by Lesley Farrar
Earlier this week, several members of the PBP Community Association (CA) board and I attended the Calgary Planning Commission (CPC) meeting where City Administration presented the Glenmore Landing Redevelopment proposal, seeking approval to move it forward to a vote at City Council (to be held December 3). Unfortunately, the outcome was disappointing, and the meeting was a difficult experience. Many of the concerns we raised—both as a community and as a CA—went largely unaddressed. In fact, we had requested that the CPC meeting itself be rescheduled to allow more time for community input.
To understand why this process is so concerning, let’s take a step back and look at how we got here. In late June, after most community associations (CAs) had entered their summer recess, City Administration sent out an updated proposal for the Glenmore Landing redevelopment and asked for feedback. This updated proposal included the existing plaza and significantly increased the overall density of the development by 265%. To put that into perspective, this means that the new proposal would make the development five times denser than even Manhattan!
Despite the timing challenges, CAs worked quickly, kicking off their Stampede cowboy boots and working with community members to respond to the City’s request by the deadline. Our submissions, along with those from other CAs, were forwarded to the CPC, hoping to inform the commissioners of the community’s concerns before their debate. This seemed like a reasonable process—fair and procedural, with public input being given a voice. But then, the bait and switch occurred.
Days before this CPC meeting was set to occur, CAs were informed that the proposal was substantively altered (again) before going to the Commission, rendering our contributions almost irrelevant as they no longer focused on the proposal presented. CAs were given no opportunity to resubmit their concerns and respond to this changed proposal. This last-minute switch greatly benefits the developer and is deeply frustrating for community members who spent their valuable time engaging with the City to provide meaningful feedback. Yet, despite our request for rescheduling, it seems the changes to the proposal were accepted, and the new version was voted through by the CPC with little community input taken into account.
As we approach the upcoming election year and prepare to elect a new City Council, we must ask ourselves: What kind of city do we want Calgary to become? Glenmore Landing, as proposed, would be the largest condo development in Calgary’s history, and its pathway to approval could set a troubling precedent for future developments. Here are just a few of the key issues that should make us all pause:
Public Land Sold Without Tender: The proposal includes the sale of City-owned berms, an integral part of the greenspace buffer around Glenmore Reservoir Parklands, without going through a competitive public tendering process. Why is the City selling public land in this way, and what does it mean for the future of how our public lands are treated?
Public Engagement by the Developer: Instead of the City conducting its own public consultation and engagement, the developer, RioCan/Urban Systems, has essentially controlled the process. The community’s ability to provide meaningful input into this process has been significantly limited. This approach raises serious questions about the fairness and transparency of the consultation process.
Lack of Independent Scrutiny on Traffic Impact: The developer’s traffic impact analysis has not been independently reviewed by a neutral consultant. We have significant concerns about the potential for traffic congestion in the area, particularly around the already-overburdened intersection of 90 Ave and 16 St. Without an independent review, how can we be confident that the development will not exacerbate existing issues?
Environmental Oversights: One of the most troubling aspects of this proposal is the failure to conduct a Biophysical Impact Assessment (BIA). The Glenmore Reservoir and surrounding parklands are an environmental gem for Calgary—providing vital green space, recreational opportunities, crucial biodiversity, and our drinking water. The lack of a BIA means that critical environmental considerations, such as the impact of construction on local wildlife and the reservoir’s water quality, have been overlooked. We cannot afford to risk our drinking water or the health of our local ecosystems in the name of development.
Precedent-Setting Development: If this project is approved as it stands, it could set a dangerous precedent for how future developments are handled in Calgary. Public land could be sold without proper public scrutiny, and community input could continue to be sidelined. What does this mean for the future of neighbourhoods across Calgary, especially in our sensitive green spaces and parklands?
These concerns are not just about the specific project at Glenmore Landing; they reflect broader questions about the kind of city we want to build and the values we want to uphold. Do we want to prioritize short-term profits and increased density over long-term community well-being, environmental preservation, and transparent governance?
As we approach the upcoming election year, it is essential that we reflect on these questions. We must ask ourselves: What kind of city do we want for the future? We need leaders who will listen to the concerns of residents, prioritize thoughtful, sustainable development, and protect the integrity of our greenspaces, parklands, and natural resources. The Glenmore Landing Redevelopment is a key test for the City’s commitment to responsible urban planning, environmental stewardship, and true community engagement.
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.
