LDA20-0192 Strathearn Heights Transit Oriented Development

Is everyone now using Strathearn Drive to get to 85 Street and back again? Is that the how it is going to be in Strathearn? A new traffic study and future plan should be provided before approval of this project. Residents need to know the impact in the community. This smells funny- like something being decided upon quickly in a pandemic before the community has an opportunity to study, discuss and evaluate it properly.
3. The green spaces mentioned are a small part of what the original plan was, and the green spaces such as Strathearn Park and Silver Heights are public spaces, so why are they including this in THEIR plan? I don't think these spaces will be large enough to accommodate the substantial increase in population. The park space in the original development plan was a huge issue at the time, bragged about by the city and now mysteriously gone from the plan. What???
4. The new DC2 states adding 500 residential units, so does that mean 2400 units now? Big difference. This all requires more answers and more information submitted to both the city and community before it can be approved. More community engagement is definitely necessary as well as more involvement with the community. This engagement has not been adequate, very far from it. It seems like this is being quietly pushed through and many residents will wake up very surprised and very angry one day.

I would like to hear what other affected citizens have to say. This is sort of like a divide and conquer approach.

Need more clarification of development next to the alley (south of Strathearn Drive) and how it will affect property owners use of the lane there. Questions on density adjacent to the lane, setback from property line, height of buildings adjacent to the lane and provisions for parking and snow removal. Also impact on shadowing of these private properties, traffic and noise levels. How many parking stalls will be provided per unit for the entire complex and will that be enough to prevent spillover parking in the neighbourhood which will then become a neighbourhood problem. The descriptions of the development are not clear on the fine details.

Public engagement: seeking feedback after a development has unofficially been rubber stamped as approved is unethical and disheartening for community members. The City Planning Department needs to revamp their process and attach some sincerity to their Planning approvals. Also, somehow the City has to use some common sense in co-ordinating developments in adjoining communities (population density, parking, ammenities, etc.) just to get more ridership on the LRT or more tax money from residents. Because - tht is exactly what is happening with Strathearn, Holyrood and Bonnie Doon (Morguard). More people per square foot doesn't equate to a better quality of life. Nor does more housing lead to more affordabe housing.
Communication: While property owners, Commercial owners and the two Cmmunity League Presidents were notified of the rezoning in August 28, 2020 and again May 17, 2021, long-term tenants in Strathearn were not. My notification was last week. Do you think we
do not care about Strathearn Community? Are we invisible?
Community: What does that word mean to City Planners? While attending a meeting years ago, we told a planner that 45 school buses circle in and out of Gabrielle Roy School twice a day which would impact on traffice flow and safety. That planner said, " How do you nw that?" We told the planner to get out of his office chair, get out of his car and take a walk around our neighbourhood. Strathearn: my community is a place where a neighbourly "Hello" warms my day. Strathearn is a safe place to walk; we have one of the lowest crime rates in the City. Strathearn has a Community League that tries it's absolute best to include people in it's diverse activities. The community garden is where some residents go for their "Zen" moment of the day. or to just feel like part of the neighburhood. It has a playground that children, from other communities, love to visit. Strathearn is a place where community children can play in safety. Strathearn is a "destination" community for the annual Art Walk, for Assumtion Catholic Church and St United Church for attendance (yes - even churches can be destinations for people from other places). It is a "destination community for Ralph's fried chicken, for Holiday pizza, for our French Canadian Art Galleries, the Juniper Inn and other stores. Strathearn is a community where we feel safe and belong. No other community is Strathearn.

We have a wonderful walking trail overlooking Cloverdale. Strathearn is a vibrant community that embraces tranquility with effervescence.

Number of units 1900. True 1900 unts have been approve for the rezoning. As well, there will be over 6000 square feet of commercial space. That does not mean 1900 people will reside in each residential unit or one owner in each store. Ther is a likelihood of an 1900 to 15,000 more people dwelling in the units. How will that impact personal safety, the shadowing effect of 20 story buildings overlooking other dwellings, traffic flow, and community spirit? Having lived in a highrise once in my life, highrises do not encourage community spirit. Residents disappear into their units, with their technology, and do not get to know their neighbours or join community activities. North Strathearn is a small peninsula, cut away from South Strathearn by the LRT. There are already fewer exits or places to run to if there were ever an emergency situation such as a fire or explosion. Please ask City consellors how they woud feel having their own communities sucked up, without at least some revision to the Development.

