More Towers Slated to Change the Downtown Landscape

[dle]

Green technology is not viable yet without massive government subsidies. These new Leeds buildings are a friggin joke and the building science guys know it.

The single biggest energy waste in a building is the windows. All these fancy Leeds buildings are completely covered with glass! Sure the modern coatings and such help somewhat, and we need to let natural light in.

It's all about the aesthetics and these architects trying to stand out from the crowd. Ask any tradesman what they think about an architect.

I will agree with you that the roads are gonna be a huge issue. I can't even imagine the city at 300,000k.

Yes! I recently read a little something about the very thing you are talking about and totally forgot about it - good point! They are all going to be mega glass.

[WalterWhite]

Ask any tradesman what they think about an architect.

Even better - ask any private LEED certified building owner if they would do it again.

[Catri]

I can't even imagine the city at 300,000k.

To clarify, the entire regional district (Lake Country to Peachland) will be nearly 300k in 20 years, not the city.

[Urban Cowboy]

There is no pleasing some of you people.

Complain about housing. City adds housing then you complain about not affording it.

So so true. There are some who are just chronic complainers, and eternally bitter and miserable.

I've observed people post about lack of housing in one thread, then skip over to another one, and complain about a condo glut.

[Urban Cowboy]

Part of this whole tower-mania puzzles me. Unless I've missed some drastic changes to projections, the Central Okanagan is expected to house a population of about 300,000 people twenty years from now. For perspective, that's about 3/4 of the current population of Greater Victoria. Now, that's a lot of growth to be sure, but it's not exactly BIG city territory. I mean, when you think about big cities in Canada, you think Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary...Victoria? Not so much. Each time I see a new tower development floated, I wonder more and more if it's realistic. Between the towers imagined for downtown, the mall area and the Capri redevelopment, that's a LOT of condos. Remember the condo glut we had not too many years ago? Seems like we might be going down that road again...or something.

Do you bother to read up on a topic before getting puzzled, or turning into negative Nelly?

There was just an article regarding One Water Street and the building going up beside it. The spokesperson stated that the one was pretty much all sold, and the second building heading that way too much faster than they expected.

He also said that upwards of 50% of the buyers are people from Vancouver, looking to move here, because compared to Vancouver real estate here is still considered cheap.

Now I could be wrong of course, but I'm inclined to think that if you have a project like that, all sold in advance, then it's not going to cause a condo glut.

Where I do see a potential problem is with the NDP and their speculation tax potentially upsetting the apple cart, because what they are proposing, plus the fact that they're still meddling with it, already has the attention of banks. The NDP's plan, could in essence cause the Banks looking at mortgages, to rethink investing in BC completely. If that happens it could well be the first indicator of a recession on the horizon. Link to thread containing letter from former Bank CEO explains this very well.... viewtopic.php?f=26&t=77670

Right now the NDP is meddling, with multiple areas of our economy, and they have a lot of people watching closely. People who make decisions as to where money should be invested, and where it shouldn't, due to instability, and one thing the NDP has down perfectly, is creating instability and making people very nervous.

If their stupid plan, does set us on the road to recession, then we can likely look forward to some more derelict construction sites, that look like Lucaya did complete with ghost crane, after work was ceased on it last crash.


ETA: Link to letter added.

[Urban Cowboy]

Part of this whole tower-mania puzzles me. Unless I've missed some drastic changes to projections, the Central Okanagan is expected to house a population of about 300,000 people twenty years from now. For perspective, that's about 3/4 of the current population of Greater Victoria. Now, that's a lot of growth to be sure, but it's not exactly BIG city territory. I mean, when you think about big cities in Canada, you think Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary...Victoria? Not so much. Each time I see a new tower development floated, I wonder more and more if it's realistic. Between the towers imagined for downtown, the mall area and the Capri redevelopment, that's a LOT of condos. Remember the condo glut we had not too many years ago? Seems like we might be going down that road again...or something.

My sentiments exactly....I also don't know how changes of this magnitude and scope, and the rate at which they are happening all of a sudden, can be left up to 8 people (Mayor & Council). 8 people, are forever changing the entire profile of Kelowna and once we go down that road there is NO going back. Hope those 8 are prepared to suck it up and shoulder the fall-out IF it happens. Who knows? Might be great....but it might also be a horror story. Some change in this direction might be well and good but this massive full-steam ahead Kelowna make-over without due consideration to our immense lack of proper infrastructure to support it might be disastrous. Sometimes it's better to make irrevocable life-time change more gradually to measure the appetite for it rather than having 8 people cramming it down everyones' throats (the ones that are not on board with losing Kelowna's uniqueness).

I'm far more concerned about the 44 idiots in Victoria with the power to enact legislation, than I am about the 8 people in Kelowna you speak of.

[Urban Cowboy]

It's all about the aesthetics and these architects trying to stand out from the crowd. Ask any tradesman what they think about an architect.

Guess I'm not the only one, who's had an exchange of words, with an architect a little too full of himself.

Those guys are all about form before function, and making a bigger statement than their competitor (mine is bigger than yours), whereas the ones who have to make it happen, are more often than not, concerned more about function than form.

What good is something if it's expensive as all hell, but doesn't work worth a hoot?

I put them in the same category as Interior Designers.

A bit OT but sort of related, I'm carefully watching, to see who has to fall on the sword, in regards to that bridge that collapsed in Florida.

[dle]

Urban Cowboy;

You make some good points but I think you are missing some of what the comments are about. "Affordable Housing" is what is at the centre of some of the comments, and I understand completely where they are coming from. "Affordable Housing" is not 35 story skyrises on the waterfront to a lot of people.

"Affordable Housing" would be, to me, more in line with what Troika was trying to develop in Glenmore that was smacked down by council as being too "smelly" with the "POSSIBILITY" of complaints in the future. Even though other people who have lived out there for decades were interviewed and say there is no such thing happening. Even though Troika has put a lot of though into the whole process and the design and is, from my undestanding, a very reputable, experienced company with highly educated professionals onboard. Even though a strong demand from the public is there for such a development. City Council in this town has a reptuation for doing whatever they want - hence my comment about the "8 people" being allowed to dictate and change our profile forever. They, and developers, have everything locked and loaded for the rich, but nothing in place for regular folk who just want to raise a family in a nice city - you know the 2.5 kids, white picket fence, dog & cat group, 15 year old mini-van group. Real people.

Riddle me this: if it's too "smelly" for the folks they have just "dumped" on by taking away some 800 affordable homes, how is it not going to be too "smelly" for the millionaires on their 10 acre parcels on that same property? Because their noses are too high in the air for it to reach them???

People moving from Vancouver to live in the skyrises, part-time, and possibly leave them empty the rest of the time, to me, is not fixing anything to do with "affordable" housing, "affordable, being the operative word and the word I think you were missing seeing in some of the comments that didn't sit well with you...

[Urban Cowboy]

Two points in response, first off I'm in agreement with you regarding Diamond Mountain, and think that council's intelligence is questionable at best.

Second the building of condo's in towers, means that they have purchasers who in many cases are selling single family homes and downsizing. This means inventory of such should go up.

What I can not answer for you, and question myself, is how exactly an increase in inventory of 700K+ houses, is going to help the ones struggling to afford a home? I mean just drive around Kelowna, and one would have to be blind, to not see how many homes are being built, and added to inventory.

If the people who require "affordable" housing can't buy what's already out there, I don't see how increasing the inventory is going to help them any. The only thing that will help them is for the market to crash, in the process dropping the value of these homes significantly, to where these people would deem them affordable. Problem now though, is if that were to happen, it would be recession conditions, so these same ones would be struggling to cling to their jobs.

This is why I'm so vehemently opposed to the NDP's meddling in the economy via this housing tax. I'm not aware of anyone, other than a few blind NDP followers, who can't ever seem to see the connection between things, that agrees with the NDP logic, that this will somehow help provide affordable housing. Certainly no one whom I would characterize as qualified to comment, agrees with this NDP strategy. Quite to the contrary they are predicting problems.

Affordable housing around here, can only be provided by doing what I've suggested earlier, that being to embrace mobile parks, and change existing building laws, to allow for tiny homes, in designated locations, to keep everyone happy. Diamond Mountain could easily be such a location.

Basically what the NDP wants to do, is screw over all those who obtained homes in the current market, by causing a crash, which will have far far more implications, than what they are capable of grasping. We withstood the US housing crisis quite well, but the question now for us here, is can we withstand the NDP? If they go ahead as planned, I tend to doubt it.

As it stands right now, bankers are already extremely nervous, and watching very carefully every move the NDP is making in BC. Only in NDP land can you even dream up an idea, that will sabotage 60% of homeowners, in a misguided effort to help maybe 20%, but that they wouldn't be helping anyway, as they can't qualify for a mortgage without a job.

If only the NDP could understand what it takes to maintain a healthy economy.

[dle]

Two points in response, first off I'm in agreement with you regarding Diamond Mountain, and think that council's intelligence is questionable at best.

Second the building of condo's in towers, means that they have purchasers who in many cases are selling single family homes and downsizing. This means inventory of such should go up.

What I can not answer for you, and question myself, is how exactly an increase in inventory of 700K+ houses, is going to help the ones struggling to afford a home? I mean just drive around Kelowna, and one would have to be blind, to not see how many homes are being built, and added to inventory.

If the people who require "affordable" housing can't buy what's already out there, I don't see how increasing the inventory is going to help them any. The only thing that will help them is for the market to crash, in the process dropping the value of these homes significantly, to where these people would deem them affordable. Problem now though, is if that were to happen, it would be recession conditions, so these same ones would be struggling to cling to their jobs.

This is why I'm so vehemently opposed to the NDP's meddling in the economy via this housing tax. I'm not aware of anyone, other than a few blind NDP followers, who can't ever seem to see the connection between things, that agrees with the NDP logic, that this will somehow help provide affordable housing. Certainly no one whom I would characterize as qualified to comment, agrees with this NDP strategy. Quite to the contrary they are predicting problems.

Affordable housing around here, can only be provided by doing what I've suggested earlier, that being to embrace mobile parks, and change existing building laws, to allow for tiny homes, in designated locations, to keep everyone happy. Diamond Mountain could easily be such a location.

Basically what the NDP wants to do, is screw over all those who obtained homes in the current market, by causing a crash, which will have far far more implications, than what they are capable of grasping. We withstood the US housing crisis quite well, but the question now for us here, is can we withstand the NDP? If they go ahead as planned, I tend to doubt it.

As it stands right now, bankers are already extremely nervous, and watching very carefully every move the NDP is making in BC. Only in NDP land can you even dream up an idea, that will sabotage 60% of homeowners, in a misguided effort to help maybe 20%, but that they wouldn't be helping anyway, as they can't qualify for a mortgage without a job.

If only the NDP could understand what it takes to maintain a healthy economy.

You took this thought right out of my mind and I agree totally:

Affordable housing around here, can only be provided by doing what I've suggested earlier, that being to embrace mobile parks, and change existing building laws, to allow for tiny homes, in designated locations, to keep everyone happy. Diamond Mountain could easily be such a location

I have trouble following politics at any level. I can't offer up anything to say that might sound half-ass intelligent or educated on it. I find it all extremely disingenuous, and I have to admit I only perk up and pay attention when one of the politicians is saying something my mind just can't block out by putting my fingers in my ears. I know that's a bad attitude - I just can't help it. I'd rather poke pins in my eyes than listen to people I KNOW are blowing smoke at me to get what they want out of me which is my vote. I usually vote for the devil I know rather than that one I don't, which I did, but we still ended up with NDP via the Greens. I vaguely remember them being in power before and recall that didn't go so well. So what's a person to do? We are stuck with the Green NDP's and our Liberal votes didn't do diddly- not that they were any prize either. The municipal council, because what they are doing affects me because I live right here, I can't block out as well so I try to pay better attention. It has become clear as I try to muddle through stuff that I think they are all bonkers and have an agenda that I can only shake my head at most days....except maybe Ryan Donn and Charlie Hodge. It will be what it will be and there's not a thing we can do about it far as I can see. The tax Carol James and the NDP are trying to establish made a smidge of sense to me in that if a person owns a property and rents it out and makes an income from it they have to claim rental income on their taxes. A lot of the out of city property owners who come over for holidays only etc, who during times they are not personally using it, rent their property out via AirBNB etc, rather like a hotel, are maybe not claiming that income. So in that instance, I don't see anything wrong with them paying a tax similar to the one proposed. Just out of a sense of fair play, why should they gain income benefits and not claim them, when a resident owner who has a rental property has to? Again, what I know of it could fit on the end of a gnat's nose so I probably shouldn't even pipe up - it's just what comes to mind from my own thoughts.

[Urban Cowboy]

I can understand your frustration, and to some extent many of us feel the same.

I do believe you don't understand the proposed tax however.

It has nothing to do with people who own homes, earn money by renting them out, and then don't claim the income. I'm sure there are some who might fall into that category, but not most.

This is simply a penalty tax being levied against people who own a second property, but choose not to rent it out. These people are already paying property taxes, and their income taxes, but the NDP now wants to penalize them for not making their houses available to the rental market.

This tax is so high, and over and above their already existing property taxes, that as some have already told us, it will force them to sell, what they purchased as their future retirement home.

Imagine being a homeowner, paying your taxes, and suddenly being informed that because you don't reside here year round, you will be assessed an additional 2% of your homes value as a penalty for not renting. This amounts to an additional $14K per year on a home with an assessed value of $700K. Even if it were at the bottom of the scale and say a five hundred thousand dollar home, you'd still get whacked ten grand penalty, simply for not wanting to rent your property.

This is putting a scare into all those who already own summer homes here, as well as potential buyers looking to retire here. It's causing major concern among banks and mortgage holders, and in the end won't do a thing to help those the NDP say they are trying to help. As many have indicated, this tax is un-Canadian.

It's one thing to target foreign investors who are speculating, but a whole other matter, to be penalizing fellow Canadians, who have simply been engaged in a long term retirement plan. Something that I might add most Canadians are encouraged to do their whole lives.

[dle]

I can understand your frustration, and to some extent many of us feel the same.

I do believe you don't understand the proposed tax however.

It has nothing to do with people who own homes, earn money by renting them out, and then don't claim the income. I'm sure there are some who might fall into that category, but not most.

This is simply a penalty tax being levied against people who own a second property, but choose not to rent it out. These people are already paying property taxes, and their income taxes, but the NDP now wants to penalize them for not making their houses available to the rental market.

This tax is so high, and over and above their already existing property taxes, that as some have already told us, it will force them to sell, what they purchased as their future retirement home.

Imagine being a homeowner, paying your taxes, and suddenly being informed that because you don't reside here year round, you will be assessed an additional 2% of your homes value as a penalty for not renting. This amounts to an additional $14K per year on a home with an assessed value of $700K. Even if it were at the bottom of the scale and say a five hundred thousand dollar home, you'd still get whacked ten grand penalty, simply for not wanting to rent your property.

This is putting a scare into all those who already own summer homes here, as well as potential buyers looking to retire here. It's causing major concern among banks and mortgage holders, and in the end won't do a thing to help those the NDP say they are trying to help. As many have indicated, this tax is un-Canadian.

It's one thing to target foreign investors who are speculating, but a whole other matter, to be penalizing fellow Canadians, who have simply been engaged in a long term retirement plan. Something that I might add most Canadians are encouraged to do their whole lives.

