Developers Can Do Better/Highrise

[Anonymous123]

No, Westcorp is not involved in this project. I was merely pointing out that developers from Alberta are contributing to election campaigns in Kelowna.

[TMBOkanagan]

I think that this developer is actually from Alberta - so campaign contributions weren't a factor.

My question was more - is it better to push the developers to do better which would improve the "look" of Kelowna, but may mean higher prices? Or is it better to be more lenient in order to get more housing & development quicker and at a lower cost?

Interesting line city council is walking by making these statements, and while true in all likelihood - I don't think it's really their job to decide on a project's aesthetic value. A number of years ago, the city used to have step in the development process, that would see proposals brought before what if memory serves me correct was the advisory design committee. This committee was made up of architects and members of the public. Their mandate was to give input regarding this present day issue - the aesthetic values of proposed developments. The issue however, was that just like any visual medium - it's entirely subjective - and as such,I think was part of the reason the committee was eventually disbanded. The responsibility of council is not, and should not be to decide what is or is not visually appealing about a project as it is completely subjective - after all, who are they to dictate? What formal training have any of them had with regards to design The only way this would be permissible, is if the city invoked a general design policy that new developments had to adhere to - much like a building scheme that is often part of subdivision development stipulating what builders and homeowners may apply to the exterior of a residence regarding such aspects as wall, roof and general landscaping design guidelines. Again, the problem with that - is it's entirely subjective. In addition to being subjective, as has also been mentioned - it can have a very significant impact on the cost of a project and becomes the age old dilemna of "form over function". City planner Ryan Smith clearly indicated the same: "In this case, we felt this met the standard, but does it exceed the standards of an architectural masterpiece? No, certainly it's a rental building, and there needs to be some economies of scale so when you build these types of buildings it keeps them affordable." You can't always have your cake and eat it too.

You mean like the design guidelines in the Official Community Plan that are used to evaluate Development Permits? Chapter 14. https://www.kelowna.ca/city-hall/city-g ... unity-plan

[WalterWhite]

I think that this developer is actually from Alberta - so campaign contributions weren't a factor.

My question was more - is it better to push the developers to do better which would improve the "look" of Kelowna, but may mean higher prices? Or is it better to be more lenient in order to get more housing & development quicker and at a lower cost?

Interesting line city council is walking by making these statements, and while true in all likelihood - I don't think it's really their job to decide on a project's aesthetic value. A number of years ago, the city used to have step in the development process, that would see proposals brought before what if memory serves me correct was the advisory design committee. This committee was made up of architects and members of the public. Their mandate was to give input regarding this present day issue - the aesthetic values of proposed developments. The issue however, was that just like any visual medium - it's entirely subjective - and as such,I think was part of the reason the committee was eventually disbanded. The responsibility of council is not, and should not be to decide what is or is not visually appealing about a project as it is completely subjective - after all, who are they to dictate? What formal training have any of them had with regards to design The only way this would be permissible, is if the city invoked a general design policy that new developments had to adhere to - much like a building scheme that is often part of subdivision development stipulating what builders and homeowners may apply to the exterior of a residence regarding such aspects as wall, roof and general landscaping design guidelines. Again, the problem with that - is it's entirely subjective. In addition to being subjective, as has also been mentioned - it can have a very significant impact on the cost of a project and becomes the age old dilemna of "form over function". City planner Ryan Smith clearly indicated the same: "In this case, we felt this met the standard, but does it exceed the standards of an architectural masterpiece? No, certainly it's a rental building, and there needs to be some economies of scale so when you build these types of buildings it keeps them affordable." You can't always have your cake and eat it too.

You mean like the design guidelines in the Official Community Plan that are used to evaluate Development Permits? Chapter 14. https://www.kelowna.ca/city-hall/city-g ... unity-plan

Yup - and as Smith indicated, the design as proposed meets the standards, which per your link are guidelines - a generalization of what the city wants to see incorporated into urban design. What the Councillors are saying, is that despite it meeting the city's own guidelines, its boring and un-inspiring.

[TMBOkanagan]

WalterWhite - I tend to agree. The design was a bit uninspiring. Which brings me back to my first question - should we demand better when we can? Or let it slide?

With development at such a high rate right now - I feel that Council does have the opportunity to demand better. Although, I do agree with you that aesthetics are subjective. It's a difficult call.