Parking: Strathearn Community League , like many other communities needs the income to pay for our Community Hall. Tha is done by renting the hallout for events, programmes and presentations, in order to support their community activities. If you remove any surrounding parking , without giving any space back, do you think that a bride will hold her reception at the hall? Do you think a musician will haul their equipment from far away? Basically - do you think people will come if we can't have a few more parking spaces?

All parking underground for tenants and visitors?
Do all your friends living within walking distance of your home? Does the LRT have enough stations to directly transport people from their homes? The City"s per capita visitor parking ratio is not functional. There will always be residents who want to dash in and out of their building to get something, or people buying something from a commercial Strathearn home business or EMS and the Fire Department, looking for parking. Parking can be minimized, but not withdrawn as completely as the development planners.

I love my community. Please do not rubber stamp the development , as is, without closely examining all of the comments residents have made and making some adjustments. Strathearn is not a clone of any other community. We are unique.

Scale: Based on the artist rendering, the overall scale of the proposed development is massive, more appropriate for the Ice District of downtown Edmonton than a mainly single-family, low density neighbourhood like Strathearn. Could it be scaled back a bit? Also, to what extent is the existing sewer/water/storm water and on-street parking infrastructure in Strathearn able to accommodate the anticipated addition of 5,000 more residents?
Economics: How economically feasible is this project in the context of an LRT line that will connect the moribund Millwoods and Bonnie Doon shopping malls with a downtown that is on life support? In the future, how many people will flock back to offices in the downtown core? If not very many, where will the residents of the new Strathearn complex work, and how many will use the LRT to get them there. Seems to be a pretty shaky economic gamble in this context.
Affordable housing: An earlier concept for the Strathearn Heights redevelopment included an affordable housing/Habitat for Humanity component. This now seems to be missing. The current Strathearn Heights apartments provide relatively affordable rents for many low to medium income people. Where will these people find affordable accommodation after they are evicted to make room for the new high-income condo housing?
Families with young children: What would attract them to the proposed new development? Purchase and rental prices in the new development combined with missing amenities; e.g. elementary schools in the immediate area, will likely prompt young families to continue to seek suburban sprawl housing alternatives rather than buy into inner-city older neighbourhoods like Strathearn.
Lane closure (between 95 & 96 Avenue, west of 87 Street): Why close this public access between the 96 Avenue area and the Gabrielle Roy School and park space? Seems to me that this access way is well worth preserving, to maximize the access to and use of park-type spaces in the Strathearn neighbourhood.

I strongly disagree with and in no way support the plan that is being proposed by the developer. My objections lie in the lack of a transparent, accessible, and robust community consultation, the lack of clarity on the redevelopment within the proposal, the height of the buildings, and the overall community impact.

I realize that COVID has made community engagement challenging, however, the process that has been used does not allow for meaningful or accessible consultation with Strathearn residents or the community. There is a lack of clarity on if/ how questions will be answered, how feedback will be used or considered, nor is there any opportunity for direct engagement with or questioning of the developer. Given the length of time that has passed since the original redevelopment plan for Strathearn Heights as well as the three previous development plans, the need to rush this consultation through while the public has a limited opportunity to be involved appears misguided at best and duplicitous at worst.

I would also like to highlight the inaccessibility of this platform and process. While I do appreciate the city’s efforts, this process, the proposal, and accompanying documents assume a level of comprehension and literacy that is inaccessible to a large proportion of Canadians and Albertans based on recent statistics. The zoning and redevelopment definitions and regulations are lengthy and convoluted. A sincere desire to engage your community in feedback would have included considerations for information access, and I don’t simply mean putting things online. I would encourage you to consider things like reading levels as well as the removal of jargon whenever possible, among a myriad of other strategies that have been well researched and established in the extant literature.

I don’t oppose redevelopment or reasonable densification; I would simply like to see it be well thought out and motivated more by the needs of the community and less by the motivations of developers.

I have serious concerns with the proposal, in particular the new site specific DC2 rezoning proposed for the Southeast corner. That the developer posits this will increase the feasibility of this redevelopment occurring is utterly ridiculous. The approved plan for the site involves gradually increasing the height of the buildings as it moves into the centre of the development. There are already high rises and midrise buildings in more central locations in the approved redevelopment area within close walking distance to the LRT. These not only meet the ‘need’ for densification in a transit-oriented community but were also intentionally positioned and designed to decrease impact on neighboring homes.

