Harvest Hills Golf Course To Be Turned Into Houses

[Northendzone]

Worst part for the home owners is the adjustment from backing on to a golf course, to having a front row seat to construction for a couple of years.

You have to think that it would reduce the value of a$50k or so, maybe more during the construction phase....

[Bill Bumface]

People end up living near construction all the time. In the inner city, your neighbor's house could get torn down, and at best, you get an infill, at worst, a giant commercial or residential building that takes a couple years to build.

Buying a piece of land doesn't come with an inherent right to dictate what your neighbors do. I would be choked if zoning changed dramatically for sure, but if your golf course view goes to a park view and you had to sit through some construction? Meh.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Buying a piece of land doesn't come with an inherent right to dictate what your neighbors do.

I would have thought it would have been obvious, but downtown condo owners freak out when they lose their view because of a new tower. It's probably inevitable if next to you is an old crappy uninhabited shack of a building.

[Muta]

I don't get it. An inner city golf course, pretty much the rarest of specimens these days, and we're getting rid of this one too?

I'm all for densification, but this city has less golf courses per citizen than it did 20 years ago. The population has effectively doubled, and no new courses have been built. Oh sure, private ones have been built recently, but many of us can't afford a $30,000 membership fee. We don't all work in the energy sector.

What happens to people who actually want to play golf as a pastime? It's hard enough to get a booking at a decent time as is. Harvest Hills was a needed course. It was well maintained too, such a shame.

[shermanator]

Harvest Hills is in no way "inner city".

[Locke]

Originally Posted by shermanator

Harvest Hills is in no way "inner city".

Are you a realtor? I just swung a cat and didnt hit one ergo the answer is that you must be a realtor. Harvest Hills will one day be Inner City. Buy Now!!!

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Muta

I don't get it. An inner city golf course, pretty much the rarest of specimens these days, and we're getting rid of this one too?

I'm all for densification, but this city has less golf courses per citizen than it did 20 years ago. The population has effectively doubled, and no new courses have been built. Oh sure, private ones have been built recently, but many of us can't afford a $30,000 membership fee. We don't all work in the energy sector.

What happens to people who actually want to play golf as a pastime? It's hard enough to get a booking at a decent time as is. Harvest Hills was a needed course. It was well maintained too, such a shame.

There is the question of why someone (owner or the city) should subsidize a golf course.
If they are making less from the course than they could get for selling it then selling it is the prudent choice.

[4X4]

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.

Have you been to any new communities lately? All of them have multi-family.

Originally Posted by 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.

Lol. Builders build what sells. Right now, in Calgary (in the suburbs), that's single family. With a bit of multi family.


It's always amusing to read threads like this. All these claims that "the builders" are raping the land to make money, and pretty much shoving houses down peoples' throats. Nobody is buying a 30th floor condo in f'n Evanston, so that's why there are no 30 floor buildings being built up there. Single family and townhouses are flying off the shelves... Guess what's under construction?

There is a difference between builders and developers... And the City. Developers buy land, create an area structure plan, get it approved by the City, install services, and sell lots (or blocks of lots) to builders. Builders build what is allowed on the pre approved lots. The City approves all of it. So stop whining about the companies that are just there to provide a service, that play within the rules. If you want to complain, call the City. Tell them that it pisses you off that your Saturday jaunt to Banff was a total drag because you were looking at houses for too long. Tell them that even though you live in a house in Canyon Meadows, all new home owners should be buying 30th floor condos in Evanston. Urban sprawl needs to stop. And the only way to stop it is to make people that bought after you did, to buy condos.

Or, they could allow redevelopment of something like a golf course. Even better, Nose Hill (hi Sliver!).

[Muta]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

There is the question of why someone (owner or the city) should subsidize a golf course.
If they are making less from the course than they could get for selling it then selling it is the prudent choice.

I, and I'm sure many others like me, am happy my taxes go towards keeping public golf courses open. I use them regularly. Harvest Hills may not have been a public course, but it was just as cheap to play as a public course. If McCall Lake gets closed eventually, that's gonna be ever worse.

