51738

Central Green urban lie

Re: Central Green urban lie

Postby Old Techie » Jan 9th, 2018, 11:18 am

There's good reason why Stober is one of, if not the biggest, player in Kelowna.

I guess the bureaucrats feel obligated to bend over, after Stober covered a lot of the cost of that pedestrian overpass by Parkinson Rec Center.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
- Robert A. Heinlein

Jflem1983 likes this post.
User avatar
Old Techie
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2945
Likes: 2469 posts
Liked in: 4117 posts
Joined: Apr 27th, 2013, 2:47 pm

Re: Central Green urban lie

Postby Grandan » Jan 9th, 2018, 11:37 am

Queen K wrote:I'm puzzled about the "limited in height" comment.

There's a tower right across Hwy 97 that was built in the early 80's. What's it called? I forget right now.

But is the geo-technical area that different from a block away? Sounds like someone just doesn't want to put the money in to building taller or as tall as promised.

Is that where the "low income housing" was supposed to be?

I made a comment a while back that it was the local developers who generally were screwing the city not the out-of-towners.
The MO is to make a deal and then over time whittle away the requirements until they had what they wanted. There is a good chance that city councils will change and memories fade and time will produce a better deal for the developer.
What you see at Central Green is the city was out played. Sad. Oh well, they can take it out on the out-of-towners.
Waste not

2 people like this post.
Grandan
Übergod
 
Posts: 1579
Likes: 108 posts
Liked in: 663 posts
Joined: Aug 14th, 2007, 3:05 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: Central Green urban lie

Postby Omnitheo » Jan 9th, 2018, 12:21 pm

Well, it is the site of a former school. Perhaps broken dreams and crushed spirits don’t make for a good building foundation :biggrin:
"The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, every one of us, even when it is uncomfortable."
- Justin Trudeau

3 people like this post.
User avatar
Omnitheo
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3669
Likes: 5322 posts
Liked in: 2628 posts
Joined: Jul 19th, 2011, 9:10 am

Re: Central Green urban lie

Postby featfan » Jan 9th, 2018, 1:10 pm

Old Techie wrote:There's good reason why Stober is one of, if not the biggest, player in Kelowna.

I guess the bureaucrats feel obligated to bend over, after Stober covered a lot of the cost of that pedestrian overpass by Parkinson Rec Center.


Ya so workers in the area could use the parking lot.
featfan
Board Meister
 
Posts: 568
Likes: 299 posts
Liked in: 177 posts
Joined: Jul 21st, 2005, 10:48 am

Re: Central Green urban lie

Postby Old Techie » Jan 9th, 2018, 2:08 pm

featfan wrote:
Old Techie wrote:There's good reason why Stober is one of, if not the biggest, player in Kelowna.

I guess the bureaucrats feel obligated to bend over, after Stober covered a lot of the cost of that pedestrian overpass by Parkinson Rec Center.


Ya so workers in the area could use the parking lot.


No argument from me.

Stober doesn't make a move unless it strategically benefits him.

If it can be made to appear as a benevolent act then all the better.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
- Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Old Techie
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2945
Likes: 2469 posts
Liked in: 4117 posts
Joined: Apr 27th, 2013, 2:47 pm

Re: Central Green urban lie

Postby MAPearce » Jan 9th, 2018, 4:21 pm

There's a tower right across Hwy 97 that was built in the early 80's. What's it called?


Executive House .. 777 Leon Ave .
I payed attention in High school....But not to what they were trying to teach me..

3 people like this post.
User avatar
MAPearce
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 10400
Likes: 1305 posts
Liked in: 3480 posts
Joined: Nov 24th, 2009, 5:15 pm

Re: Central Green urban lie

Postby voice of reason » Jan 9th, 2018, 6:04 pm

the leaning tower of leon

grumpies daughter likes this post.
voice of reason
Board Meister
 
Posts: 688
Likes: 2180 posts
Liked in: 688 posts
Joined: Feb 22nd, 2009, 11:40 am

Re: Central Green urban lie

Postby dirtybiker » Jan 9th, 2018, 7:30 pm

What a sad case of what we have all let happen to our home.

Not any one councilor or Mayor is to blame.

Not any one political affiliation

Just a shame....
"Don't 'p' down my neck then tell me it's raining!"
dirtybiker
Guru
 
Posts: 6148
Likes: 4756 posts
Liked in: 2558 posts
Joined: Mar 8th, 2008, 6:00 pm
Location: Central OK

Re: Central Green urban lie

Postby Jflem1983 » Jan 10th, 2018, 5:10 am

dirtybiker wrote:What a sad case of what we have all let happen to our home.

Not any one councilor or Mayor is to blame.

Not any one political affiliation

Just a shame....


Wrong. Each one of them is to be blamed. Especially Gail Given
We don't reach for handouts we reach for those who are down . "Garth Brooks "

You have got to stand for something . Or you will fall for anything "Aaron Tippin"
MAKE ALBERTA GREAT AGAIN

Queen K likes this post.
User avatar
Jflem1983
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3066
Likes: 5435 posts
Liked in: 1743 posts
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2015, 10:38 am

Re: Central Green urban lie

Postby LANDM » Jan 10th, 2018, 7:09 am

From the link that was posted:
"While council agreed with the rationale of a pedestrian entrance to the site from that corner, opposed to the retail commercial site, it did decide to defer making a decision to give staff a chance to go over the plans and the site again with the developer."

