Sutherland residents push council for area traffic solutions
Some Rutherford Crescent residents are pushing city council for a solution to what they call “a recipe for tragedy,” claiming that the high density development on this Sutherland street is creating a dangerous situation for children playing in the area.
They contend that a number of illegal suites are contributing to a problem caused by the large number of single-family homes that were built in the area just a few years ago. Often, cars line both sides of the street creating dangerous conditions in an area with a high population of children and a park that attracts them in droves.
Residents are calling for speed bumps, crosswalks, a reduction in the speed limit, an elimination of parking in front of the playground, and a clamp down on illegal suites.
Ward 1 councillor Darren Hill will present his ideas on solving the problem to council this evening.
See the Star Phoenix story here.
I’m always happy to answer your Saskatoon real estate questions. All of my contact info is here. Please feel free to call or email.
Follow our daily updates on Twitter @Norm_Fisher.
Norm Fisher
Royal LePage Saskatoon Real Estate
Update: At the September 28 council meeting Ms. Elizabeth Cooney was heard and “expressed concerns regarding the speed of traffic and parking issue in the Rutherfor infill area and provided suggestions on how to help alleviate traffic congestion.” It was moved by councillor Hill, and seconded by Councillor Paulsen that the matter “be referred to Administration,” and that motion was carried.
Meeting minutes can be found here.
6 comments so far. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
September 28th, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Seen more often with condos, I am always amazed city councils every where don’t crack down on the shawdy parking situations. Even (especially) brand new developments see cars lining the streets before all units are even sold. As a former Lakewood resident, I can’t comprehend how zoning allows a 3 bedroom townhouse (or condo) to be built with 1 parking stall! Ditto for skinny housing and all the other low budg solutions I saw in Saskatoon before leaving. 2 parking stalls has to be a minimum. It seems Saskatoon is going back to the 70′s and the day of 1 car garages, and street parking. The 80′s and 90′s were much better for affording most houses a 2 car garage.
Regina is a bit better at this, but still has issues in some newer areas.
Solution? This story is too late. Maybe stick in some speed bumps. But for the future areas? Saskatoon has to start doing some urban planning, demanding developers have parking for at LEAST 2 cars per unit. Especially when expensive Saskatoon rent and purchase prices are driving people to find one or more room mates!
Yet another reason I would not want to buy in Saskatoon, poor urban planning, and a situation that is only going to get worse, unless prices come down to the point where young students and workers can afford to rent an entire town house or condo to themselves!
September 28th, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Nick,
I think this move towards higher density development was intended to create more affordable housing at the entry level. The illegal suites are certainly playing a role, as one household becomes two. To make matters worse, you’ll often find two to three adults living in each of those living units so you can easily have four or five cars per house. This will likely result in a clamping down on illegal suites.
September 28th, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Everyone I’ve talked to about the new proposed higher density development think it’s not only unrealistic, but undesirable. As it is, new neighborhoods like Stonebridge, Willogrove and Hampton Village are already around the 4-5/acre mark, and the city wants to push this into the 8/acre mark? Imagine the parking nightmare that awaits…
I obliged to agree with Nick – it’s too late for existing projects; the only solution moving forward is to require a higher number of parking stalls or spaces for high-density developments. And while we’re at it, a minimum of 2 parking spaces for houses – excluding garages – because no one really parks in their garage, anyway (this means you’d actually have to put a driveway in when you build a house…).
I’m not convinced the city will crack down on illegal suites, either – seeing as how the last time they did so was immediately prior to vacancy evaporating. Many of these are “shared accommodation” with a number of roommates, all unofficial and off the books.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:20 PM
I have no qualms with higher density housing, but parking is key, and aside from this one street, all new condo areas in Saskatoon are being built with inadequate parking, putting lot of cars on the street, and creating a danger!
September 29th, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Nick, the city’s proposal is to potentially double the population density in new developments, and as I understand it, a key reason for this is to reduce infrastructure costs. So if you’re doubling the population but limiting it through the same amount of roads (and subsequently, parking spaces)…
September 30th, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Higher density developments present a new problem of cost. What ends up happening is that they become valued the same as the lower density, at which point you’re not reaching your target audience.
It’s the right answer, but it will just spiral out of control into a trap just like everything else.
Captcha: “because left”