[Jflem1983]

Let it slide . Alberta will claw herself back . People will again leave to look for better jobs . I remember 2009 seeing 50 percent off adds hanging off balconies In West Kelowna. We have not changed that much in 8 years . Still no work here

[WalterWhite]

WalterWhite - I tend to agree. The design was a bit uninspiring. Which brings me back to my first question - should we demand better when we can? Or let it slide?

With development at such a high rate right now - I feel that Council does have the opportunity to demand better. Although, I do agree with you that aesthetics are subjective. It's a difficult call.

- and that's the point I think Smith was trying to get across. Yes, development is rolling along right now around the valley. We're also at an alltime low regarding rental availability and particularily in the realm of affordable and low income housing. Interesting that Councillor Stack waqs one of those stating affordable housing doesn't have to be expensive to look nice. For those that don't know, Stack is I believe one of the founders of the Society for Hope - a non-profit society specializing in affordable seniors housing:
http://www.societyofhope.org/
http://www.lukestack.com/about-luke
Since we agree that the visual aspect of a development is very speculative - consider the project Stack is partly responsible for creating at the corner of Benvoulin and Springfield:

One could certainly take elements of the design of Stack's project and discuss the merits or lack thereof as some are also uninspiring and boring. The proverbial pot calling kettle black. That's not to say I'm trying to start a *bleep* match about Stack's venture - it's actually a fantastic group and has provided some great accommodation to a market that desperately needs it. Just again pointing out again how subjective the issue can be.

I think Smith took the right approach in taking the project into consideration stating that it was afterall a rental housing development. I was disappointed at Councillor Hodge's take on the application. I would have thought he would have taken into consideration the project was aimed at the affordable housing market - yet he proudly proclaimed he expects a "wow" factor from applications. A portion of the letter posted in the OP:

The only exception was Gail Given who brought up that she likes to see the incorporating of quality materials like stone and wood into buildings (something the applicant’s building already had ironically enough). But nevertheless, council was clear about how uninspired they were with the application.

Despite all this only Charlie Hodge and Councillor Gray voted against it and the motion easily passed 6-2.

“This is a world-class city people want to live in. When it comes to developments, I don’t want just good enough. I want ‘wow’.” Hodge said.

Councillor Hodge, I couldn’t agree more. Let’s take the housing boom momentum we got and start using it to demand higher quality applications of developers. Let’s get out of the 2011 “take any” mindset and raise the bar. Do this and future generations will have that world-class city you speak of. Let’s not just whine about the lack of builder’s innovation and instead demand it.

On second thought, maybe not, I can’t afford the rent. I’ll take Hardieplank dorm housing any day.

Kelly Hutchinson

Gail Given's comment, and the fact the project as noted did exactly what she says she would like to see, tells me a lot about just how informed some of these councillors can be on some of the issues brought before them.

[Grandan]

"WalterWhite"

Yup - and as Smith indicated, the design as proposed meets the standards, which per your link are guidelines - a generalization of what the city wants to see incorporated into urban design. What the Councillors are saying, is that despite it meeting the city's own guidelines, its boring and un-inspiring.

You are required to hire an Architect to design a building. They have a backbone the last time I worked with one and will not produce ugly buildings on command so why does any council member think they need to add another layer onto that pile?
Unless a building does not meet required already restrictive rules there is no reason to go there.

[lightspeed]

Ref Mr Hodge's comments shown above.

World class city:

Zurich
Milan
Turin
Rome
Strasbourg
Copenhagen
Sydney
Auckland
Vienna
Berlin
London

NOT Kelowna.

As much as I like the Okanagan, it's a sleepy backwater in the middle of the tundra. If you think Kelowna is world class, you haven't travelled much.

In 30-40 years time the place will be gridlocked one end of the valley to the other. Inhabited by a seething mass of idiotic, migrated misfits. Overseen by a level of barely literate government that has no clue how to control or plan for growth. Totally out of their league.

Anyone who has lived here for any length of time can see how the area is losing its appeal and quality of life on the whole is deteriorating.

[TMBOkanagan]

Off Topic

[lightspeed]

Response to off topic comment.

[TMBOkanagan]

lightspeed - most of the cities you mentioned have a considerably longer history than Kelowna. Do you think there is an opportunity right now - to ensure that Kelowna could become world class during it's own history? By asking for better design, planning for traffic, taking measures to ensure that in 30-40 years it is on its way to being one of the world class cities you mentioned?

[Anonymous123]

Ref Mr Hodge's comments shown above.

