Glenmore Landing | 115m | 35s | RioCan | NORR

[lemongrab]

They are dense medium rise cities with a welcoming scale. This development is not remotely comparable. It's increasing overall density in the area by piling it all in one spot. These will fill up with population growth and that seems to be the barometer of success on this forum. The long term viability of Calgary and Canada is people choosing a place to live than just settling on the cheapest option available. The success of past high density, high rise blocks in low rise neighbourhoods is generally very poor and this form is taking over development all across Canada.

Calgary is building plenty of midrises - e.g. Currie/Marda, West/Springbank, University District as somewhat proximal competitors to this area.

Glenmore Landing makes sense for towers, and there isn't really anywhere nearby suitable for mid rise. There may be a bunch of other sites that seem more suitable for towers sooner (say Westbrook or east of Chinook or North Hill Mall Sears), but there is actually a developer eager to develop here. I think it will be great.

 

[CBBarnett]

They are dense medium rise cities with a welcoming scale. This development is not remotely comparable. It's increasing overall density in the area by piling it all in one spot. These will fill up with population growth and that seems to be the barometer of success on this forum. The long term viability of Calgary and Canada is people choosing a place to live than just settling on the cheapest option available.

Here's from the link MichaelS posted:

So it is a mix of heights. It's also not proposed to be super tall as was originally contemplated - 37m and 50m nearest to the park. It's high compared to a strip mall, but we are building at that scale all over the city from the core, to Trinity Hills, to all those new proposals on the edge of the city on 17th Avenue SW.

The success of past high density, high rise blocks in low rise neighbourhoods is generally very poor and this form is taking over development all across Canada.

I have always thought this is a weird point people keep making about this project - the site isn't really located in a low-rise neighbourhood. The unconnected cul-de-sac of Bayview single family homes is nearly 150m away, separated by a beautiful park space. Every other direction from the site is 8 lanes of arterials and huge setbacks and sound walls. There is no low rise areas in which this development is being shoved into - apart from its overall location in the city, it's got more in common with a greenfield project than infill.

The project is an island of density with great transit and 300+ hectares of already built-out park space adjacent. It's a perfect spot for 1,000+ units. Until we get more information on what the buildings themselves will look like and how they will be physically orientated, I see little downside yet.

 

[outoftheice]

Let's also not forget there are already 3 high rise apartment towers that are 1 minute down the road to the west and they sit on higher ground than Glenmore Landing. So not sure why people can argue high rises shouldn't go here

 

[Ramsayite]

I read through the comments that the city collected . The amount of comments on loss of "parkland" really grinds my gears. It just proves that nimbys will grab onto anything that they can to oppose the development without actually understanding what they're saying. Lots of comments referencing climate change and biodiversity. Complaints about development near a water source... Um, what?

The "Green space" that is being removed is primarily invasive grasses that are mowed; Quackgrass is not biodiversity. Smooth brome is not biodiversity. Bluegrass is not biodiversity. Even the trees that will be removed hardly mimic what one should be thinking of when we think of parkland in the Foothills. They're all cultivated varieties.. A typical section of biodiverse foothills fescue or parkland has hundreds of native plant species. I doubt you could count even 10 here currently.

The same people complaining about this would never bat an eye at the destruction of native prairie that is happening right now at the far edges of the city (see, Logan Landing) which is the alternative to this kind of development. I went in the spring and identified over 200 species in the area that is now a bunch of plowed dirt for a lower density suburb. Easily 100 times as much land has been lost in that single development than what is at risk here; Multiple orders of magnitude biodiversity loss when we keep sprawling.

If we really care about climate change, ecology and biodiversity then we absolutely must be stacking density everywhere we can in the city. And yes, that's going to mean removing some "greenspace" sometimes like in this development.

And all the nimbys living in single detached houses with mowed bluegrass lawns need to shut the f****** up how about this development until they've killed their own lawns and replaced it with native species.

Perhaps the only reasonable critique is the impact that towers have on bird populations. But that may be an over-fixation when we've destroyed 75% of the biodiversity in the greater municipal area anyway. If we care about birds then we should be concentrating our development and leaving the river valleys alone.