|
Post by guest on Jun 6, 2005 21:25:23 GMT -5
You mention that Kelowna has a "bombed-out" look. Do you mean to suggest that being able to view the mountains in any direction from ground level gives a city a "bombed-out" look and that by erecting highrises that block our view of the mountains it would not have a "bombed-out" look? If so, then I'll take what you call a "bombed out" look anyday! You have a very odd notion of what beauty is, Matt.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Phillips on Jun 6, 2005 22:40:48 GMT -5
no, í'm suggesting that if you go up one of the mountains, such as dilworth, and look down on kelowna, what you will see is a bunch of dull ugly looking blocks, that go on for miles, with only the odd structure standing out.
it reminds me of pictures i have seen of cities bombed during world war 2
|
|
|
Post by DuaneT on Jun 6, 2005 22:41:33 GMT -5
I think high rises are one of the better ways to revitalize an area especially if it is a mix use development of both commercial and residential space. Are there other methods that can be tried or look at, of course. The question is which one would be the best for any given area. You have to look at the way the area is now and how it developed in the past. Going back and re-trying things that have been done is nothing but a waste of time and money. Perfect example, Mr. Zeger has stated that the downtown businesses should spend their own money to improve the image of downtown by fixing up their store fronts. He felt they should follow Penticton’s example. I have known of three attempts to due just that, including removing all the trees that had been planted in the middle of Bernard avenue to make it a four lane Rd with the believe that it would be easier for people to shop downtown. That and the other attempts did not have the required results that everyone was looking for. It is quite clear, that the things that have been tried in the past have not worked. It is time to try something else.
For the Rutland area, it has always been considered a less desirable place to live. I have never agreed with that, but that has been the perception. By bringing new types of development into the area in a mixed use form, we may have chance to breath new economic life here. My main argument is that we must look at this option in a logical manner with all the proper facts and not the distorted ones that the CRCP have been mentioning. The idea that high rises will block our view of the mountains is just plain silly. Kelowna is surrounded by mountains, building a few high rises will not block them as all you have to do is turn around and see more mountains. The other one is blocking the lake, again most people don’t have a view of the lake anyways and the ones that do are living up on the mountains like Dilworth or Knox. And they are so far back that they will still be able to see the lake with this beautiful development. And if that is their argument, then they must be against the houses that have been built along Abbott street also. Because you cant see the lake through them. You can not even walk in front of them along the beach, even through the area between the high and low watermark is considered public domain. At least with the Lawson Landing development we will be able to walk in front of it on a brand new two tier boardwalk and with a newly developed park. We will be getting several new public amenities what will be part of Kelowna for the next century.
My question to you would by why you feel Kelowna should not develop as most other cities and allow high rise buildings? We live in a very unique city, one that can be developed not only out but up and it will not destroy where we live. We have almost reached that area for going out, now we have to go up. I will also ask you not to make any decisions on how you feel about high rises in Rutland until you see what the city has to say about this issue. I will be there, if your interested please come up and introduce yourself to me, I will be more the willing to discuss this in person maybe even over a beer.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jun 7, 2005 0:51:44 GMT -5
Thanks for the offer, but I dont intend on going. You guys will probably get your way anyways. The right wing always does. Money always seems to overpower common sense.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Phillips on Jun 7, 2005 2:15:44 GMT -5
where has money even been mentioned in this topic?
