Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Re: Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Postby alanjh595 » Feb 18th, 2021, 3:21 pm

These new high-rise buildings will have a/several stations at street level, where a pump truck can plug into and place water on the floor it is needed.

Why would a fireman have to climb a ladder for 40 floors?
They would just take an elevator that is self contained in solid concrete.

Why would a ladder need to be deployed 40 floors up?
If the fire, that will be contained within the concrete walls of each unit, with a 1-2 hour burn through time, why the rush?
Fire does not spread quickly through a concrete building, the biggest concern would be smoke inhalation, but that could be remedied by moving to a floor below the fire.

IF there is a big rush for some unknown reason, they can repel down from the top.

The fire department are very good at what they do, let them do their job.

Somebody has a toaster oven catch fire, is not going to bring the building down.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
alanjh595
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 15400
Likes: 6315 posts
Liked in: 7077 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 5:18 pm

Re: Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Postby TylerM4 » Feb 18th, 2021, 3:23 pm

cv23 wrote:This is exactly the load of crap developers have been selling Kelowna City Council on for decades and look where it has got us to today with regard to infrastructure. In places like Calgary if a developer doesn't pay ALL the costs up front with extending services to their development they simply aren't given occupancy permits. Present infrastructure has or is being paid by present residents and adequate for their needs. It only make sense that any additional infrastructure requirements should be paid by those requiring it...


I think you're a little confused at what happens at Calgary, and you're definitely confused about my separation of direct and indirect costs.

So if I'm to believe you. The 1st developer in Calgary the builds a development tall/large enough to require additional firefighting services pays for all of those costs on behalf of the entire city. They buy equipment and pay to have it replaced when needed, they hire firefighters and pay their wages until the end of time. Next developer who comes along says "Thanks for paving the way" and doesn't need to provide anything. People in Calgary don't pay any taxes to support firefighting as the developers pay it for them. Yeah, I doubt it.

Where does this end? Why aren't people saying developers should pay for policing? Are we going to make developers pay for sewage treatment plants now as well? Doesn't matter that the existing plant supports 100,000 people and this development is only adding 500 more - the developer should pay the entire cost for a new plant to support the city?

If you think residents don't end up paying for this one way or another, you're crazy. At the end of the day, it all comes out of residents pockets. "Making the developer pay" is just something people say to make themselves feel better. They're still going to make their $10M whether you make them pay for firefighting equipment or not.

What about the 6+ digit development fees and taxes they're going to pay? You know... the fees that are supposed to be spent to cover increased costs of infrastructure? Where do you think that money goes? Straight into the mayor's wallet?

CrystalCity likes this post.
TylerM4
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2952
Likes: 827 posts
Liked in: 2657 posts
Joined: Feb 27th, 2014, 4:22 pm

Re: Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Postby JonMorrison » Feb 18th, 2021, 4:12 pm

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Feb 18th, 2021, 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Making it personal.
JonMorrison
 
Posts: 17
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 33 posts
Joined: May 27th, 2017, 1:59 pm

Re: Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Postby cv23 » Feb 18th, 2021, 4:17 pm

They're still going to make their $10M whether you make them pay for firefighting equipment or not.

Exactly why the developer should pay for the additional specialized fire fighting equipment required by their development rather than unnecessarily burdening the existing residents/taxpayers.

stuphoto likes this post.
User avatar
cv23
Guru
 
Posts: 7842
Likes: 5516 posts
Liked in: 2522 posts
Joined: Jul 4th, 2005, 2:59 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Postby Catri » Feb 18th, 2021, 4:39 pm

cv23 wrote:
Catri wrote: It's not like any of these towers are low income or social housing where people don't really have a choice whether or not to accept living there for economic reasons (as it was in the Grenfell tower disaster in London a few years ago).


That theory may have applied last week but now it likes Kelowna will be getting our own version. https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/3 ... -apartment

Thanks for pointing that out, I totally missed that story. I retract what I said.

cv23 likes this post.
Catri
Übergod
 
Posts: 1685
Likes: 1557 posts
Liked in: 1564 posts
Joined: Jul 13th, 2012, 7:18 am

Re: Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Postby Urban Cowboy » Feb 18th, 2021, 4:56 pm

Perhaps our city planners could get the people who built the Burj Khalifa in Dubai to construct one in Kelowna. [icon_lol2.gif]
“We isolate now so when we gather again, no one is missing" - Unknown

ckil likes this post.
User avatar
Urban Cowboy
Guru
 
Posts: 7007
Likes: 7586 posts
Liked in: 9629 posts
Joined: Apr 27th, 2013, 3:47 pm

Re: Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Postby ckil » Feb 18th, 2021, 5:04 pm

Urban Cowboy wrote:Perhaps our city planners could get the people who built the Burj Khalifa in Dubai to construct one in Kelowna. [icon_lol2.gif]


But only bigger and better.
ckil
Übergod
 
Posts: 1811
Likes: 756 posts
Liked in: 629 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2018, 6:42 am

Re: Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Postby TylerM4 » Feb 18th, 2021, 5:12 pm

cv23 wrote:
They're still going to make their $10M whether you make them pay for firefighting equipment or not.

Exactly why the developer should pay for the additional specialized fire fighting equipment required by their development rather than unnecessarily burdening the existing residents/taxpayers.


I don't think you picked up on the point I was making.

