Trinity Paskapoo

Trinity Paskapoo Development

Trinity Paskapoo is a proposed development on the lands below Cougar Ridge near 16 Avenue NW and Sarcee Trail.

There will be major roadway improvements at Bowfort Road and 16 Avenue, and to the intersection between 16 Avenue and Sarcee Trail.

The concept plan includes mixed use of commercial and residential.

June 19 Update:

Trinity will be holding two information sessions in June 2017 so Calgarians can learn more about the Trinity Hills development. Representatives from Trinity and The City of Calgary will be available to answer questions at both sessions.

  • June 19, 2017: 6 – 8:30 p.m., Calgary French and International School, 700 77 Street S.W.
  • June 20, 2017: 6 – 8:30 p.m., Irish Cultural Society, 6452 35 Avenue N.W.

For details on this application and the changes to the land use designations it proposes, visit the City’s webpage at this link.

Here is a look at the PDF files. (this link will download a large file of the relevant development documents)
Archived Materials from 2015

74 thoughts on “Trinity Paskapoo

  1. This is really disconcerting. I just moved from Montreal to West Springs and have been enjoying Eastlands extensively with my 8 year old on our mountain bikes. There are alway plenty of people enjoying the trails, either walking, running, biking, etc. Lots of mountain bike day camps also use many of the trails. Chopping part of it off to build yet more houses (great location BTW – hope they come with battery operated sump pumps as they will obviously experience water issues) and yet more stores is a really bad idea….

  2. I clicked on the link but it goes to blank page. The Paskapoo slopes is the only area in the NW that is treed and has amazing single track for mountain biking and hiking. Nose hill has no trees and I wouldn’t call that mountain biking. Hope Paskapoo slopes is preserved!

    1. Hello Jacqueline, we are looking into why the link is broken. Unfortunately, our webmaster is on vacation. We will fix this as soon as possible. Thanks for bringing to our attention!

      1. Jacqueline, I have double checked the link from two different sources. It appears to be working. You may want to turn off your pop up blockers.

  3. This natural area is a treasure. It is a shame that the City of Calgary is planning to destroy it for another commercial and residential center!!!! It is a peaceful place to walk and bike, encounter wildlife species, and pick up wild berries. I live in Cougar Ridge and use the trail network 3 or 4 times per week all year round for long, relaxing walks. Destroying this area will greatly affect my quality of life and the reason why I choose to live in this neighborhood.

    How can Council make such a decision? There are so many other places to build a commercial area without destroying a unique natural environment. I just saw the projected development and I am shocked.

    PLEASE, do not destroy this place!!!!!!!!

    1. Hi Danielle, I’m writing a story for The Calgary Journal on the proposed developments to the slopes, I’d love an opportunity to chat with you about it as you seem to feel pretty strongly about the issue. Please let me know if you are interested, I am immediately available at

  4. I’ve seen deer, coyote, even moose in this area. Where does Trinity propose to move these? I located to Cougar Ridge specifically because this green space was below my home, and I regularly mountain bike and walk in this area with my family. We voted against this development – but it appears it was already a done deal. Nothing but lip service and going through the motions. What an incredible shame to lose this unique environment within the city boundaries. There are already 2 shopping malls within 2 km from where we live, 4 within 6 km. Why do we need another one, in what is essentially the only relatively large pristine green space in the SW of the City?

    1. Actually, if you look at the proposed plans, the wooded ravines downslope from Cougar Ridge will be preserved but what it is important to note is that approximately the lower third of the slopes will require extensive grading and filling and then next to the TransCanada will be graded and filled.

      Because a development proposal goes to Calgary Planning Commission and then to a Public Hearing at Council, Councillors have a duty to remain objective and impartial before a Public Hearing. The best way to oppose this plan, if you so wish, is to base it on valid technical reasons, such as drainage issues, grading away of ravines and gullies that could otherwise be designated as undevelopable by the City. Some of your comments above have picked up on these issues.

      Corporations can propose what they wish, there may be valid technical reasons for turning down their proposals. Money doesn’t vote, people do.

