COP Lands to be developed into shopping mall (Trinity@Winsport)

[Spring2008]

I like this one. The west part of the city in general is seeing a huge amount of quality urban development:





http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...194/story.html

[Spring2008]

Developer pitches 'Whistler Village' concept for Paskapoo Slopes


By Jason Markusoff, Calgary Herald June 25, 2014


A developer is bidding to bring what it calls a “Whistler Village” blend of retail shops, office space and homes to the foot of the Paskapoo Slopes, hoping to find public and political support two years after city council rejected plans for a big-box project on the site.

Last time, area representatives voted down a WinSport’s development for fear it would cause traffic snarls on the Trans-Canada Highway and be unattractive in the shadow of Canada Olympic Park’s iconic ski jumps.

This plan from new landowner Trinity Development is finding more favour with those councillors so far, because it’s designed to be more pedestrian-friendly, more mixed-use, and with elements such as a movie theatre and main retail street to lure visitors.

“I hate to use the word, but it has to be world class because it’s a gateway to the city for tourists,” Coun. Ward Sutherland said Tuesday.

If council approves the Trinity Hills project, the company would grant 65 hectares of the 105-hectare site to the city as environment reserve or park space for cross-country skiing and possibly mountain biking.

Despite the substantial changes from big-box plaza to mainstreet retail, Coun. Richard Pootmans said he’s hearing “pretty much the same” complaints as came for the failed 2012 project: environmental impact on the slopes, and traffic problems. But he doesn’t see this as the same project with the same problems.

“They’ve been addressed in a more robust manner. I think the solutions are stronger this time,” Pootmans said.

Instead of relying on all cars in this project to flow through a Bowfort Road-TransCanada interchange, Trinity is willing to pay for a flyover from Sarcee Trail to reach the retail corridor and a supermarket.

And the company has changed the shape of the proposal, though it’s planning stacked townhouses on a cul-de-sac that reaches higher up the slope than WinSport was planning to go.

“We thought that was a great opportunity to provide a great place to live, given the views and vistas,” said development director Ingrid Beausoleil. “It’s up the slope side, but we are trying to avoid sensitive areas.”

For years, WinSport had planned to sell the northeast base of Paskapoo to a land developer, to help finance Canada Olympic Park and sports facility expansions.

The 2012 plan avoided suburban office space because the market demand was low, and focus on large-format retail. Then, once council OKed the rezoning, WinSport would sell the land to Trinity.

After council’s rejection of the WinSport plan in 2012, the sports agency decided to sell the site for $40 million to Trinity so the Ontario-based developer could have better success with the public and council on its own. (The firm also built the Walmart-anchored East Hills retail complex on 17th Avenue S.E., and is developing more land near the airport.)

Trinity aims to align its project with the sort of walk-to-work, walk-to-shopping ideals Calgary planners and council fancy for major new developments.

“If you think of Garrison Woods meets East Village with kind of a Whistler Village feel, that’s sort of the vision we are trying to create,” Beausoleil said.

It includes up to 260,000 square feet of office, something council had urged in WinSport’s unsuccessful plans. WinSport officials could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Trinity has also tried to do more extensive consultation, meeting with 15 nearby community groups before open houses Tuesday and Wednesday, and offering 3-D renderings to show Calgarians how the buildings would look.

“It doesn’t come across as such an ominous development when you put it up against the height of the hills,” Sutherland said.

Community members had an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal at an open house in Bowness on Tuesday evening and after viewing the latest plans, some attendees expressed concerns.

“Traffic is bad enough on Sarcee,” said Allan Folkersen. “I wanted to see what the traffic changes are going to be and so far they don’t look good.”

Kathryn Jamieson, who has lived near Paskapoo Slopes for more than three decades, said even though much of the site would remain park space, she’s concerned the proposal would impact the “beautiful hillside.”

“I’m just so disappointed that it’s another green space that’s being infringed upon,” she said. “I don’t think they’re improving it with what they plan to do to it.”

James Podlubny also expressed concerns regarding the loss of beloved green space.

“Development is development to me. You start putting things in like this and it changes the integrity of the area,” he said.

With files from Annalise Klingbeil

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...194/story.html

[speedog]

El cheapo overlay I drummed up...

[IMG][/IMG]

[hulkrogan]

That looks worse than I thought

[onanewday]

So a petition is going around right now in response to the development. It literally is asking to stop on development on the slopes. What do people think? Should we be allowing development of this area? The petition is saying that the area is historic and should be perserved for environmental and recreation reasons. Interesting enough it focused on the historic angle.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by onanewday

So a petition is going around right now in response to the development. It literally is asking to stop on development on the slopes. What do people think? Should we be allowing development of this area? The petition is saying that the area is historic and should be perserved for environmental and recreation reasons. Interesting enough it focused on the historic angle.

This is yet another development in which I sit in 2 completely opposite camps. I value the "wildness" of the slopes, and as someone else mentioned earlier, I love that we have an approach into the city that isn't immediately strip malls and SFH and concrete everywhere. The north is a lost cause, the south was a lost cause long ago, and the east is pretty much a done deal. And unfortunately Hwy 1 is going to be filled with malls and housing just west of there anyway, so it'd be nice if we could keep some semblance of nature around.

