SD LISARY
1701 PROVISION OF PARKS IN EDMONTON:PLAN NING
R010/018011968
RESEARCH REPORT Mannfag
partmou
LIBRARY The City of Edam:into'.
PROVISION OF PARKS IN APARTMENT AREAS
CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT EDMONTON, ALBERTA
3200.1a .E3 P375 1968
PLANNING
LIBRARYTHE CITY OF
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Page Background to the Study
1
Designation of Study Areas
1 . .
Study Approach 1. Population
2
2. Parks Inventory
2
Study Findings 2. Parks Inventory and Population Parks Ratios.
3 3 4
Summary and Recommendations
6
1. Population
Appendix A
7 . • •
•
10 11
Appendix B
...
Pr
.2
PROVISION OF PARKS IN APARTMENT AREAS
Background to the Study At the regular meeting of City Council held on January 8th, 1968, Alderman Mrs. Evans referred to areas where rezoning takes place from single family zoning to heavy apartment zonThg and she asked for a report in regard to what provision has been made for parks in such areas and are these adeq. ate, This report has been written to expand on the February 26th, 1968 answer to Mrs. Evans' enquiry to show in terms of area, what parks deficiencies presently exist in a typical apartment area. A brief study of an area of the City which has been rezoned from predominantly single family uses to apartments was undertaken to analyze resulting population shifts, to discover parks deficiencies resulting from such a change and, if such deficiencies are discovered, to suggest means of overcoming them. Designation of Study Areas The study area chosen forms the bulk of south Edmonton (see Drawing 1) and, in the past few years, has changed from predominantly single family categories to a substantial amount of R-4, R-5 and R-6 apartment zoning. The boundaries of the study area reflect the boundaries of the area served by the study area's parks facilities. The only exception to this is the South Side Athletic Grounds and the Strathcona Composite High School which serve a much larger portion of the City and, for this reson, have not been included in the calculation of the study area's parks facilities or requirements.. In other words, this analysis will not deal with the district park level but rather will concentrate on the neighbourhood and community park levels which are represented by elementary and junior high
!7'
00100i f40.40-4, 1 60-4 WP114 044 area YO.P P40 4 to act as a control area for ccm1) wth tng E10401 Ech4Q49P-
T49 41:7
4P1Pt0 comprised the Lew:Trim P1a0e and
Malmo Plains subdivisions (see Drawing 1) and 4
,repeu
4 4Ye1oped, preclpr9
inantly single family housing area which will serve to compare 444 4044'40 population differences and parks facties 4ifferonces betwa44 44 91,40f 11, 10,44: Ito high density residential area and 4 recent low density ein440.-07 4re4 cped to current parks standards, Study Approach lt Population Two aspects pi, population were analyzed. Firstly, in t4p ยง9,v0 V4fig0404 area, 13,9104140-on growth
ch4WP
4q4 Agtrj-bntioA Ffi *NalYz
from 1961 when the area was mainly low density tP 107 at W4P4 044# # Roblarger portion of the area was developed to higher densities. T4iยง .ยง41-4Y helped to reveal the effects of apartment dev4ops44t 94 thi* p7Pvj,j-P# parkland in the area. Secondly,. age distribution dwactoristic5 i4UtatWO study areas were compared to determine differences in parks demand and need. 2: Parks Inventory An inventory of parkland at the neighbourhood and community (elementary and junior high) levels was undertaken and acreages of parkland determined I Ratios of parkland per 1,000 population at each level were calculated so that the two areas could be compared to eadh other anA so that existing ratios could be tompared to the ratios recommended in the 1955 Report on otive and Pae8ive Rcreation, 'Park and Open Sjoace Facilities within the City. In the south Edmonton study area ratios were determined I
A detailed list of parks facilities in the two study areas is provided in Appendix A.
