Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackArcher101
If Glenmore Landing isn't a good area for development, then which place in the city would be? Nearly all the same arguments being thrown against Glenmore would also be used elsewhere.
|
The argument specific to Glenmore Landing is access. It’s surrounded on two sides by the reservoir and Glenmore Park, and on a third side by the BRT with no car access. So access to the entire site (and it’s a very busy place) is via a single short stretch of road with one West-bound turn-in and one set of traffic lights.
Owing to the reservoir, that single road (90th ave) is already a chokepoint into the neighbouring communities. More traffic there will make it worse. Just look at a map and it should be clear why it will be a problem.
So given that visiting the mall itself will become more difficult (and it’s already a ####show) and 90th Ave will become more congested, it’s hardly surprising residents of the area are unhappy.
This is what I hate about the sneering derision towards NIMBYs. People act as though locals have to be selfish and stupid to oppose these sorts of developments. But the truth is, in many cases these new developments do actually make life worse for nearby residents. And most people don’t want their day-to-day lives to get worse. That doesn’t make them some ugly category of citizen - it makes them perfectly normal.
Instead of gaslighting people and telling them their concerns are irrational and without foundation, I wish we could be honest and say “in order to increase housing supply, we’re going to impose changes that will make things worse for most people who live nearby.” I genuinely think that would foster less resentment than the way we go about these thing now.