition, the high cost of land Downtown prohibits any further school development on new land. It is then anticipated that an increase in the child population in the Downtown area would be accommodated in nearby schools. However, if enough family housing were developed, and the need for a school is justified, McKay Avenue could become operational with a standard curriculum again.

Parks & Recreation: The parks and recreation facilities Downtown are somewhat inadequate and limited to a very few. Recreational facilities are offered by YMCA and YWCA, located within the study area. The two major parksâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Churchill Square 49

and Beaver Hills Park provide approximately 3.2 acres of park land.

There are no monies presently available in the Parks and Recreation budget for major facilities in the study area for the next five years. The budget is limited to a few improvements on A.G.T. Plaza and minor streetscape improvements.

The new Parks and Recreation Master Plan, now awaiting approval, recommends that the private development industry should provide for the recreational needs for the Downtown population.

Although no standards have been established to determine the adequacy of open space in the area, the Plan suggests that improvements are required for active and passive recreation. Although recently attempts have been made by the Planning Department to incorporate some recreational facilities into new commercial developments (such as Yale Properties and Marshall Wells Development), not many facilities have been provided for public use. Limited facilities (swimming, exercise rooms, etc.) are provided for tenants in most large residential developments in the McKay Avenue area; however, these are private.

Both Churchill Square and Beaver Hills Parks provide passive recreation (the exception being skating in Churchill Square during winter). Beaver Hills Park is mainly ornamental, without provision for active recreation.

Apart from the above mentioned facilities there is a small amount of open space available mainly in the CBD area, e.g. Frank Oliver Memorial Park, Abbey Glen Park at 102 Street and Jasper Avenue, and the River Bank (McDougall Hill). Also, a large ornamental park is planned for framing the Legislative Building.

Abbey Glen Parkâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a temporary success

The McKay Avenue residential area and particularly the Warehouse area are deficient in open space.

The Warehouse area in addition requires considerable upgrading of the streets and sidewalks, as well as in addition to parks facilities to provide a desirable environment for residential development.

These issues are dealt with later in the report.

Although the Capital City Recreation Park runs along the southern boundary of the study area, accessibility makes it difficult for easy utilization.

In summary, should additional housing be developed in the Downtown, additional parks and recreation facilities would be required for private and public use.

Airport Vicinity Regulations: In addition to development restrictions imposed by the City zoning regulations, environmental and urban design constraints, building heights Downtown are restricted

by Federal Airport Vicinity regulations.* These limits are imposed by flight paths (see Map) into the Municipal Airport located north of the Downtown area.

Runway 34 passes over the west side of the Downtown area, and extends at an increasing slope of 1:50 until reaching 25,000 feet from the airport, then diverging upwards at a ratio of 3:20.

Transitional surfaces from the eastern edge of Runway 34 over the Downtown rise from the flight path at a ratio of 1:7.

Runway 29 passes over the northeast corners of the study area increasing at a slope with a ratio of 1:40.

Beaver Hills Parkâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;success or failure?

50

"Source: City Planning Department

11115„..=.1

C/)

rrLi°

JasperAv LO F

A 'A' POW REGMAT

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES kJ. VERMEUL EN

51

The Warehouse area (CM) is the only portion of the Downtown which is affected to any extent by these flight path regulations. It restricts building heights to 150 feet at and between 104 and 103 Avenues.

However, the limit rises at a slope of 1:50 towards Jasper Avenue allowing a theoretical building height of 180 feet at Jasper Avenue. These limits restrict densities and built form of buildings to be developed in this area.

Noise: There are two major noise sources which affect the Downtown study area: arterials and through streets (particularly those which are truck routes), and flight paths with the Municipal Airport as destination. Noise levels exceeding 30 N.E.F. (see Airport Vicinity Regulation Map) are generally considered incompatible with a good residential environment. However, levels between 30 and 35 N.E.F. are tolerable if certain precautions are taken in the physical design of buildings.

The flight paths (see Map) affect only the extreme east and west portions of the study area, whereas the major portion of Downtown has noise levels of less than 30 N.E.F. from air traffic. Should the CPR yards be developed residentially, however, a portion of it probably should be designed bearing the flight path noise factor in mind.

Vehicular traffic arterials are 97 Street, 109 Street, 104 Avenue, and 97 Avenue, forming the boundaries of the Downtown area. Major north/south through traffic within the study area is on 101 Street and 105 Street, and 109 Street, while east/west traffic is carried on Jasper Avenue and on 102 and 103 Avenues (one-way). The remaining streets and avenues serve generally as access streets, and as such produce less noise and are more suitable for residential development. No freeways presently pass through the Downtown core; thus there are- no high noise levels which would be a detriment to housing development. Also, it is not likely that freeways will be constructed, in view of the proposed Project

uNr. In conclusion it can be stated that although continuing consideration should be given to noise polution, it is not an over-riding detriment to housing in the Downtown core.

Institutions and Social Services: Institutional facilities Downtown include Alberta College, Alberta Vocational Centre, Public Library, Art Gallery and Citadel Theatre, all of which provide central * Transportation Planning, City of Edmonton.

52

Citadel Theatre

education and entertainment facilities for the entire City.

Also located within the Downtown area are most of Edmonton's social service facilities. Federal, provincial and municipal services provide facilities for public health clinics, counselling (welfare, unemployment, etc.), transient hostels, senior citizens' societies, associations for the handicapped, etc. Private agencies such as the Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A. are also located Downtown.

Discussions with the Social Services Department identified a general shortage of various services within Edmonton, but also that they are increased or decreased in size as demanded by the specific needs within any particular district. It is difficult to determine if the Downtown area is inadequate in services, as it functions as the central provider of most services. It would appear, however, that an increased population Downtown would create no serious problems in the provision of such facilities, and that minimal upgrading would be required.

To some degree, private development is being encouraged to provide services (or space for services) such as day care centres, health clubs, etc. These are sometimes financed by the Provincial Government. There is potential to provide more of such facilities within residential developments, funded both by private and public sources.

User Satisfaction/General Environment: As mentioned earlier in the Report, the provision of housing on expensive Downtown land requires higher densities in order to justify the land costs, and also to compete with the demand to build commercial space which produces higher revenues.

Dissatisfaction has often been expressed in

discussions of high density living, particularly with high rise apartments. It is therefore necessary to look at the suitability of the Downtown area for high density living, and its effects on various user groups.

The Institute of Environmental Research Inc., Ontario, has prepared a report analyzing social and psychological reactions to high rise living. It surveyed factors related to housing satisfaction, including implications of density and over-crowding.

Although over-crowding has normally been associated with high densities, there is a significant difference between them. Density is a physical condition, whereas over-crowding is a personal perception of spatial restriction (at least as it is usually defined for North American living conditions in housing developments). Although many research studies have pointed to various ill effects on an individual's performance at higher densities, an equal number of studies conclude that there is little or no significant effect on human performance.

However, most of the studies have a conclusion in commonâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;that satisfaction with one's residential environment is usually strongly linked with accessibility and utilization of community services.

The Schreidelert Homenuck Study (1973) stated that housing preference amongst residents of diverse dwelling types (high rise, condominiums, single family homes) depended on convenience to facilities and services as being a primary factor in the selection of housing unit.

Because high rise apartments form a major component for life in urban areas, it is important to examine the satisfaction of diverse user groups such as families, married couples, single people and the elderly.

Most research has concluded that high rise apartments are not suitable for families with children, their preference naturally being for ground-related accommodation. Also, it is not surprising that childless married couples and single adults are those most satisfied with high rise living. They enjoy the convenience of maintainance-free facilities and their proximity to facilities for leisure inside and outside their building. Thus they do not miss the lack of personal private open space.

Suitability of high rise living for the elderly has perhaps been the most controversial. Studies of their satisfaction indicate that apartment design is the most important concern. Dissatisfaction is normally expressed in terms of items such as the provision of balconies, size and space constraints,

noise and elevator service. (Note: the same items are also prime concerns of other high rise tenant groups). There seems to be no concrete evidence that there are specific problems of high rise living for the elderly.

A local study* prepared by the Department of Sociology indicates that alienation need not occur as a result of high rise living as long as social interaction is sustained.

Density and Crime: Crime is often directly related to life in high density housing developments.

However, sociologists have widely varying opinions regarding overly simplistic relationships between high densities and crime roles. Of course, it is obvious that because there are numerically more people in high density districts, there may be numerically more reported crimes. However, the crime rate per 1,000 persons often is lower than in lower density suburbs. The strongest correlation has been found between crime rate and concentration of subsidized families living in elevator access apartments.

Characteristically these are the same projects which have ill-defined open space patterns (see Report Section 6.7 on Open Space). It has also been noted in various American studies that crime rates are reduced in certain types of high density residential and mixed use developments. In these, due to an increase of resident population on the streets and in ground-related living units, surveillance is greatly improved. Thus, a mix of housing with commercial uses in higher density neighbourhoods can produce safer streets than those with little or no resident activity.

It can be concluded from various studies that the design of housing and the residential environment are key factors. The creation of towers in amorphous open space areas does not provide a feeling of community ownership. Every attempt should be made to develop streets that are active and, in effect, supervised by the presence of residents and workers.

Again, because so many diverse factors influence crime rates, it is extremely difficult to relate crime to density. In discussions with the Edmonton City Police Department, it was noted that variations such as neighbourhood characteristics (type, condition, age of housing) and type of population (income, age, transient/permanent, etc.) seem to be the greatest influence on crime. An obvious example might be *Quality of life in Edmonton, Dept. of Sociology.

Univ. of Alberta.

53

the lower density Boyle Street area, which due to its population makeup, has a relatively high crime rate per 1000 persons.

5.5

Large commercial and/or retail complexes also affect reported crime rates greatlyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;in the numerous theft categories. Another anomaly for the Downtown area is that the crime rate is calculated on crimes/population, with the population counted as being residents within the area. Since residential population in the core is minimal at present, the crime rate can appear abnormally high.

Housing Types

The conclusion seems to be that it is not justifiable to compare crime statistics of high density areas to other areas, without first carefully analyzing a myriad of other influencing factors. However, a general review of the McKay Avenue (R-6) area, which is only part of the study area with a significant residential population, shows the reported crime rate to be no higher than in most other parts of Edmonton.

Introduction Edmonton's Downtown land divisions, its streets, blocks and parcels, permit a wide array of alternative housing forms from a physical point of view. The lot depth (150 feet) and width (multiples of 50 feet frontage) are toward the large end of the spectrum of site sizes in other cities on which various housing forms have evolved.* Therefore, most forms of housing may be physically accommodated within the given framework of Downtown Edmonton.

Glossary of Housing Terms Any given housing type has qualities and flexibilities which make it suitable to particular physical situations, land uses and occupants. Terms commonly employed to describe housing and its effect include the following: Density: Density is a quantitative description of housing expressed in terms of a ratio of floor area, dwelling units or people to the area of the site.

Common terms used to describe density include: 1,

Floor Space Index (F.S.I.) or Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) both refer to number of square units of building area compared to the number of square units of site area. For example, a building of 50,000 square feet on a site with an area of 25,000 square feet would be 2.0 F.A.R. (floor area; site area index) or 2.0 F.A.R. (floor area ratio).

2.

D.U. /A. - dwelling units per acre.

3.

P.P.A. = people per acre.

4.

C.P.A. = children per acre.

Much has been attributed to the density of housing.

It is commonly assumed, for example, that dense housing is unsuitable for families, or that it stimulates *See Technical Appendix, Chapter 3, 'Housing Types'.

54

crime. While these opinions are not held without reason it is important to understand that these assumptions are not equally true (or true at all) under various circumstances. For example, the percentage of problem families, the number of children, the provision of separate entries and outdoor play space for family units have all proven to have important effects on the success of housing.

Family Units: Dwelling units which will probably contain children are defined as family units. These dwellings include all 5, 4 and 3 bedroom units and a portion of 2 bedroom dwellings. Ideally these dwellings should: 1.

have a separate non-mechanical entry from the outside of the building into the unit;

2.

have a private exterior space;

3.

have common exterior play spaces adjacent to the dwelling which may be observed by parents.

Design studies have demonstrated that it is very difficult to maintain these amenities at densities greater than 40 to 60 dwelling units per acre, or in zoning terms, 1.0 F.A.R. (a floor area of housing equal to the parcel size). Greater housing densities may be achieved by combining family unit types with non-family dwelling units (which need not observe the above requirements as rigorously). It is commonly agreed that family housing units, in combination with smaller non-grade-related dwellings, may achieve up to 2.0 F.A.R. without seriously compromising the liveability of the family housing. Beyond that density, overshadowing, overview and construction complexities seriously reduce the number of dwellings which can be considered family units.

Familiar types of dwelling units may satisfy the above requirements They include: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

detached houses semi-detached garden apartments town houses stacked townhouses gallery access apartments

8 units/acre 12 units/acre 20 units/acre 30 units/acre 50units/acre 80+ units / acre

In those parts of the Downtown where the land costs require 1.0 F.A.R., a minimum density of about

43 dwellings per acre would be required.

Therefore, it is evident that many of the traditional family housing forms are inapplicable to Downtown Edmonton under the permitted densities. At the same time, as explained previously, the density at which suitable conditions for family housing began to erode is 2.0 F.A.R. Land whose costs require residential densities exceeding 2.0 F.A.R. cannot be considered primary family sites.

Non-Family Units: Dwelling units which are bachelor units, 1 and some 2 bedroom units are characteristically occupied by adults without children.

These dwellings are often well suited to elevator access and can be clustered densely in apartment building form to reduce the cost of land per dwelling.

Mixed Housing Development: A development project which includes different building types, e.g. apartment buildings and stacked townhouses, on the same site. Such a strategy assures some component of family housing while achieving densities which may be required by land costs.

Mixed-Use Development: A development project which includes more than one primary land use, e.g. housing and commercial, on the same site. This strategy allows housing to be considered for sites with a high retail or institutional potential. For example, it permits housing to be considered for a much wider array of sites than could be considered for a pure housing scheme.

Stacked Housing: Dwelling units stacked vertically, one dwelling unit over another. This housing usually is in row house form with each dwelling having its own "door on the street". This is a type of housing which may achieve up to 60 dwelling units per acre of family housing.

Composite Housing: A mixed building type which provides a middle rise, high density form of housing with many of the dwellings suitable for families. It consists of elevator access apartments superimposed over walk-up row or stacked dwellings with elevator access apartments. This housing form may achieve from 80-150 dwelling units per acre.

Single Loaded Building (Gallery Access): An apartment structure with a corridor running along its edge with apartments on one side. This building type has the advantage of making corridors which are exterior offering the amenities of view, light and

55

POSSIBLE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT

GENERIC RESIDENTIAL TYPES

STACKED DUPLE

COMPOSITE f MEWS

_2 FLOORS COMMERCIA

LAB (DOUBLE LOADED

HOLUB

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

56

16

GENERIC RESIDENTIAL TYPES

POSSIBLE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT

2+ FLOORS COMMERCIAL

POINT BLOCK

2 FLOORS COMMERCIAL_

2 t FLOORS COMMERCIAL

PODIUM t I TOWER COMM

HOUS NG 'TYPES

R.L.WILK IN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

17 57

air. Because this type is inherently less economical than double-loaded buildings it is often coupled with a system of elevators which stop on alternate floors with apartments accessed by walking up and down.

Double-Loaded Building: An apartment structure with a corridor running through the middle of a building with apartment entries on both sides. This is the most common high density building type.

Point Tower: An apartment building which is by definition tall (greater than 8 stories) and is characterized by the absence of corridors. Although the perimeter of the building may be of any configuration, it is generally concentric in basic geometry. This building type offers views to many apartments and is "neutral" in orientation. Because it tends to produce apartments (and windows) throughout its perimeter, it requires space all around it unless it is: (a) on a corner site, or (b) built on a podium base of another building type, e.g. a commercial, high coverage building. The advantage of this type is that it covers less area of site and the 'thin' profile exposes sunlight and sky to adjacent streets and buildings.

Housing Precedents The following are examples of dense and mixed-use housing forms which may be of use in gaining perspective on potential residential dwellings Downtown. The lower density varieties, up to stacked townhouses, will not be explored since their qualities are well known and they are inapplicable in the higher priced land districts. Chart No. 18 shows a comparison of generic types and the density of dwelling achieved per 50 foot lot frontage.

are set back from the street, separating building from sidewalk. The resultant open space is neither an extension of the public realm, nor a usable space for the residents of the building. The relationship between Hillside Estates and its surroundings-104 Street and even its own siteâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;is not particularly good, i.e. it does not reinforce the street's building line, and contributes little to public open space.

The units are arranged in the familiar double-loaded corridor form. Each unit has a balcony which is the only form of open space amenity. As discussed in the other examples, it is a poor building type in generating family dwelling.

Hillside Estates does not set a precedent to be followed in the development of high density residential buildings.

Case: Colonnade Location: Toronto, Ontario Description: The project is situated on a major commercial street in Toronto. It is a mixed use project which includes commercial and residential uses in a single structure. The scheme provides 1.79 F.A.R. commercial (retail and office) and 3.69 residential. It faces north onto Bloor Street and has a combination residential/commercial garage.

The Colonnade is a good example of a high rise housing type in the City. It provides both residential accommodation and commercial retail space in a mixed use building that addresses a major City street. Its most salient characteristics are its public forecourt and lobby which extend and relate strongly to the public space of the street.

Description: The project is situated in the McKay Avenue (R-6) district of Downtown Edmonton on the edge of the river bank. It is primarily a residential project, the exception being a convenience store at the ground floor of the building. It consists of two high rise towers providing a total F.A.R. of 3.5. One tower faces north and south and the other east and west. Combined parking is provided for both the towers in a parkade adjacent to the south tower; it utilizes the steep slope on the river bank.

A two storey commercial podium, besides offering a diverse range of commercial shops, reinforces the existing street edge by extending up to the lot relating to the traditional house form. The building attempts to distinguish between its residential and commercial lobbies, and from the street, the residential address is not readily apparent.

Movement from the street to the building is understood as a series of transitions: street, forecourt, facade, door, then into the lobby with its subtle relationship to the street. Although the lobby relates visibly to the street, it lacks the necessary public amenities, i.e. washrooms, telephones, seating, etc. to make it a healthy public space.

Hillside Estates is a typical example of high density housing in Edmonton. As a result of requirements under the Land Use Classification Guide, the towers

At the level of units, the double loaded corridor type is deficient in natural light and ventilation and provides the only access to units that are essentially

Case: Hillside Estates Location: Edmonton, Alberta

(continued on page 70) 58

GENERIC

TOTAL No. UNITS /50i FRONTAGE

TYPES

TOTAL No. GRADE RE- F. S.1.

LATED UNITS

G. FA.

PARKING

COST/ SQ. FOOT

6-9 UNITS

3

0.8

6,000 sq.ft

6 on grade

$ 30 . 6 6

12-15 UNITS

3

1.3

1.0,000 sq.ft

6 on grade uncovered

$ 33.36

16-24 UNITS

0

2.1

16,000sq.ft 10-20 one storey below grade

$ 29.59

40 UNITS

0

4.5

34,000 sq.ft 20 one storey below grade

$ 33.35

80 UNITS 150' FRONTAGE)

0

2.8

64,000 sqlt. 40 one storey below grade

$ 33.39

24 UNITS

6

21

16,000 sq.ft. 20 on grade

$ 3 4.0 9

1

Pt TYPE 'A' i STACKED DUPLEX+FLAT

N

1 V•4 N

TYPE I BI COMPOSITE

I D,3F'

TYPE I C i GALLERY ACCESS

N* 'NN N

TYPE 'D' DOUBLE-LOADED

N. N.,

TYPE 'E POINT BLOCK

4

7/

1\F

•

TYPE COMPOSITE/MEWS ID,IFI

COM leMER C TYPES

R.L. WILKIN

ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS

PAR SON OF consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

18 59

99 ove DIAGRAMATIC SECTION THROUGH PROJECT

21 STOREY RESIDENTIAL TOWER

QUANTITIES TABLE 18 STOREY RESIDENTIAL TOWER

SITE AREA

2.15 ac.

BUILDING HEIGHT

183L0'

BUILDING DEPTH

531 -0'

FAR COMMERCIAL

ENTRANCE TO PARKADE

FAR. RESIDENTIAL

35

UNITS/ACRE

160

TOTAL Na UNITS

344

% 2 BEDROOM

LOBBY-NORTH TOWER

44%

DROP OF AREA

LOBBY SOUTH TOWE

CREDIT JOHN A MACDONALD Architects

CASE 0

60

50

HILLSIDE ESTATES (EDMONTON)

R.L.WILKIN

ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS

consultants

100

200

300

FEET

COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

19

Site Planning

1.Buildings set back from 104 Street.

2. Minor commercial at grade, accessible from street and/or apartments.

3. Residential address and entrance not well defined from street (south block); reasonably well defined for north block.

4. Little consideration for the handicapped.

5. Corridors: no natural light or ventilation (double loaded) - no flexibity - no common space 6. Elevators: no immediate choice of stairs or elevator (stairs at extremities of corridor) - south tower has no apparent provision for bulk moving 7. Lobbies: very few amenities - no direct access from street (set back, elevated).

Public/Private 1. Separate articulation of public/private.

2. Convenience store accessible to public.

3. Buildings do not relate to existing street.

MiCrOdiMate

1. Building form creates objectionable wind at grade.

Automobile

1. Parkade with entrance off street.

2. Good drop-off area for north tower only.

3. Underground (weather protected) walkway from north tower to parkade.

Unit Amenity

1.Some private open space with fencing at grade.

2. Each unit has a balcony.

3. Most units one sided (no through ventilation).

4. Shared terrace over parkade with south view over River Valley.

5. No units with direct access to grade.

General

1.Much space at grade wasted.

2. Topography of site unexploited by design.

3. Does not reinforce street edge condition.

CASE

HILLSIDE ESTATES (EDMONTON)

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

20 61

IDRIVE

BLOOR ST

DIAGRAMATIC SECTION THRU PROJECT

QUANTITIES TABLE SITE AREA

TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL FLOOR

1.32 ac.

BUILDING HEIGHT

1351- 0"

BUILDING DEPTH

140- 0'

EAR. COMMERCIAL

1.79 x

EAR. RESIDENTIAL

369x

UNITS/ACRE

144

REAR COURT

TOTAL No. UNITS

190

RESIDE IAL LOBBY

0/0 2 + BEDROOM

32.5%

COMMERCIAL PODI

STAIR TO \ERRACE FORECOURT COMMERCIAL PODIUM

DRAWING CREDIT BUILT FORM ANALYSIS CITY OF TORONTO PLANNING BOARD AUGUST, 1975

CASE

THE COLONNADE (TORONTO)

62

50

ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS

consultants

1 0

R.L. WILKIN

100

200

1 300 FEET

COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

21

Site Planning

1.Public forecourt and lobby directly accessible to Bloor Street, 2. All public spaces are overlooked by commercial.

Totally separated residential and commercial lobbies.

3. Elevator from grade to second storey commercial for handicapped.

4. Residential address is not apparent from Bloor Street.

5. Artificial grade is directly accessible by a public stair from sidewalk.

Entrance lobby is made clearly discernable from Bloor Street. (forecourt/facade treatment/doors) 6. Corridors-no natural light or ventilation (double loaded corridor type) -no flexibility for seasonal changes -no access to commercial podium directly from residential section 7. Elevators..-some provision for bulk moving (separate entrances) -no immediate choice of stairs or elevators from lobby 8. Lobby:-few. public amenities in lobby -not a public extension of street (directly accessible from back of building only) 9. Existing street edge is maintained and enhanced (podium is built to the lot line as is the established pattern on Bloor Street) Servicing is maintained as a back driveway with direct access off Bloor Street.