3-
for bpo 1961 444 1967 t0 04O121P o4 O4OlySiS of parks-population propertions 1114f4'e gA4 after the 1444X or higher density devolopment.•
PY9) 7104w 1. PW4144P4 The f411q1444 tOle Iow h pOP4Otign SrOwth arid W brOkdown for the two study Table 1 ZOUTii ,EDMONTON AND TF1WRW4,41ALMP STUPY AR:45 POPULATION ClIARACTZRWTW P"F
44Wuplow,09
&OUTH 41.)MONTON
1961 1967 1967 be}, fareent Nu4-41 Parcent !1PVMOQP Pyr'qe4t
A4c Categor
, •
Uildt4r Over 21 TOTAL
5,841
31,2
124501 18,742
6-8,6 100,0
624.
3t0
2,866
4648
256
53,2
20,172
690. 1000,
6,122 loo.o
'*Sourcer- Civic 9ensus,•1961 and 1967.
—two,
In the south Edmonton study area there was g 7.6 percent iacreaQ in population between 1961 and 1967 which reflects the transitienof a fully built-up, predominantly single family area to an area showing an incrcsasing amount of apartment development. Over 70 percent of this increase was made up of persons over 21 which would tend to indicate that, by end large, people moving into new apartments in this area are single persons, married couples with few or no Children and older couples whose children have grown up and 14t nowtTu
he demand for active parkland at the neighbourhood and
tommunity loiT4s which date tain4 to the. younger SegMont. Of the poplxiatl_on has not increased significaMtlYin this. atuay area even though the population
- 4 2 This will be discussed in further detail in the next section where has. 14W44.0.-PP-PP4*
q-PP YTes.ePted
The preeeeding table illustrates
i pprtant difference in agp
breakdown between the south Edmonton area and the LendrU*Malmo area.
the recontly developed low density residential study &rea, appro*iggteq/Âą7 porcent of the population in 1967 was under 21 years of age while in t0E1 014F south Edmonton study area, only 31 percent was under 21. This illustrates that the demand for active parkland at the neighbourhood level is greater in the newly developed single family suburb than in the older, higher density residential areas. Age composition changes mother apartment areas in Edmonton are outlined in Appendix 13
Parks Inventot'y and PopUlation4Parks Rati9g Ratios of acres of parkland per 1,00110 population were calculated at different parks levels for the two study areas. These are summarized in Table 2 Table 2 shows that the south Edmonton study area is very deficient
in parks facilities at all levels,. Furthermore, these deficiencies were present in. 1961 when the area was still predominantly single family. The intrusion of apartments into the area: which has resulted Iran increased population has not significantly i.ncreased the existing shortage, especially since, as discussed earlier, a large percentage, (72%) of the new inhabitants
are ovan 21 years of age:.. The more. recently developed Lendrumalmo area has steficiont parks facilities to adequately serve the area. 2' This: must not be misocynatrued to mean that. there is. not an increased demand_ for other types: al parkland. The alder- segment of tile' population revrires a larger:- proportion of ,passiv.,-& parkland such as amenity' parks, and:orna.-mental.: parks, aIthough- •ther• are:a.-requirements.. for these facilities are. considerably- less than; those, for aotivo: recreational facilities., Adults wishing: to, participate; aCtive s.ports are usually in,. a position tOTI drive to:. the. nearest Ci.ty. or district park. This. aspect- of the provision: of parks in.. principally,- adult-occupied areas will be discussed' more: flaLly in'. the: recommendation. suctio.m..
