COP Lands to be developed into shopping mall (Trinity@Winsport) - Page 4

para transit fellow · #61 Posted **Jun 28, 2014, 1:08 AM**

Quote:

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.

Butterfield acres

speedog · #62 Posted **Jun 28, 2014, 1:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Butterfield acres

Already answered 7 posts up in this thread.

Wentworth · #63 Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 5:20 AM**

So I listened and watched some of the debate today for the rezoning application. A first, for me. I didn't make it to the end, which is just as well a they never actually got around to voting.

My main takeaway is that I will not vote for Pootmans again. He was aggressive with some of the pro speakers (particularly those who criticized the consultation process) and deferential to Trinity execs. On the other hand, Drew made me cringe a few times. And Sutherland, wow...

There is a lot of talk of "property rights" and "private land" in various media comment areas, but I am confused, was Winsport not the prior owner of this land? Also, Trinity purchased the land knowing the existing zoning so this is not a discussion about reducing property rights, but rather, expanding them.

Personally, I don't like the inclusion of towers and big box stores in the proposal. Several people mentioned a Superstore... that seriously cannot be right?!

Anyway, my guess is that this will go ahead but they will ask the developer for one more concession, which will likely be a second pedestrian connection, for which the city will probably pay half. That's just a wild guess, though.

O-tacular · #64 Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 3:25 PM**

I drove by COP on Sunday and there was a ton of work going on at the main intersection. Is this an interchange? Also the land to the east across Hwy 1 was cleared with surveying markers put up. Is this the land in question? I always thought it was being proposed on the COP site directly.

Fuzz · #65 Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 3:39 PM**

THey are building an interchange there, yes. The Trinity site is east of COP.

Me&You · #66 Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 4:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

THey are building an interchange there, yes. The Trinity site is east of COP.

And the interchange is further south along Sarcee.

Fuzz · #67 Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 5:38 PM**

You are probably thinking of the Sarcee/16th ave one that hasn't started yet, but they are also currently doing the #1/COP interchange. That's what the construction is for.

lineman · #68 Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I drove by COP on Sunday and there was a ton of work going on at the main intersection. Is this an interchange? Also the land to the east across Hwy 1 was cleared with surveying markers put up. Is this the land in question? I always thought it was being proposed on the COP site directly.

Across the 1 from COP:

http://greenwichcalgary.com

Spring2008 · #69 Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 6:16 PM**

There more detailed renderings available? Most of the newer suburban developments are now becoming a lot more mixed-use, higher density, served by Transitway and LRT from what i've been looking at. Providence in the SW looks to be similar to Seton, Rangeview in proximity to Seton following that model too. Same with a new community in north Calgary (can't remember the name now).

YYCguys · #70 Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 9:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You are probably thinking of the Sarcee/16th ave one that hasn't started yet....

I know that Trinity has offered up $23 million towards the construction of this interchange, but I don't understand...isn't there already an interchange there (I know Sarcee ends shortly north of 16th Ave)?

McMurph · #71 Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 10:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I know that Trinity has offered up $23 million towards the construction of this interchange, but I don't understand...isn't there already an interchange there (I know Sarcee ends shortly north of 16th Ave)?

Based on nothing but a spoken description I think the Trinity interchange is a new one into the development off of Sarcee itself (presumably entering near the gravel parking lot / mtn bike staging / corn / cherry truck spot). I'm not sure they're proposing doing anything with Sarcee / 16th. But again, this is a guess.

McMurph · #72 Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 10:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lineman

Across the 1 from COP:

http://greenwichcalgary.com

Amazing that they're naming a highway-dependant imitation neighbourhood Greenwich Village. I look forward to doing a Jane's walk through there some day.

Wentworth · #73 Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 11:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I know that Trinity has offered up $23 million towards the construction of this interchange, but I don't understand...isn't there already an interchange there (I know Sarcee ends shortly north of 16th Ave)?

Mpte" There is a 2nd roundabout on the bottom-left of that image that is dimmed out for some reason.

suburbia · #74 Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 1:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wentworth

Mpte" There is a 2nd roundabout on the bottom-left of that image that is dimmed out for some reason.

What is "Wilson gardens"?

Wentworth · #75 Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 2:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

What is "Wilson gardens"?

Says Google:

Quote:

18 properties in a unique subdivisionknown as Wilson Gardens, bounded on the west by Sarcee Trail, on the north by theTransCanada Highway (16 Avenue NW) and on the east by the Canadian Pacific Railway railline. Annexed to Calgary several decades ago, Wilson Gardens has remained as it was whenannexed – a subdivision of country residential style lots ranging in area from 0.6 acre to fouracres with most between one and two acres and all without municipal water and sewer services

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Riise · #76 Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 4:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wentworth

There is a lot of talk of "property rights" and "private land" in various media comment areas, but I am confused, was Winsport not the prior owner of this land? Also, Trinity purchased the land knowing the existing zoning so this is not a discussion about reducing property rights, but rather, expanding them.

Personally, I don't like the inclusion of towers and big box stores in the proposal. Several people mentioned a Superstore... that seriously cannot be right?!

When it comes to property rights this property is a private piece of land that is being used by the public with the permission of the landowner. As it is a private piece of land, the landowner has the right do develop his/her land as he/she so chooses as long as it aligns with statutory plans/regulations. While the landowner will be bound by the numerous rules of the various land use districts found in the Land Use Bylaw, the landowner is not bound by the current use of the land. As the landowner is allowed to request land use amendments, new stipulations on possible land usage would amount to a stripping of the landowner's development rights.

I'm not the biggest fan of the proposed development but we cannot allow the way in which people use land that is not their own dictate what the actual landowner can do unless adequate compensation is provided.

bigcanuck · #77 Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 4:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wentworth

Says Google:

18 properties in a unique subdivisionknown as Wilson Gardens, bounded on the west by Sarcee Trail, on the north by theTransCanada Highway (16 Avenue NW) and on the east by the Canadian Pacific Railway railline. Annexed to Calgary several decades ago, Wilson Gardens has remained as it was whenannexed – a subdivision of country residential style lots ranging in area from 0.6 acre to fouracres with most between one and two acres and all without municipal water and sewer services

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=ca

This was apparent a few days ago when a house there caught fire and there were no hydrants - water had to be hauled in.

O-tacular · #78 Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 10:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by McMurph

Amazing that they're naming a highway-dependant imitation neighbourhood Greenwich Village. I look forward to doing a Jane's walk through there some day.

Haha I was thinking the same thing! It's almost as bad as SoBow. Having just visited the real Greenwich Village in NYC last month the name seems all the more ridiculous and disconnected. I think new developments like this should start adopting the names of cars instead. You want to sound impressive? Tell someone you live in Ferrari Flats. How about Lamborghini Lane? It's still a lie but at least it's closer to the reality than an arbitrary real place that has nothing in common with it.

Design-mind · #79 Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 11:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Haha I was thinking the same thing! It's almost as bad as SoBow. Having just visited the real Greenwich Village in NYC last month the name seems all the more ridiculous and disconnected. I think new developments like this should start adopting the names of cars instead. You want to sound impressive? Tell someone you live in Ferrari Flats. How about Lamborghini Lane? It's still a lie but at least it's closer to the reality than an arbitrary real place that has nothing in common with it.

You have it all wrong! This is closer to reality - Lada Lane, AMC Alley & Citroen Cul-de-Sac.

Spring2008 · #80 Posted **Jul 31, 2015, 1:02 AM**

Calgary's Whistler approved:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...uncil-approval