[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[RM14]

Official report of how much is seeping into the Bow River.

http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/5693.pdf

[Addick]

Originally Posted by heep223

Then fix it. What a dumb dumb

Why should the City pay to fix it when they can wait for remediation to become a financially feasible option for a private developer?

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Addick

Why should the City pay to fix it when they can wait for remediation to become a financially feasible option for a private developer?

It won't.

If the city wants that prime waterfront land to be developed properly, making another great area of the city liveable and workable and paying taxes, they need to buck up and contribute as part of a private/public partnership.

Just like they did in East Village.

[bob-loblaw]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I would love if someone can clarify the following for me.

1. What is creosote?
2. Who contaminated this land?
3. What are the effects of creosote on humans?
4. How does it enter the body?
5. What does remediation of this land look like?

I can't get a straight answer on this anywhere. If someone knows and is willing to share this information, that would be greatly appreciated.

The province has a web page dedicated to the site - http://esrd.alberta.ca/lands-forests...e-testing.aspx. I read a little bit and it will probably answer some of your questions but not all.

[JohnnyT]

Originally Posted by Addick

Why should the City pay to fix it when they can wait for remediation to become a financially feasible option for a private developer?

Also the money isn't coming from somewhere else, the contamination wasn't due to the company breaking any rules or not following regulations while they were in business, so I think it would be a difficult court battle for the liability of the clean up costs.

No private developer will pay for the remediation, they might offer some financial support but every cost benefit analysis would tell them to build somewhere else if the remediation costs are factored in.

[Table 5]

To make development possible in the West Village, you need to do serious land remediation. To create enough space for a stadium, you need to re-route Bow Trail, probably 14th, as well as all the other roads. To handle extra traffic and do it in a way that encourages people not to drive, you may have to build not only a new bridge over the river, but perhaps a bigger connector to the Sunalta LRT. If you're going to do all this and shut down the route, it probably makes sense to fix the Crowchild/Bow mess as well at the same time.

To do it right, there's probably 2 Billion dollars worth of stuff to do before you even touch the arena/stadium portion. This is why I don't think this proposal sees the light of day without something big like an Olympics being tied to it. There are just way too many costs involved with this location.

I guess the good thing is that, if there are plans for the Flames/city/province/nation to spend money, now is not a bad time for it as costs are down, and people could use the work.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by RM14

Official report of how much is seeping into the Bow River.

http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/5693.pdf

March 2015 Report by Golder showing evidence that the creosote contamination is also present in West Hillhurst (although not at levels that increase risk of health effects).

[troutman]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

March 2015 Report by Golder showing evidence that the creosote contamination is also present in West Hillhurst (although not at levels that increase risk of health effects).

Can we eat our vegetables?

[CroFlames]

If it's seeping into the river, is the drinking water affected for Calgarians?

[Addick]

Originally Posted by heep223

It won't.

If the city wants that prime waterfront land to be developed properly, making another great area of the city liveable and workable and paying taxes, they need to buck up and contribute as part of a private/public partnership.

Just like they did in East Village.

It won't reach the point where a developer will fund the remediation and infrastructure improvements alone but the public burden will decrease. Pursuing the redevelopment of less costly brown/greyfield sites helps increase the value and viability of a regeneration scheme in the West Village and the burden private developers would be willing to carry.

At this point in time, can the West Village be deemed a priority?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

If it's seeping into the river, is the drinking water affected for Calgarians?

We don't drink directly from the Bow...so no.

[bob-loblaw]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

If it's seeping into the river, is the drinking water affected for Calgarians?

Drinking water is fine.

All the reports that I read focus on the testing results in West Hillhurst and the river. A containment system between the site and the river was built in the early 90's and this has been effective in minimizing seepage into and across the river. I haven't actually read anything yet that shows the level of contamination on the site itself.

If they're going to develop the entire area who knows how much remediation is needed and how long it would take to make it development friendly. That being said, does it really need to be 'really clean' if people aren't living there but only going there occasionally?

After reading all this though, and depending on the scope of the project, I'd just want to stay away from it. Who owns the land south of the tracks in Victoria Park up to the Stampede grounds? I'm sure you could build everything there.

[Enoch Root]

The creosote issue isn't going to just go away, it will continue to get worse (and more expensive)

As someone pointed out, commercial projects aren't going to pick up the tab, they could simply develop elsewhere

So governments are going to have to address the fact that this needs to be dealt with - and the sooner the better

Table 5 suggested it could cost $2B just to do the cleanup and roadwork for a WV project - I think that is a massive over-estimate (the entire SW LRT line, including re-doing the Sarcee/17 overpass, was $1.7B). However, like the creosote, those things need to be done at some point.

