Height of future downtown buildings.....

[dle]

Castanet article "Where will we get height?"

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#219491

"As for the public's appetite for height in the downtown core, Barton agreed with Coun. Gail Given's assertion that the outcry around the size of downtown buildings has waned over the last decade since the uproar over the failed CD21 proposal."

Well hell, we've only got so much breath in our bodies - what's the point of continuously wasting it dealing with the City council's relentless bully approach to downtown development???? We will put our X silently where it counts and where it will be HEARD.....our voices aren't....

As for the rest of the article, the placement of the sites that might be future highrises are all fine with me and in the right places. Spread out and back from the waterfront.

However, that being said, don't count on saving our lakeside from future pillaging - seems council has a different opinion of what's important...

[sublime]

We will put our X silently where it counts and where it will be HEARD.....our voices aren't....

Unless you are a special interest group that donates to a political campaign it really doesn't matter where your x goes. Hate to break it to the world, but this is blatantly obvious in every level of politics. Look at the provincial dispute. Look south at the NRA and ect. etc.

Anyone who runs for a public office position should have to pay out of their own pockets.

[Glacier]

There's a shortage of houses in Kelowna. Build the flippin' buildings 40 stories high if you want. Who cares what the NIMBYs say. Better to build up than out.

[CapitalB]

There's a shortage of houses in Kelowna. Build the flippin' buildings 40 stories high if you want. Who cares what the NIMBYs say. Better to build up than out.

I don't know if a bunch of half million dollar apartments are going to help the housing shortage much.

I guess maybe it could free up some of the 60-80 year old homes in the downtown area if people there decide to up (side/ down) grade into a condo.

[Omnitheo]

It starts with the luxury towers. Once the city has shred it’s fear of buildings over 4 stories, we will start to see more affordable residential towers pop up.

I remember attending a council meeting over 10 years ago that was about removing the 6 story height restriction in Rutland to allow for residential towers. The Nimby’s attended that one in full force...

[CapitalB]

It starts with the luxury towers. Once the city has shred it’s fear of buildings over 4 stories, we will start to see more affordable residential towers pop up.

I remember attending a council meeting over 10 years ago that was about removing the 6 story height restriction in Rutland to allow for residential towers. The Nimby’s attended that one in full force...

That makes sense. With an existing large tower setting precedent I could see it being a lot easier for ones in other locations. I guess a little money helps to pave the way for things like that.

[Even Steven]

Who cares about the height of the buildings? It doesn't affect you at all.

[sublime]

Usage of the term "Nimby’s" trending on Castanet forums lately. Originality is at a high point (like 33 stories)...

[JLives]

There's a shortage of houses in Kelowna. Build the flippin' buildings 40 stories high if you want. Who cares what the NIMBYs say. Better to build up than out.

It's my backyard and I fully agree. Leave our mountains alone and build UP.

[Bsuds]

You won't be able to see the Mountains for the trees...I mean tall buildings!

[lensbaby]

There's a shortage of houses in Kelowna. Build the flippin' buildings 40 stories high if you want. Who cares what the NIMBYs say. Better to build up than out.

Until there's a fire!

[dle]

It's not so much the height of the buildings that is a problem for me, although my personal preference is much lower, but that's just a personal opinion. My problem is their placement of any building - especially the highrises ON THE LAKEFRONT downtown! I don't agree with that. The placements of proposed future possible sites noted in the article are all fine with me - because they are back from the lake and spread out. What I don't want to see, however, is Kelowna becoming a bunch of highrise buildings, all clustered together, cutting out the sun.

We should be clear that these buildings have nothing whatsoever to do with helping our housing crunch - the people who are needing housing now will still be needing it as most of us certainly couldn't afford to live in these buildings, like the Westcorp.

We need some nice affordable rental accommodations built but the developers aren't rushing in for that and the City doesn't seem to be encouraging it at all either. City is FIRMLY on the side of wrecking our lakeshore and keeps proving that statement.

[JLives]

You won't be able to see the Mountains for the trees...I mean tall buildings!

Good thing it's only a 5 minute walk to the lake. Or I can drive 20 minutes and be deep in the bush. I'd definately rather see trees out there than houses.

[khutchi]

There's a shortage of houses in Kelowna. Build the flippin' buildings 40 stories high if you want. Who cares what the NIMBYs say. Better to build up than out.

But the top 15 stories of these tower rarely house any residents in our city. We don't need more houses we need more homes...

[JLives]

It's not the height of the buildings that is a problem for me. My problem is their placement ON THE LAKE! I don't agree with that. The placements of proposed future possible sites are all fine with me - AT ANY HEIGHT - as long as they are back from the lake and spread out.

Who cares? Seriously. I own one of the closest residential properties to downtown. I still have to walk to the lake to see the lake. It will be just fine and it beats the heck out our hillsides covered in houses.