CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Do New Yorkers plan on leaving the Hurricane Sandy mess or do something about it?

Is L.A. marketing Skid Row as a tourist destination or are there plans to revitalize that part of the city?

I'm guessing both aren't long term plans to be kept as is ... I'm merely suggesting Calgary should do something about developing land west of their down town core to add to a growing city.

No buzz words there.

I can't speak to New York as I don't know, but Skid Row has been a part of LA for more than 100 years. Unless they are going to truck out homeless people by the thousands it isn't going anywhere.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by RM14

LOL, the CMLC was on board with CalgaryNEXT...

Can you source this? I don't recall that being the case.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Fair enough, I wasn't thinking the same as I typed.

I still think your point of Calgary Deserving something is over the top.

Based on what?

I mayor bought land that can't possibly be developed because of prohibitive costs and me suggesting Calgarians deserve something for that investment is over the top?

Not in my books.

If they don't need an anchor tenant and the math doesn't work then do something else.

If an anchor tenant will help, and the mayor is serious about an Olympic games that will require new buildings (could end up costing the city 100% of the bill for them) then maybe he's making a big mistake.

Notice I'm not backing the CalgaryNext plan in any way ... just drop the crap and talk about it and come to a conclusion without all the BS and posturing.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Can you source this? I don't recall that being the case.

Diane Colley-Urquhart mentioned it in an interview on 960

[Muta]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Is this a good idea? I know the rail link to the airport in Toronto has been a giant failure. Just not sure there's a ton of people who want to take public transit to and from an airport.

Pearson is ridiculously far from downtown, though.

In Calgary, let's see... should I spend $50 to go from Killarney to the airport via taxi (not even the furthest location in Calgary), should I spend $50 on parking fees for the duration of my trip there, or should I spend $5 and take the train?

I know my selection if budget means anything to anyone... which it does to most people.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Can you source this? I don't recall that being the case.

They had representatives from the CMLC at the original presentation in August 2015 who took the stage.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Calgarians deserve something

You sure throw the word "deserve" out a lot.

People forget that most cities of ~1MM population would trade us for our core in a second.

We don't "deserve" to be Manhattan.

Does the East Village "deserve" to stay half vacant lots because we double down on the amount of land made available for development in the vicinity of downtown?

No question if Calgary continues to grow the West Village will be redeveloped. Hopefully into something great. I don't think anyone argues that this won't be a great thing.

The timing? You have office vacancy at 30% and residential demand is drying up while condos continue to get built. As it stands the East Village could take another 20 years to fill out. If you cannibalize that development by offering up more land to developers, it gets worse.

Did we already forget it was 11 years between the twin towers of Banker's Hall going up? We are not in dissimilar times.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

You sure throw the word "deserve" out a lot.

People forget that most cities of ~1MM population would trade us for our core in a second.

We don't "deserve" to be Manhattan.

Does the East Village "deserve" to stay half vacant lots because we double down on the amount of land made available for development in the vicinity of downtown?

No question if Calgary continues to grow the West Village will be redeveloped. Hopefully into something great. I don't think anyone argues that this won't be a great thing.

The timing? You have office vacancy at 30% and residential demand is drying up while condos continue to get built. As it stands the East Village could take another 20 years to fill out. If you cannibalize that development by offering up more land to developers, it gets worse.

Did we already forget it was 11 years between the twin towers of Banker's Hall going up? We are not in dissimilar times.

Your aspirations for our city are incredible. You should run for mayor.

[GioforPM]

For the record: I never said the West End was "blighted". However, it is contaminated and definitely not attractive, revenue generating or "big city-like". Actually "contaminated so you can't build or grow stuff" is close to the definition of blighted.

The 2010 West Village plan wasn't a CMLC plan. CMLC seems to have only become involved in anything to do with the west end in 2015. All they are doing is the environmental assessment.

Like I said before, I understand the "no tax dollars" sentiment. Too bad the sentiment wasn't there when the city bought the land (and they bought more than just the creosote infected lands).

Calgary has the oldest arena in the NHL (save MSG which was been completely redone), a very very tired football stadium, no decent athletics facilities and no really decent destination entertainment district. I think the west end would have worked. IMO it's pretty much a dead issue, and the only question is how little of the foregoing Calgary gets.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

You sure throw the word "deserve" out a lot.

People forget that most cities of ~1MM population would trade us for our core in a second.

We don't "deserve" to be Manhattan.

Does the East Village "deserve" to stay half vacant lots because we double down on the amount of land made available for development in the vicinity of downtown?

No question if Calgary continues to grow the West Village will be redeveloped. Hopefully into something great. I don't think anyone argues that this won't be a great thing.

The timing? You have office vacancy at 30% and residential demand is drying up while condos continue to get built. As it stands the East Village could take another 20 years to fill out. If you cannibalize that development by offering up more land to developers, it gets worse.

