by John Kipp and Sushma Mahajan
On July 6, Sushma Mahajan, VP of planning and civic affairs, submitted a written response to the City’s request for comments on current plans by the RioCan organization vis a vis the Glenmore redevelopment project. While the City requested that the PBPCA submit comments via their website, in discussion with City planners, Sushma was able to submit a more comprehensive response to fully capture the concerns of the PBP communities. Below is a shortened version of the PBPCA’s official response to the City of Calgary:
The Palliser, Bayview, and Pumphill community association (PBPCA) is pleased to provide comments on the above application. Our community association reviewed this application on June 6, 2023, at the monthly meeting. The PBPCA notice affected neighbours in the vicinity and six members of the district 32 planning group attended the meeting on June 8 at Cedarbrae community centre. The feedback in this letter reflects at least 40 comments received from concerned PBP residents and the district planning group. 220 residents attended the open house hosted by urban systems. Many filled out the comment cards provided by Urban Systems thinking that the City would see them. No feedback was provided on the submitted cards to us, hence it is not included in this document. We would like to note that there was little time given to understand a project of this magnitude. We have an interest in seeing this development well designed and complementary to adjacent residential areas. There may be ramifications for other communities as the project was initiated prior to a local area plan for this community.
Strengths of the Proposed Changes
• Increase in densification near the transit routes.
• Limited footprint of urban space.
• Designed to encourage transit use.
Challenges/Effects of the Proposed Changes
Excessive traffic generation by the development. 90 Avenue is the main entry point for not only Palliser, Bayview, and Pumphill (PBP), but also many communities to the west and south (Braeside, Cedarbrae, Oakridge, Woodlands, and Woodbine). The road network is already stressed after the construction of the BRT. The access to Glenmore Landing from 14 Street was cut off for the dedicated BRT lanes when they were built. As a result, there is only one exit on 90 Avenue for traffic going east and two exits for traffic going west. Very careful lane changes are now required on 90 Avenue as weaving length is very short to get into Glenmore Landing. The current access to 90 Avenue is not designed for an additional 3,008 users living and working in Glenmore Landing as proposed by RioCan.
The Jewish centre across 90 Avenue has plans to add a school, seniors’ facilities, and possibly retail on their site in the near future. The re-zoning was approved some time ago. Already, 90 Ave and 16 St is a very unsafe intersection for pedestrians and seniors. PBP has received various complaints from residents (Councillor’s office is aware of this). There seems to be insufficient space to facilitate additional traffic. Once the 14 Street and 90 Avenue lands are gone, there will be no room to upgrade this intersection ever.
Parking is already an issue at Glenmore Landing. There is no accommodation to address an additional 1,800 plus minus or so cars (based on 1.5 cars per residence) at a minimum for new buildings in an already congested mall. The City is encouraging the reduction of the number of parking spaces per residence in new developments and promoting rapid transit. Residents may use BRT or bicycles to commute, but residents have kept their two cars (as has happened in Marda Loop). If there is paid parking under the apartments, many people park in adjacent streets to avoid parking fees. It is a big problem, especially for residents of surrounding areas if new buildings’ residents have to street park blocks away.
The height of the buildings proposed is an issue (request of 115 m for maximum height of buildings from permitted 10 m in MH-3 zoning). The cluster of six to 20 story or so residential towers is not reasonable within the context of Palliser, Bayview, Pumphill, and Haysboro communities. Tall buildings create imbalanced load on municipal services. It is difficult to prevent congestion which also increases social problems in towers.
The immense size of development will not only be out of place for a small shopping centre, but it will strain the current educational and medical facilities, parks and recreation, open spaces, etc.
Impact on Surroundings
Proximity of the towers to the already busy roads and the lack of parking will create safety and noisy conditions for the new and existing residences around. This will create potential traffic woes and line ups, such as backups into 90 Avenue and 14 Street, causing road user conflict. If the proposed layout is approved for re-zoning, our communities are looking at traffic chaos, safety concerns, higher crime rates, and an overall unattractive development.
Glenmore Landing is surrounded by natural lands, walkways, and the Reservoir. Glenmore Landing is used not only by the residents of PBP, but also by many recreation and sports groups (joggers, cyclists, seniors, and youth) from all over Calgary. A development of this size will ruin the natural beauty and openness of the shopping area and create an unappealing development. It will lead to a decline in overall quality of life for existing residents, many of whom who use Glenmore Landing on a daily basis.
The scale of the proposed development is dominating to those living in single family homes. There’s no transition between single detached homes and twenty storey or more towers. It will look more like a downtown development rather than a residential neighbourhood.
The existing residents are looking at 15 to 20 years of construction as per phasing plan.
Densification of the community could potentially decrease property values.
Suggestions for Improvement
Instead of planning housing for 2,744 people along the outskirts of the existing mall in the short term (described as 15 years and then redevelopment with future land use amendments), consider redeveloping the property in its entirety with M-H3 zoning so that we can have a good site layout for housing and mixed-use development, avoiding future land use amendments. This will also achieve the City’s long term ultimate vision. Plan housing on the inside, away from busy intersections.
Allow a roadway from the proposed development to run parallel to BRT lanes through Heritage parking lot and then allow ingress and egress through Heritage Drive.
Consider more horizontal five to six storey residential buildings if they are to be built right on 14 St and 90 Ave (instead of high-rise buildings).
Consider reducing the number of towers and density to reduce the load on existing framework of roads and accesses/exits.
Develop phase 3 site first away from 90 Ave and 16 St for phasing.
Due to existing scarcity of open areas, preserve the green space for more holistic living.
Conclusion
We are interested in a collaborative, dynamic, and transparent process for the duration of this application to create an overall better development and reach a positive outcome. The process needs to be thoughtful and done in a logical manner, taking existing residents and users into account. Our community has a good mix of rentals, seniors, subsidized, town houses, villas, and detached housing for your consideration when finalizing below market housing numbers. These are beautiful, well-established communities which need to be preserved. We need better use of built-up spaces and require more, not less green space.
Click here to the Bayview Community News home page for the latest Bayview community updates.
Click here to the Palliser Community News home page for the latest Palliser community updates.
Click here to the Pumphill Community News home page for the latest Pumphill community updates.
