Westbrook Redevelopment Project [Archive]

Tropics

Feb 2, 2012, 11:30 PM

It seems that the city is now moving forward with this. The school is being demolished and the land is going to be portioned into 4 seperate segments and sold off to interested parties.

Here are some crucial snippets from an article "Redevelopment gathers steam" that was in the Calgary Herald written by Richard White published on January 13th, accessed from http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Redevelopment+gathers+steam/5988080/story.html

**************************************************
"One of the biggest urban development events of 2012 could be the city’s Westbrook Station land sale on the Ernest Manning High School site.

The project is just one part of the larger Westbrook Village redevelopment — a 21-hectare site that encompasses the area from Bow Trail on the north to 17th Avenue S.W. on the south; and from 33rd Street S.W. on the east and 37th Street S.W. on the west — and includes Westbrook Mall.

I recently had an interesting chat with Robert Moskovitz, manager of land servicing for the City of Calgary.

He will be overseeing the land servicing and development of four parcels of city-owned land next to the underground Westbrook LRT Station on the new west LRT leg.

<snip>

Moskovitz indicated that, as per the Area Redevelopment Plan, the vision for this site is for a mixed-use development similar in scale to the Intergulf development on the north side of Bow Trail and 37th Street.

It could also look like Balboa’s Keynote project in the Beltline, which has two condo towers and one office tower, along with retail, restaurants and cafes at the base.

<snip>

The city will be looking for projects that are pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use and mixed income — developers are required to provide two per cent of all residential units as affordable housing.

<snip>

Ideally, Moskovitz says the city would like to have one developer buy all four parcels, but officials will be looking for the best proposals for each site.

These will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

-- Consistency with land use, density and architectural character.

<snip>

-- Approach to affordable housing.

<snip>

-- Price offered for the land.

<snip>

I tried to coax Moskovitz into divulging how much money the city hoped to raise from this sale — even a ballpark figure — but his lips were tightly sealed.

When I chatted with developers and real estate professionals about what they thought the land might be worth, they, too, were reluctant to give a ballpark price — too many variables, they said.

<snip>

Other issues include geotechnical restrictions due to an LRT tunnel, potential unrealistic density and timing demands based on current market conditions, green design demands and mandatory affordable housing requirements.

Some pointed to The Bridges project, another city-lead redevelopment project where a recent land offering that specifically requested a mix of affordable and market housing attracted few interested developers.

<snip>

*****************************************************

I have long hoped they would push this forward but numerous things the city have done on moving forward leave me less then thrilled and IMO they are going to end up with a result FAR less then what it could be.

First off, the 2% affordable housing requirement is (as the article mentions) going to limit the offers the city receives for the land and also limit the amount of money that a developer is going to spend on the project. This vision

http://realestate.cocnmp.com/documents/westbrook/pdf/westbrook_station_tod.pdf

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Documents/Publications/westbrook-village-arp.pdf

is not going to happen when you start bringing in mandatory affordable housing restrictions on land that the city still wants to sell at a premium price. Some developer probably WOULD build that vision, but they are going to need to sell the square footage at fair market price for the Calgary market that such a development would demand. Anything that is going to cut into their bottom line is going to cut into the amount of money that they spend on both the land, and the project, that is simple economics 101 and the city of Calgary will end up with a Westbrook that is less then what it could be.

If the City of Calgary really wants to have affordable housing that is fine, but you do not try to "mix" affordable housing into a high end retail and high end residential project. You build Westbrook as a high end residential and retail center as the visions of the city clearly indicate they want, and then you get the builder to build a "different" building on a "different" piece of land that the city owns that is 100% affordable housing and is custom built for that purpose. You do not try to somehow put affordable housing into development that are clearly otherwise aimed at a high end market.

Get rid of the 2% requirement, the land then becomes more valuable, the city sells it for more money, the developer builds a higher end retail and residential place that stands out more and is more impressive, the units sell for more money, the city gets more in tax revenue from the more valuable housing, and then you can build a 100% affordable housing project with that excess tax revenue and the extra money the land sold for on another piece of city land.

On top of that the city mentions that they are hoping for a single developer so that they can keep a consistency in the design, yet they broke up the land into 4 seperate packages. Not to mention that 20 Vic Management seems to own Westbrook Mall and both the building to the North with the Spa Lady AND the strip mall/professional building to the south. In effect one group already "owns" most of the land needed for the redevelopment, a parcel of land far bigger then the entire school land parcel. And 20 Vic, they did The Core redevelopment which most would say was a pretty impressive job and seems to have a similar theme to the Westbrook Redevelopment vision the city has put forth of modern themed buildings that blend in green spaces and trees.

If they sell the land to anyone else, even the whole school parcel, that developer is STILL not going to own the bulk of Westbrook and the consistency issue will still not be dealt with.

If they can get 20 Vic to buy the land and develop the entire area of Westbrook from 17th avenue to Bow trail and 33rd to 37th avenue, without the mandatory affordable housing in the Westbrook Station then they actually have a chance of getting that vision in those PDF's that they are looking for. When making the deal simply have a caveat that the developer of the Westbrook Station project must also build "at cost" a 100% affordable housing project on a different piece of land for the City of Calgary.

The City of Calgary has a GREAT vision in the above PDF plans, but they are handcuffing the developers and moving forward in a way such that the vision will never be realized. They need to actually work with the developers to get what they envisioned built, not handcuff them and start putting restrictions on them and break the school property into 4 seperate parcels and make the likelyhood of multiple developers WAY more likely. Their words and their actions on this are going in completely opposite directions.

ByeByeBaby

Feb 3, 2012, 2:56 AM

Anything that is going to cut into their bottom line is going to cut into the amount of money that they spend on both the land, and the project, that is simple economics 101 and the city of Calgary will end up with a Westbrook that is less then what it could be.

If the City of Calgary really wants to have affordable housing that is fine, but you do not try to "mix" affordable housing into a high end retail and high end residential project. You build Westbrook as a high end residential and retail center as the visions of the city clearly indicate they want, and then you get the builder to build a "different" building on a "different" piece of land that the city owns that is 100% affordable housing and is custom built for that purpose. You do not try to somehow put affordable housing into development that are clearly otherwise aimed at a high end market.

I don't know; I think it could be a vibrant and diverse community node, but you seem to want it to be less than that; a gated community for the rich. Unfortunately, the dream of 100% poor-person housing is dying as they implode Cabrini-Green, and Pruit-Igoe and the Robert Taylor Homes.

Besides, if the City "clearly wants" an encampment for the wealthy, what is that 2% affordable housing requirement doing in there? Did they accidentally develop the guiding principle for "A diverse range of multi-family types offered in a range of sizes and configurations increases choice and affordability, especially when combined with a reduced need to own a car." (Principle 7 of the Westbrook ARP)

The article mentions Keynote as a size comparison; that's around 550 units, 2% of which is 11. I have faith that there are developers in this big ol' world of ours capable of building an entire dozen affordable units, as a part of a 2.3 million square foot development.

frinkprof

Feb 3, 2012, 4:09 AM

Welcome to the forum. Thanks for starting the thread and posting.

A few things though. First off, you can't post an entire article like you have. Only an excerpt (say a couple paragraphs), the title, the author, the date and link. It's copyright infringement to post the whole thing. News agencies have taken legal action against forums such as this because of people reproducing the whole article or even most of it. The image and article posting guide is available at the bottom of each page of this forum as a dropdown in the quick reply box.

Regarding the affordable housing inclusion, while I would agree that there may be some issues with execution, I would say that the appetite of developers to include affordable units in their projects does exist. I also don't think that there would be much appreciable compromise on quality, in general, when compared to what the project might be without the affordable unit inclusion. When discussing the issue with developers as a member of the planning committee for my community association, many developers (in fact almost all if memory serves) have said that they have no problem with and actually want to include some affordable units in all their projects. They want to do this because in many cases they believe it enhances the project as a whole for all its end users and as a policy they just believe it is the right thing to do from a corporate citizen standpoint. Where the stumbling block has been, at least in my community's case, is that any benefits that the City would provide for including affordable units (density bonusing, leverage for decisions on relaxation applications, etc.) are offset by some problems with how the City defines what an affordable unit is and how they are managed. Basically the City requires that they be added to the City's Affordable Housing inventory, which has some strict criteria that doesn't always translate well into including them in the developer's plans.

