Westbrook Redevelopment Project

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by eggbert

Is that whole SE portion of the site just a park?

Not all of it. The area extending SW of the train station is a walkway with the copper roofed LRT thing sticking out of the ground. They are supposed to landscape that area. So you have a thin strip SE of the LRT and the land on the south of the site that butts up against 17th ave. Central to the Westbrook parcel on that south side was supposed to be the major entrance to the central park of Westbrook village, which can be seen on previous posts on this thread.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by Tropics

Normally I would not either but the city spent a huge sum of money on the WLRT and that land is on the only underground LRT station in this city and Westbrook station was BUILT to be a TOD hub. The tax payers paid a huge amount of money on Westbrook and now the owners of the mall have decided to make that taxpayers money a waste.

So because the city spent too much money on an underground LRT station and potentially wasted tax payer dollars, the developers should break a long standing and likely lucrative lease with Walmart to fix some planners vision for the site. last time i checked, the mall and owner was there before the city lrt or their "new" vision. Perhaps the city and their consultants should have done a better job of consulting with the land owner on things like the planned park through the middle of their best tenant and site, or looked into the economic likelihood of their redevelopment scheme before creating the glossy images that they used to sell the underground LRT station to council and the public.

sorry for the rant, but it drives me crazy when the city creates big glossy plans for private landowners sites, and then blame is tossed on the landowner for not following exactly through some planners or consultants vision even if its not economically viable.
Compare this to the Chinook LRT station, where you have an owner who has plans to better connect their land to the station and instead, you have Calgary Transit put in an econo plan for the station which IMHO makes the whole area worse for redevelopment. and ugly to boot.

[brentwood]

It is becoming apparent that Westbrook is headed in the same direction as North Hill Mall. Around 30 years after the LRT arrived at Lions Park station, you have a lipstick on a pig mall reno and a couple of twelve? storey condo towers to show for it. And nothing else on the horizon except a few battles over preserving "views" out of the said condo towers. This whole TOD thing in Calgary has the makings of a series of huge letdowns. I don't thing any of us will live long enough to see even one TOD come close to its potential.

[TallBob]

brentwood: I think you might be right! Sad thing is some LRT development in the long-run probably won't slow down "urban sprawl" either! Just like the parking by-law for new development downtown, Beltline & west end making it difficult and costly for larger buildings to be developed!

[Design-mind]

Originally Posted by brentwood

This whole TOD thing in Calgary has the makings of a series of huge letdowns. I don't thing any of us will live long enough to see even one TOD come close to its potential.

Agree this is a slow slow process, maybe the incentives need to be increased. We might start to see the incentives being used as Mayor Nenshi is putting the brakes on urban sprawl.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by Design-mind

Agree this is a slow slow process, maybe the incentives need to be increased. We might start to see the incentives being used as Mayor Nenshi is putting the brakes on urban sprawl.

Incentives would be almost the opposite of what we currently get. The city instead puts in restrictions on parking, affordable housing requirements, ect... and then expects awesome developments to be proposed. Calgary does need some serious redevelopment and increased density in many areas and those around major transit stations are certainly one such area where urban sprawl can be slowed, but the city has to stop with the lip service of "saying" they want increased density and slower urban sprawl and start actually creating an environment for developers where great TODs can be built and the people of the city can actually be shown real alternatives to a house in the burbs.

Density increases in the Beltline are great but a TOD has a chance to be a different type of dense housing option that will potentially attract more families due to being outside of the core, having park space such as the Westbrook TOD plan shows, and having more amenities such as grocery stores within the TOD itself and thus making the TOD act like it's own little community with all the day to day amenities within.

[lorenavedon]

Originally Posted by Design-mind

Agree this is a slow slow process, maybe the incentives need to be increased. We might start to see the incentives being used as Mayor Nenshi is putting the brakes on urban sprawl.

incentives? how about the fact that it's cheaper to buy a house in the burbs than a 600sqft condo in downtown. This isn't Manhattan. If Nenshi wants to stop sprawl, he needs more affordable housing in more central locations. Not ever condo needs idiotic fisher & paykel appliances and granite countertops

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by brentwood

It is becoming apparent that Westbrook is headed in the same direction as North Hill Mall. Around 30 years after the LRT arrived at Lions Park station, you have a lipstick on a pig mall reno and a couple of twelve? storey condo towers to show for it. And nothing else on the horizon except a few battles over preserving "views" out of the said condo towers. This whole TOD thing in Calgary has the makings of a series of huge letdowns. I don't thing any of us will live long enough to see even one TOD come close to its potential.

Sooner or later you guys have to come to terms with the fact that not every retailer or commercial land owner is a real estate speculator just waiting to sell out to condo developers. If the city wants some of these these locations they will have to expropriate them.

