Multiple themes emerged from the contentious Glenmore Landing redevelopment, shrouded in a web of misinformation, misunderstanding and unwillingness to accept data at it’s presented.

The land use redesignation that would have allowed for an initial six-tower, 1,100-unit, mixed-use development at the corner of 14 Street SW and 90 Avenue was denied this week, leaving the project in limbo.

LWC has collated some of the reasons for opposition, to dissect their veracity, and examine the information collected and disseminated during the public hearing debate.

Parkland sale done without public tender

In a conversation with LWC, Lesley Farrar of the Glenmore Landing Preservation Group said one of the flaws with the process was that the City parkland surrounding the current RioCan development, set for sale pending a land-use change, didn’t undergo a public tender process.

Why?

In February 2015, in a Notice of Motion from then-Ward 11 councillor Brian Pincott, the City of Calgary administration was directed to “develop a comprehensive plan for redevelopment that takes into account the future Southwest Transitway, Municipal Development Plan and Calgary Transportation Plan policy guidance, and the adjoining City owned lands.”

That included working with the Glenmore Landing Shopping Centre owner to explore the disposition of surrounding City surplus lands as a part of that redevelopment.

That 2015 motion was seconded by Coun. Andre Chabot.   A decade later, Chabot voted against the disposition. He also voted against the land-use redesignation. He said the project brought too much density to the area and was concerned about the lack of parking and connectivity of the adjacent BRT.

Because of the type of parcel, the City of Calgary wasn’t required to hold a public hearing on the disposition of the land, but it did anyway back in January 2024.

‘Extravagant bus stop’: The site isn’t real Transit-Oriented Development

While you can argue all you want about the ridership on the MAX Yellow BRT (roughly 3,600 riders per day, according to the City of Calgary, during questions at the public hearing), this area would still qualify as being a transit-oriented (not orientated) development. The 20-year-old City of Calgary definition isn’t subjective, either.

The City of Calgary’s Transit Oriented Development Policy Guidelines, first adopted in 2004 and amended in 2005, provides a clear definition, aptly titled: 1.1 Transit Oriented Development Definition.

“Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is a walkable, mixed-use form of development typically focused within a 600m radius of a Transit Station – a Light Rail Transit (LRT) station or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop prior to the arrival of LRT,” reads the document.

“Higher density development is concentrated near the station to make transit convenient for more people and encourage ridership.”

It even qualifies under a more global definition: “TOD is a type of urban development that maximizes that amount of residential, business and leisure space within walking distance of public transport.”

TOD is not defined by the number of daily passengers (though a 2022 TOD document put the MAX Yellow daily ridership at 150, after being launched in 2022). It is referred to as a catalyst, particularly for the Glenmore Landing development, as noted in the 2022 TOD Station Area info sheets.

“Glenmore Landing is envisioned to become a significant transit-oriented development in southwest Calgary and an important example of how Bus Rapid Transit can catalyze redevelopment,” it read.

The station next to Glenmore Landing is far larger and more luxurious than the vast majority of bus stops in any part of Calgary. The City of Calgary said it gets peak hour service every 10 minutes. That’s not enough for some councillors.

“I’m not really agreeing with this even being a TOD. To me, it’s simply an extravagant bus stop,” said Ward 14 Coun. Peter Demong.

One downside is it’s not directly connected to a CTrain line, except in the downtown. There is a connection with MAX Teal that eventually goes to Heritage Station. That connection is one stop away from Glenmore Landing (then two stops to Heritage).

Impact to water

This one ought to be broken into different sections – Glenmore Reservoir, area groundwater, and stormwater management.

However, no matter which way you slice it, no one in City of Calgary Water Services expressed public concern with the redevelopment in any of these three areas.

Only, that’s not good enough for residents. It’s not good enough that experts in their field say there’s no impact to the Glenmore Reservoir (no, the 300-metre wide berm between Glenmore Landing and the reservoir won’t burst), stormwater will be managed and won’t runoff into the reservoir, and that there are engineering tools that will allow an underground parking lot amid a high water table – similar to what was done with underground BRT facilities.

