Edmonton (Alta. ) - 1984 - Inner city residential development project_summary report (1984 02)

Plannirta Depviment E ,AR1 LI? 'The City of Edmonton

INNER CITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Summary Report

Long Range Planning Branch February 1984

(i)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose of the Report

The report presents information on inner city housing development during 1976-82. It identifies the principal locations of new residential building and gives details of the type and number of units.

The report complements the discussion of development activity in area structure plans contained in "The Status of Residential Land" so that city-wide information is now available. The General Municipal Plan Review will use the information contained in the report as a basis for examining policy issues.

Major Findings

I)

Total New Inner City Units

The number of new units of each major housing type are as follows:

Single family housing (Single detached, semi-detached, duplex, agricultural/peripheral) 3 & 4 family housing and row housing Apartments (walk-up and high rise) Collective residences Others Total

2,514

units

13%

845

units

4%

11,366

units

60%

3,709

units

20%

505

units

3%

18,939

units

100%

2)

Comparison with Area Structure Plans

56,136 units were built throughout the city from 1976 to 1982. Of this total, 18,939 units (34%) were in the inner city and 37,197 units (66%) have been built in the suburbs.

Inner city residential growth has resulted in major increases in multi-family units (16,425 or 87% of the total inner city units). Because of the slow growth of single family housing in the inner city and the demolition of existing family dwellings in older neighbourhoods, there was a trend towards a declining proportion of family housing in the inner city.

Development in the suburban areas over 1976-82 shows a more even split of housing types: 18,407 single family and 18,790 multi-family units.

3)

Development Trends (Table 3)

There was a steady increase in total units constructed to 1979, a sharp decline in 1980 and a second peak in 1981.

Individual housing types also showed their own trends:

-

single detached housing declined from 1976 onwards.

-

duplexes declined from 1978 onwards.

-

row housing shows a high concentration in 1981.

-

collective residences show a peak in 1982 when all other types decreased (reflecting strong government housing construction).

4)

Location of New Development

The most spectacular growth has occurred Downtown, in Oliver and in the river lots east of 97 Street. To the south of the River Valley, Garneau and Old Strathcona have been major 'growth areas. These areas together accounted for 7,126 units or 38% of the inner city total.

Other areas of high density development are identifiable in subdivisions adjoining LRT stations and major roads. Most of the new units in these areas are apartments or in collective residences.

5)

Single Family Development

The mature suburban areas of Petrolia (150 dwellings), Ottewell (162 dwellings) and Dickinsfield (137 dwellings) in the inner city were the major contributors to the growth in single detached housing. A total of 1383 single detached houses were built in the inner city: 55% of total single family housing development.

There are limited examples of older central neighbourhoods where low density housing has been introduced, sometimes in conjunction with multi-family development on the periphery of the neighbourhood. Examples include Jasper place, Inglewood, De1ton and Eastwood.

6)

The Significance of Government Programmes

Government programmes have had a major impact on the total number of new dwelling units constructed in the inner city. Estimates from programme offices indicate that approximately 17,100 multi-family units (90% of the total) built in the inner city benefited from government financing.

7)

Use of Data

Data have been collected and presented in a form which is suitable for use in the review of General Municipal Plan policy.

Conclusions From 1976 to 1982 there was a very strong emphasis on multi-family housing development in the inner city; this occurred at a time of strong economic and population growth, with government programmes encouraging investment in this type of housing.

(iv)

2.

Most of the city's single family housing development (88% of total units) occurred in the suburban areas, while the proportion of single family housing in the inner city continues to decline.

3.

Individual neighbourhoods differ significantly from the general trend and require specific measures such as the neighbourhood planning studies, ARP's and RRAP to deal with problems and establish a receptive climate for investment.

4.

Now that an assessment of the amount and location of new residential development is available, basic information for the review of General Municipal Plan residential policies and a re-evaluation of the Plan objectives exists. Information in the summary report and in computer print-outs answers questions on the extent to which policies are being achieved and raises questions on whether General Municipal Plan objectives continue to be viable.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. INTRODUCTION

2.

3.

1.1 Purpose of the Report 1.2 Scope of the Study 1.3 Data Source and Organization

1 1 3

CONTEXT

6

2.1 Population 2.2 General Municipal Plan 2.3 Government Programmes

6 7 8

THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN 3.1 Inner City Picture 3.2 Principal Development Locations Downtown and Vicinity 3.2.1 3.2.2 East of Downtown 3.2.3 Garneau/Old Strathcona Inner City: West 3.2.4 Inner City: Northwest 3.2.5 Inner City: Northeast 3.2.6 3.2.7 Northwest: Calder 3.2.8 Inner City: Southeast and Southwest 3.3 Suburban Development 3.4 Renovation and Rehabilitation

4. CONCLUSION

2 2 3 4 5 6 8 8 9 9 9

21

1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the Report

Essential information on residential growth in Edmonton's inner city has long been unavailable to the Planning Department for residential policy decisions. Consequently, the Inner City Residential Development Project was initiated to investigate the distribution and type of new dwelling units being built in the inner city. The study complements the annual report 'The Status of Residential Land' which summarizes development in those areas of the city covered by area structure plans. The study is also linked with the General Municipal Plan monitoring programme which examined the housing and demographic changes in seven sample neighbourhoods.

This report briefly summarizes the findings of the project, reporting on the amount and location of residential development activity in Edmonton's inner city, between 1976 and the end of 1982. This information is basic to an understanding of the growth processes operating in the city and hence to the operation of policies and regulations to guide this growth.

The report and the General Municipal Plan monitoring study on inner city redevelopment provide information which can be used in the General Municipal Plan review. A significant data base on inner city residential development activity is now available. The General Municipal Plan review project can start on policy issues immediately, without further data collection.

1.2 Scope of the Study

The study area for the project is the built-up area of the city, excluding newer suburbs covered by area structure plans. The area includes the 'Inner City' residential policy areas defined in the General Municipal Plan and the older industrial areas which include existing residential uses. The area of study is shown on map 1, 'Residential Development 19761982: Principal Locations'. Within the study area it is possible to distinguish two distinct residential areas based on the date of development: the older neighbourhoods, developed before 1951, and the mature suburbs, developed between 1951 and 1971. The term 'inner

MAP1 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1976-1982:PRINCIPAL LOCATIONS

a azaa gialIBMININIIIIIIIIIMINIIMallla

I

I a

a

SUBDIVISIONS WITH >100 UNITS BUILT

Int

a

STUDY AREA plaN1111M111111all

II MN

IIIIII II

vs 0 II IMP 8

'tap a ssor I ma le wan 3 WO

i

I

11

a I mi I !MUM

a

II

1

i !

I ow I am 2 aar a so I int a um a

@Minton

PLANNING

2 city' will be used to describe the entire study area, in line with its use in the General Municipal Plan, even though it includes several types of residential areas and does not correspond with the general use of the term in other cities.'

The first phase of the project deals primarily with the building of new residential units in the inner city. This may take place within established urban areas or on tracts of vacant land which had not been developed by 1971 and remained vacant after the main thrust of residential growth moved to structure plan areas. It is important to distinguish between these two kinds of development because they each occur in response to different sets of factors and have different implications for the development of the city.

As part of the development process, the following types of change in the residential stock may occur: i)

New development on vacant land, including infill housing.2

ii)

Redevelopment, i.e., the demolition or removal of an existing building or use and its replacement by a new structure. This may take several forms:

iii)

a)

The replacement of a non-residential use by a residential use;

b)

The replacement of existing residential building(s) by new residential building(s) with a larger or smaller number of units;

c)

The replacement of a residential building by a non-residential use (loss of dwelling(s)).

