Kelowna Construction

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

The thing I don't understand about Kelowna is why they built the CBD ~2 miles from downtown, it's the only city i've ever seen that's designed like this and it's bizarre, every other city has big office buildings downtown except Kelowna

That's called great foresight. Victoria should be doing the same. When the downtown grows enough, the two areas will join up. Then you get an ultra-modern financial district as well as an older downtown fit for heritage preservation, tourists, entertainment, etc. Canary Wharf in London comes to mind, and it is 8km away from Buckingham Palace.

In most modern North American cities, you get everything crammed in the CBD, and then this sprawl of a huge boring suburb made up of single family houses and strip malls where no one wants to go to unless you live there. I'm glad some Canadian cities are starting to move away from that.

Originally Posted by DKaz

Kinda neat, kinda tacky. Maybe more suitable up in Big White. When I think of Kelowna, I don't think Central/Northern Europe.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/33...an-style-village-won-t-get-staff-support

Love it! Anything different and attractive is always welcome.

[DKaz]

It's on ALR on the outskirts of Rutland. It's going to be a huge heat island in the summer away from the lake with little refuge from heat. Rutland can be 5 degrees warmer than the lakeshore. It's next to one of the most congested intersections in the city as well.

I kind of considered it orphaned ALR land and there's new development across the street so I'm not completely opposed to developing it, but it's too car centric in an area that already has brutal traffic. I've been drawing up a plan to try to ease congestion at the intersection but it's not going to ease volume by any means.

[Metro-One]

That’s the first Kelowna proposal in a long time that I am against.

First the character is completely wrong for the aesthetics of Kelowna. As mentioned before this feels more at place in or near a ski resort than the Okanagan Valley. Canada has more than enough places where the alpine style is appropriate, it’s nice to have a few locations (such as Kelowna) where more “warm” aesthetics are used.

Second is the ALR location. That’s a big no for me, unless a parcel of land of equal size and quality is added in exchange to the ALR. (And even that is very conditional).

[KelownaResident]

I love this proposal. I'd love to live there myself! Tired of boring cookie cutter apartments and cookie cutter glass/steel towers.

[giallo]

I think (I hope, anyway) the city is past this sort of Disneyfied-type development. This could work up at Big White or near the airport maybe, but it would stand out like a sore thumb in Kelowna, especially at that location. The entire development doesn't meet the street properly either as it's surrounded by a moat of parking. It looks....gaudy.

I'm all for these pedestrian-type of developments, but put the parking underground, and find an architectural style that compliments the city.

[JayMi]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

The thing I don't understand about Kelowna is why they built the CBD ~2 miles from downtown, it's the only city i've ever seen that's designed like this and it's bizarre, every other city has big office buildings downtown except Kelowna

Another major reason was because Lm 1, Lm 2, Lm 6 and Lm 7 are all under a Land Use Contract created back in the 1970s. Stober group was able to skip city planning process and submit straight for building permit.

In the long run it will be great for Kelowna. There are 5 urban centres in Kelowna with vision of higher density. The 2040 OCP, which will get adopted this fall, will be allowing for taller towers in these areas. Kelowna won’t be like other major cities where everyone needs to commute to one large hub. Kelowna will have several residential and commercial hubs.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by JayMi

Another major reason was because Lm 1, Lm 2, Lm 6 and Lm 7 are all under a Land Use Contract created back in the 1970s. Stober group was able to skip city planning process and submit straight for building permit.

In the long run it will be great for Kelowna. There are 5 urban centres in Kelowna with vision of higher density. The 2040 OCP, which will get adopted this fall, will be allowing for taller towers in these areas. Kelowna won’t be like other major cities where everyone needs to commute to one large hub. Kelowna will have several residential and commercial hubs.

I feel like we have to explain this over and over.

[zahav]

Thagt proposal almost looks like an April Fool's joke, it doesn't fit Kelowna or the area at all. And the "moat" of parking is definitely a fitting term, it screams "stay away from me" just like a moat protecting a castle. If this was a different city/area, and they ditched the parking, the scale is nice and it is different from cookie cutter. But totally ill-fitting here.