So the perfect situation for governments, is to have a commercial partner that is willing to participate in the costs. And only a massive project like this could even think about incorporating the types of costs involved.

In other words, this is EXACTLY what the city needs. And politicians who can't see that are just being short-sighted.

In virtually every city around the world, water-front property is among the most desired and best-developed. When I moved to Calgary, I was absolutely shocked at how much of the river-front was either industrial, really low-end, or completely wasted altogether. Developing EV has been a massive improvement. Developing WV will do the same. It would completely revamp the city's interior.

These are the types of projects that get people to want to live downtown, which is a major goal for the city.

What is needed is co-operation, and some leaders with vision, not petty politicians that can't see beyond the next budget.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The creosote issue isn't going to just go away, it will continue to get worse (and more expensive)

As someone pointed out, commercial projects aren't going to pick up the tab, they could simply develop elsewhere

So governments are going to have to address the fact that this needs to be dealt with - and the sooner the better

Table 5 suggested it could cost $2B just to do the cleanup and roadwork for a WV project - I think that is a massive over-estimate (the entire SW LRT line, including re-doing the Sarcee/17 overpass, was $1.7B). However, like the creosote, those things need to be done at some point.

So the perfect situation for governments, is to have a commercial partner that is willing to participate in the costs. And only a massive project like this could even think about incorporating the types of costs involved.

In other words, this is EXACTLY what the city needs. And politicians who can't see that are just being short-sighted.

In virtually every city around the world, water-front property is among the most desired and best-developed. When I moved to Calgary, I was absolutely shocked at how much of the river-front was either industrial, really low-end, or completely wasted altogether. Developing EV has been a massive improvement. Developing WV will do the same. It would completely revamp the city's interior.

These are the types of projects that get people to want to live downtown, which is a major goal for the city.

What is needed is co-operation, and some leaders with vision, not petty politicians that can't see beyond the next budget.

1000x this. Of course as a flames and stamps ticket holder I want this done, but it would be great for the city remediate that black hole of the west village right on the river front.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Addick

It won't reach the point where a developer will fund the remediation and infrastructure improvements alone but the public burden will decrease. Pursuing the redevelopment of less costly brown/greyfield sites helps increase the value and viability of a regeneration scheme in the West Village and the burden private developers would be willing to carry.

At this point in time, can the West Village be deemed a priority?

Really not sure what your point is here. You're saying if the city cleans up other contaminated sites that are less expensive, it will make the W Village cleanup more tolerable for private developers? I must be misinterpreting.

The West Village needs to get developed and yes it's a priority, particularly now that East Village is finishing. There's already a plan for it. It won't get developed privately because the economics make no sense - needs to be a partnership.

[albertGQ]

The thing I hate most about McMahon Stadium is going pee in those long urinals while wearing shorts and flip flops. I get urine splashed on my toes and ankles and then realise I haven't even started peeing yet

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

The thing I hate most about McMahon Stadium is going pee in those long urinals while wearing shorts and flip flops. I get urine splashed on my toes and ankles and then realise I haven't even started peeing yet

[BigFlameDog]

It is undoubtedly a much larger mess but the Town of Cochrane pushed a lot of the costs for cleaning up the creosote mess at The Quarry onto the developer. Now the developer received some sweet tax breaks and a little lower land costs but that mess was not getting cleaned up any other way.

Area looks great and is filling up fast.

edit...I would have to go back and revisit but I certainly had no problem with whatever deal T of C came up with.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by heep223

Really not sure what your point is here. You're saying if the city cleans up other contaminated sites that are less expensive, it will make the W Village cleanup more tolerable for private developers? I must be misinterpreting.

Not exactly. I'm saying that the City can prepare other lands for development at less or virtually no cost. By reducing the amount of brown/greyfield sites left for redevelopment the sites that remain increase in value. Consequently, the landowner can then devote some or all of that increased value to the cost of remediation thereby reducing the amount required from the City.

Originally Posted by heep223

The West Village needs to get developed and yes it's a priority, particularly now that East Village is finishing. There's already a plan for it. It won't get developed privately because the economics make no sense - needs to be a partnership.

Is it really a need? Are there no other large areas or numerous sites that have great redevelopment potential?

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Addick

Not exactly. I'm saying that the City can prepare other lands for development at less or virtually no cost. By reducing the amount of brown/greyfield sites left for redevelopment the sites that remain increase in value. Consequently, the landowner can then devote some or all of that increased value to the cost of remediation thereby reducing the amount required from the City.









Is it really a need? Are there no other large areas or numerous sites that have great redevelopment potential?

I'm missing your logic, or misinterpreting. Increasing the value of the land, if as in your scenario there was a shortage of sites to develop, isn't going to help a private developer. It's going to hinder the economics even further. You have to look at this from the point of view of the developer as well as the city.