Automobile

1. Two distinct entry points for cars off street.

2. Lane service at back of building, 3. Drop-off area for residential lobby at back of building.

4. Underground parking - access to both residential and commercial areas.

Unit Amenity

1.Each unit has possibility of balcony space (solarium area in each apartment easily convertable to balcony) 2. Access to grade by stair or elevator - no direct access to grade from units.

3. No through ventilation. (single aspect units).

General

1. This project has managed to successfully integrate residential and commercial components in ways which enhance both these functions within the bulding and the context in which the building exists.

Public / Private 1. Clear articulation of public and private territories. (separation of residential and commercial lobbies) 2. Existing street is reinforced as a public space (shops built to sidewalk/public forecourt/stairs from sidewalk to artificial grade) 3. All residential and commercial units address a public space.

Microclimate

CASE

1. Residential slab is setback on north and south from podium edge - this allows light penetration to street and ammeliorates wind conditions at grade.

THE COLONNADE

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

22 63

52 STOREY RESIDENTIAL TOWER TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL FLOOR 18 STOREY COMMERCIAL TOWER

BLOOR ST

CHARLES ST

DIAGRAMATIC SECTION THRU PROJECT

QUANTITIES TABLE SITE AREA

4.0ac.

BUILDING HEIGHT

530LO'

BUILDING DEPTH

4001-0'

FAR. COMMERCIAL

50

FAR. RESIDENTIAL

4.7

UNITS/ACRE

198

TOTAL No. UNITS

801

% 2 + BEDROOM

SUN

36%

COMMER ENTRANC COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL L

DRAWING CREDIT. BUILT FORM ANALYSIS CITY OF TORONTO PLANNING BOARD AUGUST, 1975

CASE

THE MANULIFE CENTRE (TORONTO)

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS consultants

0

64

50

100

200

300 FEET

COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

23

Site Planning

Unit Amenity 1.Public areas of complex directly accessible from streets.

2. Public spaces are overlooked by commercial.

3. Little consideration for handicapped.

4. Residential address on Charles St. (separated commercial and residential elevators) 5. Artificial grade directly accessible to public - (exterior stairs to sidewalk) 6. Corridors:-no natural light or cross ventilation (double loaded type) -no flexibility General -no appropriate space for individual units in corridors.

7 Elevators:-no immediate choice of elevators or stairs -provision for bulk moving.

-tower is divided vertically and each half is serviced by separate elevators.

8. Lobby:-few public amenities in lobby - not an extension of street (setback, elevated garage entrances)

Public / Private

1. Clear articulation of public and private. (2 towers, separate circulation systems) 2. Existing streets are not reinforced as public space (due to setbacks, split sections, garage and service elements, use of materials)

Microclimate

1.Building form creates objectional microclimate at grade (wind, overshadow of street) 2. Height (56 storeys) of residential tower creates objectional microclimate for units over 20 storeys (virtigo, wind)

Automobile

1.Garage entrances and servicing off street errodes the street as public space.

2. Charles St. sidewalk is negated as a pedestrian route.

3. Parking underground.

4. Drop off area for residential lobby - elevated from sidewalk level.

CASE

THE MANULIFE CENTRE

1.No private outdoor space provided for units.

2. Most units - single aspect (no through ventilation) 3. Due to depth of tower units are deeper than ususally found - kitchens, bath, dining rooms have no direct natural lighting or ventilation, 4. Views over grade from all units (considerable distance over 20 storeys) 5. No direct access to grade from any unit.

6. Shared terrace over podium - low amenities.

1. The degree to which the project erodes the street edge conditions on all 4 sides it addresses is unacceptable 2. The microclimate conditions generated by the building height and form are unacceptable.

3. The unit amenities are low when compared with other precedents.

R.L. WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

24 65

V. PEDESTRIAN ROUTE

DIAGRAMATIC SECTION THRU PROJECT

4th. FLOOR OPEN GALLERY

QUANTITIES TABLE 3rd. FLOOR GLAZED GALLERY

SITE AREA

2.18 ac.

BUILDING HEIGHT

48-0"

BUILDING DEPTH

50-0'

FA.R. COMMERCIAL

.08

FAR. RESIDENTIAL

2.0

UNITS /ACRE

69

TOTAL No. UNITS % 2+ BEDROOMS

152 49%

RESIDENTIAL LOBBY COMMERCIAL

BASEMEN SITE PLAN entrance to underground parking

HYDRO BLOCK • CREDITS A.J. DIAMOND & ASSOCIATES • ARCHITECTS Elt PLANNERS A.J.DIAMOND • PARTNER IN CHARGE

CASE 0 16 48 80

66

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS

THE HYDRO BLOCK ( TORONTO) consultants

144 FEET

COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEUL EN

25

Site Planning

1. Articulated public route thru block (lighting, landscaping, elevated public route) 2. Public space is overlooked by private units and commercial.

3. Elevator assistance for handicapped.

4. Residential address has relationship to grade in the same manner as other house forms in the neighbourhood. (Stair, porch/ front door) 5. Public routes and existing network of pedestrian and automobile routes are reinforced.

6. Corridors:-natural light and ventilation (gallery access) -possibility of appropriation of part of corridor by users.

Elevators-provision for bulk moving.

-choice of stair or elevator.

Lobby-few public amenities in lobby.

-lobby is directly accessible to street.

Public / Private

1. Clear articulation of public and private. (elevation changes/facade) 2. Existing streets are reinforced and traditional relationships of dwelling to sidewalk and street are maintained at grade.

Microclimate

1.Building form and height do not create objectionable microclimatic conditions.

2. Grade related units positively enhance the microclimatic conditions at grade.

Automobile

1.Parking underground-ramp off street.

2. Restricted entrance to garage does not appreciably interrupt the sidewalk for pedestrian use.

Unit Amenity

1. All units have private, outdoor space (either balconies or back yard space on grade).

2. Lower units have direct access to grade (suitable to family units) 3. Approximately half of the units are through units (natural ventilation).

CASE

THE HYDRO BLOCK

General

1. This project has managed to include viable family units in a medium density project.

2. Incorporation of existing house-form buildings in a new project (used for small commercial component).

3. Compatible with existing buildings on streets.

4. Reinforce existing street and pedestrian systems in a positive way.

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

26 67

SWIMMING POOL

TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL FLOOR 103 Ave

E

1

103A Ave.

DIAGRAMATIC SECTION THRU PROJECT

STORAGE

QUANTITIES

TABLE

SITE AREA 4 PARKING LEVELS

RAMP TO PARKING ABOVE

RESIDENTIAL LOBBY

69 ac,

BUILDING HEIGHTS

2541-8'

BUILDING DEPTH

124-b'

FAR COMMERCIAL

I.I

FAR. RESIDENTIAL

7.4

UN1TS/ACRE

463

TOTAL No UNITS

320

°

2

BEDROOM

25%

RETAIL PODIUM PARK ADE ENTRANCE

MAIN ENTRANCE CREDITS: JOHN A. McDONALD ARCHITECTS

CASE 0

68

50

R.L. WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS

AVORD ARMS (EDMONTON) consultants

100

200

300 FEET

COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

27

Site Planning

1.Minimal public route through block.

2. Public areas directly accessible.

3. Residential address not readily apparent.

4. Entrance lobby not clearly defined.

5. No amenities in lobby.

6. Existing street edge maintained (podium built to lot ins on 103 Avenue).

7. Although arcade is provided, it is not deep enough for pedestrian protection.

Public/Private

1. Public and private territories are not clearly defined.

(Residential lobby separated from retail at grade, however, office and residential share lobby, which presents security conflict. ) 2. Arcade provides extension of public sidewalk.

Microclimate

1. Residential tower is set back on podium. This ammeliorates wind condition at grade.

2. Arcade provides some protection from wind, sun, snow and rain, although it is not deep enough to provide sufficient protection.

Automobile

1. Automobile accessibility to parkade well planned from south.

2. Good automobile/apartment accessibility.

3. Parking on level 4 bad visually from apartments and from adjoining buildings.

Unit Amenity

1.No provision for private opens space (balcony).

2. Double loaded corridor - no through ventilation.

3. Common facilities are provided (party room, swimming pool, etc. ) on top of the building.

4. Little choice of apartment unit type.

General

1.No provision of shared outdoor space (over podum).

2. Good accessibility to downtown and 'in-house' commercial.

CASE

AVORD ARMS (EDMONTON)

R.L. WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

28 69

single aspect. Each unit has a balcony that, partly because of its enclosed nature, has the possibility of being a solarium, hence easily convertible.

Access to grade from any unit must rely on the corridor to stair means of access or the elevator.

There is no direct access from any unit to the ground. It is a poor building type in generating family dwelling, but quite successful at producing small unit accommodation. The entire residential slab sits back from the street, allowing greater light penetration to the street.

sidewalk and the face of the ground floor commercial is an inbetween space that has no identity or public amenity either on the level of material scale or sensitivity. Other negative characteristics include parking and service areas that instead of enhancing the street tend to erode and downgrade the street.

Parking and access to the building is directly off Bloor Street. At the back of the building, service and parking facilities to both the commercial and residential components are tucked underneath the building.

The 56 storey residential tower, in addition to creating poor surrounding conditions, has some internal problems at the level of the units; essentially a double loaded corridor type, the same problems of unit amenity as in the Colonnade or Hillside Estates apply, except that the excessive building width accentuates the overall unit depth, thereby further reducing light penetration and ventilation for the living space.

The applicability of the Colonnade example suggests the available possibilities in a relatively high density residential type of fitting in a mix of diverse uses, while at the same time contributing to the design of the City in a most dignified manner.

In summary, the Manulife Centre's solutions to site context, climate, public space, unit amenity and overall architectural presence are inadequate and have failed. This is partially due to its fortress or singular object attitude.

Manulife Centre Case: Location: Toronto, Ontario

The Hydro Block Case: Location: Toronto, Ontario

Description: The building is located on Bloor Street in Toronto, a major commercial street in the City. It is a partially segregated mixed-use project with separate office and residential tower buildings sharing a common retail podium. The scheme provides 5.0 F.A.R. commercial and 4.7 F.A.R. residential (801 units) on a 4.0 acre site. Like the Colonnade, it provides both residential and commercial parking.

Description: The project is a residential scheme of medium density (2.0 F.A.R.) including a small retail component (.08 F.A.R.).

The Manulife Centre presents itself not so much as a healthy precedent but as a condition to be avoided, and as such offers some important lessons. With regard to its physical disposition on its site, the two towers create a micro climate condition at their bases that not only physically diminishes any public space possibilities, but creates such turbulent wind conditions that Bloor and Bay Streets have attained a notorious reputation for cold winds and overshadowing. The project disregards any sensitivity to its four street edges. Public space becomes sunken, set back, or ignored in relation to the street. Space is cut away under the Bloor Street edge of the building and, unlike the Colonnade, disregards any physical sense of height transition from the space of the sidewalk to the major wall face of the building. The residual space between the

70

The project has accepted an attitude of choosing to embrace the many complex problems of fitting into an area rather than avoiding them, especially in the manner in which existing structures are kept, rather than eliminated. Characteristic street elements are incorporated into the government project by a sense of legibility to either a public or private nature. The overall building height of the project does not disturb or create local micro climate conditions, but instead fits in with the existing house forms making up the street. Most of the units are provided with a high level of amenity, outdoor space, access and through ventilation.

This form of housing type seems most appropriate as a viable family housing construction where the concern seems to be one of integration with a neighbourhood and alternately where a house form is required. It falls essentially into the category designated composite since it manages to include both direct access "house"-like units in the lower area of the building and elevator access units in the upper parts of the building.

Case: Avord Arms Location; Edmonton, Alberta Description: Avord Arms is one of the few examples of mixed-use development in Downtown Edmonton. The project has a 7.4 F.A.R. residential combined with a 1.1 F.A.R. commercial. Its commercial component is located on the main floor (mainly retail) and on the top floor (offices). Parking for both commercial and residential is provided in a parkade with 4 levels, in podium form, above the retail base. A common lobby serves both the upper offices and the residential floors of the building. The ground floor is set back from the public sidewalk on the north, east and south sides in the exterior arcade. Although Avord Arms is not entirely successful as a mixed-use project, it does achieve some basic objectives of mixed-use built form in a downtown location.

The building form respects Edmonton's street grid pattern and the podium is extended to the property line. The arcade provides an extension of the public sidewalk; however, it fails to provide adequate protection from sun, snow and rain.

Common access from parking for the commercial and residential components creates a security problem. The building's main entrance is not clearly defined. The tower is set well back on the podium, reducing undesirable wind conditions at grade. The upper deck of the podium is used for parking, which, had it been additional recreational space, would have provided an extra amenity to residents.

Building form is again the double loaded corridor.

Units have no balconies, leaving only the space on the upper floor (swimming pool, recreation room, etc.) as amenity space for residents.

In general, the project lacks the sensitivity required in the design of a mixed-use project; however, it does provide housing Downtown, and as such contributes activity to Edmonton's core.

5.6 The Economic Feasibility of Housing Downtown

The study has undertaken extensive analyses of the economic feasibility of encouraging significant housing production in Downtown Edmonton. The analyses point to some very definite conclusions regarding feasibility that support the policy positions being taken. Although the economics of development were thoroughly examined, it should not be assumed that they provide the single determinant of the land use proposals. In some cases and locations, the housing uses proposed will not be the highest and best uses possible. However, the purpose of the analysis is to ensure that the proposals were, nonetheless, in the realm of economic reality.

Initial Feasibility Analysis: The purpose of the feasibility analyses was to test whether projects at various residential densities, alone and in combination with other uses, and at different land values, were economically viable.

The first set of tests undertaken and described in the Technical Appendix, yielded a number of clear conclusions*.

Conventional Financing: Conventionally financed rental housing was not feasible under any conditions. With interest rates over 11.50/0, debt service is too high to cover rental returns. Indeed, even at zero land values the development is unfeasible. The degree of 'unfeasibility' does not vary greatly for such projects with increases in land values or density. Increasing densities alone will not stimulate rental production. This situation does not "See Technical Appendix, Chapter 5, 'Land Costs'

71

apply only to Edmonton. The private rental housing industry is slowing to a halt almost everywhere in Canada, and the only such development taking place is that using substantially assisted financing.

In order for conventionally financed housing projects to break even, rents would have to be some thirty to forty percent higher than those projected for 1980.

The addition of a commercial component assists the feasibility of development, but only because commercial revenues cancel out residential losses.

Purely commercial projects, even at relatively low densities on expensive land, were extremely profitable.

C.H.I.P. Financing A number of tests were undertaken to determine the feasibility of housing, utilizing the Alberta Government's Core Housing Incentive Program (C.H.I.P.). This program offers a reduced mortgage to private developers up to 95°/o of a rental housing development, if rents for 50% of the units are controlled at a level below market and made available for lower income occupancy. The specific regulations of the program, in particular the ratio between controlled and market rents and the maximum controlled rent, have been amended since our studies were undertaken. However, those amendments, which are generally intended to increase rental revenues, do not negate the basic findings of the analysis. Indeed they represent program changes along the lines that this study recommends.

The economic analysis showed that utilizing the C.H.I.P. financing greatly increases the feasibility of new rental construction. With an effective 8.25% interest rate, debt service is reduced by some 25°/o from market financing levels. The program guideline which requires 50% of the units to have rent controlled below market obviously reduces revenues.

If the controlled rents are at 70% of market, then revenues are reduced by some 10-150/0. A higher ratio of controlled rent to market rent would obviously increase the revenues. Nonetheless, in the first year of most C.H.I.P. projects, revenues will fall short of anticipated operating and debt service costs. Even at the lower end of the Downtown land value range, therefore, the number of C.H.I.P. projects being built will be in part determined by the degree of flexibility in the program regulations (see Technical Appendix, Chapter 6).

Discussions with Alberta Housing & Public Works and with Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation have 72

indicated that they are administering the program with considerable flexibility and examining new rental projects on an individual basis. They also indicated that there appears to be reasonable demand for program take-up in Downtown. They also stressed that most developers are not assuming a first year break even as assumed in this report as project feasibility. In fact, they are reviewing projects with initial returns on equity as low as -15%.

There are several ways in which the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation can, through administrative flexibility, increase the feasibility of Downtown residential development by permitting increase in revenues: the ratio of controlled/market rent levels can be increased, the percentage of controlled units can be decreased and the effective interest rate can be reduced. The first two measures do not cost the provincial government any money but do reduce the degree of penetration of program to lower income households. The present administrative policy of treating each application individually with respect to guideline restraints would appear to be appropriate and successful. It should be pointed out that the C.H.I.P. program is one of the few housing programs in Canada actually generating privately developed rental housing and should be intensively used for the development of housing in Downtown Edmonton.

Condominium Development: Most of the recent residential projects in or immediately around the Downtown have been developed as condominiums.

Although condominium is, to some extent, a substitute for rental accomodation as a development option, their market characteristics are significantly different. The market for condominium tends to be much smaller, higher income, more selective in terms of internal layout and location and generally more capricious than that for rental housing.

Thus, it is extremely difficult to generalize about the implications of the feasibility analyses of condominium development. Although it is clearly possible to produce condominium apartments with selling prices as low as $55-60,000, it is not clear that a strong market exists at that level, nor the degree to which that market has already been satisfied. While condominiums are, to some extent, competitive with rental housing for sites, their markets are somewhat separate and limited.

Conclusions: The initial feasibility studies, therefore, concluded that under present market financing, little or no rental housing was likely to be

developed. These unfavourable economic conditions do not apply only to the Downtown, but to the rest of the City and, indeed, to most of Canada. The degree to which new housing is produced will depend on the aid of government programs.

While interest rates are likely to remain high for the near future, it would be inappropriate to base a medium to long range planning policy on the implications of short-term conditions. For these reasons a series of further economic analyses was undertaken, making reasonable assumptions about the major cost parameters of residential development to determine whether under more normal economic conditions housing is a viable economic option in the Downtown.

Revised Feasibility Analyses Interest Rate: A set of thirty-five feasibility tests were undertaken using an 8.25% interest rate amortized over fifty years.

This rate was chosen because it represents the effective composite CHIP. rate and approximates the level of subsidization available under the now discontinued Federal A.R.P. Utilizing an assumption of below market rental housing financing in the principal feasibility analysis is not, in policy terms, unreasonable. The vast majority of rental housing now existing in Edmonton was constructed under one or the other program with effective levels of subsidization similar to that used in the model. The fact is that governments have always had to subsidize rental housing in one way or another (through programs and tax incentives), and probably always will. What varies from time to time and place to place is the method.

In this light it is worth noting one of the conclusions of the Wright, Mansell and Associates report, The Economics of Downtown Residential Development, prepared in 1978 for the City of Calgary, whose methodology and conclusions are very similar to those reached in this study. The report concludes that government policy will always try to ensure that price-cost relationships are such that moderately priced multi-unit accommodation can be built. In other words, governments generally accept a social responsibility to assist the production of rental housing. The methods of subsidization can be interest rate write-downs, capital subsidies or operating subsities. The rate utilized was chosen to

approximate the level of subsidy reasonably needed to permit 'housing development in Downtown Edmonton.

Criterion of Feasibility: The testing was undertaken on the economics of privately produced rental housing. It was felt that although other forms of housing are important complements to the housing stock, a housing policy should be based primarly on the feasibility of development of that form of housing that would meet the broadest range of demand, and can be built by the largest number of producers. The economics of condominium and apartment-hotel development are very different from those of rental housing. Such forms of housing satisfy very specific requirements. Non-profit housing was also examined, but not as a fundamental of the housing policy because of the small number of potential producers and the restrictions of the regulatory context.

A development was considered feasible if it was at, or approaching, a first-year break even. This criterion was used because of its simplicity and greater general utilization. It is, for example, the standard eventually used by the Calgary study.

Other criteria, such as yield on equity, were prepared for each test.

Representatives of Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation have indicated that, in practice, developers are prepared to accept a much lower standard of initial returns and that substantial negative returns on equity can be experienced in the first year. However, the specific acceptable level of return varies greatly from developer to developer, depending on his organization and financial structure. In reviewing these analyses, therefore, the first year break-even standard should be regarded as a conservative criterion of feasibility. By implication, therefore, the break-even land values determined could be somewhat lower than those practically feasible and/or the densities indicated somewhat higher than those required.

Nonetheless, the general dimensions of economic feasibility are clearly indicated in the test results.

Although the decision to proceed with a specific development will depend heavily on the particular characteristics of the developer, project and site, the results do provide a reasonable and fair means to evaluate development potential and its implications at the level of detail and accuracy required for a planning study of this nature.

73

Rental and Unit Mix Assumptions: The rental rates used were 1980 projected market rents less 50/o. Such a standard was used to approximate the condition frequently required of rental projects receiving government assistance: that rents be at or below market. At lower densities a unit mix containing a substantial number of family units was used; at higher densities, a more probable rental mix of primarily one and two bedroom units was used.

The significance of the tests is clearly illustrated by the graph. Even at the reduced mortgage rate and with somewhat lowered parking standards, residential developments do not appear capable of supporting very high land values. Increases in

74

AL

L. I LJ L-

FL7

Land Costs L-1

\\.

E-.

i

Break-Even Densities for Different Land Values: In total, some thirty-five feasibility studies were undertaken using the assumptions indicated earlier. The basic outcome of those tests is indicated in the table. The table lists the variables of residential or commercial densities, land value and yield on equity. The test output also provided the absolute net profit for each test, based on developments with a site area of 22,500 square feet. This figure was capitalized into an additive or substantive value on the base land value for the test.

In this way, a reasonable estimate can be made of the residential or commercial densities required to support particular land values. These estimates are shown in the figure below.

It

I

-J

Land Values: A land value map was constructed from recent sales data to provide a range for the models. The low figure in each precinct represents an extrapolation of the 1969-1979 trend.* The high figure represents the average of the three highest of the ten most recent sales. This method of determining the high value was thought most appropriate to recognize the recent inflation in Downtown land prices, but to average the effect of an individual sale that might reflect particular conditions, such as an improvement value.

Office and Commercial Rents: Much testing of the feasibility of commercial development was undertaken. Because of the great susceptibility of office and commercial rents to particular locational and market conditions, the lower limit of the range of such rents surveyed was used. Both retail and office rents were set at $10 per square foot for the purpose of the analyses.

ii

I

L_J

F E- 20-25

L_J L 71 â&#x20AC;&#x17E;r LI

L

L 10H5

Tn

_

Retail and Office Rents

RETAIL RENTS iH ($) OFFICE RENTS/ $9.50 -11

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;7

densities do have an effect on break-even land values, but not one that is very severe.

However, one cannot assume, therefore, that the impact of land values on feasibility is minimal.

Generally, land has to be carried for at least two years, utilizing higher cost interim financing before projects are built. High land values thus increase initial costs and act disproportionately as a disincentive to development. Further, it must be stressed that the feasibility curve reflects an initial year break-even assumption and that developers may operate on different assumptions that put them on a higher or lower curve.

The tests indicate the high land values supportable by commercial densities. One floor of commercial development is able to support a higher land value than high density residential use. The tests in all

cases assumed the lowest surveyed retail and office rents. Nonetheless, the feasibility of commercial development is highly related to location and the ability to achieve even such low rents.

Mixed-use developments involve both cost premium and cost savings in construction. 'Double' use can be made of foundations, but separate elevator systems are required. For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that savings and premium cancel each other out. Mixed-use does, however, create very important inefficiencies in the net-to-gross ratio at the ground floor level.

Residential lobbies, fire exits, circulation areas and vehicular pick-up areas severely reduce the available area for retail or office uses. The tests, therefore, assumed a net-to-gross ratio of 0.6 for the ground floor of a mixed use building.

