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

maestro said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
maestro said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here's from the link MichaelS posted:
1730598266376.png


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.

maestro said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
An interesting tidbit from the materials about the project about the phasing, not sure if we've seen this before explicitly - seems like it will be a while until the strip mall is redeveloped, the priority is redevelopment along the edges:

1730753320185.png
 
CBBarnett said:
An interesting tidbit from the materials about the project about the phasing, not sure if we've seen this before explicitly - seems like it will be a while until the strip mall is redeveloped, the priority is redevelopment along the edges:

View attachment 609680
Click to expand...
So the 50, 65, 80, 96 and 65 metre along the perimeter? Still a decent amount of development work ahead.

1730755344622.png
 
Last edited:
CalgaryTiger said:
So the 50, 65, 90, and 65 metre along the perimeter? Still a decent amount of development work ahead.

View attachment 609686
Click to expand...
Yeah I think so - essentially the strip mall and interfaces with the actual park space is business-as-usual for a few decades. A quick check of the census tracts adjacent to this development, the percentage of people 65 or older is as follows - Eagle Ridge (29%), Bayview (29%), Palliser (32%) and Pump Hill (44%).

Assuming no one moves and the plans don't accelerate, between 30 - 45% of the people in the communities surrounding this development are unlikely to see the park interface change in their lifetime. Probably just as likely is plans get delayed, restructured or cancelled for any number of reasons over the coming decades.
 
CBBarnett said:
Yeah I think so - essentially the strip mall and interfaces with the actual park space is business-as-usual for a few decades. A quick check of the census tracts adjacent to this development, the percentage of people 65 or older is as follows - Eagle Ridge (29%), Bayview (29%), Palliser (32%) and Pump Hill (44%).

Assuming no one moves and the plans don't accelerate, between 30 - 45% of the people in the communities surrounding this development are unlikely to see the park interface change in their lifetime. Probably just as likely is plans get delayed, restructured or cancelled for any number of reasons over the coming decades.
Click to expand...
It's kind of an ideal urban infill situation at this scale. Developing the grass wasteland perimeter while leaving the existing commercial is a pretty unobtrusive way to develop this. I.e before the current amenities disappear new CRUs can be built to accommodate retailers to move over and then the existing is redeveloped in decades.
 
CBBarnett said:
Yeah I think so - essentially the strip mall and interfaces with the actual park space is business-as-usual for a few decades. A quick check of the census tracts adjacent to this development, the percentage of people 65 or older is as follows - Eagle Ridge (29%), Bayview (29%), Palliser (32%) and Pump Hill (44%).

Assuming no one moves and the plans don't accelerate, between 30 - 45% of the people in the communities surrounding this development are unlikely to see the park interface change in their lifetime. Probably just as likely is plans get delayed, restructured or cancelled for any number of reasons over the coming decades.
Click to expand...
I imagine a lot of these units will be upscale and target wealthy retirees (based on nothing, but it makes sense to me for this location...its hard to picture a bunch of 1bdrm units here), so if you're an older person who already likes to access this complex then these towers would be a wonderful opportunity to downsize to single level living. And if it plays out that way then all of the traffic/parking concerns will look pretty silly.

I'm too young to really grapple with the idea, but I can't imagine many better set-ups for your twilight years with everything you need within a short walk (always maintained), walking paths nearby, etc
 
With the changes recommended for the surrounding infrastructure there is no way this doesn't pass.

They've put in a lot effort without any sober thought into is this as bad as it is being made out to be. I assume there has been some disingenuous twisting of the facts that "they want to put 15 towers varying between 11 and 30 storeys there". Sure, they could do that but there is zero chance Glenmore Landing gets more towers than the Beltline has in a decade and becomes more dense than any other large scale development in the city's history.

The reality is a much smaller scale development occurs that still takes 15 years+ to build. Also, if you live close enough to walk to what could be a mini University District style development that will definitely be a positive for you and your already high property value.
 
Unfortunately, it seems that some naysayers have fixated on the fact that city council has been told that the ultimate potential for the entire site is this many buildings with that maximum height and the community has it in their mind that this is what is actually going to be built. It’s unlikely that it will come to that and especially in their lifetime or at least for the amount of time they live in the neighbourhood! The reality is quite a lot more bearable than the dream and the community is not thinking in terms of reality.
 
lemongrab said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nothing like this exists in Calgary. It does exist elsewhere in Canada and, for the most part, again, they never live up to expectations. They end housing for the poor. This proposal is too obvious investor driven bland, over intensification. Tall towers on cramped large podiums. Not much hope here for long term viability. The rest of Canada is nuts with large towns building 35 storey towers. It's mediocre, overpriced housing. Fuck the Joneses if that is what it's all about here

This developer owns hundreds of properties with dozens of planned developments larger than this. They have several hundred thousand units proposed across Canada The purpose is to increase value and flexibility with uncertainty in commercial holdings. They will build some. Most will either be sold/ partnered off or proposed in perpetuity.
 
maestro said:
Nothing like this exists in Calgary. It does exist elsewhere in Canada and, for the most part, again, they never live up to expectations. They end housing for the poor. This proposal is too obvious investor driven bland, over intensification. Tall towers on cramped large podiums. Not much hope here for long term viability. The rest of Canada is nuts with large towns building 35 storey towers. It's mediocre, overpriced housing. Fuck the Joneses if that is what it's all about here

This developer owns hundreds of properties with dozens of planned developments larger than this. They have several hundred thousand units proposed across Canada The purpose is to increase value and flexibility with uncertainty in commercial holdings. They will build some. Most will either be sold/ partnered off or proposed in perpetuity.
Click to expand...
"They end housing for the poor" - doubtful in this location
 
CalgaryTiger said:
With the changes recommended for the surrounding infrastructure there is no way this doesn't pass.

They've put in a lot effort without any sober thought into is this as bad as it is being made out to be. I assume there has been some disingenuous twisting of the facts that "they want to put 15 towers varying between 11 and 30 storeys there". Sure, they could do that but there is zero chance Glenmore Landing gets more towers than the Beltline has in a decade and becomes more dense than any other large scale development in the city's history.

The reality is a much smaller scale development occurs that still takes 15 years+ to build. Also, if you live close enough to walk to what could be a mini University District style development that will definitely be a positive for you and your already high property value.
Click to expand...
I live about a 10 minute walk from Glenmore landing and I support the development. In fact I’m interested in buying a unit if what they build is as least close to what’s currently planned.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top