      1. Hi Lisa

        I’m interested to hear more of your thoughts about what kind of technical issues might be an issue here? One thing I have noticed recently is there is water, most likely groundwater, coming down onto Sarcee Trail near where the housing development is going in up the slope. I wonder what might happen with the proposed Trinity development in regards to this.

        1. I’m sorry I did not see your reply Emma. It goes to City Council on Monday July 20, 2015 for a public hearing. Anyone may speak for 5 minutes at the public hearing. Here are some technical issues.
          1) traffic – access onto and from Sarcee Trail via a traffic circle or roundabout. Although it seems to have been improved from when it was first proposed, there will still be problems when the traffic from the traffic circle goes from the circle into the feeder lanes and then into the already existing lanes (so there will be traffic problems as traffic circle traffic goes into the already existing lanes of traffic);

          2) when Patterson Heights/Boulevard was developed massive grading of the slopes was allowed. Presumably the developer’s engineers put their professional stamp on the documents. The City (and the Parks department) approved that development. Yet there are problems with springs and seepage. What was probably not accounted for (nor could be measured) was the impact on underground watercourses from developments uphill (perhaps Indian Bluffs). In the case of Trinity Hills, as the developer likes to call its proposed development, the engineers have signed off the documents on the present conditions. What is not taken into account is the impact upslope development like that presently being developed at Patterson Point will have downslope.

          3) In order to preserve the regional/high regional significant archaeology, the City has in effect approved trading non-developable lands downslope for the archaeologically rich developable lands upslope. The advantage is that it preserves one contiguous bloc of land as park and preserves most of the more significant archaeology. One disadvantage is the lower portions of the slope go in development, including some areas that would be considered not developable for technical reasons. One question which arises is: should the trade downslope have included environmentally significant areas? The City may require by law the dedication of undevelopable land (called ER, Environmental Reserve) which is then used as park. Environmentally Significant Areas have no legal right to protection but those within ER are capable of being protected. It should have been possible to protect the significant archaeology in supposedly developable areas while protecting the Environmentally Significant Areas that fall within non developable land (ER).

          4) The written submissions from the public for Monday’s public hearing are available online at the site on the agenda for the public hearing on Monday. If you refer to some of these letters, you will find many of the technical concerns: specifically, look at submissions from the River Valleys Committee (concerns with how ER was designated), the Paskapoo Slopes Preservation Society, Bowness Community Association, Valley Ridge Community Association (traffic concerns), Nature Calgary about environmentally significant areas. Most of the written submissions are of high quality and some individuals express interesting other concerns such as development of the lower 1/3 of the slopes removes the terrain which is more accessible to wildlife. This may inspire you or others if you are going to speak at Council. It may be that the proposed development does not get heard until Tuesday or Wednesday unless Council votes first thing Monday morning to change the order of the agenda as at the moment there are many other land use items before it on the agenda.

      2. Who says money doesn’t vote. Councillors receive donations from developers for election campaigns. They have obligations to vote in their favor. Remember 2017 election is not that far away to get started.

  5. An important detail came to light at the recent development workshops hosted by the city. This Paskapoo slopes is an area with significant archaeological significance. It’s importance may be greater significance than Head Smashed in Buffalo Jump. There is a very good map the city has that outlines where the archaeological sites are, but it seems clear that the whole area what used as a Buffalo Pound where tribes would gather, kill buffalo and process the meat.

    For this reason alone, we can see this is a unique site and that there is an amazing opportunity to work with local First Nations to create a world class heritage site within the city that would preserve the area.

  6. . So this is the revised plan I initially posted that is basically the same thing they are planning for paskapoo slopes only on the other side of the proposed stoney trail, right next to crestmont. Crestmont area development is proposing a large superstore and paskapoo is also proposing a large supermarket???? I guess I have an issue with paving paradise to put up a parking lot (x2).

