Debate Grows Over Canmore’s Downtown Height Limits

What’s Happening? Canmore’s Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP) is under the microscope, with residents and developers clashing over how tall—and how dense—the future downtown should be.

The Case for Going Up. Proponents, including Bow Valley developers, say modest height increases (3–5 storeys) could help ease Canmore’s housing crunch, support local businesses, and reduce urban sprawl. Bonus: more walkability, fewer cars, and better energy efficiency. Think: more homes, more affordability (in theory), and fewer million-dollar McMansions.

The Case against. Not everyone’s on board. Residents flagged concerns about shadows, obstructed views, and losing Canmore’s signature small-town charm. Many called for strict three-storey caps north of 8 Street, wary that “bonus density” could fast-track overdevelopment.

The Reality Check. Several voices reminded council that more density ≠ more affordability. A new downtown fourplex? Starts at $1.8 million. A teardown lot? $1.7M. 

Where Council Stands Now. Council’s May 27 meeting pushed the ARP’s second and third readings to July 8th and suggested tweaks, including:  

• Capping Main Street heights at 2.5 storeys (no variances).

• Replacing “will” with “may” on pedestrianization.

• Ensuring no net loss in downtown parking.

• Protecting parks like Eklof and Riverside.

What’s Next? With these latest tweaks, the shape of Canmore’s downtown future is coming into focus—but there’s still plenty of debate (and public input) before the July 8 council meeting.

Locals Vote: How High Should Downtown Canmore Go?

We asked locals how they feel about the idea of 4- or 5-storey buildings in parts of downtown.

Out of 392 votes: 88.78% said that we should keep the limits low in order to protect the views.

Below are some of the strongest responses we received.

Community Comments

• Keep small town feel. Keep parking lots and parks.

• Increased height and density will not impact affordability.

• Go higher in areas away from the downtown and community parks. Sunlight for warmth while outdoors is important during winter months.

• Downtown should stay low but it doesn’t mean there can’t be other areas that must meet the same criteria

• 3 stories max

• I’m not sure what 2.5 storeys means, but I'd like to see the area around downtown and adjacent to downtown be built out to no more than 3 storeys. That height keeps a good connection to the street for residents in these buildings and keeps a good and safe vibe at street level.

• Canmore does not have city style employment, so high density will only add to additional congestion as residents will have to travel to and from their work areas.

• The small town feel of Canmore attracts our visitors and also enhances the town experience we all enjoy. I have lived in several communities that have gone high and regretted that decision... the answer to housing is not height but a town commitment to building on available land like Palliser, not building anonymous 6 storey apartments.

• Increasing height will only block views and reduce sun. You can just look at the effects of the Malcolm Hotel or the new Settlers Block on Main Street. It will also do nothing to help affordability as that will never happen in downtown.

• 3-5 stories will NOT increase affordability

• Going taller will ruin the look and feel of Canmore. There is no guarantee that housing prices will go down, only changes in zoning and development rules will do that.

• I am all for affordable housing. Developers should be required to build permanently affordable housing with every project. However, don’t go higher than 3 stories.

• Balance of growth is imperative to a livable community to maintain Canmore’s small-town charm and mountain character. Did you know? Aspen, Colorado has lost permanent population in the last three years. That could happen to Canmore.

• Build a good size parkade - at least 4 levels and one parking lot size. Build RENTAL apartment buildings - at least 4 levels with underground parking. We need RENTAL accommodations the most, not OWNER-based buildings.

• Part of Canmore’s charm is its downtown core. Sacrificing that for non-affordable housing does nothing to solve the housing crunch. No developer is going to build affordable housing on a downtown lot. Council will forever change the charm of Canmore if they allow this and will only serve to pump up developers bottom line.

• Higher downtown density isn’t about affordability — it’s about maximizing the Town’s tax base. These units won’t be affordable to most locals. They’ll be bought by second-home owners or investors looking for access to Canmore’s lifestyle — not by the people who live and work here. Unless you’re earning a livable wage in a dual-income household, you’re priced out. I keep hearing “vibrancy” used to justify these changes, but vibrancy doesn’t mean livability. I live in South Canmore, and I disagree entirely with the idea that it has lost its vibrancy. It’s peaceful, connected, and livable — and that’s what matters. Keep building heights low and stop pretending this plan serves full-time residents. It doesn’t.

• It already feels like the beautiful town is becoming too commercial, too quickly.