Conversion3 of existing structures:

The term 'inner city' is generally understood to mean the area surrounding the city centre where early residential development took place. The 'inner city' today is aharacterized by older housing and infrastructure, is undergoing land use changes, and acts as a transition area between central commercial uses and more stable residential neighbourhoods.

2.

Infill housing is housing built on vacant parcels of land that are already served by utilities and are surrounded by urban development.

3

No information on conversion was available for this report.

3

a)

Conversion of a building to residential use;

b)

Conversion of an existing residential building to residential use at higher or lower density;

c)

iv)

Conversion of a residential building to other uses (loss of dwelling units).

Rehabilitation and renovation of existing dwellings.

In collecting data on the number, location and date of construction of new residential units, the first phase of the Residential Development Project represents an initial examination of one aspect of residential change; it is a first step in the investigation of the processes taking place within the inner city neighbourhoods on which further research can be based. The report presents information for the entire inner city but is based on data for each subdivision. The same information can be given for any combination of inner city subdivisions, to allow a more detailed look at particular areas.

Once the total numbers of new residential units were established at the start of the project, attention focussed away from those parts of the mature suburbs where development was taking place for the first time, as the principal intention of the project is to examine those types of development that involve the replacement of an existing use (redevelopment) or the introduction of new housing in an older area (inf ill development and large scale development projects).

1.3 Data Source and Organization

The principal source of data is the City of Edmonton's property assessment data base.

This provides essential information on the numbers and types of units being built in the City. It also includes useful structural characteristics such as year of construction.

Therefore, it is possible to determine the amount, date and location of the two most significant types of development: new development on vacant land and redevelopment of sites already in use. This information can then be considered against the background of the characteristics of the neighbourhoods in which development activity is occurring.

4

The Office of the City Assessor records subdivision names which provide the only small area identifier available for summarizing data; therefore the subdivision forms the basic spatial unit for this project. There are two main problems with this approach: the subdivision does not correspond to neighbourhoods, and subdivisions vary widely in size and in their numbers of dwelling units. In addition, mapping data based on subdivisions results in a highly generalized picture of development activity; it suggests that development is distributed throughout the subdivision, whereas it may be concentrated at certain points or along major roads.

Data are not available on all categories of residential development. The study is based on information on the date of construction of the present housing stock and its location by subdivision (at December 31, 1982). It is not possible to distinguish from the subdivision tables whether new units are located within residential neighbourhoods, and therefore constitute infill development, or are part of larger-scale development projects on the edge of existing neighbourhoods. The data allow identification of new units built, but not the conversion of an existing building or the location of residential property which has been demolished. A city-wide estimate of demolition of units is available from the City of Edmonton Bylaw Enforcement Department but the loss of units in each subdivision or neighbourhood is unknown and no figure for the net increase of units can be given. It is possible to identify areas where renovation and rehabilitation have occurred and to compare subdivisions. However, the proportion of the total amount of renovation or rehabilitation activity which the data reveal is not fully known and differences in reliability among areas may be an additional problem.

A series of tables has been compiled for each subdivision from the assessment data.

These are grouped into districts corresponding approximately to the District Planning areas. An additional problem with the use of subdivisions as the basic units for summarizing data is that boundaries do not conform exactly to District Plan boundaries.

From composite tables prepared for each District it is possible to draw comparisons between and among subdivisions and identify those areas where development has concentrated. These tables form the basis of this summary report.

Data were collected in two main groups: for the dwelling stock constructed before 1976 and for dwellings constructed from 1976 to the end of 1982. By comparing these, it is

5

possible to determine the impact of recent development on the existing housing stock.

Data on dwelling characteristics and land use districts provide more detail on each area and enable comparisons to be drawn between areas with different amounts and types of development. 1976 was chosen as the starting date for examining recent development, as information up to 1976 was available for preparation of the General Municipal Plan and it gave a long enough period for the identification of development trends. The data can be updated annually.

Reference was made (see page 6) to the report "Edmonton Demographic Profile 1982" to provide a broad, district-wide indication of the population growth accompanying new residential development.

6

CONTEXT

In assessing the significance of information on new dwelling units, it is necessary to consider the context within which development is occurring. The following factors all affect the amount and location of development: the housing demands arising from population growth; the policy background which is intended to guide development; and government programmes which encourage new home building. These are examined below.

2.1

Population

The population of the City increased by 90,300 between 1976 and 1982 (Table I). Most of this growth was accommodated in the new suburbs which have area structure plans, where 37,200 units were constructed, compared with 18,900 in the study area. Inner city development was overwhelmingly in multi-family4 units (87%), while 49% of units built in the new suburbs were single family types.5 88% of all single family units were built in structure plan areas.

35% of all suburban development took place in the Southeast District (13,150 units); much of this resulted from the growth of Mill Woods. No other district figures approach this amount. For example, in the Southwest, with the next highest development figures, only 6,700 units were built. The Southeast is the only district showing an appreciable increase in the 0-19 age group, suggesting that much of the suburban development in this district was built to serve the housing needs of families with children.

Also of particular interest, the Central District was the only district to show a decline in total population, even though it had the largest share of inner city units (almost 7,500 built since 1976). These figures support the conclusion that most of the population growth was being housed in the suburbs. Within the Central District, the age groups between 20

4.

'Multi-family" includes 3 and 4 family housing and row housing, in addition to apartments and collective residences, to allow direct comparison with development under area structure plans. For the early years of the study period no distinction was made in the available data between apartment and row housing.

5.

Single detached, semi-detached and duplex housing.

TABLE

/ 1: CITY

DISTRICTS Inner City Study Area

Single Detached Semi-Detached Duplex Agr. /Per iphera I 3 + 4 Family Row Housing Walk-Up Apartments High-Rise Apartments Collective Residences Others

DEVELOPMENT

CENTRAL 149 70 282 0 21 236 3,398 2,346 889 85

TOTALS Area Structure Plan Areas

Single Family Multi-Units

501

6,975

0 0

DISTRICT TOTALS

POPULATION CHANGES -

NORTHEAST 430 1 20 58 3 18 91 902 2 492 6

7,476

TOTALS

City Population Change 1976-82

by Age Group

AND

508

1,514

NORTHWEST 125 113 1.

172 0 271 204 538 45 624 26

2,022

410

1,464

WEST 131 124 106 0 4N 6 921

-

SOUTHWEST

366

1,137

201 5 1,874

3,397 1,750

2,284 3,601

1976 to 1982

243 N 10 36 ' 0) 381 146 1,938 1,041 804 379

4,346

300 } 31 106 0 32 22 235 0 699 4)

4,635

1,503 2,342 3,951

289

SOUTHEAST

437

992

18,939

5,885

5,147

6,293

6,722

13,150

37,197

7,476

7,907

7,021

7,796

11,357

14,579

56,136

25.6%

26.7%

19.3%

40.8%

9.8%

% Study Area Total of City Total

13.3%

3.6%

3.3%

2.6%

8.3%

2.5%

Source: Office of the City Assessor

16,425

0

100%

-6,344 +3,005 +3,525 -1,843 -772 -2,429

2,514

18,407 18,790

% Study Area Total of District Total

0-19 years 20 - 29 years 30 - 39 years 40 - 64 years 65 + years TOTAL CHANGE

1,383 368 760 3 140 705 7,932 3,434 3,709 505

1,429 8,442 4,708

1,942 4,780

CITY-WIDE TOTAL

-1,037 +9,136 +3,909 +4,990 +1,725 +19,723

-4,081 +5,430 +4,830 +419 +1,734 +8,332

+56 +8,284 +5,039 +4,274 +1,059 +18,712

-3,134 +9,477 +4,151 +3,522 +1,471 +15,487

+4,038 +12,129 +9,648 +2,977 +1,690 +30,482

33.7%

-10,502 +47,461 +31,102 +15,339 +6,907 +90,307

7 and 39 show a significant increase, in spite of a decline in all other groups. These age groups are those most likely to generate a demand for multi-family units which comprise almost 7,000 of the total new units built in this district. This trend is reinforced by the decline in children (0 to 19 years) in the district, corresponding to the small amount of single family housing (500 units) built in the Central District.

Because no detailed data on dwelling loss is included in the present study there can be no direct correlation between new dwelling units and population growth. Also, these figures do not take into account changes in household size.

The figures give only broad indications of the overall distribution of single family housing development, compared with multi-family housing which primarily accommodates single people and younger childless couples. Only 2,500 units of single family housing were provided in the study area since 1976, compared with 18,400 built in area structure plan areas. Many of these 2,500 units were built to complete the initial development of older suburban areas.

2.2 General Municipal Plan General Municipal Plan policies (approved in 1980) were drawn up to direct the growth envisioned for the city; they incorporate the following principles: -

Increasing compactness of residential development (Growth Strategy element B5)

-

Priority of existing developed areas for accommodating growth (Growth Strategy element B6)

-

An emphasis on family - suitable housing6 (policy 5.B.1, objective 5B) Dispersed development (objective 5B)

6.

Includes single detached, semi-detached and duplex housing (single family housing) plus row housing and 3 and 4 family housing, all with at least 2 bedrooms.

8

-

Integration of new development and existing housing types (policy 5.B.2)

-

Higher densities near activity nodes (policy 5.B.5)

-

Rejuvenation of inner city neighbourhoods (policy 5.B.7)

The assessment data allow some investigation of these issues. Questions remaining to be dealt with are whether the General Municipal Plan policies have influenced the development market trends, and whether the principles initially embodied in GMP policies should continue to be pursued. The inner city residential development project will provide basic information against which these issues may be considered.

2.3 Government Programmes

The impact of government programmes on residential development since 1976 has been felt in two main ways. The availability of financial assistance in the form of loans, grants, subsidies and tax shelters has facilitated development by the private sector by lowering the cost of financing. Secondly, government programmes have initiated housing projects to meet special needs, with development undertaken directly by public sector agencies, such as Alberta Housing Corporation.

The first aspect, financial aid to the private sector, has had a major effect on total numbers of dwelling units constructed throughout the city.

Programmes which

encouraged the development of multi-family units have resulted in higher levels of apartment building activity in the inner city and will therefore have increased the share of the housing stock made up of this type of unit. Examples include the Core Housing Incentive Programme (C.H.1.P.) which operates through loans to builders to stimulate construction of rental units, and the Multiple Unit Residential Building (M.U.R.B.) Programme, now discontinued, which allowed investors in the development of rental units to deduct the resulting development costs from taxable income. Estimates obtained from programme offices indicate that approximately 17,100 multi-family units built in the inner city since 1976 benefited from government financing7. This represents more than

7.

From information obtained by telephone from housing programme offices.

9

90% of the total multi-family units constructed in the inner city since then.

Single family housing development has also been stimulated by government assistance through such programmes as the Alberta Family Home Purchase Programme which provides loans to low and moderate income families, and the Co-operative Housing Action Programme which provides mortgages and subsidies to families building their own homes.

These programmes would have had greater impact in area structure plan areas because the majority of single family housing has been built in these areas.

In those instances where private sector development is helped by government funding, the location of development is determined by private initiative. Therefore, this type of government programme is not a factor in determining the location of housing development within the inner city.

Government may also play a more direct role in influencing residential development when a government agency acts as developer and builder. This would occur under the Community Housing Programme, where the Alberta Housing Corporation provides capital financing with contributions from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the municipality. After construction, the project is managed by the local housing authority.

This programme accounted for the development of 1,600 units between 1976 and 1982 in the inner city areas of Edmonton; these units may have been built in locations which would otherwise have experienced lower levels of development activity. However, new units would be built under this programme in those areas where Alberta Housing Corporation owned or had optioned land: this is the prime determinant of location of development. In this respect, the action of Alberta Housing Corporation is similar to that of a private developer.

Government programmes extend to cover all aspects and scales of housing development, including special housing types, different tenure forms, innovative designs, servicing, land supply, repair and conversion. Government may play a direct role in land development and building or may provide assistance to the private sector.

l0

Government programmes have stimulated the development of new inner city units; they have had a major impact on the private developer's decision on whether to proceed with a new project and on the type of units to be built. However, the role of government agencies in directly determining an appropriate site for a particular housing type is limited by the way in which the housing programmes operate. This is important in assessing General Municipal Plan policies relating to the distribution of housing types within the city and looking at agencies through which these policies can be implemented.

THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN

3.1

Inner City Picture

Throughout the study area, 18,900 residential units were built from 1976 to 1982 (Table 2).

Walk-up apartment development8 made up the largest share of total development (42%, 7,900 units) (Figure I). High-rise apartment development9 was also a major sector (18%, 3,400 units)).

During the study period the number of units in collective residences 10 increased by 3,700 (a 78% increase). The most significant change in the overall composition of the dwelling stock occurred in this sector. The addition of collective residence units has occurred in the form of large projects, which have therefore had considerable impact. For example, 458 units (4 properties) were built in the Southeast District, comprising 51% of all units constructed in this district between 1976 and 1982. The majority of collective residence units are in public ownership.

Other types maintained a similar share of total units as that in 1976. Semi-detached units increased by 368, duplex by 760 units, 3 and 4 family housing by 140 units, and row housing by 705 units. The exception was single detached housing which declined from being the primary housing type in 1976 to accounting for only 46% of the total (71,700 units out of 157,300 units). Although almost 1,400 new single detached units were built in the study period, more than 2,500 single detached units were demolished in the city during this time.I I This type of housing suffered the largest loss of units out of the total of 3,056 units demolished.

The total changes in inner-city housing stock are not representative of all areas where

8.

Walk-up apartment buildings are those of four storeys or less. (Source: Office of the City Assessor).

9.

High rise apartment buildings are those which are more than four storeys in height (Source: Office of the City Asessor).

10.

'Collective residences', as defined by the Office of the City Assessor, include the following: University or college residence, hospital (nurses') residence, convent or seminary, senior citizens' custom-built residence.

I I. Source: City of Edmonton Bylaw Enforcement Department.

