This can't be Good for a new development

[LANDM]

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...

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.

[lightspeed]

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.

[Urban Cowboy]

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.

[alanjh595]

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.

[LANDM]

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?

[LTD]

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

[Urban Cowboy]

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.

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?

[kgcayenne]

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.

[alanjh595]

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.

[zerograv]

I love all the BS in this thread.

[Green-light]

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.

[TMBOkanagan]

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?

[Green-light]

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.

[alanjh595]

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.

[jasond_71]

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.