MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Slava

Haha, 400m is like 5 minutes for most people. That's just not a big deal to walk 5 minutes to a bus stop.

400 metres are the absolute closest couple of homes on the east end of Bayview (and that's a straight line, so more like 600m following the pathway and walking through the Glenmore Landing parking lot).

Here's the 15 minute walkshed from the BRT stop: https://app.traveltime.com/search/0-...366&selected=1

About half of Bayview, a small corner of Palliser, a small portion of Pump Hill, and a few higher-density buildings, but I believe they're primarily senior housing.


This isn't really a NIMBY issue because it's not in anyone's backyard. Hardly anyone lives anywhere close to Glenmore Landing west of 14th Street. So, where do you draw the line on "community" engagement? This really is a NOMC -- "Not On My Commute" issue where the biggest complaint seems to be the increase in traffic.

How much concern should be given to people who don't live anywhere near the project but drive past it on their way to work?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Would sitting in your climate-controlled car for an extra 5 minutes to get through that intersection be a big deal?

Originally Posted by getbak

400 metres are the absolute closest couple of homes on the east end of Bayview (and that's a straight line, so more like 600m following the pathway and walking through the Glenmore Landing parking lot).

Here's the 15 minute walkshed from the BRT stop: https://app.traveltime.com/search/0-...366&selected=1

About half of Bayview, a small corner of Palliser, a small portion of Pump Hill, and a few higher-density buildings, but I believe they're primarily senior housing.


This isn't really a NIMBY issue because it's not in anyone's backyard. Hardly anyone lives anywhere close to Glenmore Landing west of 14th Street. So, where do you draw the line on "community" engagement? This really is a NOMC -- "Not On My Commute" issue where the biggest complaint seems to be the increase in traffic.

How much concern should be given to people who don't live anywhere near the project but drive past it on their way to work?

Sure, let's just boost everyone's commute by 5-10 minutes, because who cares? I mean that's fine if you're cool with that for you, but I'd rather not thanks.

It's not just about the commute though. This has been a hub in the community for 40 years. Clearly residents who frequent this consistently are going to have opinions and should be consulted. Particularly, when the city is selling more land to the developer for the project.

[cheevers]

Originally Posted by Slava

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.



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.



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).

Good, people are idiots and should not be listened to when it comes to improving cities. That is how we got this sprawling hellscape of a city in the first place. Glenmore landing has a BRT, Ring Road, and C train station all within a 5 to 10 minute drive. It is time to densify the area.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

“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.

Holy crap. "Communities for Glenmore Landing Preservation" -- That's hilarious. Glenmore Landing is an awful mall that is laid out horribly, which is the biggest cause of the traffic problems there. No one their right minds would want to "preserve" it.


I like their logo too...


Do they want to preserve Glenmore Landing or flood it? I'd be in favour of one of those things.

The only thing worth preserving was the McDonald's pirate ship, but I believe that was removed years ago.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by cheevers

Good, people are idiots and should not be listened to when it comes to improving cities. That is how we got this sprawling hellscape of a city in the first place. Glenmore landing has a BRT, Ring Road, and C train station all within a 5 to 10 minute drive. It is time to densify the area.

Spoken like someone who lives nowhere near there.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by getbak

Holy crap. "Communities for Glenmore Landing Preservation" -- That's hilarious. Glenmore Landing is an awful mall that is laid out horribly, which is the biggest cause of the traffic problems there. No one their right minds would want to "preserve" it.


I like their logo too...


Do they want to preserve Glenmore Landing or flood it? I'd be in favour of one of those things.

The only thing worth preserving was the McDonald's pirate ship, but I believe that was removed years ago.

The logo implies an environmental justification for their "preservation" of their enjoyed status quo. Oppose us and you're a planet raping killer!

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

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

Creepy accurate. Did you see www.stopthetowers.ca

[Slava]

Originally Posted by chemgear

The logo implies an environmental justification for their "preservation" of their enjoyed status quo. Oppose us and you're a planet raping killer!