- 5 Table 2 s01JTg EDMONTON AND LENDRUM*MALMO STUDY AUAg PARKS*POPULATION RATIO8*
Recommen4Q4 Ratio** Parks Level
.SOUTH EDMONTON Existing Ratio 1961 1967
Neighbourhood parks and play lots
1.50
0.79
0.74
Elementary schools (neighbourhood)
1.60
0,75
0.69
Separate schools (neighbourhood) 2122 TOTAL NLIUBOURHOOD 3:69
2,94
0.30 1.73 0,34
.06
Junior high sChOPIP (Commuaity)
4PWW17MAT-24° Existing Ratio 1967
3.99 1.43++
031
01541atio4, *1WiP§ **The recoqmonded ratio is that statoa minimum requiremsnt in the port oh AO:4,w: and passive Recreation Park and Oxen ( 6.pace Facilitips within the. City, 19 +The separate school in Leadrum-Malmo serves a larger area and thus has 4 oPrrO§P94diagj-Y higher ratio. ++In Lendrum-Malmo the junior high school has a higher than recommend oa ratio because it servos the Lansdowne area and part of the Mount Pleasant area in 44dit*P4 to the et4y area: Table 3 lists the parks deficiencies in terms of acres which pour in he south Edmonton study area. Table
3
SOUTH EDMONTON STUDY AREA PARKLAND
Parks Level
Existing No. of Acres
DEFICIENCIES
1961 Minimum Existing No. of Acres No. of Revired Deficiency Acres
1967 Minimum No. of Acres Required*
Deficiency
Neighbourhood 14.96 parks & play lots
2803
13.09
14.96
30,30
15.34
Elementary schools (neighbourhood)
14.07
29.92
13.83
14.07
32.32
18.25
Separate schools (neighbourhood) TOTAL NEIGHBOURHOOD
7.31
11.03
3.72
7.51
.11.92
4,61
36.34
69..00
32.66
36.34
74.54
Junior high schools
6.39
11.08
9.69
6.39
17.37
38.20 10.98
*Minimum number of acres required according to the 1955 Report already cited,
-6 As shown by the ratios contained in Table 2 and the actual acreage deficiencies contained in Table 3 the south Edmonton study area is seriously short of neighbourhood and community level parks facilities when compared to recommended minimum requirements or to newly established residential areas. However, it again must be emphasized that these deficiencies existed when the area was still predominantly single family in character as illustrated by Tables 2 and 3 and that the increased density of residential development has not meaningfully affected existing deficiencies. Nevertheless, there is still a serious shortage of both active and passive recreational facilities in the area although they are not attributable to apartment development. In actual fact, the deficiencies are probably not as great as those Indicated in Table 3 which were calculated by using the
1955 standards because, as mentioned
earlier, the age composition of the area's population requires proportionally less active open space. However, the proportion of adults is likely to change in the future which would necessitate a change in the area's parks requirements thus a close review of population trends in older areas of the City must be maintained for this purpose. Summary and Recommendations The main findings and resulting recommendations of this brief enquiry into the provision of parkland in apartment districts are summarized in the following list: 1. It is believed that the general findings of this study Will apply to other similarly developed areas in the City, i.e., older areas of single family dwellings which are being redeveloped into R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-6 apartment districts. 2. The development of apartments in these areas has not significantly altered
- 7
-
the parkland requirements in them. Large deficiencies existed when these areas were still predominantly single family in nature and the population increase created by the construction of apartments is, for the most part, over twenty-one years of age and thus does not need the same amount or type of parks facilities required in newer areas. Furthermore, there is a much smaller proportion of persons under twenty-one in the south Edmonton study area compared to a new suburban area which again decreases the amount of active parkland required. This must not be interpreted to mean that there is no need for additional parkland in areas like south Edmonton, To the contrary, there is a considerable need for both active and passive facilities but it is hoped that this study has shown that this need is not attributable to apartment development. Reviews of population growth and age composition in such areas will have to be maintained so that, if trends indicate a larger proportion of population under twenty-ones steps will be taken to secure a corresponding amount of additional parkland, 3. In the main, the type, amount and location of future parkland in areas presently lacking adquate facilities should be determined by the Parks Master Plan. The Plan should establish a land acquisition policy tied to a capital budgeting process and should study alternative methods of acquiring additional parkland in areas of need. A City standard of so many acres of open space per thousand population is unrealistic and misleading if some areas are very deficient in parks and recreational facilities.
