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

darwink said:
I remain convinced the main reason for opposition was the removal of the slip lane for accessing Safeway directly from 14th Street SW which added 2 minutes to many people’s errands. Without that you still have directly adjacent landowners expressing concern but it doesn’t turn into a general concern for the surrounding neighbourhoods.

View attachment 494124
Click to expand...
Crazy what people will complain about, can't save transit users time because they might lose 2 minutes sitting in a car
 
KrisYYC said:
There's a fair bit of opposition to this project in my community too (Haysboro) which I find a bit odd because Glenmore landing isn't in Haysboro nor is it really connected to it other than the pedestrian bridge that crosses 14th st at 90th Ave. Hard to say how many are actually opposed to it though, I'm just going off what I see in our community page on Facebook.
Click to expand...
Likely just spill over from the restrictive covenant campaigners? Have they realized what they want isn’t popular yet?
 
KrisYYC said:
There's a fair bit of opposition to this project in my community too (Haysboro) which I find a bit odd because Glenmore landing isn't in Haysboro nor is it really connected to it other than the pedestrian bridge that crosses 14th st at 90th Ave. Hard to say how many are actually opposed to it though, I'm just going off what I see in our community page on Facebook.
Click to expand...
I noticed that as well. NIMBY'S NIMBYing... some people will complain about anything other then a bunch of SFDs. Hell there were a bunch of folk complaining about The Nines on Elbow and Southland which is being built on a field of weeds... anything to avoid living near to *GASP* renters I guess.
 
gsunnyg said:
In the midst of a housing crisis, how are these NIMBYs even allowed to have any influence? They'll pull any BS from their NIMBY book to stop a project from progressing.
Click to expand...

Our self interests are just different. We want to see more construction. They want less. The housing crisis is the ultimate excuse to be pro developer with less bureaucracy. . Like building more under sized and overpriced units to be delivered iafter 5 years is going to help anyone.

This a weird plan. Tall towers surrounding an interior of one or two storey retail buildings. Someone mentioned medium rises. I think redistributing the density with blocks of mixed use medium rises would have a better feel.
 
maestro said:
Our self interests are just different. We want to see more construction. They want less. The housing crisis is the ultimate excuse to be pro developer with less bureaucracy. . Like building more under sized and overpriced units to be delivered iafter 5 years is going to help anyone.

This a weird plan. Tall towers surrounding an interior of one or two storey retail buildings. Someone mentioned medium rises. I think redistributing the density with blocks of mixed use medium rises would have a better feel.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that it would have a better feel... but Calgary needs both more housing and less sprawl so I'm not willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
 
gsunnyg said:
In the midst of a housing crisis, how are these NIMBYs even allowed to have any influence? They'll pull any BS from their NIMBY book to stop a project from progressing.
Click to expand...

It just seems to me that the current system has such a heavy council component. Elected officials are always going to have a tough time with the current system going against the potential opinions of citizens that they're trying to get votes from going forward. The system seems to treat mega developments in the same light as a really minor project, it's interesting to say the least.

I just can't see brownfield ever advancing anywhere close to greenfield developments with the level of risk and timing involved.
 
maestro said:
This a weird plan. Tall towers surrounding an interior of one or two storey retail buildings. Someone mentioned medium rises. I think redistributing the density with blocks of mixed use medium rises would have a better feel.
Click to expand...
I get that it’s “weird” in the sense of being very different scale than what is there previously - and midrises are a great design tool that can be cheaper and faster to build with benefits on the ground orientation, shadows etc. but tower/podium designs are fairly standard Canadian city templates, I’m sure it could work fine here, if thoughtfully implemented.

For this site I struggle with the NIMBY perspective, generally of course, but especially here. Who is actually impacted by any proposal, towers or not, on the site?

These are hardly being built in people’s backyards, with dozens or hundreds of metres from the nearest other property. I don’t see how anything will pass an impact test to truly be impacted by whatever is built here.

From design and build-out pacing there’s lots to debate - I’d prefer lower development, with faster build out times so we don’t see another site struggle to complete for a few decades at the whims of when or if tower construction is profitable. I would love to see a strong, truly attractive park-to-BRT pedestrian spine that evolves into an actual destination one-day. But that’s my opinion on site aesthetics, build out pacing and a rudimentary understanding of development economics - I don’t actually get a say on that apart from enjoyable debates with you all on this forum.

I just don’t get how any opponents will justify they have been impacted by this. I’m sure all the regular NIMBY tropes will apply, just this one is so far removed from if they were proposing a tower directly beside a house in the community, for example.
 
Last edited:
I'm actually surprised at the lack of opposition to this thus far given where it is in the city. If this was 10 years ago, local media would have kicked up a real ruckus. Remember the fuss over the BRT?
 
artvandelay said:
I'm actually surprised at the lack of opposition to this thus far given where it is in the city. If this was 10 years ago, local media would have kicked up a real ruckus. Remember the fuss over the BRT?
Click to expand...
Maybe there is no video footage (yet) of an old man swearing a city staff during an engement session, thus not as gripping for television news.
 
CBBarnett said:
I just don’t get how any opponents will justify they have been impacted by this. I’m sure all the regular NIMBY tropes will apply, just this one is so far removed from if they were proposing a tower directly beside a house in the community, for example.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, there's Nimby and then there's Nimby. Complaining about parking, shadowing, loss of privacy, these may be valid concerns for an individual to have but those concerns might be outweighed by the need to densify. But this complaint about the redevelopment on the same parcel as an existing one that has minimal direct effect on residents' seems completely ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top