The challenge lies in the level of mistrust in the community, fanned by the City of Calgary’s rigidity in only allowing available studies to be viewed in a specific location and at specific times.  Not to mention the pain of this summer’s water rationing due to failed Bowness infrastructure on the City of Calgary’s watch.

(Meanwhile, the 596-page engineer’s report on the Bearspaw water feeder main rupture is available in electronic format as a part of the Dec. 11 Infrastructure and Planning Committee meeting).

The desired information, made easily accessible, in an electronic format, sent out to area residents—it’s an easy solution and diffuses the conspiracy theories.

Now, there’s one matter left: Dog poop. Yes, that troublesome pile of dung from a canine scofflaw and its owner that might end up in the reservoir.

When asked about water concerns around Glenmore Landing, Pump Hill resident Kevin Taylor said that they’ve seen an increasing number of dogs around the reservoir.

“We’ve seen dogs in the reservoir. We’ve seen people in the reservoir, and the city is protecting the reservoir so much against people and dogs in the reservoir, but, you know, they didn’t ever address the feces on the side of the reservoir,” he said.

LWC asked how that was connected to the water situation at Glenmore Landing, Taylor said you would be putting a mini-city next to the reservoir and it would impact the stability and predictability of the nearby communities.

“It’s a community where residents feel secure knowing that their environment is not prone to drafted changes that can negatively impact their lives,” he said.

Back to water: the outline plan’s conditions of approval do note that the reserve lands on the adjacent park are not to be disturbed, and utility alignments and stormwater infrastructure are not allowed within the reserve lands. Stormwater or other drainage is not allowed towards the adjacent park, natural area, environmental reserve or municipal reserve. Any damage to the lands must be restored back to the natural state.

The group opposed to the Glenmore Landing project, and worried about the drinking water, did not do its own water study to draw it’s conclusions, according to Taylor.

Not enough infrastructure capacity for the added density

This is an easier one. Current infrastructure could handle roughly 800 additional units before triggering an upgrade to the underground infrastructure, city admin said. A sanitary servicing study was done, and there are areas of the infrastructure that need upgrades, they said.

“Those upgrades will be at the cost to the developer,” city admin said.

As the development progresses over the next 25 years (yes, a quarter century), there will be certain trigger points for additional investments, all on the developer’s dime. Further, councillors were told that development cannot go ahead without an assessment and completion of appropriate services based on an area’s planned density.

“OUR CURRENT WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT UP-TO-DATE. HOW DOES THE CITY EXPECT TO HANDLE A PROJECT THIS SIZE? THIS COULD BE DISASTROUS FOR ALL CALGARIANS,” reads the Stop the Towers website.

In addition, there are multiple development conditions that would protect and even enhance other aspects of the site, including pathways, the pedestrian bridge, crossings and connections to other infrastructure in the area.

Again, all upgraded infrastructure at RioCan’s expense.

Mayor Jyoti Gondek chided opposing councillors for turning their backs on millions in upgrades they wouldn’t have to pay for.

“I don’t know what they want, but they’ve sent a very clear signal to the market that we don’t want your private sector money. We don’t want the millions of dollars you’re going to be investing into infrastructure,” she said. 

“I guess they’d rather have us do that, which means they’re actually going to charge taxpayers more for infrastructure that the private sector was willing to contribute to. Bizarre decision.”

Those 8,000 new residents and employees

On the Stop the Towers website, it claims with people and jobs there will be 8,047 people in the area upon a full build-out of the Glenmore Landing site.

“The project would add more than 8,000 people living and working in approx. 6 hectares next to the Glenmore Reservoir,” they wrote, citing RioCan’s projected numbers.

The initial six-tower phase up for debate in December 2024 was roughly 1,100 units and up to 2,000 people.

The outline plan from Urban Systems, the consultant on the project, does show the number 8,047 (people and jobs). However, that number is the “maximum.” The maximum is necessary to acknowledge in the planning materials to ensure adequate services and infrastructure are in place (we discussed infrastructure above.).