  7. I jus came across this site and this comment you made today. I live in Bowness and I remember when you had these meetings. In fact I remember finding the invitation to the open house in my mailbox at 6:30 on the night it was on – so of course there was no way I could go. I was really disappointed that you guys mailed those out so late that I couldn’t go. I’m under the impression that when I go to these meetings it’s really just a formality, so when I raise concerns that they are noted and then you guys and the developers do whatever you want anyhow. But I at least want to say my piece, since I believe that we all should. Not being given a chance was really a let down.

    So – I know it’s too little and probably way too late – but I don’t think the world or the city needs another mall. I like the hills and use them all the time. I’m also concerned how our life, traffic and so on would change for the worst here in Bowness -where I love living and raising a little boy.


  8. Would someone please indicate where I may get an update on where the development stands with City Council, and how I may stay current with those developments? thanks

  9. Good news for those that do not think there should be any development on the east paskapoo slopes…the Bowness Community Association has voted to support the preservation of the area. Here is their official statement:

    “The BCA advocates for the preservation of the East Paskapoo Slopes as an important natural asset with environmental, cultural, historical and recreational significance for the City of Calgary.”

    If you would like more information you can

  10. That is great news!!! We love walking and biking in Paskapoo. What a beautiful area that should be preserved. Thank you Bowness Community Association 🙂

  11. I was wondering, does the WSCR community association have any plans to engage the residents it represents in order to find out what the general consensus is regarding development of the East Paskapoo slopes? Will the WSCR community association be taking an official stance on the development of the East Paskapoo slopes based on public engagement?

    1. These slopes are amazing. I think that because someone owned/owns it privately: there is nothing that can change what is coming. If it is to be developed, I hope that it is nice. South montgomery is getting a tim Hortons

      1. Not true, the land is owned by Winsport, The City of Calgary and Trinity (the developer). Before the land can be re-zoned and the development can go forward the Calgary planning department must review the proposal and present their findings to the council. The council then must vote on wether to allow the development to continue.
        This is not a done deal everyone. Write your councillor, write Nenshi and sign the petition to keep this area untouched.

        Also there are 112 Tim Hortons in YYC. We have all the Tims we need

      1. Pave the slopes. Development will look great. Trinity is awesome

        Montgomery triangle is awesome

        Montgomery triangle is awesome

  12. As residents of Cougar Ridge we are very concerned about access to the slope. We see many people parking on our street now to do just that! If this goes ahead, will there be public access and parking at the bottom of the slope?

    1. I agree, it is a very impressive development! There are many things I like about it except for the fact that they are wanting to build it on the wrong piece of land! There are lots of other areas with considerably less environmental, historical and aesthetic value than the Paskapoo Slopes. Why destroy a huge part of such an iconic area that many Calgarians have enjoyed for decades? In my humble opinion, I think this land already provides a huge value to the surrounding communities that no development could ever hope to provide. Furthermore, as our city continues to grow, I think it is important that we retain more natural areas within our city limits. The Paskapoo Slopes is a very unique area that already services many Calgarians. If you have never walked or biked the slopes from top to bottom, I urge you to do so. It is hard to appreciate what it has to offer driving by on the #1.

      I also think it is important to note that there is also a considerable amount of development already slated for the areas around the #1 highway heading west. If you are interested in checking them out, you can go to the Ward 1 webpage –


    2. More to Ken’s point, companies and people looking to relocate look for cities that are beautiful and have a variety of recreation and green spaces to contribute to healthy and enjoyable living. As our city grows, so must our parks, and not all parks should be manicured. This works for some, but many people come to Calgary who love the wilderness and would appreciate having a wild space within the city-limits at the west end, just as they do Fish Creek and Nose Hill parks. This will bring us jobs.
      As well, because this area is already used for recreation it is easy to make it into a Regional Park. Also it’s proximity to COP means it is an area known for recreation, and will continue to be used by groups and schools for running, biking and outdoor education competitions.