TABLE #2: INNER CITY HOUSING MIX AND DEVELOPMENT I 976- I 982 (DWELLING UNITS) Page 1 of 2

SINGLE DETACHED

SEMIDETACHED

No

NORTH EAST DISTRICT

NORTH WEST DISTRICT

DUPLEX

13,006 430 3.3 13,436

60.8

Pre 1976 1976- 1982 %Increase 1982 Total

14,797 125 0.8 14,922

61.2

Pre 1976 1976- 1982 %Increase 1982 total

8,788 136 1.5 8,924

60.3

Pre 1976 1976- 1982 %Increase 1982 Total

7,810 149 1.9 7,959

24.3

Pre 1976 1976- 1982 %Increase 1982 Total

12,099 243 2.0 12,342

45.7

Pre 1976 1976- 1982 %Increase 1982 total

13,830 300 2.2 14,130

70.3

Pre 1976 1976- 1982 % Increase 1982 Total

70,330 1,383 2.0 71,713

50.8

57.4

57.3

493 20 4.1 513

2.3

331 113 34.1 444

1.4

106 124 117.0 230

0.7

80 70 87.5 150

0.2

246 10 4.1 256

0.9

213 31 14.6 244

1.1

1,469 368 25.1 1,837

1.1

2.2

1.7

1,328 58 4.4 1,386

6.2

1,730 172 9.9 1,902

7.2

476 106 22.3 582

3.3

2,848 282 9.9 3,130

8.9

1,880 36 1.9 1,916

7.1

5.9

7.3

164 18 11.0 182

ROW HOUSING

WALK-UPS

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

Pre 1976 1976- 1982 %Increase 1982 Total

3/4 FAMILY

0.8 0.8

70 27 38.5 97

0.3

41 4 9.8 45

0.3

73 21 28.8 94

0.2

165 38 23.0 203

0.6

312 32 10.3 344

1.6

825 140 17.0 965

0.6

0.4

2,789 91 3.3 2,880

13.0 12.3

656 204 31.1 860

2.7

820 6 0.7 826

5.6

423 236 55.8 659

1.3

965 146 15.1 1,111

3.6

642 22 3.4 664

3.3

3.3

2,944 902 30.6 3,846

13.8

4,350 538 12.4 4,888

18.0

3,224 921 28.6 4,145

22.1

11,193 3,398 30.4 14,591

34.9

6,648 1,938 29.2 8,586

25.1

2,162 235 10.9 2,397

11.0

30,521 7,932 26.0 38,453

22.0

16.4

18.8

4.

WEST DISTRICT

CENTRAL DISTRICT

SOUTH WEST DISTRICT

SOUTHEAST DISTRICT

INNER CITY

Source: Office of the City Assessor

55.4

20.1

39.7

66.9

45.6

1.4

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.2

3.6

7.9

6.2

2,020 106 5.2 2,126

10.3

10,282 760 7.4 11,042

7.4

10.1

7.0

0.3

0.2

0.7

1.6

0.6

6,295 705 11.2 7,000

5.1

1.7

3.6

3.1 4.5 4.4

25.7

36.9

27.6

11.4

24.4

TABLE /2: INNER CITY HOUSING MIX AND DEVELOPMENT 1976-1982 (DWELLING UNITS) page 2 of 2

HIGH RISE APARTMENTS

NORTH EAST DISTRICT

NORTH WEST DISTRICT

WEST DISTRICT

CENTRAL DISTRICT

SOUTH WEST DISTRICT

SOUTH EAST DISTRICT

INNER CITY

No.

(X,

Pre 1976 976- 1982 % Increase 1982 Total

140 2 1.4 142

0.7

Pre 1976 1976- 1982 % Increase 1982 Total

747 45 6.0 792

3.1 3.0

Pre 1976 1976- 1982 % Increase 1982 fold

961

6.6

961

6.0

Pre 1976 1976 - 1982 % Increase 1982 Total

6,617 2,346 35.5 8,963

20.6

Pre 1976 1976 - 1982 % Increase 1982 Total

3,358 1,041 31.0 4,399

12.7

Pre 1976 1976- 1982 % Increase 1982 total

232

1.2

232

1.1

Pre 1976 1976- 1982 % Increase 1982 Total

12,055 3,434 28.5 15,489

8.7

Source: Office of the City Assessor

0.6

22.6

14.1

9.8

COLLECTIVE RESIDENCES No. 219 492 224.7 711 946 624 66.0 1,570

AGRICULTURAL PERIPHERAL

3.0

116 3 2.6 119

0.5 0.5

3.9 6.0

82 201 245.1 283

0.6

4

0

1.8

4

0

2,450 889 36.3 3,339

7.6 8.4

862 804 93.3 1,666

3.3

221 699 316.3 920

1.1

4,780 3,709 77.6 8,489

5.4

5.4

120 3 2.5 123

0.1 0.1

No.

181 6 3.3 187

0.8

544 26 4.8 570

2.3

0.8

2.2

100 5 5,0 105

0.7

618 85 13.8 703

1.9

245 379 154.7 694

0.9

46 It 9.1 50

4.4 3.5

TOTAL

No.

No. 1.0

OTHERS

1,734 505 29.1 2,239

0.7

1.8

2.0 0.2 0.2 1.3 1.4

21,380 2,022* 9.5 23,402

*Includes 58 units date not known and 2 high rise buildings with 1 unit each

24,171 1,874* 7.8 26,045

*Includes 49 units date not known and a walk-up building with one unit

14,602 1,503* 10.6 16,105

*Includes 18 units, date unknown

32,112 7,476* 23.3 39,588

*Includes 329 units, date unknown, 2 high rise buildings with 1 unit each, and 1 walk-up with I unit

26,468 4,635* 17.5 31,103

*Includes 1,049 units date unknown

19,678 1,429* 7.3 21,107

*Includes 11 units date unknown

138,411 18,939* 13.7 157,350

*Includes 1,514 units date unknown

FIGURE I

INNER CITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1976-1982: HOUSING TYPE OTHERS. INGLE FAMILY 3% 7% DUPLEX 4% ROW HOUSING 4%

COLLECTIVE 20%

SEMI—DETACHED 2%

HIGH RISE a 18%

a 3+4 FAMILY 1%

WALK—UPS 42%

12

development has taken place. Detailed examination of city-wide data reveals a variety of development patterns occurring in different areas. The main points are indicated below in Section 3.2.

3.2 Principal Development Locations

The following description is based on the identification of important development concentrations from mapping data on a subdivision basis. It is not a systematic description of each district or each neighbourhood, but simply a means of highlighting the most important development locations, shown on Map I. Neighbourhood names will be used to give the location of development, but it should be remembered that neighbourhood and subdivision boundaries do not always coincide, and the information should not be applied strictly to neighbourhood units.

3.2.1

Downtown and vicinity:

Since 1976 inner city residential development activity has focused on the Downtown and the area immediately to the west; most of this activity has been in walk-up and high rise apartments and in collective residences.

The area between 113 Street and 101 Street and south of the C.N. rail tracks (Downtown and Rossdale) and the area extending west from 113 Street to 121 Street (Oliver) together accounted for 3,011 units, 16% of all units built in the study area during the period 1976 to December 1982. 97% of the total number of units built in the area were apartments (walk-ups of 4 storeys or less, highrise apartments and collective residences). Of the 3,011 total units built, 1,313 were condominiums.

In the areas in and around Downtown the percentage of housing built before 1976 which is single detached, semi-detached and duplex is small compared with other areas of the city. The share of 1982 housing stock represented by these dwelling fypes has further declined (2.6% of the total dwelling stock).

1977 to 1979 saw significant high-rise apartment development (12 projects) but a new peak was reached in 1981 when 8 properties were developed. 1978 and 1979

13

were the most important years for development of walk-up apartments. The development pattern incorporates collective residences, the majority of which are in public ownership.

However, although 1979 emerges as the peak year for

development, no collective residences were built in the entire Central District during this year. This type of development does not appear to follow the general trend for multi-family development; building occurred mainly in 1976 and later in I 981 to 1982. Although the emphasis has been on more intensive development, there has been little change in the composition of the dwelling stock, as this area was already the principal location for high density accommodation in 1976.