[Spring2008]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

incentives? how about the fact that it's cheaper to buy a house in the burbs than a 600sqft condo in downtown. This isn't Manhattan. If Nenshi wants to stop sprawl, he needs more affordable housing in more central locations. Not ever condo needs idiotic fisher & paykel appliances and granite countertops

I agree. It's nice to have all this high-end product, but what the city needs for a truly big, big shift towards inner city living is more new affordable entry level market product. Seems like new developments are already trending towards $600psf. What's next? I've heard the new Concord towers in Eau-Claire are aiming for $800 -1,000psf, and the next set of developments in East-Village in a few years will likely be in that $800psf range as well. Part of the reason for the high pricing is I think developer profit margins are too high here. More competition welcomed.

Edit - take the EV psf future numbers with a grain of salt, but regardless the average prices are high, and continuing to increase YoY,

[O-tacular]

I agree inner city needs to become more affordable for people besides students. We have still yet to see 3 bedroom condos that are remotely feasible for most families. Sadly the inner city has become a place for only renters and the rich.

[Policy Wonk]

The second mouse gets the cheese.

[floobie]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

incentives? how about the fact that it's cheaper to buy a house in the burbs than a 600sqft condo in downtown. This isn't Manhattan. If Nenshi wants to stop sprawl, he needs more affordable housing in more central locations. Not ever condo needs idiotic fisher & paykel appliances and granite countertops

I have to agree with this (not sure if it's really Nenshi's fault, though). I'd love to say I'm properly "in the market" right now, but I've been keeping an eye on condo developments for a few years now, for when I finally am.

It definitely bugs me that seemingly every new development is being branded as "luxurious" with all kinds of amenities in the building, crazy expensive appliances and fittings, and pools/concierges/game rooms/party rooms/theatre rooms/etc. How about something of reasonable quality but otherwise fairly utilitarian? In car terms, it feels like we have the following being built:

- Full-size luxury sedans (S-Class et al. - the big, high-end units)
- Compact luxury sedans (3-series et al. - the smaller, high-end units)
- Cheaper, kinda crappy American luxury cars (Chrysler 300 and the like - the Pointe ofe Viewe type developments)

What we need are some Japanese/German compacts (Corolla, Civic, Golf, etc.)

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

incentives? how about the fact that it's cheaper to buy a house in the burbs than a 600sqft condo in downtown. This isn't Manhattan. If Nenshi wants to stop sprawl, he needs more affordable housing in more central locations. Not ever condo needs idiotic fisher & paykel appliances and granite countertops

How will "affordable" housing/condos stop sprawl?

To stop sprawl you have to build alternatives to the suburb lifestyle that creates sprawl to begin with. It is those who are inclined to, and can afford to buy and live in a house in the burbs that you need to build an alternative for because it is them that create sprawl.

A lower income person who can only afford $1200 a month for their dwelling is not living in a $400,000 house in the burbs and they are not the ones causing sprawl. It is the people who can afford to buy the $400,000+ houses in the burbs that are creating the sprawl and it is them you need to target and create alternatives for.

Affordable housing in tiny lower quality condo complexes is not an alternative to those people. They are not going to buy and live in a lower end $250,000 condo instead of their $400,000 in the burbs.

Those cheaper units are going to target two types of buyers, lower income owner/occupiers who are "already" renting in higher density housing, or investors that will buy those units and rent them to people who can only afford to live in higher density housing in the first place.

Cheap condos do not stop sprawl, you are targeting the entirely wrong demographic to actually stop sprawl if you build cheap.

Cheap housing has lots of positive community and economic benefits, don't get me wrong, but solving sprawl is "not" one of them.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Tropics

How will "affordable" housing/condos stop sprawl?

To stop sprawl you have to build alternatives to the suburb lifestyle that creates sprawl to begin with. It is those who are inclined to, and can afford to buy and live in a house in the burbs that you need to build an alternative for because it is them that create sprawl.

A lower income person who can only afford $1200 a month for their dwelling is not living in a $400,000 house in the burbs and they are not the ones causing sprawl. It is the people who can afford to buy the $400,000+ houses in the burbs that are creating the sprawl and it is them you need to target and create alternatives for.

Affordable housing in tiny lower quality condo complexes is not an alternative to those people. They are not going to buy and live in a lower end $250,000 condo instead of their $400,000 in the burbs.

Those cheaper units are going to target two types of buyers, lower income owner/occupiers who are "already" renting in higher density housing, or investors that will buy those units and rent them to people who can only afford to live in higher density housing in the first place.

Cheap condos do not stop sprawl, you are targeting the entirely wrong demographic to actually stop sprawl if you build cheap.

Cheap housing has lots of positive community and economic benefits, don't get me wrong, but solving sprawl is "not" one of them.

I think Westbrook will be quite a nice node once those lots get snapped up in the next few years. Ongoing densification along 17th and in surrounding neighbourhoods will help this process.

At the end through a combination of increasing congestion and commute times as well as a shift to charge suburban dwellers closer to their real cost of their housing choices will price more people into denser locations over the next generation regardless of what many assume people want or don't want. It is not a war on the suburbs, its a lifting of the siege on the inner city.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by floobie

I have to agree with this (not sure if it's really Nenshi's fault, though). I'd love to say I'm properly "in the market" right now, but I've been keeping an eye on condo developments for a few years now, for when I finally am.

