MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[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.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well we all know they're just playing games with this. They set the bar high and then "listening to feedback" reduced the tower heights. Great. But that's just treating this like a negotiation where you already know you're building this and just want to pretend you care what the residents think. It's not an honest discussion of whether this is a good place to have this development.

Same on my block. Developer asked for DC and overheight. Both were opposed by locals, dropped the overheight, kept the DC, and sailed through council having done ‘proper’ engagement. They didn’t give an F about height, it was the DC they wanted all along so they could build extra units.

[powderjunkie]

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.

Westbrook and North Hill Mall (Sears side) would both be really excellent IMO. Home Depot area near Chinook Mall, too (long before the Midtown infill station pump and dump should be considered).

Glenmore Landing and Viscount Bennett side are both 'very good'...these lands are currently generating no value and the proponents actually want to build. Which is Great! We should be building at all of the above.

[timun]

I sympathize with Slava's point, in that in my experience the City—both council and administration—do not seem to give a single, solitary #### about feedback from the citizenry.

At the same time, if development decisions were swayed by public feedback, there's such a huge base of people in this city who don't want anything built anywhere near them, or at all (so-called "BANANAs": "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone"), that nothing would ever get built. The most we could ever hope for is the construction of ever-further-flung suburbs, which just exasperates fiscal issues in the City's budget.

[Nancy]

How much is RioCan paying for this property, and did the City seek out other offers?

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Westbrook and North Hill Mall (Sears side) would both be really excellent IMO. Home Depot area near Chinook Mall, too (long before the Midtown infill station pump and dump should be considered).

Glenmore Landing and Viscount Bennett side are both 'very good'...these lands are currently generating no value and the proponents actually want to build. Which is Great! We should be building at all of the above.

Totally agree, especially North Hill, but that land is privately owned is it not? I wonder if the gasoline leak there has prevented the development.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

How is it not honest? Did they preface it with the fact that their decision on whether to go forward at all would hinge on the public consultation being in favour?

It's not honest because the outcome is predetermined. How do you have an honest consultation where the decision is already made? An honest consultation would be "hey, we're thinking of this, but before we decide we want to know what you guys who are about to be impacted think."

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Westbrook and North Hill Mall (Sears side) would both be really excellent IMO. Home Depot area near Chinook Mall, too (long before the Midtown infill station pump and dump should be considered).

Glenmore Landing and Viscount Bennett side are both 'very good'...these lands are currently generating no value and the proponents actually want to build. Which is Great! We should be building at all of the above.

Firepark, Anderson C-Train, More across the Heritage from Heritage C-Train...there are plenty of good locations for more density that is transit oriented.

And Glenmore Landing is not a good location. Sure, there's bare land there (just like these other locations), but the transportation options around there are not able to support all these people.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Westbrook and North Hill Mall (Sears side) would both be really excellent IMO. Home Depot area near Chinook Mall, too (long before the Midtown infill station pump and dump should be considered).

Glenmore Landing and Viscount Bennett side are both 'very good'...these lands are currently generating no value and the proponents actually want to build. Which is Great! We should be building at all of the above.

I imagine Viscount is losing money, 24/7 security there because I think people have been breaking in there and destroying stuff.

I think slava has mentioned the traffic at that 90th and 14th area. I never drive there in peak times so its never busy too me but I assume it gets ugly? I'm sure rebel news will spin this that they are punishing Pump Hill because the council is pro-palestine.

When does the public typically get to see a design? All I want is some commercial stuff at Viscount. Couple shops/restos/bakery! And when does that westbrook mall happen, been a long time of talking about it.

[Bigtime]

The security at the Viscount site is being paid for by the developer. Preliminary plans and some massing are already on their site, Minto Properties.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

It's not honest because the outcome is predetermined. How do you have an honest consultation where the decision is already made? An honest consultation would be "hey, we're thinking of this, but before we decide we want to know what you guys who are about to be impacted think."

Ok, but I’m actually asking if that was the way the consultation was prefaced?

Whether the outcome is predetermined or not doesn’t have anything to do with the “honesty” of a consultation, unless you’re completely distorting what a consultation actually is and trying to position it as a vote.

…

While I was writing this post I looked more into it, and it looks like it wasn’t prefaced as any sort of discussion or consultation, it was just a public notice (of which all approved developments go through) and anyone can appeal any approved development at any time and some advocacy group happened to glom on to this one?

So, it’s not like the city specifically set out to consult with anyone on whether they should go forward with this, is it? It had already been approved by the time the responses started coming in? Am I wrong here? Cause it doesn’t seem like the city is the group being dishonest here…

[btimbit]

Public consultation isn't about "Hey, should we do this" it's "Hey, do you think there are some things we have overlooked?"
It's also not a vote

They know going in that the vast majority of people showing up will be nimby's so the fact that it's mostly negative feedback doesn't change anything, they're looking for specific details they may have overlooked not just 'wah more traffic' and 'wah, lower income people'

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by Nancy

How much is RioCan paying for this property, and did the City seek out other offers?

