The Westcorp hotel....

[Grandan]

Did you miss the part where the City "sold" Mill St. to Westcorp so their development could be right on the waterfront? The street is going to disappear and Kerry Park will essentially become the backyard to this tower.

I can read a map, i've walked the ground where the park is located, the park is on the waterfront, the hotel is behind the park not on the waterfront. Roads are sold to adjoining property owners all the time when those roads become redundant as this one has. It is not a process that is taken lightly because getting it back afterwards can be a bigger headache.
I would prefer to say that the park will be in the front yard of the the tower. I think there will be considerably more pedestrian oriented space when all is said and done.

[dle]

Did you miss the part where the City "sold" Mill St. to Westcorp so their development could be right on the waterfront? The street is going to disappear and Kerry Park will essentially become the backyard to this tower.

I can read a map, i've walked the ground where the park is located, the park is on the waterfront, the hotel is behind the park not on the waterfront. Roads are sold to adjoining property owners all the time when those roads become redundant as this one has. It is not a process that is taken lightly because getting it back afterwards can be a bigger headache.
I would prefer to say that the park will be in the front yard of the the tower. I think there will be considerably more pedestrian oriented space when all is said and done.

So if the park is to become the "front yard" per se of the tower, and behind that Mill St was sold to the developer, then to me that pretty much puts the tower PROPERTY right on the waterfront. Pretty sure they will make sure there will be ZERO public access to that part of the lake in front of that tower. You think they are going to want to have a daily needle cleanup done on their property? Unless it is designed and actually built (not just "proposed" because we all know how proposals go) like the Grand for instance where the boardwalk and all the parkland by Island Stage was built for all to enjoy, then that property is gone to us forever. Any home is built on the lakeshore, then has x number of feet of sand or? in front of it adjoining it to the water - it's still said to be "on the waterfront". While by law those homeowners are not supposed to block our access to the foreshore many do and there's sweet tweet we can do about it - or should I say that the City will do about it on our behalf.

Opponents of this tower build (and any others that go against our City plan in that area) want to keep all those immediately adjacent lands accessible and owned by the City for the use of ALL citizens.

[Grandan]

So if the park is to become the "front yard" per se of the tower, and behind that Mill St was sold to the developer, then to me that pretty much puts the tower PROPERTY right on the waterfront. Pretty sure they will make sure there will be ZERO public access to that part of the lake in front of that tower. You think they are going to want to have a daily needle cleanup done on their property? Unless it is designed and actually built (not just "proposed" because we all know how proposals go) like the Grand for instance where the boardwalk and all the parkland by Island Stage was built for all to enjoy, then that property is gone to us forever. Any home is built on the lakeshore, then has x number of feet of sand or? in front of it adjoining it to the water - it's still said to be "on the waterfront". While by law those homeowners are not supposed to block our access to the foreshore many do and there's sweet tweet we can do about it - or should I say that the City will do about it on our behalf.

Opponents of this tower build (and any others that go against our City plan in that area) want to keep all those immediately adjacent lands accessible and owned by the City for the use of ALL citizens.

If cats had wings they could fly, right?
There is no building permitted within 100 ft of Okanagan Lake under any circumstances so I don't know what straws you are grasping at.
I can freely walk around the all the parkland by the island stage and I will be able to walk freely between the Westcorp Hotel and the waterfront. It appears you are poorly informed on lakefront access.

[Jx3]

I on the other hand will be voting exclusively for the people who approved this, and not the ones who didn’t.

Thankfully my vote counts for just as much as yours. Let’s see how the rest of kelowna votes. Based on the overwhelming support expressed for this during the council meeting, I would prepare for disappointment if I were you.

Having a bunch of old 1 story buildings along the waterfront did not give kelowna a unique waterfront. It made us about the same as every other small nimby town. Or something you can find all over BC.

Having a one of a kind conference centre and landmark shining brightly from the downtown core to see as you come down the bridge approach however does add to the uniqueness of our city, don’t believe it? Then just wait until you see it on all of kelowna’s merchandise alongside the bridge and ogopogo. Skylines represent cities. And we’re going to have one whether you like it or not.

