Kelowna Construction

[KelownaResident]

For the record, at least for a few of the last towers that Mission Group got council approval, city planners were against it. Planners advise, council decides. Council repeatedly acted against city planners advice, in favour of Mission Group. Why then but not now?

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Starv100

Lots of pretty uninformed talk about zoning laws here.

These laws have a highly legitimate purpose. Every few years, any good city updates their Master Plan. This plan contains the City's vision for the future. It lays out where the city envisions different kinds of development. High density, retail, high-rise residential, commercial -- those and more are envisioned. The rebuilding of Bernard was an outcome of such planning.

Without zoning laws, you would have uncontrolled growth -- and you wouldn't like it. Think Harvey -- a blighted urban mall 10 km long and 0.5 km wide. On Bernard, you would have the worst of the worst in uncontrolled high-rise development. Do you think any-and-all high-rise growth is good? Think again.

When developers seek variances, they are asking to push the boundaries or limits of the zoning rules (which emanate from the Master Plan). In some cases, a particular development makes absolute sense, even if it pushes those boundaries. A developer, many of whom employ very talented urban planners, may well be proposing something the authors of the Master Plan hadn't thought of -- or would not have imagined Kelowna could attract. Council may relax the zoning for such innovative projects. Or they may consider the economic benefits are too attractive to ignore.

In the rejected case, it's possible that city council didn't want the prospect of a 40-storey wall of towers directly abutting a single-family home neighbourhood. I can understand that.

But drawing an immediate speculation of bribery or corruption, because a particular development was rejected, is thoughtless and irresponsible. Many, many developments have been rejected, only to come back with a vastly better plan. Water Street by the Park is a prime example.

Good post.

[JayMi]

Originally Posted by Starv100

Lots of pretty uninformed talk about zoning laws here.

These laws have a highly legitimate purpose. Every few years, any good city updates their Master Plan. This plan contains the City's vision for the future. It lays out where the city envisions different kinds of development. High density, retail, high-rise residential, commercial -- those and more are envisioned. The rebuilding of Bernard was an outcome of such planning.

Without zoning laws, you would have uncontrolled growth -- and you wouldn't like it. Think Harvey -- a blighted urban mall 10 km long and 0.5 km wide. On Bernard, you would have the worst of the worst in uncontrolled high-rise development. Do you think any-and-all high-rise growth is good? Think again.

When developers seek variances, they are asking to push the boundaries or limits of the zoning rules (which emanate from the Master Plan). In some cases, a particular development makes absolute sense, even if it pushes those boundaries. A developer, many of whom employ very talented urban planners, may well be proposing something the authors of the Master Plan hadn't thought of -- or would not have imagined Kelowna could attract. Council may relax the zoning for such innovative projects. Or they may consider the economic benefits are too attractive to ignore.

In the rejected case, it's possible that city council didn't want the prospect of a 40-storey wall of towers directly abutting a single-family home neighbourhood. I can understand that.

But drawing an immediate speculation of bribery or corruption, because a particular development was rejected, is thoughtless and irresponsible. Many, many developments have been rejected, only to come back with a vastly better plan. Water Street by the Park is a prime example.

Very well said

[Marshal]

Starv100's post is good. A lot of the prior discussion on this topic has been misguided to say the least.

I'll add a bit more detail:
1) municipalities must develop Official Community Plans (OCPs) by provincial statute.
2) municipalities also use Zoning Bylaws as a bargaining tool: they push developers to include public amenities, use/occupancy changes, and other things in order to get beneficial changes to the project's zoning.
3) Many rejected projects do come back in better forms, but the zoning process (along with design review panels and public processes) also often leads to projects of lesser quality as well.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Starv100

Lots of pretty uninformed talk about zoning laws here.

These laws have a highly legitimate purpose. Every few years, any good city updates their Master Plan. This plan contains the City's vision for the future. It lays out where the city envisions different kinds of development. High density, retail, high-rise residential, commercial -- those and more are envisioned. The rebuilding of Bernard was an outcome of such planning.

Without zoning laws, you would have uncontrolled growth -- and you wouldn't like it. Think Harvey -- a blighted urban mall 10 km long and 0.5 km wide. On Bernard, you would have the worst of the worst in uncontrolled high-rise development. Do you think any-and-all high-rise growth is good? Think again.