• They would be filled with weekenders. Everyone's seems to forget we need local to support the town and vistors

• There has been a building height restriction in Canmore for about 30 years. It’s good to prevent over-density in the downtown core. We want a wide-open feeling, not a closed-in one, downtown, and elsewhere. But the most important thing is our view of the mountains - let’s not block that for anyone!

• Our views are spectacular. Why ruin them? The main streets areas are confined enough. Why make them more confined? Locating a high rise adjacent to lower buildings will look ridiculous. Considering current land and building costs do you really think adding 1 or 2 storeys will create “ affordable housing”?

• Downtown residences in Canmore DO NOT equate with affordable housing. Added height allowances won’t improve that in the slightest. We need housing for families and living on the 4th or 5th floor in a downtown condo ( apartments seem to be a rare commodity) is not what a family with children would be looking for!

• Less individual big houses and more smaller houses or small buildings to fit more people. We do not need luxury, we need a simple and affordable roof above our heads.

• Keeping views is important for any location in Canmore. That's why visiting guests come to Canmore. If you want to see towers, stay in Calgary...lol.

• Limit density…keep the views… especially until this council addresses parking…just because one lives downtown doesn’t mean they don’t have a car. Keep Main Street open…support out businesses….and build a parkade already. Where did the money in the parkade fund go?

• Keep it low. Don’t be greedy, Canmore. Downtown Canmore is out of control with development. Develop Harvey Heights, Three Sisters, Deadman’s Flats and Exshaw and give them an opportunity to grow. It would be better for tourism to drop into and explore each of the small towns, just like in Nova Scotia.

• Taking away views and sun from current residents has to be taken into consideration. Learn from Ontario that now allows monster homes amongst bungalows and people that have always been able to enjoy morning or afternoon sun are now always in the shadows.

• 3 story is not that high. There is a need for more housing

• The only height we need is from the mountains!! Let us just admire them instead of covering them!!!

• Remember why people come to town and enjoy the views from downtown…because they can see the mountains.

• Higher density also means more cars and more traffic. We live downtown and are seeing an increase in the amount of traffic without adding additional high density residential units. Until a high speed train to Calgary becomes a reality, the notion that people don’t need a car in Canmore is ridiculous.

• Downtown should remain lower to not obstruct views. However I think the surrounding area could develop more

• For now, at least, let's allow areas like Spring Creek, Stewart Creek, Three Sisters, etc, to complete their building rather than pillaging the charm of our downtown with higher buildings. Although it'd be great to see businesses incentivized to freshen up their buildings and create more purpose build employee housing (with underground or ground level parking!).

• Against so much growth. I guess it's inevitable, but it is losing what features make it attractive to tourists already.

• There’s a concern about affordable housing and social debate over owners of second homes and the ridiculousness of additional property tax. Adding a story or 2, seems like another option that could help. How about a plan to transition the short-term rentals into long-term? There are hundreds of short-term rental condos close to downtown that would be more practical solution than the McMansion properties and their owners solving all the problems for this town.

• Max 4 stories.

• Vancouver is dealing with this big time. Everybody expects to have they're single family home that they were promised when 60 years ago so prescribe low density and small buildings and now we have a sprawling East Vancouver to Burnaby with houses, slum lords packing 10 people into 4 bedroom houses, 4 million dollar butthole homes. It's nuts (it's obviously not just the density, it's also the billionaires of foreign dollars sheltering here).

• We cannot spend all this energy complaining about expensive and unavailable housing, and say we care about the wildlife corridors, then reject a simple solution which addresses both concerns elegantly.

• We need to keep the small town look and feel of Canmore’s downtown. It’s the reason many people moved to Canmore and even more people come to visit it. We need to protect the views of the mountains

• 3 to 4 stories is very reasonable and offers opportunities for more commercial or residential development, even in conjunction with a parkade

• There could be an increase in development near Dead Mans' or Exshaw to preserve the town of Canmore

• What about traffic volumes that are already huge and will be growing? It’s already insane to turn left onto Rundle drive and cross the Bow river bridge.

• Higher storey buildings downtown will just expedite the path we are on towards ruining Canmore.

• Density does not mean affordability.

