Author: Kim Siever

I sent a condensed version of the following letter to the editor of the Lethbridge Herald. They published it today, but did not include it on their website.

I have been following for the last two years with interest the process the Lethbridge Skateboard Association has had to endure in order to get a new skatepark. The organization, of which I am not a member, had seen at the beginning difficulties and frustration trying to work with the city. After city administration finally realized the feasibility, practicality, and necessity of a new skatepark in the city, the process became more collaborative.

Public perception, unsurprisingly, is still based on ignorance and opposition to the skatepark remains high. One need only read through the submissions to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board regarding the development permit to see how uninformed and ignorant citizens of the city are regarding the skatepark specifically and skateboarders generally.

Racism and poor grammar aside, the letters are filled with inaccuracies, stereotypes, and assumptions.

First of all, the closest author lives 700 metres away from the park. This is roughly the equivalent of 7 football field lengths. As a resident of London Road, I live approximately 700 metres from Park Place, and most people would think it unreasonable for me to complain about how Park Place affects me when it is 6 blocks away from my house.

Second, to imply that skateboarders are vandals and criminals is completely unfair and grossly irresponsible. The current president of the Lethbridge Skateboard Association is a respected structural engineer, a churchgoer, a husband, and the father of a young family. The members of the Lethbridge Skateboard Association were forced to raise two-thirds of the funding required to build the skatepark. These adults and young people have worked hard holding bottle drives, art auctions, and partnering with local businesses to host fundraising events. Through their own determination, hard work, and cooperation, they have managed to raise over $250,000 on their own. This is not what criminals do.

Third, the skatepark will not debauch the beauty of Henderson Park. The existing trees at the proposed location will remain, and while some of the grass will disappear, developer will plant greenery to make up for it. In addition, those opposing the skatepark because they assume it will be ugly have obviously never seen any prominent, new skateparks and lack an understanding of architecture and built environment.

Fourth, arguing about lack of parking is moot. Skateboards are a mode of transportation; skateboarders don’t need to park their skateboards when they arrive. Same goes for the argument that it will affect traffic congestion. In addition, the proposed location, despite argument from one of the letters, is serviced well by transit, with the 21, 23, and 24 routes stopping no more than a block away, and the 20 is only 2 blocks away.

These letters are from people who live too far away from the proposed location to be affected by a skatepark and who exhibit a complete lack of respect for the youth in this city. For shame.

Over the last few weeks, I’ve had several discussions with others about whether Lethbridge is urban.

Actually, discussion might be pushing it since most of the conversation was me pointing out logically (using actual definitions) on how Lethbridge qualifies as urban and most responses opposing my point based on subjective opinions on what qualifies as urban. Or more specifically, why Lethbridge is rural.

Let’s get a few things straight.

Statistics Canada, the federal government agency responsible for compiling data on Canada’s population, resources, economy, society, and culture, defines urban as the following:

An urban area has a minimum population concentration of 1,000 persons and a population density of at least 400 persons per square kilometre, based on the current census population count. . . .

Urban population includes all population living in the urban cores, secondary urban cores and urban fringes of census metropolitan areas (CMAs) and census agglomerations(CAs) . . .

According to Statistics Canada’s federal census last year, Lethbridge’s population was 83,517 and its size was 122.36 square kilometres, putting it population density at 682.6 persons per square kilometre.

Lethbridge’s annual municipal census is always large because it includes postsecondary students whose parents don’t live in Lethbridge, which the federal census doesn’t include. Last year’s municipal census came in at 87,882, putting population density at 718.2 persons per square kilometre.

Furthermore, for several decades, Lethbridge has qualified as a census agglomeration, which a smaller version of a census metropolitan area. Statistics Canada defines census agglomeration as the following:

A CA must have an urban core population of at least 10,000. To be included in the . . . CA, other adjacent municipalities must have a high degree of integration with the central urban area, as measured by commuting flows derived from census place of work data

To graduate to a census metropolitan area, the CA needs to have a population of over 100,000 people and at least 50,000 of them must live in the urban core. In the 2011 census, the Lethbridge Census Agglomeration population finally surpassed 100,000, and as I pointed out earlier, more than 50,000 people live in Lethbridge. Lethbridge now qualifies as a CMA based on StatCan’s definition, but it will be awhile before the change is officially made.

In the 2006 census (2011 figures haven’t been released for these data), Lethbridge had a workforce of 50,425 persons. The 2005–2006 business investment profile published by Economic Development Lethbridge indicated that when you consider all the people who commute to Lethbridge from within a 100 kilometre radius, that number actually increases to 86,000, suggesting over 36,000 people commute to Lethbridge from outlying communities.

Interestingly enough, Statistics Canada felt the term “urban” was too subjective, so they replaced it with the term “population centre” last year. Population centres are classified as small (pop. 1,000 to 29,999), medium (pop. 30,000 to 99,999), and large (pop. over 100,000). With the urban statistics released last year, Lethbridge qualifies as a large population centre.

Given all that, why are people still so insistent that Lethbridge is some sort of hick town, and not a urban city with a diverse economy, a vibrant arts and entertainment scene, an impressive built environment, and a university and college?