This isn't something I get to say very often (or ever perhaps) but I agree with Omnitheo on this one.

[dle]

So if the park is to become the "front yard" per se of the tower, and behind that Mill St was sold to the developer, then to me that pretty much puts the tower PROPERTY right on the waterfront. Pretty sure they will make sure there will be ZERO public access to that part of the lake in front of that tower. You think they are going to want to have a daily needle cleanup done on their property? Unless it is designed and actually built (not just "proposed" because we all know how proposals go) like the Grand for instance where the boardwalk and all the parkland by Island Stage was built for all to enjoy, then that property is gone to us forever. Any home is built on the lakeshore, then has x number of feet of sand or? in front of it adjoining it to the water - it's still said to be "on the waterfront". While by law those homeowners are not supposed to block our access to the foreshore many do and there's sweet tweet we can do about it - or should I say that the City will do about it on our behalf.

Opponents of this tower build (and any others that go against our City plan in that area) want to keep all those immediately adjacent lands accessible and owned by the City for the use of ALL citizens.

If cats had wings they could fly, right?
There is no building permitted within 100 ft of Okanagan Lake under any circumstances so I don't know what straws you are grasping at.
I can freely walk around the all the parkland by the island stage and I will be able to walk freely between the Westcorp Hotel and the waterfront. It appears you are poorly informed on lakefront access.

Yes you can walk around all the property by Island Stage - thanks for noticing that's actually what I said! Now, the Westcorp building itself (the tower) won't be sitting at the water's edge with gentle waves lapping at its doors of course - right again! However, all the property in front of the Westcorp, which now includes Mill Road, to the lake, will be theirs for the using. They will own some of it, some of it will become "theirs" by right of whatever right the people with homes use to prevent us from walking THEIR foreshore. Somehow, someway it will not be ours anymore. There has been no provision (that I am aware of, correct me if I'm wrong) to provide a PUBLIC ACCESS all across the lakeside in front of Westcorp.

The reason you CAN walk all around Island Stage and the boardwalk etc is because that provision WAS made when the Grand and those buildings were being PROPOSED and built and they did what they said they were going to do.

Just think about the cost of this build, think about the people who will be living in it. Now think about how much they will want to share that site with all of us "rednecks" - ya, not much. Westcorp is a master at smoke and mirrors - they haven't followed through on a damn thing they've sold us on over the years that I'm aware of but we keep on bowing down to Milroy. Time will tell what actually ends up there - and who actually owns what when the layers are peeled back.

[Gilchy]

All of the plans shown to the public show the boardwalk continuing right along the lakeshore, not sure why people think it's going to blocked off?

[dle]

All of the plans shown to the public show the boardwalk continuing right along the lakeshore, not sure why people think it's going to blocked off?

Back when the wharf was being built down there it was for the public and I saw the plan then with the boardwalk going past and accessing that wharf which seemed ok. Then there was chatter about the wharf being for the public but access to it wasn't going to be as was originally shown in the plan and if memory serves it was quite limited from either direction and that "boardwalk" seemed to be disappearing at that site (after they bought Mill Rd I THINK - can't remember exactly). Anyone else hear/read that who can add info to it?

[Grandan]

All of the plans shown to the public show the boardwalk continuing right along the lakeshore, not sure why people think it's going to blocked off?

It seems to settle easier in some peoples minds if they can find a fake reason to oppose this hotel. It is the continued opposition to this hotel based on false information that is disturbing. There is no reasoning that will convince this group, which raises the question of motive, which I believe is to sow dissension by perpetuating myths and totally fabricated lies about this project. It's a done deal, the no side lost but they are not giving up. So sad.

