Bulldozing Shaw Nee Slopes golf course in Calgary?

[polak]

That whole Lake Fraser Dr. strip shouldn't even be attached to Macleod in my mind. I know it's too late now but that was poor planning.

It should have been exactly like it is now but instead of attaching to Macleod, it should have attached to the rest of Bonavista.

[ken0042]

Actually it used to be attached to Bonivista. Back in the 90's prior to there being overpasses at CMD or Anderson; I had the timing of the lights figured out. If I missed the green light EB on Anderson approaching MacLeod, I would turn right, then go through Bonavista to get onto CMD.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by polak

That whole Lake Fraser Dr. strip shouldn't even be attached to Macleod in my mind. I know it's too late now but that was poor planning.

It should have been exactly like it is now but instead of attaching to Macleod, it should have attached to the rest of Bonavista.

Lake Fraser Dr has a lot of traffic on it, more than you think. Putting all that traffic through residential feeder roads in Bonavista would not be effective.

What's the problem with the lights anyways? Only a bit further north you hit the larger backup at the lights near Southcentre. The lights at Lake Fraser stay green for Macleod quite a bit longer as well.

[wookster]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Show me one way in which the proposal does not meet community standards. It looks like it significantly exceeds community standards to me. Tones of trees, recreational areas, etc. it looks very nice. The trees behind existing houses will remain. Again, what community standard is missing?

I think the main thing thats missing is a golf course...

My brother in laws house use to back onto the 11th fairway, now, according to the proposal he will have a thin strip of trees (that are already there) and then his new neighbors backyards. Anyone who believes that his house value will not be affected by this change is dreaming.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

this is true, they need to fix the traffic issues before adding more people to the south of fish creek area.

You think this one development will the tipping point to making Macleod unusable? Because that's what it sounds like, and that isn't true.

The City has forgone any previous planning (Midnapore Area Plan) in favor of sprawling single family housing South of Fish Creek Park, yet a TOD mixed multi-family development is what makes you say "this is too much"?

[polak]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Lake Fraser Dr has a lot of traffic on it, more than you think. Putting all that traffic through residential feeder roads in Bonavista would not be effective.

What's the problem with the lights anyways? Only a bit further north you hit the larger backup at the lights near Southcentre. The lights at Lake Fraser stay green for Macleod quite a bit longer as well.

It creates an epic back up once it build up past canyon meadows drive and you have people trying to merge onto Macleod from Bannister Road which then causes delays for people trying to get on Canyon Meadows drive from Macleod which then backs up to Shawnessy Blvd at which point you might as well go home and cry a little and startselling your body on internet webcam shows instead.

Originally Posted by Mazrim

You think this one development will the tipping point to making Macleod unusable? Because that's what it sounds like, and that isn't true.

The City has forgone any previous planning (Midnapore Area Plan) in favor of sprawling single family housing South of Fish Creek Park, yet a TOD mixed multi-family development is what makes you say "this is too much"?

Mixed family housing is they type that adds the most traffic. Which would be the absolute worst kind to add in that area at the moment.

On top of which, it is also most likely the kind that reduces surrounding property values the most. No one wants to look out their window and see row housing or short fat condos.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by polak

On top of which, it is also most likely the kind that reduces surrounding property values the most. No one wants to look out their window and see row housing or short fat condos.

Only a few existing houses would actually be near the multi-family portion. The bulk of the complainers live along the golf course, where the single family housing would be.

In the end, I don't understand the concerns, since there is a gigantic recreation space right next door with Fish Creek Park, and these people keep going back to "preserving the existing land use of the site".

Originally Posted by polak

Mixed family housing is they type that adds the most traffic. Which would be the absolute worst kind to add in that area at the moment.

With an LRT station right next door, I don't think the impact would be as severe as you make it sound.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Only a few existing houses would actually be near the multi-family portion. The bulk of the complainers live along the golf course, where the single family housing would be.

In the end, I don't understand the concerns, since there is a gigantic recreation space right next door with Fish Creek Park, and these people keep going back to "preserving the existing land use of the site".


With an LRT station right next door, I don't think the impact would be as severe as you make it sound.

Have you ever taken the train from any of those three particular c-train stations? Going northbound in the morning rush, you'll be standing if you don't get on the train within a couple minutes of it arriving at SOMERSET. Thats the end of line. That entire line is way over capacity already.

It is as bad as I am saying it is.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by wookster

I think the main thing thats missing is a golf course...

