Westbrook Redevelopment Project

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by fusili

Or make multi-family easier to build by zoning for more of it, making the application process more stream lined and reducing the risk of appeals. Why piss off suburban home-buyers to make multi-family more affordable. Supply constraints just raise housing costs in general, which isn't good for anyone.

Agreed, but this has been effective in getting families into more urban areas in Vancouver, Toronto, and arguably Ottawa.

An alternative way would be to limit the services provided to suburban neighbourhoods to make it less attractive - compared to inner-city living. Quit extending the c-train to the burbs, dont expand suburban roads, dont legislate minimum densities and community amenity development etc. Dont like being stuck in snow all winter, dont live in Taradale. Dont like the long commute to downtown, dont live in the Southeast (or north).
Essentially make living in the suburbs an even less attractive option, regardless of the price. But then you run the risk of creating "ghettos".

[WaitWhat?]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

Agreed, but this has been effective in getting families into more urban areas in Vancouver, Toronto, and arguably Ottawa.

An alternative way would be to limit the services provided to suburban neighbourhoods to make it less attractive - compared to inner-city living. Quit extending the c-train to the burbs, dont expand suburban roads, dont legislate minimum densities and community amenity development etc. Dont like being stuck in snow all winter, dont live in Taradale. Dont like the long commute to downtown, dont live in the Southeast (or north).
Essentially make living in the suburbs an even less attractive option, regardless of the price. But then you run the risk of creating "ghettos".

The backlash if this were to be done would definitely put a Rob Ford type mayor into office. "Punishing" the suburbs would have a lot of unintended consequences. Also, we need the c-train to extend into the burbs. We have broad citywide buy-in of public transit partly because the train runs all the way to the burbs.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

Agreed, but this has been effective in getting families into more urban areas in Vancouver, Toronto, and arguably Ottawa.

An alternative way would be to limit the services provided to suburban neighbourhoods to make it less attractive - compared to inner-city living. Quit extending the c-train to the burbs, dont expand suburban roads, dont legislate minimum densities and community amenity development etc. Dont like being stuck in snow all winter, dont live in Taradale. Dont like the long commute to downtown, dont live in the Southeast (or north).
Essentially make living in the suburbs an even less attractive option, regardless of the price. But then you run the risk of creating "ghettos".

Originally Posted by WaitWhat?

The backlash if this were to be done would definitely put a Rob Ford type mayor into office. "Punishing" the suburbs would have a lot of unintended consequences. Also, we need the c-train to extend into the burbs. We have broad citywide buy-in of public transit partly because the train runs all the way to the burbs.

Protecting agricultural land via a green belt or urban growth boundary is one thing, not building infrastructure is another. I don't think this approach is smart or prudent. If you want people to live in multi-family developments, make them easier to build.

Ultimately, I think the better strategy is demonstrating to people the benefits of this type of living. I am a pretty ardent urbanist, but I don't think that coercing people into the lifestyle is productive. If urban living is so attractive, why do we need to coerce people into it? I think more people will choose to live in more vibrant, mixed use and walkable communities if you make it possible. The boom in the Beltline, Bridgeland, Hillhurst, Altadore, etc demonstrates that. We don't need to coerce people to do this. The trend is already evident, and growing. When semi-detached homes in Mount Pleasant are selling for $800K, there is pretty ridiculous demand for this type of living.

[MalcolmTucker]

Do we need to protect our agricultural acreages? Besides sentimental longing for connection to the land, I don't believe there are very many unique unique areas needing to be greenbelted. As transportation from further out becomes more costly, the city will naturally slow its growth. As long as there is minimum density (in the city 12 or 14 upa, CRP wide 8 upa I believe), doesn't bother me. I would rather have a rail connected 'pearl on a string' town further out than a contiguous auto dependent town in any case.

As for multi family, as others have said the problem is too little freedom, not too much. We already have good controls on new suburbs - I doubt Portland with its urban growth boundary if its population was growing as fast wouldn't be expanding as fast footprint wise. Their boundary grows with the city. I don't have any concerns with usburbs that aren't subsidized beyond the ways we all are, with collective arterial roads and the best transit service that makes sense given demand.

One way to encourage more multifamily would be to raise the height limits in the Westbrook plan, but I would rather the height limits in surrounding parcels be raised up to a minimum level of say 6 floors (market is as Parisian style or somesuch to get over local NIMBYs). Market forces will dictate that you aren't going to plop a 6 story apartment block down in a place out of context if it was just as easy to build it closer to the central node.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

One way to encourage more multifamily would be to raise the height limits in the Westbrook plan, but I would rather the height limits in surrounding parcels be raised up to a minimum level of say 6 floors (market is as Parisian style or somesuch to get over local NIMBYs). Market forces will dictate that you aren't going to plop a 6 story apartment block down in a place out of context if it was just as easy to build it closer to the central node.

It would take a lot more than that to placate those NIMBYs from what I have seen.....

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

As for multi family, as others have said the problem is too little freedom, not too much. We already have good controls on new suburbs [...]
One way to encourage more multifamily would be to raise the height limits in the Westbrook plan, but I would rather the height limits in surrounding parcels be raised up to a minimum level of say 6 floors (market is as Parisian style or somesuch to get over local NIMBYs). Market forces will dictate that you aren't going to plop a 6 story apartment block down in a place out of context if it was just as easy to build it closer to the central node.

Originally Posted by fusili

Or make multi-family easier to build by zoning for more of it, making the application process more stream lined and reducing the risk of appeals. Why piss off suburban home-buyers to make multi-family more affordable. Supply constraints just raise housing costs in general, which isn't good for anyone.

Ideally, it would be great if we could (1) free-up under-utilized land (2) reduce zoning restrictions. Wouldn't it be great if every squarefoot of land that was undeveloped, used for parking, or abandoned was for sale to developers? I know most of you will think that is a zany idea, so here is another one that more people ought to agree with: redefine zoning to meet outcomes and competencies instead of uses. Ie, let folks conduct business from their homes, build secondary suites, and whatever else they want as long as it doesn't affect neighbours. PARKING IS NOT A RIGHT, nor can it be used as an argument against secondary suites. Let parking be market price.

[RyLucky]

Better yet, Tax parking lots an additional 10% of their property value per year. Everywhere.

[MalcolmTucker]

At one point downtown had a levy per spot - does that still exist?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Do we need to protect our agricultural acreages? Besides sentimental longing for connection to the land, I don't believe there are very many unique unique areas needing to be greenbelted. As transportation from further out becomes more costly, the city will naturally slow its growth. As long as there is minimum density (in the city 12 or 14 upa, CRP wide 8 upa I believe), doesn't bother me. I would rather have a rail connected 'pearl on a string' town further out than a contiguous auto dependent town in any case.

As for multi family, as others have said the problem is too little freedom, not too much. We already have good controls on new suburbs - I doubt Portland with its urban growth boundary if its population was growing as fast wouldn't be expanding as fast footprint wise. Their boundary grows with the city. I don't have any concerns with usburbs that aren't subsidized beyond the ways we all are, with collective arterial roads and the best transit service that makes sense given demand.

One way to encourage more multifamily would be to raise the height limits in the Westbrook plan, but I would rather the height limits in surrounding parcels be raised up to a minimum level of say 6 floors (market is as Parisian style or somesuch to get over local NIMBYs). Market forces will dictate that you aren't going to plop a 6 story apartment block down in a place out of context if it was just as easy to build it closer to the central node.

Agreed. Was just saying that restricting suburban growth because ... "F you suburbanites!" is a bad idea, and pretty flawed. Protecting productive agricultural land, that I could support. But now we are on a tangent.

6 storeys are pretty useless unless we are going to change building code. 4 storeys is what you can get with woodframe, and we have districts that accomplish exactly that. The problem is getting the development permit, and avoiding long delays and appeals. The other issue is that the City just doesn't have enough multi-family parcels to develop. With a shortage of supply, land costs will go up because demand is outstripping supply. If every parcel needs to go through a 10 month rezoning process (and that is optimistic), are we really going to get anywhere close to where we want to be in terms of inner city growth?

[lineman]

Making Calgary's new burbs less attractive through limiting infrastructure would just drive prospective buyers to outlying municipalities.

[jsbertram]

I've heard of a building in Burnaby that has townhomes and a condo tower as one building site, which is becoming more common instead of commercial space on the main floors of a condo tower.

For one family, Mom & Dad & kids lived in a 3-story townhouse, and Gramma & Grampa had a condo in the same building. When Gramma & Grampa died, their 3rd floor condo was renovated & a common wall between the two units had an opening cut in it to join the condo to the townhouse. Now they have an unofficial 4 BR & 3 bath combined unit - every kid has their own BR, with the extra BR converted to the kids playroom.

The townhome main floor is now the 'home office' space, and the 2nd & 3rd floors are living space.

If the developers won't make 1200 SqFt units, it may be cheaper to buy two of the 600 SqFt units and join them together. Easier done if this is new construction, and may be cheaper than spending $750K or more for 1200 SqFt in the burbs.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by fusili

Agreed. Was just saying that restricting suburban growth because ... "F you suburbanites!" is a bad idea, and pretty flawed. Protecting productive agricultural land, that I could support. But now we are on a tangent.

6 storeys are pretty useless unless we are going to change building code. 4 storeys is what you can get with woodframe, and we have districts that accomplish exactly that. The problem is getting the development permit, and avoiding long delays and appeals. The other issue is that the City just doesn't have enough multi-family parcels to develop. With a shortage of supply, land costs will go up because demand is outstripping supply. If every parcel needs to go through a 10 month rezoning process (and that is optimistic), are we really going to get anywhere close to where we want to be in terms of inner city growth?

This...I find it shocking that many areas in the inner city are zone max 2 stories above grade

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I've heard of a building in Burnaby that has townhomes and a condo tower as one building site, which is becoming more common instead of commercial space on the main floors of a condo tower.

