47063
47869

This can't be Good for a new development

Re: This can't be Good for a new development

Postby LANDM » Oct 27th, 2017, 6:20 am

Scrobins94 wrote:
featfan wrote:Have you seen some of the houses there?
Built out and cantilevered on fill.
The posts for the decks and part of the house and not joined to the footings or foundations at ground level.
Just a tube filled with concrete and hey we are good to go.
Geez we might as well put up a pool on a bunch of posts too.


I had to look it up. I am no engineer but when I looked it up I came across a few pics which made me think hell naw. A few examples... :132:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BZ7ly67noqY/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BTWxVrFjDtQ/

Beautiful homes though...

Why don't developers try to stay more within the natural way the land was?


The whole point of the homes being built on the slope is that they *are* staying with a more natural slope. But you still need flat roads etc.

As for the engineering, that’s why we have engineers....so us saying "hell naw" is meaningless.
LANDM
Guru
 
Posts: 5091
Likes: 1139 posts
Liked in: 2351 posts
Joined: Sep 18th, 2009, 10:58 am

Re: This can't be Good for a new development

Postby lightspeed » Oct 27th, 2017, 6:31 am

gambit2 wrote:You people understand that these stilted houses are not just put up by "fly by night" contractors right? All of that stilting is ENGINEERED and the homes are built by reputable home builders...

I bet you you guys won't drive over a bridge because you can't understand how it just stays up in the air like that!! Just because it looks sketchy to your untrained eye doesn't mean it isn't structurally sound.

I don't know why I read these Castanet forums.


It can get signed off for approval. Doesn't mean I like it. Doesn't mean I'd buy it. I see lots of things that are "signed off" that I dislike or would avoid.

I certainly don't grunt and point the sky when a plane passes overhead.
"Why does everyone in Kelowna act like they're in Hollywood"

A hermit; a recluse; one of the Okanagan "hill people"
User avatar
lightspeed
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2257
Likes: 3527 posts
Liked in: 1634 posts
Joined: Jan 13th, 2016, 9:58 am
Location: Vulgaria

Re: This can't be Good for a new development

Postby Old Techie » Oct 27th, 2017, 7:09 am

I'm not quite sure why some are so shocked by this type of construction. It's not exactly something new, given one can easily find thousands of examples in California.

Just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad.

I'm far more concerned with seeing so many developments adopt roof styles that are almost flat, considering we live in an area where we can get significant snowfall.

It's one thing to adopt a certain look or style, but I would think the biggest determining factor should be functionality, in the chosen location.
"Fools multiply when wise men are silent!" - Nelson Mandela

4 people like this post.
User avatar
Old Techie
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2168
Likes: 1756 posts
Liked in: 2943 posts
Joined: Apr 27th, 2013, 2:47 pm

Re: This can't be Good for a new development

Postby alanjh595 » Oct 27th, 2017, 7:26 am

I think I understand why the flat roofs.
They are aesthetically better for everyone behind them and in front of the lake view.
They could be easily adapted and fitted for solar in the future.
Easy access to the solar panels for cleaning and maintenance.

Maybe they are structured so well that rooftop gardens or decking could be added? I don't know but those are my suggestions.
User avatar
alanjh595
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 776
Likes: 233 posts
Liked in: 441 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: This can't be Good for a new development

Postby LANDM » Oct 27th, 2017, 7:36 am

General concerns about flat roofs are unfounded. If they are engineered properly, they are fine. We have known snow loads in our areas and the roof structure must be designed to accommodate that.
Ever notice how virtually every commercial building has a flat roof, usually spanning over a huge area?

Catri likes this post.
LANDM
Guru
 
Posts: 5091
Likes: 1139 posts
Liked in: 2351 posts
Joined: Sep 18th, 2009, 10:58 am

Re: This can't be Good for a new development

Postby LTD » Oct 27th, 2017, 7:52 am

what you mean Costco doesn't have a peaked roof lol

TMBOkanagan likes this post.
LTD
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2729
Likes: 1837 posts
Liked in: 1875 posts
Joined: Mar 31st, 2010, 2:34 pm

Re: This can't be Good for a new development

Postby Old Techie » Oct 27th, 2017, 8:02 am

LANDM wrote:General concerns about flat roofs are unfounded. If they are engineered properly, they are fine. We have known snow loads in our areas and the roof structure must be designed to accommodate that.
Ever notice how virtually every commercial building has a flat roof, usually spanning over a huge area?


Yes and I've also noted how often they are leaking.

