Harvest Hills Golf Course To Be Turned Into Houses

[Addick]

Originally Posted by darklord700

I'm thinking about fairness to the existing homeowners. They obviously paid more to have a house backing onto a golf course. Now that doesn't mean that the piece of land that was a golf course before can only stay a golf course forever. But what protection do homeowners have?

Purchasing their house did not give these homeowners the right to control what their neighbours can do with their land. In terms of fairness, we have to consider the development rights of the relevant landowners.

While a neighbour cannot dictate what his/her neighbour does with their land, the planning systems does provide protection from: incompatible land uses, noxious uses, and the reduction of certain amenities on their land.

Land value is not often considered a material planning consideration. Purchasing a house includes an element of risk and it is not the planning system’s role to reduce this risk.

[darklord700]

This will make me think twice if ever I am contemplating buying a house backing on to a golf course.

[Flashpoint]

Developers want to make money, not build "fair communities".

They had people pay extra for houses near a golf course. Now they need the golf course to build more new houses. They don't make money once the houses are sold, so they are always looking for either more room for urban sprawl or further densification of existing property.

In 25 years you'll see houses being taken down and replaced with small apartment blocks. We already have lawns paved over for multi family parking in single homes. Clearly there is a market, and developers will be capitalizing until there is a housing bust.

[Regular_John]

On the one hand I do feel the home owners, our condo complex is right up against fish creek and I enjoy a pretty decent view from my office window. I can walk out my front door and be fully immersed in nature in 5-10 minutes.

So I know how nice it is living next to green space. I'd be rightly pissed if it were ever sold off and filled with homes.

But the fact is home builders wouldn't be building so many damn single family, suburban homes if there wasn't a market for them. The city saying "no more growing out" doesn't suddenly change what buyers are looking for, so of course the builders are going to snatch up any available land for single family homes that they can.

It's easy to paint the homebuilders as boogie men (and don't get me wrong, some of them are), but there's other market forces at play, and money talks.

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Can someone please post a general overview of the city's growth strategy? We hear a lot of "there will be no more suburban growth" but I imagine this is mostly hyperbole.

I'm all about living that latte sipping urban life but if someone wants to live out on the periphery I have no problem with it as long as developers are on the hook for the services for these new communities.

I'd rather the city of Calgary grow and along with that the taxpayer base grow instead of growth go to ammenity sucking parasite communities.

[1stLand]

I support this Development.
As long as there are plenty of Condos. Bike Lanes. Gelato Shops. Latte & Tea cafes.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Man do I feel bad for those homeowners. Shades of Shawnee Slopes....
I don't think the thought of the course closing down would ever cross my mind. Well not until recently anyways. Until Shawnee, had that ever happened in Calgary before?

I still mourn the loss of Shawnee. Not the greatest course ever created but played tons there. Loved that place.

[fredr123]

Chris Ollenberger — managing principal with QuantumPlace Developments Ltd., the company acting as development manager for the project — said Cedarglen has the ability to build single-family homes, duplexes, townhouses, and multi-family dwellings. He said the company will not make any decisions about the design of the Harvest Hills project until it hears from residents.

“We’re looking for this project to have community involvement from the start,” he said.

Ollenberger said city council has told developers it wants to see more densification within the existing boundaries of the city. Redeveloping the Harvest Hills Golf Course is one way to do that.

“With 38,000 people a year coming into Calgary, we really have to figure out different ways to house everybody,” Ollenberger said. “If it’s not sustainable or fiscally responsible — as council has indicated — to continue growing out, then we need to look at our in-stock inventory and say, ‘where can we densify?’ ”

This is the part that bugs me the most, I think. I don't know for sure, but when the City Council talks about densification, I always thought they meant moving away from adding more sprawling suburbs full of single family housing. Taking existing green spaces and green areas to add more single family dwellings (albeit Ollenberger says they have the ability to add multi-family housing as well) wasn't what I thought Council had in mind. It seems somewhat disingenuous that the developers are making it sound like they are just doing what the City wants.

[Hockeyguy15]

I wonder why the city isn't offering up one of their golf courses for the developers to build on.

[Ozy_Flame]

Played Harvest Hills for the first time this year, absolutely loved it. Would be tragic if they got rid of the course, this city seems to be decreasing the number of courses while the population increases. When McCall Lake and Harvest Hills get shut down, what's left for affordable golf in the area?

[calf]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

I wonder why the city isn't offering up one of their golf courses for the developers to build on.

Weren't they going to do that with McCall Lake?

[DOOM]

Originally Posted by calf

Weren't they going to do that with McCall Lake?

I believe the plan was to build a big athletic park.

[darklord700]

I think to builders in the Harvest Hills area, desification will yield more profit. Say for two average lots, you can sell two SFH for $500K each. Can you sell 3 townhouse for $400K each and net $200K more? Probably. I think consultation with the resident is just a ploy. Builders only listen to their own accountants and never the existing residents.

[Hack&Lube]

Instead of more bland homes, why not add density (and profitability) to developers by putting in condo towers (30+ floors) and leaving green spaces mostly unmolested?

[tvp2003]

Shawnee 2.0.

I know some people in Harvest Hills (including someone who's backyard backs on to the course). Crappy situation but probably not much they can do to prevent development, only ensure the effects aren't too detrimental to their property (and property values).

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by fredr123

This is the part that bugs me the most, I think. I don't know for sure, but when the City Council talks about densification, I always thought they meant moving away from adding more sprawling suburbs full of single family housing. Taking existing green spaces and green areas to add more single family dwellings (albeit Ollenberger says they have the ability to add multi-family housing as well) wasn't what I thought Council had in mind. It seems somewhat disingenuous that the developers are making it sound like they are just doing what the City wants.

Who ultimately approves or vetos any particular housing development? The City Council? The planning department? Some small department tucked in the basement behind some staircase?

As an outsider, it seems to me that if the City doesn't want such a development to occur, the City has (or had) ways to ensure that the development doesn't go forward. But if the City lets the development proceed, then perhaps the developers are really just doing what they are allowed to do.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by calf

Weren't they going to do that with McCall Lake?

McCall Lake also has planes flying like 500m overhead. I don't imagine it's prime residential land.

[You Need a Thneed]

McCall lake proposed redevelopment didn't have any residential. Actually, it's not even allowed, due to airport noise regulations.

[Fleaburn]

..

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Does anyone know how much property values would depress with the loss of a golf course? In my head I can't see it being all that much if they convert some of the golf course into public green space. Has anyone seen changes in value at Shawnee Slopes yet?