If the developer is getting their $10M of profit regardless of whether CoK makes them pay for FF equipment, where does the money actually come from to pay for this fire fighting infrastructure? Hint - it's not coming from the developer if they make the same amount of profit either way.
TylerM4
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2952
Likes: 827 posts
Liked in: 2657 posts
Joined: Feb 27th, 2014, 4:22 pm

Re: Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Postby cv23 » Feb 18th, 2021, 5:26 pm

As long as the cost for any additional specialized fire fighting equipment required to adequately defend a highrise fire doesn’t come from the existing citizens/taxpayers pockets does it really matter where it comes from?
User avatar
cv23
Guru
 
Posts: 7842
Likes: 5516 posts
Liked in: 2522 posts
Joined: Jul 4th, 2005, 2:59 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Postby TylerM4 » Feb 18th, 2021, 5:42 pm

cv23 wrote:As long as the cost for any additional specialized fire fighting equipment required to adequately defend a highrise fire doesn’t come from the existing citizens/taxpayers pockets does it really matter where it comes from?


Good grief... IT COMES FROM CITIZENS/TAXPAYERS. Where else could it come from?

stuphoto likes this post.
TylerM4
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2952
Likes: 827 posts
Liked in: 2657 posts
Joined: Feb 27th, 2014, 4:22 pm

Re: Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Postby cv23 » Feb 18th, 2021, 5:50 pm

If the developers pay for the equipment how exactly is the money coming from the existing group of citizens/taxpayers?
Maybe the developers will pass their expense on to new citizens/taxpayers but those are the people expecting the protection
User avatar
cv23
Guru
 
Posts: 7842
Likes: 5516 posts
Liked in: 2522 posts
Joined: Jul 4th, 2005, 2:59 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Postby alanjh595 » Feb 18th, 2021, 5:54 pm

cv23 wrote:As long as the cost for any additional specialized fire fighting equipment required to adequately defend a highrise fire doesn’t come from the existing citizens/taxpayers pockets does it really matter where it comes from?


Taxes pay for what is needed, distributed evenly amongst All tax payers. Regardless if it is for policing/firefighting/health care in all areas of this city.

Rutland wants more police to patrol their interests, but to do that, they would have to reduce policing in the downtown core.

Even though Rutland residents pay the same portion as the rest of Kelowna.

Taking from Paul to pay Peter, just because Peter doesn't get the cookie that Paul gets, even though Paul is an athlete, pays rent, has a job, and Peter is a basement dwelling gamer isn't fair in Peter's eyes.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
User avatar
alanjh595
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 15400
Likes: 6315 posts
Liked in: 7077 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 5:18 pm

Re: Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Postby Catri » Feb 18th, 2021, 6:28 pm

alanjh595 wrote:
cv23 wrote:As long as the cost for any additional specialized fire fighting equipment required to adequately defend a highrise fire doesn’t come from the existing citizens/taxpayers pockets does it really matter where it comes from?


Taxes pay for what is needed, distributed evenly amongst All tax payers. Regardless if it is for policing/firefighting/health care in all areas of this city.

Rutland wants more police to patrol their interests, but to do that, they would have to reduce policing in the downtown core.

Even though Rutland residents pay the same portion as the rest of Kelowna.

Taking from Paul to pay Peter, just because Peter doesn't get the cookie that Paul gets, even though Paul is an athlete, pays rent, has a job, and Peter is a basement dwelling gamer isn't fair in Peter's eyes.

I think you'll find is that what Rutland wants is for the body they pay their share of taxes to to stop offloading downtown's problems on them, or do what they need to do to minimize the impact of that offloading. Rutland residents pay the same portion as individuals, but there are more Rutlanders in Kelowna than there are inhabitants of any other area of town, also a heck of a lot of industry and commercial. I think it would be really interesting to know how much tax is generated in the V1X compared to how much the city spends there.
Catri
Übergod
 
Posts: 1685
Likes: 1557 posts
Liked in: 1564 posts
Joined: Jul 13th, 2012, 7:18 am

Re: Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Postby firsttimecaller » Feb 18th, 2021, 8:21 pm

cv23 wrote:If the developers pay for the equipment how exactly is the money coming from the existing group of citizens/taxpayers?
Maybe the developers will pass their expense on to new citizens/taxpayers but those are the people expecting the protection


Equipment is not the big issue. It is man power. Kelowna would have to increase their FD manpower to meet the standards for a high rise fire.

2 people like this post.
firsttimecaller
Fledgling
 
Posts: 308
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 489 posts
Joined: Jun 25th, 2019, 12:46 pm

Re: Another week, another high rise proposal for Kelowna

Postby johnmartin » Feb 18th, 2021, 8:49 pm

What is interesting to me is how various people in the Fire Service, and in this forum, discount the intent of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The Association has based their standards on input from many professional associations to develop a standard to help protect the public and the fire service to the highest possible level. They are upgraded every 3-5 years to incorporate new technology and modernization to stay current. They are incorporated in the building code, fire code, firefighter qualifications, firefighter equipment, fire investigation and I could go on. Why then are we discounting the recommendations of NFPA 1710 for high rises??? As Kelowna grows, and seems to like continuing on the high rise venture, the fire service has to grow with it. The NFPA 1710 standard has taken all variables into consideration to form it's recommendation including sprinklers, construction materials, fire codes, building codes, firefighter training, firefighter equipment, etc.etc.etc.
The more high rises we have the higher the possibility of a catastrophic event that will take lives, public and firefighters. Let's not resist these standards but embrace them for what they are. Safe and effective. There is also the legal implications of a city, council member, Fire Chief or any other decision maker not following the best Standard Of Care available to them in decision making. The NFPA provides them with this best Standard Of Care!!

Retired Captain
Toronto Fire Service
johnmartin
 
Posts: 9
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 6 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2019, 3:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Central Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], TylerM4 and 5 guests