So long story short, it if it is managed a little better on the City's end, it shouldn't have much affect on the quality outcome of Westbrook. The developers agree with the principle, by in large.

Also, I think you're putting too much weight into the City's desire for there to be one developer. I think that was more just the musings of the interviewee. They'll take one, two, three or four developers if that's how it ends up playing out. The parcel breakup was likely for a few reasons.

1. Two or more of the parcels likely have planned public roads (as set out by the ARP) which separate them, all but requiring the separate parcel delineation.

2. It gives them more options to market the parcels to developers (i.e. if their desire for one developer isn't in the cards, the parcels can go piecemeal). It also allows one or two of the parcels to sell now, if that's how it plays out, rather than being stuck with one big parcel that won't sell.

TallBob

Feb 3, 2012, 5:37 AM

I'm glad to see some discussion on Westbrook. I was under the impression that there was to be more units of housing. Also, quite frankly, the 2% on low-income/below market rates on housing is absurd! Do some folks really believe the city and all or most neighborhoods be for upper-income residents? I don't think the city really would want this and if anything a min. of 5% below market rates should be allowed, and maybe that isn't enough. This plan was concieved in the prior administration anyway wasn't it?

TallBob

Feb 3, 2012, 5:40 AM

My above post should have said 5% of total units should be for low/below market rates. Maybe even a little higher. Sorry, my bad!

Deepstar

Feb 3, 2012, 7:26 PM

Nice to see movement on this, there's so much potential there.

Between Brentwood and Westbrook, we're seeing some good progress on transit node/TOD development :tup:

Tropics

Feb 3, 2012, 8:15 PM

Tropics

Feb 3, 2012, 9:24 PM

I don't know; I think it could be a vibrant and diverse community node, but you seem to want it to be less than that; a gated community for the rich.

Nah, I want almost exactly what is in the Westbrook Redevelopment Plan PDF's from the City of Calgary, nothing gated as I will not live there but I live in the community and I would love a central hub of higher end retail and shopping in the area that is currently now Westbrook.

The city is trying something very specific at Westbrook, they are trying to move towards high density communities as a alternative to the suburbs, but that is only possible by giving the people who can afford to live in the suburbs a living experience that actually reflects their income and is a viable option to a house, or they will simply take their money and buy a house.

It is not the people with $250,000 that the city needs to get to start buying condos, that is my income bracket, we are already buying condos because we cannot afford a house in this city, we don't create the sprawl. To stop the urban sprawl and get people who can afford a house in Calgary to instead buy a condo you need a condo to become a really attractive alternative at their income level. That means making the whole community really nice with fancy coffee shops and a nice high end supermarket and a nice wine shop and a fancy central park with green spaces, ect... Westbrook needs to be nice, really nice, or you will get people saying "nah, not nice enough, I am going to go buy a house with a yard in the burbs 3 minutes drive from Aspen Landing and its nice shops and restaurants".

The city needs to come to grips that building high density in the near city communities is not enough to slow urban crawl, they need to start making the areas super nice and desirable so that the people with higher incomes start to see it as a viable alternative lifestyle that still reflects their income bracket. They still want that high end retail shopping, they want the fancy wine store, they want a Sunterra Market, they want the higher end restaurants chains at their doorstep. They want at least Kensington level shopping or they will pass on it. The people with real money want the Westbrook Redevelopment plan down to a tee, and they wont settle for less. Cut the scope of the project back, make it not "quite that nice" because of restrictions and handcuffing the developer and all that will happen is they will take their money elsewhere.

The developers know this, once they get handcuffed and cannot build the project like they need to because their bottom line gets cut into by that affordable housing requirement they will target the middle end 200's to 400's for a 1-2 bedroom condo bracket where that affordable housing is actually less of a cut into their profits because they are closer to the value of the other units. That is what took place at the Bridge development. That does not help the city in doing what they actually want to see Calgary start to move towards. They need to actually start to target the higher income brackets with condo developments and Westbrook is an obvious place they thought hard about doing that given the redvelopment plans and the vision they show.

Bassic Lab

Feb 3, 2012, 10:23 PM

Nah, I want almost exactly what is in the Westbrook Redevelopment Plan PDF's from the City of Calgary, nothing gated as I will not live there but I live in the community and I would love a central hub of higher end retail and shopping in the area that is currently now Westbrook.

The city is trying something very specific at Westbrook, they are trying to move towards high density communities as a alternative to the suburbs, but that is only possible by giving the people who can afford to live in the suburbs a living experience that actually reflects their income and is a viable option to a house, or they will simply take their money and buy a house.

It is not the people with $250,000 that the city needs to get to start buying condos, that is my income bracket, we are already buying condos because we cannot afford a house in this city, we don't create the sprawl. To stop the urban sprawl and get people who can afford a house in Calgary to instead buy a condo you need a condo to become a really attractive alternative at their income level. That means making the whole community really nice with fancy coffee shops and a nice high end supermarket and a nice wine shop and a fancy central park with green spaces, ect... Westbrook needs to be nice, really nice, or you will get people saying "nah, not nice enough, I am going to go buy a house with a yard in the burbs 3 minutes drive from Aspen Landing and its nice shops and restaurants".

The city needs to come to grips that building high density in the near city communities is not enough to slow urban crawl, they need to start making the areas super nice and desirable so that the people with higher incomes start to see it as a viable alternative lifestyle that still reflects their income bracket. They still want that high end retail shopping, they want the fancy wine store, they want a Sunterra Market, they want the higher end restaurants chains at their doorstep. They want at least Kensington level shopping or they will pass on it. The people with real money want the Westbrook Redevelopment plan down to a tee, and they wont settle for less. Cut the scope of the project back, make it not "quite that nice" because of restrictions and handcuffing the developer and all that will happen is they will take their money elsewhere.

The developers know this, once they get handcuffed and cannot build the project like they need to because their bottom line gets cut into by that affordable housing requirement they will target the middle end 200's to 400's for a 1-2 bedroom condo bracket where that affordable housing is actually less of a cut into their profits because they are closer to the value of the other units. That is what took place at the Bridge development. That does not help the city in doing what they actually want to see Calgary start to move towards. They need to actually start to target the higher income brackets with condo developments and Westbrook is an obvious place they thought hard about doing that given the redvelopment plans and the vision they show.

I think you've really misinterpreted the city's goals regarding TODs. They want a healthy mix of income levels. The entire point of which is complete communities as opposed to class segregation. Concentrating wealth means concentrating poverty elsewhere and that is problematic in many ways.

Full Mountain

Feb 4, 2012, 1:21 AM

Nah, I want almost exactly what is in the Westbrook Redevelopment Plan PDF's from the City of Calgary, nothing gated as I will not live there but I live in the community and I would love a central hub of higher end retail and shopping in the area that is currently now Westbrook.

The city is trying something very specific at Westbrook, they are trying to move towards high density communities as a alternative to the suburbs, but that is only possible by giving the people who can afford to live in the suburbs a living experience that actually reflects their income and is a viable option to a house, or they will simply take their money and buy a house.

It is not the people with $250,000 that the city needs to get to start buying condos, that is my income bracket, we are already buying condos because we cannot afford a house in this city, we don't create the sprawl. To stop the urban sprawl and get people who can afford a house in Calgary to instead buy a condo you need a condo to become a really attractive alternative at their income level. That means making the whole community really nice with fancy coffee shops and a nice high end supermarket and a nice wine shop and a fancy central park with green spaces, ect... Westbrook needs to be nice, really nice, or you will get people saying "nah, not nice enough, I am going to go buy a house with a yard in the burbs 3 minutes drive from Aspen Landing and its nice shops and restaurants".