One of the policies in the Southeast Area Plan is to ensure that the "development fits into and reinforces the existing neighbourhood context” (5.2.D.3(a)). The heights of the buildings in the Southeast corner DC2 area are a significant change from the single-storey residences and in no way “fit into” the existing neighbourhood.

Increasing the population density in our small community by at least 4 times will have significant impacts on noise pollution, light pollution, traffic, safety, as well as significantly altering the demographic and accessibility of this neighbourhood for young families looking to purchase a home in a quiet, central area. Additionally, this proposal does not seem to take into consideration the impacts of density increases in Holyrood’s redevelopment or the proposed redevelopment of Bonnie Doon, nor the actual needs and wants of the community.

There is no traffic impact study in the proposal nor is the shadow study comprehensive or well done; there are buildings to the NW that will sit in shade all day. Our neighbourhood borders the river valley and functions as a thoroughfare for certain wildlife populations – has the impact of this been considered at all?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, will be the shift in economic accessibility in Strathearn as a result of this redevelopment. The developer is proposing the removal and displacement of 500 low income/ affordable housing units in a central location. Where will these be replaced? Is there an expectation that the developer or the city will subsidize units to make this new development equally as accessible to individuals with lower incomes? A minimum of 15% ‘made available’ for the city to purchase for affordable housing will not come close to 500 units. With our city’s commitment to end homelessness, I would be shocked if this project wasn’t heavily scrutinized. Holyrood has already lost several hundred affordable housing units to redevelopment, thereby making east-central Edmonton inaccessible to low income populations.

I will conclude by highlighting that I am strongly opposed to the new DC2 rezoning proposal when the previous plan was better aligned with the Southeast Area Plan and with the community as a whole. I am not opposed to redevelopment or increasing density. I am, in fact, excited to see the completion of the LRT and some of the new developments. However, I expect a level of transparent and robust community engagement to inform how this unprecedented redevelopment moves forward. I do expect a level of accountability and planning in response to the loss of a significant volume of affordable housing. I do expect to see a process and plan that considers the wider needs of the existing community instead of prioritizing the wants of the developer.

.

I do not support the plan that is being proposed by the developer. There are four reasons for my opposition: the piecemeal construction process, the height of the proposed buildings, the proposed park space, and the lack of a meaningful consultation process.

1. Piecemeal Construction Process

The existing DC2 plan is comprehensive and provides details of many aspects of the development, such as maximum number of units, the creation of low-income housing, and expectations for park space. The current proposal lacks many of these details.

It is impossible to know whether the goals of the Southeast Area Plan will be reflected in the development if the redevelopment is completed piece by piece, as proposed by the developer.

Without an overarching plan I am concerned that instead of creating a cohesive urban village that blends in with the existing neighbourhood there will be a disjointed collection of buildings that does not add to the community. This lack of an overall plan is also reflected in the absence of detail in areas including lighting and public art. The developer uses tentative language such as “may be used” or “can be done” in relation to design elements. As a result, it is unclear whether the developer is committing to these features.

Without a commitment to proper lighting between the units, pedestrians will feel unsafe using the mews and linear parks, particularly during the darker winter months. Without a commitment to developing communal spaces with features such as public art, the “urban village” feeling will not exist.

2. Height of Buildings

The approved plan for the site involves gradually increasing the height of the buildings as it moves into the centre of the development. One of the policies in the Southeast Area Plan is to ensure that the "development fits into and reinforces the existing neighbourhood context" (5.2.D.3(a)).

The heights of the buildings in the South-East corner DC2 area are a drastic change from the adjacent single-storey residences. The proposed North Tower is 73.6m tall (an increase from the currently approved 64m tall A17 building). The West Tower is to be 66m tall (a significant increase from the approved 25m tall A20 building). Under the new proposal, houses along 87th Street will be in shadow during the afternoons for a large part of the year. This was not a problem with the approved A17 building.

3. Parks

COVID has made people acutely aware of the value of outdoor space, particularly close to home. With increased density in the neighbourhood, more people will be looking to spend time outside. While the developer has identified a number of existing parks in the area, the new proposal removes park space that is contemplated under the current plan. This is contrary to one of the objectives of Bylaw 917; specifically to “offer a number of public open spaces that provide opportunities for active and passive activities in formal and informal spaces, including such options as garden squares and park blocks.” Further, the parks that exist in the area are well used, and there is no indication that the developer has considered the impacts of the additional population on the existing park infrastructure.