But - I just don't agree with "no development, ever!" for an area like this. COP is expanding, they put up huge temporary tents every year, and a lot of the rest of the area is otherwise wasted land. They don't still have the KOA operating, do they?

I certainly don't understand the historic argument, but from a recreational perspective... perhaps some of it should be formalized into a park or something.

[DizzyEdge]

so the red lines in the map above are bike trails?
what if they did the development, but where the development covers the trails they keep the trails, just maybe more groomed like bike paths?
I'm not against a Canmore/Banff/Whistler development at the foot of the hills but yes whatever isn't developed should be protected.

And maybe really strong architecture in view of the highway so that it is indeed less of just more vinyl subdivisions are you drive by, but a village in the foothills.

[DizzyEdge]

Unrelated question, is there a 'petting zoo' in Calgary? I ask because right across from the development east of Sarcee are what used to be farms, and I'd kinda of like to see them remain that way, have some sort of innercity farm for .. some sort of purpose.

[polishavenger]

If the city wants to preserve the entirety of the slopes, then they should buy out the land from Trinity and set it aside as urban reserve. Unless they are willing to do that, the best they can expect to to have a portion of the developable lands set aside as green space, which this proposal does.

Lets not forget we are living in a city, so at what point should people entering it encounter urbanity? Wouldnt the areas outside the city limits count as the wild/undeveloped areas as you enter into the city? I am 100% for high quality urban development right at the edge of town that showcases the city and creates wow factor for people coming in. The elevations I've seen of this project do that for the interior streets, the key is to see how they interface with 16th Ave.

Ultimately we are faced with the following choices: 1 - Stop outward expansion of the city, and maximize the developable space currently available in the city limits while preserving existing green space and acquire land for whatever additional parks we want to create within the city limits 2 - continue destroying pristine green field sites on the edge of the city as we expand ever outwards 3 - contract the size of the city and return land back to nature.

In my mind option 1 is the only way to go, and developments like this go a way towards achieving this. Next stage should be huge intensification of the land on the north side of 16th and redevelopment of the mobile home park. Perhaps with enough densification in this area someday a spur line of the LRT can be justified that would go by the foothills hospital and connect at banff trail.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

so the red lines in the map above are bike trails?
what if they did the development, but where the development covers the trails they keep the trails, just maybe more groomed like bike paths?
I'm not against a Canmore/Banff/Whistler development at the foot of the hills but yes whatever isn't developed should be protected.

And maybe really strong architecture in view of the highway so that it is indeed less of just more vinyl subdivisions are you drive by, but a village in the foothills.

As a guy who grew up in Canmore, I can assure you you don't want to point at that model for preserving trails. The housing and golf courses decimated the trail systems on both sides of the valley, leaving little more than smooth gravel and paved trails in their place. Most remaining trails were closed because they went through what was left of the "wildlife corridor" that was shrunk to virtual nothingness due to golf facilities and incomplete developments and fairways. Trails were the bottom of the priority pile, as I'm sure they would be here as well.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

As a guy who grew up in Canmore, I can assure you you don't want to point at that model for preserving trails. The housing and golf courses decimated the trail systems on both sides of the valley, leaving little more than smooth gravel and paved trails in their place. Most remaining trails were closed because they went through what was left of the "wildlife corridor" that was shrunk to virtual nothingness due to golf facilities and incomplete developments and fairways. Trails were the bottom of the priority pile, as I'm sure they would be here as well.

I was meaning more architecture but good info to know.

[Fuzz]

Sorry, touchy subject!

[speedog]

Originally Posted by onanewday

So a petition is going around right now in response to the development. It literally is asking to stop on development on the slopes. What do people think? Should we be allowing development of this area? The petition is saying that the area is historic and should be perserved for environmental and recreation reasons. Interesting enough it focused on the historic angle.

Historic part is up on the south side in the hills - old buffalo jump/kill sites. The lower grassy areas where the development will be going doesn't have much in the way of history aside from the fact that there used to be some farms down there and besides that, if this is such a significant site, historical or recreational, then why hasn't the city looked into buying all of these lands?

People are getting their knickers all knotted up - yeah, I'd say let's preserve the upper wooded areas but develop the lower grassy areas in a nice way.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Unrelated question, is there a 'petting zoo' in Calgary? I ask because right across from the development east of Sarcee are what used to be farms, and I'd kinda of like to see them remain that way, have some sort of innercity farm for .. some sort of purpose.

Define "in Calgary". Butterfield Acres is within city limits, although only by a technicality. It's a pretty fun place to take the kids (or if you just like animals). It's also within a bit of a walk from my house, so I agree with your thinking - a petting zoo is something that would be fantastic in the inner city, where a lot of people can walk to it.

A petting zoo is really the only thing our zoo lacks in any big way. Every other major zoo that I can think of has something of a petting zoo. I don't know why ours doesn't. They're cheap and easy to maintain, and we have a lot of fallow space at the moment. Plus kids love 'em.