The city needs to come to grips that building high density in the near city communities is not enough to slow urban crawl, they need to start making the areas super nice and desirable so that the people with higher incomes start to see it as a viable alternative lifestyle that still reflects their income bracket. They still want that high end retail shopping, they want the fancy wine store, they want a Sunterra Market, they want the higher end restaurants chains at their doorstep. They want at least Kensington level shopping or they will pass on it. The people with real money want the Westbrook Redevelopment plan down to a tee, and they wont settle for less. Cut the scope of the project back, make it not "quite that nice" because of restrictions and handcuffing the developer and all that will happen is they will take their money elsewhere.

The developers know this, once they get handcuffed and cannot build the project like they need to because their bottom line gets cut into by that affordable housing requirement they will target the middle end 200's to 400's for a 1-2 bedroom condo bracket where that affordable housing is actually less of a cut into their profits because they are closer to the value of the other units. That is what took place at the Bridge development. That does not help the city in doing what they actually want to see Calgary start to move towards. They need to actually start to target the higher income brackets with condo developments and Westbrook is an obvious place they thought hard about doing that given the redvelopment plans and the vision they show.

I think the population your referring to is quite a bit smaller than the middle income bracket who buys houses around 400-600k and wants the Costco and Wal-mart next door and they want a back yard too, these are the people that you need to convince to buy into these developments, the high end market is served well downtown already.

Tropics

Feb 4, 2012, 7:46 AM

I think you've really misinterpreted the city's goals regarding TODs. They want a healthy mix of income levels. The entire point of which is complete communities as opposed to class segregation. Concentrating wealth means concentrating poverty elsewhere and that is problematic in many ways.

Spruce Cliff has the highest percentage of low income households in the SW quadrant of the city outside of the core and one of the highest percentages in the whole City of Calgary at 31.8%, Rosscarrock has 27.6%. If they push this requirement through and marginalize the development of Westbrook then the continued segregation of the lower income residents into a single area is exactly what they are accomplishing.

You know where else has one of the highest percentages of lower income households at the same 31.8%? Bridgeland, the same place they also messed up a huge development project with that 2% requirement. They are not doing this stuff in the communities with less lower income households, they are doing it where there are already large populations of lower income households specifically so tell me again how they are "not" attempting to concentrate wealth in one area and restrict poverty to another? That is exactly what they are accomplishing when these requirements marginalize the developments in the communities that the city targets with these practices and keep them in their current states.

The people who live in these communities, who have invested in these communities, and pay taxes to the city for living in these communities do not deserve to have their communities singled out and have their potential development and rejuvination of their communities suffer due to affordable housing requirements that are so very clearly targetted only at specific communities that already have large low income household numbers. They are killing these communities that are already falling behind the surrounding neighborhoods in terms of investment and rejuvination by doing stuff like this to them and them specifically. They wont do this to Currie Barracks, they do not do it to Aspen Landing, but the area of Westbrook that so dearly needs rejuvination and redevelopment, they immediately handcuff the biggest redevelopment potential opportunity the area has ever seen.

These targetted communities are not becomming more diverse, they are not getting the mix of low to high income, they are being kept to already far higher then average percetages of lower income housing then the city average and this is actually creating more disparity between one community and the next. The area of Westbrook needs a high end development just to close the gap with the surrounding communities, the last thing it needs at this stage is for the city to handcuff the potential of the redevelopment of Westbrook Station.

As a member of my community of Spruce Cliff, I simply want my community to have a chance at a nice central hub just like most of the areas in Calgary have a chance to have without the City stepping in and trying to mess that up with an affordable housing restriction that has already proven to deter alot of developers from entering into a project. Instead the city has targetted Spruce Cliff as a low income resident hub and they have decided to pressure future development into making that trend continue.

The area of Spruce Cliff is one of the most shoddy areas in Calgary when it comes to commercial real estate and retail, we have old buildings, few good restaurants, little to no curb appeal, we need this one nice central area of higher end retail in that one area. Alot of us residents have been waiting patiently for Westbrook to be redeveloped for years, we saw the plans and we liked them, and now finally the plans move forward and the City trips the whole project up and has a chance to destroy what might have been.

All I want is for them to not screw up the central hub of the whole community and a vision that would have made this community have a distinctly unique and attractive area with its own style with this 2% requirement. The only place I want them NOT to do this thing is on that area between 17th and Bow, and 33rd and 37th street.

In that single parcel of land, the center of our community, build a central hub to the community as nice as absolutely possible and don't handcuff the developers over a absurd 2% reqiurement that is a drop in the affordable housing bucket and will have little positive affect on the housing issue at that income bracket but that WILL damage the end result of the development just like it did on the Bridge project. Let Spruce Cliff have as nice a central hub as a non-handcuffed developer is willing to build for us.

There is nothing wrong with lower income housing in Spruce Cliff and the surrounding area. We already have tons of it and it is not an issue for me. They are going to be getting rid of the library in Spruce Cliff and they can build an affordable housing complex on that land designed to be 100%affordable housing for all I care. That is 1 block from my condo, closer to me then Westbrook Mall, that is cool with me if they build it there, tons of affordable housing right on 33rd street right overlooking the golf course.

Tear the old library that is about to be replaced down and get whoever is developing the Westbrook Station project to build an entire affordable housing complex on that land the library is currently on as part of the deal. Forget 2% ON the Westbrook Station land, get them to build an entire building on the old library land at cost. Take off the handcuffs for Westbrook Station itself so that it can be built right and become as cool as a developer is able when all the restrictions are removed.

We are a community that deserves one nice development, one high point, and it is not right for the city to step in and screw that up on us like this.

ByeByeBaby

Feb 4, 2012, 8:32 AM

Wow, those 12 extra poor people in your backyard are apparently the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Jimby

Feb 4, 2012, 3:54 PM

There is a large affordable housing complex in Aspen Woods. Not that far from the $12 million house.

DizzyEdge

Feb 4, 2012, 5:26 PM

So I'm curious of this area could end up with a big redevelopment focus similar to what the city seems to desire for the Chinook mall area (which doesn't seem to have moved at all yet though).

Cabbage

Feb 4, 2012, 6:18 PM

kw5150

Feb 4, 2012, 7:19 PM

This Westbrook site is going to be really great. I have already spoken to a number of people (condo minded people) that are excited to buy in. Having a beautiful train ride downtown every morning 6 stories above sunalta will be amazing.

Tropics

Feb 4, 2012, 9:38 PM

I live in Spruce Cliff as well and I enjoy the mix of people living in the community. I run within the community all the time and I don't think it is as shoddy as you say. I also think that the stats you provide don't paint the exact picture....

Yes there is the low income housing on Spruce drive, but also the extended care centre and senior living complex. With being such a small community those two places will affect the stats. Also when were those stats from? Do they include both the Westgate park residences and the new ones along the ridge?

Chris

I have no issue with the affordable housing as I have already mentioned and I am totally fine if they build more in Spruce Cliff but I simply do not want them to put that mandatory 2% affordable housing requirement directly into the redevelopment requirements for the Westbrook Station project as it can, and will affect the scope and scale of the project just like it has on previous projects.

The shoddy nature of the retail centers that we have in this neighborhood are hard to miss TBH, the buildings along 17th avenue are all old, Westbrook mall is one of the least used malls with no character in the whole city, the professional building beside Westbrook is equally old and it shows that age. Heck, if you live in Spruce Cliff, can you really tell me our little strip mall across the parking lot from the community center is a "nice" strip mall in your eyes? It is a terribly unappealing building.

This neighborhood and the other neighborhoods around Westbrook Mall need that redevelopment project to be done and be done absolutely right, being both highly functional as a center hub and acting as an attraction and enticement for future development and investment in this community. We have had VERY little redvelopment and very little investment into this community for decades and it shows. We deserve Westbrook Station to be built the way it should be built and without restrictions on the developers marginalizing the project and leading to a result of something less then what it could be.

Westbrook Station development will set the trend for its surrounding communities for decades, dependent on what is actually built and how appealing it is. This project will either catalyse further redevelopment and revitalization in the area, or it will instead set a precident that will put the surrounding areas into a state of stasis where redevelopment and investment in the community stagnates and developers look to other communities.

All future development in this area will benefit from Westbrook Station being done completely by the vision, with no handcuffs on the developers so that we can get the most architecturally impressive structures, green spaces, and shopping experience possible. If they screw this up it is going to have repercussions that last decades for the surrouding communities and cost FAR more then a silly 2% affordable housing requirement does.