BREAK-EVEN DENSITY FOR DIFFERENT LAND VALUES 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 u_ 45 40 ft) 35 30 u w) 25 cr)

--I 20 15 z 10 5

REskow'

$0 0 1-0 20 3-0 4-0 5-0 60 7-0 0-5 1-5 2-5 3-5 4-5 5-5 6-5 DENSITY - E S.I. 75

FEASIBILITY OF DENSITIES AT DIFFERENT LAND VALUES RESIDENTIAL PROFITS (rents o15% LAND VALUE

F.S.I

PROFITS (rents 5% below market)

$/sci ft net profit

eiurn n requit y 2/o

PROFITS (market rents)

net

Erofit

equity2/no

$

net profit $

ret u r n 2 n eciu i t y /o

5 10 15

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

+11,286 + 157 -10,755 -21,758

+5.72 +0.07 -4.74 -9.00

+22,818 +11,689 + 934 -10,226

+11.57 + 5.50 + 0.41 - 4.23

+19,899 + 8,905 - 2,145 -13,148

+11.53 + 4.75 - 1.06 - 6.05

10 15 20

2.0 2.0 2.0

- 8,727 -19,730 -30,733

-2.93 -6.31 -9.38

+ 6,660 - 4,343 -15,346

+ 2.23 - 1.38 - 4.68

+ 2,986 - 8,017 -19,020

+ 1.13 - 2.88 - 6.49

15 20 25

2.5 2.5 2.5

-19,492 -30,495 -41,416

-5.15 -7.75 -10.15

563 -11,566 -22,487

-0.001 - 2.94 - 5.51

- 7,030 -18,034 -28,954

- 2.09 - 5.14 - 7.92

15 20 25 30

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

-16,358 -27,362 -38,282 -49,238

-3.67 -5.95 -8.06 -10.06

+ 6,392 - 4,611 -15,531 -26,487

+ -

1.43 1.00 3.27 5.41

+ 896 -10,107 -21,028 -31,984

+ -

20 25 30

3.5 3.5 3.5

-25,285 -36,206 -47,162

-4.80 -6.69 -8.48

+ 1,196 - 9,724 -20,680

+ 0.23 - 1.79 - 3.71

- 5,151 -12,377 -27,027

- 1.10 - 2.56 - 5.44

20 25 30

4.0 4.0 4.0

-22,158 -33,078 -44,035

-3.73 -5.44 -7.07

+ 8,146 - 2,774 -13,730

+ 1.30 - 0.45 - 2.2

+ 8.54 -10,067 -21,023

+ 0.16 - 1.86 - 3.70

0

76

below market, parking reduced to .5 /unit

For detailed calculations see Tecnnical Appendix, Chapter 6..

0.22 2.47 4.96 7.29

FEASIBILiTY OF DENSITIES AT DIFFERENT LAND VALUES COMMERCIAL

LAND VALUE $/sq ft

F•S-I

OFFICE

F•S I TOTAL

PROFITS reurn t on equity (4)

net profa $

RETAIL

20 30

0.0 0.0

0.8

0.8

0.8

20 30

0.8 0.8

30 40

30

0.8

-32,866 -60,783

-21.44 -33.49

0.8 0.8

1.6 1.6

+27,117 - 2,272

+11.63 - .865

1.2 1.2

0.8 0.8

2.0 2.0

+12,007 -17,359

+3.89 -5.18

40 50

2.2 2.2 2.2

0.8 0.8 0.8

3.0 3.0 3.0

+46,787 +17,419 -12,126

+11.05 + 3.68 - 2.51

40 50 60

3.2 3.2 3.2

0.8 0.8 0.8

4.0 4.0 4.0

+52,118 +22,641 - 7,264

+10.83 + 3.7P - 1.15

40 50 60

3.2 3.2 3.2

0.8 0.8 0.8

5.0 5.0 5.0

+86,956 +57,509 +27,504

+12.72 + 8.05 + 3.70

For detailed calculations see Technical Appendix, Chapter 6.

77

Parking Costs: With existing zoning bylaw requirements, parking costs make up some 30% of the total capital cost of a high rise rental development. Approximately 150/0 of the total revenue goes toward debt service for the parking spaces. Revenues from rents of spaces cover about one-half of their actual cost. Anything that can be done to reduce the cost of the parking component of a development will improve the chances of housing being developed. In these analyses we have assumed a parking requirement of one space for every unit, a reduction of some 15% from the present bylaw. Such a standard would seem reasonable in a central city context. Indeed, further reductions might be considered, especially for buildings with lower income occupants and user groups such as senior citizens. A thorough study of

The possible combinations of residential and commercial densities are discussed in the detailed District analyses later in the report. Their feasibility can be determined by adding the two curves on the graph and their respective land values.

Effect of Increases in Rents: The tests were revised to determine the impact of a reasonable increase in rents. The original test assumption used rents 50/0 below projected 1980 rents. Rents were, therefore, raised 5°/o to simulate the effect of market rents or of rents that might inflate after the 1980 base. What is remarkable about the results (indicated on the graph) is that the break-even land value more than doubles, and that the curve increases in steepness, indicating that increased density is generating proportionately more revenue.

BREAK -EVEN DENSITY FOR DIFFERENT LAND VALUES 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 LAND VALUES - $/SQ. FT.

50 45 40 35

\IA

30 25

c•C la

20

5

A-•

15 4h

10

\\Au

1\0\1

EskDEMI

,

5

$0 0

10 20 30 40 5-0 60 7-0 0-5 1-5 25 3-5 4-5 5-5 6-5

DENSITY - F S.I. 78

NG

parking requirements should be undertaken to determine if and by how much parking could be reduced for particular types of units in particular locations.

Additional tests were undertaken reducing the number of required parking spaces even further, to a standard of one space for every two units. The effect of this cost reduction on break-even land values was significant, increasing the possible land component by about 500/.

Such parking levels, which are used in other Canadian central city locations, would clearly assist the feasibility of Downtown housing.

79

6. A Housing Strategy for Downtown

This section outlines a strategy for accommodating housing in Downtown Edmonton.

The section sets out a number of appropriate general ambitions for the City with respect to housing. It proposes areas for the location of residential development. It suggests the kinds of housing that would be appropriate to various parts of the Downtown, and the qualities that can be developed in the Downtown public realm. Finally, the section examines the implications of such a strategy.

The section is set out in seven parts: 6.1

outlines the basic premises for a housing strategy.

6.2

sets out general principles for housing development.

6.3

proposes a general housing accommodation plan.

6.4

examines each of the various sub-areas in more detail.

6.5

examines the housing implications of the strategy.

6.6

outlines the implications for land use control.

6.7

investigates the environmental implications.

61 Basic Premises

Four essential conclusions can be drawn from the preceding analysis and discussion in this report.

First, it is highly important that Edmonton obtain, over the coming years, a major infusion of residential development in its Downtown. The housing is needed, particularly for providing an alternative residential environment. There are significant cost and transportation benefits to be obtained. Perhaps most importantly, obtaining residential component in the Downtown is a necessary factor in creating a city core that is diverse and active; and an urban cultural focus that is worthy of a capital city.

the regulatory and programmatic powers to determine the substance of the future Downtown.

For the City of Edmonton, this will mean taking strong and determined action in focussing and coordinating resources and, in particular, in reforming the land use control system so that it is designed to induce residential development in appropriate areas.

The following, therefore, deals with a series of measures that are intended to achieve a satisfactory volume and mixture of housing in the Downtown.

These range from the expression of City intentions and ambitions through land use and density control strategies to suggestions for the creation of appropriate housing, accommodation and environments.

Second, the future of Downtown Edmonton as a substantial residential area does not at this point look bright. In general, Downtown is becoming increasingly uni-functional as an area that is overwhelmingly devoted to financial and other office functions. While these functions are certainly essential, present trends lead to the prospect of a Downtown that is predominantly a service area during working hours and lacking in the distinction, liveliness and range of amenities that a major residential component can foster and support. Both the current financial conditions in the development industry and the present regulatory structure are basically prejudiced against the development of significant new housing components in Downtown.

Third, it seems clear that the Downtown area has the capacity to accommodate both required office expansion and significant infusion of housing. In general, sufficient land is available; services and amenities are either available or can be developed with appropriate actions by the various Governments. The development of housing could be a financial and environmentally sound proposition.

Fourth, and finally, the achievement of significant amounts of housing and a mixed commercial-residential city core is a matter of public choice, and not simply a matter of market determination. Governments have at their disposal

81

6.2 Principles for the Development of Housing in Downtown

away from residential development. This principle establishes the reform of the land use control system as an essential element in the achievement of substantial residential components.

3.

While the City has a role to play, particularly through the direct and indirect production of non-profit housing and land assembly, private industry will have to be the main producer if significant amounts of housing are to be produced.

4.

The first step is to set out general principles or policies that could clearly define Edmonton's intentions with respect to housing in the Downtown and guide its actions in achieving housing. It is suggested that the following principles form the basis of a housing strategy: 1.

That the Downtown area be regarded as an area that has two primary roles to serve: as the Regional Office, Government and Institutional Centre and as an area of local residence.

There appears to be no present statement of City policy that clearly emphasizes the importance of the provision of residence as one of the area's primary roles. The principle acknowledges Downtown as the one area of the City that is distinctive in containing the fullest range of urban functions. Along with the Provincial Government, financial and other office service, and entertainment and retail service, residence is established as one critical element of Downtown's composition.

2.

That the City's land regulation system be reformed so as to promote the development of housing in appropriate areas of the Downtown.

As noted earlier the present land use classifications in most parts of Downtown, while permitting housing development, are heavily prejudiced in favour of commercial development. In addition, the processes of spot rezoning and effective rezoning through appeal to the Development Appeal Board further biases the control system toward commercial and 82

That in the production of housing, primary reliance be placed on the private development industry.

That the present residential areas south of Jasper Avenue be confirmed and protected from major intrusions of commercial development.

The principle refers particularly to the present R-6 District and to the need to prevent conversions to commercial uses in that area.

5.

That major new components of housing be located, where appropriate, in areas presently zoned primarily for commercial use.

The present "Warehouse" and Rail Service areas represent the most significant areas for new residential development in Downtown, through the construction of either residential buildings or mixed residential-commercial buildings. In addition there appears to be potential for mixed-use development in certain areas presently zoned for high-density commercial development. The appropriateness of various areas is discussed further in this section.

6.

That the City's policy be to seek accommodation for a balanced residential population in Downtown including: (a) a proportion of accommodation for people of low and moderate incomes; (b) in areas considered appropriate, a proportion of accommodation for families with children; (c) housing for the elderly and single people.

As discussed earlier, the only kind of housing developed in the last decade provides accommodation for non-family and moderate to high income groups.

Although it is clear from the economic analyses that high density housing is required to make housing

feasible Downtown, it is suggested that public action be taken to accommodate families and low to moderate income groups in certain areas of Downtown.

7.

That improvements be made, where necessary, to the public realm in order to create attractive residential environments.

6.3 A General Housing Strategy

As noted, much of the area north of Jasper Avenue requires improvement, particularly to the street quality and landscaping.

The discussion in the following section examines the various areas and conditions in Downtown with the purpose of applying these principles to develop a land-use strategy for accommodating housing.

Many factors must be taken into account in structuring a general development strategy for housing and in devising mixes and densities of uses.

Pre-eminent is the City's notion of what kind of Downtown it wants and the value it places on its quality. A satisfactory plan of action cannot be based solely on economic constraints—on land values or on the relative economic attraction of a particular use such as office space development.

The potential for profitable returns must certainly be taken into account as an important factor, but other considerations include: • The structure of Downtown; • The availability of land for potential redevelopment; • The locational and expansion needs of the financial office core; • Current land use controls; and • Land cost patterns.

The Structure of Downtown: The Downtown area has a basic structure, parts of which are already established and other parts of which are emerging. This structue should be employed.

The most important element in this structure is the hierarchy of streets. The block pattern is generally very regular, but certain streets clearly have primary importance. These are 97 Avenue, Jasper Avenue and 104 Avenue, and 97, 101, and 109 Streets. These are streets with particular significance in Downtown as they extend across the railway and river barriers to connect with other parts of the City. Of these, Jasper Avenue has a particular significance because of its highly dense pattern, its unique block and land pattern, and the planned LRT route. The major grid demarcates precincts in its quadrants. At a second level in the street hierarchy are the east-west avenues. The third level consists of the intermediate

83

109st

105st uvI

104_ft

97st

101st I

1-7

I

E

GOVERN EN OFFICES LIKGF

r

4 II.'

.BUILDINGSI ;

ININ

2 L_J

jaM

OVERPASS

I CTVFIECCIVEt

7-1 TT

IL....1 . i : 1 I

1nj11

0 00000 o

mdmhocin . risool 0.t 431111i7,111, !1, "• ;Ailt

000007 ro0.00 0 ( /L/ F IVER BANK

The Structure of Downtown

Availability of Land for Redevelopment

north-south streets. Included in the fourth level are lanes.

The Provincial Government area, the Civic area, the Financial District, the Residential District, the escarpment, river and railway areas, and overpasses also form important structural elements.

The Availability of Land for Redevelopment: The diagram summarizes the previous analysis of potential land development and shows those areas that could reasonably be considered available for development over the longer term. As can be seen, the most prominent areas of opportunity are the Warehouse District (containing some 40 acres that are either now used as surface parking lots or are used to less than half of the present zoned capacity) and the railway areas. There are also substantial opportunities for infilling development in the Residential and Commercial areas north and south of Jasper Avenue.

7

I-

-1 I- 1F

1 •

' •• F"1[ 71 • • ° 1 0 DEVELOPEALENIS

r

- Mg

0

g 8 a ii!rl ;11 I MI- 4,0° I • Lthil LA um a IL OM as_i • 1111. rO— :• •' Nu TN „wall F. tr-c 0 .00q , ri PROPOSED I

,

r

" III

f

I

0EV6LOPEMENT

° ;pc'

•

00

1_1

ejt _

L

Location and expansion of the Financial District: The geographic focus of the Financial District occurs at Jasper Avenue and 101 Street.

Commercial development is being intensified along

84

Location and Expansion of the Financial District

ei

°0

both axes. Jasper Avenue in particular is experiencing a phenomenal amount of development activity, largely because of its historic significance, its zoned capacity and the introduction of LRT. There are preserves for expansion outward from the two axes, particularly in the quadrant between 101 and 105 Streets north of Jasper Avenue. There appear to be two kinds of needed space for expansion. The first is for primary office space, the users of which would have a stronger requirement for immediate proximity to the existing financial development. This space is best located along or near the Jasper Avenue and 101 Street axes.

The second need is for office space users with less pressing needs for contact with the financial and service institutions. This need can be satisfied by components of office space in other areas, and particularly along the primary street grid.

Current Land Use Controls: There are three dominant zones, each with radically different development permissions and ceilings. They are: the C-4 & CC area, which permits commercial and residential development up to 10 times the area of the site; the CM and C-3 Districts, in which commercial and residential development is permitted up to a density of 3.0 F.A.R. R-6 permits only residential up to a density of 300 persons/acre (roughly 2.5 times the area of the site). The R-7 area is approximately equivalent to the CM and 0-3 areas in its permissions.

Current Land Use Controls

The current designations are highly important in the formation of a housing strategy. While it is within the discretion of the municipality to appropriately revise the land use permissions, they are obviously a dominant force in the determination of land costs and the feasibility of residential and mixed use development.

Land Cost Patterns: The land costs generally reflect these factors: current land use classification, location in relation to the Financial District and expectations of reclassification to permit higher density office development."

The summary diagram of costs in areas west of 101 Street shows the highest costs along Jasper Avenue between 101 and 105 Streets; progressively lower costs at the west end of Jasper, to the north and south of Jasper and in the north-west area of the Warehouse District. `See Technical Appendix, Chapter 5, 'Land Costs'

Land Cost Patterns

85

The pattern suggests that there would be, under normal circumstances, a great deal of difficulty in achieving housing in areas with the highest land costs, including the Jasper Avenue and existing Financial District. In those adjacent areas that have land costs in a range up to $50 - $55, housing could be achieved as a component of mixed use development with very substantial commercial elements. In the 104 Street to 109 Street area north of Jasper Avenue, mixed use development with emphasis on residential is indicated. In the McKay Avenue area, with values in the $10 - $20 range, high density housing is generally indicated.

6.4 A Housing Policy for the Downtown and its Districts

Various alternatives were considered in developing a housing strategy for Downtown, including the development of housing by the City, residential development through a bonus system, or rezoning certain commercial areas to residential. Considering implementation difficulties involved with such strategies, it was considered necessary that within the development context of Edmonton, housing should be developed primarily through the private sector, complemented by housing developed by public agencies. It was concluded that housing can best be achieved by directing the growth of commercial development within Downtown and providing a firm direction for housing and commercial development.

The Housing Policy Map opposite represents a suggested strategy for the development of housing in the Downtown. The Map is based on the fact that the characteristics of various parts of Downtownâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;existing conditions, development trends and pressures, land costs and the current intentions directly or indirectly indicated by land use classifications â&#x20AC;&#x201D;vary greatly from place to place. In constructing a housing strategy, it is vital to distinguish amongst the various distinctive sub-areas and to design mixes of residential and other uses appropriate to each. This is in contrast to the current classifications which do not adequately distinguish the emphasis and character of the various parts. Housing is a permitted use in all areas at present, but in most, it is relegated to a subsidiary or incidental role. The purpose is to stress the particular importance and nature of housing in those areas in which it is appropriate.

86

The Map shows the kinds of Districts: •A high density Financial District •Several high density Mixed Use Districts surrounding the Financial District •Civic Centre District •Medium density Mixed Use District in the railway lands •High density Residential District based on the current McKay Avenue area A suggestion is also made for the Council's consideration with respect to possible medium density housing in the Rossdale area, although reliance is not placed on this area to produce a housing strategy for Downtown.

Proposed Financ'al District

Financial District

Financial District: The Financial District essentially confirms the existing high density office core, and is designated as the principal area of future primary office concentration. Land use and density permissions for the area should anticipate and liberally allow for anticipated office space growth.

The purpose, then, is to concentrate the main body of office space in this District and thus to take much of the pressure off contiguous areas where the development of housing can be encouraged.

Civic Centre District: This district, east of the Financial District, is confirmed as an area to be primarily governmental and institutional. However, if the City wants to achieve housing Downtown, the extensive Municipal land reserves in the District provide an opportunity to demonstrate this intention.

High Density Mixed Use Districts I, 2, 3 and 4: These districts surround the Financial District and form a transition between the Financial District and areas that are predominantly residential. Districts 1, 2 and 3 place emphasis on both residential and commercial uses at high densities. District 4 is essentially a high density residential area, but also includes a base of commercial uses.

The District includes the financial and office core that historically has developed around the axes of 101st Street and Jasper Avenue. Over the past fifteen years, there has been intensive redevelopment in the eastern end of the District, close to the Civic Centre.

More recently, redevelopment pressure has extended along the spine of Jasper Avenue which is becoming a prestige arm of the financial core. The existing location of the LRT station at 100 Street and Jasper Avenue and the planned extension along Jasper Avenue are reinforcing the attraction of the District to primary office development There is a considerable reserve of land available for redevelopment within the District for the accommodation of future office growth; the expectation of expansion is increasing pressure on adjoining areas.

Objectives for the District 1.

2.

High Density Residential District: The High Density Residential District in the McKay Avenue area essentially confirms the current classification, though it may be adjusted to permit a minor local commercial component.

Medium Density Mixed Use: The CPR and CNR Yards are denoted as Special Development Districts, intended for Medium Density Mixed Use, with the main emphasis on low and medium rise housing.

3.

4.

5.

To confirm the District as Edmonton's primary commercial office/retail core.

To provide the necessary expansion space for primary commercial office and retail uses for the foreseeable future.

By the provision of such expansion space, to relieve the pressure for primary office development in adjacent areas where lower building densities and the encouragement of housing are major objectives.

To permit compatible high density housing in the District.

To improve the quality of the public domain

87

Special Development District 0

Special Dev. District (C.P)

Medium Density ResiSential Secondary Commercial-

Mixed Use Dist. 2

Mixed Use District 4

Medium Density Residential

Emphasis on Family Housing

Emphasis on Family Housing

High Density Commercial+ Residential

High Density Residential.

Secondary Commercial Component

Minor Commercial )er

771

Financial District

Civic Centre

High Density Commercial (Residential permitted)

High Density Institutional, Commercial, Residential

Mixed Use District 1 High Density Commercial + Residential

Mixed Use Dist.3 High Density Commercial + Residential

McKay Avenue Residential District

[

High Density Residential Minor

97 Ave

Commercial Permitted

Rossdale Possible Nledium Density Residential Emphasis on Family Housing j

HOUS

POLBCY

R.L.WILKIN ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS consultants COOMBES KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMELIL EN

88

29

in the District to provide a suitable shopping, walking and entertainment realm for future Downtown residents.

Appropriate Land Use Control Measures The objectives of reinforcing the District as the primary Financial District and providing for office expansion within the District strongly suggest that the controls in the area continue to encourage the development of the District as the main Commercial area with the highest permitted densities.

Currently, the Land Use Classification of the District permits a base density of 6 times the area of the site. This may be permitted to increase to 10 times the site area as an incentive for the provision of various form and use characteristics that are considered important by the City. In practice, the amount of additional permitted density has increased over the years. At this time the current expectation seems to be in the order of 9 to 10 times the site area.

This density expectation and the demand for office locations in the District have resulted in land values that are Edmonton's highest. In the 101 Street area, values of $200 to $300 per square foot are reported. At these prices, it is unrealistic to expect that the normal development type will be other than high density commercial. The land values along Jasper Avenue, though less, are rapidly increasing.

It will be noted that, under the land use control measures suggested in this report, there would be between two and three times the capacity for office space in the Downtown as is currently estimated by the City Planning Department to be required over the next fifteen years.

However, it is recommended that the Financial District be confirmed as the principal area for primary office space expansion.

With respect to the appropriate level of commercial density, two factors should be the primary

*

,

I .00 -C

0

No

0

010 • I • aIll a AVE. 102 0 .L .

N INIM INNIMFMIN r • I.

M r'

0•

•:..•

co 0 0 L8o-o - pm

(1) 1

Hm

oil

-c —si -611 '1' 1 r'( -5 1 oi -E 011 --1

• 10.0 F.A.R. MAX. 89

determinants. The first is the amount of office space required. The matter is currently being studied by both the General Plan and Downtown Plan teams.

Current information suggests that between 5.6 and 7.6 million square feet of office space will be required in the whole Downtown within the next 15 years. In the Financial District alone, the land considered available for redevelopment would, if developed at densities of nine to ten times the site area, yield about ten million square feet of office space. However, the setting of density levels would have to take into account the fact that, for a variety of reasons specific to individual holdings, not all land could be developed in the period. While it appears that a density of ten times the lot area would provide a sufficient reserve,the matter must be determined through the Downtown Plan process.

The second factor that would determine density levels is that of the environment that would be created. In this respect, it should be stressed that the experience in the high density areas of major urban centres is that the environmental quality of such areas does not decrease necessarily with increases in density. The same problem of street form, sunlight, wind and other factors that occur with any high density development must be dealt with through public action.

At these or even higher densities, a very satisfactory district environment can be developed, by ensuring that buildings are so designed as to contribute to the life and quality of the public realm. This can only be achieved through a well-considered and co-ordinated system of public design requirements and guidelines. Without such controls, on the other hand, even a much lower density of development can produce a hostile or less than satisfactory District environment. This critical issue is dealt with in some more detail further on.