To the north of the C.N. tracks, development has been less intensive with no new high-rise apartments being constructed. Even so, a total of 1,288 units were built in Queen Mary Park and Central McDougall, from 1976 to 1982. The emphasis has been overwhelmingly on walk-up apartments (1,149 units) which comprise 89% of total development in this area. The remainder has largely been made up of collective residences in public ownership (125 units). Most of the walk-up apartment units were constructed between 1978 and 1981 but no new collective residences were built until 1982.

3.2.2 East of Downtown:

Much of the city centre's increase in dwelling units since 1976 has occurred to the east of 97 Street between 112 Avenue and the River Valley. The area is traversed by the LRT and is immediately adjacent to the Stadium Station. The River Valley community Riverdale is included in subdivision R.L. 20, but new development has concentrated in the northern part of the subdivision overlooking the River Valley.

The level of development activity is comparable to that which has taken place immediately north of Downtown but it has greater variety. Only half the total development has been in the form of walk-up apartments (compared with 98% north of the C.N. tracks). 6 highrise apartments were developed and there was an increase in all other types of units. A significant change in the dwelling stock was brought about by the construction of 424 collective residence units. This area is one of the more important for the introduction of this type of unit.

14

In the area east of Downtown, single detached housing comprises a larger percentage (21.8%) of total units built before 1976 than of the housing stock at December 1982 (13.8%). However, growth has occurred in other low density housing types such as semi-detached, duplex and row-housing. A total of 217 units were constructed during the study period. This compares with 21 units built in Garneau and Old Strathcona, 67 row housing units built in Downtown and Oliver, and 31 units in Groat Estate. III new units of row housing also represent a significant change as row housing was first introduced in this area in 1977. Only 705 units were built throughout the inner city between 1976 and 1972. Public sector activity has been responsible for some of this low density development: 26 duplex units built in 1982 are owned by the City of Edmonton. The decline in the proportion of single family dwellings may be expected in an older area where redevelopment pressure has occurred because of the advantages of its central location. Some of the oldest single family housing in the city is located in this area: 70% of single family housing in River Lots 16 and 18 and 45% in River Lot 20 and Riverview were built before 1930.

The area under discussion does not appear to represent an eastward continuation of development activity from the Downtown area: no new residential development has taken place since 1976 in River Lots 4, 6, and 8 and only three units have been added to the housing stock in River Lot 10, the extreme eastern part of the Downtown Plan area. This distribution could suggest that the eastern river lots offered better development potential for those projects which may otherwise have occurred in the downtown area, but were deterred by high downtown land costs and downtown plan policies.

3.2.3 Garneau/Old Strathcona:

Across the river valley from Downtown is an area offering a high concentration of central city facilities and amenities. This historic area which formed a core of early settlement in Edmonton has attracted development activity, particularly in higher density residential types.

15

The proximity of the University of Alberta has been significant in encouraging residential development because of the high demand for student and staff accommodation. In addition, the area is highly accessible to Downtown and to the amenities of the River Valley, factors which give rise to a strong demand for housing.

Since 1976 residential development has been overwhelmingly in multi-family units.

In the river lots between the University and 99 Street a total of 2227 units were built between 1976 and 1982, of which 45% were walk-up apartments and 26% highrise apartments.

All subdivisions in this area show a proportionate decline in single family and duplex housing and a corresponding increase in the percentage of walk-up and high-rise apartments. Assessment data indicates for River Lots 7, 9, I I, 13 and 15, (Garneau, north Queen Alexandra and the western part of Strathcona) an exceptionally high percentage of units for which the ratio of building to total assessment is low (less than 0.1). Although this is an area of older housing with many single family dwellings built before 1930, a comparison with adjacent subdivisions of similar age suggests that the low ratio is not a result of poor building condition but of higher land values resulting from development pressure in a favourable location.

Redevelopment on a large scale did not begin until 1978 but reached a peak in 1979.

1980 saw reduced activity, but this increased again in 1981. Condominium development did not reach a significant level until 1981, although some walk-up and highrise apartment development in 1978 and 1979 was of this type.

3.2.4

Inner City: West

An enclave of residential change is located within the West District around the old town of Jasper Place, particularly in the Britannia neighbourhood, which borders Stony Plain Road. Walk-up apartments have been of prime importance. Unlike the neighbouring areas of Jasper Place and North Jasper Place where development activity had become substantial by 1977 and continued through 1978, Britannia did not undergo marked change until 1981, when 447 new units, 59% of the total, were

16

built as a result of a large-scale rezoning south of 102 Avenue. In this area local conditions combined to allow land acquisition and assembly at a time when the western side of the City was undergoing expansion.

There is also a discernible trend towards more intensive development, mainly in the form of walk-up apartments, in the other subdivisions around Jasper Place.

Although development has been mixed in type, it is clear that the composition of the dwelling stock has changed: the proportion of single detached housing has declined throughout the area. However, some new low density development, particularly of semi-detached and duplex housing, has contributed to the growth of Jasper Place and North Jasper Place. Between 1976 and the end of 1982, a total of 273 single detached, duplex and semi-detached units were built, 46% of the total of all units built in these two areas during that time. North Jasper Place was especially important for semi-detached and duplex development between 1976 and 1979.

Jasper Place, North Jasper Place and Britannia have also been the locations for development of collective residences: a total of 200 units. In the West District most of the redevelopment activity has taken place in those subdivisions where the majority of single detached dwellings have an estimated average remaining life of less than 30 years, even though these include areas where most of the housing was built since 1950. This may be an indication of poorer quality buildings, which may have facilitated redevelopment. However, the stimulus for redevelopment arose from a perceived demand for new dwellings in this area which took advantage of the potential for more intensive development offered by larger lots and land acquisition opportunities.

3.2.5

Inner City: Northwest

Growth has occurred around Westmount on the west side of the City. The focus of transportation routes and the location of a regional shopping centre here led to its identification as an activity centre in the General Municipal Plan. However, since 1976, development has largely taken the form of collective residences, which comprise 88% of the total number of new units in the Westmount subdivision. This includes a 315 unit project in public ownership built in 1979. There has also been

17

some duplex development but, compared with other locations in the City, walk-up apartment development has been less significant. However, to the northwest of the Westmount Centre, in the Hempriggs subdivision, 93 walk-up apartment units have been built and, in the Woodcroft subdivision, 155 units of row housing have been constructed: a relatively large scale development of this type of housing in the inner city. Hence, there is evidence of higher density residential development in the vicinity of Westmount Shopping Centre.

Further east, between 121 Street and 127 Street, in the Inglewood area, a range of different types of development is evident. In 1976, at least one third of all dwelling units were single detached and, as in many older neighbourhoods, a decline in this proportion is apparent. However, there has been an increase in other low density types of housing, particularly semi-detached and duplex units, each representing 15% of the total number of new units built since 1976.

Walk-up apartment development has been significant here also (143 units, representing 55% of the total number of units), but the associated low density development suggests that widespread residential change is being accommodated within the existing neighbourhood structure in the form of infill development.

In the Groat Estate area, to the south of 109 Avenue, a slightly different emphasis is apparent. Of the dwellings built before 1976 in the Groat Estate area, 44% of the dwelling units are walk-up apartments, only 16% single detached houses and 13% high rise apartments. Fewer single detached, semi-detached and duplex units have since been built than to the north. A similar proportion (to that of the Inglewood area) of development has been in the form of walk-up apartments (138 units), but the Groat Estate subdivision also accommodated 45 high rise apartment units and a collective residence of 51 units, in public ownership.

