Bow33 | 22m | 6s | Truman | NORR

[Albertasaurus]

Honestly, University District proves that you can make a successful high density node without tall buildings. There are a few concrete buildings there, but the vast majority are wood frame construction and no building hits even 20 floors. I'm fine with Westbrook developing as mostly wood frame, as long as the design and public realm are done well. You can still get decent density with 6 storey woodframe.

Conversely, Vaughan Metropolitan Centre is a good example of why skyscrapers don't necessarily equate to good TOD. They have towers up to 60 floors there but it feels nowhere near as vibrant or interesting as University District. So if only wood frame development is feasible for the time being, as long as it's high quality and appropriate density, I'm fine with that.

 

[Calgcouver]

This is a great example for a topic that you can ask about to the mayoral or councillor candidates in this year’s municipal election. I don’t think townhouses are appropriate scale for that site, and that’s what was asked. Either high rise or mid rise towers likely fit the bill here.

Westbrook is competing with many other stations that are quite attractive as TOD sites. Franklin, Canyon Meadows, Anderson, Southland, Heritage, Chinook, Lions Park and Brentwood are all great candidates as well. I’m sure there are others too. The city can’t develop them all at once.

When the economics work for what the city thinks is an attractive purchase price per acre, I’m sure it will get done at Westbrook.

Matco had the land and couldn’t make the numbers work for concrete. I literally did the numbers and submitted an RFP to build it out when they owned it. Was going to do all five and six storey buildings with commercial at grade, if that deal happened two buildings would be done by now. The owner wanted to stay with concrete and low and behold the city bought the land back.

I have done proformas for the land it doesn’t really work for concrete or for sale as high rise. I was told the land would be coming back online for sale by REDs this year but hasn’t, I think the city would do best if they acted as the developer the same as Midfield. The land is probably worth $2.4-3.5M an acre

 

[Surrealplaces]

Matco had the land and couldn’t make the numbers work for concrete. I literally did the numbers and submitted an RFP to build it out when they owned it. Was going to do all five and six storey buildings with commercial at grade, if that deal happened two buildings would be done by now. The owner wanted to stay with concrete and low and behold the city bought the land back.

I have done proformas for the land it doesn’t really work for concrete or for sale as high rise. I was told the land would be coming back online for sale by REDs this year but hasn’t, I think the city would do best if they acted as the developer the same as Midfield. The land is probably worth $2.4-3.5M an acre

Was the previous issue at Westbrook related to the cost of the land? I'm curious as we do see concrete builds in other parts of the city, I would have thought concrete would work there, but I have no idea what the land costs were compared to say Bridgeland or U/D, etc..

 

[O-tac]

Yeah, I would think the close access to both transit and retail would be a selling feature. Not to mention proximity to DT.

 

[Calgcouver]

Was the previous issue at Westbrook related to the cost of the land? I'm curious as we do see concrete builds in other parts of the city, I would have thought concrete would work there, but I have no idea what the land costs were compared to say Bridgeland or U/D, etc..

The problem was that Matco was dead set on concrete mid rise out of preference and it was too expensive to build compared to the revenue. Density was high, so land price was based on FAR achievable with the expectation towers would be built.

Realistic scenario for redevelopment is 3FAR so that’s what should inform the new land price.

Bridgeland and UD can both charge more per acre than here.

 

[Mountain Man]

If Westbrook was developed in a similar way to University District or West District, that would be ideal. Neither UD or WD have a mall as an immediate neighbour (UD is about .5km from Market Mall though), and 37th and 17th are retail streets, so it would be interesting to see how it would turn out. Retail facing 17th is a no brainer, then townhomes along 33 with a high street to connect Westbrook Ave with 16ave would be cool. The sketchy people coming from the train will be the biggest challenge though.

 

[Surrealplaces]

The problem was that Matco was dead set on concrete mid rise out of preference and it was too expensive to build compared to the revenue. Density was high, so land price was based on FAR achievable with the expectation towers would be built.

Realistic scenario for redevelopment is 3FAR so that’s what should inform the new land price.

Bridgeland and UD can both charge more per acre than here.

Okay that makes sense, I figured it must've something like that. After selling the land back to the city for much cheaper, any guesses on whether the price would be sold to developers for cheaper?

For me personally, I would like to see Westbrook be low rises 6 floor with 2 maybe three high rises (12-20 floors) thrown in. Just my own opinion, but I'd rather see a heavy highrise cluster around Chinook or at the Brentwood Park and Ride.

 

[CBBarnett]

Okay that makes sense, I figured it must've something like that. After selling the land back to the city for much cheaper, any guesses on whether the price would be sold to developers for cheaper?

For me personally, I would like to see Westbrook be low rises 6 floor with 2 maybe three high rises (12-20 floors) thrown in. Just my own opinion, but I'd rather see a heavy highrise cluster around Chinook or at the Brentwood Park and Ride.

Given how popular and widespread the 6-storey format has become, I'd advocate for all TODs to aim for that. Even at 6 stories, there tens of thousands of transit-adjacent units that could exist and would dramatically reshape the city and transit system. That level of transit-adjacent growth would be a revolutionary success - we don't need towers to be a success at TOD.

Of course, allow towers - go nuts if demand is higher and prices command it at a particular station. But Westbrook is the cautionary tale of too many people wearing "Vancouver-goggles" on what a TOD should be, rather than just setting up the conditions to get it done. We didn't need towers, we needed an attractive example of TOD that actually is built. and would trigger countless other landowners around LRT stations throughout the city to say "hmm that's actually not too difficult, we could probably build that here too".

While we waited for towers at Westbrook, 10,000+ units in 6 storey buildings were built pretty much everywhere else in the city.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I'm also going to say that, to people who wouldn't live in theoretical 6-storey Westbrook Village, that type of development sounds much more appealing than a bunch of towers and podiums. Even if the grass area is only 6-storey, what's stopping the other developable land on site from becoming towers once the area gets the uplift from a "Westbrook Village"