  13. i’m so saddened by the thought of this development and the displacement of the wildlife,watershed, and beauty of the area. i’m praying it does NOT go through. by the comments i seem to be in the majority,i have lived below the slopes for more than 30 yrs, and hope it’s not too late to stop the madness

  14. What is happening with the slopes? Is the development going ahead. That entire North West part of Calgary is really changing with new communities and development. A Tim Hortons is now going into Montgomery and a Carls Junior is supposed to go up in Montgomery triangle by the river.

    1. Go to the City-Trintiy Open Houses March 25 in Bowness and APRIL 1 in Cougar Ridge, CFIS, to see the updated proposed development from Trinity.

    2. Hi Richard. The Trinity development has not yet been approved. City council will voting on it sometime this summer, most likely by the end of July. There are also two open houses coming up where you can have a look at the developers plans and voice either your support or opposition. City representatives, the developer and Wards 1 and 6 councillors will be there. The first one is tomorrow night, March 25th at the Irish club in Bowness. The next one is on April 1st at the Calgary French International School. I urge you to go if are concerned about the development. There is also a group of residents called who are opposed to development on the slopes.


    3. The triangle in south montgomery is being rapidly developed. Best real estate in nw calgary

      Montgomery triangle is awesome and I

  15. Make sure to come out to the open house at CFIS Wednesday, April 1, 2015. Trinity Hills has INCREASED density Residential from 1,600 units max, to 2,229 units; Retail from 500,000 sq ft to 700,000 max. They say they have listened and reduced the footprint, but it is only reduced 3.53 acres or 3.5%. Why is WSCR Community Association not more visible in speaking out against this development, when there is such strong community disagreement for it?

  16. It is sad that money motivates and prior agreements are moot. This is an important ecological and historical area that should be protected, not “developed” – a nice euphemism for destroying the inherent value of this area.

  17. It is a terrible decision to “develop” this beautiful recreational area that both humans and animals cherish. This area needs to be preserved!! I enjoy Paskapoo slopes with friends and dogs and sometimes on mountain bikes atleast twice a week. Also many schools have cross country running races there. Happy and healthy citizens are those who have good outdoor spaces to enjoy and get some exercise and fresh air. I will be so disgusted if this development goes forward …. It’s a step backward.

  18. Don’t give up hope! Go to Save The Slopes website and get their “Card-A-Councillor” postcards to dpsend to all the City Councillors and the Mayor. Each postcard is pre-addressed to one Councillor and has a short message of opposition on it. You fill in your name, address and signature, then pop it into the pre-addressed envelope and Mail it with 4 stamps. Or you can contact the folks at STS and they will pick it up from your house! How easy is that! Opposition is being noticed at City Hall! Keep it up! Spread the word on social media! Sign the petition! Buy a lawn sign, banner or car magnet to show you are in FAVOUR of preserving greenspaces in Calgary like Paskapoo Slopes. We have a voice, let’s use it. SAVE IT…OR…LOSE IT!

    1. Hello LNesset, Your comment has been slightly edited removing hyperlinks to other websites. WSCRCA has not removed the name of the website, which we believe is fair.

      As demonstrated with the 60 some odd posts on this webpage (which is fantastic) the WSCRCA tries to offer a balance approach to information.

      We will continue to do our best in moderating our website as we are all just volunteers. Kindly respect our desire not to post direct links to external websites.

      Kindest Regards

  19. For the latest information on the Trinity – East Paskapoo Slopes development simply search by using “City of Calgary Trinity East Paskapoo Slopes”.

  20. I think the fact is that the slopes will be developed. When we accept this fact and move forward then we can appreciate just how nice and progressive it will be. This whole part of Northwest Calgary is changing rapidly now. Check out all the new work by the trailer park in Bowness plus Montgomery triangle is getting a Tim Hortons and a new medical centre