A similar development pattern, but a lower level of activity, is evident in that part of Glenora north of 104 Avenue, where 40% of development has been in walk-up apartments (43 units) and 49% in collective residences in public ownership (53 units).

However, 90% of pre 1976 dwellings are single family units and so even this amount of development represents an impact on the existing housing stock.

18

There is evidence that development was proceeding early in the study period in these western inner city neighbourhoods; 1977-78 appears as an important time. In more recent years (1979 and 1981) emphasis has been on individual, large scale projects, especially collective residences.

3.2.6

Inner City: Northeast

Extensive development of the older suburbs had taken place by 1947 and much of this growth took place to the northeast of the city centre. This area is now the location of new residential development. In most of the subdivisions which have increased their dwelling stock by more than 100 units, most of the growth has been in walk-up apartments or walk-up apartments and collective residences.

Most areas were primarily single family neighbourhoods in 1976, with a significant but smaller number of semi-detached and duplex houses. However, some subdivisions, notably Westwood (88% of total units built before 1976), DeIton (south) (38%), and Eastwood (36%) already contained walk-up apartments. These subdivisions have shown the highest increases in semi-detached and duplex housing in the northeast part of the Central area, with development of 34, 104 and 44 units respectively. Development in Eastwood may be related to proximity to the LRT and Stadium Station; Santa Rosa, adjacent to Coliseum Station, has undergone a similar level of development to that in Eastwood, and more intensive development has taken place immediately north of the station.

3.2.7 Northwest-Calder

In the older suburbs in the north a small concentration of redevelopment can be identified north of the CN yards in Calder. In this primarily single detached area, single detached, semi-detached and duplex development has made up 54% of the total new units. Walk-up apartments and collective residences have been less significant here than in other redevelopment areas. Semi-detached and duplex units have assumed greater importance than single detached dwellings since 1976.

Redevelopment to these housing types was already at a high level by 1977-78. By 1979, development included higher density housing: two walk-up apartments (25

19

units) and a collective residence (41 units) were the most significant projects completed in 1979.

3.2.8 Inner City: Southeast and Southwest

The introduction of new residential units into older neighbourhoods has not occurred to the same extent south of the river, with the exception of the Garneau/Old Strathcona area already discussed. In the Southeast District, there has been some development of walk-up apartments and collective residences in the King Edward Park - Bonnie Doon area, and a large nursing home (355 units) was built in the vicinity of Connors Heights. Otherwise, the southeast has seen little development during the study period. Large collective residences have also been responsible for much of the development activity in the southwest, specifically in Martin Estate (Allendale neighbourhood) (218 units) and S.W. 29 (Queen Alexandra neighbourhood) (325 units) subdivisions.

3.3 Suburban Development

Project data covers the entire inner city area, including some of the older suburbs.

Consequently, the information includes development of those suburban areas which had not been fully completed by 1976. This includes Dickinsfield (176 units), Londonderry (184 units), Abbotsfield (252 walk-up apartment units) and Rundle Heights (318 units) in the northeast; Ottewell in the southeast (200 units); and Petrolia (537 apartment units) and Duggan (766 units) in the southwest. Although these areas clearly have had a substantial effect on the total development figures, this project will not be investigating them in detail as the main purpose of this project is to look into the redevelopment processes operating in the older areas of the city.

3.4 Renovation and Rehabilitation

An indication of those areas where properties have undergone substantial renovation can be obtained from the assessment files. When work is done that extends the structural life of a building, this is noted by the assessors and dwellings which have undergone such improvements can be identified from the property files.

Study data

20

include information on the numbers and types of dwellings in each subdivision which have been subject to renovation or rehabilitation.

The assessment data reveal that the highest concentrations of renovation activity have occurred in the river lots east of Downtown, including Boyle St./McCauley where, out of a total of 1534 structures, 300 (19.6%) have undergone renovation; that part of Queen Alexandra neighbourhood south of University Avenue, where 22.5% of the 231 structures have been renovated, and in the Vogel subdivision south of Gallagher Park around 95 Avenue where 5 out of the total 40 structures have been renovated.

The other significant areas are Groat Estates to the west of the central core and several older subdivisions to the north and east, such as New De1ton, Westwood, Northcote, Parkdale, West DeIton, Woodland and Cromdale. In the Northwest District certain newer areas also appear to have been subject to renovations. These include Capital Hill, Glenora, Buena Vista and the Bronx.

Although broad comparisons between areas are possible, the form which renovation or rehabilitation takes in each area is not apparent from the study data, and more detailed research is needed in order to assess its impact on different neighbourhoods.

21

CONCLUSION 18,900 housing units were built in the inner city between 1976 and 1982: a major contribution to the city's total increase in housing stock. This shows that there has been a demand for inner city housing to which the development industry has been able to respond.

However, during the same period, new suburban land covered by area structure plans has been developed, or serviced in readiness for development, at a rapid rate, resulting in the construction of 37,200 new units from 1976 to 1982 (Table

In addition, vacant

subdivided and serviced land with an estimated capacity of 31,900 potential dwelling units was available for development at the end of 1982.12 Such a strong emphasis on new suburban development is clearly not in line with the aim of the Growth Strategy (elements B5 and B6), to increase compactness of residential development and for existing developed areas to take priority for accommodating growth.

Within the study area the construction of multi-family units has predominated (16,400 units), especially in the city centre and surrounding older neighbourhoods. The construction of multi-family housing was stimulated by government programmes such as the Multiple Unit Residential Building (M.U.R.B.) programme, and further stimulated in late 1981 by the announced cancellation of this programme. A larger share of inner city development than of suburban development has resulted from these programmes.

The levels of development in the inner city are unlikely to persist, both because of the reduction in funds being made available through government programmes and because of the existing surplus of accommodation in the city. In October 1983, in the Edmonton metropolitan area, there was an average apartment vacancy rate of 9.3% and an average row housing vacancy rate of 10.6%.13

The emphasis on family-suitable housing in the inner city proposed by the General Municipal Plan does not appear to have occurred: during the period 1976 to 1982, 3,359 familx-suitable housing units were constructed, compared with 15,580 apartments. The

12.

Information from the report 'Status of Residential Land in the City of Edmonton, December I 982': City of Edmonton Planning Department.

13.

Source: CMHC

22

trend has been towards a declining proportion of family housing within the total number of units built (Table 3 and Figure 2). The exception occurred in 1981 when an unusually high number of row housing units (439) were built.

The most spectacular inner city residential growth has occurred around the Downtown core and in adjacent areas along the edge of the River Valley. Complementary apartment development has taken place to the south of the River Valley. The advantages of central location, amenities and proximity to employment and recreation opportunities are reflected in the higher development rates here.

Although the General Municipal Plan indicates the need for dispersed development, it is clear that many projects, especially collective residences, have resulted in instances of highly concentrated development of a specialized type. However, there are also examples of locations throughout the inner city where large numbers of units have been built and where the emphasis has been on higher density housing types. These pockets of high density development appear to be associated with activity centres such as shopping centres or transportation nodes, particularly LRT stations. Growth in such favourable locations may be new development, such as building around Southgate shopping centre, or may have been imposed on an older, declining urban fabric such as that around the LRT stations in Belvedere and the Coliseum area. This aspect of General Municipal Plan policy has the clearest indications from the data collected of success. It has been fulfilled because the locational advantages of such activity nodes have played a role in the decision to develop.

