Paskapoo Slopes Redevelopment

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I don't quite understand what you are getting at with this.

If the City were to deny the development due to local opposition and claims that the local community wanted the land turned into a local park, the locals are the ones that should be purchasing the land from the developers as other taxpayers shouldn't be paying so these locals could have another park. However, my opinion would change if the City were to identify these lands as a prime opportunity for a regional park.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Addick

my opinion would change if the City were to identify these lands as a prime opportunity for a regional park.

I think most people opposed to the development are mountain bikers from around the city, hence a little more attention on this one. I think it would be awesome if part of the deal was to develop the lower area as they have planned, and have someone officially maintain the trails above. Although knowing the city they would take that as "pave them, and replace the skinny wood bridges with wider, safer concrete ones!"

[Sliver]

Hahaha only in Calgary. Somebody wants to take a lame useless hill you have never even been on and make it fun/useful and you are opposed. WTF. This sounds great. You just have to ignore the anti-progress people and bulldoze ahead, which is exactly what they'll do. History forgets about the naysayers almost immediately after these projects are done (thank god).

[Itse]

Paskapoo Slopes sounds awesome.

("Paska" means "sh*t" in Finnish.)

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Itse

Paskapoo Slopes sounds awesome.

("Paska" means "sh*t" in Finnish.)

("Poo" means "poo" in English.)

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I think most people opposed to the development are mountain bikers from around the city, hence a little more attention on this one.

Okay, I'm fine with the City saving something that has become an asset for the greater community. My gripe would be with the scenarios where 9 out of 10 parcels in a neighbourhood are developed during the initial build-out and when the owner of the undeveloped parcel finally thinks the market can support what he had in mind the other nine property owners claim the undeveloped parcel is a local park. The last owner-in was generous in providing a usable open space as a temporary use for the community, which then goes and strips him of his development right.

[Ducay]

Well the land right now is owned by Winsport, formerly known as the Calgary Olympic Development Association (CODA), a gov't backed NPO. The land was donated to that organization for a reason (Olympic Development) back before the '88 games.

This is hardly a case of a developer finally deciding to develop, its taking land no one expected to be developed into anything but sport/olympic related, and developing it.

I don't mountain bike or use the trails much, but I am a hippie when it comes to protecting urban green spaces. Things like this you can't get back when you realize 20 years down the road it was a bad idea to build another junky strip mall.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Ducay

This is hardly a case of a developer finally deciding to develop, its taking land no one expected to be developed into anything but sport/olympic related, and developing it.

I don't mountain bike or use the trails much, but I am a hippie when it comes to protecting urban green spaces. Things like this you can't get back when you realize 20 years down the road it was a bad idea to build another junky strip mall.

If there was a caveat on the land or conditions attached to development permits, the rights to development would have been waived and expectations could be placed. As that does not appear to be the case, the owner should be allowed to develop the land in such a way that meets their needs/objectives. If WinSport would like to partner with a developer to develop commercial uses as it will help them fund their sporting goals, so be it.

I too realize the benefits of open space and prefer the area`s current state to what is coming. However, there is a reason why we have Parks & Open Space plans. The very intent of those plans are to provide predictability and prevent situations like these from taking place.

Nevertheless, my concern is with adjacent landowners dictating what can be done on adjacent lands that they do not own. If this park can be deemed a regional asset, I`m up for compensating the developer and adding it to the parks inventory.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by fredr123

("Poo" means "poo" in English.)

I know. Sh*tpoo Slopes sounds like an awesome place

[Caged Great]

I too would prefer a land swap with somewhere a little further west and designating it as a park as well with the only things being able to be built are sport related structures. I don't see why they couldn't make that land into a sporting mecca of sorts, even more so than it already is.

A developer can develop anywhere, so if you make a land swap somewhere close by that'll be in their favour, they'll take it. It just seems out of place to have a strip mall inside a sporting facility.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Addick

If there was a caveat on the land or conditions attached to development permits, the rights to development would have been waived and expectations could be placed. As that does not appear to be the case, the owner should be allowed to develop the land in such a way that meets their needs/objectives. If WinSport would like to partner with a developer to develop commercial uses as it will help them fund their sporting goals, so be it.

I too realize the benefits of open space and prefer the area`s current state to what is coming. However, there is a reason why we have Parks & Open Space plans. The very intent of those plans are to provide predictability and prevent situations like these from taking place.

Nevertheless, my concern is with adjacent landowners dictating what can be done on adjacent lands that they do not own. If this park can be deemed a regional asset, I`m up for compensating the developer and adding it to the parks inventory.

Aren't they asking for it to be rezoned?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

I too would prefer a land swap with somewhere a little further west and designating it as a park as well with the only things being able to be built are sport related structures. I don't see why they couldn't make that land into a sporting mecca of sorts, even more so than it already is.

A developer can develop anywhere, so if you make a land swap somewhere close by that'll be in their favour, they'll take it. It just seems out of place to have a strip mall inside a sporting facility.

Speaking of land in that area; what is the situation with that land between the TransCanada and the mobile home park right across from COP? Is that some sort of park land or just undeveloped land?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Aren't they asking for it to be rezoned?

I'm pretty sure they're getting it rezoned from urban reserve. The purpose of urban reserve zoning is to make sure development doesn't happen in patches way outside of the city. Once the city has grown around an urban reserve parcel, the owner should be allowed to rezone it to something that fits in with the surrounding area. Since this borders the transcanada, just about anything would be reasonable.