There is a large affordable housing complex in Aspen Woods. Not that far from the $12 million house.

And that is how you are SUPPOSED to do it. You build a single complex 100% created for that purpose. THAT is what I have been asking for.

I would love more details on who built the complex, who owned the land it was built on, what other development complex it was associated with that the developer was building, whether the developer of that was required to buy the land from the city that they then built the affordable housing on for the city.

kw5150

Feb 5, 2012, 12:32 AM

In Edmonton, they have a hugely successful area near Grant Macewan that reminds me of the Westbrook area. The Grant Macewan area redevelopment is too corporate for my liking, but definately fills the void.

There are a number of reasons why this area is desirable and it should remain that way for all. When me and the man were renting up in Westbrook, we found all of the "trashy" malls convenient.

Certainly we can take this existing context and deliver a great concept with it. There is already a main hub up there, lets expand on it. The train service is going to really open the area up.

I hope this development has affordable condo units and not just a bunch of $450,000 2 bedroom units! What is the category for people who lie between "affordable" and "mid level". We require more of those types of units.

It will be great to see how this project evolves. I would even move out there, depending on amenities and cost.

There should be:

12% "affordable"
58% "Termite Level Income"
22% Mid Level Income,
8% Luxury 3 - 4 bedroom condos. For the rich people who can do anything they want and live anywhere.

TallBob

Feb 5, 2012, 12:38 AM

If you want to make the argument for developements/complexes for low-income (or no-income) housing, I sugest you look at most large American cities!! Segregating people based on income, is a policy that failed misserably. I'm hopeful that the same mistakes aren't goung to be made in Canada.

kw5150

Feb 5, 2012, 12:51 AM

kw5150

Feb 5, 2012, 12:52 AM

For the record, I consider myself in the termite level income. Its a great place to be!

TallBob

Feb 5, 2012, 3:34 AM

kw5150: "Tropics".

Policy Wonk

Feb 5, 2012, 3:56 AM

Not to mention that 20 Vic Management seems to own Westbrook Mall

My understanding is Westbrook Mall is owned by Mexican investors.

Tropics

Feb 5, 2012, 5:26 AM

kw5150: "Tropics".

Then you might want to read the first two paragraphs of post #11 a little closer.

Me&You

Feb 5, 2012, 3:39 PM

My understanding is Westbrook Mall is owned by Mexican investors.

I thought it was German ownership?

Aegis

Feb 5, 2012, 6:55 PM

Has the City dictated the means by which the developer provides 2% "affordable housing"? Perhaps there are better ways of doing it than has been done in the past (shoddy-quality townhouse enclaves). I think a better way of doing it would be for the City to subsidize the private rents on regular or modest housing, rather than building lower quality structures that are designated "affordable".

kw5150

Feb 5, 2012, 8:56 PM

Hardy har har, so funny. I dont want to see average Canadians left out of the market again during this next "amazing boom".

Thank god I found a relatively affordable condo (with 1000sq ft) when I did.

kw5150

Feb 5, 2012, 8:58 PM

Tropics

Feb 5, 2012, 11:39 PM

As long as the terms of the agreement for the subsidized housing would work somewhat if favour of the person spending the actual money....then I would agree.

The person renting the actual housing, the developer spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the land purchase, and the people with investments within the community such as home owners.

I agree, it has to work out in favor for ALL of the parties who are spending the actual money. The city has a responsibility to each and every one.

Tropics

Feb 11, 2012, 4:24 AM

On another note, it seems the deadline for proposals from interested developers was on January 31st and the offers are currently under review.

"Westbrook Station is being offered through a City of Calgary initiated public request for proposal (RFP) process. The RFP was released on November 3, 2011, and closed on January 31, 2012. Proposals are currently in the evaluation process."

from http://realestate.cocnmp.com/RealEstate/westbrook/

It would be cool to see what the various developers are proposing, much as the recent bridge construction projects in Calgary showed all of the proposals that were considered.

Jimby

Feb 11, 2012, 5:58 PM

The Canada Line in Vancouver didn't generate a single TOD project for any station on the route until well after it had opened so don't hope for too much here.

Porfiry

Feb 11, 2012, 7:48 PM

The Canada Line in Vancouver didn't generate a single TOD project for any station on the route until well after it had opened so don't hope for too much here.

I don't agree with that. The Cambie-Broadway area revitalization (Crossroads and the large retailers) was clearly in anticipation of the Canada Line, and was largely completed just before the line opened.

Bankview

Feb 11, 2012, 11:40 PM

The station on Cambie/West Broadway looks like a neglected bomb shelter, they really need to fill in that empty lot beside it. Or is it empty for a specific reason?

Tropics

Feb 12, 2012, 3:39 AM

The Canada Line in Vancouver didn't generate a single TOD project for any station on the route until well after it had opened so don't hope for too much here.

Given the opening of the western C-Train line will take place quite soon I am sure you will be correct that the opening of the Westbrook C-Train stop predates the opening of "Westbrook Station" as a complete TOD quite considerably.

One thing I am pretty conifident of though is that the city does not want to sit on the Westbrook redvelopment, they seem to be actively setting forth on the project and I am guessing we will see the redevelopment going full steam ahead inside of 2 years from todays date.

In section 2.0 of this city document http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Documents/Publications/westbrook-village-arp.pdf they start by stating

"The following Vision and Guiding Principles were
inspired by the results of the public consultation
process undertaken as part of the West LRT Land
Use Study. The Vision and Guiding principles
represent the aspirations of the communities and
the key ideas that can guide development toward
the acheivement of the vision."

and if they stick to that vision and end up with a Westbrook Station that looks similar to that pictured on page 22

http://www.ibigroup.com/Project%20Picture%20Library/westbrook-bg.jpg

Westbrook could concievably look like that only 5 years from now, and that would be one heck of a positive change for Westbrook and give the first true TOD in Calgary a very distinct and modern style that Calgary has very little of to date.

TallBob

Feb 12, 2012, 4:39 AM

Tropics: I hope Westbrook looks like this or close to it. 5 years though is pretty aggressive time frame. Hope I'm wrong.

Tropics

Feb 12, 2012, 5:55 AM

Tropics: I hope Westbrook looks like this or close to it. 5 years though is pretty aggressive time frame. Hope I'm wrong.

I will begrudgingly wait 10 years if the end result looks like that i suppose, if I have too.

Some more renderings of potential developments that also look decent.

City of Calgary website.

http://www.calgary.ca/CS/OLSH/OLSH%20Slideshow/Home%20page%20slideshow/Westbrook-rendering-435.jpg

http://www.calgary.ca/CS/OLSH/PublishingImages/Aerial-Westbrook-rendering-305px.jpg

IBI Group http://www.ibigroup.com/Pages/Project.aspx?ProjectId=307&DisciplineId=1&PracticeId=&SectorID=36&pageName=IndustrySector.aspx&backString=IndustrySector.aspxxDisciplineId=1ssectorId=36ppage=

http://www.ibigroup.com/Project%20Picture%20Library/westbrook-02.jpg

Also from IBI group, the general layout that is proposed featuring a large central park around which the whole development is focused. It seems the park is already set in stone because the city land that they are selling actually had a crescent shaped section cut from one of the plots of former school land that is exactly where that end of the central park would be located (pretty much exactly where that red star asterix is).

http://www.ibigroup.com/Project%20Picture%20Library/westbrook-05.jpg

srperrycgy

Feb 12, 2012, 9:03 PM

Former Ernest Manning HS Demo continues...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7049/6865057327_2250d4f3aa_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lrtincalgary/6865057327/)
WLRT-02122012-1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lrtincalgary/6865057327/) by srp775 (http://www.flickr.com/people/lrtincalgary/), on Flickr

kw5150

Feb 13, 2012, 5:12 PM

I will begrudgingly wait 10 years if the end result looks like that i suppose, if I have too.

