Old Strathcona Public Realm Strategy - Part III (March 25, 2023)
....If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail
Vlog Overview
My return to the academy (in 2014) to earn a PhD after 32 years of parks planning and operationalization of recreation and leisure services practice (1982-2014) uncovered many practice realities extensively studied by researchers. I will share park development policy and practice decision-making practice using an academic lens (i.e., institutional theory).
Each vlog, called Ice Sculptures, will have a short video presentation followed by some key takeaway notes. I will use lots of “I” and “me” to personalize my experiences, with lots of examples. My personality is such that I like to have fun, be a bit irreverent, hence some of my memes, bad puns and (weak) attempts at humour. My goal is to provide a level of nuance to seen and unseen aspects of decision-making processes. The vlog provides an informed perspective, but my perspectives and opinions based on my experiences and studies.
Ice Sculpture
Old Strathcona Public Realm Strategy - Part III (March 25, 2023)
Part I (March 20) and Part II (March 21) preconfigure my summative comments offered here. I offer the following suggestions for change.
Think Institutionally
In the last vlog I defined institutions as groups of state and non-state actors who work together to produce an outcome. Old Strathcona is home to excellent small businesses and an amazing collage of cultural activities and opportunities as well as numerous City and Provincial designated buildings/architectural heritages, supported by a wide diversity of business and community organizations (that mutually support and benefit from the other. The festivals and theatres rely on a substantial number of volunteers who volunteer both time and sweat equity to produce internationally recognized events. This is in addition to the Strathcona Community League that supports events as well as the coordination of volunteers in the provision of social, recreation and leisure activities. This collective institution produces social, ecological, economic, health and wellness benefits.
Think Place, Not Space
The strategy provides the following narrative to its three development options.
Each design idea would add to the total amount of open space in the area. The new open space would be classified as a mix of community parks, greenways and plazas. Features would include trees and other vegetation, places for shade (in summer) or warmth (in winter), washrooms and access to drinking water. People would be able to walk or bike on pathways and have places to rest, play and gather. Two of the design ideas propose to incorporate residential buildings (that would include affordable housing) between Gateway Boulevard and 102 Street. All three design ideas propose a residential building on an existing parking lot on 85 Avenue east of Light Horse Park.
A place orientated vision would describe the vibe, the events and opportunities and how they experience them. A vision statement for urban design has been defined as follows:
The design respects the community and stakeholder needs, creates opportunities for businesses to prosper, provides for safety opportunities to sustain and enhance the built and natural environment, enhances connectivity and celebrates heritage, environmental and social values that provide a sense of place and identity.
I would suggest something like the following for this area…
Celebrate and support the arts (paintings/prints, architecture, sculptures, literature, theatre, festivals, and music) and their grass root organizations (i.e., volunteers) in safe, functional spaces accommodating a wide diversity of year round opportunities and experiences. Connect to people of different ages, cultures, be they neighbours or friends they haven’t met yet. Pair those experiences with a diversity of culinary and social gathering places (i.e., bars, pubs, music venues) to create a symbiotic and vibrant residential and business community. Retreat to nature or other public spaces to exercise, refresh or regenerate close to home particularly for those that live in multi-family settings absent backyards, plazas, fitness rooms, etc.
Spaces (i.e., property) transform to places when the spaces are imbued with meaning by the community, and in this case the cultural institution supported by and in concert with economic institutions (i.e., bars, restaurants) through integrated planning and service delivery.
Think Functionality
Programmable spaces must be sized, configured, and located to enable a program to flourish (i.e., to transition space to place). Over time this culture/historic institution has grown in size, prominence and impact on the community, so the spaces provided must be planned to accommodate future as well as existing needs. Program drives size, configuration and location. I would suggest a larger consolidated square or rectangular site would offer more flexible spaces. I would not suggest less public space.
Creating functional spaces includes how the site is serviced by roads, utilities, transit, etc including on and off site parking. Broadly speaking, these aspects are part of the (cultural) program in the Old Strathcona area in the delivery of festivals, events, demonstrations, etc. A change in how the sites are serviced in (i.e., elimination of parking) may materially impact program delivery and outcomes.
Think Systems Planning
The focus of the strategy and strategy options miss important City Plan directives. City Plan calls for a doubling of the population, with 600,000 in mature areas like this one, which suggests there will be substantial redevelopment of existing lands. City Plan calls for both systems and integrated planning and supports nodal development. Key existing systems are roadways and utilities, transit/LRT, the North Saskatchewan River Valley Park System, and the delivery of cultural, historical and recreational services (i.e., festivals, sports, history, architectural designations, etc). So how could we connect these multiple systems to promote each other, beyond redeveloping public lands serving the public and the cultural institution?
Clarify Data Points
The strategy appears to make assumptions about needs that need to be more publicly defined in their application to this strategy and area.
It is implied that the strategy is driven by a project charter or terms of reference, but it is not publicly provided. Why isn’t it on the project web page?