[Homerbush]

Originally Posted by DKaz

It's on ALR on the outskirts of Rutland. It's going to be a huge heat island in the summer away from the lake with little refuge from heat. Rutland can be 5 degrees warmer than the lakeshore. It's next to one of the most congested intersections in the city as well.

I kind of considered it orphaned ALR land and there's new development across the street so I'm not completely opposed to developing it, but it's too car centric in an area that already has brutal traffic. I've been drawing up a plan to try to ease congestion at the intersection but it's not going to ease volume by any means.

I’d prefer to see sports fields put in there as an extension of Mission Creek Park. There is nowhere in that area with wide open green space for playing sports.

[kev_427]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

The thing I don't understand about Kelowna is why they built the CBD ~2 miles from downtown, it's the only city i've ever seen that's designed like this and it's bizarre, every other city has big office buildings downtown except Kelowna

Paris, Moscow, London... I actually think it's better that way.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by kev_427

Paris, Moscow, London... I actually think it's better that way.

Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai, Taipei, Hong Kong, Bangkok......

Pretty much every single large Asian city is multi-nodal when it comes to their business districts.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by Homerbush

I’d prefer to see sports fields put in there as an extension of Mission Creek Park. There is nowhere in that area with wide open green space for playing sports.

Not a bad idea with all the new residences going in west and north of the site. You'd think it'd be low hanging fruit.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

The thing I don't understand about Kelowna is why they built the CBD ~2 miles from downtown, it's the only city i've ever seen that's designed like this and it's bizarre, every other city has big office buildings downtown except Kelowna

Its a positive.

The idea of a CBD is fundamentally broken.

You have a mass amount of people commuting to one area, at one time, and leaving one area, at one time.

Creates a disproportionate level of congestion, and huge dead zones where things are just empty after 6pm and weekends.

It makes much more sense to have a few, well connected, business districts throughout the City.

Geographically speaking, Kelowna is also quite small.

With time, population growth, and money, its not difficult to see a future where the nodes are connected by light rail, or Skytrain, or similar. (I'm obviously talking decades here.)

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Kinda neat, kinda tacky. Maybe more suitable up in Big White. When I think of Kelowna, I don't think Central/Northern Europe.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/33...an-style-village-won-t-get-staff-support

Why European? Kelownas landscape is the farthest thing from Northern Europe, especially in the summer which is its huge draw with the wineries, orchards and arid climate. It’s gonna look out of place and ugly and that giant parking lot surrounding it? What is this, Grande Prairie?

[The Great Scaper]

I agree. It's pretty ugly and will look totally out of place.

[csbvan]

Yupp, thankfully that's dead in the water,

[Vin]

I suppose folks in Edmonton are more receptive to classical designs:

Edmonton's Manchester Square:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.5516137,-...pF6XAJ1rC_vzIglIMhtFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.facebook.com/manchesteryeg/posts/669324743642306

https://manchestersquare.ca/gallery/


I do agree that they can do a much better job when it comes to the front parking space. They should be able to side it in the building basement or even a parkade that matches the buildings.

Just build it. Once it is done, people will sing a different tune. Apparently, Edmonton's Manchester Square is now very popular with the locals. It offers something different from the typical boring cookie-cutter suburb neighbourhoods.

[giallo]

This Dutch-style housing isn't real "classical". It was the preferred style of architecture that was prolific among the wealthy over a hundred years ago in Amsterdam. They didn't use this style in Holland much outside of the city.

And the other problem with this development is it isn't even solely Dutch-style architecture it's trying to emulate. It's got some odd corners of Bavaria in there as well.

It would look ridiculous in central Kelowna.

[KelownaResident]

Wouldn't look more ridiculous than the 4-6 story parking podiums of some of the towers going into downtown.

I love this design. Doesn't hurt anyone. Very unique and tasteful.

[Ogopogo Fan]

Here's a link to the to provide feedback on the proposal for the former RCMP site downtown: https://www.350doyle.com/