^ Related question, I guess, but now that the SW BRT has been finished for a while: are things more or less the same for area residents and commuters on 90th, 14th, etc. as pre-BRT? Maybe slightly improved if you use transit, but certainly not at the expense of those that are able to drive, right?
Probably because there aren't any residences anywhere near Glenmore Landing. I know what could fix that...
There are residences all over the place near Glenmore Landing. Those are the people who don't want this project!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang
^ Related question, I guess, but now that the SW BRT has been finished for a while: are things more or less the same for area residents and commuters on 90th, 14th, etc. as pre-BRT? Maybe slightly improved if you use transit, but certainly not at the expense of those that are able to drive, right?
It's a really hard comparison because Covid and WFH changed so much about people commuting. So, is 14th better because of SWBRT, or just because people are not commuting to work? I think that the most significant impact to traffic in the area was the additional lane to turn left from 90th to 14th. Before that, getting out of the community would take forever.
Well that’s the first I heard of opposition, and I live in the neighbourhood and talk with neighbours about the redevelopment regularly. Whatever opposition there was certainly didn’t have the profile of what’s currently going on with Glenmore Landing.
It's the same communities doing the complaining for both projects, the same notes get hit over and over whether it's 250 or 500 or 3000.
Some gems
Spoiler!
Quote:
I think the plan is too large in scope and will negatively impact the quality of traffic, overpopulation, and business of the area as a whole. Pedestrian safety will still be a problem given the current bus routes.
Quote:
Highrise apts/condos do not benefit a residential area such as Oakridge, which has always been a quite, nature focused, family oriented, pseudo wildlife preserve within a city of noise and hustle bustle. As well, there are many existing problems with traffic congestion along the major routes leading out of Oakridge. There have been serious traffic fatalities/accidents either involving vehicles or vehicles vs pedestrians, especially considering the high number of elderly in the area and surrounding areas
---
Generating even more income is what this development is all about (for both the Co-op and the City of Calgary regardless of the consequences, needs, wants nor desires of the tax paying residents) but the added congestion, increased transient population, disgruntled residential population, along with the subsequent effects to South Glenmore Park, Wildlife, Flora and Fauna, unlawful activities in Glenmore Park, added strains to police services due to
the transient portion of those renting in the area, potential strains on the fire department and EMS due to increased numbers of people and density, additional infrastructure and maintenance, increased city services, etc., etc.
Once again, as per usual, very poor planning and extremely short vision on the City's part.
Once again we are rapidly moving toward becoming a banana republic and everyone can see it except those hoping to make self serving gains at the expense to others.
Very Diappointed.
Quote:
This changes do not address needs of our community at all.
First Where is infrastructure for all this new development. . Roads can not handle it what we have now, and nobody wonts to see that. The new line is not going to solve any problem at all. Only creating even more
Quote:
Increase in truck traffic - recycling trucks, garbage trucks, delivery vehicles, visitors to condos... will cause danger, noise, confusion, delays, pollution, graffiti
BIG QUESTION:
Is such a large development economically & environmentally sustainable?
Quote:
No. I believe this development will only create more traffic and congestion to an area which is already extremely inconvenient during rush hour. As a home owner in the oakridge community, I'm extremely against this development in our community. This development should not be pursued as all the homeowners I know in oakridge are against it.
Quote:
I am still not sure why these condos are needed here. We have enough people here already and cars. I am saying this because where are all the condo people's friends and relatives going to park? And along came the not needed BRT to take up parking as well. Concerned about that.
Quote:
No! This is too invasive for our small community. Towering over the homes and casting shade over the homes and gardens of local residents. Driving house prices down in a most desirable area. There will not be enough parking spaces when you consider most people have a partner and two vehicles for each apartment at minimum, not including visitor parking. This will be an eyesore, stuck in the middle of our community as with most apartment developments in the city, that are beautiful to begin with and then the upkeep is not maintained. Original occupants move out, others move in, who accept the lower level of maintenance and so this continues. Ugly balconies strewn with bikes, BBQ's, washing and other undesirable sights. Only the landowner wins!
Quote:
We just got a huge tower added on 24th Street that has added way too many residents to the neighborhood. Why do we need more towers and more people? Not a fit for our community at all.