It is implied that more multi-family = more affordable housing. That assumes a lack of land is the cause. What supports date supports that? There is evidence to the contrary.
It is implied that there is a lack of both multi-family housing and affordable housing, yet offers no information as to the housing stock in the area, which appears to offer both.
Further to the previous two points, one of the strategy elements suggests to redevelop the north end of study area (may include portions of End of Steel Park) along Saskatchewan Drive. These lands would be prime, expensive lands. How can these be turned into affordable housing?
It is implied that reduction of public parking will not negatively impact the operation of the festivals, restaurants, retail shops, etc, nor export that parking demand to nearby residential areas. What data supports that direction?
There is no list or map of all city owned land in the area. Why is there no public land overlay provided on the project web page?
It is implied that this strategy is driven by City Plan and other policies, yet there is no summary provided. It is also as given that policies and plans overlap or compete. There is no summary provided of that information.
There appears to have been an internal parks assessment, but has not been loaded on to the project web page.
A public telephone survey was done, but the results were not compared to city wide averages (i.e., age, income, culture, etc) nor were the local results separated out from others (i.e., Strathcona vs Carter Crest/Kirkness). These public lands are the backyards for locals, not so for others.
An asset inventory writ large in the area in and around public lands detailing the depth and breadth of opportunities and activities provided in the area. Assets should include facilities, land and programs. This information should be provided to contextualize the cultural institution role in the area.
It is not clear if development industry representatives have been engaged in this strategy, have seen or even helped draft the charter. Its important to know who is at the table to help shape the strategy, given UDI’s privileged access to the Senior City Management Team (i.e., monthly meetings).
Make No Small Plans…
The starting point for the city strategy is a defined land area. Public engagement flows from that narrow focus, and not the resident program.
The existing cultural program/institution could be enhanced (beginning tomorrow) by:
creating interpretative opportunities and programming for indigenous peoples;
creating an environmental demonstration hub (e.g., solar panels, roof top and community gardens, recycling);
creating a social support hub (e.g., washrooms, warming shelters, soup kitchens, food donations, drug and mental health services/referrals);
creating spaces for no cost outdoor exercise (i.e., outdoor play equipment);
creating a permanent dog off leash opportunity;
leveraging the streetcar extension to connect to the history and culture of the Old Strathcona to the downtown; and,
leveraging the activities and opportunities with the Strathcona Centre to create more year round play experiences.
But why stop there? City Plan portends that the Edmonton population may substantially increase, particularly in older areas like these. I am inspired by grand visions in Europe and North America were transportation facilities are decommissioned and repurposed.
Edmonton could recode and redefine streets and roadways as green spaces (i.e., Gateway Boulevard north Whyte Avenue, Tommy Banks Way, Saskatchewan Drive).
Physically merge the river valley space into a single programmable property connecting the river valley to Whyte Avenue.
Expand LRT lines (east-west) between the Bonnie Doon station to the University station along Whyte Avenue. This could also provide a future LRT alignment extension to Sherwood Park and Strathcona County.
Creation of a larger programmable festival/historical/indigenous interpretative place will be a cultural/historical node that will activate both low density housing redevelopment into multi-family housing and associated jobs and other benefits, and enhance small business activity (i.e., restaurants, bars, retail). All of this will draw people to the area to work, live and play, increase tax revenues, create jobs, and celebrate our amazing local small business opportunities and entrepreneurs.
Final Comments
The sub-title borrowed from Maslow for this commentary is “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” The Maslow hammer concept refers to an over-reliance on a familiar or favourite tool. In this case, the strategy is too focussed on (specific parcels of) land, and the redevelopment of those lands, and not a program focus.
The public engagement process fleshed out (only) some of those (cultural) needs and overlays new program requirements (i.e., housing). They then back them both into existing publicly owned land titles. They do this assuming the existing cultural/historical program is effectively over served and land can be redeveloped, or can be relocated and fragmented into multiple oddly shaped parcels providing the same program using a quantitative metric only (amount of land), excluding a qualitative metric (program needs and delivery). Moreover, the strategy assumes that the existing cultural needs are frozen in time, despite a history of growth and evolution while simultaneously arguing the community needs have evolved in other ways (i.e., the need for affordable multi-family housing). Yet the offending (un)sustainable city land use (low density housing) is left untouched in this strategy. This is improv theatre, not long range planning, that results from a focus on land (availability), not program.
Why and how is this occurring? This represents an underlying, unnecessary if not inauthentic battle between hegemonic economic institutions (hammer) vs community institutions over property (nail). This strategy focuses on public property redevelopment (i.e., the economic institution) using selective rhetoric from the sustainable city institution (more dense housing) as rationale, at the expense of a grass roots growing cultural/historical institution, the latter with much less power and agency than economic interests.
Thinking past property, broadening the opportunities in the cultural institution (program) will benefit all three institutions. The need assessment despite its flaws can inform a much broader integrated vibrant vision for Old Strathcona, not limited to public parcels defined in the study area.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments on my neighbourhood. :-)