SEE Magazine
Issue #411: October 18, 2001
Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved

News by Kevin X. Wilson Alberta’s seventh-largest community is running out of room. Nestled near Edmonton’s geographic centre, the University of Alberta finds itself hemmed in by the city that has grown up around it. Over the next 10 years, the university’s administration expects its student population to grow by two percent annually – a total increase of 6,700 students by 2010. Those students will need classrooms and accommodations and parking. More research space will be needed, too. Overall, the institution reckons that it will need 200,000 more square metres of floor space before 2005, with an additional 200,000 square metres required before 2010. The university’s response to this looming space crisis has been to table a trio of potential schemes as possible Long Range Development Plans. All emphasize development on lands already owned by the U of A, but one, according to a city councillor, would mean "essentially wiping out North Garneau." But what if there were an alternative – one that had the potential to save the city and the university money – one that could simultaneously revitalize the heart of the city and protect one of its oldest neighborhoods? The plans Regardless of which plan is adopted, the university intends to create a "south campus," which would be built on existing U of A holdings. The northern portions of the university Farm would be used for some combination The "West 240," currently an open field located between the Grandview Heights and the Landsdowne neighbourhoods, would be used for joint ventures with "university partners." University representatives are reluctant to narrow the ranges of activities those ventures might include or the structures they might require. While the proposals for the south campus have the potential to affect neighbouring residential areas, all three of the development options involve lands already held by the university. It is in Garneau – one of the city’s mature neighbourhoods – that university development option two calls for the acquisition of several blocks of property, including those on which Garneau School and the Garneau Theatre now stand. In the case of the latter, the plan recommends demolishing it to make way for a four- to five- story parking garage. Downtown calling Terry Kilburn wants the university to think again. The partner in commercial real estate firm Avison Young has nothing against the institution. In fact, he’s something of a booster. "I’m looking at the university as being a driving force in Edmonton for the foreseeable future," he says. "If their vision unfolds the way they see it unfolding, they’ll be the driving force in this town." Moreover, although he recognizes the concerns of university-area residents, he’s not opposed to the university’s moving into established residential areas. "Sure they want to expand eastward into Garneau. I don’t blame them for that. They’re going to take all the land they can in there." But, he says, Garneau won’t be able to handle all the growth. "And I don’t think necessarily that the south campus is where they should be going," he says. Later, he adds, "Other than [the fact that it owns] the land, I don’t know what the hell that does for the university." The university has it backwards, Kilburn says. The school shouldn’t be heading south but north, to Edmonton’s downtown. It’s a course of action that would save us all money, according to Kilburn. "I’d rather see them coming across the existing infrastructure – the LRT – rather than building more LRT that I don’t think we need in this city," he says, adding that Phoenix has no rail system despite being three times larger than Edmonton. "[City council is] talking about three-quarters of a billion dollars to go down to Heritage Mall. By the time they get down there it’ll be a billion dollars." Crossing the river also means that the university can enjoy a cost-effective solution to its most pressing problem – space. Kilburn notes the predicted need for four million square feet – or 40 per cent growth – over the next 10 years. "Their growth curve is pretty dramatic," he says. "I just know where there’s a lot of cheap space – and that’s in downtown Edmonton." Kilburn also knows where to find a lot of that cheap space in one place. The all-but-abandoned Bay building on Jasper Avenue has enjoyed just one tenant – A-Channel – for some time. "The Bay is just sitting there," says Kilburn, "and yeah, it has to be converted, but I think that can be done pretty nicely at about half the cost of having to build a new building." The Bay building offers 400,000 square feet of space. Kilburn says that could be increased by building on top of the existing structure. But even without additional construction, the building would account for 10 per cent of the university’s projected need over the next 10 years. In addition to lower costs for transportation and office space, Kilburn sees a mutually beneficial relationship developing between Edmonton’s downtown and the U of A. "I’d like to see the university get a little more involved in the downtown and in the business community. I think it would be very healthy for the university to integrate themselves more into the community," if for no other reason, he says, than "because a lot of their money is going to be coming from the private sector." He also thinks that it would be good for the business community to learn a little bit more about the university. Costs and synergies aside, having the university downtown could go a long way to reviving Edmonton’s moribund downtown, says Kilburn. "So goes your downtown, so goes your city. Edmonton has been very poorly perceived over the last 15 years, in other cities." That’s one of the reasons why he’s after the university and the province to make a commitment to the area. Asked if there are other buildings that might lend themselves to university use, Kilburn says that none approaches the square footage. The empty federal building perhaps? Its construction (he calls the building "a rabbit hutch") makes renovation prohibitively expensive, he says. Nevertheless, "I think if [the university] came downtown