  21. As council has yet to vote on the Trinity submission, it is certainly not yet a “fact” that the Paskapoo slopes will be developed. There is nothing “progressive” or “nice” about more Tim Hortons, or Dairy Queens, or more fast food restaurants in general, especially as West Springs Cougar Ridge is presently experiencing a plethora of Dairy Queens, etc. There is something progressive about neighbourhood coffee shops like Cadence that will certainly suffer from more large franchises. Nor is there anything progressive about paving over archaeological sites, decreasing green spaces, reducing free inner city recreational opportunities, developing communities with poor public transport options, encroaching on urban wild spaces, and generally ignoring the will of thousands of Calgarians who have signed petitions and flash mobbed and written letters and emails that this development is one too many. And Trinity has not been progressive in ignoring the City’s Detailed Team Review DTR) by not significantly reducing the “proposed” development’s footprint, by not removing the particularly intrusive Area “K”, by not changing the proposed development’s name as mandated in the DTR (another slap to aboriginal and other’s sensitivities), and in general proceeding as if they do not care what the people of Calgary want or need, but presuming that City Council, being anything but “progressive,” will approve this unwanted development. It is far too early to call this proposal a fact. It will never be described as progressive or nice.

  22. On page 32 of the April 2015 issue of “Your Aspen Spring,” there is an interesting article about the “Crocus, The Harbinger of Spring.” “Native grasslands are the places to look for crocuses”….and seven grassland areas in Calgary are listed, none of which are in WSCR. May I suggest a stroll through the fescue knolls of the Paskapoo East Slopes where the crocuses have been blooming for 3 weeks! Better catch them while you can, as most of this native grassland area will be bladed down for the Trinity Development. But that’s OK, because you can still drive to Fish Creek or Nose Hill…..

  23. to savepaskapoo

    The eye sore you can see on Paskapoo eastern slopes as you look up the hill while driving along the Trans Canada from Shouldice park to past Rona, is being developed despite being contaminated with everything imaginable.. This site is known as 7200 Old Banff Coach Road legal description, plan 6262 AC Block 1 .

    This is the site you see that looks grey ,from thousands of tons of broken up concrete laying exposed . What you don’t see is the thousands of gallons of liquid contaminants that has been dumped on the site also. This site contained a large ravine that was filed in back in the 70’s . In 2001 a development was planed , and a permit to level and grade the site was taken out, but soon the excavation was halted because of the contamination. Nothing happen until the property was purchased in 2015 and a development planned for the site. The contamination is being ignored. There is a stream coming from a spring on the contaminated property ,and it runs beside the contaminated area ( below it) ,and flows to the Bow river. I am unable to find any record of the contamination, despite hearing by word of mouth that it’s all being swept under the table in a “sweet heart deal” the city is allowing

    1. FYI Neal: Councillor Richard Pootmans was hand delivered pages and pages of information of this EXACT CONCERN! Information that was taken from an Alberta Government site. Councillor Pootmans had one of his aids looking into this but never seem to come up with any information and kept saying they were “still looking into it”. The contamination was never disproved. The aid was never able to find this information when Richard’s second term started. The wells in the Bowdale Cres. area were muddied when some of the cement debris were being removed (truck load after truck load). This removal was stopped when the trucks proved too heavy for a local, private road and were no longer allowed to use it. Effects from development reverberate throughout this hillside and with all the perched water tables, streams, sandstone, this makes for a lot of negative things happening to the already existing neighbourhoods.

  24. It will be a shame when they do develop this park , and they will go ahead with it , for the simple fact of tax dollars for the city and to help with the so called short falls in the budget. Poor management on the cities part.

  25. The idea of developing this site makes me sick. What is wrong with people! I walk there everyday with my dog – and now we get to enjoy the sight of trees being ripped out of the ground and beautiful scenery being stripped out from underneath us. The bike ramp that many kids play on daily will be ruined by the end of today. Absolutely terrible to say the least!!

  26. I’ll play devil’s advocate just to point out a fact whether I agree with it or not. The hypocrisy is almost enough to make me nauseous. Almost everything people are complaining about will be minimally affected. The development is along the bottom of the hill taking up a small fraction of the actual slopes. All your walking, running and biking and yada yada yada will still be there. This development doesn’t happen unless they know it will produce a profit. They know that the Superstore, Shoppers Drug Mart, Sportchek etc. will be full everyday. If you choose chains over small business then you can thank yourself. I would bet good money that everyone that is against this development are the same people that will be lined up at the new Superstore for their groceries. The same people that do their Costco runs once a month, cut out their 10x airmiles coupons, wait 30 minutes at Shoppers Drug Mart for a 5 minute prescription because they NEED the optimum points. Please people, for the love of Pete, take a look in the mirror, and your Visa statement, and ask yourself, are you actually part of the reason this will move forward?