Also from IBI group, the general layout that is proposed featuring a large central park around which the whole development is focused. It seems the park is already set in stone because the city land that they are selling actually had a crescent shaped section cut from one of the plots of former school land that is exactly where that end of the central park would be located (pretty much exactly where that red star asterix is).

http://www.ibigroup.com/Project%20Picture%20Library/westbrook-05.jpg

I hope they are not cutting all access off from Bow Trail. It looks like they are planning on Freeway-izing that area.......which would be bad for the area, further separating Sruce Cliff from westbrook.

Tropics

Feb 13, 2012, 8:11 PM

I hope they are not cutting all access off from Bow Trail. It looks like they are planning on Freeway-izing that area.......which would be bad for the area, further separating Sruce Cliff from westbrook.

I am pretty sure that is what they are doing. ATM access to Westbrook from Bow Trail when traveling west is no longer possible, you need to turn onto 33rd or 37th street. For people coming from Spruce Cliff atm it is easy to access the mall because we simply drive along 33rd and cross Bow trail to access the Walmart parking lot. If they stick to the plan you posted that entrance is still easy access.

The plan is to build most of the tall residential buildings along Bow Trail and it will act as a "wall" to really create a sense of an "oasis" centered around that central park. The one key thing for us people in Spruce Cliff is having a nice pedestrian bridge that would cross Bow Trail at the corner of Bow Trail and 33rd and lead to a pedestrian corridor into the central park area.

One thing I would almost like to see that might not be practical would be the removal of the ring road around the central park and instead just have a wide pedestrian sidewalk ringing the park. This would make the park more quiet, it would benefit restaurants and pubs with more attractive patio options, it would make the park safer for use by children who live in the development, and it would increase the desirability of "park view" residential units as they would not be fronted by a road but instead the sidewalk and park. Access to underground parking for the mall and residential would be via entrances off of 33rd and 37th.

Tropics

Feb 24, 2012, 1:23 AM

Current pic of the Westbrook C-Train station from 33rd street facing north.

http://s14.postimage.org/4jet7z81d/IMG_0232.jpg

Does anyone know if they will release the development proposals for Westbrook Station as they did with the Canton Music Center and the Peace Bridge? It would be awesome to see the various proposals and the deadline for the proposals and offers on the land was a while ago now.

kw5150

Feb 24, 2012, 7:00 AM

From Other SSP member

****
Calgary about 50 mins later
****

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7039/6775442436_82cf73bd62_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6775442436/)
Calgary from the plane (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6775442436/) by JordanW.ca (http://www.flickr.com/people/jordanw-ca/), on Flickr

kw5150

Feb 24, 2012, 7:02 AM

:previous::previous:

Our first below ground station. :cheers: The west LRT line is insane.

Tropics

Mar 29, 2012, 11:52 PM

Some new info on the project from the Planning Commision.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Documents/calgary_planning_commission/agenda/2012/sb2011-0300.pdf

From that PDF, a pic of the south side of the proposed 35th street entrance with the south section of the central park.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x363/IrishCharm1/Westbrook.jpg

From the picture it looks like the road that goes around the park will be 2-way traffic but I really hope they alter that and make all of the traffic flow around the park in a counter clockwise direction with people entering and exiting that road in the far right lane.

Like this
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x363/IrishCharm1/ProposedWestbrooktrafficflow2.jpg

Ignoring the fact it looks like a 3 year old child drew it. I would very much like to see a 1-way traffic flow like that around the park instead of being 2-way traffic.

MasterG

Mar 31, 2012, 6:15 PM

From the picture it looks like the road that goes around the park will be 2-way traffic but I really hope they alter that and make all of the traffic flow around the park in a counter clockwise direction with people entering and exiting that road in the far right lane.

Ignoring the fact it looks like a 3 year old child drew it. I would very much like to see a 1-way traffic flow like that around the park instead of being 2-way traffic.

I agree, one-way traffic would be pretty good. It would work well for a taxi/ bus stops to service the station without disruption.

RyLucky

Mar 31, 2012, 8:59 PM

Ignoring the fact it looks like a 3 year old child drew it. I would very much like to see a 1-way traffic flow like that around the park instead of being 2-way traffic.

It will be 1-way. Those renderings were wrong. The connection is to 17th will be 1 blvd, not 2 2-way roads.

Cabbage

Mar 31, 2012, 10:21 PM

Would anyone know if anything is planned or what the lot pointed to could be used for?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/cscutch/lot.png

Chris

Tropics

Mar 31, 2012, 11:03 PM

Would anyone know if anything is planned or what the lot pointed to could be used for?

My hope for that lot is that it is a green space (some trees, grass, some rundle rock accents) and the future location of a pedestrian bridge which will go across Bow Trail from that corner and link up with the green space and entrance into the central park area of the development. on the north side.

http://www.ibigroup.com/Project%20Picture%20Library/westbrook-05.jpg From IBI group.

There is a bridge going over Bow Trail currently to the west but it is very old, outdated, ugly, and should be replaced to match the new development. I think that corner you showed is a perfect place for a new bridge and links up better with the whole community of spruce cliff then the current one.

5seconds

Apr 2, 2012, 3:49 PM

My hope for that lot is that it is a green space (some trees, grass, some rundle rock accents) and the future location of a pedestrian bridge which will go across Bow Trail from that corner and link up with the green space and entrance into the central park area of the development. on the north side.

http://www.ibigroup.com/Project%20Picture%20Library/westbrook-05.jpg From IBI group.

There is a bridge going over Bow Trail currently to the west but it is very old, outdated, ugly, and should be replaced to match the new development. I think that corner you showed is a perfect place for a new bridge and links up better with the whole community of spruce cliff then the current one.

Since that lot is at a controlled intersection, wouldn't pedestrian movement be better served by the existing traffic lights? The older bridge is halfway between 33rd and 37th, making it a more logical place to serve people between those roads. Having a bridge that ends a few feet from a crosswalk would seem like a waste to me.

Tropics

Apr 2, 2012, 5:33 PM

Since that lot is at a controlled intersection, wouldn't pedestrian movement be better served by the existing traffic lights? The older bridge is halfway between 33rd and 37th, making it a more logical place to serve people between those roads. Having a bridge that ends a few feet from a crosswalk would seem like a waste to me.

Access to that existing bridge from most of the community sucks. You are walking through unlit parking lots and alleys to get to it. The building of the Westgate towers made access to that bridge even more limited then when it was first built. I also think that since Westbrook is going to be as pedestrian orientated as it is claimed to be and a major LRT station you don't make people cross Bow Trail at 33rd street via a traffic light and walk signal. There are a slew of people who live in Spruce Cliff that would use the LRT but that would be going WAY out of their way to walk west to the bridge only to then turn around and walk east back to 33rd street to walk along the golf course. At rush hour the lights for east/west Bow Trail are extremely long and people would be waiting a long time to cross the street.

yyc16

Aug 19, 2013, 4:18 PM

Hi everyone!

Long-time lurker, first-time poster. Does anyone know if there is anything planned for the empty lot at the NW corner of Bow Tr at 33 St SW/Spruce Dr SW? https://www.google.ca/maps/preview?hl=en#!data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-114.135504!3d51.041708!2m2!1f334.17!2f90.65!4f75!2m4!1e1!2m2!1sdqdr9Glvlv3_gPqnasGyyw!2e0&fid=5

The West LRT landscaping documents say nothing more than a couple of trees will be planted but seems like such an ugly, barren waste of space that's also too small for a building?

Also I thought I had read a forum member say that the Shaganappi Library was going to the new building at Westbrook station...is this still happening or just a rumor?

Thanks!

Chadillaccc

Aug 20, 2013, 4:15 AM

The Library has always been the plan for the building at the North Station Portal and I believe it still is, no idea why it is taking so long though. In regard to your other question about the building, I doubt it. They can't really build anything substantial right there anyways, as the tunnel makes the site even smaller than it seems from the surface. Maybe some day they will do some kind of restaurant building and have it fronting on both the park/station area and the street, but who knows.