It is not highly likely that residential development will occur in the District in significant quantities. It is, however, reasonable to permit high density residence as a component of mixed use development, should the demand arise. There may be, for example, special markets for exceptionally high rent apartments or for components of housing at high density for special purposes, such as smaller units for the elderly. Amenity guidelines will need to be developed and applied on a site by site basis.

With respect to current development review and control procedures, there is a serious need for more specific, explicit and widely understood urban design standards. While buildings are reviewed on a site by 90

site basis, the modifications or public benefits achieved through incentives do not seem to result from a co-ordinated and planned set of ambitions, principles and standards. In many respects, opportunities to create extraordinary urban environments, as for example, through the redevelopment of Jasper Avenue, are not being exploited.

It is recommended that such a set of urban design policies, guidelines and standards be developed as a matter of urgency. This will require the development of general ideas and principles, particularly about the form of buildings at street level, as well as a local street and area analysis. It is further recommended that these be achieved through the imposition of mandatory standards and the application of guidelines through discretionary powers.

It is recommended that these standards not be the subject of incentive densities. Rather, the area density should be granted as of right, provided that the various standards and guidelines are satisfied. It is felt that this approach would produce a number of advantages. The design and approval process would be clarified and simplified, since developers and their architects would begin with a clearly understood definition of permitted densities, bulk and design requirements. They would be aware of public ambitions, such as the retention of significant older buildings or the provision of particular kinds of landscaping at the street, and could discuss and resolve these in principle with the City at the outset of project design. This matter is covered in more detail in the following section of the report.

Area Capacities This newly defined district has been calculated to contain about 25 acres of land that is currently under-utilized in relation to the suggested density and that could reasonably be considered available for redevelopment over the next 15 to 20 years.

This land, if developed to the full permitted densities, would yield about 10.6 million square feet of commercial space. As noted earlier, the projected need in the Downtown generally over a twenty year period, is about 7.6 million square feet, not all of which will locate in the Financial District.

This, therefore, represents a substantial space reserve.

Urban Design and Amenity The design of the Downtown public

environment—the form of buildings and the quality of streets—is a critical issue that is being dealt with in the City's development of a Downtown Plan. The Financial District will not be primarily a residential district. However, the quality of the District is important as an amenity area, not only for the general population but as an area in which future Downtown residents will walk, shop and be entertained.

The recent City of Edmonton Planning Department Working Paper No. 3 on Issues and Objectives for the Downtown Plan points to the need for imposed urban design standards and guidelines. It notes that, in many respects, the developing Downtown lacks distinction, and that much of the new construction fails to contribute satisfactorily to the public environment. In many areas this is resulting in a street quality that is undistinguished, climatically inhospitable and lacking in amenities.

The emphasis in the development of urban design plans and standards should be on the streets. They are the primary public realm and the places from which the City's quality is experienced and judged.

Efforts should be directed at ensuring that new buildings are carefully designed to form the walls of the streets, that they provide at the base the kinds of amenities that enliven a Downtown, such as restaurants, shops, and (where appropriate) places for sitting outdoors. The random tower-on-plaza types of development have been shown to be inappropriate to Downtown areas, particularly in a harsh climate. They do not build adequate street environments and need to be avoided.

standards to particular site conditions through the development review process.

There should be detailed plans of streets that show their form and the public and private improvements that will be made. Jasper Avenue represents a particular opportunity to form one of Canada's great streets through the proper application of the investments in redevelopment.

These kinds of environmental improvements do not need to involve relatively high levels of public investment. In a place with a rate of change as great as Edmonton's, much can be achieved through concerted public design and coordination.

Civic Centre District The district is well established as a governmental and institutional area. The major reserves of land are the assemblies in the South East Civic Centre Development area and the area that contains the existing police facilities. Sir Winston Churchill Square and City Hall distinguish the area as one of civic importance. The area will, in future, be reinforced as a governmental area for Municipal, Provincial and Federal purposes.

Objectives for the District 1.

To reinforce the civic and governmental functions and character of the District.

To encourage the development of a residential component in the District through new development on municipally owned land.

2.

The development of urban design requirements needs to begin with a detailed set of ambitions or policies. These should be developed street-by-street, based on principled ideas about the street hierarchy and the need to develop distinctive precincts. (Some general indications of this work are included later in this section). These policies should then be developed into a set of standards that would govern development in any particular location.

Experience has shown that general requirements for the design and use of buildings in relation to the streets can be established as development controls and requirements. These would, for example, include such matters as building lines and heights at the street, the proportions and ranges of activity mixtures at ground level, and entrance and landscape requirements. There needs to be some flexibility in the detailed application of these

t

LI

Li.

Li if 1L,Li.11 , ]

,

r I

H F-17..

L.

A ,-,__,

I

7 ILPLT i ' 1 C' I 1 — 7 (7 ir—r

t,

c.. ,v, 1r

7771

cm

Civic Centre District

91

Appropriate Land Use Control Measures This report recommends that the City place a high priority on the development of housing in the Downtown and take measures to assure its achievement. If the City chooses to pursue this aim, then the use of the large municipal land reserves in this District is a matter of first importance. The City would have an extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate its intentions by developing substantial residential accommodation as elements of new high density government office/residential development.

There is a limited amount of land that is privately owned in the District. The land is very close to the Financial District, and it is suggested that the permitted densities be fixed at similar levels to those in the Financial District.

Churchill Square, Civic Centre District

104th. AVE. 111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101.1011 Ii

11110011111111111"

103rd. AVE. 111111111111111111111r11111111111111111111111 • 1111111101111101111 • III Roma $11111111111111111114111161"-s • 1 III I III ii a • POSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II OS II s

II II .11 (no JASPER AV u-• 11111111111111111•111111U.'..DI • •.

• -s1-• re)11

Oa in111,

obillo"'"111111

On

10.0 F. A. R . MAX. 92

s s s s

1. Existing Police Facilities 2. South east Civic Centre Development Area

Though this density level would operate generally, the City is at liberty on its own land to build in ways and at densities which fulfill the needs for office space and, in addition, further the objectives of a residential Downtown. This would involve building at lower office densities than in the adjoining area, but including residential components as part of high density mixed use developments. It is estimated that the City assemblies could produce at least six hundred residential units in a very satisfactory environment.

It is, therefore, recommended that the recent development plan for the South East Civic Centre area be reviewed in the light of this report, with the objective of examining ways in which housing might be incorporated.

Area Capacities On the basis suggested above, the development of land considered available for redevelopment would yield about 1.1 million square feet of office space and approximately 600 residential units.

Urban Design and Amenity The importance of developing a street plan for the District is very important in order to develop the quality needed in a civic centre and aimed at in the Downtown Plan objectives.

In this respect, the proposed closing of City streets in the South East Civic Centre area seems unfortunate. The loss of City streets means the loss of significant pieces of the public realm and the action seems at best unnecessary. On these grounds, also, review of the proposal seems advisable.

Mixed Use District No. 1

106 Street (south), Mixed Use District No. 1

and a very minor component of housing. The heaviest concentration of development is now at the western end, consisting mainly of high density office buildings. More than half of the land in the area is either vacant or marginally used.

Because of recent redevelopment pressure in the Jasper Avenue area, the eastern part of the District has experienced a relative increase in land trading.

Due to the proximity to the Financial District and the C-4 zoning, the principal pressure is for commercial space.

Objectives for the District 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The district immediately south of Jasper Avenue, roughly between 101 and 109 Streets, now contains a mixture of offices, hotels, restaurants, parking lots

To promote the development of a significant residential component in the District.

To provide for a proportion of the general office space expansion in the Downtown.

To create a transition zone between the Financial District and the McKay Avenue Residential District.

To reinforce the mixed commercial residential character of the District.

To ensure District and Street qualities that are distinguished as amenable residential environments.

Appropriate Land Use Control Measures 7T.A1, 1 _

LF ir

11

Proposed Mixed Use District No. 1

The objectives indicate the need to place new streets on residential uses in the permitted mixes of use and density.

The current C-4 classification permits either commercial or residential development at six times the site area, though this may be increased through the discretionary process. Under these circumstances, little residential development is likely 93

ii I 'JASPER AVE.

.

I ••••••••••:;:-...

i

1 •

ms.

g I

i

•

IN Wig 1.11p11111111iiiiii11111111111111111111111.1".

1-1 111 c.n II I

s

I

. •••• -• •

•.•-

'

1 25::

(f) .

I—.

z .........- ! m co g i") i 0 m 0 4 j C211 g- Org0 °—.

II

ro oi

6.0 F.A.R. MAX. (3.5 F.A.R. COMMERCIAL MA)(.) to occur in competition with commercial development and returns at the same density.

Although the area is close to the Financial District and has the same land use classification, the demand for new office space does not, at present, seem strong in the area. This is reflected in the land costs of the District which are between one third and one half of those on Jasper Avenue immediately to the north. On the basis of analysis of land costs in the previous chapter, general costs in the District vary roughly from $40 to $55 per square foot.This has been taken into account in devising a use and density mix that can satisfy the objectives for the District and also provide a reasonable economic base for development.

It is suggested that the District be identified as a mixed use zone which confirms the permitted 6.0 times site area coverage as a firm limit. It is further suggested that commercial development be limited to 3.5 times the site area.

This use/density mix will strongly encourage housing construction, either at high densities (up to 6.0 FAR.) or as a major component of mixed use development. The commercial component might vary from a minor component, perhaps only at the ground floor, to a substantial elevator building as a component of a large mixed use complex. The suggested densities will permit the area to develop a transition between the Financial District and the McKay Avenue District, forming the southern limit of commercial development.

previous section indicated that about 9 1/2 acres of land are either vacant or utilized to less than one-third of existing zoned capacity. This appears to represent a conservative estimate of the amount of land that could be considered available for redevelopment.

This land, if developed to the suggested densities (including full commercial development), would yield about 1.4 million square feet of commercial space and approximately 1400 residential units.

Housing Types Various combinations of residential and commercial components can occur within this mix. Development can take the form of retail and office space with residential development stacked above. The Toronto Colonnade precedent described in Section 5 is an example, as is the Macdonald Place in Edmonton (though a much higher density than anticipated here). On large land consolidations, development can take the form of separate office and residential structures, in point or slab form, over a common retail commercial base or podium.

Housing Users The mixture of users is likely to be biased toward smaller units for single and non-family households.

The uses and densities suggested will not generally permit the development of ground-related units specifically designed for families with children.

Urban Design and Amenity Area Capacities The land use availability analysis explained in the

94

The area now has a substantial level of amenity as basis for a residential precinct. 100 Avenue, in

Fig. 1 View from Jasper Avenue looking south on 107 Street.

particular, as the spine of the area, has developed historically as a treed boulevard.

As with all other Districts, the streets need to be distinguished according to a well-considered urban design plan. There is a remarkable opportunity here to develop a Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;with a very wide range of activities and amenities incorporated in the commercial elements.

The expected range of users does not suggest the need for more consolidated parkland in the District.

It is in close proximity to the Provincial Government Centre and its proposed parkland and to the River Valley. Nevertheless, the development should incorporate small "street park" areas for sitting, and landscaping.

The District is distinguished from other parts of the Downtown by its buildings such as Boardwalk, Revillon and Marshall Wells. Professional offices, restaurants and stores dominate the District.

Objectives for the District 1.

To conserve and enhance the existing warehouse character of the area and its significant older structures in order to constitute a Historic District.

2.

To provide a high density mix of commercial and residential development in the District.

3.

To create an area that serves as a transition between the Financial District and the residential areas to the west.

The sketch (Fig. 1) shows the street relationship of buildings in a high density district.

Mixed Use District No. 2 The District includes a concentration of warehouse buildings, some of which have been converted into offices during the past few years. The close proximity to the Financial District has developed a great deal of redevelopment pressure in the District.

Proposed Mixed Use District No. 2

95

in adjacent areas due to the expectation of higher densities.

It is, therefore, suggested that the commercial densities of three times the site area be reconfirmed. It is further suggested that a residential component of an additional 2.5 times the coverage of the site be permitted to encourage residential development in the area.

Area Capacities The District currently has approximately 4.1 acres of land that is either vacant or under-utilized. At the suggested densities, the District would accommodate an additional 500,000 square feet of office space and approximately 600 units.

Warehouse renovation—the Boardwalk

4.

To promote the existing uses such as restaurants, specialty stores and professional offices and to reinforce the identity of the District.

Housing Types The mix of density and uses and the proximity to the Financial District is very similar to the Mixed-use District No. I. It can, therefore, be assumed that the housing types generated shall be of the same nature.

Appropriate Land Use Control Measures The objectives for the District suggest that the land use controls should continue to encourage the renovation and preservation activity in the District.

Reclassification of land in the District (such as Eaton's Warehouse Site) threatens the preservation of the existing buildings, as the land values increase

Urban Design and Amenity Similar to other districts, particularly the Mixed Use District No. 4, the streets in the District require improvements in order to create a satisfactory

104thr.,AVE.

oo0o00000000004P9oc000cocoocoo(D0000ca..:.)

• unammiffirmaim1 REEREINERMINNIEMIMOrill11111.1111111 II !

•

"••• ".".• •'•••••••••I .•. %V.% 011111

0

• a

••', ••••• • •N• • •••• 4 • • ...Al

'

I

•

0

T• • • • •••••• 1,•"• • • • • • • • • •,.• ••••••1

I•

I •

I.

I

a

I I

1 1111:17-1I

" I103

0 Mb

. .

•

0

I I I

11

1

••••• • • •..•• •• • • •• •• •• •• •• ••• •• •• •• •• ,• • ••••••••••••••r • • • • ••••••••••••• ••••••••• ••••••5 ...••••••••••*.i.

••••I

sr. . . . • •

0•

•••

• • • • • ••• ..... • • •

0 r i

. • ...

••••••••••4 • • • • • . .

I

rd. AVE. III II

" 111

.

•

.•

, I

.1 a

. 11 1102 nd. AVEi..

11 l- I 1"';0 O. . ••••••6k1r. (n 0. i o 0 m •• • • tt;•1 1 . i01011111111111111111" IIIIIIMNIIIIIMMIldlillliil • Illiiiiaililiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii11101 1 --F- I .,_ 1 .f.:(7.1 1E5 I 1:1 ll to' ll ' (0 I ll N-' .1.

I tn`" 1 ro 111 ON 011 e:50 CI —u — ll —a -Q l il I-: I

5.5 F.A.R. MAX. (3.0 COMMERCIAL MAX.) 96

environment for residential development. Adequate sidewalks, streetscape and other basic amenities are required in the area. The general urban design principles discussed earlier in this report need to be applied in this District. In addition, the preservation of the historic character of the District requires a carefully detailed district plan.

The District consists of only four blocks and, therefore, does not require major park space, and can rely on amenities in the adjacent districts.

However, it is stressed that the streets serve as the primary open space, as discussed in the general strategies for housing in Downtown.

_

.73 11

IL-

0

Li E

Proposed Mixed Use District No. 3

office space and it is not likely that any residential component will be developed in the District under the current land use classification.

Objectives for the District

Mixed Use District No. 3 The District consists mainly of office buildings, and a minor component of residential and retail. The office concentration is limited between 107 Street and 109 Street, where most of the buildings are occupied by the Provincial Government. There is not enough land available for redevelopment in this District.

Due to the proximity of the District to the Provincial Government Centre, there is a great demand for

1.

To promote the development of a residential component in the District.

2.

To provide for a proportion of general office expansion in Downtown.

3.

To develop a mixed commercial residential character of the District.

Appropriate Land Use Control Measures The objectives clearly indicate the need to reiterate a

am • •• 'JASPER AVE. iiM111111111111111111111111111L111111111111; li nImmomp i i 0_0 I U. I. ONO DEO •7 00 0120 000 T • INO

020 020

•

umilimmummiubmni I

•• • 0111.10.1111.11111"ThiliF •"-

(1)11 99th. AVEft m+simmum..41.11........• Elm mil Ili& .1 .c Iin .1 .4- 30•0 8 .411 0) II =N 0I 0010 2.

— , 5.5 F.A.R. MAX. (INCLUDING 3.0 F.A.R. COMMERCIAL MAX.)

_c I. Z5 0 —1

111111111111

_d 17)i 2U

it oninsrarm

97

according to their hierarchy. 108 Street provides an opportunity to be developed as a boulevard terminating at the Legislative Building and should be emphasized in the Urban Design Plan. The District does not require consolidated parkland due to its proximity to the proposed parkland in the Provincial Government Centre. It should, however, incorporate street parks and landscaping.

Mixed Use District No. 4

Office concentrationâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Mixed Use District No. 3

the intentions for the District (R-7 and 0-3) to develop as mixed use districts. At present, the land use classification for the District permits either commercial or residential development at 3 times the area of the site. It is unlikely that any residential development will occur in competition with the commercial demand in the area.

It is suggested that the District be identified as a mixed use zone with a maximum commercial component of 3 times the site area. However, it is suggested that an additional 2.5 times residential floor space be permitted to encourage housing development in the District.

This mix of uses and density will encourage housing development in the District as a major component of mixed use developments. It will also provide enough space for the expansion of office space close to the existing Provincial Government office concentration.

Area Capacities

This District represents the western and main portion of the current Warehouse area. It is clearly a major area of opportunity for the development of housing, in combination with other uses.

The existing uses are a mixture of office, storage, secondary retail, wholesale and light industrial uses which are generally compatible with residential uses.

Thirty-five percent to forty percent of the land area is presently vacant and used mainly for surface car parking. A very high percentage of the remaining land is under-utilized in relation to its zoned capacity, and the value represented by the area's proximity to the Financial and Civic Centre Districts.

The environment in the area is largely inadequate for the development of appropriate residential environment, particularly the quality of streets and landscaping. Ways will need to be found to progressively improve this environment for residential development.

Objectives for the District 1.

To develop a substantial new housing component in the District.

2.

To develop housing for a wide range of user and income groups.

The land availability analysis of the District shows that there is approximately 5.2 acres of land which is either vacant or utilized to less than half its capacity. This land, if developed at the suggested densities, would accommodate an additional 670,000 square feet of office space and 750 housing units.

The suggested density/use mix is similar to the other mixed use districts and it is likely that the housing types generated would be similar to these.

It can also be expected that the housing users would also be similar. The District, in general, has adequate amenities; however, as with all other districts, the streets need to be distinguished

98

fr-.L11fril .

i1 1r _J L

,_, Hij

C-j IFE-T1 Alni11' 51-U1 L

frj1

f.,5,i i .: q FrV EP rr-7f: -Ira H

=1 J

alfl

Pr rkil

Proposed Mixed Use District No. 4

LI P

MLIC L t

7

3.

To permit limited commercial office and retail components that provide for secondary office space expansion, local retail service and economic support for housing.

4.

To retain those existing buildings that are considered to have particular architectural or historic merit, and to preserve the historic character and identity of the District.

5.

To provide the improvements necessary for the development of a satisfactory local residential environment.

6.

To distribute uses and building forms within the District in ways that reinforce the relative importance of primary, secondary and tertiary streets.

7.

To provide adequate car parking for new development on a site-by-site basis, bearing in mind the centrality of the location.

Appropriate Land Use Control Measures

It has been noted that, while housing is presently permitted in the District, it is most unlikely to be developed in significant quantities. Various factors lead to this conclusion. One is that, since both commercial and residential buildings can be constructed to a density of 3 times the areas of site, developers are unlikely to develop housing which, at present, shows a comparatively small return at best. Equally important is the current pattern of spot rezoning and increased commercial density permissions which can only lead land owners to expect the area to gradually become a high density commercial area. Current trading and speculation in property in the area accurately reflects this expectation.* It is, therefore, certain that if housing is to become *See Technical Appendix, Chapter 5.

103 rd. AVE. 111111111111111111

'-.•.• imOnnumuusimoms . .....

41* POTENTIA .r.•.*.....-.-••••••••••• ••••••••• . • PARK

• ••

• •

...

•

• • • • •

•

.1 .••••••••••••

••••

•••••• •

•••••

A

• • • •

•

:

.:

:•:•:-•

••••••••••••1•••••••••••• •1•••...

• • • •; •

• . • •••••.•

.:**.••••••••••

• • • * • * • • • •L• • • • • • • ' ' • • I

••"

0011.141M0110 •

•••• 111111111111111

•••••• . . . . . . . *. ' V.V.*:11.".".';;•••••••••••••"1.*••••••••••••••••••• . * . ••••.".-

••••:•••••••••1••••••

•.•••••••••

.

• • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • • • •

:•..........••••:••••:•• 0 • •

Illiiiiiii:•

: : : :: : •: .$•••••••• ••• •1:••• ••••••••••••••• ••• ••• ••1••• • •• •••••••••••••••• . . l . . .......:•:•••••:::::. :•::::•iiill

•••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••• • • 11 : :::: ::• ••• •::: •• : : .

• .

• • • • • • • • • • • lit • • • • • :::............• ••••••111

.................::::::•.:. • • • • • i• • • • • • • • • •••••••/1••••••••••••••••••••••••4•••••••••••• •••:•:::::: ......?.:41

lit • II

.::::• •••• ::iii'•••••••••••11.47•••••••••••••••••••••11 .;• ••••••••••••••••••••

1 .I

1 I 1(7) :1

I

N Hl (flu

- Ill co mi JASPER

111•111•11111•1111111.111110M11111111111EMINIMMIMIIII1111111MEMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMIIIIMI11111 II --5 i -.1 0) ll

CO 1

NA

0 I

0

:::::::: 4.0 F.A.R. (1.5 COMM. MAX) 4.5 F.A.R. (2.0 COMM. MAX) 99

There are many examples in Edmonton of apartment buildings with retail and service elements at their ground floors. Such space can be expanded manageably into the lower floors of buildings and appropriate access patterns designed for both commercial and residential uses. This land system expands the range of access possibilities.

Residential potential, Mixed Use District No. 4

a major use in the area, significant changes must be made both in the permitted uses and densities and in the manner of land use control.

Much of the land in the area has been held for a long time. More than 2/3 of the land was bought before 1976 at prices of less than $20 per square foot.* Many recent sales have been at higher prices, some in the range of $30. There are indications that price expectations in parts of the area run up to $40. The recent sales above $25 per square foot involve a very small area in relation to the total area of the District, and they represent very rapid and largely speculative escalation in land value. For the purposes of discussing appropriate land use control measures, we have, therefore, taken a land value in the District of approximately $20 to $30 per square foot, even though the majority of the land was purchased at a much lesser cost.

At these land costs, housing as a sole use, even at high densities, appears difficult or even unfeasible under present conditions. It is, therefore, suggested that mixed use development be introduced as the main strategy for achieving housing, with housing as the principal component, but with an additional component of commercial development to bring general development returns to feasible levels.

The commercial components should be fixed at density levels that can be constructed generally as a ground and first floor base with residential development above. Such a base would provide for local retail, restaurant and other service space and for secondary office space for professional small business and other users. *See Technical Appendix, Chapter 5.

100

It is suggested that the land use controls be reformed to generally provide for residential and commercial densities of up to approximately 4.0 times the site area, of which the commercial component would be limited to 1.5 times the site area. It is essential that this mix of uses and densities provide a reasonable return on development at the prevailing land costs, provided that the residential component is given financial assistance of the kinds indicated elsewhere in this report.

Since 109 Street and 105 Street are major streets whose importance should be reinforced , it is suggested that the commercial component be increased to 2.0 times the site area along those streets.

It is stressed that the use and density prescriptions should be set as firm upper limits and that no relaxations should be permitted. Such firm controls are essential if area expectations are to be focussed in such a way as to produce housing.

Further, use and density permissions should be granted as-of-right in order to establish the City's intentions and to ensure that the design and approval process is as direct as possible, in order to facilitate development and reduce holding costs.