  27. Well I am against the development and I do not do any of the things you listed here. I choose small chains, get my food from local farmers including being part of a CSA (yycgrowers, small plot intensive (SPIN) farmers who use people’s backyards in my community to grow the food we get), a community supported fishery, as well as getting our chicken, lamb and beef from local farmers we have personally met. I buy clothes second hand, if I buy them at all, I rarely shop at all let alone for new clothes or anything else for that matter. I needed a toaster this week and I even got that from kijiji second hand. I do agree though if there are people that are against the development and fit the description of what you have said they do need to look in the mirror. That being said most of the other people I know that are against this development also do not fit the description you’ve posted here.

  28. CPAWS Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, denounces the proposed development of Paskapoo Slopes. Read about it here and their letter to the City of Calgary.

    CPAWS SAB is concerned that the current plan for the East Paskapoo Slopes does not comply with the important land-use planning principles and committements by the City of Calgary to conserve urban natural areas and biodiversity.

    Our city’s natural areas provide quiet places for Calgarians to experience wildlife and nature in an urban setting and ensure that wildlife populations continue to use urban areas . It is our understanding that the Paskapoo slopes also hold historical and cultural significance for First Nations. Click here to read our full comments.

  29. I’m surprised people are surprised by this? It’s a much needed development within a large City….that’s what happens…especially in a City that is growing at remarkable rates. If you need open space then you shouldn’t be living within the City limits. There is plenty of open, untouched space all around the City.

  30. I’m a bit concerned about what our Community Association has said in regards to this development when it met with the developer. I spoke with representatives from Trinity at the open house and learned that they “consulted” with community associations. Sadly, I believe this represents the extent of their public consultation. I’m slightly disappointed that WSCR hasn’t undergone some sort of online survey to query the feelings of its residents given the controversial nature of this development. Is there any hope that this could be executed before the public hearing?

    1. Jennifer it is my understanding that Save the Slopes has asked for their CA to do an online survey of WSCR residents and the community association said “no”. I have made reference to this in my comment below. I believe we need to talk to the association and request this online survey in fact be permitted…QUICKLY. This needs to happen right away so that the results can be presented to City Councillors before the vote on July 20.

      1. Hi Cristina,
        I’m fully supportive of talking to the association. I sent them an email re-iterating my post on this page last weekend and was told I’d be given a response within 48 to 72 hours. I can appreciate that the Community Association is run by volunteers and that a request at the last minute might be challenging to organize (though, not really as Coach Hill/Patterson Heights did it). However, I have since learned from others in the community, that the Community Association had received requests for a survey months ago. This is truly disappointing to learn. I believe it is the responsibility of a Community Association to accurately reflect the opinions of its residents.

  31. It is my understanding that the residents of Coach Hill and Patterson have had the opportunity to express their sentiments toward the proposed rezoning of the East Paskapoo Slopes for the proposed Trinity Hills Development. It is also my understanding that the response has been a resounding NO! As one of the 3 communities most directly affected, and given the tremendous public input on the WSCR site, it seems reasonable that all residents of WSCR should also have the opportunity to state their position regarding this rezoning, and that this position should be made public and presented to the City. I find this step particularly urgent as the City Council vote of July 20 is quickly approaching. Also, I find this urgent as to date, neither the WSCR community association nor our local Councillor have, I believe, fairly represented what is clearly a consensus of opposition to the rezoning and consequent development.

  32. It has been brought to my attention that our community association is pro development and will not consider a survey of it’s residents to see the “communities” stance on the proposed development.

    This hardly seems fair or right. It isn’t too late to find out the true feelings of this community.

    Please do a survey of our residents so our communities true feelings are heard, not just the members of the community board.

