WhyteplanPublic Workshop #2 Feedback Summary27 February 2017

The City of Edmonton has initiated a planning process to guide future growth and change along Whyte Avenue. This report provides a summary of the input heard at the second public workshop, held on September 28, 2016.The second workshop was held at the Roots on Whyte building and attended by 48 members of the public. The purpose of the workshop was to present and get feedback on three items: a draft vision statement, a set of draft guiding principles, and two conceptual scenarios for the corridor. Materials were designed and developed based on public feedback collected from workshop 1, ‘pop-up’ engagement events and stakeholder consultations. Following a brief presentation and question and answer period at the workshop, the project team asked participants to consider and discuss a series of questions with others or independently using a questionnaire form. After collecting feedback from this workshop, the same questionnaire was provided to those unable to attend through an online survey with Edmonton Insight Community. Another 67 responses were collected online for a total of 115. This report provides a summary of the total feedback heard at the second workshop and through the online survey. Responses have been analyzed, consolidated and divided into three categories:

• Responses heard frequently• Responses heard more than once• Responses heard once

The feedback contained in this report in addition to city policy and on-going technical studies will inform the development of the preferred design vision, guiding principles, and concept for the corridor to be presented at a final public meeting mid-2017.

Vision Statement1. Are there any aspects of the Vision Statement you would like to see changed?

Frequently More than once Once

2. Are there any additional ideas or directions you would like to see incorporated in the Vision Statement?

Frequently More than once Once

• No, they look good.• Do not introduce roadways connecting from

99 Street through 84, 85, or 86 Avenue to Gateway Trail (103 Street) as this will increase traffic, short-cutting, speeding and lower local pedestrian safety.

• If “intensification” refers to building types, I don’t agree with having higher density anywhere.

• There should be no limit on infill redevelopment within the corridor

• The vision doesn’t recognize the surrounding neighbourhoods and that they are already some of the densest in the city.

• “Moderate to higher intensification to key nodes” is ambiguous. Does it mean towers or just taller than what is already there?

• Doesn’t mention that Whyte is both a main street for the surrounding community as well as an entertainment zone for the City and region.

• Vision ignores cars.

• Need to address the need and role of residential surrounding Whyte Avenue.

• More emphasis on multi-modal transportation.• Vision statement should be shorter.• Be more clear about changes described.• Remove emphasis on being ‘small town’.

• Reduce car traffic to and through the neighbourhood.

• Reducing crime through design and inclusive neighbourhoods.

• Add family-oriented development.

• Enhance the liveability of the area.• Increase the street width.• Infrastructure in support of improved pedestrian

public realm is just as important.• Vision needs to speak more to evolution not just

preservation.• Add more green space, trees, green design.• Consider Whyte Avenue’s impact on

surrounding residential communities. • Use existing ARP for achieving density.

• No, they look good.• Greater focus on pedestrian and active

transportation modes and safety.

Guiding Principles1. Are there any Guiding Principles which you would like to see revised or changed?

Frequently More than once Once

2. Are there any additional Guiding Principles which you would like to see incorporated or additional ideas?

Frequently More than once Once

• Zoning for the right (vibrant) types of businesses.

• Maximum, rather than minimum parking requirements.

• Improve mobility for cars, don’t ignore cars and parkings as they are going to be around for a long time.

• Design for excellence - do not just ‘pursue’ it• Remove reference to ‘small town’ feel because it

is no longer a town and can still be pleasant as a ‘main street’.

• Close 2-3 blocks of Whyte Avenue permanently to make it a destination.

• Add winter city thinking.

• Car free streets and alleys.• Respect the guiding principles and

development limits of the existing ARP.

• Lower vehicle speed limit. • Community and local involvement in the

approval of new developments.• No new vehicle connections from 99 Street to

Gateway Trail (103 Street) via 84, 85, and 86 Avenues.

• Emphasize quality pedestrian design for all abilities.

• New developments should complement, but not mimic heritage character.

• I would like to see more diversity of options for dinning and shopping.

• Match streetscaping lighting.• Focus on marketing history and tourism.• Design for excellence - do not just ‘pursue’ it.• Need to address social issues via programs.

• No, they look good.• Greater emphasis on pedestrian and cyclist

safety.

• No, they look good.• Protect local school areas - No new roadways

connecting 99 Street to Gateway Trail (103 Street) via 84, 85, and 86 Avenues.

Building Types1. Are there any aspects of the building types that you would change? Why?

Frequently More than once Once

• Buildings should maintain the street feel atmosphere of the community.

• Do not consider high rises as a possibility if it does not occur alongside a shift in transportation culture.

• Emphasize set backs for buildings over 4 stories.• Reduce the development of high end condos

that are unaffordable for most people.• No buildings over 4 storeys on south side of 82

Avenue as taller buildings will shadow north side and pedestrian shopping environment.

• Expand sidewalks through setbacks to encourage more walking and pedestrian comfort.

• Open to medium scale buildings or slightly higher.

• Buildings should have a historic feel or character to them.

• Emphasize high quality materials.• Ensure podium design is of high quality.• Higher density buildings should be a few blocks

away from Whyte Avenue.