• Downtown real estate is too valuable to expect affordable housing there. Also, the Canmore vibe would become much more like an urban centre and we’d lose our rural feeling, along with views of the mountains, by building higher

• If you start building up, it will lose its charm by becoming another city. I think Canmore needs to put a cap on the building ... already, there is congestion on the streets ... especially if you need to go to safeway, sobeys or canadian tire... If you build up, you will need to have more grocery stores and what nots for the residents living up higher... which again takes away from the purpose of keeping its charm...

• Keep Canmore downtown charm/views/daylight. Building higher is ugly, blocking light and views, and is not going to be affordable housing.

• The residents of Canmore need to realise that growth and development are inevitable. All they are doing right now is getting in the way. I would suggest a min of 5 stories high at a bare minimum

• Let’s work together to protect our small town Main Street and surrounding neighbourhoods and our good mountain views to engender positive spirits and arts and creativity.

• Keep the appearance of downtown the same

• Taller building loses Canmore's identity. What is the point of living in the mountains if you cannot see them?

• Canmore is beautiful and vibrant. I hope it dosen't have too change to much as it's progression moves into the future.

• Not only to protect the small town charm, but to protect the views! Prime example is the old Settlers Cabin lot! It is a huge impact on views and on light. Does Canmore want a dark town with no view. I’m sorry but our infrastructure can’t handle the growth that we have never mind the weekend influx of tourists! Then us poor locals are left with the smelly fallout. All of this doesn’t even acknowledge the water needed to support the influx. It is not okay for the Town of Canmore to restrict water restrictions on locals especially at the seniors lodge, when they are already on limited bathing/showering restrictions, due to staffing, yet the motels are not on restrictions, they do laundry, and use showers and baths. The taxpayers (locals) should be looked after, because in the end, they are supporting the town every day, actually a parking pass for locals would be a nice ‘thank you for paying the taxes and supporting the local businesses!

• If developers had their way we’d have 10 storey buildings and ruin our town. Profit drives their motivation not the good of our community.

• As long as there are restrictions on people buying property just for short term use, then I'm all for increasing the density. Workers in the area need affordable housing.

• I've always enjoyed the fact that I can see down main street looking west to Rundle Mountain up there! I say keep the buildings low.

• I think that saying that this would help with the housing crunch is a backless promise - developers don't want to build affordable housing, or accommodations for businesses (in order to support the community.....) they want to sell for big money. So, unless they can guarantee that these housing units will be affordable and service the current community - not for short term rentals or vacations, I vote against. Would love some 'need-to-reside' restrictions. As a healthcare worker in the community, I have had to move away due to the lack of affordable housing.

• I also have strong concerns with regards to utilities - what are the upstream implications with regards to power, water, sewage etc?

• There are other areas in our town where height will work but not downtown. It would really change the nature of our downtown. And density does not produce affordability

• Can we PLEASE not blow up the wonderful thing that we have here?

• Higher density, walkability does not equal less cars? We still live about 80km from a major center.

• I agree that height takes away from the views but to make something affordable you need to build on cheaper lots and build less extravagant homes managed by a third party that doesn’t have a financial interest in sales and management

• In addition to keeping the mountain views and small town charm (which is a big draw for outsiders too!), the higher density housing should not be coming from the downtown restructuring but rather from areas away from downtown, like Palliser Trail, Kananaskis Way, etc.

• This is a mountain town and visitors and locals want to see the mountains, not have them obscured. Sipping a coffee, or walking downtown without views of the nearby peaks, would be a crime.

• Although I understand the thought process behind increasing density, increasing height the reality is that will not create affordability. Preserving the small town character is more important to me.

• You want to be able to see the mountains from anywhere in Canmore not have any buildings blocking views! The draw to being there is the mountains!!

• And keep the parking as is, or build a parkade. Not everyone can walk/cycle downtown from their distant homes (seniors, disabled, or just in a hurry to pick up something.)

• Once you go taller you will lose the charm of Canmore, please keep a small pocket of this lovely town.

• Maybe the town should introduce a 2 year bulding requirement on all of the vacant lots within town so that homes are built (addressing the housing crunch) rather than their rich speculator friends just sitting on the lots waiting for the day they want to cash in. There are numerous lots scattered around town that have been vacant for decades. All other municipalities have a building requirement within a certain number of years. Why is canmore different when there is such a housing shortage??

• I have a hard time believing that any developer has our best interests in mind with their proposals.

• Downtown should try and stay low and small whereas outer areas can grow tall.

What Do You Think?

Let us know in the comments below!