    Lori Head
    Resident if Cougar Ridge

  33. It has come to my attention that the community association board is not permitting a new survey of WSCR residents regarding Paskapoo Slopes and the proposed Trinity development. Why?

    WSCR residents have the right to be heard and I believe many in our community have taken the time to learn more about this proposal over the past several months.

    As you know, City Councillors will vote on July 20. I believe it is important for them to have an accurate perspective of what WSCR wants.

    I urge you to permit Save the Slopes to allow their CA to proceed with the survey. I cannot see any reason why this would not be acceptable.

    Thank you.

  34. I fully support the earlier comments about the survey of the residents – that would allow WSCR to get a true understanding of what its residents’ position is prior to the public hearing, so WSCR Association can truly represent its community’s views on this controversial topic.

  35. Paskapoo Slopes serves as a retreat for animals, birds and human beings. I am thrilled that my Kindergarten students can slip into Forest play and exploration on a regular basis. Although the proposal includes park area, I believe that Calgarians are essentially asking for different ways of developing this city. Calgarians are saying no to expansive, destructive development. We want other models. Models that don’t dig and destroy. There is a definite, real opposition to the Trinity Hills development. This opposition is not being represented. Have WSCR residents been surveyed? Would this not be an objective piece of evidence, knowing how many are actually for or against this development.

  36. Calgarians are indeed saying no to destructive development. Paskapoo Slopes serves as a wildlife corridor and offers Calgarians much needed greenspace. I urge WSCR to survey us, the residents so that they can fairly represent our views at the public hearing.
    Monica Skrukwa

  37. For those people requesting a survey of WSCR residents, Save The Slopes has provided one for us given that our request to the Community Association was turned down. Please go to SaveTheSlopes (dot) org and on the home page you’ll find a blue button titled “Take the WSCR survey now!” There is one question in it specifically asking whether the respondent is from WSCR. Please spread the word with your neighbours too. Thanks!