4. It
is suggested that, during the preparation of the Parks Master Plan, some
studies be directed towards the amount and types Of parkland provided in apartment districts with mainly adult populations. It is suggested that the types and amount of open space required in an apartment district differs
- 8vastly from that required in a new subdivision and that new standards or ratios of different types of parkland to different age groups of population must be established. 5. The proposed General Plan states that "The adequacy of existing public open space in areas of older housing and areas with increasing density due to apartment development requires examination on detail"3 The Plan goes on to say that "Emphasis should be given to an analysis of those neigh, bourhoads and communities where severe space shortages presently exist."4 It is therefore recommended that the matter of parks provision in apartment districts be studied in detail through the District Plan Process and that one of the objectivies of this process be to provide adequate public open space in residential areas lacking such. The Planning Department has already commenCed the preparation of a district plan for the south Edmonton area and it is hoped that, in conjunction with the Parks Department, solutions to the parks problem will be found during the preparation of this plan. Other similar areas of the City will be dealt with as district plans are prepared for the remainder of the older, built-up areas. 6. As the more predominantly adult population found in apartment districts requires a greater proportion of passive recreational spaces such as landscaped ornamental parks it is recommended that the Planning Department revise its site planning standards for apartments to include more open space around each apartment site. This could be accoumplished by "bonus zoning" which would allow increaSed densities if certain amenities, such as the provision of open space, were provided in an apartment development. This provision,
3City of Edmonton Planning Department, Proposed General Plan, .Edmonton 1967, p. 51. 4Ibid., p. 74.
— 9 — !cpuple4 with the development of additional actiye and passive reCreational would go a long way in improving the amenitiee Of apartment district.
- 10
7
APPENDIX A PARKS FACILITIES IN THE MO STUDY AREAS South Edmonton Study Area
Acres
Neighbourhood Parks and Play Lots Garneau Community League Park (109 Street and 80 AvenUe) Ritchie Community League Scona Community League Granite Play Lot play Lot (108 Street and 73 Avenue) TOTAL Elementary Schools Mill Creek Elementary School King Edward Elementary ;School 4e:en aexandra a9A(i4itary ScbeOl Garncau P-eAloarY 40i4001 02,ar,04) TOTAL Separate Schools Mount Carmel -Separate Sthocl St Anthonyls Separate :School TOTAL TOTAL NFIGHBOURHOOD Junior High Schools Oarneau :Junior High School . 06 area :King Edward Junior High School Strathcona Junior High School TOTAL
3.6 64 38 2.19 1.33
1777 3.7 3.45 ,5.12 1.8
7 1 7 591 1.40 7.31 36..34 1:8 2,8 6039
lendrum-Malmo Study Area Elementary Schools Ti,ndrum Elementary School Malmo Plains Elementary Scheel
9,00 9..02 TOTAL
Separate Sehools St. Martin's Separate Schaal
64
TOTAL NEIGHBOURHOOD Junior High Schools Avalon Junior HighSchoel
24.4
- 11 APPENDIX B PqqATION ciwp72] IN A?ARTMENT ARAS, 1961 1967 Source;
Area
Civic Cens#,
Age 'Under 21
Percent
Age Over 21
Percent
Iota.
total City
1961 1967
111,554 169,556
40.4 43.0
164,464 224,007
59.6 57.0
276,018 393,563
West Central*
1961 1967
2,086 2,380
23.8 21.9
6,674 8,469
76.2 78.1
8,760 10,849
North Central**
1961 1967
2,638 2,975
31,8 33_45
5,653 6i 467
68.2 685
8,91 9,442
*The areabounded by the c.P.R$ traeks to the east, 126 reek:4 to t to the north and the RiVer to the seuth Zoning - R-5, 40% R6, 60%,
14PP'4;
104 4wonue
**The area bounded by 101 Street to the east, 119 StxvQt to thp west., 111 AvcAltiP to the north and 105 Avenue to the south. Zoning - R-1, 3%; 35%; RT,5, 35.%i
SOUTH EDMONTON STUDY AREA LENDRUM - MALMO STUDY AREA
STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES
DWG. I