As in all other Districts, urban design and amenity policies should be developed and applied, as far as possible, through the application of bylaw standards.

Some incentive ought to be provided for the retention of significant older structures. This matter is covered generally later in the section. The most effective method would appear to be to exclude the density of a designated existing structure from calculations of permitted commercial densities, up to a maximum of 25 percent of the permitted commercial density.

A further matter that applies generally to Downtown and certainly to this area is that of parking requirements. It should be borne in mind that this District is very central and greater reliance can be placed on public transportation. The present high requirements should, therefore, be reviewed, since the high cost of structured parking construction is a

severe disincentive to housing construction. Such revised standards should take into account the dual use of spaces by commercial and residential components.

Housing Types At the densities suggested, a wide range of housing types is not likely, particularly ground-related and walk-up types. Development will occur primarily as double-loaded slabs, point blocks or, perhaps, gallery-access types. Composite type housing will be feasible only on large sites as a part of larger development.

Typically, this housing would be located over a base of commercial space of two floors built up to or near the street edge.

However, the majority of units will be generally smaller, serving single people or non-family householders. Most of the rental units would be at or near market rents. Actions should be taken through adjustments to housing finance programs to ensure that proportions of housing are provided at rents affordable by people of low and moderate incomes. This matter is addressed in the following section of this report. A proportion of the total new housing stock will be built as condominiums. The proportion will be controlled by the limited demand for condominium ownership.

Urban Design and Amenity

Housing Users

All of the streets in the District require improvement in order to constitute satisfactory environments for residential development. In fact, several of the streets lack paved sidewalks.

The units in such housing will not generally be ground-related units suitable for families with children. Nevertheless, it is likely that proportions of larger units with two bedrooms or more will be constructed and these units will be used to some extent by people with infants or teenaged children.

An urban design plan, development guidelines and standards for private development and a program of public street improvements are all urgent necessities.

The street plans should be based on the relative importance of the various streets and the landscape and street quality for each carefully defined.

47

Rig. 2 View of 107 Street, north of Jasper Avenue.

101

EXISTING ASSEMBLY PATTERN

EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CAPACITIES A TOTAL ZONING CAPACITY

450,000 sq, ft.

B EXISTING BUILT ZONING CAPACITY

133,500 sq. ft.

C RESIDUAL ZONING CAPACITY (A- B)

316,500 sq. ft.

D DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ( A - STABLE BUILDING AREA)

351,000 sq.f t.

UNSTABLE BUILDINGS

I

I .89

STABLE BUILDINGS EXISTING AVERAGE F. A. R. COVERAGE FOR ENTIRE BLOCK

BLOCK11 0 50 100

102

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT UNDER CM ZONING 200

300

1

400

1

500 FEET

R.L.WILKIN

ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS

consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

30

POSSIBLE ASSEMBLY PATTERN

PROPOSED ZONING CAPACITIES TOTAL ZONING CAPACITY

POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT

600,000 sq.ft.

EXISTING BUILT CAPACITY

99,000 sq.ft.

RESIDUAL DEVEL. 501,000 CAPACITY sq.ft.

TOTAL COMMERCIAL F. A.R. RESIDENTIAL FAR.

'BLOCK11 0 50 100

POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN MIXED USE DISTRICT no.4 200

300

400

500

1.5 2.5

R.L. WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

31 103

Fig. 3 View of 103 Avenue from 107 Street, looking west.

The major cost of improvement will be for the provision of sidewalks and tree planting. The development of a phased plan for such improvements is beyond the scope of this report.

However, it seems essential that the City initiate such improvements as an inducement to residential construction. Although the costs will be recovered, at least in part, in time through property taxes, methods need to be found for the financing of improvements.

If co-ordinated plans are formed for street development, it seems reasonable to expect new development to contribute physically and financially to the street areas which they address.

Developments normally include budgets for landscaping and this could be applied to the construction of areas that covered both public land in the right-of-way and parts of the frontage of private land. Construction would comply to public design standards incorporated in a co-ordinating plan. There are options for financial arrangements that would require explanation.

The physical form of the District is potentially very attractive as a housing precinct, provided that the buildings are so designed to contribute to the quality of the streets as the primary public realm.

In this regard, three aspects are of major importance. The first is that the buildings should be 104

built at or near the street. Second, use and design requirements should ensure that uses at street level in the commercial components contribute to a wide range of activities in the District, particularly in providing ordinary local services such as restaurants, dry cleaning and food stores. Third, setbacks can be purposefully used at specific places in developments to expand the street space for providing landscaping. This should be done according to already defined and explained principles and reviewed on a site-by-site basis, taking into account the local context in each case. It should not be done by simply applying District-wide setbacks.

There will be a need to provide adequate public open space in the District, an amenity now totally lacking.

Open space could be progressively provided as development proceeds, by requiring that a percentage of the land of each development be devoted to public open space. However, such a requirement can produce inappropriate street forms and space that is not always effective as public recreation space.

It is suggested that an approach be taken that has two main thrusts. The first is that consolidated open space be provided to serve the area, possibly on land already in public ownership. For example, the

large parking lot associated with the Alberta Vocational Centre might be re-used as a large public park. This could perhaps be achieved as parkland over structured parking.

"ALT Ji

licfr[t-L1-11Erjvj L_Jk F r

L.

FiL1J

1_ p L

It seems preferable to achieve such parkland through funding from general revenues, rather than by the application of special development levies which would form a disincentive to residential development.

The second thrust should be to achieve, along with development, specific expansions of the street space to be amalgamated with the right-of-way to form small "street parks". In this way, the streets would serve as a major open space focus of the District, providing places where people could comfortably sit, as discussed earlier in this section.

The question of development phasing will be a most important aspect of an urban design and action plan for the District. On one hand, there is much to be said for early emphasis on those areas closest to Jasper Avenue and progressively working northward.

On the other hand, there is a need to make public gestures, particularly by way of parkland and street improvements to announce early of Council's intentions to see this District develop largely as a residential precinct.

Finally, amenity standards for the residential components must be establishedâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;particularly for light, air, view and privacy for apartments. From experience and from considerable investigation in the course of this study, it is apparent that satisfactory standards can be developed at these densities and with the existing block pattern.

McKay Avenue Residential District western end of the District to rezone sites to allow commercial uses, rather than residential uses at high densities. This process, has increased revenue expectations, raising land prices and discouraging residential development. This process is highly prejudicial to the prospects for housing. It is most important, therefore, that the District be firmly established as a residential area for the foreseeable future.

Objectives for the District 1.

To reinforce the area as a primary Residential District.

2.

To encourage the development of housing at high densities.

3.

To prevent the intrusion of major office development into the District.

4.

To consider the provision of minor commercial components of retail/commercial uses at ground level, primarily to serve the local residents.

McKay Avenue Residential District The District has changed substantially over the past twenty years from a single family neighbourhood to a high rise residential area. It is now Downtown's primary residential area, with more than 75°/o of its housing units and population.

Over the past five years, there has been only limited residential activity in the District, and this has been in the form of condominium apartments. Rental housing has not been built for the past five years.

As has been noted earlier, this is the result of numerous factors, particularly the rising costs of construction and money, and the expectation of higher returns for condominium sales.

There has also been considerable pressure in the

McKay Avenue School, 99 Avenue 105

aa

al mom min

/

00 000 00cDoc. 0o0000000000 a

3.0 F.A.R. TOTAL (.5 F.A.R. MAX. COMMERCIAL) Appropriate Land Use Control Measures The District currently is classified "R-6" which permits high density residential construction to accommodate up to three hundred people per acre.

Under such a designation, the bulk of buildings might vary, depending on the unit compositions, between about 2.4 and 3.0 times the site area.

It is suggested that the general nature of the classification be confirmed. For reasons of consistency with residential designations in other areas, it may be appropriate to use a Floor Space Index measure of density, with a maximum of 3.0 times the area of a site.

It is also suggested that a minor permission be granted, as-of-right, for the inclusion of a small component in each building of retail and other commercial functions. This would be for variety and other service shops, doctors' and other professional offices and restaurants. They would locate at ground floor only, perhaps up to a maximum density of 0.5 times the site area, within the total 3.0 F.A.R. 106

maximum. Such commercial permission will marginally assist the prospects of economic returns from housing. Reduction of parking requirements would also assist to some degree.

The prevention of commercial intrusions should reduce unrealistic expectations and land sale prices.

With these measures and the kinds of programmatic financial assistance discussed elsewhere in this report, there is a reasonable prospect of residential development in the area.

Area Capacities The use of land considered available for redevelopment, at the suggested densities, would yield a total of about 2250 units.

Housing Types At these densities, the resultant buildings are likely to be restricted to the point block and double-loaded slab forms, except in the case of large consolidations where low rise housing can be

combined with high rise to achieve the suggested densities.

Urban Design and Amenity There is a need for improved built form requirements in the area, particularly in relation to ground level development. Present setback requirements force developments to set back from the street at ground level, resulting in the conventional pattern of towers or slabs in landscaped reserves. Such landscaping is often ill-designed or badly located to be very useful. In addition, it may be advisable to permit some portions of the buildings at ground level, particularly those that include minor local retail or commercial element, to approach closer to the street line.

Some flexibility in setback requirements should therefore be exercised in the review of developments at ground level. For this purpose, guidelines need to be developed in order to ensure patterns that constitute satisfactory street environments and the creation of useful sitting and other landscaped areas at the street.

C.P.R. Yardsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Special Development District The C.P.R. Yards area is potentially an extremely important land area for the achievement of a Downtown housing policy.

The rail relocation studies for the City of Edmonton have examined the future potential of the yards in great detail. The study recommends that a density of approximately 78 units/gross acre, with a minor component of commercial space. It states*: "If the rail fealties are relocated, the market potential would be for primarily high density residential development, with some office and retail This conclusion is based on these reasons: a)

There is a market for high density residential development, as evidenced by trends in Oliver area to the west The demand for suitable sites could increase as a result of evolving policies restricting redevelopment of existing low density housing in areas near the central business district "*

* C.P. Rail Relocation Study, Urban Development Component, p. 27.

El

Lo

TfD4

..... [ IL

1 LfluL..Mii iLj

191 1F1741, 1Fl[7]

[mit]

C.P.R. Yards

b)

There is a market for some retail along the main street frontages, but not for major retail development because downtown is too close.

C)

Some office development would be marketable, as evidenced by that already occuring on sites west of the yard. Major office development will probably continue to occur east of 109 Street, closer to central business district

Although Council has approved the recommendations of the C.P.R. study, there was at that time no specific policy for housing downtown. In view of the housing recommendations in this study, it is most likely that high density residential now will be encouraged in other parts of downtown. If Council wishes to pursue the objective of providing housing for a mixture of users, the vacated rail yards would provide this opportunity.

Any proposal for the development of this area would in time require much further study. The purpose of this section is, however, to review the future of the area in the context of the housing and land use policies for the Downtown as a whole and to provide some general guidelines for future land use.

The C.P.R. Yards offer one possibility for developing low and medium rise housing and for accommodating some family households close to the Downtown. It is important that the opportunity not be lost, either through too high a permitted residential density or through establishing too high a potential land value. The size of the site and its single ownership permit the development of a comprehensive site plan that could accommodate a variety of building forms. Development elsewhere in the Downtown will tend to be in medium to highrise,

107

not only because of the densities permitted but because of the constraints of small sites and existing buildings.

While such forms are appropriate for non-family households, it is increasingly acknowledged that housing suitable for families with childred requires a level of amenity that can best be given by designing units at or close to street grade.

The advantages and potentials of alternatives to highrise development have been explored in another report for the City.* However, it appears that site constraints, development economics, and community resistance are going to reduce the opportunities for such development forms in the rest of the City.

Development of the Edmonton Yard as a new housing area could play a major role in stimulating the residential development of the areas immediately to the east. It would create additional links between the strongly residential area of Oliver and the Downtown. The attractiveness of the warehouse district for housing development would be considerably increased. A comparison can be made with Toronto's municipally developed St. Lawrence neighbourhood located on former industrial land, which has had the effect of stimulating the development of areas located between it and the commercial core. The public development initiative has encouraged private investment in much the way that rapid transit lines have created nodes of private development activity around their stations.

The C.P.R. Yards provide the opportunity for the development of a unique and innovative new residential area. A number of Canadian cities have recently attempted large scale developments on vacant or underutilized sites close to their Downtowns. Toronto's St. Lawrence scheme is mentioned above, but Ottawa's Le Breton development and Vancouver's False Creek scheme should also be mentioned.

Although in very different settings and scales, there are some important similarities in the essential development principles of these projects, principles which could usefully be applied to the Edmonton Yards.

Municipality as Development Co-ordinator: The potential roles of the City in the development of the site were explored in the relocation studies. In the examples mentioned above, the municipality acted in a role which might be described as that of the * Alternatives to High Rise, Oliver/Garneau by Barton Myers Associates.

108

co-ordinator/developer. They acquired the site, prepared the basic plan for the physical and social structure of the scheme and obtained the approvals.

It did not, however, act as the sole developer, but brought in, through a variety of proposal call and land lease or sale offers, a number of different types of developers, both private and non-profit.

This technique reduced the burden on the municipality having to act as the single developer of a large tract of housing, although it undoubtedly created problems of coordination.

With respect to the C.P.R. Yards, therefore, the experience of other municipalities would seem to suggest that the City or the Province should take an active role in their development, presumably involving the purchase of at least the major land holding.

Perhaps the most appropriate co-ordination agency would be the City Non-Profit Housing Corporation, since it combines a commitment to providing a broad range of housing in proximity to the City's planning and land use regulatory functions. It is interesting to note the municipally co-ordinated developments in Canada, which seem to have had the most recent success, move from a conceptual to a construction phase.

Inner City development attempts by senior levels of government have often failed to get underway because of disagreements over basic objectives with the municipality. The tensions potentially arising from the involvement of senior government must, however, be weighed against the very substantial commitment of money, resources and expertise required of the City Non-Profit Corporation.

Mixed Development: The purpose of subdividing these sites into different development parcels has generally been to create a social, physical and economic mix of people and buildings. The impetus for this mix has sprung out of the problems seen in unitary developments, both public and private, in Canada and the United States, and out of a desire to reproduce the vitality and diversity of older, successful parts of our cities.

Again, this principle could be usefully applied, since a variety of potential developers exists in Edmonton for such a site. The site is large enough and so well related to its adjacent areas that the potential exists for creating an extremely interesting mix of development forms. Different developers would build ownership or co-operative housing or rental accommodation under a variety of programs. This

mix creates a wide range of consumer choice. It means that not all housing is managed by the same agency and that a variety of architects produces a variety of designs.

Medium Density/Low-Rise: All the schemes mentioned above can be described as experiments in alternatives to highrise development. Medium density/low-rise forms are an attempt to design family accommodation at the densities required by Inner-City land values. Such physical forms require very careful architectural consideration. Experience in Canada suggests that the density limit for grade-related housing is in the range of 1.2 times F.A.R. Low-rise forms (below 5-6 stories) become difficult to achieve at densities much over 2.0 times F.A.R. (see Section 5.5, "Housing Types").

Setting an overall density for large developments has therefore to be done very cautiously. Although family and non-family areas can be differentiated and density stacked on the latter, the potential for such stacking is quite constrained in such schemes.

Low to medium rise schemes by their nature require more grade circulation space. Their next to grade ratios are often worse than in high rise developments. In order to create development parcels with densities in the range of 1.0 - 2.0 times F.A.R. an overall density should not greatly exceed 1.0 (approximately 60 units/acre gross) times if reasonable park and community service provision is to be made.

Linkage to the Surrounding City: As it is considered important to create diversity within large new developments, great care should be taken in the links to adjacent areas. The essential objective is to marry the new with the old so that the life and interest of the surrounding City flows into the new area.

In the case of the C.P.R. Yards, very good opportunities for linkage exist, to a series of a very different surrounding edges. The design of the new street system would have to be under-taken in such a way that the negative effects of through traffic were avoided but still linked the site into the fabric of the City.

Objectives for the District 1.

To ensure that redevelopment of the C.P. Yards is primarily for residential purposes.

2.

To ensure that the District is developed to accommodate a component of family

households in close proximity to the Downtown core.

3.

To provide such accommodation generally in the form of low and medium rise, medium density development.

4.

To ensure that the District has a mixture of development forms, developers and forms of tenure.

5.

To ensure that, when developed, the District will blend with the surrounding areas, through the purposeful deployment of diverse uses, densities and forms.

6.

To create, in the various phases of redevelopment, satisfactory residential, street and park environments.

Appropriate Land Use Control Measures A wide variety of actions and methods would need to be employed to achieve the objectives.

As exemplified in other Canadian cities, the most promising general strategy is that the City assume the responsibility of co-ordinating the development, preferably by assembling all or parts of the land with senior government assistance through their land-banking programs. This would provide the necessary degree of control to ensure the implementation of the objectives.

The actual use and density prescriptions could be determined only through the development of a site plan that outlines the general location of streets, development parcels and parks. It would define the uses, forms, densities and particular emphasis in various sub-areas.

However, if the objectives are to be met, appropriate general uses and densities will need to be applied to the lands to make clear the City's ambitions and requirements. This is critical, because the current classification ("CM" or 3.0 F.A.R. residential or commercial) is a vestigial industrial-warehouse designation. The classification and the related expectations of land prices have not been calculated to achieve the objectives, particularly that of accommodating families in ground-related medium rise housing.

It is therefore suggested that the City take quick action to make its general intentions clear. This might involve removing the current CM designation and replacing it with either a holding designation or one that could be expected to be consistent with the objectives. The latter would mean a net density

109

of no more than 2.0 F.A.R. or a gross density slightly above 1.0 F.A.R. (approximately 60 units/acre gross). The use permissions would be mainly residential, but with a commercial component.

Area Capacities

It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of expected residential and commercial capacities. But experience in other situations suggests that about 1,200 to 1,500 units of housing and about 250,000 square feet of commercial space could be developed in ways that are consistent with the objectives.

proportion would be in the form of medium rise elevator housing (four to six floors) with large family units at the base Toronto's Hydro Block, discussed earlier, is an example of this type of housing. In some areas, principally along 109 Street, housing would be developed most appropriately as a component of mixed-use structures at medium to high densities, with apartments over a retail and commercial base.

Housing Users

Housing Types

The City should purposefully aim to provide whatever mechanisms are necessary to enable the area to accommodate a broad range of household types and incomes.

The housing types would vary according to site-planned location. There may be a component of low rise (3 to 3 1/2 storey) row housing. A large

There should be a percentage of higher income residents, at market rents and prices. As co-ordinator/developer the City would have the

, 11.11iiiii.W.1.1.11111.•111111. 1M11111111111•11141111 II ill I : _ ; ::::. , '-, . ., 11(),4 th.AVEi 1' "--" " '',' 7 t - iiii •Ii 1 t:i . ..,..1 * li1 , , .

Ti ,, t 1I I : 'IVI

I I. "

•.•.•..•

• .•.•,...

II :•:•:•:

,

ill,

1

i

.....11.

.

1 i - 'i

,i i

,L. j ''''' "': :

'ii: •0103rd.AVEI miummiiIiiimininVionsmimmummoimmiimumaiiiiiim is PI :

LJE

1

r

1

OE it •:•:• I. •.•:•: . 0.0 w' •:••••••*: POTENTIAL r 0 110 i 0 0, ......:.

II ,1111, i. ) g *X•:•••••••• : • : • : -:-• PARKLANI? LJELi '; _i 1 ........ ' 0111 0102M.AVE.11 . g :::•:•:, •

i

1

I

1,

1 :•:•: •

• • ;,..-,•-, 1 *:: • ' .

I

1 :•. . . 1 •:'-...-:•.• ' 11: .....i.:•: It • :• :::,::: I t :•:•.•.-•.•

010

a a I

1 ,

1

I 1 1 ai

a j• . g

., Iiiiiiimmiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmuntiounimi Emu" Iii ,i .....i it .....1 ,1 1...._...i"-7...11 ',„ ...,...„ i ll i', l , i i i 1

111 1

„II i

SiO

'

Alf----..

i. 0 in

iI i I . "Ii.. ,i 1 .--.1--- 1 .

„, IL : .i i. ,:....: , I I 1!!

-7.'..- II:

A ii.

....1 11

ig1 I - -. --p...... 1 li Hs I, -, , I1I ;Li irri.i ' . . ---- .... . • 111 ',7- - - ' '-'77-7---' ' II

I. ••:•:•:::

1 •

ini ll IL ,

L-6 . i ,:oli

I

• • •

'

ii:i ,„, q

1 i„ ill,

: • : • : ,1

,

!NI

is i

i :•:•:•

Ili ....- : O LA 1 SPER !Ilf 1 i

Ir.. !

Y. mila ill !ill."' ill Eli ill il".• il kliii El li a Mita. iiiiiitii iin a iiiiiii iiiiiii •'s. J- 11!1------Ill.(-i..--1'.---!'" ...: ... H. -i__ -- , jr- ,---..• . --, - H0--11.0 ..l...---..i------i (J) := • , -____: .(11= ,,,.....).... ....... i ' (6 ill i, -1 . (/), II 1--0..------,---oli ,..... . , ' .,--„d ni— 0: . , i ,..il 1,...... f ,-Ai. ‘i , L.J.11_411 .. „ Cr) 1 I • 4- .•-'1L --,-q 1. '_.] .. ...,,. .-ImiL........... ...,,,, ,.--. _C 1 '..

17,-\ \--1.,.--,,j ..III.,.........

• ..,—inill: 7.-:, .-W, '.:' -.... t•-• I ,,,,,, LI'l.)._)a...-----,..---:-... CO..11 ... l' ....... -•:.

(7, 47-1.', ,, I. .0 0.:,'1 : -11 O'r-INE(...)IMKL--)'"' i ' "1

*.- I ''''C.. • .- -ILL ____--111:_........i:2-7

•.•.•.•.•.•:: UP TO 2.0 F.A.R. (net) RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION 110

ff"

(WITH MINOR COMMERCIAL COMPONENT)

necessary influence to achieve a reasonable percentage of housing for those of low income requiring rent geared-to-income assistance, and people of moderate income.

With respect to household composition, the emphasis should be on family accommodation, particularly through units that are at or near ground level. There would also be accommodation for single people and housing for the elderly.

Urban Design and Amenity The thrust of site planning and urban design for the District should have two general aims: to form, by degrees, satisfactory residential environments; and to make a District which has its own distinctive character, but is well integrated with the surrounding City areas.

The streets should form the basic organizers of the District, with the life and form of the areas focussed on them. On one hand there would be great value in reconstituting the normal street grid in the District-102 and 103 Avenues, 110 Street and the lane system. On the other, the extension of the Avenues through to 111 Street may induce unacceptable traffic levels in the District and in the Oliver area to the west. The possible conflict will require careful resolution.

The 109 Street edge would constitute the primary area for the concentration of commercial space for retail and office purposes. The intention would be to build up the street as one of the primary streets in the Downtown grid.

There will be a need to provide a consolidated public open space in the District. Rather than fragmenting such space, there is the possibility of locating and designing it so that it will also serve the wider community. It may be possible, for example, to form a park on the 109 Street frontage to serve both the local and wider communities, and to provide a focus for 102 and 103 Avenues.

C.N.R. Yardsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Special Development District The future of the C.N.R. lands is the most unclear.

The District is also more difficult, in some respects, to deal with for planning because of the long term need to continue the main line service, and the difficulty of combining housing and railway use.

The District represents an outstanding opportunity

11_1:

J ',LLD= ILJIL---'1 I (11f=i, '-'

L II

ti=Eci t 1' ',(_ al

Li

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;,.,_.z 1,.___,

r-i_...0 ___

N

rif

tI

de t_10.

