[darwink]

the plan a long time ago was parks/flood infrastructure.

Since government flood payouts are one and done now, over the next century there may be more lots acquired by the government.

I expect them to be empty for a long time.

 

[Mull]

Infrastructure and parks would be great. Add to the pathway network with a new bridge if it makes sense.

 

[1875]

I am sure this is discussed elsewhere here, so apologizes for the repeat question, but what is the deal/plan with with Government of Alberta owned river lots in Roxboro and other communities?
No trespassing, fenced off lots, doing nothing but taking maintenance dollars.

theres a house being built on this lot. with the springbank dry dam completion perhaps they are selling the lots now the flood risk is abating.

 

[Calgcouver]

I am sure this is discussed elsewhere here, so apologizes for the repeat question, but what is the deal/plan with with Government of Alberta owned river lots in Roxboro and other communities?
No trespassing, fenced off lots, doing nothing but taking maintenance dollars.

Province purchasing larger yards and protecting them from dreaded public access for there favourite campaign donors

 

[Mull]

Province purchasing larger yards and protecting them from dreaded public access for there favourite campaign donors

theres a house being built on this lot. with the springbank dry dam completion perhaps they are selling the lots now the flood risk is abating.

View attachment 543531

So, how is it one lot is being built on but others aren't for sale?

 

[adamyyc]

I am sure this is discussed elsewhere here, so apologizes for the repeat question, but what is the deal/plan with with Government of Alberta owned river lots in Roxboro and other communities?
No trespassing, fenced off lots, doing nothing but taking maintenance dollars.

I have often thought about this when walking through Elbow Park. I expect that the province will sell them or transfer them to the City (likely for sale) once flood mitigation is in place. That’s what happened in High River once mitigation was completed there.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Not to wish harm on people's homes or anything, but it would have been interesting to see the outcome if all of homes on the south side riverbank had been flooded. It would be a great place for lowrise condos and a pathway along the river.

 

[Mountain Man]

I thought the original plan waws to turn it into park land...

 

[darwink]

I thought the original plan waws to turn it into park land...

Strategic retreat, yes.

if all of homes on the south side riverbank had been flooded

They were. The province originally proposed only giving them disaster money if they sold. Then it shifted to the 'one and done' model.

 

[jianxia15]

DMAP

New infill apartment proposed for corner of 17 Ave and 25 St SW. Three story with six units.

 

[jianxia15]

Infill at the corner of 17 Ave and 24A St SW

 

[badc0ffee]

Nice. Both of these places are 5-600 m from Shaganappi Point station

 

[ByeByeBaby]

A question for the various folks on here who have good perspectives on infilll development:

There are a handful of areas, like Rosedale, Hounsfield Heights and Roxboro (as well as the central part of Hillhurst not on 10th/14th/Kensington) that are today basically exclusively SFD. They have been getting redeveloped, but by a million dollar 70 year old house being replaced by a $4M new house that looks like a bunker or car dealership. Assuming the blanket rezoning passes, a lot of properties will be rezoned RC-1, permitting rowhouse-scale developments. In the medium term (say the next 10-20 years), will there actually be a significant number of this sort of intensified developments built in these areas?

The yes argument is that these are adjacent to areas where there is substantial intensification happening; Mount Pleasant has had something like 1/4 of its units built in the last decade, so why not Rosedale, which is closer to the downtown, has even nicer tree canopy and traffic calming, etc? The profit potential may be higher selling four rowhouses with four secondary suites than a single custom mansion, and the market is larger.

The no argument is that the land in these areas will be more expensive than in the areas that are seeing infill, and that even with land use changed, there is still the development permit process. And these are well-connected, well-resourced communities that will fight this sort of intensification, so why not just save the uncertainty and headaches and do your project somewhere that this is already pretty common.

Note, I'm just thinking about these specific high-wealth enclaves; a rezoning will pretty obviously cause intensification in the Capitol Hills and Killarneys of the world where it's already happening.

Thoughts? I'm genuinely unsure on this one.

 

[MichaelS]

I think the more interesting neighbourhood to watch will be Upper Mount Royal. There are some MASSIVE lots there, that with R-CG zoning, you could put in a LOT of units. Maybe enough to overcome the high cost of land? Not sure, but I wonder how long it will be before we see someone try it? I know that not all of Upper Mount Royal will be rezoned right away because it is under a DC bylaw, but some of it isn't, and the City says it will be coming forward with a way to amend the DC bylawed areas as well.

 

[badc0ffee]

I think developing anything in Roxboro is kind of insane. It's lower than Elbow drive along that part of the river. I am ok if people want to build a SFH on a 7500+ sqft lot or whatever there. Or, making it park land.

Rosedale/Hounsfield Heights are like the Scarboro/Elbow Park/Upper Mount Royals of the north. Land values are what they are in part because of what kind of house your neighbours would have. There may be restrictive covenants in place as well.

But, Hillhurst I think is already R-C2 and you can already rezone to R-CG without much issue? Maybe it's like Altadore in that sense. You could build rowhouses, but for some reason it's more profitable to have dual $1.9m infills?