[WalterWhite]

I think again, we’re starting to not see the forest for the trees. Access to the lakefront has never been in jeopardy, although access to Westcorp’s public dock is restricted and raises some concern for the direction that may dictate. Personally, the issue is simply this partial council’s decision to permit a drastic variation to public planning affecting the greater downtown development strategies created by years of consulting, both private and public input. Frankly, I’ll be surprised to see this project actually get out of the ground as proposed, rather the property simply being made substantially more valuable for Westcorp from a resale point of view. Unfortunately it’s at the expense of more than just dollars and cents.

[Grandan]

I think again, we’re starting to not see the forest for the trees. Access to the lakefront has never been in jeopardy, although access to Westcorp’s public dock is restricted and raises some concern for the direction that may dictate. Personally, the issue is simply this partial council’s decision to permit a drastic variation to public planning affecting the greater downtown development strategies created by years of consulting, both private and public input. Frankly, I’ll be surprised to see this project actually get out of the ground as proposed, rather the property simply being made substantially more valuable for Westcorp from a resale point of view. Unfortunately it’s at the expense of more than just dollars and cents.

All the consultation in the world is not going to create the infrastructure that can be built with other people's money.
It seems that many posters believe that developers have unlimited resources to throw at public spaces. If those people are correct, then this project will not get built due to the negative return on investment.
It amazes me that joe public thinks it is his prerogative to dictate all the terms of a development because he opposes it.
If the shoe were on the other foot I'm sure we would hear about it in quite different terms.

[dle]

I think again, we’re starting to not see the forest for the trees. Access to the lakefront has never been in jeopardy, although access to Westcorp’s public dock is restricted and raises some concern for the direction that may dictate. Personally, the issue is simply this partial council’s decision to permit a drastic variation to public planning affecting the greater downtown development strategies created by years of consulting, both private and public input. Frankly, I’ll be surprised to see this project actually get out of the ground as proposed, rather the property simply being made substantially more valuable for Westcorp from a resale point of view. Unfortunately it’s at the expense of more than just dollars and cents.

All the consultation in the world is not going to create the infrastructure that can be built with other people's money.
It seems that many posters believe that developers have unlimited resources to throw at public spaces. If those people are correct, then this project will not get built due to the negative return on investment.
It amazes me that joe public thinks it is his prerogative to dictate all the terms of a development because he opposes it.
If the shoe were on the other foot I'm sure we would hear about it in quite different terms.

"Joe Public" relies on City Council as the "gatekeepers". We vote City Council in. If we don't like the direction our council is taking we don't vote for those people again. Yes, we certainly reserve the right to be able to rely on City council to not throw our official city plan out the window, and we also rely on them to consult and adhere to the advice of our City planning department. What is the point of an OCP if that is how it is ignored? What's the point of having a City planning department? I don't think that's too much of "Joe Public" to ask do you??

[WalterWhite]

I think again, we’re starting to not see the forest for the trees. Access to the lakefront has never been in jeopardy, although access to Westcorp’s public dock is restricted and raises some concern for the direction that may dictate. Personally, the issue is simply this partial council’s decision to permit a drastic variation to public planning affecting the greater downtown development strategies created by years of consulting, both private and public input. Frankly, I’ll be surprised to see this project actually get out of the ground as proposed, rather the property simply being made substantially more valuable for Westcorp from a resale point of view. Unfortunately it’s at the expense of more than just dollars and cents.

All the consultation in the world is not going to create the infrastructure that can be built with other people's money.
It seems that many posters believe that developers have unlimited resources to throw at public spaces. If those people are correct, then this project will not get built due to the negative return on investment.
It amazes me that joe public thinks it is his prerogative to dictate all the terms of a development because he opposes it.
If the shoe were on the other foot I'm sure we would hear about it in quite different terms.

Not sure if you simply misunderstood my post or took it out of context, but I made no mention of thinking developers have unlimited resources. However, what concerns me is your view that "Joe Public" has no right to "dictate" (I prefer to use the term "voice their opinion") in regards to this, or any planned development - especially one that involves not only public space, but waterfront property while also requiring significant changes to a development plan that was years in the making that the public was urged to have a hand in creating in the first place. Unfortunately your post is the exact perspective that so many have issue with in that from a developer's point of view the public has "no right" to have a say what happens to their (public) land and their community as a whole. I disagree with that perspective.