and what do you mean about right wing? right wing is conservatism, and that is the attitude which has led to kelowna being stuck in the 70's era.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jun 7, 2005 9:20:30 GMT -5
No, the right wing is what is in control of the city right now -- the moneyed interests such as the developers, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Downtown Kelowna Association. Their primary motive is profit and they love the work that MoveKelownaForward is doing on their behalf. These people don't care about anyone's quality of life as long as the cash keeps flowing.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jun 7, 2005 9:34:26 GMT -5
One more comment about this "bombed-out" look business. We live in a valley, Matt, surrounded by mountains. To clue you in on some basic geography a valley is a low-lying area between hills or mountains. Valleys aren't created by bombs or by meteors. They occur naturally and are beautiful. You seem to think that there is something wrong with valleys and that they cry out to be filled with, of all things, highrises in order to give them a full look. You have this modernist view that somehow nature is imperfect and that man can improve on it by decorating it with man-made objects such as tall buildings. Something is wrong here, Matt, and I think it's you and your perception of things. Instead of trying to change Kelowna to your modernist image of what it should be, why don't you move somewhere that is full of highrises as that seems to be your concept of beauty.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jun 7, 2005 9:46:56 GMT -5
The city of kelowna is a right wing machine. It seems that all councilors and mayor either support the conservative party of canada, or the liberal party of bc. It is evident that movekelownaforward is a right wing group. The city does not have enough conscience so say enough is enough, the community is putting itself at peril with this rapid growth, we will run out of water. Everyone knows that. The mayor and councilors dont take that fact seriously at all. That is the right wing. Money, fame, profit(increase salaries due to more work from having all these developments, when they are the same people bringing these developments TO kelowna), and of course growing the economy. It always comes back to the infamous ideologies. The left wing crcp versus the right wing pro-development guys.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 7, 2005 18:06:25 GMT -5
To guest
Come on now, I don't think Matt was referring to the shape of the valley as being created by a bomb but rather the state of a lot of the buildings in Kelowna, and he is right. I think you need to read a little more carefully.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 7, 2005 18:33:27 GMT -5
No one is decorating nature with man made buildings if they are building them in a CITY. Last I heard Kelowna was still a CITY. So building highrises in kelowna is not trying to improve nature but rather improve our CITY.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jun 7, 2005 20:52:30 GMT -5
That's what's wrong with a lot of you people. You separate the city from nature in your thinking and say that nature is outside the city. Following this reasoning allows you to do terrible things to a city and still think of yourself as not having violated nature. This line of reasoning is totally false. Isn't man also part of nature? Then by logical extension all of his works such as architecture and urban form are also part of nature. This leaves us with the choice of whether to create cities that are in harmony or in disharmony with nature as it exists prior to the involvement of man. If we choose the former course, our lot will be much better, kind of like swimming with the tide. If we choose the latter we will end up at odds with our very selves which could lead to a lot of unhappiness if not outright total self-destruction. A great book that explores this subject is Carl Fingerhuth's Learning From China: The Tao of the City. Tao is Chinese for 'the way' and Fingerhuth implores us to follow "the way" by staying in harmony with nature in our urban planning such as by planning cities that do not aesthetically violate their natural settings.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 7, 2005 22:04:55 GMT -5
So you think that building an apartment building on 3 or 4 acres, that can house 30 or 40 families is worse then building each of them there own house and using up much more green space, creeping further and further up the sides of the mountains? The only thing a high building is going to affect is the flight path of a few birds and leave more trees for them to nest in. You are right about the China and there cities, due to there huge population they build up rather then out when ever possible, so as not to have such an impact on the land. So thanks for the advise. I live on the Westside where they are building up the sides of the mountains all around me, and the area I used to go hiking in very day is now going to become home to 450 new homes. I think a few apartment buildings is a lot better then that. Wouldn't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 7, 2005 22:32:59 GMT -5
Hey guest! The one without a name or face. ( Not you David ) What are you afraid of? Why must you continue to hide? Why are you so insecure with your identity? Why do you feel the need to lurk in the shadows like some creepy character? Just sign-up for an account here and show who you really are. JUST DO IT!
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jun 8, 2005 0:50:16 GMT -5
I think there is actually a few quests posting in this thread. I have only made 2-3 posts.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Phillips on Jun 8, 2005 9:20:02 GMT -5
quests?
yes, there are a few guests, but it is hard to follow an oppinion, when you can't tell who's it is.
with all of the guests, all with their own ideas, it is hard to follow. that is why we request for you to make an account.
it doesn't need to be a name or anything, it could just be some alias
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jun 8, 2005 9:22:45 GMT -5
Skrotski, from having read many of your posts and observed your behaviour I think you are the creepiest character of them all.
|
|
|
Post by Tony D on Jun 8, 2005 15:10:17 GMT -5
Well, guest(s) without a name - however many there are - understand this.