Well I don't agree with this, for the record, but the angle here is that the city is selling "parkland" to RioCan. I don't know the story here, but I think when they did the tender they listed it as parkland, and that could date back to the 1983 deal that the city made? So there are people here with "save our parks" signage for that reason.

Obviously, I've made my stance clear, but the one thing I don't like is the "save our parks" and "what about the water table?!?!?" kind of angle. (I've heard that one as well...which strikes me as something they're familiar with given that they just dug down for the underpass for the BRT a few years ago).

[chemgear]

My description is a bit of a jest but the holding onto the 40 year reference is kinda strange. I would imagine most people back then are either dead or long since moved out by now.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Development number is LOC2023-0130. Search that at developmentmap.calgary.ca to see the plan.

traffic may well be an issue. Parks, not so much.

[cheevers]

Originally Posted by Slava

Spoken like someone who lives nowhere near there.

Ha, lived there for 3 or so years about 10 years ago.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

Creepy accurate. Did you see www.stopthetowers.ca

No I did not.
But as I said, the "feedback" for just about any project, from building an infill with basement suites, to a 250 unit building, are typically pretty similar.
I'd be willing to bet I could write feedback for just about any project with about 90% accuracy, and I'm certainly no expert.

There are often some legitimate concerns, especially with the the large developments, but they are usually overwhelmed by the "I've got nothing against densification, but" crowd.

Everyone thinks densification is a great idea, just not in my neighborhood, because my neighborhood is unique, and has a character that I want to keep 100% intact.

It's the exact opposite of of the monorail, everyone thinks every development is more of a Shelbyville idea.

[getbak]

As mentioned previously, 90th Ave has basically the same capacity as Southland Drive. They both have 60 km/h speed limits and 2 lanes in each direction with lights at the major intersections.

West of 14th Street, Southland has Cedarbrae and Braeside to the south and Oakridge, Palliser, and Pump Hill to the north. 90th Ave has Oakridge, Palliser, and Pump Hill to the south and only Bayview to the north.

Both have a small community strip mall and a larger supermarket-centred shopping centre adjacent to them. Southland has the Leisure Centre and 90th has South Glenmore Park and the JCC for recreation facilities.

The shopping and recreational traffic likely cancel each other out (and will mostly happen outside of rush hour), so a comparison of the populations should give a reasonable idea of the expected traffic on each road...

Community populations from 2021 Census (https://www.calgary.ca/communities/profiles.html):

• Bayview: 670
• Braeside: 5,700
• Cedarbrae: 5,935
• Oakridge: 5,620
• Palliser: 3,285
• Pump Hill: 1,455

• Adjacent to Southland: Braeside/Cedarbrae/Oakridge/Palliser/PumpHill = 21,995
  
  
• Adjacent to 90th Ave: Bayview/Oakridge/Palliser/PumpHill = 11,030

Southland has nearly twice as many people living adjacent to it. Of course, some people who live in Braeside and Cedarbrae will use Anderson when leaving their neighbourhoods and the folks in Oakridge, Palliser, and Pump Hill will split between 90th and Southland, but I wouldn't expect the numbers to be wildly out of proportion between them.

Looking at those numbers, it's hard to imagine that 90th Ave wouldn't be able to handle a traffic increase from the new development.



Also, looking at the Communities for Glenmore Landing Preservation letter at the bottom of this page: https://pbpcommunity.ca/, this quote stood out to me:

Our other major concern is the impact of 1,248 new residential units plus intensified commercial development on the transportation network. With more than 3,000 additional residents and employees living and working here, traffic will be unacceptable verging on gridlock for all 90th Ave traffic.

The 3,000 number keeps being brought up, but even in their comment, they say it will be 1,248 new units. For population to increase by 3,000, that would be almost 3 people per unit, which would never happen. Realistically, it's about 2,000 more people. Their 3,000 number seems to come from also including people who will be working at or using the businesses at Glenmore Landing... but you can't count them as "additional" because people are already using Glenmore Landing's existing businesses.


