Some thoughts.
Thread Cleanup and Moderation
This is starting to get ridiculous. There are now basically 3 threads with two poorly-formed polls (one better than the other, mind you) covering basically the same thing. Could some threads be merged or closed entirely please? Should just be a single thread as it's basically the same central discussion.
West Village Plans, Contamination, etc.
There seems to be a lack of context regarding the issue of contamination and some of the argumentation coming out of it.
First, it should be said that land being contaminated to some degree is actually more common than many people think. The West Village land is among of the most sizable and prominent but there are plenty of other examples in the city (spoilered for length):
Spoiler!
- Parts of the current Quarry Park development are contaminated, mainly the parts where there is surface parking, as that was all you could economically do with those areas. Doing more with these areas would have meant doing costly cleanup.
- The former Hub Oil site at 17th Avenue and 60th Street SE. There was an explosion at the Hub Oil refinery in 1999, and this combined with the refinery actually operating has left the soil contaminated. There had been plans to put a "cap" (bring in new dirt over top of the contaminated dirt) on the existing site and having buildings with slab-on grade construction (minimal digging and building underground). This hasn't come to pass yet.
- The land that Deerfoot Meadows now sits on was contaminated to some degree if I recall correctly. At the very least the land was relatively difficult to build on. Again, not much else you could do economically other than surface parking lots and slab-on-grade buildings.
- Lots of sites in the SE industrial areas are contaminated and won't be able to have other uses when the Green Line LRT goes through and development pressures follow. An example is the former dry waste landfill in Ogden. In some cases, the cleanup may be economical, in many cases it won't be.
- The other strongly rumoured sites for the new stadium/arena project were probably contaminated too. Firepark (former tire plant at Memorial Drive and Deerfoot Trail) certainly is contaminated. The Railtown lands at 4th Street East and 11th Avenue SE, being former CPR lands for years and used for their operations, would almost certainly require some cleanup.
- Extending the discussion a bit, there are lots of sour gas wells that are relatively close to existing development in the city, most prominently in the far NE. Some have been eventually dealt with, others have inhibited what can be built and when.
It's very common for cities in general to have prominent areas be contaminated too. Basically, old industrial sites, especially near railways or ports are prone to being contaminated. As central areas of a growing city (that naturally followed industrial growth around these areas) become more valuable and attractive for high-intensity commercial and residential uses, the impetus to clean up these areas grows and becomes viable at some point. This is hardly a Calgary-specific issue.
Examples from other cities include the Quarry Lands in Toronto, Rock Bay in Victoria, the site of the former Sir John Carling Building and future hospital in Ottawa. Edmonton is just taking on a giant site of their own with the closing of the Municipal Airport. That's just Canada, examples abound elsewhere.
There is a lot of nuance with Calgary's West Village. First of all, the City already has various renewal projects going in other blighted or otherwise underdeveloped areas. Namely, East Village (with City involvement through CRL). Furthermore, other otherwise underdeveloped areas of the inner city have and will see significant private development, particularly Beltline, Hillhurst/Sunnyside, Bridgeland, Mission, Inglewood.
Given this, "holding back" with West Village is purposeful and strategic. First, opening up West Village now would cannibalize the demand for development in these other areas, leaving them half (or less)-finished, which is not ideal. West Village has a few key characteristics:
- Connectivity: It is hemmed in by the Bow River and its escarpment, interchanges, major roads and a rail line. Adjacent neighbourhoods or properties are significantly hindered, cut off or having their redevelopment stunted if it sits as-is for awhile.
- Containment: the contamination is not worsening, and it is reasonably well contained.
- No existing permanent population: No one is currently living in West Village, so there's much less duty of care to improve the area or entice development so it fills with amenities right now.
- It is of the size and nature that, once cleanup commences, it is important that development follow in earnest and the neighbourhood will approach a "completed" feel relatively quickly. This can happen only
under the right conditions. Those conditions are: not competing with other nearby developments of a similar nature (i.e. East Village, Beltline); site is ready during or approaching the up side of a building cycle economically; and given the heavy inputs for the CRL (cleanup) are maximally offset by the outputs (increased property taxes from the developable land).
The last point especially is what sinks the CalgaryNEXT concept.
I'm not sure this has been mentioned yet (the City of Calgary West Village Area Redevelopment Plan has been posted already), but how this came about is that the City was originally going to bid on the 2017 World Expo and use the West Village as the main site for pavilions, etc. When it was decided not to bid, the ARP was created instead as during the process, many of the above points became became apparent as opportunities, etc.
Politics, etc.
For those wanting the politics to end from the City "side" (although I do wonder why there are sides in this, when it's frankly a bad deal for the City and there's only one entity with a need here), need to realize that this sort of proposition is inherently political and that the CSEC is playing politics too in a bad way. First of all, it is proposing using public money. Second piece of evidence is that 960 interview. Also, what we know about the timeline (roughly) is:
- CSEC starts to get serious about their vision and has a few meetings with City officials and the mayor. They are told West Village is a bad idea, based on the above, and that the City would be hesitant to support it, at best.
- CSEC goes ahead with West Village vision anyway, meanwhile mayor and coucilors put out not so subtle hints that there is no appetite for the Edmonton deal.
- CSEC holds a bad public presentation about their ill-advised West Village vision
before submitting anything formal to the City in terms of either a land use application, development permit or business proposition.
The presentation is CSEC trying to jump past any formal engagement about the specific project with the City to try to garner emotional support from the populace. That's playing politics.
Then of course there is that 960 radio interview.
---------------
Personally, the veiled threats to leave in that radio interview is it for me. Was going to buy a Flames jersey for an upcoming birthday for someone, and also get some playoff tickets to take someone to their first playoff game. Those are now off the table after this.
I will cheer on the Flames, but am going to seriously curtail any money I spend on them until CSEC smartens up and stops using the "we're leaving" bluff. It's insulting.