World class city:

Zurich
Milan
Turin
Rome
Strasbourg
Copenhagen
Sydney
Auckland
Vienna
Berlin
London

NOT Kelowna.

As much as I like the Okanagan, it's a sleepy backwater in the middle of the tundra. If you think Kelowna is world class, you haven't travelled much.

In 30-40 years time the place will be gridlocked one end of the valley to the other. Inhabited by a seething mass of idiotic, migrated misfits. Overseen by a level of barely literate government that has no clue how to control or plan for growth. Totally out of their league.

Anyone who has lived here for any length of time can see how the area is losing its appeal and quality of life on the whole is deteriorating.

Tundra?

[lightspeed]

lightspeed - most of the cities you mentioned have a considerably longer history than Kelowna. Do you think there is an opportunity right now - to ensure that Kelowna could become world class during it's own history? By asking for better design, planning for traffic, taking measures to ensure that in 30-40 years it is on its way to being one of the world class cities you mentioned?

We had - but it's already too late.

I give you the horrors that are Kirschner, Black Mountain, Highpointe. Mountains scraped bare, visual eyesores that blight the view of every other resident of the valley. La Casa just south of Fintry, a mountainside scraped bare ruining the view for many long term residents. No consideration other than for the developers and realtor partners' profit.

No control and no accountability for those that sell their souls for development profits. I also give you the Tourism visitor centre proposal. More nonsense, with a minority to gain handsomely from it.

Sadly the areas within the Okanagan are managed by barely literate hillbillies catering for incoming hillbillies from other visually blighted communities. The expectations are already low. Some of us see the Okanagan for what it could have been (Kelowna, especially). The City sells its soul for money, the developers have no stake in the community regardless of their PR and hand out glossy media brochures spouting everything about micro communities and "villages". I've never read so much nonsense. We have Cities, Districts, and Councils that can't even enforce bylaws property. And they're blind to the bylaws they don't even have which leaves developers and business to run rampant all over local residents.

What chance they can strategise long term visions for our societies and communities that benefit all of us, rather than cowing down to appease a powerful moneyed elite? They think a rainbow crosswalk is innovative while we live in a community that is so backward we have to make a statement about acceptance, rather than just getting on with accepting everyone around us. The entire thing is stuck in 1992. Normal people gave up hating LBQT and ethnically diverse peoples a decade or two ago. But here in Kelowna we have grunting morons driving jacked up pickups in their $10 white sunglasses and $300 Ed Hardy t-shirts. And we want to be world class? Sheeshh...a long ways to go, folks. Maybe start by respecting each other instead of drinking til you puke, partying like it's 1984 when you were 17, not annoying your neighbours by playing crappy 1988 rock music til 3 am, and being a respectful resident of your community.

For an area that could be as appealing as Tuscany, those concerned in power have really ruined what could have been a good thing. And by 2017 it's already way too late now. Our guardians have really sold us down the river.

If we had smarts we'd be planning how a high speed rail network could take us from Penticton to Vernon in a few minutes. We'd be looking across the mountains at ways to divert traffic away from the valley bottom. We'd be looking at ways to slow down growth, not speed it up. Less is more. Higher quality of life beats the hubbub of another 150,000 babbling migrants all looking for cheap digs and a $100k job (ain't happening....ever) yet people will still whine and complain. Even though the click of a mouse would tell you there's no work here and the accommodation cost is stratospheric. Maybe stay put where you are. We need less of you and more of US doing the right thing and being decent, respectful, residents. That might be a start. And if you happen to come as a visitor how about not crapping in our backyard. Conduct yourself appropriately as a guest here.

North American planning just ruins everything it touches. Quantity over quality, every time.

Coles notes version...too late, ruined by idiots.

[casey60]

Totally agree with "Lightspeed" Good submission and so true.

[lesliepaul]

Well said lightspeed..................issues here are as obvious as you state and will NEVER get better. Greed, arrogance and entitlement will only get worse because we have complete idiot$ being funded onto our city council and their primary purpose of existence is to ensure "payback" to the funding elitists OVER "community".

Always felt that the Wilden area was well done and the complete opposite of Upper Missions "retaining walls to heaven" eyesores. What Wilden has done recently was to add "row housing" along Union north of the roundabout. These no-doubt $400,000 eyesores have front doors 15 ft. from the street (Union).........all the available land in the world up there and the developer decides now to squeeze the lower budget housing onto the narrowest piece of land..........that should have been a greenspace for the more "inland" housing properties at this location