They may not think they're being NIMBYs, but they sure talk like NIMBYs.

[MegaErtz]

Of course they're NIMBYs, but I can see their point. I love driving to Glenmore Landing, parking near the Safeway, and walking around the reservoir. It isn't crowded at all. These people kicked up such a huge fuss about the BRT on 14th street, which has been a massive success for the communities mentioned in the previous post, along with Woodbine.

What I don't like is the fact that developers run this city. We all know that it won't matter how well organized the communities around the reservoir are - this thing is going to get built, even if it gets watered down a bit.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

Creepy accurate. Did you see www.stopthetowers.ca

I wonder how many of the people behind that group live in Pump Hill?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by cheevers

Good, people are idiots and should not be listened to when it comes to improving cities. That is how we got this sprawling hellscape of a city in the first place. Glenmore landing has a BRT, Ring Road, and C train station all within a 5 to 10 minute drive. It is time to densify the area.

If we want to prevent sprawl, we really should be densifying from the inside and moving outward.

More high density throughout downtown and Beltline (including surrounding areas). We don't even have to touch Elbow Park and Scarboro yet for how much space there is.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by cheevers

Good, people are idiots and should not be listened to when it comes to improving cities. That is how we got this sprawling hellscape of a city in the first place. Glenmore landing has a BRT, Ring Road, and C train station all within a 5 to 10 minute drive. It is time to densify the area.

That area is actually fairly dense already. Drive W down 90th for a km, turn S on 24th and drive a km down to Southland. In that short drive you’ll pass a half dozen MDU complexes, some of them with hundreds of units each.

[CliffFletcher]

I agree that increased congestion on 90th is being overstated. But the capacity of Glenmore Landing itself is a legitimate concern. Anyone who actually goes there regularly can attest to what an absolute ####-show trying to get in and out and get parking already is. And since half the people who go there are seniors, this isn’t just an issue on weekends or evenings. Seriously, go there at 11 am on a Tuesday. It’s a zoo.

I don’t shop there often, but I have to go there for mom’s banking, for my barber, and to the lab (which is the only one in this party of the city). My barber - who I’ve been going to for 15 years - has actually given me tip for a special place to park that isn’t obviously open to the public.

If it gets even 25 per cent busier, it will a no-go zone. I’ll change my mom’s bank and start going to a different barber.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

If we want to prevent sprawl, we really should be densifying from the inside and moving outward.

More high density throughout downtown and Beltline (including surrounding areas). We don't even have to touch Elbow Park and Scarboro yet for how much space there is.

Yes we should do that too while densifying locations near transit and near amenities that make not owning a car possible.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I agree that increased congestion on 90th is being overstated. But the capacity of Glenmore Landing itself is a legitimate concern. Anyone who actually goes there regularly can attest to what an absolute ####-show trying to get in and out and get parking already is. And since half the people who go there are seniors, this isn’t just an issue on weekends or evenings. Seriously, go there at 11 am on a Tuesday. It’s a zoo.

I don’t shop there often, but I have to go there for mom’s banking, for my barber, and to the lab (which is the only one in this party of the city). My barber - who I’ve been going to for 15 years - has actually given me tip for a special place to park that isn’t obviously open to the public.

If it gets even 25 per cent busier, it will a no-go zone. I’ll change my mom’s bank and start going to a different barber.

The 90th ave traffic issue isn’t all of 90th though; it’s the 90th and 16th intersection and east to 14th. That section is going to be a mess, likely in both directions. I don’t think it’s overstated, and if you live in the area you probably remember the issues there before that additional turning lane was added?

I go the Glenmore Landing all the time, at this point. I like 1600, we use some of the shops and of course the grocery store. I also go to the barber and like those guys also. But I could go do these things elsewhere and if it’s a mess there, that’s what I’ll do. Those businesses suffered during the construction of the BRT, and I feel for them dealing with this construction as well.