I'm mostly just curious if anymore towers are gonna go up in Westbrook in the near future... the original TOD called for more than a dozen!

suburbia

Aug 20, 2013, 5:20 AM

Would anyone know if anything is planned or what the lot pointed to could be used for?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/cscutch/lot.png

Chris

My hope for that lot is that it is a green space (some trees, grass, some rundle rock accents) and the future location of a pedestrian bridge which will go across Bow Trail from that corner and link up with the green space and entrance into the central park area of the development. on the north side.

http://www.ibigroup.com/Project%20Picture%20Library/westbrook-05.jpg

Why would you need more green space there, when immediately East is massive green space? I say build it up 3-5 floors. You can have your pedway across the road from the 2nd or 3rd floor.

TallBob

Aug 20, 2013, 7:31 AM

Suburbia: I agree, the area has enough open/green right next to it. I was under the impression that there are possibly a couple of high-rise residential buildings similar in height to what already exists. Probably a few years down the road though.

speedog

Aug 20, 2013, 12:53 PM

Maybe the difference is publicly accessible green space - the golf course to the east isn't just somewhere that anyone can go for a nice evening/afternoon stroll, it has a most definite purpose.

Tropics

Aug 20, 2013, 2:37 PM

Why would you need more green space there, when immediately East is massive green space? I say build it up 3-5 floors. You can have your pedway across the road from the 2nd or 3rd floor.

Having a small green space there would create a far more appealing transition from the golf course then having green on one side of the road and a wall of builings on the other right to the corner.

Chadillaccc

Aug 20, 2013, 3:36 PM

I wonder why they haven't started any of the landscaping around the station yet :( I was looking forward to going there to enjoy the new park sometime this year.

Chadillaccc

Nov 4, 2013, 8:46 PM

Can anyone give us a hint as to when we might hear something about the future of Westbrook? Someone said something about it a while ago that we might hear something soon, but nothing...

Tropics

Nov 6, 2013, 10:55 PM

Can anyone give us a hint as to when we might hear something about the future of Westbrook? Someone said something about it a while ago that we might hear something soon, but nothing...

No doubt, the lack of talk about Westbrook is odd. The land sale for the old school site is closing on two years ago now.

Given how grand the original plans were for Westbrook Village I would have thought it would be a fairly well talked about development/proposed development area. It is probably the premier site in the entire city to attempt to build a fully functional TOD hub.

Chadillaccc

Dec 5, 2013, 10:00 PM

MasterG

Dec 5, 2013, 10:08 PM

I agree. Also considering how well other suburban TODs are doing in far less "urban" type settings like University City and Groves of Varsity. You would think people would be clammering to buy in a TOD like this, right next to a subway station, in Killarney, tons of amenities around and on the way, etc.

All in good time. Every neighbourhood to the south is intensifying by a factor of 2 or 3 with all the townhouses and small Multi-family developments. It won't be long until 17th Ave will continue as one stretch of urbanity (except the area around the hill by the old Children's Hospital). Probably already is the longest stretch of continuous density and some pedestrian retail in the city. It's strange that Centre never developed the same way with all the 5 - 10 storey apartment blocks from 33rd to Crowchild on 17th.

Surrealplaces

Dec 5, 2013, 10:47 PM

There hasn't been much said about Westbrook TOD lately, but who knows maybe something will pop out of blue, something like a 34 storey condo tower. You never know ;)

Can anyone give us a hint as to when we might hear something about the future of Westbrook? Someone said something about it a while ago that we might hear something soon, but nothing...
No doubt, the lack of talk about Westbrook is odd. The land sale for the old school site is closing on two years ago now.

Given how grand the original plans were for Westbrook Village I would have thought it would be a fairly well talked about development/proposed development area. It is probably the premier site in the entire city to attempt to build a fully functional TOD hub.

Chadillaccc

Dec 5, 2013, 10:59 PM

YOU TEASE!

34 storeys would make it taller than Ovation! That's like 105 - 110 meters!!

H.E.Pennypacker

Dec 5, 2013, 11:09 PM

34 Stories? Wow - that'd start the Westbrook redevelopment off with a bang

danofkent

Dec 5, 2013, 11:26 PM

The site owners weren't at all interested in the ARP process and made clear that they had no intention of redeveloping the mall for decades. In the midst of it all, they actually extended Walmart's lease for 30 years. The Manning site could be redeveloped though, and I'm surprised that nothing has been proposed for that land.

You would think people would be clammering to buy in a TOD like this, right next to a subway station, in Killarney, tons of amenities around and on the way, etc.

Westbrook is actually in Rosscarrock rather than Killarney.

Calgarian

Dec 5, 2013, 11:29 PM

Tropics

Dec 6, 2013, 1:51 AM

If the mall can attract some better stores, I see no reason why it can't stay, as it is right now though it may be the shittiest mall in the city.

There is more than enough land in the area for the TOD to get going anyway, shouldn't be dependent on the mall.

The mall does get in the way of the redevelopment project that the city had in mind though with the central park and residential and retail all around it. You simply cannot come close to doing that with the mall there, it is in the way for sure and will wreck any high end development potential being built along side of it.

What are the legalities of the city simply expropriating the land, paying off the owners and lease fines, and getting it out of the way? 30 years of Walmart basically kills that area for a lot of the remainder of our lifetimes.... ffs... this sucks...

DizzyEdge

Dec 6, 2013, 3:54 AM

The mall does get in the way of the redevelopment project that the city had in mind though with the central park and residential and retail all around it. You simply cannot come close to doing that with the mall there, it is in the way for sure and will wreck any high end development potential being built along side of it.

What are the legalities of the city simply expropriating the land, paying off the owners and lease fines, and getting it out of the way? 30 years of Walmart basically kills that area for a lot of the remainder of our lifetimes.... ffs... this sucks...

I would never want the city to have the power to expropriate so that private enterprise can do business on the land seized.

lineman

Dec 6, 2013, 4:10 AM

If the way The Bridges have progressed is any indication, having the mall hastily razed would be a bad idea.

Tropics

Dec 6, 2013, 4:10 AM

I would never want the city to have the power to expropriate so that private enterprise can do business on the land seized.

Normally I would not either but the city spent a huge sum of money on the WLRT and that land is on the only underground LRT station in this city and Westbrook station was BUILT to be a TOD hub. The tax payers paid a huge amount of money on Westbrook and now the owners of the mall have decided to make that taxpayers money a waste.

I dont understand how the mall owners could even consider blocking this, I lived 2 blocks from that mall and it is a dead wasteland and is prime for redevelopment. How much can s dollar store seriously pay in rent selling $1 bags of balloons and $2 scented candles.

I would not be surprised if the whole thing is a strongarm tactic to get paid. The Walmart and Safeway do great business but the rest of that mall is a money pit. The Walmart and Safeway could be converted into urban format stores to suit the redevelopment. They dont have to not be a part of it.

The mall owners also own the srrip mall to the south with the drug store and the strip mall to the north with spa lady and the piano bar/theater. This has effectively killed the Westbrook TOD.

Chadillaccc

Dec 6, 2013, 6:40 PM

It would just be nice to see SOMETHING else get going, you know? Like the 100+ meter tower Surreal alluded to... even just some urban-format retail. There is sooo much potential in that area.

lubicon

Dec 6, 2013, 7:22 PM

Chadillaccc

Dec 6, 2013, 7:24 PM

That is true, but Westbrook is at a major bus route nexus for Mount Royal University and is a far more attractive "urban-ish" setting than either of those.

Tropics

Dec 6, 2013, 9:23 PM

Without disagreeing with your statement, don't forget one huge advantage Varsity Grove and especially University City have - their proximity to the U of C. Westbrook cannot match that.

Ahh, but this is where the gondola to the UofC and Foothills Medical Center comes in!!!

Bah! Westbrook had such awesome freaking potential... :(

TallBob

Dec 7, 2013, 7:26 AM

So, I take it Westbrook is probably several years away from anything significant being built?

Tropics

Dec 7, 2013, 4:33 PM

So, I take it Westbrook is probably several years away from anything significant being built?

Unless the mall owners actually decides to allow redevelopment I would guess ~30 years, or the length of the Walmart lease extension.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x363/IrishCharm1/Westbrook-1.jpg

The blue outline is basically the extent of the Westbrook parcel. The red outline is the area the mall owners have removed.