Did we already forget it was 11 years between the twin towers of Banker's Hall going up? We are not in dissimilar times.

Is East Village really half empty now? It seems to me that every lot there is already developed or under development now. I drive through that area every time I go to the dome, and I can't think of an empty lot stat isn't under development already. I'll drive slower on my way tonight and double check.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Your aspirations for our city are incredible. You should run for mayor.

What did you take away as my aspirations for the city?

To me it looks like:

-A built out East Village in the near term
-A built out West Village in the long term to follow

So yes, basically a proponent of this:

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Muta

There already is an RFP out for a functional study of the blue line being extended to the airport, with six new stations along the way.

There is some actual work behind what Nenshi is saying, and it's been out since before he said it. From my view, this is further along than most people probably think.

Interesting, although it seems straightforward that it would simply continue up 60 St past Saddletown and turn left at Airport Trail...they could complete the tunnel to nowhere at the same time. I'm not sure how it gets to the terminal at that point though - I imagine it would be raised (assuming underground is more $$$), but the whole endeavour seems pointless if the station isn't located centrally for both terminals. Was this planned for in the construction of the new terminal and roadways?

Not sure where the 6 stations would be?

As for ridership, it's important to remember the number of staff who work at the airport as one of the biggest user groups.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Is East Village really half empty now? It seems to me that every lot there is already developed or under development now. I drive through that area every time I go to the dome, and I can't think of an empty lot stat isn't under development already. I'll drive slower on my way tonight and double check.

I'm just not counting anything until it's above grade. I agree if everything that has broken ground or is planned goes ahead all the way, it will be getting closer for sure.

There have, however, been enough pits left as pits and buildings capped at grade in the past that I don't get too excited with the way economics are looking for some of these projects.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Is this a good idea? I know the rail link to the airport in Toronto has been a giant failure. Just not sure there's a ton of people who want to take public transit to and from an airport.

I can't speak to it being a failure but for business travelers arriving in Toronto, it is a God send. They make it incredibly easy to get downtown to Union Station from the airport. It would take twice as long by driver.

[Bunk]

Getting testy in here. Sheesh.

Anyway, on the CMLC question - they were tasked to do the first cuts at feasibility analysis of a CRL in West Village, and also had a hand in evaluating CalgaryNEXT and the environmental remediation requirements. They are now also formally partnered with Calgary Stampede to sort of act as their developer in their expansion plans. It's much more the core competency of CMLC, and very much not the Stampede's. This is a smart move for many reasons.

I'd imagine if the arena goes ahead (either EV or WV) - CMLC would be the likely developer, as they are for the Central Library, for instance.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I'm just not counting anything until it's above grade. I agree if everything that has broken ground or is planned goes ahead all the way, it will be getting closer for sure.

There have, however, been enough pits left as pits and buildings capped at grade in the past that I don't get too excited with the way economics are looking for some of these projects.

Blue is completed, under construction, or likely to start construction in the next year or so.

Red is everything else. Probably about 75% of the total volume of units between say 2018 and 2035 (when I'd guess more or less full absorption, assuming a pretty strong economy ~500-600 units/yr).

[Tyler]

I'm not buying Plan B until Ken King formally comes out and says CalgaryNext is dead.

I think the X-factor right now is the Olympics, and we won't know if we are bidding until June.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Bidding is not good enough to get CalgaryNEXT built, they have to actually win the bid. And that isn't happening until 2019, when we have both a federal and provincial election to further complicate matters. And of course means at the very best CalgaryNEXT is something to open in the 2023-2024 range. As I've long maintained, the timing of this simply sucks. 2005-2009 was the window to get this done, and they didn't do it. Now they have to settle for an arena only, which is still good is it not?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Tyler

I think the X-factor right now is the Olympics, and we won't know if we are bidding until June.

One thing to keep in mind though even if we are bidding, is that the Olympic selection won't be made till 2019. So If the plan is hinging on the Olympics, that's almost 3 years away before that's confirmed and they can commence with construction. And of course it's no guarantee, so if we lose, it's back to square one.

This thing is probably going to get dragged out for a good part of another decade.

Of course the Flames could just buy some land and build an arena on their own, like any other business would be expected to...

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Based on what?

I mayor bought land that can't possibly be developed because of prohibitive costs and me suggesting Calgarians deserve something for that investment is over the top?

Not in my books.

If they don't need an anchor tenant and the math doesn't work then do something else.

If an anchor tenant will help, and the mayor is serious about an Olympic games that will require new buildings (could end up costing the city 100% of the bill for them) then maybe he's making a big mistake.

Notice I'm not backing the CalgaryNext plan in any way ... just drop the crap and talk about it and come to a conclusion without all the BS and posturing.

PM'ed