If the owner wants to sell it to generate revenue, so be it, it's their choice... it just sucks, that's all. Affordable golf is hard to come by as is for a population base of 1.2M and growing.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Muta

I, and I'm sure many others like me, am happy my taxes go towards keeping public golf courses open. I use them regularly. Harvest Hills may not have been a public course, but it was just as cheap to play as a public course. If McCall Lake gets closed eventually, that's gonna be ever worse.

If the owner wants to sell it to generate revenue, so be it, it's their choice... it just sucks, that's all. Affordable golf is hard to come by as is for a population base of 1.2M and growing.

I'm not sure "affordable golf" is something I want to be paying higher taxes and restricting property rights to protect.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by shermanator

Harvest Hills is in no way "inner city".

maybe he meant inner city limits?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'm not sure "affordable golf" is something I want to be paying higher taxes and restricting property rights to protect.

What about community hockey rinks, soccer fields, and baseball diamonds? I guessing that there must be some sport you enjoy recreationally.

And unlike most of those mentioned, golf is something that you can just pick up and play; either by yourself or even with just one or two other friends. It doesn't require the organization of the other sports. Obviously golf isn't that demanding of a sport, but it's something.

We all have something that we use that is partially government funded that others may consider a waste.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Buying a piece of land doesn't come with an inherent right to dictate what your neighbors do.

Too bad. I was just about to ask you to move the giant-ass bin in front of your house.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by ken0042

What about community hockey rinks, soccer fields, and baseball diamonds? I guessing that there must be some sport you enjoy recreationally.

And unlike most of those mentioned, golf is something that you can just pick up and play; either by yourself or even with just one or two other friends. It doesn't require the organization of the other sports. Obviously golf isn't that demanding of a sport, but it's something.

We all have something that we use that is partially government funded that others may consider a waste.

That is a very valid point. I wonder what the cost per user is like for various rec facilities provided by the city.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Muta

I, and I'm sure many others like me, am happy my taxes go towards keeping public golf courses open. I use them regularly. Harvest Hills may not have been a public course, but it was just as cheap to play as a public course. If McCall Lake gets closed eventually, that's gonna be ever worse.

Public and publicly owned are two different things. Harvest Hills is a privately-owned public course in that you don't need to be a member to play it, as opposed to a city-owned public course.

It was owned by the same group that owns the Hamptons, Silverwing, Boulder Creek, Springbank Links and is planning on building the "Mickelson National" as well.

[T@T]

Not hard to tell golfer's from non golfer's in this thread.

[MoneyGuy]

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.

You're right. This development is not densification.

I'm a little surprised that Calgary zoning would permit this change of use. Bad planning?

[PsYcNeT]

As a Harvest Hills resident (other side of the community thankfully) and someone who occasionally golfs at this course, I'm more concerned about the increase in traffic.

Other than that, meh. It's a mediocre 9 hole. Nice to save gas, but it certainly wasn't my favorite course. As well, their online booking system was always wonky and they had a restriction on when you could book in advance.

[Bigtime]

Oh come on:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...822945?cmp=rss

"It will totally destroy the environment and the whole neighbourhood pretty much," she said.

Overreact much?

You know what would "totally destroy" the neighbourhood? If a CP train carrying crazy explosive stuff derails right there and blows up while at the same time an Antonov cargo plane departs the airport, loses two engines and veers to the west and crashes into the heart of the community.

[Bigtime]

Here's my Bigtime pro-tip to any residents of Harvest Hills and the surrounding area that are concerned/curious about the potential redevelopment of the course.

Quantum Place Developments is going to be holding multiple open houses and other venues for community feedback on this site. They haven't decided anything at this point. So it's a really good opportunity for people to help shape the development through their feedback.

With a guy like Chris Ollenberger running Quantum you may just find that something pretty cool could be done with input from the community and them.

Or you can get out the pitchforks and use the typical rallying cries of "traffic", "crime", "social engineering" and see where that gets you.