Glenora Commercial Development | 11m | 2s | Beljan Development

[IceCreamMan]

Very disappointed with this result (thanks NIMBYers). The proposed development was the right scale and the right type of development. Ugh.

 

[Daveography]

I'm actually shocked this vote failed as badly as it did.

 

[archited]

Money talks and all else walks.

 

[EtoV]

Who needs walkable communities anyways

 

[quit]

They worried the project would have taken away from Glenora’s familyrich feel, green spaces and add to congestion.

FTFY

 

[Platinum107]

FTFY

Couldn't be more true lol. Most people that live there don't realize the fact that projects like this one are the ones that make the neighborhood a truly wonderful and walkable place.

 

[Moderne]

FTFY

Which is hilarious given there's already retail on the opposite corner. What are people worried about, that they won't be able to park their "For Sale" cars in view of Stony Plain Road anymore by that park?

 

[lat]

I'm typically one for encouraging development, but this one just didn't make a lot of sense to me, since there is a triangle of undeveloped land immediately south of it that would be far better suited to a development like this. The wife and I walked around the area, and having a commercial development north of 104 Ave would have been a mistake, IMHO, given the alternative that stares you in the face, when you are standing there...

 

[Daveography]

@lat That's a public park, not "undeveloped land"

 

[lat]

@lat That's a public park, not "undeveloped land"

Yep, I know, but it isn't much of a park, and doesn't have any development on it. IMO, it would better serve the community as a small commercial development, which would be a better buffer to SPR...

EDIT: Actually, it doesn't appear to be a proper public park, but more just a green space....

 

[Daveography]

@lat It's zoned AP and city-owned, that's as proper a public park as it can get. I get your point and don't necessarily disagree, but I wouldn't expect the city or the community to sell or trade that space for development.

The next best thing then was exactly the proposal that Council just rejected.

 

[lat]

@lat It's zoned AP and city-owned, that's as proper a public park as it can get. I get your point and don't necessarily disagree, but I wouldn't expect the city or the community to sell or trade that space for development.

The next best thing then was exactly the proposal that Council just rejected.

I get your point as well, but...

Yeah, zoning is one thing, practical use is another. When standing on the sidewalk, looking at that piece of land, it does not present itself as a park. I would rather see this patch of land get rezoned to allow commercial development, than have something zoned for residential get rezoned for commercial. Again, all IMO...

I would also argue that giving a park a name would be as proper as it can get, but that is really beside the point...

EDIT: I think it bears repeating that I am typically in favour of developments such as this. If that triangle of land wasn't ripe for development, I would've supported this proposal.