HIGHLAND PARK PROJECT NEEDS CAREFUL PLANNING
No need to rush into exciting community revitalization effort, writes Richard White
Why was the land use redesignation approval being sent to planning commission and council when critical pieces of the ... puzzle have yet to be determined?
I started writing this column about the Highland Golf Course redevelopment in northwest Calgary thinking it would be just another case of NIMBYism.
In May 2013, the former site of the Highland Golf Course was sold to a partnership headed by Maple Projects Inc. Maple has been involved in the Uno and Ten projects in Calgary, and has focused on rental properties and hotel developments in Western Canada and the United States.
But as I researched the redevelopment plans for Highland, I began to realize the important issue here isn’t the density (1,600 versus 2,100 units) or the design ( height and placement of a highrise condo tower) of the project, but the timing of the land use approval.
Why was the land use redesignation approval being sent to planning commission and council when critical pieces of the community redevelopment puzzle have yet to be determined?
Usually, I’m all for making decisions quickly on redevelopment projects in established communities, as delays increase the costs to new homeowners and taxpayers. But in this case. I have to ask: “What’s the rush?”
THE ISSUES
A major community workshop is planned for this fall to look at final plans for the Green Line LRT, which will have stations at McKnight and 40th Avenue on the east side of the site. Surely, it makes no sense to approve new land use until the City, homeowners, businesses and landowners have a chance to look at LRT options in more detail.
The 20-hectare site (similar in size to East Village) has the potential to be Calgary’s next transit-oriented “urban village.” Highland Park needs — and deserves — integrated, not fragmented development.
Second, the city is in the middle of studying plans for widening McKnight Boulevard on the northern edge of the site. The city, developer and community need to understand exactly what’s planned for McKnight Boulevard and how it can be capitalized to create a community that accommodates all mobility options — car, bus, train, bike and pedestrian.
Third, Nose Hill Creek ran through the site until 60 years ago when it was redirected into an underground pipe as part of the best practices of water management at the time. The developer and city have looked at restoring the creek as part of the redevelopment, but it would consume a significant amount of land to meet today’s engineering standards. While the current plans for storm water management and flood mitigation are probably adequate and the easiest solution, I understand more research is being conducted before a water management plan is finalized.
Fourth, the community is concerned Maple Projects has indicated that only 10 per cent of the 597 existing trees can be retained. While this number seems low, it’s probably realistic, as many of the trees are near the end of their life cycle and won’t survive all the site work and installation of new infrastructure. On the positive side, the developer has agreed to plant 1,868 new trees, resulting in almost a fourfold increase in trees.
Last but not least, the public space issue must be resolved to the existing community’s satis- faction as this is critical to creating a vibrant urban village.
The current plan has the developer providing the minimum amount of public space required (i.e. 10 per cent), which will increase Highland Park’s public space to 6.3 per cent, significantly less than the city’s benchmark of 10 per cent. In addition, the city’s website says there is cityowned public utility land that will become more accessible as part of the development, but it’s unclear what this means.
BETTER NOT BIGGER
It isn’t the quantity of public space that matters as much as the quality. How the new public space will enhance the quality of the lives of people of all ages living in Highland Park needs to be clearly determined.
The density planned for Highland Park is greater than the new University District, which has state-of-the-art storm water, tree preservation and public spaces, as well as a comprehensive plan. Why shouldn’t Highland Park have the same quality of planning and development?
It is my understanding the developer bought the land for a very good price. Add to this the fact the City of Calgary will receive millions of new tax dollars every year when the new development is complete. Surely some of these dollars deserve to be reinvested in the creating quality public spaces in Highland Park.
This means there’s room for the developer and city to provide state-of-the-art storm water and flood mitigation infrastructure as well as high quality public space for the new Highland Park, as happened for East Village or University District.
LAST WORD
In the case of Highland Park, I believe most of the community welcomes the redevelopment of the golf course and the Green Line as a means of revitalizing the community by attracting a more diverse population and housing types, some new retail and much-needed public space.
I don’t think it would take too much to get their support and make them ambassadors for the project rather than antagonists.
It’s not too late to make Highland Park a postcard for established community revitalization. Let’s work together over the next six months (council has delayed its land use decision to January) to make this happen.