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

Atticus said:
What I mean by necessary is, the developer is asking for up to 36 stories, so i’m assuming they must think it’s necessary for this development.
My concern isn’t with shadowing, only that it’s a large development for a small area that has two ingress points/one egress point. It has BRT, but I’d still rather see developments of this scale built around an LRT station or in an area walkable to DT
I’d rather see this development at around 600-800 units instead of 1300 units.
Click to expand...
I too would rather see 1300 units built closer to the core or near an LRT station, and if I could wave a magic wand I'd move this to Brentwood LRT where the park and ride is. That said I think the site can handle 1300 units. It sound like a lot, but the three apartment towers west on 90th are probably close to 500 units and they're hardly noticeable in a location with two enter/exit points, and no rapid transit.
 
Interesting that they've labeled themselves a 'preservation group'. Seems dishonest.

That said,
"The city acquired the land in the 1980s and made an agreement with the former owner that the land would be used only for green space. "
is kind of shady, What I'd be in favour of is to shift the parcel towards 14th and 90th and swap the 'green space' to the north and west of the property, shifting the development away from the reservoir.
 
JoeUrban said:
Interesting that they've labeled themselves a 'preservation group'. Seems dishonest.

That said,
"The city acquired the land in the 1980s and made an agreement with the former owner that the land would be used only for green space. "
is kind of shady, What I'd be in favour of is to shift the parcel towards 14th and 90th and swap the 'green space' to the north and west of the property, shifting the development away from the reservoir.
Click to expand...
No one can enter a perpetual contract, not even the city. Only if there is a restrictive covenant attached to the parcel and the counter party still exists and wants to enforce, that could be possible.

A quick title search shows no restrictive covenant.
 
Looking at the shadow studies I think it would make more sense to even out the building heights vs low rise plus quite tall towers. The shadowing of a few blocks in Haysboro is kind of brutal, I'd hate to live in those houses. I don't really get the complaints about traffic though, it's a completely segregated parcel that fronts onto two high and medium volume roads.
 
JoeUrban said:
Looking at the shadow studies I think it would make more sense to even out the building heights vs low rise plus quite tall towers. The shadowing of a few blocks in Haysboro is kind of brutal, I'd hate to live in those houses. I don't really get the complaints about traffic though, it's a completely segregated parcel that fronts onto two high and medium volume roads.
Click to expand...
Isn't it the trade off of shadowing the park in the morning and afternoon vs shadowing a few SFHs for a bit of the evening?
 
Atticus said:
What I mean by necessary is, the developer is asking for up to 36 stories, so i’m assuming they must think it’s necessary for this development.
My concern isn’t with shadowing, only that it’s a large development for a small area that has two ingress points/one egress point. It has BRT, but I’d still rather see developments of this scale built around an LRT station or in an area walkable to DT
I’d rather see this development at around 600-800 units instead of 1300 units.
Click to expand...
Weird nobody worried about 5000 homes in Cranston with only three egress/ingress points. The good thing about a small area is that people can walk out if they need to on the two pathways or even across grass; a big area like Cranston forces people to use their cars to go through the more limited access points.

Personally, I'd rather see rents going up by 2% instead of 15% and a summer without wildfire smoke, but we have to work with the context we have. Unless you want the city expropriating and directing development, these developers can't build their project on somebody else's land. And this is a reasonable development for this location, especially given the stagnant/declining communities in the area. (Haysboro has gained population, but I'd bet that's almost entirely near Macleod, and most of that is in the London towers.)

1697575086289.png
 
ByeByeBaby said:
Weird nobody worried about 5000 homes in Cranston with only three egress/ingress points. The good thing about a small area is that people can walk out if they need to on the two pathways or even across grass; a big area like Cranston forces people to use their cars to go through the more limited access points.