Anyone who doubts me just watch for the buckets at Costco. :biggrin:

Given the amount of white stuff I've had to shovel the last couple of winters, I can't help but also wonder if those known snow load figures remain accurate?
"Fools multiply when wise men are silent!" - Nelson Mandela

Lady tehMa likes this post.
User avatar
Old Techie
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2168
Likes: 1756 posts
Liked in: 2943 posts
Joined: Apr 27th, 2013, 2:47 pm

Re: This can't be Good for a new development

Postby kgcayenne » Oct 27th, 2017, 9:19 am

One would be absolutely ALARMED at the way some developers push-around the development personnel in a municipal organization. When the engineers don't give them what they want to hear (and essentially slow down the approval), they appear at the engineer's location unannounced to berate and lob thinly-veiled threats.
"without knowledge, he multiplies mere words."
Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your kids.
User avatar
kgcayenne
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 12710
Likes: 1573 posts
Liked in: 3341 posts
Joined: Aug 10th, 2005, 5:35 pm
Location: West Kelowna

Re: This can't be Good for a new development

Postby alanjh595 » Oct 27th, 2017, 9:48 am

kgcayenne wrote:One would be absolutely ALARMED at the way some developers push-around the development personnel in a municipal organization. When the engineers don't give them what they want to hear (and essentially slow down the approval), they appear at the engineer's location unannounced to berate and lob thinly-veiled threats.


That wouldn't surprise me in the least. I have seen and heard it myself.
User avatar
alanjh595
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 776
Likes: 233 posts
Liked in: 441 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: This can't be Good for a new development

Postby zerograv » Oct 27th, 2017, 10:21 am

I love all the BS in this thread. :up:
Before giving someone a piece of your mind, make sure that you have enough to spare.

3 people like this post.
zerograv
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 867
Likes: 48 posts
Liked in: 207 posts
Joined: Mar 5th, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: This can't be Good for a new development

Postby Green-light » Oct 27th, 2017, 10:37 am

Anywhere else,
in any other country,
this would be an issue.

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Plastic Bubbles, called The Okanagan !!!

This is no more than a fart in the tub.
This will be cleaned up.
The engineers will be paid for signatures.
The project will commence.
Hundreds of millions will be made.

The greed lives on.

Scrobins94 likes this post.
Green-light
Fledgling
 
Posts: 148
Likes: 8 posts
Liked in: 71 posts
Joined: Jun 3rd, 2009, 4:11 pm

Re: This can't be Good for a new development

Postby TMBOkanagan » Oct 27th, 2017, 11:39 am

I always find it odd that people get mad at “greedy” developers for wanting to make money on development. It’s the nature of the business! Who would want to develop to lose money?

3 people like this post.
TMBOkanagan
 
Posts: 82
Likes: 332 posts
Liked in: 52 posts
Joined: Aug 8th, 2016, 1:02 pm

Re: This can't be Good for a new development

Postby Green-light » Oct 27th, 2017, 11:57 am

TMBOkanagan wrote:I always find it odd that people get mad at “greedy” developers for wanting to make money on development. It’s the nature of the business! Who would want to develop to lose money?

You don't have to lose money to do things right.
Your logic is more than flawed. It's a no show.
If developers were not entirely money driven, they would find ways to develop without raping the land as the first step.
If developers weren't entirely driven by money, they would consider the landscape more when reshaping an area. Instead they draw it up on paper, then expect the ground, rock and water to conform to their wishes. It often doesn't work that way. In this case, I'd say they tried to bypass a groundwater spring, or an obvious drainage fissure and are now paying the price for their greedy decision(s).

Just about anywhere over these hills to our east, subdivisions are built and have been built for many years, without reshaping the land and replanting everything to maximize the number of lots.
People often buy into a subdivision because of the natural shape of the land and the plants and animals that thrive there.
I've never seen development handled like it is here in the Okanagan, and now it's spreading.

There are certainly better, more considerate and sustainable methods of developing without the overabundance of greed displayed here.

lightspeed likes this post.
Green-light
Fledgling
 
Posts: 148
Likes: 8 posts
Liked in: 71 posts
Joined: Jun 3rd, 2009, 4:11 pm

Re: This can't be Good for a new development

Postby alanjh595 » Oct 27th, 2017, 12:02 pm

TMBOkanagan wrote:I always find it odd that people get mad at “greedy” developers for wanting to make money on development. It’s the nature of the business! Who would want to develop to lose money?


OR to break even? There is a reason why they call it a "business" and business needs to make money to survive otherwise why do it? Starting and running a business is very risky and difficult, if it was easy, everyone would do it.
If the public is willing to pay for the product and you can supply that product, you are in business. If the purchaser is willing to pay a little more for something that you have because that is what he wants, then he/she can pay a premium price for it.

Supply and Demand 101.
User avatar
alanjh595
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 776
Likes: 233 posts
Liked in: 441 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: This can't be Good for a new development

Postby jasond_71 » Oct 28th, 2017, 3:43 am

Exactly and the developers take all the risk. Look at lakestone literally a few km away from McKinley. It went bankrupt in 2008 when demand was down. Someone else bought it and now now demand is up it is doing well.
Many examples of other buildings in Kelowna that went bankrupt but are now doing well. Those "greedy" developers all lost money.
Maybe they did pay engineers and the engineers missed something? They have certainly missed things before.

3 people like this post.
jasond_71
Fledgling
 
Posts: 235
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 152 posts
Joined: Aug 25th, 2006, 8:22 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Central Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: metro_ads and 12 guests