Central Green Community Design

[dominik]

I am curious, it seems to me and others whom I have talked with that the Central Green Community Design seems to have changed substantially from what was originally proposed.

What happened here (and no I do not mean what made fiscal sense for the developers)?

The original plans called for 20 Floor Towers, a dense population center made of concrete with shopping and businesses in the first two floors as well as a promenade like environment with parks. What we are getting seems to be the same old same old.

Maximum 6 Story wood based construction buildings which in reality do not differ much from many of the other towers like Mission Meadows, Martin Square, etc. that do nothing to "actually" improve density in such a piece of prime real estate that should have been an showcase example for urban densification with the community at heart. Seeing town homes and these Wood 5-6 story apartment blocks in one of the most visible piece and exposed piece of real estate, which could have changed the rental and business landscape as a whole seems to me and others like a disappointment as well as a bait and switch.

Some have argued traffic being a serious issue on other threads and I have to agree it will be an issue if businesses aren't included in that development (naturally that will not eliminate traffic but it can reduce its impact if people can afford to live there).

With today's news of a 20 story tower on the corner of Ellis of Lawrence which actually shows signs of planning and honestly shows what should have been on the central green site, I can't help but be disappointed in how the Central Green Development was handled...

[Fancy]

Might find this thread of interest:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=73658

[dominik]

Thanks I did read it and it seemed to talk more about traffic, :) around page 3 it was more design. Thanks again.

[JayByrd]

One councillor wrote on Facebook about why six-story wood construction seems to be so popular here. If a building is taller than that, you need to go to concrete which heavily increases the cost for the developer. It forces purchase costs up, which will put the units out of reach for all but the wealthy. It seems to me that most of the taller apartment/condo buildings in Kelowna are pretty swanky, at least in price.

This particular councillor was in favour of the original 20-story proposed design, but was out-voted.

[GordonH]

^^^ 6 story wood construction may the condo owners enjoy it when the squeaks & creaks come along. Hearing your neighbours walking around will be very entertaining.

Sorry if I was to ever move into high raise condo it would only be steel & concrete, rather pay the extra for the quiet.

[dominik]

^^^ 6 story wood construction may the condo owners enjoy it when the squeaks & creaks come along. Hearing your neighbours walking around will be very entertaining.

Sorry if I was to ever move into high raise condo it would only be steel & concrete, rather pay the extra for the quiet.

Well that is my thought among others... I mean in reality in that location you build for density not "cheaper". Concrete and steel may be more expensive but that is par for the course.

You cannot go high in density without incurring costs which may dissuade some builders but the matter of fact is that the location requires structures which last and will be staples in the community for density. This simply cannot be achieved with these wood structures which have a much larger footprint than concrete towers.

These wooden building will have all the ailments that we see occurring in places such as the Verve, Mission Meadows, and so on which arguably aren't a big deal in the short term but after 30 years these buildings will look and feel the way they were constructed. After 40+ years you will have structural issues, this kind of location can't just have the "meh" approach that seems to be appearing here constantly.

Looking at the Imperial Tower on lake shore, it was built in 1962, it is still there, meanwhile the wood constructions around or near it have been replaced or massively overhauled many times. Sure enough yes location mattered here as well and the units kept their price and honestly quality. Sure at nearly 55 years it is an old building... but it is still here. If we want to get serious about Kelowna we need to ask ourselves why are builders around Manhattan Drive, Gordon, or now Ellis and Lawrence going for Concrete tall constructions there when the property they were already developing had a MUCH higher impact on the cities look, feel and function.

Just cost of concrete seems to me like a logical reason but then why are the same outfits going it the right way less than a couple of blocks from the prime location??

Something literally make no sense here. The same builders build in other locations high rises the same way just not here, worse yet they change the community plan originally approved by the community multiple times... I don't get it (hence I am asking the question as to what is going on here).

[Queller]

Yes, and the City seems to constantly gloss over the fact that 6 storey wood-frame buildings burn intensely once they get going, due to the massive fire load from the building materials and contents. Whether ignited while under construction (Waters Edge North), exposed upon by another fire (Waters Edge), or started by carelessness (cigarette, barbeque, etc, numerous times in Kelowna), these type of buildings are very difficult to extinguish once the protective "envelope" has been penetrated and fire has a hold on the building.
These devastating fires also leave numerous people homeless, until rebuilding can occur, and force more people into an already tight rental market.

[WalterWhite]

It's not about quality of construction - or lack thereof. There is a serious issue however with what is being proposed and accepted during the development stages involving both the city and public and what is actually constructed in the end result. I've personally been involved in this process and have been astounded at what is initially proposed versus what is finally built.

[spooker]

Isn't Central Green supposed to be affordable? Hence the lower cost of building ... yes, seeing the developers presentation of ELLA on Tuesday did make me think they're going for the Lower Mainland refugees who've taken advantage of making boatloads off house sales ... also these would be the ones that would be comfortable getting back into a high-rise like they had back there

[gman313]

Isn't Central Green supposed to be affordable? Hence the lower cost of building ... yes, seeing the developers presentation of ELLA on Tuesday did make me think they're going for the Lower Mainland refugees who've taken advantage of making boatloads off house sales ... also these would be the ones that would be comfortable getting back into a high-rise like they had back there

a portion is affordable rentals. Another portion are for sale and will be at market price.

[dominik]

It's not about quality of construction - or lack thereof. There is a serious issue however with what is being proposed and accepted during the development stages involving both the city and public and what is actually constructed in the end result. I've personally been involved in this process and have been astounded at what is initially proposed versus what is finally built.

This is what does boggle my mind, the first few concepts were admittedly dream scenarios but gorgeous nonetheless. The following concepts were good, not as impressive but they utilized the land and environment properly. The current development is truly disappointing, it really shows no improvements in forward thinking. LEED compliant or not, it literally is the same old same old.

In regards to cost of apartments all these units are only to a percentage low income or affordable housing with the exception of the one building (which honestly I expected to be of "wood construction"). The CG1 and CG2 buildings make me question what else is coming they literally cut the property in half with these buildings, making it hard to imagine anything at the highway side that is past 6 stories.

Same with in the back unless they make now changes to the parks I cannot see large towers, leading me to believe we will see a series of "apartment" complexes and townhouses that are towered over by a 30 year old 13 Story apartment tower across the street. This makes absolutely no sense to me... Heck even that the city gave the building permits a go ahead, makes me question if anyone double checked the original plans....