    1. Survey Policy of WSCR CA

      The West Springs Cougar Ridge Community Association (WSCRCA) has, for many
      years, followed a practice of not conducting surveys on matters such as Land Use
      Amendment (LUA) applications, major Area Structure Plan (ASP) changes (such as the
      West Springs ASP) or major transportation initiatives (such as the west LRT expansion
      or the construction the ring road). The reasons which underlie that practice include the
      1. Adjacent land owners, who have an obvious interest in nearby land use matters, are
      given notice and an opportunity to submit their views directly to City Administration
      which reports them to the Calgary Planning Commission (CPC). In other words,
      direct stake-holders do not go unheard in the early stages of the City’s process.
      Written responses submitted at this early stage are provided to the CPC and
      eventually to City Council. These stake-holders (and others whose actual or
      perceived conflicts of interest exclude them from WSCRCA decision making) have
      the right to make independent submissions, both in writing and in person, to City
      2. With regard to major initiatives, the City follows a process of community consultation
      and engagement at which any member of the community is entitled to attend. City
      Administration reports the general substance of the information collected at these
      consultations to the CPC and, eventually, to City Council itself. Similarly, interested
      citizens and/or groups do not go unheard. They too have the right to make
      submissions in writing and in person to City Council
      3. Conducting a statistically valid survey involves (without being exhaustiveas to all
      relevant factors) a great deal of time, care, effort and expertise. Some relevant
      factors may include: a) Ensuring that the sample within the community at large is of
      sufficient size to be statistically valid; b) Ensuring that there is a representative
      sample through all relevant demographic cross-sections within the community (age
      and gender being obvious examples); c) Providing an accurate, unbiased and
      reasonably detailed factual foundation and historical context with regard to the
      issues upon which the survey is to be conducted (along with sufficient time to
      consider them) so that respondents are fairly and reasonably informed with regard
      to the nature of the question they are called upon to answer; d) Measuring variables
      and preferences which may a determinative effect on the respondents’ answers (for
      example, traffic mitigation may be pivotal to whether or not a respondent approves
      of an otherwise acceptable development or the size and location of green space in
      the form of municipal reserve and environmental reserve may similarly affect
      another respondent’s response); and e) Measuring the effect which potential
      consequences of approval or non-approval might have on the
      respondents’ answers (for example, increased tax burden if the City incurs an
      expense, an increased civic cost associated with delay or the potential for higher
      densities in developments of the future).
      4. Electronic or social media polls or mass emails are, at best, of extremely limited
      value and may be misleading because: a) They do not incorporate the
      measures discussed above; b) There may be challenges in tracking the identity and
      location of respondents (obviously it is important to know whether the respondent is
      a WSCRCA member, resides within the community or is even a resident of Calgary
      at all and whether individuals are themselves recording multiple responses or doing
      so through related parties); and c) Directly affected parties such as immediately
      adjacent land owners or other groups with specific interests may be highly motivated
      and much more likely to log in and/or respond. In other words, these online survey
      respondents “self-select” and the results are thus “skewed” in their favour.
      5. It takes time, effort and expertise to develop and disseminate a survey. Moreover, it
      also takes time, effort and expertise to collect, analyze and report the results. These
      issues are highly burdensome in the best of circumstances and are all but
      impossible to properly address when time is short.
      6. Persons who are “in actual or perceived conflict of interest” should not participate in
      any decision making with regard to whether or not a survey should be conducted at
      all, much less in relation to matters pertaining to its conception, structure, analysis or
      reporting. To repeat, parties with such interests do not go unheard, have the right to
      conduct their own surveys if they so choose and have other avenues through which
      they can make submissions (see items 1 and 2 above).
      7. The WSCRCA is only able to function because of the care, concern, volunteer time
      and general community-mindedness of its members. Apart from the challenges
      discussed above, volunteer “burn-out” is an ongoing concern in community
      associations. The time-consuming process of conducting or monitoring truly valid
      and meaningful surveys is not a practical application of limited volunteer resources.
      Moreover, without minimizing the importance of any single issue that comes before
      the WSCRCA, it is important to bear in mind that a great many of these issues are of
      extremely high importance to at least some within the community: a survey
      based approach to some of these issues and not others raises the undesirable
      specter of volunteers being called upon to expend the considerable time and effort
      of attempting to explain (sometimes to very highly interested or even overtly
      angry parties) why one issue is of sufficient importance to warrant a survey but
      another is not.
      8. Finally, the WSCRCA’s past practice of not conducting surveys on these issues does
      not prevent interested parties (whose very interests, to repeat, may raise actual or
      perceived conflict of interest concerns which exclude them from participation in CA
      decision making) from conducting surveys on their own account, explaining the
      methodology employed and justifying both their statistical validity and the degree
      of reliance that should be placed upon them by the City Administration, the CPC and
      City Council

  38. 10,000 people signing the petition, all these community members taking the survey with the majority against the development, and the many many complaints on this site tells me that the future tenants planned for this development site, (Superstore, Shoppers Drug Mart etc.) will be empty….. or full of hypocrites.

  39. Well we lost the slopes. Maybe the title should have been pave the slopes. It will help nearby communities like montgomery triangle and bowness.

    ….should be interesting

  40. I wonder how much gas will be saved between the communities of Crestmont and Valley Ridge. I would expect there would be much less need to drive out of the area. That’s a good thing…right?

    1. Crestmont and Vallley Ridge will soon not even have to go as far as COP as there are big developments, including retail and commercial planned from west of COP to the city limits. Who will want to actually bother going in to the Trinity development with all that plus the developments going in on the Bowness side?

  41. Hi Paul, I’m writing a story for The Calgary Journal on the proposed developments to the slopes, I’d love an opportunity to chat with you about it as you seem to feel pretty strongly about the issue. Please let me know if you are interested, I am immediately available at

  42. Hi Andy, I’m writing a story for The Calgary Journal on the proposed developments to the slopes, I’d love an opportunity to chat with you about it as you seem to feel pretty strongly about the issue. Please let me know if you are interested, I am immediately available at

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.