For one family, Mom & Dad & kids lived in a 3-story townhouse, and Gramma & Grampa had a condo in the same building. When Gramma & Grampa died, their 3rd floor condo was renovated & a common wall between the two units had an opening cut in it to join the condo to the townhouse. Now they have an unofficial 4 BR & 3 bath combined unit - every kid has their own BR, with the extra BR converted to the kids playroom.

The townhome main floor is now the 'home office' space, and the 2nd & 3rd floors are living space.

If the developers won't make 1200 SqFt units, it may be cheaper to buy two of the 600 SqFt units and join them together. Easier done if this is new construction, and may be cheaper than spending $750K or more for 1200 SqFt in the burbs.

Steps has a situation similar the bachelor suites (Plan I) on the second floor share a wall with the 2 bed townhouses (Plan B)

[simster3]

Got a notice in the mail last night of an open house for a proposal to change the ARP for the land around the station head. It will be at the Rosscarrock Community Centre Tuesday, June 24th between 5 and 8pm. The website the provided was calgary.ca/westbrookstation but didn't work last night when I went to look. Please reconfirm the details as I am going off memory right now.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by simster3

Got a notice in the mail last night of an open house for a proposal to change the ARP for the land around the station head. It will be at the Rosscarrock Community Centre Tuesday, June 24th between 5 and 8pm. The website the provided was calgary.ca/westbrookstation but didn't work last night when I went to look. Please reconfirm the details as I am going off memory right now.

http://calgary.ca/engage/Pages/Westbrook-station.aspx

[Spring2008]

To higher or lower densities as what we saw before? Hope to see some movement here and Sunalta soon.

[googspecial]

I really want to see a Costco go in here, in the style of the one downtown Vancouver.
Sadly, this likely won't ever happen

[simster3]

I would actually get a Costco membership if they did. I could walk there and avoid the clusterfuck of traffic it will create.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

To higher or lower densities as what we saw before? Hope to see some movement here and Sunalta soon.

Similar sized densities as to what is in the ARP. Slight changes to the plan in regards to the street network/park space (no reduction, just relocation) to better integrate into the existing surroundings, as opposed to assuming it will all be built at once.

While the original ARP was nice, it is not realistic to assume the Walmart is going somewhere anytime soon, so the plan needs to be adjusted to take this into account.

[Tropics]

The City of Calgary is reviewing a proposal that would change the Westbrook Station Area Redevelopment Plan and rezone the vacant land around Westbrook LRT Station in southwest Calgary. If approved by City Council, these proposed changes will affect what development is allowed on the site.

The proposal would not change the overall vision that is outlined in the station area plan for the site, but are intended to make this vision more achievable.

Purpose

The land around Westbrook LRT Station is currently planned as a mix of residential and commercial, transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly, medium to high density development. The property owner has applied for these plans to be changed to:

•Move the future location of the site’s park closer to Westbrook LRT Station and the transit plaza.
•Allow a greater mix of retail, residential and office along the edge of the property.
•Close a portion of 35th Street S.W., Westbrook Plaza, Westbrook Lane and Westbrook Green S.W. to facilitate the development of a large underground parking structure.
•Adjust the building heights on the eastern edge of the property to facilitate the property being developed to its approved maximum densities.
The maximum density allowed on the site would not change, however these changes will make it possible to build up to the maximum density that has already been approved by City Council.

Moving the park closer to the LRT station is a great idea. Having a large open green space associated with the station would make for a better transition into the residential and retail. The park in the picture on page 20 of the APR is right next to the LRT station.

The large underground parking structure is a no brainer, you have to have one there. There is no way pedestrian and LRT transport alone would sustain the proper level of retail in that area. Are they asking for temporary closure of those streets so that they can construct it and then have those streets rebuilt and reopened once the parking structure is completed and covered? Seems more then reasonable, most of those streets are going to become next to useless once they close the mall to redevelop the whole area anyhow. The owners are right on this, that site needs to be gutted and built from sub-ground up to get this right.

Right now the plan shows what looks like 100% residential on the outside with a core of retail on the inside. I think some getting some of the retail on the outside of the development makes a lot of sense. People who buy residential there will more then likely prefer to get a unit in the center of the development facing the park due to less noise, less traffic, ect... Few people want a patio facing a street like 17th ave. The condos on Bow Trail are a little different due to the height, there it still makes sense to have residential on the edge due to the great views those units will have of the golf course, city, and river.

Height on the eastern side is going to be the only spur and cause for NIMBYISM in this. Increasing the height on the eastern side is going to shadow SFH residential on the east, making people lose their evening sun. The one place I want to see TALL at Westbrook is along Bow Trail. They should allow taller then the stated 38m height along that corridor. That wall should be close to rivalling the height of the Westgate condo complex across the street. There are few people who would be negatively affected by this, some people in the lower levels of the Westgate project.

All in all I hope the city allows this. The owners seem pretty reasonable on most of these things, they sound like they are ready to invest a massive amount of money into the development given the "large underground parkade" and that area has so much potential and needs redevelopment so badly.