[Spring2008]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

If the city wants to preserve the entirety of the slopes, then they should buy out the land from Trinity and set it aside as urban reserve. Unless they are willing to do that, the best they can expect to to have a portion of the developable lands set aside as green space, which this proposal does.

Lets not forget we are living in a city, so at what point should people entering it encounter urbanity? Wouldnt the areas outside the city limits count as the wild/undeveloped areas as you enter into the city? I am 100% for high quality urban development right at the edge of town that showcases the city and creates wow factor for people coming in. The elevations I've seen of this project do that for the interior streets, the key is to see how they interface with 16th Ave.

Ultimately we are faced with the following choices: 1 - Stop outward expansion of the city, and maximize the developable space currently available in the city limits while preserving existing green space and acquire land for whatever additional parks we want to create within the city limits 2 - continue destroying pristine green field sites on the edge of the city as we expand ever outwards 3 - contract the size of the city and return land back to nature.

In my mind option 1 is the only way to go, and developments like this go a way towards achieving this. Next stage should be huge intensification of the land on the north side of 16th and redevelopment of the mobile home park. Perhaps with enough densification in this area someday a spur line of the LRT can be justified that would go by the foothills hospital and connect at banff trail.

Yes, yes, yes!

[onanewday]

Originally Posted by speedog

Historic part is up on the south side in the hills - old buffalo jump/kill sites. The lower grassy areas where the development will be going doesn't have much in the way of history aside from the fact that there used to be some farms down there and besides that, if this is such a significant site, historical or recreational, then why hasn't the city looked into buying all of these lands?

People are getting their knickers all knotted up - yeah, I'd say let's preserve the upper wooded areas but develop the lower grassy areas in a nice way.

I am in agreement here. I live in Cougar Ridge and I was forwarded the petition by another resident of Cougar Ridge who thinks there can be no development. I see no issue with well though out development along the highway and leaving the slopes wooded, which this develop does do. (I am not talking about any other specific merits of this proposal).

And if people want the city to truly preserve the slopes, then the city should but the slopes outright.

But again I think we are seeing the usual reaction to area that has been under utilized for decades is finally going to see development and people cannot envision any other way.

As a side note, I think many residents of Cougar Ridge and Wentworth will get a nasty surprise when they see the Stoney Trail alignment. That will be next!

[Spring2008]

Regarding the aerial map with the bike paths, I bet there's a provision that the developer has to replace some of those, probably by incorporating new ones along the south side of development.

[Wentworth]

Originally Posted by onanewday

I am in agreement here. I live in Cougar Ridge and I was forwarded the petition by another resident of Cougar Ridge who thinks there can be no development. I see no issue with well though out development along the highway and leaving the slopes wooded, which this develop does do. (I am not talking about any other specific merits of this proposal).

And if people want the city to truly preserve the slopes, then the city should but the slopes outright.

But again I think we are seeing the usual reaction to area that has been under utilized for decades is finally going to see development and people cannot envision any other way.

As a side note, I think many residents of Cougar Ridge and Wentworth will get a nasty surprise when they see the Stoney Trail alignment. That will be next!

There should be no surprise on the Stoney Trail alignment because it's the same one they've had published on their web site for the past 5+ years. I think what could end up being a nasty surprise, though, is the traffic impact once they hook up Bow Trail to Stoney... 85th Street already desperately needs a dual turn onto Bow, can't imagine what it is going to be like when you start having inbound Stoney traffic taking priority at the light at Bow and 85th.

[bigcanuck]

Originally Posted by Wentworth

There should be no surprise on the Stoney Trail alignment because it's the same one they've had published on their web site for the past 5+ years. I think what could end up being a nasty surprise, though, is the traffic impact once they hook up Bow Trail to Stoney... 85th Street already desperately needs a dual turn onto Bow, can't imagine what it is going to be like when you start having inbound Stoney traffic taking priority at the light at Bow and 85th.

Hopefully by the time the Bow Trail to Stoney piece is built, any issues with the landowners that are preventing 85th from being 2-3 lane through the intersection will be long resolved. A dual turn would be ideal but even a longer designated single turn lane that isn't intertwined with straight-through traffic would help the congestion a bit. The assumption of course is that Bow Trail becomes 4 lanes between 85th and Strathcona to support a dual turn.

[onanewday]

Originally Posted by Wentworth

There should be no surprise on the Stoney Trail alignment because it's the same one they've had published on their web site for the past 5+ years. I think what could end up being a nasty surprise, though, is the traffic impact once they hook up Bow Trail to Stoney... 85th Street already desperately needs a dual turn onto Bow, can't imagine what it is going to be like when you start having inbound Stoney traffic taking priority at the light at Bow and 85th.

I would agree, but people always seemed to be 'surprised.'

Now maybe where this different with the COP lands... is that I am not sure that there has been a clear concept of what this area was to be used for. There has always been opposition to development of the slopes. I remember people being upset that Patterson was allowed to develop down the slopes. So a large number of people have always thought this area should have been put aside as parkland. And this has been reinforced through time as the slopes have largely remained undeveloped including the lower part.