U

------, ---------

,1::6, I â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1

r-,. ri71 irq

_:1j lt

IL

I- 11 I

,

-1 rirz r Irn1 71k .

-L, 1

C.N.R. Yards

eventually to assist the achievement of housing objectives for Downtown. It offers the same possibility for developing an area with a high percentage of low and medium rise accomodation for families in close proximity to the Downtown core.

This can be combined with commercial components concentrated mainly in the southern and eastern parts of the District.

It is suggested that the same objectives be applied to this District as for the C.P.R. Yards Special Development District. The aim generally would be to ensure that the lands are redeveloped to create substantial medium density residential environment, for family and other households, that becomes part of the general City fabric.

Again, it is highly important that consideration of the District be focussed on this aim, and that land use controls and land values be directly related to the housing aims. The District at its eastern end is closer to the Financial core, implying a heavier emphasis on commercial development at the end.

Nevertheless, the emphasis throughout the whole area should be on mixtures of uses, housing types, developers and various housing environments. It is, therefore, important that general site planning, probably with the City as the main land assembler and co-ordinator, proceed before any redevelopment.

As with the C.P.R. Yards, the current industrial classification is inconsistent with these objectives.

Early action should be taken to reclassify the District with a medium density, primarily mixed-use classification, or with a holding designation until the District's future is better established.

Site planning will be needed to construct or reconstruct a street pattern in the area which to one degree or another extends the normal City street pattern through the district. There are also opportunities, again, for providing consolidated public open space areas that serve both the local population and the general Downtown area.

Particular opportunities occur at the places where 111

the primary streets-101, 105, and 109 Street—pass through the District.

the above categories need necessarily be available for development. These measures for land utilization are subjective and depend on several other factors, such as the location, demand for space, ownership, etc. (A recent example is the Tegler Building site which under the above mentioned criteria was considered as stable and well utilized. However, it is being considered for redevelopment.) Nevertheless, the assumptions do provide a reasonable basis for assessing the development capacity of the Downtown.

Perhaps the first question that arises with respect to housing in Downtown is that of the availability of land for residential development. The commercial office and government functions are well established and it is essential that there be room for their growth. This section provides summary of the analysis undertaken to determine the availability of land for all uses.

It is always difficult to assess whether a given piece of land is likely to be developed in the short or longer term. Therefore a number of assumptions must be made. The following have been used for the purposes of this exercise:

The analysis of the study area found that approximately 171 acres of land are available for development, including the CNR and CPR yards. If the Railway yards are excluded, there are approximately 27.8 acres of vacant land, 44.2 acres of land utilized to less than 1/3 of its capacity, and 34.1 acres of land utilized to less than 1/2 of its capacity. Thus a total of approximately 106 acres of available land has the potential of providing approximately 23.2 million square feet of floor area under presently existing land use classification guidelines. Apart from this, approximately 3.4 million square feet of office space has been approved recently but has not been constructed (which was not included in this calculation to determine land available for future development). Approximately 26.6 million square feet of potential space could, therefore, be developed in the Downtown. The office requirement projections for the next 15 years show a need for approximately 8.9 million square feet of commercial space*. A total of 1.3 million square

•All significant areas of vacant land not a part of a particular development would be available for future development.

•All under-utilized land will be available for development.

•Institutional and historical buildings will be excluded from the calculations.

Although it is difficult to assess which land is under-utilized, it was assumed for the purpose of calculations that the land which is developed at less than 1/3 its existing permitted zoning capacity is available for development in the short term, and that all land developed at less than 1/2 its permitted zoning capacity is available for development over a longer period of time.

This is not to suggest that all land which falls into

1!

moms

1 7.7

-11111111 1 H ill1116111111 111611111

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -• • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i• • • • • il•'•"-• • • • • • • • ••-• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .• •,•: • •• • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •-• •• eV. • • • • • • • • • • •-•-•• • •

••• • • • • •

•

• • • • • • • -•. • • • '16 • •• • .• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • r •

c ciIli ococ0000 ',I. 000 .--,, , ,, I -• ,• , Hal'...• Hi 1,.,', 1.........„.1{ H 6 ( ).

6, 0,•Ocn• (nti 111! :: , ,---.F:. 11 - 1;;F:'0..„, .eA --,;1 -..-ii ,Thil 0.

N I. ---t.i . koll.:.._....1,41, r,...H muo.),. _Inv..... m sol, -io..k 1, .,.--olr , , . . 'Mr' 1..10rd.AV .------..-._....., -.-: .-•, .......„........ lo •‘•.. o.1111 , ,. , , ...,•, •

00000.. .104,tt). -AVIED

Own . ,

.,iiiiimmimmilummulmmi ,,,.. . omia '.• 1' 1........s...., -1, ill . : _ ....

,

,

.

:.

,

:

.

,

Oa 1. L (no • ro II 2!

.:

_Out _

UP TO 2.0 F.A.R. (net) RESIDENTIAL (WITH COMMERCIAL COMPONENT) AREAS OF COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION 112

F 1L: HHU.r L-c.ol ci) c‘j 1 2!

1,

achieved through high quality development specifically designed to fit with parkland. Finally, the permanent presence of people in the area would serve to provide surveillance and personal care for the area.

feet of retail space is projected to 1991.

Theoretically, therefore, there are approximately 17.7 million square feet of floor space which could be available for other uses without infringing upon the demand for office and retail space. Furthermore, should the CNR and CPR lands be developed, this could provide approximately 75 acres of additional land.

The following analysis by sub-area reveals that the Core/Commercial Area and the Warehouse District provide the major development potential.

Objectives for the District To develop a riverside park close to Downtown.

2.

To develop a component of housing in the District that is sympathetic with and reinforces the parkland objective.

3.

To ensure that such housing be primarily ground-related and provide a substantial number of units (in close proximity to Downtown) for people with children.

4.

To consider the provision of certain areas for the accommodation of institutional and governmental uses.

Rossdale District The District is not strictly within the purview of this study, and in the Study's recommendations primary reliance is not placed on the area for the achievement of a residential Downtown. The following, therefore, represent suggestions only for Council's consideration.

• The aim of creating a magnificent waterfront park and recreation reserve along the river edge is certainly a valid one, and an objective that should be pursued. Yet, evidence in other places suggests that the inclusion of a residential area in the District is not contradictory to the parkland objective.

• The area is very large, and both residence and parkland can be incorporated, provided that the housing does not dominate the area or is not of too high a density. The existing services—streets and utilities—are in place and the public land ownership can ensure that public objectives be

Appropriate Land Use Control Measures The area where housing now exists is currently zoned for single family residence. Some of the existing houses could, in fact, be retained and infill development introduced. Such a development pattern may be achievable at a net density of about 1.0 times the land area. However, densities could be determined only through detailed District and site planning.

Area Capacity The existing housing area, if redeveloped, might accommodate up to eight hundred units of housing.

If this were extended westward to 103 Street on the two blocks fronting 97 Avenue, an additional three hundred and fifty units might be constructed. If the municipal service functions were eventually relocated and housing extended into the area, about eight hundred residential units might be added.

Housing Types The housing would be mainly in the form of stacked row housing with a high percentage of large units either at grade or with easy access to grade.

Housing Users

Rossdale

A wide variety of residents could be accommodated, but emphasis is placed on family accommodation.

There is an existing school in the area which is presently disused, but could again serve a local population.

113

City could determine the form, accommodation and user mix in the area, implementing the project through various private, public and non-profit agencies.

Urban Design and Amenity The development of the area obviously would have to be carried out according to District and site plans. One of the less satisfactory qualities of the area now is the lack of landscaping to strengthen and distinguish 103, 104 and 105 Streets and 97 Avenue, creating distinctive and protected precincts for recreation and residence. The formal aspects of 105 Street might be developed with the location of government and other institutional buildings along its axis.

Housing development could begin in the existing housing area and expand westward into adjoining lands.

Should the City reconsider the general objectives in this area to include a housing component, the City could appropriately become the co-ordinator of development. Through detailed site planning, the

A-POSSIBLE 'FUTURE RESIDENTIAL

EXISTING MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREA r

ACTIVE REGIONAL RECREATIONAL AREA APPROX. 1.0 F.S.I. RESIDENTIAL 114

6.5 Housing Implications

circumstances. It is possible, however, by reviewing the area by area capacity figures against the production requirements for the City to make some reasonable predictions as to the probable 10-15 year production level and thus to give a general annual target.

It is recommended that annual housing production be carefully monitored and appropriate adjustments made in land use and program policies to maintain the long term production levels required.

The land use proposals described for the various Districts imply a signficant redirection of housing policy in Edmonton. In addition to the proposed locational strategy, an overall change is implied in the type of housing being produced, in the amount of housing, and in the role of the various housing producers.

Estimated Housing Production Levels

Quantity of Housing

The tables indicate the residential capacity by District and the required production levels in the City. The likely total capacity of the Downtown, excluding CN and Rossdale, for immediate or short term development is 11,480 units, with the CN and Rossdale areas offering the possibility of an additional 5,000 units.

The proposed strategy should greatly stimulate residential production in the Downtown as a result of the joint actions of increasing potential housing development densities and limiting the degree of commercial competition. It is not intended to estimate specific annual production by area for each District, since such figures would be highly dependent on specific locational and economic

The projected total unit demand in Edmonton for the period 1981-1991 is 64,800 units, as estimated for the General Plan Review. The Downtown, therefore, has an apparent capacity for only two years' supply.

Clearly not all of Edmonton's residential development could take place in the Downtown, nor will the type of housing reflect the overall City and regional requirements. For purposes of calculation, it was predicted that no semi or single family housing

Projected Annual Unit Requirement: General Plan Review City of Edmonton Unit Type

Projected Housing Annual Demand 1981 - 1991 Demand

Single Family and Semi-Detached Houses

26,300

2,630

Row Housing and other Ground Oriented Multiples

19,000

1,900

Apartments

19,500

1,950

Total

64,800

6,480

Source: Short and long range population projections for the City of Edmonton and Sub-regions, 1976 - 2001, General Plan Review, Feb. 1979.

115

would be produced in the Downtown, but that 10-150/0 of all row and ground oriented multiple housing and 30-350/0 of apartment construction might take place in the Downtown. Such an estimate would produce a rate of residential development averaging 1000-1100 units per year. This estimate indicates that the capacity of the Downtown is somewhat limited and that one might anticipate substantially complete development within 15 years.

The number of units produced in any one year would, of course, depend on particular circumstances.

Type of Housing The proposed strategy will also have considerable impact on the type of housing produced. The District analyses have discussed in detail the physical form implied by each of the types of housing anticipated. Overall, in the Downtown, the majority of housing being produced will consist of smaller units, mostly one and two bedroom units.

Only two areas, the Railway lands and Rossdale, will have densities low enough to permit substantial development of low rise forms suitable for housing families with children. Some larger grade related

units may be built in other areas, however, either as a result of density stacking or in condominium tenure forms.

The ten year production figures suggest that about 20 percent of units developed might be housing in row or other ground-related forms. Such a figure would also coincide with the conclusions of the built form studies. Assuming that the 10 year production figures were met, (and that low rise units had an average occupancy of 2.5 persons per unit and high rise 1.7 persons per unit), a total population of 31,000 could be projected.

However, the land capacity of the Downtown, excluding the ON yards and Rossdale, would seem to be able to accommodate only 11,000 units, generating a population of some 19,000.

Mix of Housing Consideration must be given to the income levels of the households which the new housing produced under the plan will be accommodating and the degree to which policies should be designed to achieve any income mix objectives.

One of the basic premises of any major change in

Residential Capacity Of Downtown

District

Residential Acres

Residential Density (U PA)

Residential Capacity (Units)

4

150

600

Mixed Use District 1

9.5

150

1,400

Mixed Use District 2

5

150

750

Mixed Use District 3

4

150

600

Mixed Use District 4

30

150

4,500

Rossdale

13.5

60

800

R-6

15

150

2,250

CP Lands

23

60 (gross)

1,380

CN Lands

55

60 (gross)

3,300

Civic Centre Financial District

116

Total

15,580

Total excluding CN and Rossdale

11,480

land use such as is proposed for Downtown, should be that its benefits are available to as wide a cross section of the population as possible. It is important, therefore, that new housing in the Downtown be available for households of all income levels.

Recently, almost the only form of housing produced has been condominium, which is generally appropriate or demanded only by middle and upper income households.

Privately Developed Social Housing It is hard to estimate the specific numbers of social housing units that might be developed by both public and private producers in the manner described below. However, as a general target the City might adopt a target of approximately one half of all rental housing production being for households below the medium income. Since the majority of housing production in the Downtown might be expected to be rental, an annual average rate of some 300-400 units might be anticipated. Before such a figure could be adopted as a target however, more detailed examination of site capacities and the production capabilities of various sectors should be undertaken.

Rental housing by its very nature tends to appeal to a lower income group than ownership housing and over time, through a filtering process, becomes increasingly available for such groups. Thus, to a certain extent, any rental housing serves, and will serve, a social housing function. The need to make housing available to a broad range of households with differing income levels can be justified not only on the basis of equity. The strongest demand for housing in Downtown Edmonton is from small households. These are also the households, according to the latest analysis of rent-to-income ratios, which indicate the greatest need for housing assistance.* The various City and Provincial agencies must therefore take the necessary steps to ensure that housing is constructed for these target households, along with the general residential development. Such a balanced housing provision can be achieved in two main ways: through ensuring that privately produced market rental housing includes components of accommodation for low-to-moderate income households; and a direct

* Clayton Research Associates.

production or management of housing by social housing agencies.

The plan opens the opportunity for substantially more rental production. Generally, such production will, for cost reasons, take advantage of one or the other of the available government programs. Such programs usually require that developers satisfy a broader range of housing need than would otherwise be the case in exchange for receiving financing, Indeed, given present economic conditions, it is unlikely that much private rental housing will be produced that does not meet some social housing guidelines.

Consideration was given to various forms of incentive policies that might be utilized to ensure income mix in new housing production. Other municipalities have implemented a dual density zoning, by which housing that serves a lower income target is permitted a higher density, usually about 25 percent above the conventional density.

Although this technique has its advantages, in that it compensates social housing developers with the increased revenues of the additional density, it has in operation certain practical and administrative difficulties. Programs change so frequently that it is hard to know what constitutes a social housing program. Sites are often unable to easily accommodate the 25 percent increase in density.

Furthermore, most social housing is developed as a result of a design process that would not be affected by density increase's. Such a policy is not therefore considered appropriate in terms of the considerable implementation problems.

Another potential policy would be to design a density incentive to encourage rental instead of condominium housing. Again, the practical and legal difficulties in implementation do not seem worthwhile.

As long as adequate rental financing is available, the market will tend to make a reasonable allocation of development between rental and condominium forms.

In certain areas (such as the C.P.R. yards) there are better opportunities to achieve social housing objectives; programs with deeper subsidies and the more active role of Non-Profit Housing could assist in providing family housing and housing for lower income groups.

In conclusion, therefore, although ensuring an income mix in new Downtown housing is important, no specific policies for regulating private development to this end are considered necessary.

117

Direct Social Housing Production Direct social housing production by the City of Edmonton Non-Profit Housing Corporation and other social housing developers will be necessary to supplement the activities of the private sector.

While the specific role and production of the Housing Corporation in the downtown should be fully explored in the context of the general objectives and administrative capacity of the Corporation, there are three ways in which it could expand the stock of social housing.

First, the Corporation could undertake its own projects in the downtown area. At present, three direct development sites are being considered elsewhere in the City, all on City-owned land. A detailed examination of City-owned sites downtown should be undertaken to see if they are appropriate for non-profit projects. Utilizing City-owned sites reduces some of the development risk involved in high holding costs. However, the corporation should, at this stage, be somewhat careful in proceeding with downtown projects, given their scale and the fact that they would provide primarily non-family housing. The development expertise of the Corporation should however be built up through undertaking the projects now under consideration to put them in a position to be able to handle downtown schemes.

There are, however, two other ways in which the Corporation can initiate social housing development that might involve less risk and less direct commitment of resources. Sites owned or controlled by the City could be offered for private development, either entirely or partially as social housing. The Corporation would, in such situations, co-ordinate the proposal call and manage or contract the management of the housing so developed. Similarly, the Corporation could facilitate the development of privately owned sites through the proposal call process. By offering the availability of social housing financing to land owners and developers, the Corporation could stimulate the development of sites that may have been delayed by lack of suitable financing. It is anticipated that the land use proposals, if adopted, could themselves produce such sites, as land owners realize that their commercial expectations are not going to be fulfilled. The Non-Profit Corporation should place itself in a position, through the preparation of appropriate specifications and criteria, to take advantage of certain developers seeking an immediate residential development option.

118

6.6 Implications for Land Use Control One of the critical requirements for achieving housing is to have a land use control system that encourages the development of housing.

It has been noted that, in many respects, the present system not only fails to encourage housing, it discourages it. Unless considerable changes are made, there is little chance of achieving a satisfactory residential component in the Downtown environment. The following discussion, therefore, aims to set out parameters for a control system that is designed to promote housing.

Edmonton, along with all Alberta Municipalities, is required under the Planning Act, 1977 to replace all zoning and direct control bylaws with a new Land Use Bylaw by March 31, 1980. It is understood that a draft bylaw for the Downtown will be produced in the summer of this year.

In the course of preparation of the Land Use Bylaw, the Planning Department has produced an analysis of the intentions and approaches of various land use control systems. The report notes that the general aim in the design of an appropriate land use control system should be to strike a judicious balance between assurance of development rights and the ability to kercise discretion on a site-by-site basis in order to ensure that each development fits its local context.

The application of specific legal instruments under the new Planning Act is a complex matter of interpretation that is beyond the scope of this study.

However, the need to form a new Land Use Bylaw offers the opportunity to design a system that is clear, consistent and tailored to the specific needs of Edmonton. The purpose here is to make recommendations about the general approaches that should be taken to land use control in order to provide a satisfactory system and to promote housing in Downtown. * A New Land Use Bylaw for Edmonton, A Discussion Paper, Land Use Planning Branch, 1978.

The Discussion Paper referred to above outlines a number of characteristics or attributes that any satisfactory land use control system should possess: practicality, certainty, feasibility, equity, environmental quality and justification. It is informative to examine each of these in light of current conditions in Downtown and of the objective of expanding the residential role of the area.

Practicality The Discussion Paper points out that substantial changes should not be made to the development control structure without the benefit of a planning study. This is certainly true. Yet, as this study asserts, the time seems to be at hand for Edmonton to make basic choices. The benefits of having a Downtown tht is both for work and for residence are numerous. Edmonton is apparently entering a period of growth, perhaps unprecedented, when it can achieve such a centre. But to have any real hope of such achievement, the development control structure must be altered , because the current use and density permissions are a powerful discouragement to housing.

In most areas, the essential problem is that current classifications put housing in direct competition with commercial development. One can build to a density of either 3 or 6-10 times the area of the site, depending on the location, with either residential or commercial development. Since commercial development is more profitable, that is what a developer will build. If the market is not present now, he will wait, so that large areas of land will continue to be vacant or under-utilized into the long term future.

To obtain high levels of housing production, the use and density permissions in many areas must be restructured. Residential development must be made either the primary use in terms of density permissions, or a highly attractive use for combination with commercial development. This will require reduction of commercial density permissions in areas outside of the Financial District, in order to remove the present powerful disincentive to housing development.

A second aspect of practicality mentioned is the need to be able to enforce and monitor control measures. In many respects, development requirements seem to vary widely from site to site in the review process. Much discussion, delay and labour can be avoided if clear guidelines and

requirements are established to apply to all developments in an area. It is a recommendation of this study that such development standards be made explicit.

The Discussion Paper also notes that too much control can have an adverse effect on development.

This valid notion relates particularly to the pi rocess of approval and the uncertainties of municipal discretion. All of the essential aspects of developmentâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the permissions and requirements that a developer must know such as use, density, and form requirementsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;can be set out as standards or guidelines. It is most important this this be done to assist the achievement of housing objectives. There seem to be ample powers available under the new Planning Act for the municipality to exercise whatever local discretion is required with respect to the form of development.

However, discretionary review power should be carefully limited. Use and density permissions should be granted as-of-right, without recourse to complex methods of density incentive, except in cases where no other powers are available and where clear public objectives are being met. Building form requirements should be set as required standards wherever possible. This study suggests that the only matter for which incentives be used is that of the preservation and incorporation in development of older structures of merit.

Such an approach would provide a direct and expeditious development control system and an encouragement to housing as well as other development. Permissions and requirements could be concise, unambiguous and plainly understood.

Certainty The Discussion Paper points out that land use controls should provide protection from unexpected change, and should also enable developers to know what they can build, gaining approval in a reasonable length of time. This is important and has been dealt with earlier.

There is, however, another aspect of uncertainty, one which is very seriously prejudicing the City' prospects of obtaining housing. It is the fact that developments are being examined on an individual basis, and being awarded increased density permissions without the benefit of a consistent body of policies and objectives that would inform the consideration. This is occurring in all areas, through the excercise of the Development Officer's powers,

119

through spot reclassifications and through decisions of the Development Appeal Board.

The first problem with this situation is that it is generally not clear that public objectives are achieved. It may produce individual benefits but not, in itself, wider public benefits. In fact, as has been noted, when the increased densities are for competing commercial space, housing becomes more unlikely and unfeasible. If housing is to be a primary objective, then it needs to be made clear, and consistent control norms must be adopted.

The second serious problem with the random relaxations of controls is that, paradoxically, it can act in the general sense as a disincentive to developmentâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;particularly of housing. When a development is permitted increased coverage, it raises expectations on surrounding lands. This causes increases in land costs in those areas, which can have a number of effects. Rising land costs can reach the point where housing is not feasible in any manner. Rather than develop housing or mixed developments at generally permitted densities, developers will prefer to hang onto land in the expectation of future upzonings, or they will sell, rather than develop, promoting a round of speculation and enormous escalation of land costs.

Such a situation is clearly in evidence in the present Warehouse area, where the preponderance of land is, and will remain for some time, vacant. Spot reclassification and density increases through appeal have clearly raised the expectation of future permissions for increases to very high commercial densities. Land cost, escalation is very rapid, indicating that expectations are rising above reality and are certainly becoming inconsistent with a substantially residental future in the area.

If housing is to be achieved, consistent policies and controls must be applied and adhered to in all areas. The established mix of uses and densities in any place should not be relaxed without the benefit of thorough planning studies that indicate the effects such relaxations would have on City policies and objectives,

Flexibility The Discussion Paper wisely notes that a degree of flexibility is needed in development control systems so that they can accommodate innovation and initiatives by developers, and so that the form of development is not unnecessarily rigid.

120

This can be achieved in two ways. The first is to ensure that no unnecessary bylaw constraints are placed on any site. Standards should be designed to control only the critical factors where public objectives are clearly involved.

The second method is the use of discretionary review powers. These can be used to adjust and fit a development to the particular characteristics of its site and context.

Discretion is, of course, now used widely in the Downtown, particularly in areas with a 0-4 classification. Discussions with developers and other people related to the development industry suggest that there is considerable support for the idea of discretionary review, in that it is believed to be a method for obtaining improved development.

However, while the idea of tailoring a development to its local context through discretionary review is important, the present system has two major drawbacks. First, discretion is not exercised in accordance with any discernible set of guidelines.

Examination of various case studies* shows that amenities or changes obtained in developments vary widely from one to the other. The bonuses granted for them do not seem to have any consistency.

Apart from the basically inequitable nature of this system, it is difficult to discern that it is adding up to a substantially improved Downtown, since there are no guiding and co-ordinating principles, but rather an ad hoc bargaining procedure.