The Stop the Towers website doesn’t provide the full picture, which is that the anticipated number of people and jobs, on full build-out is 5,000 in that area. The lower number is not on their website.

LWC asked Taylor if they door-knocked the communities with the 8,000 people number and if they informed people that it would be over an extended timeline, or if they implied thousands would be added ‘tomorrow.’

“We used (RioCan’s) numbers that it was going to be 15 to 20 years,” Taylor said.

Taylor was quick to note that the developer said during the public hearing that the build out would be based on market conditions. Taylor said a location like Brentwood Village went up quickly because the market was hot at the time.

“The market’s hot here. They can do the same thing here,” he said.

As far as the number of people in that area, for comparison, the recently approved Belvedere Area Structure Plan on Calgary’s eastern outskirts is projected to add roughly 5,700 population (numbers don’t account for workers), on a total area of ~ 84.5 hectares, according to the business case submitted last May.

Shadowing on the surrounding lands and communities

(Note: The above pictures demonstrate shadow differences of building in March/Sept., May/Aug., and December 21. Source is NYC shadow study guidelines. Green areas are sun-sensitive locations. THIS IS NOT THE GLENMORE LANDING SHADOW STUDY.)

The length of shadows cast by the buildings was a significant source of worry for many of the residents who spoke, along with users of the Glenmore Park area.

Shadowing can have a detrimental effect on wildlife populations, birds, vegetation, and human use and people’s interaction with the outside.

With one of the buildings proposed up to 96 metres (on the southeast corner of the parcel), there is the potential for significant shadowing not only early on but as the entire project develops.

Residents were frustrated that shadow studies included in the outline plans only showed September sun impact, and not other months of the year. They felt they could gain a better understanding of how the buildings would impact available light with more data.

In reviewing other literature, LWC found that it’s common for a minimum standard of March and September to be shadow studied, as those are the equinoxes – where day and night are relatively equal in length. 

According to Spacing.ca, “Given that advanced simulation software is the norm for architects today, it is well within reason for municipalities to ask for full digital shadow animations for the entire year,” it read.

“This will take the guesswork out of the process and allow people to accurately assess the full impact of buildings on their surrounding environment, assuming the model is constructed correctly.”

The Canadian urbanism site also says despite the value of shadow studies, “developers, and architects often try to find ways to undermine shadow studies.” They said this is often done by creating unrealistic renderings and excluding times like the winter solstice when shadows are the longest.

Taylor said they would have appreciated seeing a full spectrum of shadowing studies.

“I think, when you’re presenting to the public and getting them engaged, you should almost do every month,” he said.

“It builds the trust with people to understand and see it because not everybody understands the shadowing and how it moves.”

In New York, a city that knows its tall buildings, there are very specific regulations around the delivery of shadow studies, particularly if the shadow has the potential to touch what they refer to as ‘sunlight sensitive areas.’   This includes any open spaces: parks, beaches, playgrounds, plazas, schoolyards, greenways, landscaped medians, etc. It also accounts for architectural design, exterior materials and historic landscapes on other properties.

Finally, it includes natural resources like surface water bodies, wetland resources, upland resources, and significant or sensitive areas for fish or wildlife.

They say a three-dimensional model of the project must depict a “worst case” scenario for shadowing from the buildings in a proposed project. They don’t prescribe doing every month for shadow studies but typically include winter solstice.

Traffic woes and parking plans

The City of Calgary cited traffic studies that showed a 30 per cent reduction in vehicles in the 90 Avenue and 14 Street corridor since 2014. They said that their Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) showed that volumes wouldn’t recover to 2014 peak status until 2048.

That includes traffic from this development, the nearby Calgary JCC, the build-out of the Taza Development on the Tsuut’ina Nation and all other assumptions.

Overall area volume didn’t seem like the biggest traffic issue for nearby residents. Glenmore Landing is already a somewhat challenging plaza to access and find parking. Their concern was when you add in thousands of new residents over time this compounds the accessibility issues. There are still only two vehicle accesses planned for the area.