When developers seek variances, they are asking to push the boundaries or limits of the zoning rules (which emanate from the Master Plan). In some cases, a particular development makes absolute sense, even if it pushes those boundaries. A developer, many of whom employ very talented urban planners, may well be proposing something the authors of the Master Plan hadn't thought of -- or would not have imagined Kelowna could attract. Council may relax the zoning for such innovative projects. Or they may consider the economic benefits are too attractive to ignore.

In the rejected case, it's possible that city council didn't want the prospect of a 40-storey wall of towers directly abutting a single-family home neighbourhood. I can understand that.

But drawing an immediate speculation of bribery or corruption, because a particular development was rejected, is thoughtless and irresponsible. Many, many developments have been rejected, only to come back with a vastly better plan. Water Street by the Park is a prime example.

All nicely said, but you forgot one thing:

There are many others that came back much worse. You see lots of examples in Vancouver and Victoria. Over-regulating has produced way worse results, because decision makers do not know what they are doing, or simply unable to imagine the grand vision or economic benefits from the earlier proposals.

All I am proposing is that there should be a good balance and flexibility when it comes to implementing zoning bylaws.

[JayMi]

Originally Posted by Vin

All nicely said, but you forgot one thing:

There are many others that came back much worse. You see lots of examples in Vancouver and Victoria. Over-regulating has produced way worse results, because decision makers do not know what they are doing, or simply unable to imagine the grand vision or economic benefits from the earlier proposals.

All I am proposing is that there should be a good balance and flexibility when it comes to implementing zoning bylaws.

I think there are several examples of this being the case. The tallest building permitted under the zoning bylaw is 26 storeys. One Water Street, Water Street by the park, Bernard Block all show staff and council are willing to go beyond bylaw limitations. Not to mention Stober’s towers beside Gyro which only permitted 4 storeys.

[giallo]

A look at One Water days before occupancy.

• Video Link

[uzi]

UNStudio Architecture from Amsterdam is designing the project near levels. i dont know how to post pics from Insta. it will be great if someone can post them here. please and thanks!
https://www.instagram.com/p/CSq68lLMWpJ/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

[csbvan]

I'm.....completely blown away. UN Studio in KELOWNA?! UBC went for it. And because it is UBC, I give this project a much higher likelihood of coming to fruition than many others. Wow.











Source: https://www.unstudio.com/en/page/15380/benchlandshttps://www.unstudio.com/en/page/15380/benchlands

[svlt]

That's huge, if someone said this kind of design from this architect was happening in Kelowna before this announcement people would have said it was a pipe dream. DIALOG is involved too so that helps the credibility and likelihood of happening.

[The Great Scaper]

What a great looking building.

[csbvan]

I am a big fan of the sandy-beige facade - I think that is a good fit for Kelowna and the Okanagan, and I like how it distinguishes development in the City from that of the Lower Mainland.

[rofina]

That is amazing. That's a solid 10-15 years ahead of where I thought Kelowna was in terms of appealing high-rise architecture.

Vancouver had been in a high rise boom for about 15 years before the nice projects started to roll in.

It would appear Kelowna is on an accelerated time frame.

[DKaz]

It's UBC Okanagan, fingers crossed it happens seeing all the amazing architecture that's gone into other UBC buildings. This doesn't disappoint.

[giallo]

Man, Kelowna isn't playing around these days. It's really vying for that "second city" title in BC.

[Homerbush]

Originally Posted by The Great Scaper

What a great looking building.

Wow! Yes indeed.

[Metro-One]

Fantastic! It looks like a project from Coal Harbour.

Also nice to see a second office tower for downtown Kelowna.

[araman0]

Been following this thread from afar for a long time. This weekend we're making our first ever visit to Kelowna. Really excited to see the city first-hand! Once the border is more fully open I can see Kelowna being a regular Summer destination for us.

[Vin]

Is the City going to shoot this one down too? Just wondering.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Fantastic! It looks like a project from Coal Harbour.

Also nice to see a second office tower for downtown Kelowna.

Not really, in recent years Coal Harbour only has single tower on small podium projects: something more "human scale". This Kelowna project spells "Big City". If approved this is a celebration for Kelowna.

[Papabear1]

Interesting that Castanet picked up this story with links to UN website and deleted the story less than an hour later. Something says it wasn't ready for an official release and either Mission group or UBCO called in for a removal. Fingers crossed it moves forward.