Post by DuaneT on Feb 5, 2005 16:34:26 GMT -5
Earlier this week a letter appear on castanet in reply to a article written by Mr. John Thompson with an interview with a local realtor and his view on how the development of highrises and lawson landing will only enhance the future and vision of downtown Kelowna.
In case you missed it, here is a copy of the letter.
Highrises Undesirable
To the editor:
Having just read the latest Thompson Report “Do We Have Land Problems?” and the comments of Rick Baker of Remax regarding the need for Lawson Landing and more highrise buildings, I would respond by saying what else would you expect from a greedy real estate agent who values money above everything and is willing to sacrifice the valued aspects of our wonderful community in order to stoke the fires of growth.
The truth of the matter is that highrise construction is undesirable for seven basic reasons: 1) Highrises are an affront to natural beauty by obscuring landscapes and blocking views. 2) Highrises are big energy wasters. CMHC has identified that highrises consume three times the energy used by a single-family house per square foot of floor space. 3) Highrises are alienating in that these towers in the sky distance man from nature and man from community and are the breeding ground for social pathologies that arise from human isolation. 4) Highrises increase traffic congestion as they overburden road networks with their large number of inhabitants 90% of whom still end up travelling by car. 5) Allowing a few highrises to be built significantly increases nearby land prices by encouraging speculation that more highrises will be built and encouraging the proliferation of even more highrises. 6) Highrises create large shadow zones which eliminate much direct sunlight to ground level thus precluding plant life, light patterns, and much visual perception. 7) Highrises cost the community more in terms of the sum total of services that must be provided to their inhabitants than they contribute in taxes.
The notion that the opposition to highrises is “the thought processes from fifty years ago” is the opinion of someone who obviously isn’t up on the New Urbanism which has been developed largely within the last decade and is endorsed by Citizens for Responsible Community Planning.
Proponents of the New Urbanism such as Leon Krier, James Howard Kunstler, Nikos Salingaros and Yale professor emeritus Vincent Scully reject highrises as an acceptable architectural form. For more information on the New Urbanism please visit our website at saveparadise.tripod.com and click on the Links page where you will find articles by these and other visionary thinkers who, incidentally, don’t sell real estate.
John Zeger
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning
Posted: January 31 / 5:30 am
Story# 6810 / Contributed
After reading Mr Zegers’s letter, I am astonished with the rhetoric and half truths that he tries to tell the good citizens of Kelowna. It is really disappointing to see his need to insult decent hard working people who to contribute to the positive economic growth of this city and it’s future. I myself have been called a “mouthpiece” for the city and developers. However, being someone who has seen this city prospering over the years, I take that as a complement, as I welcome the growth and influence of new people moving here. Not like Mr. Zeger, who in a radio interview last fall on CKOV, stated that he would cap the population of kelowna at 100,00 people.
He gives 7 different half-truths on why highrises are undesirable. None of his explanations give a valid reason to any reasonable person who understands growth and the need to move forward to the future. It would seem that he is grasping at straws in his attempt to explain his personal beliefs and views. And for his “endorsement”on New Urbanism, I did a google search on this and found out that New Urbanism actually promotes high density growth. It seems like Mr Zeger can’t even make up his own mind on what to promote.
www.newurbanism.org gives several examples to the benefits of higher density and highrises. Some of the things this website state are “There are social, convenience, economic, and environmental benefits of living in places of higher density if they are designed to be mixed-use, walkable, and pedestrian scale. Higher density is essential for creating lively places with lots of amenities. It allows for beautiful public spaces, for lots of people walking, low car use, and makes life convenient and enjoyable by providing many amenities within close proximity of each other.” … “Also increased density greatly reduces driving, traffic congestion, and vast amounts of air pollution that come with it. Nationwide, there is a growing consumer preference for places of higher density providing desired urban amenities.” New urbanism also explains that low density will be more expensive to build, maintain and will cause more congestion and urban sprawl.
