Paskapoo Slopes Redevelopment

[Ducay]

Surprised to have not seen a thread on this before, some very very vocal and organized opposition to this redevelopment plan.

Basically the city has to vote to approve the sale and re-zoning of the Paskapoo Slopes area (currently owned by Winsport aka COP) to allow for a commercial development on 1/3 of it.


http://www.calgary.ca/engage/Pages/T...-Paskapoo.aspx
http://savetheslopes.org/


Personally I live somewhat in the area, although not directly impacted by this, I think its a pretty terrible idea to take great greenspace area and put in more commercial development when it really isn't needed. Sufficient commercial in the area, especially with all the developments just down 16th in RockyView county. With the ring road coming in the whole slopes are going to be changed enough as is.

[Knalus]

The Paskapoo slopes greenspace not only affects the local residents, but the residents of the entire NW, as the majority of them face the slopes. In fall, with the changing leaves, the slopes is a gorgeous part of the view from Edgemont, Hawkwood, Arbor Lake, Varsity, the view from Nose Hill, as well as the view for every driver along Shagganappi, Sarcee (both of them), and Crowchild.

This should be a no-brainer for city council to shut down, as it negatively affects too many residents, for too little gain.

The Paskapoo slopes - on either side of COP - should be converted into a park. It would be a nicer park than Nose Hill, and on par with Fish Creek. The value of the view for the city alone would make this park worth while, without a single path or picnic bench installed.

Heck, if it were up to me, I would purchase every house along Patterson Blvd, and bulldoze the bunch.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I'm really torn on this.
On one hand, I love the area and think it should be kept as is for everyones enjoyment.
On the other hand, it's not municipal land, and if Winsport wants to develop/sell land that they own, that should be their right to do so.

Ideally, the fairest thing to do would be for the city to buy the land and convert it to a park.

[Kavvy]

I am all for keeping more parks in the city.

I couldn't seem to find this, what is it currently zoned for? As a portion of it is privately owned, I can't imagine the zoning is public park.

[bizaro86]

The thing I find annoying is the rank hypocracy of the no paskapoo development crowd. It tends to be led by people who live in Patterson right on the slope. I drove through there the last time it came up, and there were tons of "Save Paskapoo Slopes" signs on the lawns of people whose houses are on Paskapoo slopes.

So basically, the attitude is "I'll urbanize part of this natural area for myself, but after that I want the rest of it to remain untouched wilderness."

In this case I think the potential value for minor sport outweighs the cost, but I'm not on city counsel. (And I live in one of the NW communities mentioned, and have a great view of the slopes from my living room). I'm also really opposed to the city telling private landowners they can't develop. If the opponents want it to be a park, pony up and buy it.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Basically the city has to vote to approve the sale and re-zoning of the Paskapoo Slopes area (currently owned by Winsport aka COP) to allow for a commercial development on 1/3 of it.

I'm pretty sure the sale is already approved/happened?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ouse-1.3010240

The land is currently owned by Trinity, Winsport and the city. Trinity has reached an agreement to buy the portion owned by Winsport, with transfer of title by July, according to the city.

FWIW, from the same article, Trinity will use 1/3 for their development and preserve the remaining 2/3 for a regional park.

The company plans to build an urban-village style neighbourhood with a mix of housing types, a town centre with boutiques and offices and an entertainment district with a hotel and theatres.

But Trinity Hills says its new master plan will see two thirds of the land — the upper slopes — preserved as a new regional park.

“Following a number of environmental studies, Trinity Hills decided to forgo the higher-density shopping-based development proposed previously, and instead is proposing a forward-thinking master plan,” Trinity Hills says on its website.

[calgarygeologist]

I don't think I'm crazy about the idea of residential and commercial development but I would be all for Winsport and partners using that land for sport and recreational development. Shouldice Park and Foothills Park are small, aging facilities and we could seriously use some new, modern track and field, soccer, baseball, tennis, etc facilities.

[Zarley]

The proposed development looks quite nice, although I had always thought those slopes would be great terrain for a golf course. The development will provide an opportunity for intensification of an underutilized area with well planned mixed use development.

The lands in question are not municipally owned and the opposition to development is ridiculous.

[chemgear]

More NIMBY again?

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

So basically, the attitude is "I'll urbanize part of this natural area for myself, but after that I want the rest of it to remain untouched wilderness."

Really can't say it any better than this.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by chemgear

More NIMBY again?

I think anyone, regardless of where you are in the city, can support maintaining more natural greenspace in the city as we grow and grow.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by chemgear

More NIMBY again?

Your point?

Not all NIMBY is bad NIMBY.

It was NIMBY that prevented Memorial Drive from being a freeway including interchanges that would wipe out Eau Claire. NIMBY also prevented the Trans Canada Highway from running through 24th/32nd ish avenue and wiping out large parts of Confederation Park.

The Paskapoo Slopes are a highly used piece of green space that many people use and enjoy everyday. Not all development is good development.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by kevman

The Paskapoo Slopes are a highly used piece of green space that many people use and enjoy everyday. Not all development is good development.

I have always considered that area to be quite under-utilized. Being private land I also wasn't sure what sort of access was acceptable by the general public.

[arcfyr]

Tough issue. I mountain bike and utilize the Eastlands trails once a week during summer, and I see a fair number of people on the trails as well. We are lucky to have some great green space in Calgary but some are very crowded (e.g. Nose Hill). I think we would lose a fair bit by developing this space, unless we could get an alternative.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Ideally, the fairest thing to do would be for the city to buy the land and convert it to a park.

It wouldn't be fair for other taxpayers to help pay a premium for the addition of this land to the inventory of parkland. I don't believe these lands are part of a publicly reviewed Open Space plan and until such time that they are included, local residents should be footing the bill.

Originally Posted by kevman

The Paskapoo Slopes are a highly used piece of green space that many people use and enjoy everyday. Not all development is good development.

If this development is the one I'm thinking about, I wouldn't support it on its urban design merits. However, the developer does have the right to develop their land once they adhere to the planning and development process. While this process is what stopped the transportation projects you mentioned, it paves the way for development in this instance.

[surferguy]

my ability to be for or against this project relies solely on the invovlement of water slides in the proposal.

[Top Shelf]

Man those bike trails are some of the funnest in the city. Would suck to have them closed down

[Joborule]

As far as I know, most of the slopes are going to remain untouched. The development is only going to occur near the TCH corridor, which for the most part is bare land.

This isn't the case that if the development occurs, the slopes/park are lost. We can have both. So why not? That part of the city is an important gateway into the city. Adding more commercial/residential development would be beneficial to the area, and the city itself. There's also the opportunity to enhance the park itself as well.

[puffnstuff]

As long as the Jumbo Shrimp van can still park at the bottom of Sarcee Trail I'm fine with this.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Addick

It wouldn't be fair for other taxpayers to help pay a premium for the addition of this land to the inventory of parkland. I don't believe these lands are part of a publicly reviewed Open Space plan and until such time that they are included, local residents should be footing the bill.

I don't quite understand what you are getting at with this.
This land is, and still would be, open and available to all taxpayers, so I'm not sure who "Other taxpayers" would be.

The province/city/federal government pay to procure and open parks all the time, why would this be any different?

My point is that if the city is going to deny the proposal on the grounds that the space should be used for public recreation then they should be footing the bill for it, not a private entity.

I would rather not see the slopes get developed, but if the city simply says "Sorry Winsport, we don't want you to", then that's kind of a raw deal fro Winsport.

Like I said, if the city wants what is essentially a park, then the city should pay to build/buy a park.