Additionally, not all parks are created equal. The linear parks that have been proposed are 12.5m and 15m wide with paths going down the centre. These parks do not provide a place for groups to congregate or participate in activities especially once landscaping has been taken into account. The developer uses Alexander Circle as an example of the size and character of the pocket park that would be created; however, there are only 16 properties that front onto Alexander Circle. The proposed development has an unknown number of units, and potentially hundreds of individuals interested in using the limited space provided.

The Neighbourhood Park in the AP zone of the currently approved plan is on the edge of the development which helps to foster a mixing of people in the Strathearn Heights development and the greater neighbourhood. The Southeast Area Plan in 5.2.D.5(f) states that the development will “provide amenity for adjacent streets and open spaces to make these areas attractive, interesting, comfortable and functional for pedestrians by providing landscaped open space within the development site.” The pocket park as is suggested is in the centre of the development, and would only be accessible if you were to use the linear pathways and thus is more likely to be utilized by residents of Strathearn Heights and is less likely to foster a sense of community.

4. Consultation

Finally, while COVID has made more traditional methods of consultation challenging, the process that has been employed has not allowed for meaningful consultation with Strathearn residents. An ad hoc web posting is a poor substitution for in-person public engagement. The questions posed on the online forum are not publicly answered, limiting the accountability of the responses. Further, there is no way to verify that the comments posted to the forum come from actual Strathearn residents, particularly given that individuals can submit comments anonymously or under a pseudonym. Given the length of time that has passed since the original redevelopment plan for Strathearn Heights; the three previous development plans; and the lack of any construction to date; the need to rush this consultation through while the public has a limited opportunity to be involved seems misguided.

Conclusion

The development of higher density residential areas, particularly surrounding public transit like the LRT line, is valuable. When done well, redevelopment can supplement the surrounding neighbourhood in a physically and socially cohesive manner, all while achieving the city’s stated development objectives. The development as proposed does not achieve these goals. It prioritizes the wants of the developer over the interests of the community, and seeks to set aside a development plan that is in tune with the wider needs of the city and the existing community.

Great idea, we need to grow up not out

I am in favour of the Strathearn Heights proposal that is before Council. I’m a long term renter and look forward to the new development with it’s affordable housing segment.

Make them stick to what has already been approved! There is a shameful lack of transparency in this proposal, the application should not even be considered. No data provided on how many units are to be built (looks like double?) and where did all the green space go?! If COVID has taught us anything it’s that people need to be able to get outdoors close to home. Even 1900 units is too much for our small community given that there are only 2 routes in and out of the development area. Alleyways have already seen a dangerous increase in usage and speeding vehicles due to the LRT, any increase in housing at the apartments is going to make that worse. Development has already been approved based on actual community feedback and discussion, not this underhanded attempt to push something through under the radar while in a pandemic. If city council approves this it will prove that developer money is all that matters and NOT the long term health of the community. We’ve already been railroaded into having an LRT stop which has divided our community in half not to mention the loss of hundreds of old, huge, beautiful trees. Strathearn’s beautiful tree lined streets were/are one of the most amazing characteristics of this area and the puny bushes and shrubs that have been planted cannot hope to compare. Will the city protect the ones that border the current site?

If the City of Edmonton approves this (likely it already has) then I suggest thIs farce of “community feedback matters” be removed from the process and it gets called what it is, “money in city and council pockets matter not the concerns of people that live in the community”

I was living in Strathearn Heights for a couple of years. It was perfect for a small family with limited income. Edmonton has a young population, lots of families with young children. These families don't want to live in the more and more ubiquitous towers that our administration favours. Instead, they move to the ever growing suburbs, where they can afford a house. I wish we could achieve more density AND attract families downtown by building more projects like the existing Strathearn Heights apartments: Not overscaled (20 floors is WAY too high for this area), but denser than detached single family houses. Affordable. Community-oriented. Lots of green space. Please replace the aging buildings with something similar, keep the beautiful trees! The vast majority of people posting here shares my opinion. I hope we will be heard! Don't let money rule.

The prospect of being removed from my home either by demolition or the likely doubling of housing costs does not excite me. However, having previously worked for the City of Edmonton, I know full well this entire page is a formality and this is all likely going to happen within the next year or two. Just like when I was able to see the LRT plans that were 'consulted' on with the public a year after they were seemingly approved. Just like that, this is more about communicating that it's going to happen regardless of the cost to residents of the area. Leases will stop being offered, people will move away. And just like downtown, units that were once below the thousand dollar mark will cost 2200 and up because they're 'new and hip'.

I think this is a terrible idea. I do not consent. This is a money making scheme. It does not add value to the neighborhood. It will become like Whyte Avenue, High traffic, problems, bars and noise. Does the City Plan to build subsidized apartments with this plan, we are all the people to go, become homeless and add to the social problems in Edmonton already. There is a shortage of reasonably priced units already in Edmonton, Unfettered Capitalism. We just survived a pandemic, where people's income were sliced by up to half or non existent. This is a money grab. We will be looking an inflation and an economic crash after all the printing of money and huge Government spending and deficits. This is the most uncommon sense thing to do. With AI looming and the unemployment that is going to bring. This seems ill planned and ill timed. So that is what the LRT was about. Typical Business and Elites who rule the world no common sense or fore thought, just the worship of how much money and power they accumulate

I feel this does not help the community, where are people supposed to go for lower rent options. This will only benefit high income people.

I can get behind redevelopment. But with that being said, do things that will improve it, not make it worse. Redevelop the apartments into something similar with improved plumbing or something like that. Cutting down trees and replacing them with cement pads and high rises will not be positive changes. Theres already the LRT, adding high rises and new shops will only attract weirdos and give the homeless more places to hide. This area is beautiful and is one of the last safe and very affordable areas in the city which is important for low income famillies and college students. I don't see how redevelopment of pricier high rises will make ANY positive changes to the community since none of the current residents will be able to afford it. And those building designs are ugly. Cookie cutter, superficial, no character, cold, artificial looking. Why would anyone who's lived here for a long time ever want this? This just feels like greed, nothing more. It will definitely benefit SOMEONE, but not the current people who live here. There also shouldn't be any decisions made until in-person hearings can take place, people deserve to have their real voices heard about this. You can't convey an accurate tone of voice in just writing.

I have lived in Strathearn apartments for 13 years, so why would I support my home being torn down?! Only to be replaced with some cookie cutter expensive high rise and condos that none of the current residents will be able to afford to live in. So sad. Leave this beautiful older neighborhood alone

On top of my previous comment I would also like to state that an in-person gathering should be held for individuals to bring up their criticism of the proposed rezoning (once it is safe to do so). I do not believe any further work should be done until the voices of the community can be heard in-person.

This new proposal reeks of greed, and money rather than building a new and better community for Strathearn. It should go straight back to the drawing board.

.... What are you doing tearing down all the trees? Seriously. Worst idea ever. I get that Developers are promising oodles of change, for the taxes and rent.... But they're never going to fill up. Stop trying to infill where there shouldn't be infill. Leave the older neighbourhoods alone. Renovate the buildings, or replace them with something similar. Don't destroy the nature, and put in a walkway.

Pretty sure there's a song about what's happening here.

Hello,

My thanks in asking the opinion of community members in the proposed rezoning of our community.

With that being said I would like to voice my disapproval for the proposed rezoning. As having lived within the Strathearn community for the last 22 years, as well as my immediate family having lived here since the communities conception, I do not believe this will be a positive change for the community.

The reasons for my disapproval for this project is as follows:
1) Population Density - Strathearn is a very quiet, and tight nit community. I fear that the addition of mid-rise and especially high-rise apartment complexes will vastly change the heart and soul of our community. Having so many additional housing spaces will cause the community to become excessively crowded, and dense.
2) Parking - As it stands now parking within the community is already an issue. The streets are rather narrow, and the addition of so many new housing unit will exasperate this issue exponentially.

I care deeply for this community, it is my home. I hope that the rezoning of this community will be disapproved of, re-thought out, as I do not believe the current proposal would fit with the spirit of Strathearn, and would make the community much worse.

Best Regards,

Andrew Binassi

this is the SINGLE worst thing the city could be doing. this is one of the last affordable and SAFE areas to live that is close to the downtown core and whyte ave. I've finally found a place where i can take a walk around my neighbourhood without feeling like im going to get mugged or assaulted and youre going to URBANIZE IT? if you think the current residents in the area are just going to roll over and take this you have another thing coming. i hope whoever proposed these changes have a hard time sleeping going forward.