It definitely bugs me that seemingly every new development is being branded as "luxurious" with all kinds of amenities in the building, crazy expensive appliances and fittings, and pools/concierges/game rooms/party rooms/theatre rooms/etc. How about something of reasonable quality but otherwise fairly utilitarian? In car terms, it feels like we have the following being built:

- Full-size luxury sedans (S-Class et al. - the big, high-end units)
- Compact luxury sedans (3-series et al. - the smaller, high-end units)
- Cheaper, kinda crappy American luxury cars (Chrysler 300 and the like - the Pointe ofe Viewe type developments)

What we need are some Japanese/German compacts (Corolla, Civic, Golf, etc.)

Good analogy, and you're right. Ideally, Calgary could use more 2-bedroom condos (~1000-1300 sqft) for $350-400k and minimal condo fees. My hunch is that we will get this (with inflation) in 10-20 years time, when things cool off. Less and/or streamlined building/zoning regulation and better protection&guarantees for buyers might help. The market predominantly focuses on young, family-less people (more often male), millionaires with multiple dwellings, and investors, but I hope this changes over time so more middle class families are attracted. Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic on this front, because I think Calgary is just beginning to attract more real estate investors and is becoming more socially fragmented.

As great as high-density living can be, development sure requires on a lot of capital risk that SFH builders can avoid. I'm in favour of more 4~ish storey buildings across the city at every strip mall, bus route, and suburban grocery store.

[brentwood]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Sooner or later you guys have to come to terms with the fact that not every retailer or commercial land owner is a real estate speculator just waiting to sell out to condo developers. If the city wants some of these these locations they will have to expropriate them.

Agree that expropriation may be necessary at some point but sitting on unproductive land and collecting marginal yet easy rents in the hopes of a future windfall is my definition of speculation. Clearly there is something wrong in the process and there are no easy solutions but in an efficient economy, property (there are always going to be exceptions, I feel there are too many at the moment) should be developed by those that are able to put the property to its best use within the constraints of the regulatory environment. Rules are good but perhaps we have to re-examine them from time to time.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by brentwood

Agree that expropriation may be necessary at some point but sitting on unproductive land and collecting marginal yet easy rents in the hopes of a future windfall is my definition of speculation. Clearly there is something wrong in the process and there are no easy solutions but in an efficient economy, property (there are always going to be exceptions, I feel there are too many at the moment) should be developed by those that are able to put the property to its best use within the constraints of the regulatory environment. Rules are good but perhaps we have to re-examine them from time to time.

Expropriation isn't that easy. The city can make an offer to purchase the land, but to expropriate, the City has to have a clear argument that the land is required for a "municipal purpose." Things such as roads and other infrastructure are definitely municipal purposes, but land development probably isn't.

[lorenavedon]

Originally Posted by Tropics

How will "affordable" housing/condos stop sprawl?

To stop sprawl you have to build alternatives to the suburb lifestyle that creates sprawl to begin with. It is those who are inclined to, and can afford to buy and live in a house in the burbs that you need to build an alternative for because it is them that create sprawl.

A lower income person who can only afford $1200 a month for their dwelling is not living in a $400,000 house in the burbs and they are not the ones causing sprawl. It is the people who can afford to buy the $400,000+ houses in the burbs that are creating the sprawl and it is them you need to target and create alternatives for.

Affordable housing in tiny lower quality condo complexes is not an alternative to those people. They are not going to buy and live in a lower end $250,000 condo instead of their $400,000 in the burbs.

Those cheaper units are going to target two types of buyers, lower income owner/occupiers who are "already" renting in higher density housing, or investors that will buy those units and rent them to people who can only afford to live in higher density housing in the first place.

Cheap condos do not stop sprawl, you are targeting the entirely wrong demographic to actually stop sprawl if you build cheap.

Cheap housing has lots of positive community and economic benefits, don't get me wrong, but solving sprawl is "not" one of them.

so basically downtown should only be for rich people and Chinese billionaires desperate to get their cash out of china. God forbid we have some affordable units for regular people that actually want to live there, close to their jobs and contribute to a community.

[Spring2008]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

so basically downtown should only be for rich people and Chinese billionaires desperate to get their cash out of china. God forbid we have some affordable units for regular people that actually want to live there, close to their jobs and contribute to a community.

There should be more TOD options. Don't know why it seems like only the stations along the NW line are developing anything substantial outside of the inner-city. There should be at least 1-2 towers going up or at least in the works at stations like Erlton, Chinook, Heritage on the South line, and Sunalta and Westbrook on the West at all times!

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Expropriation isn't that easy. The city can make an offer to purchase the land, but to expropriate, the City has to have a clear argument that the land is required for a "municipal purpose." Things such as roads and other infrastructure are definitely municipal purposes, but land development probably isn't.

Tell Edmonton that.