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 or even “letters to the editor” for our next issue. Please go to the website: 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 endeavored 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. The University will be hosting an open house on November 18 regarding its future plans. These plans are moving ahead quickly and construction of two residence buildings and paved roads are slated to begin soon. Please attend the Open house for greater discussion on this. (See Newsletter Bulletin)

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.