There are some inner city subdivisions where the level of development is lower but where family-suitable housing has predominated. Examples include Westgrove and Woodcroft (Northwest District), Forest Heights ( Southeast District), North DeIton (Northeast District) and Woodland and Woodland Addition (Central District).

The rapid growth which occurred in Edmonton between 1976 and 1982 brought new housing to the. inner city which resulted in major changes to many of the older neighbourhoods.

New units were built throughout the city with the help of generous government financing and against a background of General Municipal Plan policies which were to encourage a distribution of housing types which made the best use of existing services.

TABLE #3: HOUSING MIX: INNER CITY TRENDS 1976 - 82 (DWELLING UNITS) SEMI SINGLE DETACHED DETACHED DWELLINGS DWELLINGS Pre 1976

70,330

1,469

1976

349

51

1977

Missing

85

269

DUPLEXES

3 & 4 FAMILY DWELLINGS

AGRICULTURAL/ HIGH RISE COLLECTIVE PERIPHERAL ROW WALK-UP HOUSING APARTMENTS APARTMENTS RESIDENCES DWELLINGS OTHERS 1,734

138,411

1

2

1,782

442

0

7

2,610

109

2,753

10,282

825

6,295

30,521

12,055

4,780

118

31

11

641

0

578

202

39

65

908

593

120

TOTAL

1978

150

100

210

27

0

1,555

440

162

0

1979

190

64

94

20

87

1,431

562

714

0

296

3,478

1980

97

24

48

7

13

672

244

198

0

17

1,320

1981

149

40

46

8

439

1,452

1,007

597

0

2

3,740

1982

155

4

34

4

14

505

109

917

0

0

1,742

Value

24

0

8

4

76

768

459

101

2

72

1,514

8,489

123

2,239

157,350

Total

71,713

4

1,837

11,042

965

7,000

38,453

15,489

Note: Figures shown as missing values are units for which the date of construction is not available.

1 Collective residences are defined by the Assessment Departinent and include university or college residences, hospital residences, convents or seminaries, senior citizen's custom-built residences.

Source: Office of the City Assessor

FIGURE 2

INNER CITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION SINGLE FAM HOUSING

St;:;:;:;:;:;:*: WYNt•••••1!•!•!:

ROW HOUSING

MULTI FAM HOUSING

DWELU NG UNITS 4000 3500

-F r 3000 2500

-

2000

-

1500

-

V

,

1000 500

1976

1977

1980 1978 1979 YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION

1981

1982

23

Now that the impetus for new residential growth has slackened, policies to achieve the aims of the General Municipal Plan must be specifically tied to new programmes and initiatives by government if the existing investment on services in the inner city is to be fully used.

By accommodating population growth in higher density units in the inner city, greater pressure is made on existing services, and different types of services are required to serve new population groups. This raises questions of the extent to which new growth can be accommodated in older neighbourhoods, the form which such growth should take, and how the development process can be influenced to achieve it.

If more family oriented housing is to be introduced into the inner city, ways of influencing the predominant development factors must be found if policies are to be realistically implemented and successful housing projects are to be achieved.

Policies must be introduced which recognize the distinction between areas where concentrations of high density development have occurred and those where small scale projects have occurred, especially since larger-scale multi-family projects are less likely to be built now that a large part of present apartment unit demand can be satisfied from the existing vacant stock. It is now more appropriate to concentrate on small scale development designed to meet a specific demand and to deal with the problems of vacancy and deterioration of existing housing. The City's initiative and attendant policies could have an impact in creating a receptive environment for investment in small scale development.

There is evidence from the data collected that General Municipal Plan policies, especially those related to the development of family-suitable housing, are not being implemented as expected. Policies and their implementation mechanisms must now be re-examined. A further question for the Plan review is whether the objectives are still valid.

INNER CITY RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Summary Paper

Long Range Planning Branch February 1984

INNER CITY RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INTRODUCTION

This brief summary gives a broad indication of the density of residential development in Edmonton's inner city. Data were collected from the office of the City Assessor, to provide information on the density of development of three housing types: row housing, walk-up apartments, and high-rise apartments. Data were collected on a subdivision basis for the period before 1976 and for each year since then.

The sample of properties which was used comprised all properties for which the number of units and the lot size were recorded in the property assessment data base. Results are given for row housing, walk-up apartments, and high-rise apartments only, because an insufficient sample was available for other housing types. Details of the sample used are given in Table I.

The densities to which properties were developed were grouped according to the categories stated in the City of Edmonton Land Use Bylaw (Bylaw 5996, April 1981).

When compared with the land use district of the property, an assessment can be made of the operation of land use districts, while an examination of density figures for the years 1976 to 1982 provides a useful addition to information on development trends. It should be noted, however, that the district in force when a housing project was built may have been different from that currently operating and recorded by the assessors.

ROW HOUSING

Out of the total row housing sample of 154 properties, 98 properties (64%) were developed within the RF5 (row housing) district (Table 2). The maximum density allowed under this district is 42 dwellings per hectare, with bonus density up to a maximum of 54 dwellings per hectare allowed if parking spaces are provided. 31 properties have been developed to a density between 42 and 54 dwellings per hectare, and 62 properties were built at less than 42 dwellings per hectare.

(1)

Most of the remainder of the sample of row housing (28 properties) is located within the RA7 district which allows for row housing as a permitted or discretionary use, depending on the size of the site. Row housing development in this district shows a stronger emphasis on higher density: 12 properties out of the 28 properties in the sample were built to densities of between 54 and 80 dwellings per hectare.

The majority (128) of the properties in the sample were constructed before 1976, and it is not possible to identify a clear city-wide trend of changing densities in the years since 1976. However, there are clear differences between different areas of the city which emerge when data are examined on a District basis. Lowest densities were observed in the West and Southwest Districts where most of the row housing properties were built to more than 45% below the maximum permitted density. In the Central and Northwest Districts building occurred throughout the various density categories. The highest row housing densities occurred in the Northeast and Southeast districts where building to densities above the maximum was common.

WALK-UP APARTMENTS

The total sample of walk-up apartments for which densities could be determined was 1957 properties. Of these, 1158 are covered by the RA7 land use district which permits a maximum density of 125 dwellings per hectare. The other significant land use district is RA8 which accounted for 345 of the sample properties (Table 3).

Within the RA7 properties there is an almost equally high number of properties in the categories 80 to 105 dwellings per hectare (326) and 105 to 125 dwellings per hectare (320). Considerable development also took place at lower densities. 208 properties are in the range 54 to 80 dwellings per hectare and 63 properties are at densities below 54 dwellings per hectare. Conversely, development at above the maximum density is clearly quite common, with 212 properties in the range 125 to 175 units per hectare and 29 properties in higher ranges.

Amongst properties occurring in the RA8 district an overwhelming number are in the density range of 125 to 175 units per hectare (221 of the total 345 properties: 64%). Most of these properties are spread throughout the categories between 54 and 224 units per hectare.

(2)

Walk-up apartments show greater variety in the districts in which they occur than the other housing types. The other more significant districts are RA9, RMX, CNC and DC3.

Within the RA9, RMX and DC3 districts the largest number of properties fell in the density range 125 to 175 units per hectare.

Among properties developed before 1976 the largest number occurs at between 125 and 175 units per hectare. Since that time the emphasis has been on lower densities, with the highest concentrations in the range 105 to 125 units per hectare from 1978 onwards. In 1976 and 1977 densities below 105 units per hectare were more common.