Quote:
Absolutely not. Still too high & still too much density. Will not be visually appealing in our neighborhood. No one wants 13 storeys & definitely no one wants 294 units. That was made very clear by everyone at both open houses. Trying to make us feel that we have been listened to is not going to work. We do not want 13 storeys & we do not want 294 units.
Quote:
No, once again, way too many extra people Ina full community.
Quote:
I don't feel the developer realizes how busy that area is and they need to implement a smartervsolution for the space. I'm for the revised co-op, but not for the Residences.
Quote:
Just too many units for the already congested area.
Quote:
The changes are an improvement but you've missed the point that this development is not wanted in our area by the majority of residents. We live here because it WAS a wonderful predominately single family home neighbourhood. We are a community, actually several communities, and you're proposing to add a big chunk of people who have no ties to our communities and likely never will. Condo ownership is transient at best or turns into rental property thereby increasing crime and reducing property values and quality of life.
Quote:
I don’t want condos in this community because that would bring more poor people, crime and immirgrants. Can you build this in another area? This is not a fit for our community
Quote:
NO - In bold letters.
We DO NOT want a combined development permit and land use redesignation (re-zoning) for the site located at 2580 Southland Dr. S.W. (the existing Co-op site). We DO NOT want this type of development at all, period. We Do NOT want ANY residential units. We DO NOT want buildings above 2 storeys high. We DO NOT want ANY additional commercial units. STOP!
Quote:
No, I still think that parking and traffic is a major concern that I do not think has been addressed. I am wondering where visitors, maintenance vehicles, etc. to the apartments are going to be parking? Is there assigned "Visitor Parking"? As someone that lives on Oaklawn Place S.W., I just think it is turning into a nightmare as far as parking goes. I am sure that people will be using Oakmoor Drive, 25th Street and Oaklawn Place for extra parking. If you were to drive down Oakmoor Drive on a week-end, you would see that there is no excess parking to be had.
Quote:
No.
Visually it does not fit the neighbourhood and will put too much stress on the roads, which arealready too busy and which will only get worse with the BRT
Quote:
Too tall. Too much congestion. Where are these families sending their kids to school? The designated schools are full now! Too much too many. Greed is driving this proposal! The traffic is going to be a nightmare. If you actually want to work with the concerns of the public in this community the way to fix this is LESS! Less new housing, less congestion. The reason people are I. These communities are for less congestion. If we wanted what you are proposing we would move to new communities. We are in these older areas for a reason! Do not let development turn ruin the different communities in Calgary.
This is exactly it. It's not that everyone is against density. We have these things there, and plans for more in the coming years aside from Glenmore Landing. The JCC has plans, the Coop development and that's on top of the towers across 90th and the townhouses there as well. It's understandable.
My opinion, is part of the problem is we're trying to make up for the problems of low density with very point solutions.
Massive towers actually make for pretty crappy neighbourhoods. The way a lot of them are done is just creating vertical suburbs where everyone is driving in and out of the tower.
Thinks like row housing and mid-rise over larger areas make for a lot nicer and more functional communities. Curry Barracks/Garrison Woods are great examples. We just need like 10 of those instead of these isolated spots rammed with towers and stores with surface parking. Obviously that's just way harder to pull off unless you end up with the lucky case of a military base in the inner city shutting down, so we shrug our shoulders and throw up more terrible towers.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
There are residences all over the place near Glenmore Landing. Those are the people who don't want this project!
No, there are a lot of residences that require people to drive past Glenmore Landing to get to 14th Street. They aren't close to the BRT stop though. The closest residence to the BRT stop is over 400m away in a straight line (not including those in Haysboro because this won't impact them at all). In the grid part of the city, that's 2 and half blocks east-west or 4 blocks north-south.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
Some of those are legitimate concerns though? I don't think it's peculiar that people don't want another tower put up in their neighbourhood, regardless of the infrastructure issues, which is pointed out here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Bumface
My opinion, is part of the problem is we're trying to make up for the problems of low density with very point solutions.
Massive towers actually make for pretty crappy neighbourhoods. The way a lot of them are done is just creating vertical suburbs where everyone is driving in and out of the tower.
Thinks like row housing and mid-rise over larger areas make for a lot nicer and more functional communities. Curry Barracks/Garrison Woods are great examples. We just need like 10 of those instead of these isolated spots rammed with towers and stores with surface parking. Obviously that's just way harder to pull off unless you end up with the lucky case of a military base in the inner city shutting down, so we shrug our shoulders and throw up more terrible towers.
