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

Honest question @Sambo , why do you think that? Is there any level of development on that land you would find acceptable? The location does seem pretty ideal for intensification to me. Located on the primary transit network, many shops/services existing on their door step, next to recreational amenities (the reservoir, as well as the JCC across the street). Near major employment (Rockyview Hospital).
 
I think the lesson here is "don't worry, they're not going to build to the maximum height, because they never do, trust me" doesn't cut it. I get that developers have to over-apply for density, but surrounding residents who care about that kind of thing need better assurances.
 
konradiical said:
Honestly screw them and the people that live in that area. If they want no change or positive impact for the future they can live how it is. Maybe we can see this proposal somewhere else where people can appreciate change of cities in constant. Maybe near Chinook would be a better area
Click to expand...
And honestly, maybe it's time Council focus its investments in areas that are accepting of intensification. We are closing pools, for example, in Beltline and Inglewood rather than in these communities whose residents don't want to see any population growth. These communities are advocating for their populations to decline, and we should invest more in communities that are growing rapidly instead.
 
badc0ffee said:
I think the lesson here is "don't worry, they're not going to build to the maximum height, because they never do, trust me" doesn't cut it. I get that developers have to over-apply for density, but surrounding residents who care about that kind of thing need better assurances.
Click to expand...
I keep getting stuck on this point - what surrounding residents? There's over 100 - 200m of natural spaces, setbacks and right-of-ways on all sides from the nearest existing resident building. The way this one has been argued against, you'd think they are proposing 80 stories with a 1m setback next to an adjacent SFH.

I disagree with people opposed to townhome infills near their homes, but at least the development actually is a few metres from their house - there is a logical connection to why someone would think it's a bit too tall or has too many recycling bins. A redevelopment two football fields away with no direct road connections can't materially impact me day-to-day, unless it's an airport or nuclear storage site or something.
 
CBBarnett said:
I keep getting stuck on this point - what surrounding residents?
Click to expand...
For better or worse, I think what tipped people over was:
  • Traffic congestion, not just in the surrounding roads, but in GL itself, which already has tight parking and often has delays even getting out of the parking lot.
  • Those diagrams showing shadowing in Haysboro (at 4pm in fall and spring, or whatever the standard was.)
 
Last edited:
badc0ffee said:
I think the lesson here is "don't worry, they're not going to build to the maximum height, because they never do, trust me" doesn't cut it. I get that developers have to over-apply for density, but surrounding residents who care about that kind of thing need better assurances.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, but what you're really advocating for here is a complete rejigging of the Land Use Redesignations process.

Either we can just accept that Land Use Districts don't tell you very much about the development, start applying them proactively, and then having a more fulsome DP debate.
Or we can reactively make our LUB the most stringent in the world just so crabby residents get two places to say no instead of one.
 
CBBarnett said:
I keep getting stuck on this point - what surrounding residents? There's over 100 - 200m of natural spaces, setbacks and right-of-ways on all sides from the nearest existing resident building. The way this one has been argued against, you'd think they are proposing 80 stories with a 1m setback next to an adjacent SFH.

I disagree with people opposed to townhome infills near their homes, but at least the development actually is a few metres from their house - there is a logical connection to why someone would think it's a bit too tall or has too many recycling bins. A redevelopment two football fields away with no direct road connections can't materially impact me day-to-day, unless it's an airport or nuclear storage site or something.
Click to expand...

A lot of misinformation was being pushed to residents. The community association created these fake out-of-scale renderings to push the message that the towers would loom over everything.

This is ridiculous. As someone who goes to Westbrook often, you barely even notice those Intergulf-Cidex towers.

1733427914133.png

1733427928613.png

1733427996669.png
 
I never saw those renderings before, where are the punk kids spraying graffiti on everything too?
 
Nimbus said:
I never saw those renderings before, where are the punk kids spraying graffiti on everything too?
Click to expand...
That was the render the NIMBYs were using, the developer did not create that. We talked about it on here some time ago, especially how the traffic bypassing the site and having nothing to do with it was total gridlock lol. Apparently people are susceptible to misinformation...
 
I’m disappointed with the result, but it’s not the end of the world. Either the developer comes back with a smaller scale plan that gets folded in, or those units end up getting built somewhere else in the city.

Out of curiosity, what would’ve happened if it was 7 to 7 instead of 8 to 6? I’m asking only because if it wasn’t for fuckwad Chu being a councillor when he shouldn’t be the, the vote, likely would’ve been 7 to 7.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top