MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Aren't they looking to jam in some hilarious 20 story complex in Marda Loop as well?

20 stories wouldn’t be that bad. What’s that, a couple feet tall?

But look out, it might actually be 20 big bad scary storeys. There goes the neighbourhood.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Here's the thing. Every time there's a development proposal, the people in the area object. And they all say they're not against density. It just can't happen in their area because of "very good reasons..."

Neighbourhoods aren't as special as the complainers think they are.

No, this is just people who don’t live anywhere near the development and won’t have to deal with the consequences, and they’re unsurprisingly in favour. The reality is this isn’t about preserving the character of the neighbourhood, or however else you want to characterize it. The site is not suitable for the additional people. We already have density in this area and that’s not what the problem is.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, this is just people who don’t live anywhere near the development and won’t have to deal with the consequences, and they’re unsurprisingly in favour. The reality is this isn’t about preserving the character of the neighbourhood, or however else you want to characterize it. The site is not suitable for the additional people. We already have density in this area and that’s not what the problem is.

How do you differentiate between the argument you are making and the identical argument that a NIMBY in Lake Bonnevista would make.

What metrics are you using to justify your position that could be used to discredit the same but disingenuous argument made elsewhere?

[Manhattanboy]

Ha I bet the idiots in City Transportation who pushed for the BRT rather than widening 14 St instead of being fired received nice raises.

What a white elephant of a project.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by fotze2

There cannot be 100% approval on every project, otherwise why have approvals.

Because the perfect threat (i.e. rejection) is one you never have to implement. A rejected approval means that people have wasted their time. It's a net loss of labour for society. We should absolutely be striving for a 100% approval rate, driven by clear, consistent, and understandable conditions for approval.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by SebC

Because the perfect threat (i.e. rejection) is one you never have to implement. A rejected approval means that people have wasted their time. It's a net loss of labour for society. We should absolutely be striving for a 100% approval rate, driven by clear, consistent, and understandable conditions for approval.

At least developers and others who risk significant amounts of time and money can be assured that the so-called approving authorities always apply their decision making standards and criteria uniformly in accordance with the prescribed regulations and guidelines and free from political and other considerations.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

How do you differentiate between the argument you are making and the identical argument that a NIMBY in Lake Bonnevista would make.

What metrics are you using to justify your position that could be used to discredit the same but disingenuous argument made elsewhere?

The argument I was making is that there is not enough infrastructure in place to support that development. If there isn’t a fix for that, the project shouldn’t proceed. I don’t know anything about a proposal for Lake Bonavista (aside from the joke proposal I made in this thread for a multi-tower rental project, safe injection site and bottle depot to be developed on the current mall site!).

The interesting thing about the Glenmore Landing project, is that the bus lane that no one uses took away another entry point into Glenmore Landing. It’s one of the reasons that corner cannot be fixed now.

Anyway, like I’ve said before, I just assumed that this project was going ahead. I’m surprised it wasn’t passed, and frankly I would be surprised if it doesn’t come back again. I would imagine that Rio-Can is not pleased with this, and why wouldn’t they take another shot?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

The argument I was making is that there is not enough infrastructure in place to support that development. If there isn’t a fix for that, the project shouldn’t proceed. I don’t know anything about a proposal for Lake Bonavista (aside from the joke proposal I made in this thread for a multi-tower rental project, safe injection site and bottle depot to be developed on the current mall site!).

The interesting thing about the Glenmore Landing project, is that the bus lane that no one uses took away another entry point into Glenmore Landing. It’s one of the reasons that corner cannot be fixed now.

Anyway, like I’ve said before, I just assumed that this project was going ahead. I’m surprised it wasn’t passed, and frankly I would be surprised if it doesn’t come back again. I would imagine that Rio-Can is not pleased with this, and why wouldn’t they take another shot?

My LB project was completely hypothetical. My question would be how you differentiate between reals concerns about infrastructure vs fake concerns. Like what data are you using to back up your belief that the infrastructure in the area is insufficient to handle more people?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

My LB project was completely hypothetical. My question would be how you differentiate between reals concerns about infrastructure vs fake concerns. Like what data are you using to back up your belief that the infrastructure in the area is insufficient to handle more people?

Well it’s lived experience. I drive past this a couple times a day, every day. Look at the map and it’s just plainly evident. Of course the developer stands to make a huge profit selling condos here, so they think it’s fine. The city trots out some study saying traffic was worse in 2014, so apparently that’s fine. It just ignores that in 2014 there was one less turning lane and the traffic was a complete fataing nightmare there, but sure…let’s go back to that?

The truth is, you can be in favour of density, affordable housing and even bike lanes without being in favour of every single project. Some of these proposals are just bad ideas.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, this is just people who don’t live anywhere near the development and won’t have to deal with the consequences, and they’re unsurprisingly in favour. The reality is this isn’t about preserving the character of the neighbourhood, or however else you want to characterize it. The site is not suitable for the additional people. We already have density in this area and that’s not what the problem is.

Every time there's development proposed, people from that community oppose it. They all claim it is for a very good reason and that they're not opposed to density, as long as it happens somewhere else.

Well, if it can only happen "somewhere else" then we just need to keep expanding area-wise until we cover all land in southern Alberta. The city can't grow by stashing new people away somewhere current Calgarians can't see them.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Every time there's development proposed, people from that community oppose it. They all claim it is for a very good reason and that they're not opposed to density, as long as it happens somewhere else.