Further, linking the use of discretion to density bonus incentives seems to be unnecessary and results in a high degree of uncertainty, the effects of which were discussed above. The situation that has arisen is that when one developer is granted a bonus on an ad hoc basis for particular development characteristics, other developers will reasonably expect the same. Resultant densities in areas have inevitably moved upward, so that now, for example, in the 0-4 districts the normal density is around 9.5 times the site area. Such a pattern is very prejudicial to the achievement of housing and residential environments, if those are to be important public objectives.

There appears to be quite adequate power under both the old and the new Planning Acts for the City to achieve its objectives on matters of building form and amenity without resort to bonusing, through the production of more explicit standards and guidelines * Development Review Case Studies, Technical Appendix, Chapter 8.

for review. Such an approach, it is suggested, would be a great improvement. Use, density and form requirements should be set out as far as possible as standards, and discretion exercised according to guidelines without recourse to bonus incentives.

Equity The Discussion Paper makes the critical observation that "the process should apply equally to all. The role, authority, and discretion of officials must be well defined and conducted in an open system".

The vagaries of the present system suggest that change is required to meet this aim. No really clear or consistent pattern can be observed in the manner in which density bonuses are given through reclassification, appeal or discretionary review.

One great virtue of firm use and density prescriptions is that they would be fundamentally equitable to any land owner within their area of operation. When any relaxation is permitted, it should be demonstrated that such action fulfills Council's policies and objectives, so that the public and developers can expect fair and equitable treatment.

Outline for an Effective Land Use Control System The discussion above suggests the parameters for a reformed land use control system in Downtown, one that would remove the present severe disincentives to housing and make possible the achievement of housing objectives.

The following is an outline for an effective land use control system. It is set out under three topicsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;POLICY, PRESCRIPTION, and REVIEW. 1. Policy The purpose of having policies is to make clear the general and local intentions of Council with respect to development.

Policy prescription would fall into three kinds: (a)

General policies should be set out in the General Plan and in the Downtown Plan.

With respect to housing, these would describe the role and importance of housing in the Downtown, and the ways in which the City intends to achieve them. The principles for such policies are suggested in the following Section 7 of this report.

(b)

District policies should be set out in the Downtown Plan. With respect to housing, these would describe the relative importance of housing in the District and the intended form and users of the housing.

(c)

Design guidelines for the Downtown and for each District of the Downtown should be set out in the Downtown Plan. These will inform people of the essential design characteristics that the City wishes to achieve in the streets, places and buildings in each area. It will assist developers in establishing the outlines of their developments and inform them about what the City wishes to achieve.

Environmental Quality The Discussion Paper notes that the Land Use Bylaw should deal comprehensively with urban design standards.

Again, it should be noted that the achievement of housing will require the development of attractive residential environments. At the building scale, this means ensuring satisfactory standards of light, view and privacy for apartment dwellers. At the area scale, it means the development of attractive streets that are well defined by the buildings, are not excessively windy, are reasonably sunny and offer places to sit, with trees and normal local amenities.

Much of this can be achieved through carefully designed standards, and the remainder through design review conducted in accordance with area policies and guidelines.

Justification The Paper notes the need to show the City's ambitions and intentions for making its bylaw requirements. This is certainly lacking today. It can best be achieved by setting out general policies in the General and Downtown Plans and local District policies, well illustrated in the Downtown Plan.

Such guidelines can be designed satisfactorily only on the basis of an Urban Design Plan for the Downtown that describes the essential characteristics of each precinct and street.

The Downtown Plan should also contain a map and list all of those buildings that Council wishes to see preserved and incorporated into redevelopment.

1 21

2. Prescription A range of matters is appropriately prescribed as clearly established standards, rather than as matters subject to discretionary review. (a) Basic Use and Density: As described, the basic permissions must be changed if housing objectives are to be met.

The need is particularly strong in areas surrounding the Financial District. A series of use and density prescriptions is outlined in the following sub-section.

Most importantly, the basic land use and density prescriptions should be set as firm limits. They should not be relaxed for any reason without the benefit of thorough planning studies that place any application for relaxation in the context of general and local city policies and objectives. To do otherwise, in continuance of the present pattern, will severely damage the City's chances of obtaining satisfactory quantities of housing. (b) Building Preservation: It has been noted that the aim of preserving buildings of special character and incorporating them in redevelopment is best achieved through incentives.

Incentives for the preservation of buildings should not be given on an ad hoc basis but according to a general and equitable formula. They should also be granted only for structures designated by the City in its Downtown Plan.

The formula suggested herein is that the density of an existing designated structure not be included in permissible density calculations for a site, up to a maximum of 25% of the normally permitted commercial floor space. (c) Parking Standards: The need for review of parking standards with a view to their reduction has been stressed. It is suggested that the parking standards be reduced for Downtown after a careful analysis of parking requirements. Any reduction in parking requirements will economically assist the development of housing Downtown.

Such parking standards should be required by prescription, as they are at present, and firm rules established for cases in which the standards might be vaned.

There seems to be considerable variation in the reasons and extent of the variations granted, resulting in a situation which can lead to inequitable treatment.

1 22

(d) Open Space Provision: It has been suggested that a substantial component of open space amenity can be obtained by combining landscape areas at the street fronts of new development with the landscaping of the street.

The matter needs to be treated carefully since blanket setback or open space requirements can result in windy and inhospitable plazas or in minimally useful edge strips.

Again, guidelines are required to combine urban design proposals for streets and buildings. The form of open space at the street front of a development must be tailored to the particular context of the site.

It is therefore suggested that public open space requirements be applied as general standards for each District but that the space be designed and possibly varied through the discretionary review of each project. (e) Building Amenity: This report suggests the development of residential structures in Downtown at high densities, either as single use buildings or as part of mixed use development.

Preliminary studies indicate that satisfactory standards of light, view and privacy can be provided to all of the dwelling units at the suggested densities (see Section 6.7). However, standards for these kind of amenities need to be developed and expressed.

Standards for light, view and privacy should be prescribed as general performance requirements.

Their particular application should be reviewed through the discretionary powers on a site-by-site basis, taking into account the particular context of each development. (f) Building Form and Pedestrian Amenity: From the point of view of the Downtown's attractiveness to housing, the most important area is the street. To some extent, the quality of the street is established by landscaping. But it is also established by the form and use of abutting buildings, particularly at ground level. Policies and guidelines should be established for all Districts to govern this aspect of development. Some matters, such as building lines, percentages of retail and other services at ground level, and heights at building fronts should be prescribed, with local performance reviewed on a site-by-site basis through the development review process.

3. Development Review There is a need to design and institute a new development review procedure, one that is simple, well defined, expeditious and equitable. The following principles are suggested. (a)

The range of topics covered in the Development Review Process should be clearly defined and limited. The matters included such as the form of a development at ground level, the disposition of open space, entrances, colonnades and pedestrian passagesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;should be enumerated in the Downtown Plan.

(b)

The review should be conducted according to established and illustrated guidelines and aimed at achieving the objectives of the guidelines.

(c)

The review process should in no way be linked to, or be the subject of density bonus incentives. Appropriate urban design standards should be achieved as a matter of legitimate public objectives and requirements through the use of the municipality's ample powers.

(d)

(e)

(f)

Provision should be made to ensure that matters of design that are the subject of review are discussed with developers and their architects at the earliest stage of design. This will improve the understanding of aims and prevent unnecessary time delays for developers.

The review process should be limited in duration. Any developer should be assured that the process will not be unduly protracted.

The City should ensure that, in reviewing development proposals, it has the benefit of professional urban design advice. Urban design is a skilled discipline that is becoming increasingly available. It is important that such skill be brought to bear if appropriate quality is to be achieved in the Downtown environments.

Appropriate Instruments for Development Control It is not within the scope of this study to recommend the specific instruments that should be

used. Interpretation of the new Planning Act is a complex matter that is appropriately the concern of skilled City staff. This section has provided general parameters for an effective control system for Downtown and for housing production. Work is being conducted by City staff to identify and use the most appropriate instruments. However, certain conclusions may be drawn.

In general, it appears that the new Act allows the Municipality the choice of establishing land use districts that are similar to the zoning districts under the old Act, or of instituting Direct Control Districts.

In Zoned Districts it seems that uses can be permitted in which case they would be granted as-of-right. However, the Bylaw may authorize a Development Officer to decide upon variances, provided that such variances do not interfere with the amenities of the area or the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring properties. Alternatively, Council may establish zoning districts in which uses are conditional on the achievement of objectives and guidelines provided for the District as part of a statutory plan.

In Direct Control Districts, no uses are specified and Council can apparently regulate the use of land as it sees fit.

From the investigation conducted to this point, it appears that the Direct Control District method should be avoided and that the Downtown should be instituted as a series of zoned districts under the new Land Use Bylaw. This appears to be the most appropriate method of providing the required assurance, equity, certainty and effectiveness required, as noted in the preceding discussion.

However, study is certainly required to determine the most effective method of achieving the limited degree of discretion suggested in this outline.

Short Term Actions This housing study and its recommendations form only part of the construction of the Downtown Plan and the introduction of a new Land Use Bylaw.

Yet, the study has described a critical situation, one in which the present development control system is, in many ways, working in direct opposition to the achievement of housing. Housing development is being discouraged by present classifications and by the ad hoc systems of density permission increases.

There is the prospect that these conditions will so

1 23

increase expectations and land costs that housing will quickly become very difficult or impossible to achieve in many areas.

6.7

In consequence, there arises a need for speedy action, and the problem of what action to take until final recommendations are forthcoming from City staff.

Environmental Implications

There seem to be two kinds of possible short term action.

The first would be to impose some kind of holding action through a bylaw over critical parts of Downtown. This would certainly indicate Council's seriousness in its pursuit of a diverse Downtown environment. It would dampen land cost escalation and provide a breathing space for the introduction of more appropriate controls. Nevertheless, such holding mechanisms can be unnecessarily restrictive and can involve severe administrative and legal difficulties.

A preferable method may be to introduce the suggested designations in critical areas as reclassifications, at the earliest possible time, as interim measures. They could then be refined through the Downtown Plan and Land Use Bylaw studies being undertaken by the City.

If this method is legally feasible, it would have several advantages. It would clearly announce City's intentions to achieve housing in the Downtown. It would work to restrain expectations and land prices.

It would not unduly disrupt the Downtown land economy, permitting desirable development to proceed.

It is therefore suggested that consideration be given to instituting the use and density permissions recommended in this report as soon as possible by reclassification in the defined mixed use Districts 1, 2, 3 and 4; McKay Avenue, and in the two special Development Districts (the CPR and CNR Yards).

Streets The street network of Edmonton is the primary public space of the City and constitutes the most powerful element in making the City both understandable and useful. Streets have a number of cognitive and functional potentials beyond the ordinary requirements of moving vehicles, including: Place Streets may be places in their own right and many cities have streets which are recognized as among the most important scenic and ceremonial places.

These would include examples such as Madison Avenue in New York, Yonge Street in Toronto, Via Veneto in Rome, etc. In Edmonton, Jasper Avenue is an example of a public place that is of great and increasing significance.

Vista Streets often provide powerful views of important buildings, places and points of orientation. Such

It is also suggested that, if and when such reclassifications are introduced, they be regarded as firm limits.

Finally, it is suggested that these classifications be reviewed and, if necessary, refined through the current Downtown Plan studies and eventually incorporated as Zoned Districts in the new Land Use Bylaw.

108 Street vista of Legislative Building 1 24

vistas can give a "sense of place" to a city. Many cities with grid plans such as Edmonton have situated major buildings as terminations of major street axes. An example of an important visual corridor in Edmonton is the southern end of 108 Street.

Special District Some streets, by virtue of building forms or intense land use, take on a very particular quality within a city. Park Avenue in New York or Commonwealth Avenue in Boston are major prestigious addresses.

Jasper Avenue is becomming the main spine of Edmonton's special Financial/Commercial District.

Careful street landscaping can add to the coherence of such a district.

Jasper Avenueâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a special district

Open Space Because of the relative lack of formally designated parks, Downtown Edmonton's streets must take on a responsibility for pedestrian amenity, much as have other great cities.

â&#x20AC;˘

street Boundary/Centre

K).

Streets can also act as boundaries or centres of large geographic areas, demarcating areas in a way such that a person may recognize arrival in a district by its major street or edges.

Streets come to exist in their present form because of some historical phenomenon related to where they are or what they connect. Streets have a symbiotic relationship to buildings. A district of buildings of a given use, density and form affects the nature of its streets, both in terms of intensity and speed and type of traffic on the streets.

Main Street as District Boundary

_

It is also apparent that the nature of a street has an important effect on what buildings would want to locate on a particular street and how they will locate.

Generally, primary central city streets are places which are attractive to commercial buildings since they afford visual exposure which is a kind of advertising for business. Streets adjacent to railway lands or highways are generally attractive to industrial and warehouse uses since they provide excellent accessibility and have more economical land to purchase or lease. Secondary and tertiary streets are locations in which residential uses tend to congregate. Those locations afford a more tranquil environment than either of the first two street types, and land there costs less than land on

104 3. ' 2.

I.

1015

_1

3.

3. ..,_

I.

2.

-) JAPER i '

I

101 '.

Street Hierarchy

125

services which operate throughout the day and evening, then many of the requisite conditions for a housing environment will have been satisfied. Streets must be viewed not as simply expedient paths for vehicular movement, but also as the primary public realm; the shared space of the city. This is especially true in the Downtown since this is the only section of the City shared by all citizens.

0 I

I

104,

111 11111 1111 11111111 1111

11111111

1111M

1111 HU

,12kSP 61!___•••••

mown

11111111111111111111111

111111111 111 1111 11111111

'"'It''''' 1111 1111 1111 11111

It is not within the scope of this study to propose specific solutions to the landscaping or building requirements for Downtown. We would however, suggest criteria and considerations which may be observed in the various housing districts proposed.

7-40. misnwo

Imre • -

*** "y100:00-1-*

1- •

E

z • .

•

-

-17

)

The City should undertake a number of general street improvements to assure that Downtown streets be upgraded to a standard suitable for a city centre. The essential components of this work should include: 1.

Fix, for the long term, the pavement widths of Downtown streets.

2.

Assure a minimum sidewalk dimension on primary streets of 14 feet and about 10 feet on secondary streets.

0.

Investigate the possible use of special pavers in selected districts to add textural and visual amenity.

Institute, by phases, a major tree planting program with large trees at close intervals.

4

HIERARCHY KEY soli PRIMARY mu SECONDARY TERTIARY — LANES

Street Hierarchy

the primary streets. Other land use categories such as institutional ones are inclined toward the symbolic effect afforded by primary street locations, but in places which may be of service to appropriate constituencies, such as schools associated with neighbourhoods or the concert hall in a city centre.

Edmonton is most fortunate to have avoided constructing major expressway systems or extensive one way street networks within Downtown which concentrate traffic and physically divide the City.

4.

5.

Review street lighting type, heights and spacing to assure pedestrian amenity.

6.

Investigate a suitable signage and crosswalk system for pedestrians and traffic.

7.

Reconsider the viability of non-grade pedestrian systems, i.e. +15 feet and -15 feet, in light of their poor performance in other cities and their dilatory effects on the real street. It appears unwise to give density bonuses to encourage the extension of such a system, which in most cases benefits developments.

8.

Consider continuous setback requirements for particular streets and blocks as sidewalk widening. These zones may, in turn, be considered for use by permit for cafes, sitting areas, etc.

9.

Very cautiously review any proposal to further implement one-way street proposals since they facilitate higher speed traffic and normally damage retail vitality.

Downtown Edmonton's street system consists of a hierarchy of streets which support various types of development. The diagram expresses a hierarchy of streets.

Streets as the Primary Public Realm In the context of substantial increases in the housing population in Downtown, what amendments to the street system seem appropriate? This is a question which is difficult to answer only in respect to housing. It goes to the root of the question of what kind of Downtown Edmonton is to have. If Edmonton is to become a cosmopolitan city for pedestrians with parks and promenades, with institutions and 126

10.

Investigate the wide scale applicability of street benches and bus shelters.

3.

Environmental Modification To provide, in important locations, wind and weather protection.

Demonstration Street Sections

4.

The following sections of streets are considered in order to discuss ways in which a street might be amended to improve the environmental quality of Downtown. The examples chosen are solely for the purpose of illustration and are certainly not exhaustive.

Building Micro-Climate To moderate building construction to assure adequate sunlight and air, and to minimize unsatisfactory wind conditions.

The following examples demonstrate design policies which would help to assure the above principles in an intensified housing environment.

A general principle observed in each of the following street sections- is the principle of square street sections. That is, to assure adequate light and air, the maximum permitted continuous height of buildings does not exceed the dimension of the street corridor from building face to building face.

Small-floor-area towers (less than 25°/o coverage) may be permitted to exceed this height, since they leave open substantial views, sunlight and air.

Section: Jasper Avenue Between 109 Street and 101 Street Discussion: Jasper Avenue is on the verge of major development and, by virtue of its centrality Downtown, should be regarded as "Main Street" Edmonton. All indications are that this will become the most intensely built commercial street in the City.

140'

WIDTH min.2d

min.20"->

MEN

AwzzAfZ#Kl 'A Fig. 4 Typical Street Section

In principle, all Downtown streets within the study area should be studied and dimensions established that will accommodate the normal range of building architecture. The object of the excercise is to give the City a coherent urban image of high material quality and to ameliorate some difficult environmental conditions. Among primary criteria would be: 1.

Promenade To give the street a continuous frontage at grade to assure viable retail shopping.

2.

Pedestrian Amenity Provide generous sidewalk dimensions with the full repertoire of services including benches, shade, special paving, and bus shelters.

•

• L 15

4d

zzze/ 14

72

—4 14

15 41

Fig. 5 Demonstration Section through Jasper Avenue

A unique opportunity exists to give the street a coherent image and amenity seldom achieved in existing cities. It is proposed that the street become a double sided colonnade for the entire section between 101 and 109 Streets. This will entail setting the building wall back 15 to 20 feet at grade for the full height of the extra height first storey. Large caliper trees should also be placed near the curb on an even spacing. Street lights should be more frequent, closer to the ground and produce a natural colour. The retention of at least 14 foot sidewalks will provide a dimension which will permit kiosks and benches on the street. The colonnade itself may be investigated to determine if a winter environment modification might be achieved utilizing glass doors (or wind-screens).

127

Fig. 6 An example of weather protected colonnade on Jasper Avenue

Section: 105 Street Between Jasper and 104 Avenue Discussion: 105 Street could become one of a new category of main pedestrin streets in Edmontonâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a park street. The design might require that new buildings set back approximately 12 feet (a dimension to be fixed by study) from the property line, creating extra sidewalk width. At the property line a second line of trees will be planted, staggered with the curb row of trees. By permit, property owners may utilize the setback area for cafes or outdoor selling, or may add a retail shop or restaurant as an appendage to their main structure.

The space, if not utilized, will consist of stone or concrete pavers. Existing structures built to the property line will, of course, continue in that form until replacement.

412-15*I0

410 3112-151câ&#x20AC;&#x201D;

12-- 15

Fig. 8 View of 105 Street with provision of extra sidewalk width

Section: 104 Avenue (101 Street to 109 Street) 109 Street (97 Avenue to 104 Avenue) Discussion: 104 Avenue and 109 Street constitute the boundary of the Downtown and are streets with heavy traffic. This puts special importance on those streets in terms of acting as a first impression of the Downtown to visitors and marking the intensively developed pedestrian zone of the City. They are envisioned as Boulevard Park Streets which both contend with the traffic and provide suitable promenade-type pedestrian amenity. 109 Street is already a 100 feet wide right-of-way; 104 Avenue should be widened into the railway lands to achieve the same dimension. The median strip could be double tree-lined and could provide short storage lanes for left turns alternatively. It is important that each of the two sections of these streets be

dsoz

Fig. 7 Section through 105 Street

1 28

10

15

14

30

4e 20 4-

30

k-

Fig. 9 Demonstration section through 104 Avenue

\\11111;11LliddijIliiLiTUMIHLHi â&#x20AC;˘

example No. 2, the geometry around the building is simplified by producing space which is connected only to the real public realm, the street.

However, in this example, the raised plaza implies that it is the property of the building and by setting back the building, its ground floor retail is discontinuous with the commercial or adjacent lots.

This discontinuity of retail erodes what otherwise could be a pleasant retail promenade street.

Schemes such as these have produced a number of associated problems including:

47.

Wind Problems: Significant wind problems have been most often associated with building height and configurational disparity between adjacent parcels. Since developers are often bonussed to produce such plazas,

Fig. 10 Demonstration plan of 104 Avenue

conceived with a specific character of its own, and identified as destinations, rather than simply as through-ways. Consequently, they should have signalized intersections which would, of course, be heavily biased toward through traffic during peak hours.

Open Space

STREET

Downtowns posses two kinds of legitimate, public open space. These are: 1.

Formally designated parks.

2.

The network of streets.

During the last 20 years in many cities, in an attempt to generate publicly useful open space at no public cost, various incentives and requirements have been placed on private development. These have had the effect of producing irregularly dimensioned fragments of space which are not essentially public and erode the space of the street.

Fig.II shows two examples which characterize this tendency.

Both of these examples produce space which is of dubious value as public space. In example Number I, the building fragments the site and produces a problem of territoriality. The side and back portions of the site are dominated by the building. Only the fore-court is useful only as access to the building. In

Fig. 11 Examples of conventional open space with questionable public merit.

129

the height disparity is further aggravated.

2.

Security: The lack of clear territorial distinction between public and private space has, in studies such as Oscar Newman's 'Defensible Space', been identified as a primary reason for higher crime rate. Inactive semi-public places have the highest incidence of outdoor crime.

The criteria for any designated public open space on private land should include: 1. Clear continuity with the public street form.

2. Visible connection to the public network.

3. Congruency with ordinary public movement.

4. No changes in elevation, thresholds or gates.

With the exception of some carefully located through site pedestrian routes, private open space contributions in exchange for density should be avoided. Any such improvements should originate in public intentions as comprehensive pedestrian system improvements, achieved as normal public requirements.

Open Space Suggestions It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fix open space standards on ratio bases, such as 'X' sq. ft./person. When considering open space for a populated Downtown Edmonton, two things should be borne in mind. First, living Downtown one expects a tradeoff between the accessibility to, and great advantage of, a wide array of services in exchange for reduced personal land. That is the understood quid pro quo. Second, the nature of streets and parks in Downtown is such that they have possibilities for promenading and general amenity far exceeding less dense areas.

The open space network drawing map shows a rationalized open space system for Downtown with parks within 3.5 minutes (1000 feet) of all dwellings.

Since the Railway lands constitute the perimeter of the Downtown and may be publicly or quasi-publicly held, some component of that space should be set aside for parks. These should be associated with the major street entry points to Downtown to indicate to visitors and remind drivers of arriving at the centre. The structurally most significant streets should be set aside as Boulevard Parks capable of accommodating both substantial traffic and 130

pedestrian promenading, much in the way that Paris boulevards work. The second rank of streets within the hierarchy can be substantially landscaped Promenade Streets. Jasper Avenue has, as argued in the street section, the possibility of becoming an extraordinary colonnaded street of pronounced civic value. These streets coupled with ordinary landscaping on secondary streets, would provide an urban housing environment. Public parks would provide a special natural amenity as a complement to the civilized street plan.

Smaller improvements can be added, including small but systematic set-backs on certain streets, vest pocket parks and systems of awnings and canopies. These should be viewed as special amenities rather than items on which one primarily depends.

It is most urgent that the City undertake a major open space/street improvement study in association with its Downtown Plan to develop precise and coherent policies on these matters.

