Capri Master Plan

[GordonH]

Five towers right next to each other looks very cluttered.

Underground parking is awesome though.

That depends were the water table is at, that is problem in other parts of Kelowna (very high water table makes underground parking impossible). Since large part of this city is reclaim marsh lands.

Added later: hell anyone living here can take transit or ride a bike, who needs vehicle parking.

[Even Steven]

That depends were the water table is at, that is problem in other parts of Kelowna (very high water table makes underground parking impossible). Since large part of this city is reclaim marsh lands.

That's something for architects to worry about. If they put it underground, then chances are they know requirements and what's involved.

[Verum]

Mix it up some with making each one unique and different heights.

I don't understand why people always expect the buildings to be marvels of modern archetectur and things of beauty.

Why?

It doesn't have to be. Sure we don't want our city to look like North Korea but these are just fine, looks good enough though typical. To make them unique and extra beautiful would mean hiring a specialty archetecture company, making structures more complex and thus raising the prices of EVERY SINGLE UNIT within the tower - and then people start complaining how they're not affordable.

We want beauty for obvious reasons, but we certainly do not expect it. Only the naive would expect it based on past constructions. Rather we expect banal, uninspired, cookie-cutter architecture, which this certainly is. Worse still, this is a mix of bland designs without internal or external cohesion. Is it really too much to want something with character? We aren't talking about something which will be only up for a few weeks or months, but rather something we will have as part of our skyline for decades to come. If other cities, where housing is cheaper or similarly priced, can afford to have interesting, characterful architecture, why can't we?

[GordonH]

That depends were the water table is at, that is problem in other parts of Kelowna (very high water table makes underground parking impossible). Since large part of this city is reclaim marsh lands.

That's something for architects to worry about. If they put it underground, then chances are they know requirements and what's involved.

If they went with underground parking, just to have it flood after every rainstorm. lol

[Verum]

Also, maybe I missed it, but I don't see any ground level impressions, other than of the phase 1 towers. I would be interested in seeing what it will look like to walk down Gordon when completed.

[the truth]

will independent superstore stay in there ?

[GordonH]

Also, maybe I missed it, but I don't see any ground level impressions, other than of the phase 1 towers. I would be interested in seeing what it will look like to walk down Gordon when completed.

Closes Kelowna currently has would be to walk around Dolphins & down Sunset Dr area.

Of course there is not 10 18+ story buildings in or around Sunset Dr.

[Gilchy]

People keep talking about how the architecture/building style is boring, what would they like to see instead?

I'm genuinely not trying to be combative, rather curious?

[Even Steven]

Is it really too much to want something with character? We aren't talking about something which will be only up for a few weeks or months, but rather something we will have as part of our skyline for decades to come. If other cities, where housing is cheaper or similarly priced, can afford to have interesting, characterful architecture, why can't we?

Here's Vancouver skyline

Can you point me towards something that is interesting and chacterful?

[WalterWhite]

The problem with aesthetics, is what’s considered appealing/attractive today will be out in a few years. Currently the greys, medium stained faux-wood siding with aluminum accents and the odd panels of corrugated metal topped with some grass-green accents are all the rage - until the next trendy look hits town, then it will be out of “fashion”. Craftsmen style homes were big a few years ago, before that it was the California stucco details. Currently it’s the modern-contemporary (remember the early 70’s?) that is influencing residential design trends. “Trends” being the key word.

[Verum]

Is it really too much to want something with character? We aren't talking about something which will be only up for a few weeks or months, but rather something we will have as part of our skyline for decades to come. If other cities, where housing is cheaper or similarly priced, can afford to have interesting, characterful architecture, why can't we?

Here's Vancouver skyline

Can you point me towards something that is interesting and chacterful?

While I appreciate some people like Vancouver's architecture, I don't really think that Vancouver is particularly attractive. Architecturally, it's better than Kelowna, for sure, but that wouldn't be hard. I do like Science World and Vancouver Public Library, but maybe for reasons not entirely due to their appearance. Of buildings more in keeping with the intention of this development, the Evergreen building is somewhat interesting. I'm not a fan of walls of glass, which seem to dominate Vancouver. To be honest, parts of this development would fit right in in Vancouver in my opinion, and other parts, elsewhere in Vancouver, which I guess is one reason I don't particularly like it.

[Verum]

The problem with aesthetics, is what’s considered appealing/attractive today will be out in a few years. Currently the greys, medium stained faux-wood siding with aluminum accents and the odd panels of corrugated metal topped with some grass-green accents are all the rage - until the next trendy look hits town, then it will be out of “fashion”. Craftsmen style homes were big a few years ago, before that it was the California stucco details. Currently it’s the modern-contemporary (remember the early 70’s?) that is influencing residential design trends. “Trends” being the key word.

True, but the worst offenders are those who try to play it safe in any generation. It's those who adopt a style, but without any conviction who just look boring and dated after a few years.

[Even Steven]

While I appreciate some people like Vancouver's architecture, I don't really think that Vancouver is particularly attractive.

Ok. Can you point me towards a typical residential tower that is beautiful in your eyes?

Not VPL or Science World, these are one-off commercial projects, I'm talking about a typical residential tower where people live. I've never walked anywhere and said "Oh my, this is a beautiful condo building". There are some, like Trump tower in Vancouver, but all of them are sold at the premium to a premium crowd. If they were to spend the extra money on beautiful architecture and custom-made design the price would definitely sky rocket and they wouldn't be able to sell it to the general public (and general public would moan and groan about overpriced condos).

Same reason you see so many cookie-cutter houses and not a whole lot of custom-made ones. The latter cost a lot more money, far from everybody can afford it. And if developer was to sell their custom-designed houses at cookie-cutter prices they'd just go out of business, margins would get eaten up by customization.

[LANDM]

Speaking of......trivia alert....what was it before? And, why was it named Capri?
:

I don't remember what it was before (drive in theatre?), but it's called Capri because it was built by the Capozzi family. Mom bought groceries at Shop Easy.

Nope and nope. No shiny nickel for you.

[Queen K]

Orchards. There were orchards there. My dad drove over to see it with me in the car when I could barely walk. I know it's old. I have a ton of memories there. But that's not really the concern, it's the densification, the added traffic, more lies about what constitutes "green space" and the loss of horizon sight lines, which will be irreversible.

I mourn the losses Kelowna's had and I get it, some win, some lose.