From computer data (prepared from a smaller sample) which compare the density of a property with the land use district requirements, the data for each District show differing patterns. In four out of the six Districts, development to maximum density or above was not apparent until 1980 or after. In the West District, 1981 was the peak year for development, when most of the properties were built to maximum density or above. This pattern has continued into 1982. 54% of the sample built before 1976 are at between 15% and 30% below the capacity of the land use district.

In the Northwest District, 28% of the pre-I976 sample was found to be 15 to 30% below capacity and 29% of the sample was between 30 and 45% below capacity. For properties built after 1976 there was a widespread distribution but no indication of maximum or bonus densities until those built in 1980 and 1981. A similar trend is shown in the Northeast District where 44% (49 properties) of the pre-I976 property sample are at 30 to 45% below maximum density. Two properties built in 1981 and 1982 are above the maximum allowed.

Similarly, in the Southeast District, 63% of pre-1976 properties are at least 30% below maximum, whereas two properties built in 1981 and 1982 are above the maximum density.

In contrast, the Central and Southwest Districts show high density development occurring in earlier years. In the Central District 32% (171 properties) of the pre-I976 properties (a total sample of 530) are at the above maximum density, and some properties out of the sample built in each year since 1976 are in the bonus or maximum density categories.

(3)

Properties built in 1981 form the largest group of high density properties, with 8 properties (40%) at or above maximum density. In the Southwest District 35% of the pre-I976 sample (8 properties) are above the maximum density and 22% (5 properties) are at maximum density.

Compared with the other housing types considered, walk-up apartments show a wider distribution among density categories.

HIGH-RISE APARTMENTS

A smaller sample of high-rise apartments (140 properties) was available, and most of these, 79 properties (56%) are in an RA9 district (Table 4). Although the maximum permitted density is 325 units per hectare, 38 of these properties were developed to more than 325 units per hectare. 24 properties within RA9 were developed at between 275 and 325 units per hectare..

The other significant land use districts are RMX, (12 properties) and DCI (16 properties).

In both these districts there are concentrations of the upper end of the density scale. It is not possible to distinguish a trend towards higher densities in later years.

A similar spatial pattern can be detected as that of walk-up apartments. In the Central and Southwest Districts there has been a stronger emphasis on properties at or above the maximum permitted density.

CONCLUSION

The attached tables show that development of row housing, walk-up apartments and highrise apartments has occurred over wide density ranges. There are several instances of densities which are lower than would be expected. These may be due to individual site factors or may be examples of older buildings where the land use district changed later.

Densities which are higher than normally permitted under the Land Use Bylaw have occurred where a statutory plan overlay is in operation or where the developer has been able to negotiate for permission to build to higher density in exchange for the provision of additional facilities or site improvements.

(4)

High-rise apartments and row housing show a more concentrated distribution than walk-up apartments but it should be borne in mind that the information on these two housing types comes from a much smaller sample and that walk-up apartments are a more widespread housing form throughout the city, built under widely differing conditions.

(5)

TABLE I: SAMPLE PROPERTIES FOR DENSITY SURVEY

Row Housing Sample Total Stock No. NORTH EAST DISTRICT

NORTH WEST DISTRICT

WEST DISTRICT

CENTRAL DISTRICT

SOUTH WEST DISTRICT

SOUTH EAST DISTRICT

INNER CITY

Walk-up Apartments Sample No.

High-rise Apartments

Total Stock

Sample No.

Total Stock

Pre- 1976 1976-1982

38 3

41 4

134 22

145 36

2 1

2 2

1982 Total

41

45

156

181

3

4

Pre-1976 1976-1982

30 7

36 9

243 26

252 34

7 1

7 1

1982 Total

37

45

269

286

8

8

Pre-I976 1976-1982

11 1

11 1

167 35

168 39

4 0

4 0

1982 Total

12

12

202

207

4

4

Pre-1976 1976-1982

15 8

8 16

724 149

762 178

68 27

70 29

1982 Total

23

24

873

940

95

99

Pre-1976 1976-1982

16 2

16 6

294 61

303 70

24 It

24 6

1982 Total

18

22

355

373

28

30

Pre-1976 1976-1982

18 5

21 5

88 14

96 22

2 0

2 0

1982 Total

23

26

102

118

2

2

Pre-1976 1976-1982

128 26

133 41

1650 307

1726 379

107 33

109 38

1982 Total

154

174

1957

2105

140

147

Source: Office of the City Assessor

TABLE 2: ROW HOUSING - DENSITY BY LAND USE DISTRICT (Inner City Sample)

0-30

30-42

42-54

54-80

1

2

3

5

3

4

12

47

31

3

RF2 RF3 RFS

15

RF6 RA7 RA8

8

DC4 IM

Total

1

2

RA9

105-125

125-175

1

175-224

224-275

275-325

+325 units/ha

1

4

1 4

80-105

12

2

1

1

Total

98 5

1

28 1

5

1

1

1

1 1

1 20(13%) 64(42%)

37(24%) 22(14%)

Source: Office of the City Assessor

7(5%)

1(0.6%)

2(1%)

1(0.6%)

154

TABLE 3: WALK-UP APARTMENTS - DENSITY BY LAND USE DISTRICT (Inner City Sample) (Page I of 2)

0-30

30:42

42-54

1

I

175-224

1

2

5

1

2

1

1

9

8

6

5

2

2

208

326

320

212

20

2

18

37

30

221

30

4

6

4

6

29

6

5

1

5

7

25

10

4

12

6

8

4

3

3

11

2

1

7

4

4

9

2

7

RA7

10

13

RA8

4

I

RA9

1

RMX

2

CNC

1

3

CSC

1

2

CMX

1

1

10

40

1

3

CO 2 1

3

+325 units/ha

11 33 2

5

1158 345

5

3

65

1

2

53 42

1

20 1

7

6

7

10

2

9

3

1

6

2

2

1

1

2

33

2

14

5

44

1

26 I

2

9

3

4

1

2

1

7

6

35

21 I

I

DC2 1

Total

28

1

1

DC I

DC4

275-325

3

3

RF6

DC3

224-275

4

RFS

CB2

125-175

3

4

4

105-125

2

RF3

A

80-105

1

RF I

CBI

54-80

51

1 1

I

TABLE 3: WALK-UP APARTMENTS - DENSITY BY LAND USE DISTRICT (Inner City Sample) (Page 2 of 2)

0-30

30-42

42-54

54-80

80-105 105-125

DC5

1

IM

1

IH

1

IB

+325 units/ha Total

1

US

1

AP Total

125-175 175-224 224-275 275-325

1 1

26( 1%)

31(2%)

60(3%) 298( 15%) 430(22%) 399(20%) 578(30%) 82(4%)

Source: Office of the City Assessor

19( I %)

10(1%)

24(1%)

1957

TABLE 4: HIGH RISE APARTMENTS - DENSITY BY LAND USE DISTRICT (Inner City Sample) 54-80

80-105

105-125

125-175

175-224

RA7

2

1

1

1

3

RA8

1

1

3

0-30

RA9

2

RMX

I

CB2

I

30-42

42-54

1

1

I

2

224-275

I 5

2

2

1

24

38

79

3

2

6

12 3

2

I

1

2

I

2

4

4

4

16 2

1

1

1

DC3

1

4

5(4%)

3(2%)

Source: Office of the City Assessor

5(4%)

6 1

1

DC4 Total

7

5

1 1

Total

1

I

I

CMX

DC2

+325 units/ha

8

CO

DCI

275-325

6(4%)

3(2%)

7(5%)

10(7%)

12(9%)

33(24%)

56(40%)

140