• Do not include high density buildings • Change nothing.

Design Senario 11. What do you LIKE about this scenario?

Frequently More than once Once

2. What do you DISLIKE about this scenario?

Frequently More than once Once

• Future development nodes identified are good.• High rise developments are limited and outside

of already approved rezonings and limit sun-shadow impact.

• Preserves the aesthetic of Whyte Avenue and respects the history, skyline, and livability of the area.

• Provides controlled development opportunities in areas that will not negatively impact heritage core area.

• Improvements to public spaces for pedestrians and cyclists.

• I like idea of the streetcar extension.

• Proposes incremental or slower change over time.

• Good density balance between low, medium, and high density developments. Generally uniform density 4 to 6 storeys.

• Protects core heritage commercial area with low density development, with some medium density around it.

• Improved transit and pedestrian crossings.

• Nothing - I like this concept.• Too much density.• Needs more cycling and pedestrian

connectivity; alleyway activation. • Streetcar is underutilized and does not connect

to Whyte Avenue.• Concept is too conservative / status quo.• Lack activation of lands along 103 and 104

Street.• High density on 109 Street.• Needs more public realm enhancements.• Housing/commercial on the Farmers’ Market.

• I don’t like that the core only extends between 102nd and 106th Street.

• Why aren’t the rail yards considered in this scenario?

• Medium rise on Whyte east of 104 St, not sure 6 storeys will preserve the main street feel.

• No recognition of potential row or stacked townhouse form - it doesn’t all have to be medium rise.

• Build a cycle-track on Whyte Avenue.• Will not bring enough people into area to

make it truly vibrant or support existing/future businesses.

• Potential for vehicle roadways connecting 99 Street to Gateway Trail (103 Street) via 84, 85, and 86 Avenues and will encourage traffic/shortcutting.

• Not dense enough; and needs more people living in area for years to come.

• Mix of lower building heights and intensity.• Preserves the smaller scale character of the area.

Design Senario 21. What do you LIKE about this scenario?

Frequently More than once Once

2. What do you DISLIKE about this scenario?

Frequently More than once Once

• A few large building developments on the west side where it can serve the university.

• Strengthens walkability.• The value of commercial properties will increase.• More people will improve safety, vibrancy, and

economies for retail tenants.• Will help strengthen existing businesses.• Likely some of older buildings will be preserved.• Everything.• Higher density developments should have close

to zero parking to attract committed urbanists as residents.

• Potential to provide more retail and businesses, access to services, and address long-term community needs.

• Higher density and more intensive areas spread out the corridor.

• Improvements of alleys to make them more welcoming and accessible to pedestrians.

• Seeks to transform and/or redevelop vacant and underutilized spaces.

• More realistic density aspirations that will bring more life and vitality to the area.

• There is a range of densities provided.

• Higher density will increase traffic and congestion; does not deal with commuters.

• Too many large developments.• High density buildings are too close to Whyte

Ave, they should be a couple of blocks back.• Could be more high density toward 109 street

and 81 Avenue or University area. • Higher density will cast shadow on and off-site

including 82 Avenue.

• High rises are only good for developers to make money, they are not good for urban environments.

• Medium density on Farmers’ Market.• Towers will dwarf the historic buildings.• This is not downtown. Whyte shouldn’t be like

Jasper Avenue.• The neighbouring communities are already

some of the densest in the city.• Disrupts existing plan that is already in place.• Needs more cycling connectivity.• Too much medium density.

• Potential for vehicle roadways connecting 99 Street to Gateway Trail (103 Street) via 84, 85, and 86 Avenues and will encourage traffic/shortcutting.

• Overall intensity and density is too high, tall buildings are a poor fit with Whyte Avenue’s feel and character.

• Everything.

• Core heritage area is maintained and more intensive development located outside it.

• Stronger east-west pedestrian connections across Gateway Boulevard.

• This has more density and opportunities.• I like the idea of extending the streetcar and

connection to Whyte.

Which scenario do you prefer most and why?

Direction of Scenario 1 preferred.A majority of workshop participants and online survey respondents supported the general direction of Scenario 1. People preferred a mix of lower density, lower heights, and incremental change within the corridor. However, it was also identified that scenario 1 was too conservative, did not offer enough density options, and would need more people living in the area to help sustain local businesses. More should also be done to support pedestrians and cyclists, enhance the public realm, and utilize existing alleys and streetcar more to move people. Overall, people generally supported scenario 1 for its emphasis on maintaining the character of Whyte Avenue and mainstreet, fit with surrounding neighbourhood context, and limit on new development.

While a number of people supported Scenario 1, there were some who supported Scenario 2 for the benefits more mixed use development could bring to the area. Perceived benefits included ability to better address the long-term housing and retail needs of surrounding communities, support pedestrian, cycling and transit improvements thereby reducing automobile dependence and influence on the corridor, and more people living in the area contributing to Whyte Avenue’s local economy, businesses, safey, attraction and vibrancy as a destination.

This feedback along with city policy and technical analyses will be used to prepare a preferred development concept for the corridor and presented at a third public meeting (TBD) for additional public comment.