If this development was row-housing and the like, I think that the opposition to the project would be significantly less. Wo would live in a row house backing on to 14th Ave? Whole other discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak
No, there are a lot of residences that require people to drive past Glenmore Landing to get to 14th Street. They aren't close to the BRT stop though. The closest residence to the BRT stop is over 400m away in a straight line (not including those in Haysboro because this won't impact them at all). In the grid part of the city, that's 2 and half blocks east-west or 4 blocks north-south.
Haha, 400m is like 5 minutes for most people. That's just not a big deal to walk 5 minutes to a bus stop.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Some of those are legitimate concerns though? I don't think it's peculiar that people don't want another tower put up in their neighbourhood, regardless of the infrastructure issues, which is pointed out here...
If this development was row-housing and the like, I think that the opposition to the project would be significantly less. Wo would live in a row house backing on to 14th Ave? Whole other discussion.
Haha, 400m is like 5 minutes for most people. That's just not a big deal to walk 5 minutes to a bus stop.
As someone on the Planning Committee of my community association, in an inner city neighborhood , I can tell you this is not the case.
Pretty much no matter what is being proposed you can count on the majority of the comments on it to be one of the following:
1) This will ruin the character of the neighborhood
2) This will mean more renters/single people/lower income people, which will mean more crime, this is a family neighborhood and we should keep it that way
3) If you let them build this, all of the people parking on the street will mean I won't be able to park on the street
4) It's blue/too new looking/has too many windows, so I don't like it
Also, most of them will start with "I have no problem with densification, but"
Trust me, no matter the project, people will come up with what they think is a creative ways to make it sound like it isn't just 100% NIMBYism
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
Who would live in a row house backing on to 14th Ave? Whole other discussion.
There's lots of examples of very expensive properties adjacent to sound walls around the city. Houndsfield Heights and Briar Hill are $$$ and sandwiched up to Crowchild and 16th Ave and people don't seem to mind.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
Some of those are legitimate concerns though? I don't think it's peculiar that people don't want another tower put up in their neighbourhood, regardless of the infrastructure issues, which is pointed out here...
If this development was row-housing and the like, I think that the opposition to the project would be significantly less. Wo would live in a row house backing on to 14th Ave? Whole other discussion.
Preumablyt he number of rowhouses would have to be less than 280 or so, otherwise the "legitimate concerns" will come to the forefront again.
It's the same communities doing the complaining for both projects, the same notes get hit over and over whether it's 250 or 500 or 3000.
Are there really people in Bayview and Pump Hill complaining about the Oakridge Co-op?
Looking at the communities affected by the two developments, I think you’ll find some pretty big socio-economic differences between Bayview, Pump Hill, and Palliser on the one hand vs Cedarbrae, Oakridge, and Braeside. And it’s not as though these communities are all SFHs. There are a bunch of condo complexes along 24th street, Palliser Drive, and adjacent to the Co-op.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 10-27-2023 at 01:09 PM.
This is exactly it. It's not that everyone is against density. We have these things there, and plans for more in the coming years aside from Glenmore Landing. The JCC has plans, the Coop development and that's on top of the towers across 90th and the townhouses there as well. It's understandable.
But you can be fine with density and still be against a particular project because it's not sensible. It's easy to paint people opposed to this as NIMBY's, but it's just not the case.
The whole issue of densification has become extremely dogmatic.
It’s reasonable to say we need more densification in this city. It’s not reasonable to reflexively champion each and any proposed densification project and to denounce any criticism or opposition as privileged NIMBYism.
Yes, some #######s are going to oppose any development that changes their neighbourhood. But it doesn’t follow that any criticism of a particular project is illegitimate.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
The whole issue of densification has become extremely dogmatic.
It’s reasonable to say we need more densification in this city. It’s not reasonable to reflexively champion each and any proposed densification project and to denounce any criticism or opposition as privileged NIMBYism.
Yes, some #######s are going to oppose any development that changes their neighbourhood. But it doesn’t follow that any criticism of a particular project is illegitimate.
It's like every topic these days. Densification is the new immigration (i.e. if you had feedback/complaints about immigration you are an automatic racist).
Yes, some #######s are going to oppose any development that changes their neighbourhood. But it doesn’t follow that any criticism of a particular project is illegitimate.