You are posting behind a mask. Everything that you say is going to be taken with a grain of salt. The only way that anyone is going to take what you say seriously is for you to talk professionally and personably and/or put a name to your post. Simply posting a negative comment or a comment for defamation of character is simply going to fall idle. On that note, since you seem to so anti-development, you're not helping any of your anti-development supporters by posting the way you are. Make your point and it can be discussed.
This is a forum, not a foray.
|
|
|
Post by DuaneT on Jun 8, 2005 23:05:46 GMT -5
We have just arrive back from the meeting downtown regarding future development and growth in Rutland. Please check back here as we will have a full report to you within the next 24 hrs. Duane
|
|
|
Post by Matt Phillips on Jun 9, 2005 22:49:09 GMT -5
Mr Zeger posted a letter on Castanet (using the name J.Z) it basically repeated his little rant which he gave at the meeting.
he speaks of increasing traffic due to high density developement.
anyways, in response, i have sent in this to Castanet:
I am responding to Mr. Zeger (J.Z)'s letter regarding Increasing traffic due to high density developement. I wish to set facts straight, that higher density developement is not being considered to let more people into kelowna, but rather to accomodate those who will move into kelowna regardless of the developement.
The reason's why traffic would decrease in Kelowna if higher density developement was allowed, is that people would not have to drive half way through the city to go shopping, but rather be in walking distance of all their needs, therefor not needing to spend money on gas, or contribute to air pollution.
The idea of reducing population growth, or capping Kelowna's population will not work as long as there is a desire to live in the city. If People cannot live in the City, they will live on the outskirts, and have to drive up to 10 km each way to receive services. This is what increases traffic and air pollution.
M.P.
|
|
|
Post by Mathos on Jun 9, 2005 23:56:34 GMT -5
"higher density developement is not being considered to let more people into kelowna, but rather to accomodate those who will move into kelowna regardless of the developement." I dont understand your logic behind this statement. If there is no housing for people to move into, they wont come here. People dont willingly become homeless. I believe that the reason the city is pushing for highrises, is that they have a goal of increasing the population by 50, 000 in 15 years, 150, 000 by 2020. City reports say it. EDC even states it in one of their reports. Highrises increase the population in Kelowna because right now, we ARE expanding up and out. More vacant spaces, population increase. High density development IS being considered to let more people into kelowna. "The reason's why traffic would decrease in Kelowna if higher density developement was allowed, is that people would not have to drive half way through the city to go shopping, but rather be in walking distance of all their needs, therefor not needing to spend money on gas, or contribute to air pollution." This is hopefull thinking, but I do not think it will work. In a lot of families, as in mine, we go grocery shopping once a week. We buy a lot of food. We need a car to be able to transport the food back home. I dont think people will walk with more than 3 bags of groceries back to home. And when we run out of milk, we are usually in a rush to get some more, so we dont take the 10 minutes to walk to the store, we take the 2 minute drive to the store. Each family that moves to kelowna, i believe the majority will bring a car. And they will drive it. I dont think you can stop that. It is unfortunate that we rely on cars soo much, but until we start planning communities differently, traffic will not decrease significantly to make a change. What would be ideal, is tiny micro-communities, with a few hundred people, with no roads, with commercial at the corners so that every household would be in walking radius. LOL. Probably a little to philisophical for the real world. Who knows. And of course I disagree with your last paragraph as well. I think that the notion that new developments is the only thing that people move into is wrong. People do in fact leave town. And people that want to live here will buy the vacant houses. I dont agree with sacrificing our quality of living for people that do not already live here. That is not the mandate of kelowna city council. As for just moving the developments to the outskirts if kelowna would slow growth, that might very well happen. But i dont think there is enough land outside of the city. And i dont think the regional district will allow developers to make up their losses elsewhere in the okanagan valley. That would be TOO unprincipled. In conclusion please note that I say all this with a cool and collective tone. This is my opinion, i am not trying to force it on to you. I am merely responding to your letter with my own thoughts. I hope this can lead to a calm debate with out accusations. And hopefully we will find something we will agree on.
|
|