There is no way that without the mall owners on board you can create a proper TOD community. You are left with single condo building developments stuck on the south side on the old school site. Without designing the whole parcel of Westbrook from scratch as Westbrook Village Redevelopment Project had envisioned the whole area is probably now destined to be a disjointed discontinuous mess built in pieces over an extended period of time with no overall plan guiding the development.

You also have to be honest about what developers are actually willing to build on a parcel of land that is adjacent to one of the worst malls in Western Canada. If anyone develops there as things currently stand it is going to be on the cheap and it is going to set a precedent for that area that will last decades.

eggbert

Dec 7, 2013, 6:17 PM

Is that whole SE portion of the site just a park?

CorporateWhore

Dec 7, 2013, 7:14 PM

If you support the TOD, stop shopping there and tell your grandparents to find another mall to loiter and play cards in.

Allan83

Dec 7, 2013, 7:47 PM

Unless the mall owners actually decides to allow redevelopment I would guess ~30 years, or the length of the Walmart lease extension.

...

The blue outline is basically the extent of the Westbrook parcel. The red outline is the area the mall owners have removed.

There is no way that without the mall owners on board you can create a proper TOD community. You are left with single condo building developments stuck on the south side on the old school site. Without designing the whole parcel of Westbrook from scratch as Westbrook Village Redevelopment Project had envisioned the whole area is probably now destined to be a disjointed discontinuous mess built in pieces over an extended period of time with no overall plan guiding the development.

You also have to be honest about what developers are actually willing to build on a parcel of land that is adjacent to one of the worst malls in Western Canada. If anyone develops there as things currently stand it is going to be on the cheap and it is going to set a precedent for that area that will last decades.
Is the Boston Pizza on land owned by the mall as well? I didn’t know that. Am I imagining things or was there a plan at some point to put a walkway under Bow Trail linking to a new development that was to be situated where the BP is, and then on the LRT?

Apart from the BP site and a better way to cross Bow Trail at 33rd, I don’t really mind that the development of the mall site is being delayed. I think that mall is going to turn over as the surrounding neighbourhoods turns over. The Starbucks was the first sign of this, and I think we’ll continue to see more movement in that direction. I think there’s a lot that can be done with the areas closer to 17th in the meantime. That area is developing into a nice little international avenue west type strip.

Spring2008

Dec 7, 2013, 8:10 PM

There hasn't been much said about Westbrook TOD lately, but who knows maybe something will pop out of blue, something like a 34 storey condo tower. You never know ;)

Damn that'd be pretty noticeable up on the hill. Time to get going with developments here. That's some prime land!

Spring2008

Dec 7, 2013, 8:24 PM

If you support the TOD, stop shopping there and tell your grandparents to find another mall to loiter and play cards in.

Lol ya, I think the owners are just waiting for the land value to go up as the area around it develops more. Probably doesn't make sense to wait too long though because I'm sure they're not making much at all sitting on this one after all the operating expenses, taxes etc. And I don't see them putting capital into this to try and attract better tenants, as the huge piece of land is worth much more than that shitty strip mall.

Tropics

Dec 8, 2013, 1:53 AM

Is that whole SE portion of the site just a park?

Not all of it. The area extending SW of the train station is a walkway with the copper roofed LRT thing sticking out of the ground. They are supposed to landscape that area. So you have a thin strip SE of the LRT and the land on the south of the site that butts up against 17th ave. Central to the Westbrook parcel on that south side was supposed to be the major entrance to the central park of Westbrook village, which can be seen on previous posts on this thread.

Trogdor

Dec 9, 2013, 4:17 AM

Normally I would not either but the city spent a huge sum of money on the WLRT and that land is on the only underground LRT station in this city and Westbrook station was BUILT to be a TOD hub. The tax payers paid a huge amount of money on Westbrook and now the owners of the mall have decided to make that taxpayers money a waste.

So because the city spent too much money on an underground LRT station and potentially wasted tax payer dollars, the developers should break a long standing and likely lucrative lease with Walmart to fix some planners vision for the site. last time i checked, the mall and owner was there before the city lrt or their "new" vision. Perhaps the city and their consultants should have done a better job of consulting with the land owner on things like the planned park through the middle of their best tenant and site, or looked into the economic likelihood of their redevelopment scheme before creating the glossy images that they used to sell the underground LRT station to council and the public.

sorry for the rant, but it drives me crazy when the city creates big glossy plans for private landowners sites, and then blame is tossed on the landowner for not following exactly through some planners or consultants vision even if its not economically viable. :shrug:
Compare this to the Chinook LRT station, where you have an owner who has plans to better connect their land to the station and instead, you have Calgary Transit put in an econo plan for the station which IMHO makes the whole area worse for redevelopment. and ugly to boot.

brentwood

Dec 9, 2013, 6:03 AM

TallBob

Dec 9, 2013, 6:49 AM

brentwood: I think you might be right! Sad thing is some LRT development in the long-run probably won't slow down "urban sprawl" either! Just like the parking by-law for new development downtown, Beltline & west end making it difficult and costly for larger buildings to be developed!

Design-mind

Dec 11, 2013, 3:55 AM

This whole TOD thing in Calgary has the makings of a series of huge letdowns. I don't thing any of us will live long enough to see even one TOD come close to its potential.

Agree this is a slow slow process, maybe the incentives need to be increased. We might start to see the incentives being used as Mayor Nenshi is putting the brakes on urban sprawl.

Tropics

Jan 13, 2014, 1:59 AM

Agree this is a slow slow process, maybe the incentives need to be increased. We might start to see the incentives being used as Mayor Nenshi is putting the brakes on urban sprawl.

Incentives would be almost the opposite of what we currently get. The city instead puts in restrictions on parking, affordable housing requirements, ect... and then expects awesome developments to be proposed. Calgary does need some serious redevelopment and increased density in many areas and those around major transit stations are certainly one such area where urban sprawl can be slowed, but the city has to stop with the lip service of "saying" they want increased density and slower urban sprawl and start actually creating an environment for developers where great TODs can be built and the people of the city can actually be shown real alternatives to a house in the burbs.

Density increases in the Beltline are great but a TOD has a chance to be a different type of dense housing option that will potentially attract more families due to being outside of the core, having park space such as the Westbrook TOD plan shows, and having more amenities such as grocery stores within the TOD itself and thus making the TOD act like it's own little community with all the day to day amenities within.

lorenavedon

Jan 13, 2014, 2:48 AM

Agree this is a slow slow process, maybe the incentives need to be increased. We might start to see the incentives being used as Mayor Nenshi is putting the brakes on urban sprawl.

incentives? how about the fact that it's cheaper to buy a house in the burbs than a 600sqft condo in downtown. This isn't Manhattan. If Nenshi wants to stop sprawl, he needs more affordable housing in more central locations. Not ever condo needs idiotic fisher & paykel appliances and granite countertops

Policy Wonk

Jan 13, 2014, 3:05 AM

It is becoming apparent that Westbrook is headed in the same direction as North Hill Mall. Around 30 years after the LRT arrived at Lions Park station, you have a lipstick on a pig mall reno and a couple of twelve? storey condo towers to show for it. And nothing else on the horizon except a few battles over preserving "views" out of the said condo towers. This whole TOD thing in Calgary has the makings of a series of huge letdowns. I don't thing any of us will live long enough to see even one TOD come close to its potential.

Sooner or later you guys have to come to terms with the fact that not every retailer or commercial land owner is a real estate speculator just waiting to sell out to condo developers. If the city wants some of these these locations they will have to expropriate them.

Spring2008

Jan 13, 2014, 3:09 AM

O-tacular

Jan 13, 2014, 4:38 AM

I agree inner city needs to become more affordable for people besides students. We have still yet to see 3 bedroom condos that are remotely feasible for most families. Sadly the inner city has become a place for only renters and the rich.

Policy Wonk

Jan 13, 2014, 5:30 AM

The second mouse gets the cheese.

floobie

Jan 13, 2014, 8:41 PM

incentives? how about the fact that it's cheaper to buy a house in the burbs than a 600sqft condo in downtown. This isn't Manhattan. If Nenshi wants to stop sprawl, he needs more affordable housing in more central locations. Not ever condo needs idiotic fisher & paykel appliances and granite countertops

I have to agree with this (not sure if it's really Nenshi's fault, though). I'd love to say I'm properly "in the market" right now, but I've been keeping an eye on condo developments for a few years now, for when I finally am.