It's hard to distinguish between the two though, because the NIMBYs oppose everything under the guise of many legitimate concerns about developments, which in turn delegitimizes those concerns to the people who tire of hearing the exact same complaints for every single development.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
It's hard to distinguish between the two though, because the NIMBYs oppose everything under the guise of many legitimate concerns about developments, which in turn delegitimizes those concerns to the people who tire of hearing the exact same complaints for every single development.
So true. For example:
Quote:
“We have no idea if the road network or even the water and sewer system can support this,” said David Jacobs, a member of the steering committee, Communities for Glenmore Landing Preservation.
OK - so traffic I would say is a legitimate concern, though I don't buy the argument "everything will be the exact same as now, which is terrible, but with 3000 more cars!". Access can be changed and improved, and it will be, though I will admit that it is a tricky corner.
But for armchair nimby to start seeding doubt about the water and sewer systems not handling it, as if the professionals hadn't given it any thought? Ridiculous. Your taps will run dry and there will be poop overflowing into the reservoir! That's why we oppose this!
The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmy Stang For This Useful Post:
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang
So true. For example:
OK - so traffic I would say is a legitimate concern, though I don't buy the argument "everything will be the exact same as now, which is terrible, but with 3000 more cars!". Access can be changed and improved, and it will be, though I will admit that it is a tricky corner.
But for armchair nimby to start seeding doubt about the water and sewer systems not handling it, as if the professionals hadn't given it any thought? Ridiculous. Your taps will run dry and there will be poop overflowing into the reservoir! That's why we oppose this!
100% on this.
So many of the complaints I hear start with "Did anyone consider".
Imagine how you would feel if half of the feedback you ever got was "Did you do your job?"
There are also the 2 old standards of:
1) This is the first I've heard of this
This is almost always either completey untrue, or said by someone who hasn't been paying attention in the slightest
2) They didn't listen to us
Typically said by people who think "Listen to" means "Do exactly what I say", and don't undertand that the city/developer can listen to and understand your concerns, and still disagree/not do exactly what you said
People need to understand that if you want vibrant neighborhoods you need to let them be renewed, and that usually means change, and often means growth.
I'm all for densification but....I'm willing to accept that there will be some downsides for me as a person who is living in an established desirable community.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
The whole issue of densification has become extremely dogmatic.
It’s reasonable to say we need more densification in this city. It’s not reasonable to reflexively champion each and any proposed densification project and to denounce any criticism or opposition as privileged NIMBYism.
Yes, some #######s are going to oppose any development that changes their neighbourhood. But it doesn’t follow that any criticism of a particular project is illegitimate.
As the impact of any change to a community is going to be subjective, the issue will always appear dogmatic. What would be an objective measure for increased density in any community?
Are you suggesting the developer is doing this solely as a revenge plot against the angry people in Pump Hill and Eagle Ridge?
Obviously not, but I do think that is why some people support this. I also think that there is a segment on this board who are in favour who live nowhere near the affected areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazrim
90th Avenue is gonna be a mess. Because of the woke.
Well 90th and 14th is going to be a mess because there is no way to design that area to deal with this influx of traffic. And frankly, Glenmore Landing is already a pain, and that doesn't improve with this proposal. Sure, they're going to try to make some changes, but those changes are already needed before the new residents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
100% on this.
So many of the complaints I hear start with "Did anyone consider".
Imagine how you would feel if half of the feedback you ever got was "Did you do your job?"
There are also the 2 old standards of:
1) This is the first I've heard of this
This is almost always either completey untrue, or said by someone who hasn't been paying attention in the slightest
2) They didn't listen to us
Typically said by people who think "Listen to" means "Do exactly what I say", and don't undertand that the city/developer can listen to and understand your concerns, and still disagree/not do exactly what you said
People need to understand that if you want vibrant neighborhoods you need to let them be renewed, and that usually means change, and often means growth.
I'm all for densification but....I'm willing to accept that there will be some downsides for me as a person who is living in an established desirable community.
Meh, I've attended these sessions and them "listening" is basically like paying lip service. They're not actually taking the opinions of people into account here, and they know nearly everyone is opposed to this. They don't want to hear the negative feedback and they are going to ram it through.
And as far as the "vibrant neighbourhood" portion, we have that. Our neighbouhood is fantastic, and we love it. It's not all single family homes and not all old people. That's not going to change because of this project, and that's not my opposition (or anyone I've heard).
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