Personally, I'd rather see rents going up by 2% instead of 15% and a summer without wildfire smoke, but we have to work with the context we have. Unless you want the city expropriating and directing development, these developers can't build their project on somebody else's land. And this is a reasonable development for this location, especially given the stagnant/declining communities in the area. (Haysboro has gained population, but I'd bet that's almost entirely near Macleod, and most of that is in the London towers.)

View attachment 513748
Click to expand...
It's probably not understood that this development - up to a big and scary 26 storeys - *still* is only equal to the population loss of Oakridge the past 40 years. Looking more broadly, the "impacted" communities are even emptier, that SW area between 14th, Glenmore & Fish Creek is down about 5,000 residents from peak.

1697581619701.png


Data is not available, but do we have some ideas of how much pavement, interchanges, transitways were install in this area over that time? If traffic and congestion are a concern for new development so facts to alleviate concerns:
  • 14% decline in local population
  • SW transitway investment
  • 10-lanes of mostly empty multi-billion dollar SW Ring Road with great, direct connections to this area
  • Countless turn lane and road widening projects along 14th and other streets over the past 40 years
So yeah - the area can handle this growth. Given how much public investment went into the area to expand transportation capacity, we could add a few dozen Glenmore landing scale developments in the area, not just one.
 
JoeUrban said:
I don't really get the complaints about traffic though, it's a completely segregated parcel that fronts onto two high and medium volume roads.
Click to expand...

The 16th/90th intersection is dangerous enough right now just serving the existing shops. It's obviously busy with car traffic, but there are also plenty of pedestrians and cyclists heading to/from Glenmore Park and the JCC, plus slow-moving seniors going shopping from the retirement homes across the street.

Cars exiting Glenmore Landing often will turn left without checking for oncoming traffic or pedestrians. I've been nearly hit on my bike several times, and I've seen drivers go ballistic on pedestrians who have the right of way. Any plan to increase density without making improvements to the intersection would be idiotic.
 
Anoncalgarian said:
I've seen drivers go ballistic on pedestrians who have the right of way.
Click to expand...
People in big metal moving boxes thinking they own the road and all adjacent infrastructure because they've been conditioned to not losing a minute of drive time for other modes of transportation? Huge, if true.

Scramble intersections for pedestrians need to be more widely used.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
People in big metal moving boxes thinking they own the road and all adjacent infrastructure because they've been conditioned to not losing a minute of drive time for other modes of transportation? Huge, if true.

Scramble intersections for pedestrians need to be more widely used.
Click to expand...
I’m still convinced most of the pushback on the SW BRT came from the added inconvenience of accessing Safeway from 14th Street. So yes.
 
Anoncalgarian said:
The 16th/90th intersection is dangerous enough right now just serving the existing shops. It's obviously busy with car traffic, but there are also plenty of pedestrians and cyclists heading to/from Glenmore Park and the JCC, plus slow-moving seniors going shopping from the retirement homes across the street.

Cars exiting Glenmore Landing often will turn left without checking for oncoming traffic or pedestrians. I've been nearly hit on my bike several times, and I've seen drivers go ballistic on pedestrians who have the right of way. Any plan to increase density without making improvements to the intersection would be idiotic.
Click to expand...
Updated signal timing could fix a lot of that. Also, having more pedestrians and cyclists in the area would force drivers to slow down and pay more attention.
 
Anoncalgarian said:
Cars exiting Glenmore Landing often will turn left without checking for oncoming traffic or pedestrians.
Click to expand...
At first I thought I knew what you were talking about here, but isn't it true that the left turn out of Glenmore Landing doesn't conflict with pedestrians? The crosswalk is on the west side, so really it would be right-turning cars. Or, cars turning left out of the JCC. But maybe I'm confused.
 
badc0ffee said:
At first I thought I knew what you were talking about here, but isn't it true that the left turn out of Glenmore Landing doesn't conflict with pedestrians? The crosswalk is on the west side, so really it would be right-turning cars. Or, cars turning left out of the JCC. But maybe I'm confused.
Click to expand...

There are crosswalks on all sides.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top