Redevlopment in the Civic Block

[Not Bob]

Some of that land has got to fall within the Simpson covenant, which will mean court battles or blatant disregard to of an agreement. Other than that I would like the se downtown build up. One thing that I noticed was that buildings are coming to end of their useful life. Really these buildings are a long life ahead of them if they are maintained or renovated, why does the city feel it has the obligation to tear them down and spend huge amounts of money besides this town is controlled by the developers.

[JLives]

Maybe because its private property not civic???? Not within the Simpson Covenant ????

Once again when did the City's mandate be to become a residential developer and residential landlord?

Well it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The renderings should be accurate don't you think?

[cv23]

Some of that land has got to fall within the Simpson covenant, which will mean court battles or blatant disregard to of an agreement. Other than that I would like the se downtown build up. One thing that I noticed was that buildings are coming to end of their useful life. Really these buildings are a long life ahead of them if they are maintained or renovated, why does the city feel it has the obligation to tear them down and spend huge amounts of money besides this town is controlled by the developers.

I don't see present council worried about "blatant disregard to of an agreement" as it won't be their dollars used to mount another challenge of the covenant in court, it will be our money wasted yet again..
As to at least one of the buildings poses them a serious challenge. The "Memorial" Arena is just that a designated war memorial so not something they can just tear down at the drop of a hat.

[cv23]

Well it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The renderings should be accurate don't you think?

That would imply honesty, openness and transparency on behalf of council.

Yet again when did the City's mandate be to become a residential developer and residential landlord?

[Not Bob]

I don't see present council worried about "blatant disregard to of an agreement" as it won't be their dollars used to mount another challenge of the covenant in court, it will be our money wasted yet again..
As to at least one of the buildings poses them a serious challenge. The "Memorial" Arena is just that a designated war memorial so not something they can just tear down at the drop of a hat.

Exactly, they have no issue spending other peoples month, the street lights on Bernard plus the 800,000 crapper in the park are proof of that. I will probably see Sharon Simpson soon last time i spoke to her she said she was going fight any changes to the covenant.

[John500]

Yeah make it a high rise city. Just like all the other Canadian cities. With downtown areas that are dead after 600pm

[Gilchy]

Yeah make it a high rise city. Just like all the other Canadian cities. With downtown areas that are dead after 600pm

In what world would increasing the number of people downtown lead to it being dead after 6?

Like it or not, we live in a desirable area. People are going to continue to move here, and so we need to add places for these people to live and work. We can keep climbing the hills and losing farmland, or we can increase density.

Additionally, the major draw here is the lake - people like to be close to the lake, so suggesting that all tall buildings should be built away from the water (Landmark seems to be a common suggestion) simply does not line up with what is in demand.

Smart planning, incorporating transportation logistics, that allows for the densification of the city in areas that people want to be is the best path forward, IMO.

[cv23]

Additionally, the major draw here is the lake - people like to be close to the lake, so suggesting that all tall buildings should be built away from the water (Landmark seems to be a common suggestion) simply does not line up with what is in demand.

Should the lakeshore remain a community asset for all to enjoy or become just for the wealthy few can afford to live there?
Height restrictions stepping back from a public lakeshore is actually the most commonly accepted suggestion. Something along the lines of up to six stories below Water St, up to 12 from Water to Ellis, 12+ from Ellis back would make a better use of all the land and give far more people a view of the lake (what is really in demand) than creating a wall for the rich along the lakeshore with no reason, or demand, for anyone to live behind the wall.
Its more about the need for creating a comprehensive plan for all of downtown Kelowna rather than only looking at a block at a time. Just look what a total lack of planning has got us so far.

[Captain Awesome]

Should the lakeshore remain a community asset for all to enjoy or become just for the wealthy few can afford to live there?

Who says anything about taking away your access to lakeshore?