So I am really starting to wonder what Mr. Zeger is trying to point out besides insulting people who have lived here longer then himself, and wishing to see this city become what it was always meant to be. The best place to live AND work in the country.
In case you missed it, here is a copy of the letter.
Highrises Undesirable
To the editor:
Having just read the latest Thompson Report “Do We Have Land Problems?” and the comments of Rick Baker of Remax regarding the need for Lawson Landing and more highrise buildings, I would respond by saying what else would you expect from a greedy real estate agent who values money above everything and is willing to sacrifice the valued aspects of our wonderful community in order to stoke the fires of growth.
The truth of the matter is that highrise construction is undesirable for seven basic reasons: 1) Highrises are an affront to natural beauty by obscuring landscapes and blocking views. 2) Highrises are big energy wasters. CMHC has identified that highrises consume three times the energy used by a single-family house per square foot of floor space. 3) Highrises are alienating in that these towers in the sky distance man from nature and man from community and are the breeding ground for social pathologies that arise from human isolation. 4) Highrises increase traffic congestion as they overburden road networks with their large number of inhabitants 90% of whom still end up travelling by car. 5) Allowing a few highrises to be built significantly increases nearby land prices by encouraging speculation that more highrises will be built and encouraging the proliferation of even more highrises. 6) Highrises create large shadow zones which eliminate much direct sunlight to ground level thus precluding plant life, light patterns, and much visual perception. 7) Highrises cost the community more in terms of the sum total of services that must be provided to their inhabitants than they contribute in taxes.
The notion that the opposition to highrises is “the thought processes from fifty years ago” is the opinion of someone who obviously isn’t up on the New Urbanism which has been developed largely within the last decade and is endorsed by Citizens for Responsible Community Planning.
Proponents of the New Urbanism such as Leon Krier, James Howard Kunstler, Nikos Salingaros and Yale professor emeritus Vincent Scully reject highrises as an acceptable architectural form. For more information on the New Urbanism please visit our website at saveparadise.tripod.com and click on the Links page where you will find articles by these and other visionary thinkers who, incidentally, don’t sell real estate.
John Zeger
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning
Posted: January 31 / 5:30 am
Story# 6810 / Contributed
After reading Mr Zegers’s letter, I am astonished with the rhetoric and half truths that he tries to tell the good citizens of Kelowna. It is really disappointing to see his need to insult decent hard working people who to contribute to the positive economic growth of this city and it’s future. I myself have been called a “mouthpiece” for the city and developers. However, being someone who has seen this city prospering over the years, I take that as a complement, as I welcome the growth and influence of new people moving here. Not like Mr. Zeger, who in a radio interview last fall on CKOV, stated that he would cap the population of kelowna at 100,00 people.
He gives 7 different half-truths on why highrises are undesirable. None of his explanations give a valid reason to any reasonable person who understands growth and the need to move forward to the future. It would seem that he is grasping at straws in his attempt to explain his personal beliefs and views. And for his “endorsement”on New Urbanism, I did a google search on this and found out that New Urbanism actually promotes high density growth. It seems like Mr Zeger can’t even make up his own mind on what to promote.
www.newurbanism.org gives several examples to the benefits of higher density and highrises. Some of the things this website state are “There are social, convenience, economic, and environmental benefits of living in places of higher density if they are designed to be mixed-use, walkable, and pedestrian scale. Higher density is essential for creating lively places with lots of amenities. It allows for beautiful public spaces, for lots of people walking, low car use, and makes life convenient and enjoyable by providing many amenities within close proximity of each other.” … “Also increased density greatly reduces driving, traffic congestion, and vast amounts of air pollution that come with it. Nationwide, there is a growing consumer preference for places of higher density providing desired urban amenities.” New urbanism also explains that low density will be more expensive to build, maintain and will cause more congestion and urban sprawl.
So I am really starting to wonder what Mr. Zeger is trying to point out besides insulting people who have lived here longer then himself, and wishing to see this city become what it was always meant to be. The best place to live AND work in the country.