Significantly Slaterville

Brown Bag Lunch April 21st 2009


Steve Lehman Talked about the term “Slaterville” and how, he feels, it has a negative connotation. Suggested that the name should be changed. Councillor Pallesen suggested that residents get together and suggest a new name to Council for its consideration. Mr. Lehman commented on the lack of services to the area, including City transit, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, potholes on the road, narrow streets, which he suggested should be made one-way. Mayor Manjak advised that Cranbrook is working on the transit issue to the area.

At the last Council meeting of August 16th 2010 a zoning change was requested for a lot in Slaterville in order to permit the building of an extra residence. The effect would be to densify that particular area and is an example of infill development – using up vacant space. The permission was denied on the grounds of narrow roads, insufficient infrastructure and poor access. Mayor Manjak made it clear this flew in the face of what was being being requested during the time of the East Hill Referendum. Indeeed it does. However on a number of occasions Council members have stated they understand Smart Growth. They also on a number of occasions have stated that it is up to the residents of Slaterville to come forward with initiative for a revitalisation plan for Slaterville. Have the residents of Slaterville not already tried to do that? An example is given above from the Brown Bag minutes. If Council indeed does understand the tenets of Smart Growth and wish to become serious about actually practising it, it would seem it is up to their planning and engineering department to provide some sort of initial meeting with information about what is possible and spell out what exactly is expected of the residents. The city has the expertise and there appears to be a will to get something accomplished. A one-way system of traffic has been suggested for example. Is not providing and servicing infrastucture to an area close to all amenities a lot more cost effective than an area far removed from the city core? What is the potential for development in this area? It would seem serious consideration could be given to these issues. In driving around the area I noticed a few vacant lots for sale, some beautiful home renovations and a ‘quaintness’ that is not achievable in a new area. It would seem there is some Smart potential here.

Slaterville is an historic part of Cranbrook. It was originally the site of the Slater sawmill and several prominent pioneer families including the Slaters and the Leasks lived and worked there. It would be a shame to change its name. There is a Slaterville Facebook page,
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2363610675   where some photos of the original homes, many still standing, can be seen. More of Slaterville’s history and references can also be found there. Many have commented in the past on the lack of pride in Cranbrook’s history. Slaterville is a waiting opportunity both as a model for Smart Growth and as a recognition of Cranbrook’s past.