It definitely bugs me that seemingly every new development is being branded as "luxurious" with all kinds of amenities in the building, crazy expensive appliances and fittings, and pools/concierges/game rooms/party rooms/theatre rooms/etc. How about something of reasonable quality but otherwise fairly utilitarian? In car terms, it feels like we have the following being built:

- Full-size luxury sedans (S-Class et al. - the big, high-end units)
- Compact luxury sedans (3-series et al. - the smaller, high-end units)
- Cheaper, kinda crappy American luxury cars (Chrysler 300 and the like - the Pointe ofe Viewe type developments)

What we need are some Japanese/German compacts (Corolla, Civic, Golf, etc.)

Tropics

Jan 13, 2014, 9:04 PM

incentives? how about the fact that it's cheaper to buy a house in the burbs than a 600sqft condo in downtown. This isn't Manhattan. If Nenshi wants to stop sprawl, he needs more affordable housing in more central locations. Not ever condo needs idiotic fisher & paykel appliances and granite countertops

How will "affordable" housing/condos stop sprawl?

To stop sprawl you have to build alternatives to the suburb lifestyle that creates sprawl to begin with. It is those who are inclined to, and can afford to buy and live in a house in the burbs that you need to build an alternative for because it is them that create sprawl.

A lower income person who can only afford $1200 a month for their dwelling is not living in a $400,000 house in the burbs and they are not the ones causing sprawl. It is the people who can afford to buy the $400,000+ houses in the burbs that are creating the sprawl and it is them you need to target and create alternatives for.

Affordable housing in tiny lower quality condo complexes is not an alternative to those people. They are not going to buy and live in a lower end $250,000 condo instead of their $400,000 in the burbs.

Those cheaper units are going to target two types of buyers, lower income owner/occupiers who are "already" renting in higher density housing, or investors that will buy those units and rent them to people who can only afford to live in higher density housing in the first place.

Cheap condos do not stop sprawl, you are targeting the entirely wrong demographic to actually stop sprawl if you build cheap.

Cheap housing has lots of positive community and economic benefits, don't get me wrong, but solving sprawl is "not" one of them.

MasterG

Jan 13, 2014, 10:10 PM

How will "affordable" housing/condos stop sprawl?

To stop sprawl you have to build alternatives to the suburb lifestyle that creates sprawl to begin with. It is those who are inclined to, and can afford to buy and live in a house in the burbs that you need to build an alternative for because it is them that create sprawl.

A lower income person who can only afford $1200 a month for their dwelling is not living in a $400,000 house in the burbs and they are not the ones causing sprawl. It is the people who can afford to buy the $400,000+ houses in the burbs that are creating the sprawl and it is them you need to target and create alternatives for.

Affordable housing in tiny lower quality condo complexes is not an alternative to those people. They are not going to buy and live in a lower end $250,000 condo instead of their $400,000 in the burbs.

Those cheaper units are going to target two types of buyers, lower income owner/occupiers who are "already" renting in higher density housing, or investors that will buy those units and rent them to people who can only afford to live in higher density housing in the first place.

Cheap condos do not stop sprawl, you are targeting the entirely wrong demographic to actually stop sprawl if you build cheap.

Cheap housing has lots of positive community and economic benefits, don't get me wrong, but solving sprawl is "not" one of them.

I think Westbrook will be quite a nice node once those lots get snapped up in the next few years. Ongoing densification along 17th and in surrounding neighbourhoods will help this process.

At the end through a combination of increasing congestion and commute times as well as a shift to charge suburban dwellers closer to their real cost of their housing choices will price more people into denser locations over the next generation regardless of what many assume people want or don't want. It is not a war on the suburbs, its a lifting of the siege on the inner city.

RyLucky

Jan 13, 2014, 10:41 PM

I have to agree with this (not sure if it's really Nenshi's fault, though). I'd love to say I'm properly "in the market" right now, but I've been keeping an eye on condo developments for a few years now, for when I finally am.

It definitely bugs me that seemingly every new development is being branded as "luxurious" with all kinds of amenities in the building, crazy expensive appliances and fittings, and pools/concierges/game rooms/party rooms/theatre rooms/etc. How about something of reasonable quality but otherwise fairly utilitarian? In car terms, it feels like we have the following being built:

- Full-size luxury sedans (S-Class et al. - the big, high-end units)
- Compact luxury sedans (3-series et al. - the smaller, high-end units)
- Cheaper, kinda crappy American luxury cars (Chrysler 300 and the like - the Pointe ofe Viewe type developments)

What we need are some Japanese/German compacts (Corolla, Civic, Golf, etc.)

Good analogy, and you're right. Ideally, Calgary could use more 2-bedroom condos (~1000-1300 sqft) for $350-400k and minimal condo fees. My hunch is that we will get this (with inflation) in 10-20 years time, when things cool off. Less and/or streamlined building/zoning regulation and better protection&guarantees for buyers might help. The market predominantly focuses on young, family-less people (more often male), millionaires with multiple dwellings, and investors, but I hope this changes over time so more middle class families are attracted. Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic on this front, because I think Calgary is just beginning to attract more real estate investors and is becoming more socially fragmented.

As great as high-density living can be, development sure requires on a lot of capital risk that SFH builders can avoid. I'm in favour of more 4~ish storey buildings across the city at every strip mall, bus route, and suburban grocery store.

brentwood

Jan 14, 2014, 6:01 PM

Sooner or later you guys have to come to terms with the fact that not every retailer or commercial land owner is a real estate speculator just waiting to sell out to condo developers. If the city wants some of these these locations they will have to expropriate them.

Agree that expropriation may be necessary at some point but sitting on unproductive land and collecting marginal yet easy rents in the hopes of a future windfall is my definition of speculation. Clearly there is something wrong in the process and there are no easy solutions but in an efficient economy, property (there are always going to be exceptions, I feel there are too many at the moment) should be developed by those that are able to put the property to its best use within the constraints of the regulatory environment. Rules are good but perhaps we have to re-examine them from time to time.

fusili

Jan 14, 2014, 6:27 PM

Agree that expropriation may be necessary at some point but sitting on unproductive land and collecting marginal yet easy rents in the hopes of a future windfall is my definition of speculation. Clearly there is something wrong in the process and there are no easy solutions but in an efficient economy, property (there are always going to be exceptions, I feel there are too many at the moment) should be developed by those that are able to put the property to its best use within the constraints of the regulatory environment. Rules are good but perhaps we have to re-examine them from time to time.

Expropriation isn't that easy. The city can make an offer to purchase the land, but to expropriate, the City has to have a clear argument that the land is required for a "municipal purpose." Things such as roads and other infrastructure are definitely municipal purposes, but land development probably isn't.

lorenavedon

Jan 14, 2014, 7:57 PM

How will "affordable" housing/condos stop sprawl?

To stop sprawl you have to build alternatives to the suburb lifestyle that creates sprawl to begin with. It is those who are inclined to, and can afford to buy and live in a house in the burbs that you need to build an alternative for because it is them that create sprawl.

A lower income person who can only afford $1200 a month for their dwelling is not living in a $400,000 house in the burbs and they are not the ones causing sprawl. It is the people who can afford to buy the $400,000+ houses in the burbs that are creating the sprawl and it is them you need to target and create alternatives for.

Affordable housing in tiny lower quality condo complexes is not an alternative to those people. They are not going to buy and live in a lower end $250,000 condo instead of their $400,000 in the burbs.

Those cheaper units are going to target two types of buyers, lower income owner/occupiers who are "already" renting in higher density housing, or investors that will buy those units and rent them to people who can only afford to live in higher density housing in the first place.

Cheap condos do not stop sprawl, you are targeting the entirely wrong demographic to actually stop sprawl if you build cheap.

Cheap housing has lots of positive community and economic benefits, don't get me wrong, but solving sprawl is "not" one of them.

so basically downtown should only be for rich people and Chinese billionaires desperate to get their cash out of china. God forbid we have some affordable units for regular people that actually want to live there, close to their jobs and contribute to a community.