[dle]

I think again, we’re starting to not see the forest for the trees. Access to the lakefront has never been in jeopardy, although access to Westcorp’s public dock is restricted and raises some concern for the direction that may dictate. Personally, the issue is simply this partial council’s decision to permit a drastic variation to public planning affecting the greater downtown development strategies created by years of consulting, both private and public input. Frankly, I’ll be surprised to see this project actually get out of the ground as proposed, rather the property simply being made substantially more valuable for Westcorp from a resale point of view. Unfortunately it’s at the expense of more than just dollars and cents.

All the consultation in the world is not going to create the infrastructure that can be built with other people's money.
It seems that many posters believe that developers have unlimited resources to throw at public spaces. If those people are correct, then this project will not get built due to the negative return on investment.
It amazes me that joe public thinks it is his prerogative to dictate all the terms of a development because he opposes it.
If the shoe were on the other foot I'm sure we would hear about it in quite different terms.

Not sure if you simply misunderstood my post or took it out of context, but I made no mention of thinking developers have unlimited resources. However, what concerns me is your view that "Joe Public" has no right to "dictate" (I prefer to use the term "voice their opinion") in regards to this, or any planned development - especially one that involves not only public space, but waterfront property while also requiring significant changes to a development plan that was years in the making that the public was urged to have a hand in creating in the first place. Unfortunately your post is the exact perspective that so many have issue with in that from a developer's point of view the public has "no right" to have a say what happens to their (public) land and their community as a whole. I disagree with that perspective.

Ditto!

[LANDM]

Not sure if you simply misunderstood my post or took it out of context, but I made no mention of thinking developers have unlimited resources. However, what concerns me is your view that "Joe Public" has no right to "dictate" (I prefer to use the term "voice their opinion") in regards to this, or any planned development - especially one that involves not only public space, but waterfront property while also requiring significant changes to a development plan that was years in the making that the public was urged to have a hand in creating in the first place. Unfortunately your post is the exact perspective that so many have issue with in that from a developer's point of view the public has "no right" to have a say what happens to their (public) land and their community as a whole. I disagree with that perspective.

I guess what is interesting to me is that "Joe Public" has the precise same rights to voice their opinion as with every other development process that goes to a public hearing.
Except, because the naysayers didn’t get their way, now it is is "Council is on the take", "the meeting was stacked", "it was held at night" etc.
How about, there was public support for it, the public has the right to comment, and council did their job and made a decision. As always, some were happy, some weren’t. Life goes on.......

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

If ain’t broke don’t fix it...I mean the building westcorp replaces was a dull grey 2 story stripper bar. I’m not sure what your definition of not broken is...but that’s basically an anti-progress attitude. Why do anything at all ever?

Before we had any of these new modern buildings, the city mostly looked like a bomb was dropped on it if you’ve ever hiked up the mountains to look down upon it. Thankfully it only continues to look better (the downtown that is) though there is still plenty of room for improvement.

I am wondering how long you have lived here, as you are misinformed.
The Willow was 3 stories, and curiously the northeast corner of the Westcorp podium, resembles aspects of the former hotel. The Willow Inn was a lot of things over the years. Until 1957 it was on the main road thru town. It was the Greyhound Bus Depot for many years.
It was a nice Hotel at one time, as was the Capri.. probably the Capri was maybe the best between Vancouver and Calgary.
I was here when it was built and it was fantastic
But look at it now, it does not stand out. If and when Westcorp builds it will have its day and later it will become of lesser importance, that is just life.
You don't have to like the old Willow, just as some of us won't like the the new plan, but that is our choice.
I thought I would bring that information to light onntge former Hotel, as some folks are not aware ofvtgectime it played in Kelowna history.
Another thing to be mentioned, what they say the new Hotel will bring, sounds a lot like the Grand when it was built, the Capri when it was built, and a few others.. they were all the New Kid on the Block... for a while..