the argument to end arguments

[Matt Phillips]

as you two probably know, i have been arguing quite a bit on Mr Zegers webpage

the reason? because as a stressed out 17 year old rapidly losing faith in this city, i needed a place to vent and show off my beliefs lest they die away with what little hope the city had.

anyways, i got into a rather large argument with Mr Zeger when you stated that highrises are ugly, this is what was said:


johnzeger


Posts: 71
highrises are ugly!
« Thread started on: Today at 10:50:50 » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[Thomas] Aquinas insisted that goodness, truth and integrity belonged essentially to beauty. In light of this we can see that much of the current cultural breakdown can be understood as failure of vision with regard to beauty. Imagine: if the mind of the politician and developer could awaken to the ancient integrity of landscape, it would become more and more difficult to damage the beauty of nature. If architechts and planners could recognize how ugly surroundings damage and diminish the mind, then building might recover a sense of beauty."

John O'Donohue, Beauty: The Invisible Embrace
Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Matt Phillips

Re: highrises are ugly!
« Reply #1 on: Today at 11:12:48 » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
did you even look at the plans for the buildings?

if you saw the renderings, then you would see that these are not ugly, and that they are designed bring more beauty to the area.

unless you find the willow inn and kerry park more attractive?

here, these are the renderings of the original design for lawson landing www.movekelownaforward.com/Projects/LawsonLanding/index.cfm
Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



johnzeger

Posts: 71
Re: highrises are ugly!
« Reply #2 on: Today at 13:27:17 » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I suggested, ugly! This is architecture appropriate for Vancouver and is in no way in harmony with Kelowna's unique setting. Anyone who finds this style attractive must likewise have a heart made out of concrete, steel and glass.
Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Matt Phillips

Posts: 21
Re: highrises are ugly!
« Reply #3 on: Today at 19:53:19 » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if that is your perception, than i am fair to say that you must have a heart of crime, drugs, concrete and dilapidation.

if you believe that a public access walkway, that is friendly for pedestrians, vendors, cyclists, skaters, rollarbladers, a marina for public boats and jet skis, and parasailors, a park being overlooked by public citizens therefor being freed of crime, an outdoor ice rink and other things are unattractive, then i really think you should find a city that is stuck in the 1800's

Tourists do not come to Kelowna because of the village of it, Kelowna is a CITY with a population over ONE-HUNDRED THOUSAND.

My Stepdad is a manager for 2 hotels in Kelowna, he knows why tourists come here, and the Kelowna Hotels are in favour of this project, because it will increase business for them.

i am sure that their statisistics are far more accurate than yours.

i know this is off topic, but as you were talking about before about depressed cities, well the main reason why cities become depressed is because they do not have a strong enough downtown population, crime takes over, and the residents there abandon the place leaving it to crime. this is happening in Kelowna, this has been happening in kelowna for the past 10 years, but has been getting worse and worse every year.

it is people like you who are going to allow the downtown area to become a ghetto.

note, that i am not trying to be offensive personally, but i am quoting indivuals who are much higher up in the city than you are.

The city has not begun the construction because they are trying to negotiate with the Simpson family, but they are so conceded that they think they can have their own way.

please be aware of this, The simpson covenant is not a formal agreement, the city does not have to abide by it, and the decision to postpone development has been an attempt to satisfy the simpson family.

if the city wishes to, it may at any point go straight ahead with the lawson landing plan.

If Sharron Simpson goes to court against the city, she will lose.

you and Sharron Simpson are fighting a losing battle.

How long have you lived in Kelowna Mr Zeger? is this your hometown? no, it is my Hometown. and although i may only be a 17 year old high school student, i know enough about this city to understand that if the city continues to listen to the protests such as you, the RACK, the KNOW and other pro-keep-kelowna-in-the-70's organizations, that we will fail as a city, and become little more than a small undiserable sprawled out, bombed out trap.

Kelowna is growing up, you can't control other people Mr Zeger, nor can you ruin a city

[Administrator]

Hey, Matt, I like your postings ;D Way to go! We need more citizens like you to stand up and say enough of NIMBYism / CAVE people ( Not In My Back Yard / Citizens Against Virtually Everything)

By the way, Zeger has only been here for about 3 years now LOL!

[Matt Phillips]

LOL thought so

[Bigred]

BAM kid... right on.... youse a good writer son, with a definite understanding of your surroundings.

[Administrator]

Welcome to our forum BigRed! We glad to have ya here...

[Matt Phillips]

Well so much for ending things.

i'm still arguing with him.

but at least i am able to go to the source of the problems

[guest]

I don't know what you are bragging about Matt, as you agreed with Zeger on his website that highrises don't belong on the waterfront. But, of course, you didn't post that here for all of your buddies to see.

[Matt Phillips]

actually it's because i made that post after i posted this.

look at the dates that they have been posted.

and the members here know that i am in favour of Lawson Landing because the downtown area needs more population, but afterwards, i would like to see them further out into the main areas of town such as near the mall etc. that way kelowna does not look like it is developed in one area, and bombed everywhere else

[guest]

You don't think that 36 stories is too high?

And you don't think that Lawson Landing will make the area more attractive for more skyscrapers developments?

[Matt Phillips]

no i don't think that 36 stories are too high.

i did like the original plans for the area, i hope that by making the building 36 stories instead of 28 that it will still look as nice, and still have the boardwalk etc included in the project.

[Administrator]

Hi Guest! Welcome to the forum! Be sure to register so we have a name to your words

[Kelowna Pitboy]

Hey Matt
John will never give up. I had an email fight with him and its useless. He says he believes in growth however, when you talk to him, i cant find one thing he will approve. The only thing he supports is the university expansion because his slate member is a teacher there.

Kelowna Pitboy

[KevinD]

Well Matt, i agree with every thing you've said but i just have one question. If one of your biggest points you made to Mr. Zeger is that you want to develop the downtown to lower crime, drug problems, etc. why would you rather have the lawson's landing project moved farther into town by the mall? wouldn't you want it in the downtown? Yes, i know you said you rather not have highrises built on the waterfront, but wouldn't you want them just built in downtown farther from the lakefront? I would.

[kelowna pitboy]

you cant vilolate a covenant. illegal and unethical - ooops, that is how our city operates

[KimOuellette Mayor Candidate]

???Hello! I do believe that if you continue to over developer land that can only hold a certain amount of buildings, we are going to see the effects of that. meaning that not all developers abide by what engineers say is necessary, meaning they only have to build to minum code.
What do you think would happen to these same buildings in say 10 to29 years it sure won't be this councils' problem, It would lie with you who are now 18 to 40 , or a very outspoken 17 year old. who will have to one day address these issues when he decides to run for office in 10 years. We can not deplete our resources at the expense of a higher population. There's an old native saying, We dis not inherit the land from our ancestors we borrowed it from our children, this means that we are responsible for caring for Mother Earth,for the next generation.
That is my view on that.

[Matt Phillips]

oh wow...old topic.

yea, i've matured a bit since i posted this, and many more things have happened on that forum since then. might i add that that argument never ended anything.