Exactly this! I grew up in the area and I know it quite well. This appears to be a really big development for the size of the land but then again I am not an expert in it.

Why is this land only being sold to Rio Can? Why would prime development land only be sold to this one developer when there SHOULD be a bidding war for this type of development.

You see large sums of land in Calgary and elsewhere that seems to be sold to developers for what appears to be, below market value considering the profits.

The golf course on Richmond Road, the Vicount Bennett school, new development overlooking downtown and next to Shaganappi golf course.

All this land that is ripe for development but very little in the way of value being brought back to taxpayers for it's sale.

I think the answer to this is that the proper people were given their cash envelopes and bribes for this development and more. Absolutely no way that more large scale bids would not have been interested in this project.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Exactly this! I grew up in the area and I know it quite well. This appears to be a really big development for the size of the land but then again I am not an expert in it.

Why is this land only being sold to Rio Can? Why would prime development land only be sold to this one developer when there SHOULD be a bidding war for this type of development.

You see large sums of land in Calgary and elsewhere that seems to be sold to developers for what appears to be, below market value considering the profits.

The golf course on Richmond Road, the Vicount Bennett school, new development overlooking downtown and next to Shaganappi golf course.

All this land that is ripe for development but very little in the way of value being brought back to taxpayers for it's sale.

I think the answer to this is that the proper people were given their cash envelopes and bribes for this development and more. Absolutely no way that more large scale bids would not have been interested in this project.

Because RioCan owns Glenmore Landing.

[btimbit]

RioCan already owned the plaza, the only land being sold is bits of grass between the boulevard and the plaza.

No conspiracy theory here, it would be almost useless for anyone else to buy it

[CliffFletcher]

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.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Westbrook and North Hill Mall (Sears side) would both be really excellent IMO. Home Depot area near Chinook Mall, too (long before the Midtown infill station pump and dump should be considered).

Glenmore Landing and Viscount Bennett side are both 'very good'...these lands are currently generating no value and the proponents actually want to build. Which is Great! We should be building at all of the above.

Yeah, North Hill land needs to be remediated apparently - Sears (bankrupt obviously but had set 7.7M aside) and Suncor found responsible for cleanup and could take 15 years.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...n-up-1.5465143

[timun]

The land in question has a complicated history. The original Glenmore Landing developer, Intrawest, owned it in the first place. When the mall was developed in 1983 they entered into an agreement with the City to give the City the lands in question for a future roads interchange that was never (and foreseeably will never) be built. A restrictive covenant was entered onto the lands, which encumbered the mall owner to maintain the land and allow them to put signage up on that land, and which would not allow the City to build anything on that land that would disrupt the visibility of the mall from the roadway.

As such, on its own this land is basically undevelopable. No one would buy it other than RioCan. (who bought Glenmore Landing from Intrawest in 1987)

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ok, but I’m actually asking if that was the way the consultation was prefaced?

Whether the outcome is predetermined or not doesn’t have anything to do with the “honesty” of a consultation, unless you’re completely distorting what a consultation actually is and trying to position it as a vote.

…

While I was writing this post I looked more into it, and it looks like it wasn’t prefaced as any sort of discussion or consultation, it was just a public notice (of which all approved developments go through) and anyone can appeal any approved development at any time and some advocacy group happened to glom on to this one?

So, it’s not like the city specifically set out to consult with anyone on whether they should go forward with this, is it? It had already been approved by the time the responses started coming in? Am I wrong here? Cause it doesn’t seem like the city is the group being dishonest here…

I don't know really know how to respond, really. They put out notice saying this is what they want to do and asked for public input. got the input and then just do whatever they were doing anyway. I call that dishonest, but maybe that's the wrong term?

Honestly, I don't care enough to continue this same tired conversation (not with you, just on this topic). I know we're stuck with this and it's a done deal. Just build it already and let the chaos begin.

I will say, if they get this done and I love the new Glenmore Landing, I will admit it. Maybe they have really figured everything out and my concerns are unfounded.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Well, if this is all it takes to make it right:

"In order to increase housing supply, we’re going to impose changes that will make things worse for most people who live nearby."

That is true for almost any development outside of a greenfield one.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Well, if this is all it takes to make it right:

"In order to increase housing supply, we’re going to impose changes that will make things worse for most people who live nearby."

That is true for almost any development outside of a greenfield one.

So let’s be honest about it. And recognize that being unhappy about the development is perfectly normal and understandable, rather than some ignorant character defect.