Calgary city councillors will hear a proposal to kickstart the redevelopment of a southwest Calgary shopping complex during a public hearing next week.
The application seeks to change the zoning of two parcels of ‘surplus’ city-owned land around Glenmore Landing; the 5.5 acres of land is being purchased by RioCan Management Inc., which owns the complex.
The move would allow RioCan to develop up to six mixed-use towers on the land to accommodate 1,165 new residential units at full build out.
However, the proposal is facing significant opposition from people who live near the complex.
“People are very upset by it,” Lesley Farrar told Global News. “They’re concerned about traffic, they’re concerned about pedestrian safety; and everyone city-wide is concerned about the reservoir.”
Residents in the area share in the concerns around the potential impacts, with concerns about congestion and strain from traffic onto nearby 90 Avenue S.W.
Story continues below advertisement
Officials with the Palliser-Bayview-Pumphill Community Association said the proposal and its accompanying concerns have taken up “considerable time” with the volunteer organization.
“We’ve door-knocked on hundreds of doors in the community, and over 90 per cent of the people were against this development,” said Kevin Taylor, the association’s director-at-large.
Get daily National news
Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.
Residents told Global News the proposal for the site has changed significantly since it was first submitted in 2023, which now includes a long-term “land use and design framework.”
That framework shows a total of 15 towers varying between 11 and 30 storeys throughout the Glenmore Landing site.
Ward 11 Coun. Kourtney Penner, who represents the area, said that long-term plan only “contemplates” future redevelopment.
“There’s a guiding policy document should those applications come forward in the future, 15 plus years down the road,” Penner told Global News.
Any future proposals outside the parcels up for debate next week would require a land use redesignation application, future public engagement and public hearing, the city told Global News.
According to Taylor, residents worry the surrounding neighbourhood won’t be able to accommodate such an intensification in the area.
“The biggest thing that we hear here is safety, traffic and safety,” said Taylor, who noted other approved developments nearby. “It’s unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists.”
The Calgary Planning Commission included several conditions before the outline plan can be approved, such as several road upgrades to accommodate the increased traffic.
In a statement, the city said the application has been “revised several times” since it was received to “respond to community concerns and technical studies.”
Those revisions also include reductions in the proposed building heights.
“City administration reviewed several technical documents and supporting information to understand and mitigate any potential impacts redevelopment of these lands may have on infrastructure and the environment,” the city’s statement said. “Review of these studies did not identify any concerns with the proposal.”
Penner said potential environmental impacts are also being considered, with the Glenmore Reservoir adjacent to the site.
“I’ve been explicit in asking our water services team if they’re concerned about any impacts to the quality of the drinking water and there are none,” she said.
Both Farrar and the community association are encouraging residents in the area to attend the public hearing on Tuesday to share their feedback on the proposal.
So far, city administration has received 23 responses in support, nine responses of neutrality and 428 responses in opposition to the proposed development.
“My expectation is that council is going to understand the environmental risks of this project and vote against it,” Farrar said.
Story continues below advertisement
RioCan had not responded to Global News’ request for comment at the time of publishing.
