The Ongoing Uglification of Kelowna

[techrtr]

I was out walking the dog today and noticed this monstrosity in the area of The Ponds in the Upper Mission. They've filled in a ravine so they could build a road over it. I've always thought that Kelowna was an ugly, ticky tacky little city - it's beauty came from its surroundings. Now, the natural surroundings are gradually being destroyed so more high density, ticky tacky developments can be built.

[Gilchy]

People continue to mov here, housing must be built somewhere.

[Even Steven]

Don't see what's so ugly about it. It's just houses on a hill.

[StraitTalk]

A few things about this...

Reminds me of La Casa near Fintry... when that was first developed it was a giant eye-soar hill of dirt with lots, really nasty stuff.. now that it's had time to let trees and vegetation grow it's not so bad and will look very different in 5-10 more years. That's to say that a lot of these hillside projects unfortunately show the harsh reality of today's housing developments This is cheaper, more efficient, still allows water flow and shuts off a wildlife corridor to suburbia. Give it 5 years and it will look very different and after another 5-10 it will likely be invisible depending on trees growth.

The alternative is to leave tree standing and the surrounding ground unspoiled but this is way more expensive and not necessarily fire-safe. I know a lot more thought goes into this kind of stuff than we're privy to.

[techrtr]

Don't see what's so ugly about it. It's just houses on a hill.

Not the houses - that tan patch above the houses used to be a tree filled ravine. It's been filled in so a road could be built over it.

Yes, people have to live somewhere, but Calgary is a case in point. To curb out of control development and urban sprawl, the city has adopted a measure where for the next 60 years, one half of development in Calgary has to take place within the 2005 footprint of the city. That means higher density housing.

I think that before too long, when you look towards the south slopes, you won't even see hillsides anymore - it will be wall to wall houses if Kelowna City Council has its way.

[LANDM]

Don't see what's so ugly about it. It's just houses on a hill.

Not the houses - that tan patch above the houses used to be a tree filled ravine. It's been filled in so a road could be built over it.

Yes, people have to live somewhere, but Calgary is a case in point. To curb out of control development and urban sprawl, the city has adopted a measure where for the next 60 years, one half of development in Calgary has to take place within the 2005 footprint of the city. That means higher density housing.

I think that before too long, when you look towards the south slopes, you won't even see hillsides anymore - it will be wall to wall houses if Kelowna City Council has its way.

People complain about higher density, and they complain about lower density. Coincidentally, they almost never complain about what it took to build whatever they are currently living in.