Well, if it can only happen "somewhere else" then we just need to keep expanding area-wise until we cover all land in southern Alberta. The city can't grow by stashing new people away somewhere current Calgarians can't see them.

Great. You live nowhere near this and you’re in favour. I get it, and I understand that position. It doesn’t mean it’s a good idea and it doesn’t mean it should go ahead.

Like I have said before, you can be in favour of these things and it doesn’t mean every project is a good idea. The issue here has nothing to do with density. There are towers like 3 blocks away, townhouses and rowhouses across the street and all kinds of housing aside from single family homes around here. There’s no issue with that because the infrastructure has been modified and upgraded to make it work. That can’t be done with that parcel of land.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Slava

Great. You live nowhere near this and you’re in favour. I get it, and I understand that position. It doesn’t mean it’s a good idea and it doesn’t mean it should go ahead.

Like I have said before, you can be in favour of these things and it doesn’t mean every project is a good idea. The issue here has nothing to do with density. There are towers like 3 blocks away, townhouses and rowhouses across the street and all kinds of housing aside from single family homes around here. There’s no issue with that because the infrastructure has been modified and upgraded to make it work. That can’t be done with that parcel of land.

I get it. Projects near you are bad projects and projects in areas where you don't go are good projects.

The thing is residents near any proposed development have a "lived experience" that tells them it's not suitable. So how can we trust that "evidence" when making decisions? How do I trust your opinion over the person complaining on the news about every other development?

And don't worry, my street was subject of a rant here earlier about how backed up traffic gets. I'm familiar with the hassle.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

I get it. Projects near you are bad projects and projects in areas where you don't go are good projects.

The thing is residents near any proposed development have a "lived experience" that tells them it's not suitable. So how can we trust that "evidence" when making decisions? How do I trust your opinion over the person complaining on the news about every other development?

And don't worry, my street was subject of a rant here earlier about how backed up traffic gets. I'm familiar with the hassle.

No, I’ve proposed other sites in this thread that make far more sense within a 2-5 minute drive. Like I say…just because we need density and housing doesn’t mean every project is a good idea. We have other towers slated for the shopping center that I go to all the time and I’m fine with those.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well it’s lived experience. I drive past this a couple times a day, every day. Look at the map and it’s just plainly evident. Of course the developer stands to make a huge profit selling condos here, so they think it’s fine. The city trots out some study saying traffic was worse in 2014, so apparently that’s fine. It just ignores that in 2014 there was one less turning lane and the traffic was a complete fataing nightmare there, but sure…let’s go back to that?

The truth is, you can be in favour of density, affordable housing and even bike lanes without being in favour of every single project. Some of these proposals are just bad ideas.

Try to quantify this...how often does it take you multiple light cycles to exit GL or make the triple left? because I can't remember the last time that happened to me at either location (though i'm rarely there at rush hour)

[Slava]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Try to quantify this...how often does it take you multiple light cycles to exit GL or make the triple left? because I can't remember the last time that happened to me at either location (though i'm rarely there at rush hour)

If you go there regularly, you know that parking lot is a disaster as it is. Now add 3000 people and tell me how that improves things?

And it’s not only entry/exit into Glenmore Landing (although that’s a huge problem). It’s the intersection at 14th/90th and then 14th/Heritage from there. That’s already an issue during rush hour.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Aren't they looking to jam in some hilarious 20 story complex in Marda Loop as well?

2x8 story blocks plus 2x19 story towers anchored by a Co-op right in the centre of Marda. They have the nerve to adopt the names of the original occupants of that corner - Marc and Mada - that gave the neighbourhood part of its name

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Every time there's development proposed, people from that community oppose it. They all claim it is for a very good reason and that they're not opposed to density, as long as it happens somewhere else.

Well, if it can only happen "somewhere else" then we just need to keep expanding area-wise until we cover all land in southern Alberta. The city can't grow by stashing new people away somewhere current Calgarians can't see them.

Sometimes good progress/decisions are made from opposition. In Varsity, we had a redevelopment proposed for the firehall to expand that and build some commercial and low income housing. Obviously the scale is much different but overall the residents did not oppose the need for the project but they opposed the design plan. The original design was defeated, the work was re-done and the second plan was approved to the satisfaction of the residents. It still includes a bigger firehall, low income housing and commercial space but in a manner that suits the community better.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

Because the perfect threat (i.e. rejection) is one you never have to implement. A rejected approval means that people have wasted their time. It's a net loss of labour for society. We should absolutely be striving for a 100% approval rate, driven by clear, consistent, and understandable conditions for approval.

There's an easy answer for this. Developer should propose projects that fit the current zoning requirements. Step one of project approval...does it meet current zoning (pass/fail). The Marda Loop bloc is zoned for 6 story building. Build out the whole block at 6 stories and make some good $. But no... need 19. A corner lot on my block is zoned for 8 units, but no, the developer wanted 10. So we go through the pantomime of community engagement and protests at council but it still goes through.

[Locke]

What if we made a 20-story condo building that floats in the middle of the reservoir? No traffic considerations, no 'shadow' issues.

The residents would have to Canoe and Kayak there and back, so no parking to be concerned with, its on water that wasn't being occupied so the densification is perfect.

It just...wouldnt necessarily be were you left it all the time, so the commute home could be a bit of a bitch.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Why is that relevant? He cares because it impacts him directly.

It’s about as relevant as him repeatedly mentioning that people in favour of it don’t even live there. Pretty easy conversation to follow.