With each subsequent development permit, however, there are built-in triggers for yet-to-be-determined road infrastructure upgrades. City administration said that as the new developments come in, they would re-do the TIA and use the latest information in their analysis.

One assumption that’s being made with the addition of thousands of people ties into the community’s challenge around parking.  Only .6 stalls per unit are required, with the opportunity to get a 25 per reduction in stalls for density.

To some extent, with fewer parking stalls required, the City of Calgary is modelling that residents in the redeveloped Glenmore Landing aren’t necessarily car users. Perhaps the new resident use the interconnectivity of the nearby pathway network to commute, the BRT system, or they work within walking distance in the complex or surrounding area and don’t need a car.

Residents on the other hand, judging by many of the comments made during the public hearing, are assuming that everyone moving to the new development will be just like them: Two-or-more-car families. Well, at least one, anyway.

They’re worried about the spillover effect of parking in neighbourhoods for those residents or commercial workers and users who do have cars but are unable to find scarce stalls. There’s precedent for this kind of activity in Calgary, where high-intensity activity centres have a challenge with parking and parked cars are pushed into surrounding neighbourhoods.

The answer here likely lies somewhere in the middle. Hence, the value of ongoing TIAs as the new components come in over the next few decades.

It’s worth noting that this is another gripe of the community members: The inaccessibility of the TIA for this current project. It, too, was subject to viewing at certain times and in specific locations. It could have been included in the development package and the outline plan.

Biophysical Impact Assessment

There’s been a cry from the community for a biophysical impact analysis (BIA) to be done for this project.  Good news: There will be. It will come before any substantive work – even preparatory – is done.  That’s a part of the conditions for approval.

Lesley Farrar reiterated to LWC that 8,000 people were going to be put on the doorstep (it’s closer to half that, according to expected projections).

“They were going to put 8,000 people on the doorstep, on the shorelines of our drinking water without doing a biophysical impact analysis. It’s simply unacceptable. You can’t do this to our parklands. You can’t do this to our drinking water,” she said.

As mentioned, there will be a BIA done to assess the impact of the development on the surrounding area. This will happen before work begins on the development.

Further, as also previously mentioned, the City of Calgary Water Services has not expressed concern over the development’s impact on drinking water.

Having that document be made public would eliminate the barrier of residents feeling as though the City of Calgary or the developer was not being forthright with information.

The wrap-up

Trust is a big issue here, especially when area residents feel like they’re forced to jump through hoops to access information on a project that will empirically have a significant impact on their neighbourhoods.

Whether deliberate or not, it could be seen as undermining an already contentious process and feeds the common Calgary development trope that there’s a predetermined outcome and citizens are just being fed the information that supports the predetermined conclusion.

There’s an equal amount of distrust one could surmise in making information public, as it is continually wielded—or weaponized, as Coun. Gian-Carlo Carra would say—by residents without context and as a means to strike fear into fellow citizens.

When asked about the spread of misinformation, Taylor said that they used the information that was a part of RioCan’s presentation when they went door-to-door.

“I believe we were respectful,” he said.

Residents have also expressed a general concern about the impact of this development’s intensity on the overarching environment. 

As Calgary lawyer and environmental advocate Nathaniel Schmidt said during the public hearing, other Calgary developments, particularly those in the greenfield areas, arguably inflict greater harm and come at a greater cost to the City of Calgary.

“Now, speaking about environmental concerns, I’m no stranger to these types of arguments in front of this council, and what I’ll say is, if you approve Ricardo Ranch, you should have no problem approving this,” he said.  

“The environmental concerns of this development pale in comparison to all greenfield developments. These concerns, again, are not genuine.”

The final aspects of this come down to the amount of density itself and its aesthetics. 

Largely, these are subjective views, as demonstrated by those speaking for and against. Ultimately, if a development didn’t meet certain City of Calgary planning policies or municipal development goals, it wouldn’t—or shouldn’t—pass muster at Calgary city hall.