Good info and you are correct in that I don't understand the ins and outs of this proposed tax. However, I realize my comment sounded like maybe I thought I did understand it and erroneously thought the tax was being proposed specifically to catch people who were renting and not claiming the rental income. I do know that is not the case or the reason for the tax. While I understand the tax a bit better now that you've explained it, I still think (only from my perspective, not from a place the government is coming from) that whatever their actual reasoning for the tax, some good could come of it, for the reason I mentioned. Some of the owners SAY they are not renting their properties, that they only use them for their families and their own vacations etc and that they leave them empty the rest of the time, which should be their right, I agree. They say they don't want to rent them, and frankly I don't think anyone should be forced to rent out a property they own if they don't want to especially in the case of them, or other family, using it themselves regularly if not permanently. However, and this is where I was going with my thought, the tax might be a good thing in this type of instance, where people who SAY they are not renting them at all, actually are, in an AirBNB-type situation. So even though the tax as proposed has nothing to do with this action, it could, in effect, have a peripheral advantage by collecting some tax money from those who say they don't rent out when they do but don't claim it as income. Whew! I'm not sure I even followed all of that but I hope it makes some sense! If not, well I give up because I don't think I have any more words left to explain it lol! Now I also hoped that the tax, if implemented, could stay in Kelowna and at least be put into the "affordable housing" coffers (as long as the council isn't able to dip into it for anything other than affordable housing) but it sounds like the NDP nixed that plan.

[Urban Cowboy]

You aren't quite right because someone who is running an AIR B&B is running a business, thus have legal obligations to conform to, taxes and such, plus they are renting out their space so wouldn't be subject to this proposed tax.

That's where this tax becomes such a problem, because it basically penalizes anyone with a home they do not wish to risk renting out. Many feel this way and as Canadians that should be their right.

The focus should be on nailing non Canadians, who are speculating in our housing market, and that's it, unless there is some fair method devised, by which those who are solely speculating, or are flippers, can be identified. Possibly one such method being, noting how long the people owned the property before reselling it, so for example someone reselling within a six month period, could perhaps be labeled a speculator, and subject to this tax, though I still believe this to be a slippery slope.

Personally, I believe some of the problem, would be better addressed by tightening up legislation, that pertains to real estate transactions, and shadow flipping for example. I think there are loopholes that industry is exploiting, which could be closed.

[dle]

You aren't quite right because someone who is running an AIR B&B is running a business, thus have legal obligations to conform to, taxes and such, plus they are renting out their space so wouldn't be subject to this proposed tax.

That's where this tax becomes such a problem, because it basically penalizes anyone with a home they do not wish to risk renting out. Many feel this way and as Canadians that should be their right.

The focus should be on nailing non Canadians, who are speculating in our housing market, and that's it, unless there is some fair method devised, by which those who are solely speculating, or are flippers, can be identified. Possibly one such method being, noting how long the people owned the property before reselling it, so for example someone reselling within a six month period, could perhaps be labeled a speculator, and subject to this tax, though I still believe this to be a slippery slope.

Personally, I believe some of the problem, would be better addressed by tightening up legislation, that pertains to real estate transactions, and shadow flipping for example. I think there are loopholes that industry is exploiting, which could be closed.

Yep - I understand and agree with this post. One thing about my comment of operating as an AirBNB - I didn't mean operating as a business - I meant just renting it out under the table so to speak like ads on the internet or LIKE AirBNB type rentals, only NOT operating as a legit business - just making some bucks on the side, informally and on the down low, but on a regular basis.

I think you have made a lot of sense, particularly these comments:

The focus should be on nailing non Canadians, who are speculating in our housing market, and that's it, unless there is some fair method devised, by which those who are solely speculating, or are flippers, can be identified. Possibly one such method being, noting how long the people owned the property before reselling it, so for example someone reselling within a six month period, could perhaps be labeled a speculator, and subject to this tax, though I still believe this to be a slippery slope.

Personally, I believe some of the problem, would be better addressed by tightening up legislation, that pertains to real estate transactions, and shadow flipping for example. I think there are loopholes that industry is exploiting, which could be closed.

It seems it would be a very logical thing to do and a good place to start.

[Grandan]

So so true. There are some who are just chronic complainers, and eternally bitter and miserable.

I've observed people post about lack of housing in one thread, then skip over to another one, and complain about a condo glut.

I think the term is Trolls, waiting to bounce on the unsuspecting poster who dares to speak positively about something or other.