Height of future downtown buildings.....

[vinnied]

two potential towers on what is now the parking lot in front of Prospera Place fronting Water Street.

where they heck are folks gonna park during games?

[dle]

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.

I CARE, and I don't think I'm the only one who does. Seriously. I want to see the lakeshore left for the pleasure of ALL OF US. I don't want to be restricted from any part of it. Your walk to the lake if you go by the Westcorp building will be restricted. If that's okay with you then we can agree to disagree but I DON'T WANT TO SEE THE LAKESHORE DEVELOPED. It should be for the enjoyment of all of us, without restriction, and that's the way it should stay. Move to Vancouver if you are so eager to see cement and glass development all over the waterfront - there's lots of that down there to make you happy.

[dle]

two potential towers on what is now the parking lot in front of Prospera Place fronting Water Street.

where they heck are folks gonna park during games?

Yeah, what are they thinking eh?? It's tough enough as it is.....again, not a lot of foresight here....

[JLives]

I CARE, and I don't think I'm the only one who does. Seriously. I want to see the lakeshore left for the pleasure of ALL OF US. I don't want to be restricted from any part of it. Your walk to the lake if you go by the Westcorp building will be restricted. If that's okay with you then we can agree to disagree but I DON'T WANT TO SEE THE LAKESHORE DEVELOPED. It should be for the enjoyment of all of us, without restriction, and that's the way it should stay. Move to Vancouver if you are so eager to see cement and glass development all over the waterfront - there's lots of that down there to make you happy.

They're not closing the lakeshore nor restricting it. Your access will be affected 0% outside of the actual building process when temporary restrictions are likely. The building is going on the same spot the bank used to be where I would sneakily smoke cigarettes as a teenager. The city will be just fine and this building will add to it, not take anything away.

[Gilchy]

I agree, JLives. People o. These forums are acting as if the new tower is built literally on the beach, not on a Parkin go lot. How exactly is lake access being restricted here?

[Anonymous123]

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.

And soon you will have to walk down to the lake to see the mountains.

[Even Steven]

Move to Vancouver if you are so eager to see cement and glass development all over the waterfront - there's lots of that down there to make you happy.

Vancouver is full of condo towers yet none of them restrict access to precious water. In fact, they have a very picturesque Seawall for joggers and cyclists. Same will be in Kelowna - no restriction to your precious lake. Stop with your drama.

[zerograv]

this building will actually be making the waterfront more accessible and a heck of a lot nicer.

[dle]

Move to Vancouver if you are so eager to see cement and glass development all over the waterfront - there's lots of that down there to make you happy.

Vancouver is full of condo towers yet none of them restrict access to precious water. In fact, they have a very picturesque Seawall for joggers and cyclists. Same will be in Kelowna - no restriction to your precious lake. Stop with your drama.

I can only speak for myself but my opposition is that I don't want Kelowna to become a smaller version of Vancouver. I don't find highrises along the waterfront all squashed together esthetically pleasing in the least. There is nothing serene about it for me...

A lot of the comments in support of the positioning of this building refer to how great highrise density works, looks, is, in Vancouver - just further cementing my belief that waterfront congestion of buildings doesn't belong here, and if you let one be built, more and more will be allowed. Personal preference....

[johnny24]

I can only speak for myself but my opposition is that I don't want Kelowna to become a smaller version of Vancouver. I don't find highrises along the waterfront all squashed together esthetically pleasing in the least. There is nothing serene about it for me...

A lot of the comments in support of the positioning of this building refer to how great highrise density works, looks, is, in Vancouver - just further cementing my belief that waterfront congestion of buildings doesn't belong here, and if you let one be built, more and more will be allowed. Personal preference....

Tons of lakes around. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find one that is more appealing to your preference.

[Gilchy]

I can only speak for myself but my opposition is that I don't want Kelowna to become a smaller version of Vancouver. I don't find highrises along the waterfront all squashed together esthetically pleasing in the least. There is nothing serene about it for me...

A lot of the comments in support of the positioning of this building refer to how great highrise density works, looks, is, in Vancouver - just further cementing my belief that waterfront congestion of buildings doesn't belong here, and if you let one be built, more and more will be allowed. Personal preference....

Supply/demand. If the majority wants increased density downtown, and demand dictates proximity to lake, it makes sense to proceed.

Fact of the matter is we live in a very desirable area, and our populations continues to swell. There is a demand to be close to the lake, and as long as proposed developments don't encroach on public land or access to the lakeshore (which the new tower doesn't), I think it makes sense to allow them.

I truly don't understand the concerns of 33 vs 26 or 16 stories.

[gman313]

Supply/demand. If the majority wants increased density downtown, and demand dictates proximity to lake, it makes sense to proceed.

Fact of the matter is we live in a very desirable area, and our populations continues to swell. There is a demand to be close to the lake, and as long as proposed developments don't encroach on public land or access to the lakeshore (which the new tower doesn't), I think it makes sense to allow them.

I truly don't understand the concerns of 33 vs 26 or 16 stories.

I agree with everything you said. But the concern with 33 vs 26 or 16 might be linked to views. Views have an impact on value

[TMBOkanagan]

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!

You mean like the fire of 2013 that wiped out suburbia?

Concrete structures don't tend to burn - and towers need to be made of concrete.

[WalterWhite]

Supply/demand. If the majority wants increased density downtown, and demand dictates proximity to lake, it makes sense to proceed.

Fact of the matter is we live in a very desirable area, and our populations continues to swell. There is a demand to be close to the lake, and as long as proposed developments don't encroach on public land or access to the lakeshore (which the new tower doesn't), I think it makes sense to allow them.

I truly don't understand the concerns of 33 vs 26 or 16 stories.

I agree with everything you said. But the concern with 33 vs 26 or 16 might be linked to views. Views have an impact on value

Especially if you're in a 6 story tower now directly behind a 33 story one. Again, it comes down to managed growth, development and particularly massing:

- all of which were laid out after tens of thousands of dollars as well as years of consultation and design - which now thanks to Basran have been rendered practically worthless now since he feels he knows better than all those whose job it is.

[zerograv]

I agree with everything you said. But the concern with 33 vs 26 or 16 might be linked to views. Views have an impact on value

Especially if you're in a 6 story tower now directly behind a 33 story one. Again, it comes down to managed growth, development and particularly massing:

2018-02-23 (1).png

- all of which were laid out after tens of thousands of dollars as well as years of consultation and design - which now thanks to Basran have been rendered practically worthless now since he feels he knows better than all those whose job it is.

It doesn't matter who knows better, his job is to listen to the citizens of the city....and the ones who seem to show up are the ones in favour of these buildings.