Areas and Buildings of Special Identity It is important that cities retain evidence of their origins and their past. This is revealed in the form of the City, in its streets and in the mixture of buildings from various periods that it contains in its various precincts. The retention of such buildings is very important to enrich the environment.

There are buildings that could be regarded as having particular significance, such as the Alberta Hotel, the the McKay Avenue School, the Arlington Apartments and the Tegler Building. Every effort should be made to preserve such structures as functioning elements of the City.

But, beyond this limited range of structures, there are many which, although of no particular outstanding architectural quality, should be conserved as evidence of the City's past. Their preservation lends character and identity to their area and a sense that the City is a stable, but changing place, rather than one of totally recent origin. This is a factor that distinguishes Downtown from outlying areas.

In addition, such buildings are often eminently re-usable, being essentially sound in their construction. When renovated, their simple, clean and elegant qualities emerge. The "Warehouse" area has many such structures, some of which have

_L LL

I

..•. .

,

IFT

, - • -7.';,.;...",rr

I

.

-

-

• 41P' • • ILICCY •• •• • o, • /CO' • 401,44orri(Y . (7f• • i0A1(”cy cpCitr009011.4 li/CF 1 110'C:it(/' 1 11

obz)

Ctt, oclf,

•

C ("T. C3V cy _et cdpc,

• -

(1 •

croelciolc,

33 •.(.

01,0t,o

5

;

7, Co

„,

:;

Er

orolio; sib

•

EY BOULEVARD PARK STREET NOR r

5 /fIg

PROMONADE STREET PARK OBSERVATION POINT COLONNADE

RECREATION

OPEN SPACE NETWORK 0

500

1000

2000

R.L.W1LKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants

3000

COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES kJ. VERMEULEN

32 131

structure's floor space represented 1 1/2 times the area of the site, and if the permitted commercial density in the area were 2.0 the site area, the permitted commercial density would rise to 2.5 F.S.I. This would apply right across the Downtown.

Heritage lostâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Strand Theatre

However, even with such an incentive, buildings will not be preserved if the permitted densities are set at levels which make it unfeasible for developers to retain and incorporate them. It is, therefore, important to design and use density designations which do not severely threaten or make impossible the retention of existing structures. This is particularly important in Edmonton in the present CM District. It has been an important fomative issue in the design of the suggested use and density mixes.

already been renovated for office, restaurant and retail uses. The Boardwalk and Revillon Buildings are outstanding examples, lending historic character to their local area.

Institutional Facilities

The preservation of older structures is a difficult proposition in older societies based on private land ownership. Buildings can, in some jurisdictions, be designated by governments as ones which, because of their particular quality, must be preserved. But this can place heavy burdens on the owners and their financial activities. Alternatively, such structures can be purchased by government, though this is normally viewed as an unacceptably expensive method.

The City should undertake to determine the excess institutional capacitis in the centre of Edmonton and the added facilities which might be required by the repopulation of Downtown. Since the Railway Lands and Rossdale are the areas with the greatest potential for family housing, and since they are the districts with the least prospect of early action, the situation is not urgent. As argued in the Case for Housing, the Downtown possesses or will possess a wealth of adult facilities unsurpassed in other parts of the City.

The most promising method, one which has been shown to work in other cities, is to offer incentives for the preservation of older structures. Under such an approach, developers with designated structures on their land would be permitted to build at somewhat higher densities on their land if they preserve and incorporate the existing structure in redevelopment.

The first step in such a process is to designate structures that are eligible for preservation bonusses. This is something that should be undertaken by the City. The list should be an expansive one that includes any building that is a substantial vestige of a past period and which, if incorporated in new development, will help to constitute an area of identity.

As an appropriate incentive formula, it is suggested that the City consider excluding the floor space of existing structures in the calculation of permitted densities, up to 25 percent of the permitted commercial density. If, for example, an existing

132

Parking Edmonton is in a transitional stage as a city in terms of public transit. The City will mature from a situation of almost total automobile dependency to a much more diversified set of arrangements. It is clear that the commuter parking problem will require substantial study to secure the proper transit/parking mix. It is also apparent that the existing parking ratios in the Downtown housing stock are far in excess of those in other cities. The provision of up to 1.0 and 1.5 cars per dwellng is 2 to 4 times the parking usually required for Downtown Housing in other cities. The housing types analyzed assume the very high existing ratios.

However, the physical and financial problems posed by such high ratios, if revised downward, will make easier the development of housing and reducing congestion.

7. Implementation

This section outlines a series of recommended actions that are aimed at expanding the residential role of Downtown.

The section has four parts: 7.1

recommends General Principles for Council's adoption.

7.2

recommends a general approach to Land Use Regulation.

7.3

lists the objectives and makes recommendations for appropriate land use designations in the various Districts.

7.4

makes recommendations for other actions by public agencies.

7.1

with other uses that are economically more attractive.

General Housing Principles for Downtown

7.

That environmental improvements be made where necessary, including streets, sidewalks and community services, so as to make Downtown attractive to residential development.

8.

That, while housing in downtown will serve primarily small household and moderate to high income groups, appropriate measures must be taken by civic, provincial and other agencies, to ensure that accommodation be available for a broad range of income levels and households.

9.

That a supply of social housing be developed through ensuring that existing assisted rental programs continue to be attractive and feasible in the downtown and through the direct and indirect development activity of the City's Non-Profit Housing Corporation.

10.

That, in pursuit of the above principles, the accompanying 'Housing Policy Map' form the City's basic strategy in the deployment of residential development. (Due to existing approved policies and current negotiations in the C.P.R. and C.N.R. Special Development Districts and in Rossdale, it is suggested that a detailed review of these areas be undertaken with reference to overall Downtown housing policy as recommended in this report.)

As outlined previously, planning policies should be set out in the General Plan and the Downtown Plan, to clarify the general and local intentions of Council with respect to housing development in Downtown.

This study recommends principles which should form the basis for housing policies Downtown. Therefore it is recommended that the Council adopt the following principles for incorporation in the General Plan, to ensure the development of a substantial housing component in Downtown Edmonton, an essential element to achieve a diverse downtown for Edmonton.

1.

That the development of substantial quantities of housing be an essential element to achieve a diverse downtown for Edmonton.

2.

That projected growth in primary office space be directed primarily into existing areas of office concentration, so as to ensure an efficient Financial District.

3.

That the expansion of such a Financial District be carefully controlled so as not to prejudice the development of housing in surrounding areas.

4.

That existing residential areas be confirmed and protected from major intrusions of commercial or other non-residential development.

5.

That new mixed-use districts be constituted in areas of the Downtown not presently residential in use and character.

6.

That, in such mixed-use districts, the land use and density permissions promote the development of substantial housing components by reducing the competition 133

Special Development District '0.5 0 inA Aup

Special Dev. District (C. P)

Medium Density Resi4ntial Secondary CommerciaT

Mixed Use Dist. 2

Mixed Use District 4

Medium Density Residential

Emphasis on Family Housing

(7)

Emphasis on Family Housing

High Density Commercial+ Residential

High Density Residential.

Secondary Commercial Component

Financial â&#x20AC;˘ District High Density Commercial (Residential permitted)

Minor Commercial 77"elniage..k

Civic Centre High Density Institutional, Commercial, Residential

Mixed Use District 1 High Density Commercial + Residential

Mixed Use Dist.3 High Density Commercial + Residential

)

97 Ave

Provincial Govt.

Centre

McKay Avenue Residential District

[

High Density Residential Minor Commercial Permitted

Rossdtle Possible Medium Density Residential Emphasis on; Family Housing

MOUS

PO CY

R.L. WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

134

33

7.2 Land Use Control System

As previously noted, the present control system not only fails to encourage housing Downtown, in many respects it actually discourages it. Unless substantial changes are made, there is little chance of achieving a satisfactory component of housing Downtown.

The parameters for a control system that promotes housing have been discussed in detail in Section 6.6. The following recommendations are made to assist the City in implementing the Housing Principles and in the construction of a new Land Use Bylaw.

Classification be maintained, but the existing discretionary controls be used to achieve the objectives outlined for these districts.

Long Term Actions The following recommendations are intended to assist the City in the construction of its new Land Use Bylaw, and in the implementation of the principles previously outlined. It is recommended: 1.

That the existing use and density permissions, in areas other than the previosly described "Financial District and Civic Centre District" be substantially reconstructed so as to promote the development of housing.

2.

That the use and density prescriptions recommended in "District Objectives and Designations", be refined, if necessary, through the current Downtown Plan studies, and eventually incorporated in the new Land Use Bylaw.

3.

That, in the new Land Use Bylaw, the downtown be instituted as a series of zoned Districts rather than Direct Control Districts, provided that the limited discretion required for the development of review process (outlined later) is available under the legislation for zoned districts.

4.

That Design Guidelines for Downtown generally and for each District specifically be prepared and incorporated into the Downtown Plan, as a supplement to the Land Use Bylaw, in order to guide the design of residential and overall environments.

5.

That the use and density prescriptions for all areas be set out in a Statutory Plan, so as to provide firm density limits for development. It is important that such limits not be relaxed through any procedure, unless thorough planning studies indicate that such changes serve to fulfill the City's policies and objectives, including those that relate to the achievement of residential development.

6.

That the City identify those structures considered to have particular character, merit or identity for preservation and/or incorporation into redevelopment.

The recommendations are made with respect to the land use controls and the development review process.

Land Use Controls Short Term Actions The following are interim measures to be used until the adoption of the new Land Use Bylaw and the Downtown Plan. It is recommended: 1.

That the City consider amending the existing Land Use Classification Guide by instituting the use and density prescriptions recommended in the 'District Objectives and Density Designations', as an interim measure as soon as possible, by reclassifications in the defined: a) Mixed-Use Districts 1, 2, 3 and 4, and McKay Avenue Residential District. b) Special Development Districts C.P.R. and C.N.R. (subject to review).

2.

That, in the proposed Civic Centre and Financial Districts the existing Land Use

135

7

8.

That the retention of such structures be encouraged by the provision of a density incentive for their preservation and incorporation in redevelopment; and that such an incentive apply equitably over all parts of Downtown.

That public open space requirements be prescribed as general standards for each District', and that open space on each site be evaluated and configured through the discretionary development review process.

9.

That standards for light, view and privacy for residential units be established as performance requirements, and that their application be reviewed on a site-by-site basis, taking into account the particular context of each development.

10.

That performance standards for building form and pedestrian and street amenity be achieved, where appropriate, by prescription, with explicit standards based on urban design policies outlined in a Statutory Plan.

11.

That site-by-site review, aimed at ensuring that each development contributes and fits well into its local context, be conducted through a discretionary Development Review Process.

Development Review Process It is recommended that a new Development Review Process be designed; one that is simple, clearly defined, expeditious and equitable.

Such a process should have the following characteristics: 1.

The range of aspects dealt with should be clearly defined and limited. It would cover such aspects as the disposition of entrances and landscaped space in relation to the public street and sidewalk.

2.

The review should be carried out in accordance with guidelines that are clearly set out in the Downtown Plan, so that developers are well aware of the City's ambitions, and requirements.

3.

The process should not be linked in anyway to density or use incentives. Any major ambitions such as the retention of designated structures, which can only be

136

achieved through density incentives, should be achieved through formulae in the Land Use Bylaw.

4.

Review should begin by discussion between City officials and developers at the earliest stage of development design, so as to avoid costly and time-consuming changes at a later stage.

5.

In reviewing development proposals, the City should ensure that it has the benefit of professional urban design advice.

73 District Objectives and Designations

considered a reasonable density for the area, one that with proper urban design regulation can be developed into a satisfactory environment. The figure also represents the maximum density presently permitted.

Nevertheless, the density finally adopted must depend to a large degree on studies to be undertaken by City staff on office space projections and urban agglomeration patterns. The limit is therefore tentative.

Civic Centre District Objectives

1.

To reinforce the civic and governmental functions and character of the District.

The Housing Strategy and the General Principles outlined previously include the institution of a series 2.

Encourage the development of a residential of districts Downtown. These include a Financial component in the District through District, a Civic Centre District, four high density development on municipally owned land.

Mixed Use Districts, a high density Residential District, and two Special Development Districts.

Density Recommendations A detailed analysis of these Districts is provided in Maximum commercial and residential density: 10 Section 6.3, 'A General Housing Strategy'. The F.A.R. (with the same qualifications as that for the following are the specific objectives and recommended Financial District). use and density designations in each district.

Mixed Use District No. 1 Objectives The Financial District Objectives

1.

To promote the development of a significant residential component in the District.

2.

To provide for a proportion of the general office space expansions for Downtown.

3.

To create a transition zone between the Financial District and the McKay Avenue Residential District.

1.

To confirm the District as Edmonton's primary office/retail

2.

To provide the necessary expansion space for primary commercial office and retail uses for the forseeable future.

3.

By the provision of such expansion space, to relieve the pressure for primary office development on contiguous areas where lower building densities and the encouragement of housing are major objectives.

4.

To reinforce the mixed commercial-residential character of the District.

5.

To ensure district and street qualities that are distinguished as amenable residential environments.

4.

To permit compatible high density housing in the District.

Density Recommendations

5.

To improve the quality of the public domain in the District to provide a suitable shopping, walking and entertainment realm for future Downtown residents.

Maximum combined commercial and residential density: 6.0 F.A.R. Maximum commercial density: 3.5 F.A.R. Mixed Use District No. 2

Density Recommendations

Objectives

The 'Proposed Densities' map suggests a maximum density of 10.0 F.A.R. for either residential or commercial uses or a mixture of both. This is

1.

To conserve and enhance the existing warehouse character of the area and its significant older structures in order to 137

the District in ways that reinforce the relative importance of primary, secondary and tertiary streets.

constitute an historic district.

2.

To provide a high density mix of commercial and residential development in the District.

3.

To create an area that serves as a transition between the Financial District and the residential areas to the west.

4.

To encourage the existing uses such as restaurants, specialty stores and professional offices and to reinforce the identity of the District.

Density Recommendations Maximum combined commercial and residential density: 5.5 F.A.R. Maximum commercial density 3.0 F.A.R. Mixed Use District No. 3

7.

To provide adequate car parking for new development on a site-by-site basis, bearing in mind its proximity to the Financial District.

Density Recommendations Maximum combined commercial and residential density: 4.0 F.A.R. Maximum general commercial density: 1.5 F.A.R. Maximum commercial density in the street-to-lane blocks fronting on 105 and 109 Streets: 2.0 F.A.R.

McKay Avenue District Objectives To reinforce the area as a primary Residential District.

Objectives 1.

To promote the development of a residential component in the District.

2.

To encourage the development of housing at high densities.

2.

To provide for a proportion of general office expansion in Downtown.

3.

To prevent the intrusion of major office development into the District.

3.

To develop a mixed commercial residential character of the District.

4.

To consider the provision of minor commercial components of retail/commercial uses at ground level, primarily to serve the local residents.

Density Recommendations Maximum combined commercial and residential density: 5.5 F.A.R. Maximum commercial density: 3.0 F.A.R. Mixed Use District No. 4

Density Recommendations Maximum combined commercial and residential density: 3.0 F.A.R. Maximum commercial density: 0.5 F.A.R.

Objectives 1.

To develop a substantial new housing component in the District.

Special Development District I (C.P.R. Yards)

2.

To develop housing for a wide range of user and income groups.

1.

To ensure the redevelopment of the CPR Yards primarily for residential purposes.

3.

To permit limited commercial office and retail components that provide for secondary office space expansion, local retail service and economic support for housing.

2.

To ensure that the District is developed to accommodate a component of family households in close proximity to the Downtown core.

4.

To retain those existing buildings that are considered to have particular architectural or historic merit, and to preserve the historic character and identity of the District.

3.

To provide such accommodation generally in the form of low and medium rise, medium density development.

4.

5.

To provide the improvements necessary for the development of a satisfactory local residential environment.

To ensure that the District has a mixture of development forms, developers and forms of tenure.

5.

6.

To distribute uses and building forms within

To ensure that, when developed, the District will blend with the surrounding areas,

138

Objectives

Special Devel9pment District 0 CN Lands 104 Ave.

Same as OP

•••,.. ••• •

Special Dev. District CP Lands Upto 2-0 FAR (Net) Residential Minor ommercial Jaspe

Mixed Use Dist. _2

Mixed Use District 4

5-5 FAR Including 3.5 FAR Comm.

4-0 FAR Max. Including 1.5 FAR Commercial Max.

4.5 FAR Max.

Financial District

Civic Centre

Including 2.0 FAR Commercial Max.

Upto 100 FAR Max

Upto 10.0 FAR Max

Mixed Use District 1 60 FA R Max Including 3-5 FAR Commercial Max.

Mixed Use Dist.3 55 FAR Max

Including 3.0 FAR Commercial Max

McKay Avenue Residential District 3o FAR Max 97 Ave.

Including 0.5 EAR Local Commercial

Rossdale Approx 1.0 FAR Residential

DES MU- OHS

R.L. WILKIN ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS consultants COOMBES / KIRKLAND HU HARRIES ASSOCIATES A.J. VERMEULEN

34 139

through the purposeful deployment of diverse uses, densities and forms.

6.

To create, in the various phases of redevelopment, satisfactory residential, street and park environments.

Density Recommendations Maximum combined net commercial and residential density (with minor commercial component): up to 2.0 F.A.R. Special Development District ll (CNR Yards) Objectives 1.

To ensure that redevelopment of the CNR Yards is primarily for residential purposes.

2.

To ensure that the District is developed to accommodate a component of family households in close proximity to the Downtown core.

3.

To provide such accommodation generally in the form of low and medium rise, medium density development.

4.

To ensure that the District has a mixture of development forms, developers and forms of tenure.

5.

To ensure that, when developed, the District will blend with the surrounding areas, through the purposeful deployment of diverse uses, densities and forms.

6.

To create, in the various phases of redevelopment satisfactory residential, street and park environments.

Density Recommendations Maximum combined net commercial and residential density (with minor commercial component): up to 2.0 F.A.R. Rossdale Objectives That Council consider the idea of incorporating some residential development in the riverfront parkland, with the following objectives.

1.

To develop a riverside park close to Downtown.

2.

To develop a component of housing in the District that is sympathetic and reinforces the parkland objective.

140

3.

To ensure that such housing be primarily ground related and provide a substantial number of units for people with children in close proximity to Downtown.

4.

To consider the provision of certain areas for the accommodation of institutional and governmental uses.

Density Recommendations Should Council decide to include a residential component it is recommended that it be of a density of approximately 1.0 F.A.R.

3.

That the City consider the development of a public park of at least one acre in the Warehouse District, either through the acquisition of lands, or through the reuse of existing publicly owned land.

4.

That a study be undertaken of means to reduce the cost of the parking component in new development, including a review of automobile utilization and ownership rates for different unit types in Downtown.

Beyond the adoption of Principles for the achievement of Downtown housing and the various actions with respect to Land Use that have been noted to this point, a number of other actions are recommended. These various actions are listed below as ones which should be undertaken by various public agencies.

5.

That the City coordinate development of the CPR lands, based on a development plan and land use controls aimed at developing a new low-to-medium rise community that would accommodate families and smaller households with a wide range of incomes.

It is recommended to Council that the following additional actions by the City Non-Profit Housing Corporation, Alberta Housing and Public Works, the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation and the City of Edmonton be endorsed.

The City of Edmonton Non-Profit Housing Corporation

7A Other Actions

The following actions are recommended: That the Corporation take a primary role in ensuring the development of an adequate supply of social housing in the Downtown through:

The City of Edmonton The following actions are recommended: 1.

Such a plan would provide the basis for public investment and private development with respect to the form of the street. It is particularly important in the Warehouse District for the creation of a suitable residential environment. In that District, tree planting, for example, would be added to the program already begun in other Downtown districts.

2.

a) monitoring the operation and production of private industry rental housing programs; b) undertaking direct social housing developments on appropriate publicly owned sites; c) issuing proposal calls for joint ventures on appropriate publicly owned sites; d) advertising for turnkey non-profit rental housing proposals on privately owned land.

That a detailed plan be prepared as part of the Downtown Plan, for the improvement of downtown street design, paving and landscaping.

That a study be undertaken of appropriate urban design standards for new developments.

Such a study would have the purpose of identifying appropriate standards and guidelines for incorporation in the Statutory Plan and the new Land Use Bylaw. It would include standards for light, view, air and privacy for new buildings, as well as such matters as the way new development provided needed public amenities, particularly at street level.

2.

That a review of all publicly owned land in the Downtown be undertaken to assist in the above.

3.

That appropriate criteria, design guidelines and outline specifications be prepared for the evaluation of joint venture calls and turnkey proposals.

Alberta Housing and Public Works and Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation The following actions are recommended: That flexibility continue to be exercised in the application of the CHIP regulations, particularly in decreasing the percentage of

controlled units and/or the degree to which rents for such units are below market levels.

2.

That appropriate changes be made in present lending regulations to permit financing of the residential component of developments with very substantial commercial components.

References

Liebman, Kirkland, Pangaro (1974) "Low Rise High Density" prepared for New York State Urban Development Corporation.

Oscar Newman "Defensible Space".

Barton Myers and Associates (1979) "Alternatives to Highrise Oliver/Garneau" prepared for the City of Edmonton, Planning Department.

Bell Spotowski Architects Ltd. (1978) "Southeast Civic Centre Urban Design Study, Edmonton Alberta".

City of Edmonton - Planning Department "General Plan".

City of Edmonton - Planning Department (1979) "Toward A Downtown Plan".

City of Toronto Planning Board (1975) "Central Area Plan Review Part 1: General Plan".

Clayton Research Associates Ltd.(1978) "Review of the Core Housing Incentive Program" prepared for Alberta Housing and Public Works and Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation.

Clayton Research Associates Ltd. (1978) "Low Income Housing in Alberta" a review of the Community Housing Program prepared for Alberta Housing and Public Works.

Clayton Research Associates Ltd. (1979) "Recommendations for a Program of Housing Action" prepared for the City of Edmonton Non-Profit Housing Corporation.

Planning Department, City of Edmonton (1977) "Downtown Pedway Concept Plan".

Policy and Program Development Branch, Alberta Housing and Public Works (1978) "Provincial Housing Programs in Alberta".

Policy and Program Development Branch (1978), Alberta Housing and Public Works "Comparison of Calgary and Edmonton Senior Citizen Housing Waiting Lists".

Policy and Planning Division, Alberta Housing and Public Works (1978), "Apartment Vacancy and Rental Cost Survey".

Program Co-ordination Department, Alberta Housing Corporation (1978)"Identification of Need Areas, Senior Citizen Self Contained Program".

Real Estate and Housing Department, City of Edmonton (1978) "A Housing Strategy for the City of Edmonton".

Research Branch, City of Edmonton Planning Department "North Saskatchewan River Valley Control Bylaw".

Transportation Planning Branch, City of Edmonton (1976) "The City of Edmonton Transportation Plan".

William Graham Consultants (1978) "Canadian Pacific Rail Relocation Study" prepared for the City of Edmonton.

Wright, Mansell and Associates (1978) "The Economics of Downtown Residential Development" prepared for the City of Calgary.

Department of Sociology, University of Alberta (1977) "Quality of Life in Edmonton".

Edmonton Transit, City of Edmonton (1978) "Downtown Transit Circulation Plan".

George Baird (1975) "Built Form Analysis" prepared for the City of Toronto, Planning Board.

Institute of Environmental Research Inc., Toronto, Ontario (1975) "An analysis of Social and Psychological Effects of Highrise".

Klein and Sears (1974) "Core Area Housing Study" prepared for the City of Toronto, Planning Board.

143