My brother in laws house use to back onto the 11th fairway, now, according to the proposal he will have a thin strip of trees (that are already there) and then his new neighbors backyards. Anyone who believes that his house value will not be affected by this change is dreaming.

A golf course isn't part of the community standards.

Property values, while a concern to the residents, are not relevant to the discussion about whether this development should go through. The people were never permanently entitled to a golf course view.

With the trees along the existing back yards to remain, I can't see how property values would be affected negatively. In some ways, the proposal would make things nicer for existing residents. More intra community routes to walk, and get to Fish Creek park. More playgrounds for kids, etc.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

A golf course isn't part of the community standards.

Property values, while a concern to the residents, are not relevant to the discussion about whether this development should go through. The people were never permanently entitled to a golf course view.

With the trees along the existing back yards to remain, I can't see how property values would be affected negatively. In some ways, the proposal would make things nicer for existing residents. More intra community routes to walk, and get to Fish Creek park. More playgrounds for kids, etc.

lol, you sound like a developer.

[Bigtime]

Well aren't all those things that YNAT said what most people trot out as some of the advantages to living and raising a family in the burbs?

I can't let the kids play in the sand trap (although that would be awesome). However if instead of the course there was some green space and pathways I can definitely see how it would be a plus versus a golf course.

[You Need a Thneed]

Exactly. Instead of having something next door that looks nice, I would have something next door that looks nice AND that I can use for free AND I could walk though to shorten my walk to fish creek park.

[Rerun]

I'm sad to see it go. I've played there a few times and it was a nice and enjoyable little course to play. I particularly liked their traps as the sand was very consistant and the ravine hole was interesting.

It was one of the few semi-private courses that didn't cost an arm and a leg to play for the day. It was also generally fairly forgiving for a beginner. My wife liked it.

[Bigtime]

I only played it once (in a crazy rain too) and don't remember anything special about it.

[REDVAN]

While I wouldn't be happy if I bought a place on a course and then it was built up into houses, what people who are upset about this are forgetting is that this was the plan all along.

It's exactly like the people in Oakridge who are complaining about the rest of us wanting to build 37th street/ring road/extend 90th ave & southland through the designated area that's already there and been set aside for 30+ years for this exact function.... "no no it'll decrease property values, waaaa waa etc...\'

Guess what? You guys KNEW that was the plan when you bought the place way back when, and just because the plans are now coming to fruition, you really can't bitch and moan about it.

[GGG]

When you are notified 10 years in advance 1982 to 1992 of a potential change and have 20 years to come to terms with it or make other investments 1992 to present. I have no sympathy.

If you paid for a percieved land value of the golf course you were quite foolish. Any realtor who is doing is job should have identifyed this development as a potential in 1982.

[4X4]

My dad's house backs on to the course, and I remember being pissed off for him when I found out about the redevelopment. Then a few days later I went over for dinner and brought it up, and he knew about it before he bought the house, so he wasn't mad about it at all.

[jayswin]

My anger towards it is from a selfish standpoint. I run and bike in that area of Fish Creek all the time, and I don't want to have to look up and see and hear construction bull**** for the next 3 - 4 years.

[cDnStealth]

Kind of a shame. Growing up as a kid I had a junior membership to that course. It was nice being able to walk there and play a round every day during summer.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Lake Fraser Dr has a lot of traffic on it, more than you think. Putting all that traffic through residential feeder roads in Bonavista would not be effective.

What's the problem with the lights anyways? Only a bit further north you hit the larger backup at the lights near Southcentre. The lights at Lake Fraser stay green for Macleod quite a bit longer as well.

The problem with the lights is that (a) the ratio of users in the morning is roughly 5:10,000 (by my purely anecdotal and irritated calculation) and (b) they hold up those thousands of vehicles from getting North to the first legitimate E-W thoroughfare in the south. In other words, those lights at Southcentre are far enough north that a lot of volume has either headed east or west by that point, so its a greatly reduced issue.

The entire problem in the deep SW is that we have only two ways out. Macleod and 22x. At this point 22x is virtually useless to all but a few. Macleod is not a lot better, but after those lights in particular you have some options.

Just to really win some friends here though, my other deep desire is to run 14th Street over Fish Creek and across into Evergreen. That's what ought to have happened years ago.

Between the Ring Road (which I would run through Lakeview if no deal gets made quickly), my planned blockade of Lake Fraser Gate and the 14th Street bridge I figure the south will be in reasonable shape trafficwise. Then we just need the 162ave overpass.