in a major way, other smaller opportunities would come along that they could look at." Kilburn acknowledges that the campus would have to operate on the opposite side of the river, but he doesn’t consider that a strong argument against a move. "There are a number of multi-campus universities all over North America that operate just fine. So what I’m saying is, while you can, someone ought to be taking advantage of being able to create large amounts of space. They’re not on campus: they’re close. They’re hooked in by the LRT. There’s a lot of money to be saved by doing this. I can’t think of too many downsides except that somebody has to take the plunge and get used to it. They’ve got think outside the box a little bit." A civic resource Like Terry Kilburn, Ward Four Councillor Michael Phair has problems with the tack the university is taking. "I’m not too fond of most of what has been proposed to this point," he says, in response to the university’s preferred development options. Like Kilburn, he’s uncomfortable with the south campus proposals, but the affected lands are outside his ward. Not so the Garneau neighbourhood. "In terms of what is being proposed for the current, major campus along the river, I have a number of concerns." The causes of Phair’s dissatisfaction differ, sometimes markedly, from Kilburn’s. He worries about how transportation will be affected by increasing population density in Garneau. Phair’s other principal concern has to do with neighbourhood development, and one of the university’s proposed options particularly worries him because it would mean, in his opinion, the end of a community. "Of the plans that they have, I probably have the most serious concerns about [development option two] because it’s essentially wiping out the North Garneau community, including a number of significant buildings – including the High Level Diner and the Sugarbowl and the Garneau Theatre and the Garneau School, which are not only landmarks and well known but also used by many people from around the city." The councillor is also troubled by the U of A’s disinclination to consult with the municipal government. "I think there needs to be a great deal of major discussion with the city and with the community before any of these ideas go further. To the the best of my knowledge, the proposed plans have been unveiled and they have not been reviewed by the city. Nor has the city been a part of any of this, other than providing some background information." He acknowledges that, according to the provincial Universities Act, the U of A isn’t obligated to consult with the city on development issues. "Technically it doesn’t but – boy – it’s sure going to impact on all of those roads and transportation systems and everything else that comes out around that area. It’s foolish to not have the city be a part of that." Phair’s ward also includes parts of downtown. He thinks the area would be a nice fit for the university. "I think the notion of expanding into the downtown is very viable and they should consider that. With the connection with the LRT which exists, it would be quite convenient and in my opinion quite easy for both the staff who work in the university, and students, to do that." With regard to finding space, Phair is considerably more optimistic than Kilburn. "There are any number of buildings that are office buildings that are partially or almost completely empty that are in very close location to the LRT. Certainly in the government area just north of the legislature there’s any number of buildings in there that would work well and would not, in my opinion, be particularly difficult to obtain." He adds that the same is true in other downtown areas. Moreover, says Phair, the university, which has already invested in apartment buildings near the campus, could be looking downtown for buildings that could serve as residences. In fact, such a move would fit nicely with the city’s objectives. "We have been encouraging additional redevelopment of properties downtown for housing. We would certainly welcome additional downtown housing." Looking ahead The University of Alberta is urging its neighbours not to panic. Discussions about the Long Range Development Plan are still ongoing. Still, the season for discussion is short. The university plans to hold an open house in November to present the results of feedback it has received, to be followed by more consultation. And another open house. The university’s board of governors is slated to makes its final decision in April 2002. The Universities Act allows for the U of A to expropriate privately held land as it deems necessary. Current and former Garneau residents still remember with anger the era during the ’60s and ’70s when many homeowners were forced to make deals with the university. Other residents fear that the university will simply buy properties as they become available and let them fall into disrepair. On the subject of expropriation, the university’s Long Range Development Plan FAQ says that "The scenario presented is not based on an assumption that land will be expropriated." That’s not the same as "No property will be expropriated," mind you. And if property acquisition in Garneau is chosen as the preferred scenario but land isn’t expropriated, how will the university be able to acquire that land in the required time frame? The FAQ answers, "The university does not have a plan, as the option to develop in Garneau is still only a possible requirement rather than a demonstrated need. We have heard a wide variety of opinions from Garneau residents on what they feel is an appropriate approach if expansion becomes the best option. Private developers have also expressed interest in purchasing property in the area." As far as the issue of consultation with the city is concerned, the matter is slightly clearer: the board of governors will make the final decision. "Decisions about the LRT and other major capital projects involve many other stakeholders such as the City of Edmonton .... " Although both residents and council are "involved" in the discussion, there are no guarantees that they will find the results satisfying.

| Back To This Issue Table of Contents | Back To Main Index |