The Lendrum Community League is soliciting input
on several recent developments that will affect Lendrum’s
future in significant ways. These include the specific form
that the future University of Alberta South Campus will
take to accommodate, one day, up to 30,000 students. While
many of us think the University can be an excellent and
exciting neighbour, we are also worried that a few bad decisions
could compromise our neighbourhood permanently. More traffic,
speeding, noise pollution, temporary residents and high
density, high turnover housing, sororities and fraternity
housing, and big box housing, will all affect what might
be called the child, family, senior friendly lifestyle of
Lendrum. How much change can we/should we be expected to
tolerate? Is Lendrum worth fighting for? We would like to
hear from you.
LENDRUM: A unique community worth preserving? We
would like comments on this section. Please email
civics@lendrumliving.com
or drop a comment into the Community League mailbox.
Lendrum is a middle-class neighbourhood that was originally
part of an award winning urban design combining small family
single houses with a group of low rise-apartments on one
side, and a local strip mall with limited shopping on another.
This along with three schools, churches and a senior care
home have given the neighbourhood a degree of diversity
and self-sufficiency beyond the purely bedroom model suburb.
Lendrum’s central park, playground and sports fields have
been an important focal point of the community. Now partly
located in the new dry pond, they also include a shared
running track with the schools and a walking trail. While
Lendrum does not have access to the River Valley, the University
farm has been hugely popular for walking, running and biking.
In the past, the traditional borders on the South and West
side (School for the Deaf and University Farm) have prevented
traffic from cross cutting directly through the neighbourhood
in North/South or East/West directions. While not as much
of an enclave as Belgravia, or any of the river valley neighbourhoods,
we have nevertheless had a local traffic only policy except
for access to our schools. However, recent disruptions and
increasing traffic along all arteries have meant that diagonal
and circular crossing are now a problem. This could become
significantly worse.
The average size of house at 1200 square feet has attracted
both those groups who want a community setting for young
families before moving to a larger house, and most importantly
a large group of people who have decided the benefits of
a smaller house and lot outweigh the attraction of more
space. This latter point, along with the traditional garage
at the back, is probably one of the secrets of Lendrum’s
popularity, something shared with other similar older neighbourhoods.
This neighbourhood design has been highly successful
in creating a diverse, quiet family oriented enclave where
a high value is placed on knowing one’s neighbours. This
has even been true with the low-rise apartment buildings
that accommodate smaller families, singles, seniors and
people in transition who desire a quieter location than
they find in denser urban neighborhoods. It also provides
a feeling of belonging for apartment dwellers that want
to be connected with a smaller community where one can be
recognized if they wish. We think most people would agree
that Lendrum provides and excellent community experience
where the “whole” is greater than just the sum of its parts.
Our friendly street culture, the number of block parties,
and the participation in the Community League and its events,
testifies to the desire to be acquainted with each other
and to invest time in our mutual well-being. It has often
been expressed that the safety and happiness of our children
and seniors depends on all of us keeping an eye out for
each other. As the most famous Canadian/American urban sociologist,
Jane Jacobs stated in her book The Death and Life of Great
American Cities, “eyes on the street” are our key to safety,
community and the upkeep of shared common spaces. Other
examples include the recent “knowsy neighbours” program
in Aspen Gardens, which we may adopt, to help make women’s
safety a priority.
The community league has always endeavoured to reach out
to all groups who wish to enhance our spirit of community
and ensure that everyone is kept up to date, whether they
pay membership fees or not. Acting as representatives of
the community, the League is committed to positive change,
multicultural diversity, new ideas, progress, and forward-thinking,
balanced development. The League’s role is also to warn
the community about potential deterioration from poorly
planned development, and development that will profoundly
transform the community as it exists. As a grassroots organization,
the League depends on members to participate when they can.
Currently, the League executive believes two impending
developments have the potential to transform our community
beyond those already in progress i.e. the LRT, the expansion
of Southgate and surrounding high-rises, the potential Westcorp
high-rise on 51st Ave. and potential redevelopment of the
rest of the grassland strip on 51st. We have outlined these
below.
Issue #1: Transformation of 60th Ave into major access
route for South Campus.
60th Ave is currently slated to become the main service
entrance, parkade entrance, roundabout entrance and potential
LRT drop off entrance or even residence entrance for the
South Campus. These plans are moving ahead quickly and
construction of two residence buildings and paved roads
are slated to begin soon.
The Community League’s position is that that 60th Ave
is the poorest choice for an entrance to the South Campus.
All the other sides of this campus are roadways with direct
access to the Campus. Why open up our neighbourhood to further
stress and disruption when it is not necessary? The entire
length of 119th St. and 51 Ave. could support several entrances
and Fox Drive is the obvious entrance for the Saville Center
and Foote Field. The university has promised 24hr. public
parking prohibitions on our streets but this will not address
the increased traffic volume, noise and legions of lost
cars in our neighbourhood seeking the campus entrance.
Issue #2 concerns the City of Edmonton’s secondary
suite policy, which will be instituted citywide. However,
given the development of the South Campus, Lendrum will
feel its effects more than most other neighbourhoods.
Secondary Suite with separate entrance either in house
or on second floor of garage.
While all community leagues on the south side accept
that secondary suites in owner occupied houses can help
increase urban density, all the very same leagues are opposed
to allowing absentee landlords to create such suites or
transform existing houses into effective duplexes. While
we accept the City’s goal of increasing density by allowing
owners to rent out a suite in their house or garage, we
think it is imperative that the owner lives on the property
or at the very least, lives in the community.
a) This ensures that owners share a stake in their
community with their neighbours and will exercise care and
concern with respect to both the tenants’ and their own
property.
b) Absentee landlords rarely contribute time or energy
to their community’s well being and often hire management
companies to buttress them from the community as well as
tenants. We feel that part of the smart choices plan should
emphasize "Location" in all its senses.
c) In Vancouver this same policy led to the buying
up of houses by numbered companies that then replaced the
existing house with a “Vancouver special”, a big box duplex
that was then managed by a rental company. These buildings
were put up as cheaply as possible with no concern for the
surrounding houses. Such companies, more often than not,
treated their tenants merely as sources of revenue, which
resulted in high turnover. As a result, many tenants were
not highly invested in their neighbourhood. Vancouver may
have achieved greater density, but its middle class neighbourhoods
paid the price, becoming more anonymous and transient. Of
course, we believe there are benefits to density but only
when the newly “densified” are also participants and stakeholders
in the long-term health and vitality of their neighbourhood.
d) Strathcona county has mandated that suites be
developed only in owner occupied houses. So far no one has
challenged this code although it is not part of the municipal
by-laws. We need to insist Edmonton change these bylaws.
Good planning recognizes that successful neighbourhoods
are not just a collection of houses or apartments where
people eat and sleep, but are also communities where people
develop a fabric of interconnected and supportive relationships.
There are so many places in a city like Edmonton where one
can go to be anonymous but precious few places where city
dwellers can be recognized and acknowledged and feel they
are "at home." We think we can be a great neighbour to the
university, we just don't want to be its extended "transition
zone". In fact, as an delightful mature neighbourhood where
everyday life can be observed in our front yards and not
just in the "back", we will probably be an attractive place
for people to take a break from institutional surroundings
and stroll through our lovely streets, walking paths and
park. Help us plan for a positive outcome -- email, write
our newsletter, and attend the University open house to
make your views heard on 60 th ave. We also want to hear
your views on the secondary suite policy so we can present
a position paper to the City of Edmonton in the near future.
And if there is anything else let us know.
Gail Faurschou
Lendrum Community League.