They did not make a decision and they are still discussing. I suppose the responses will be that nothing will change etc., but the fact is that there is no final decision at this point.

As for geotechnical issues, that is up to engineers and would be a function of cost as per the article. You can build almost anything anywhere...how much will it cost though.

So, what it seems to come down to is that some think the big bad rich developer should be forced to build something that is outside of what the City said they wanted, without the City doing the necessary detailed geotech at the time.

Further, the City does not have the necessary crystal ball to determine market needs years out from when they compiled their "wish list". Perhaps the retail or commercial component would have little chance of leasing? If anyone would have that information, I would suspect it would be the developer.

If anyone thinks that a developer, in the business to make a profit, would willingly build something that will incur a loss, that is a naive thought. The property would then sit there, undeveloped, for longer or be resold.

TMBOkanagan likes this post.
LANDM
Guru
 
Posts: 5503
Likes: 1353 posts
Liked in: 2703 posts
Joined: Sep 18th, 2009, 10:58 am

Re: Central Green urban lie

Postby dominik » Jan 10th, 2018, 7:50 am

Just listened to the CBC Interview, they are now implementing Limited Heights to require certain amounts of floors rather than using just using max heights which basically accounted for this Central Green Disaster.

At this point... Central Green is not the Role model for high density living, commercial and entertainment but the exact opposite. It is a perfect example of developers doing what they want after pushing the the city and council to the point of having to choose between a bad choice and a worse choice.

To say that I am getting more than just annoyed would be an accurate description. At this point the *bleep* they are pulling is incredible. You cannot tell me that the way they have built, and are planning to build the last stages can equal the amount of units they agreed upon in the first accepted community design, nor will it have the number of "affordable" rental units or commercial units (in fact I believe there are no commercial units in the plans now, but correct me if I am wrong).

Those wooden constructions are towered above by a 16 storey tower from the 80s showing that high density is possible (and that is while even that tower [executive house] has its own issues). You cannot tell me that if we can build the delta, sunset, sopa, and all these other towers RIGHT AT THE EDGE of the lake that building on the KSS site is more difficult. (again I may be wrong, but then if it is too much/too difficult then don't buy it and perform a bait and switch).

Okay.. so i am disappointed, frustrated and borderline angry after seeing the "Mission Flats Affordable Rental Rates".

2 people like this post.
dominik
 
Posts: 83
Likes: 98 posts
Liked in: 83 posts
Joined: Aug 22nd, 2011, 6:46 am
Location: Kelowna, BC

Re: Central Green urban lie

Postby Omnitheo » Jan 10th, 2018, 11:45 am

Give the property over to Westcorp. You know they’ll be able to increase the height :D
"The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, every one of us, even when it is uncomfortable."
- Justin Trudeau

3 people like this post.
User avatar
Omnitheo
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3669
Likes: 5322 posts
Liked in: 2628 posts
Joined: Jul 19th, 2011, 9:10 am

Re: Central Green urban lie

Postby plunber » Jan 10th, 2018, 4:46 pm

Its fugly. I blame the planning department. They dropped the ball on this one
plunber
 
Posts: 7
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Jan 2nd, 2006, 1:16 pm

Re: Central Green urban lie

Postby TMBOkanagan » Jan 10th, 2018, 6:05 pm

dominik wrote:Just listened to the CBC Interview, they are now implementing Limited Heights to require certain amounts of floors rather than using just using max heights which basically accounted for this Central Green Disaster.

At this point... Central Green is not the Role model for high density living, commercial and entertainment but the exact opposite. It is a perfect example of developers doing what they want after pushing the the city and council to the point of having to choose between a bad choice and a worse choice.

To say that I am getting more than just annoyed would be an accurate description. At this point the *bleep* they are pulling is incredible. You cannot tell me that the way they have built, and are planning to build the last stages can equal the amount of units they agreed upon in the first accepted community design, nor will it have the number of "affordable" rental units or commercial units (in fact I believe there are no commercial units in the plans now, but correct me if I am wrong).

Those wooden constructions are towered above by a 16 storey tower from the 80s showing that high density is possible (and that is while even that tower [executive house] has its own issues). You cannot tell me that if we can build the delta, sunset, sopa, and all these other towers RIGHT AT THE EDGE of the lake that building on the KSS site is more difficult. (again I may be wrong, but then if it is too much/too difficult then don't buy it and perform a bait and switch).

Okay.. so i am disappointed, frustrated and borderline angry after seeing the "Mission Flats Affordable Rental Rates".


I agree with you. The only reason I hesitate - is that the complex at Central Green that was just deferred was meant to be rental housing - and it is hard to ask a rental building to bear increased costs to build higher due to geotechnical issues. That would only put increased costs on rent. I’m not sure what the right decision is here for Council. I’m glad they deferred it to allow more discussion rather than approving or not approving.
TMBOkanagan
Fledgling
 
Posts: 110
Likes: 439 posts
Liked in: 67 posts
Joined: Aug 8th, 2016, 1:02 pm

Re: Central Green urban lie

Postby dirtybiker » Jan 11th, 2018, 10:34 am

LANDM wrote:The property would then sit there, undeveloped,


You say that like it is a bad thing.
"Don't 'p' down my neck then tell me it's raining!"

2 people like this post.
dirtybiker
Guru
 
Posts: 6148
Likes: 4756 posts
Liked in: 2558 posts
Joined: Mar 8th, 2008, 6:00 pm
Location: Central OK

PreviousNext

Return to Central Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests