Kelowna Construction

[Nites]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Awesome pics!

Shared them all on the Canadian forum.

Hope you don’t mind!

Thanks.

[Sheener]

Trying to keep the update train rolling. Landmark 7 August 25th

[giallo]

It's rising quickly. I imagine it'll be topped out by the end of the year at this speed.

Thanks for all of the updates, Sheener.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

An interesting note, was passing over the Port Mann bridge when I saw a giant digital ad which said something like, "Wish you bought waterfront real estate in Vancouver 20 years ago? Buy Kelowna . . . "

This also prompts the question, where do we think Kelowna will be in 20 years? Will the extreme cost of the lower mainland along with its economic success lead to rapidly accelerating growth in Kelowna, or will things stay pretty linear?

Kelowna will continue to see disproportionate appreciation for years to come, IMO.

Its emerged as a really viable alternative to Vancouver living, with most of the same perks. Water, mountains, biking, you can live the "surf and ski in one day" meme of Vancouver at half the cost.

Also - quite honestly, BC doesn't have that many cities that someone could move to.

We have;

1. Victoria - desirable, coastal, will continue growing.
2. Kelowna - all the above.
3. Kamloops - Sorry Kamloops, bit of a city in a hole. Not ideal setting, IMO, less to offer than the alternatives.
4. PG - Lets be realistic, too far North for most. Wont be seeing too many Vancouverities.

As I see it, the exodus will hit Kelowna and Victoria disproportionately. You add to this Alberta money always being attracted to Kelowna, the ongoing push for tech in Kelowna, the ongoing growth of UBC-O, the ongoing growth of the City in general, I see the next 20 years quite positive.

Doesn't mean its a straight line up. But its a reasonable place to bet on long term.

[DKaz]

The people who I've talked to who live in Kamloops love it there. Sure they don't have a lake right downtown but there is still an abundance of recreational opportunities and you get more home per dollar. TRU is also making a push to grow there but they are more of a blue collar city.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[svlt]

Originally Posted by rofina

Kelowna will continue to see disproportionate appreciation for years to come, IMO.

Its emerged as a really viable alternative to Vancouver living, with most of the same perks. Water, mountains, biking, you can live the "surf and ski in one day" meme of Vancouver at half the cost.

Also - quite honestly, BC doesn't have that many cities that someone could move to.

We have;

1. Victoria - desirable, coastal, will continue growing.
2. Kelowna - all the above.
3. Kamloops - Sorry Kamloops, bit of a city in a hole. Not ideal setting, IMO, less to offer than the alternatives.
4. PG - Lets be realistic, too far North for most. Wont be seeing too many Vancouverities.

As I see it, the exodus will hit Kelowna and Victoria disproportionately. You add to this Alberta money always being attracted to Kelowna, the ongoing push for tech in Kelowna, the ongoing growth of UBC-O, the ongoing growth of the City in general, I see the next 20 years quite positive.

Doesn't mean its a straight line up. But its a reasonable place to bet on long term.

You forgot Nanaimo Might be in people's minds sooner than PG. Kamloops in turn might benefit from Kelowna's rising RE prices as a spillover city.

Growth (mostly from immigration) will need to be sustained to see this sort of exodus and appreciation. BC's population base is still too small to support three major cities. Vancouver can certainly sustain greater density, I can imagine it hitting 5 million at some point in the distant future.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by svlt

You forgot Nanaimo Might be in people's minds sooner than PG. Kamloops in turn might benefit from Kelowna's rising RE prices as a spillover city.

Growth (mostly from immigration) will need to be sustained to see this sort of exodus and appreciation. BC's population base is still too small to support three major cities. Vancouver can certainly sustain greater density, I can imagine it hitting 5 million at some point in the distant future.

I'm not so sure Kamloops is the obvious alternative to people priced out of Kelowna. I'd assume it would be Penticton and Vernon. Commutable to Kelowna and they have the lakes.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by csbvan

I'm not so sure Kamloops is the obvious alternative to people priced out of Kelowna. I'd assume it would be Penticton and Vernon. Commutable to Kelowna and they have the lakes.

A propos of the above comment:

As people migrate from urban centres to smaller communities, land values in those communities are rising, putting a new kind of pressure on the small towns of B.C.

People are relocating to small-town B.C. from the Lower Mainland, as well as Alberta, the Prairie provinces, Ontario and Quebec. In the Okanagan this summer, anybody in real estate will tell you how the market has been climbing, with buyers snapping up desirable properties in towns such as Vernon, Peachland, Penticton, Naramata and Summerland. Vancouver Island has seen a robust housing market, too. The year-over-year benchmark home price in B.C. grew 12.5 per cent compared with the previous July, at $768,061, according to the Canadian Real Estate Association.

On a recent weekend in sleepy Summerland, population 11,615, film crews had converted the downtown into some Christmas-decorated place in New Mexico for a Hallmark movie. The location was an easy fit, what with the semi-arid climate and rolling hills that frame the town, surrounded by orchards and vineyards. The film was a kick to the local economy, with the crews frequenting places such as the local bakery that sells cookies and freshly milled flour. City types have also discovered the charms of small-town living, especially during a pandemic. There has only been one reported case of COVID-19 in town so far. And properties are a bargain compared to Vancouver

....

“As a company we made a decision about five years ago that instead of just building and selling we would also build and hold. So we have been reinvesting profits that we’ve earned out of our condo sales into building rentals, as a way to stabilize the organization, so you are not fluctuating with the vagaries of the real estate market going up and down.”

Because they are condo builders, they are creating rentals that look and feel a lot like condos, with dog washes, bike maintenance rooms, high-speed internet, in-suite laundry with full-size side-by-side machines and a locker room area for deliveries. After all, the pandemic has proven the need for safe keeping of one’s deliverables. And Mr. Shier says renters are willing to pay $100 to $200 a month extra for such perks. Remote workers, as well as downsizers, are coming from Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, as well. He says he’s never seen so many people from Montreal moving to the region.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real...te-from-urban/

[rdave]

Originally Posted by svlt

Growth (mostly from immigration) will need to be sustained to see this sort of exodus and appreciation. BC's population base is still too small to support three major cities. Vancouver can certainly sustain greater density, I can imagine it hitting 5 million at some point in the distant future.

I agree, the key to the 5 million mark, which Metro Vancouver will definitely hit in the next 30 years based on the cities current projections, is the mixed-use density that has been a growing adaptation in city for several consecutive years now. Kelowna seems to be picking up on that as well which is good, but there is still too much desire to build single detached unit construction in the valley and the lifestyle that comes with it. Vancouver is well on track to be a leader in Canada in reducing greenhouse emissions in its key urban centers in the years to come, and the okanagan definitely has that potential.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by svlt

You forgot Nanaimo Might be in people's minds sooner than PG. Kamloops in turn might benefit from Kelowna's rising RE prices as a spillover city.

Growth (mostly from immigration) will need to be sustained to see this sort of exodus and appreciation. BC's population base is still too small to support three major cities. Vancouver can certainly sustain greater density, I can imagine it hitting 5 million at some point in the distant future.

Fair points! Nanaimo is viable, and will be even more so when one of these passenger ferry services finally catches on.

Obviously with Covid immigration has stalled, but I expect that to be a very temporary trend, and in fact would expect a bounce back in immigration numbers that supersedes the previous high established.

Canadians are very, very poor baby makers, we just spent an absurd amount of money, and we need immigrants more than ever to help pay it back via economic growth.

Look for 500,000 annual targets to become the norm, and to the low side in my opinion.

The Vancouver wave will continue to hit the shores of secondary Provincial Cities for decades to come.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

All very reasonable points, Vancouver has a lot to love but just hurts a lot on affordability (which arguably most of the negatives in the city stem from). My hope is long term we see Kelowna adopt more and more of the things tha *do* make Vancouver great, a list of things I hope to see:

Some things I'd like to see more of:

- Far better than average transit for North America (mobile payments etc please)
- An emergence of some architectural uniqueness in the skyline (driven by price to a degree but putting an emphasis on well designed buildings that don't look super cookie cutter is a good idea)
- Surprising amounts of Green Infra (Kelowna could benefit a lot from more solar power and from widespread EV adoption so it would be good to see more investment in chargers on new developments etc)
- A strong airport (the truth is if Kelowna keeps growing access via it's airport it can increase the movement of industries like tech, I'd also like to see a focus on environmental stewardship like at YVR)

I also want to see more of a focus on exploiting some of the benefits the Okanagan has over Metro Vancouver such as generally better weather would be awesome to see a much strong network of cycletracks

Good points.

I think Kelowna is uniquely position to be exceptional in this regard.

Its a small City catching a new age of City design. Where Vancouver is locked in to certain patterns because of size and logistical restrictions and an old vocal NIMBY minority, Kelowna has the flexibility of a pre-teen City to adapt to the best of current urban design trends and avoid some of the pit falls of the worse.

On the architecture topic - that too will come with age. Vancouver was a good 15 years into a high rise building boom before it started to attract above average architecture, and now nearly 20 years later is finally at starchitect level. This too will come to Kelowna with time.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by rofina

Canadians are very, very poor baby makers, we just spent an absurd amount of money, and we need immigrants more than ever to help pay it back via economic growth.

Well the largest Canadian cities are expensive to afford for anyone that makes under 70k/year. Like you are spending half a million dollars in any of the largest cities on 1Bdrm condo. And then you have to add in the expenses of having children.... My point here is that you have a combination of financial realities combined with a culture that doesn't encourage family development that most Canadians living in these larger metro areas have to deal with.

Originally Posted by rofina

Look for 500,000 annual targets to become the norm, and to the low side in my opinion.

I can only support large immigration targets IF Canada is able to support the influx with jobs and the infrastructure to handle those influxes. And with our fiscal position right now, we should be pumping the breaks on a lot of things to at least try to balance our finances after the COVID-19 mess.

Originally Posted by rofina

Good points.

I think Kelowna is uniquely position to be exceptional in this regard.

Its a small City catching a new age of City design. Where Vancouver is locked in to certain patterns because of size and logistical restrictions and an old vocal NIMBY minority, Kelowna has the flexibility of a pre-teen City to adapt to the best of current urban design trends and avoid some of the pit falls of the worse.

On the architecture topic - that too will come with age. Vancouver was a good 15 years into a high rise building boom before it started to attract above average architecture, and now nearly 20 years later is finally at starchitect level. This too will come to Kelowna with time.

I agree that Kelowna is a rapidly rising star in terms of BC metro areas. What I would like to see is Kelowna set aside some land for future public (dare I say, rapid?) transit solutions. Like all BC cities, Kelowna is crammed inbetween the mountains and the Okanagan Lake so in order for it to grow exponentially, Kelowna will need to plan ahead in the public transportation sector before potential routes get allocated for other uses. Even Kelowna's current highway infrastructure is currently limited by the geography right now so it's a good time to develop alternative modes of transit.

Metro Vancouver is able to get away with stalling its rapid transit land allocations because it actually has a flatter landscape than most BC cities so it doesn't have to be as vigilant as other BC cities in setting aside land for transit. Just my opinion though .

[Homerbush]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelown...rdy-Road-hills

This has been in the works for some time. It will be good to see the McCurdy Road extension happen. A new link between Rutland to Glenmore is badly needed.

[rdave]

Originally Posted by Homerbush

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelown...rdy-Road-hills

This has been in the works for some time. It will be good to see the McCurdy Road extension happen. A new link between Rutland to Glenmore is badly needed.

That's pretty nice! I can already see Clement ave. Extension link up to this extension as well.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

There is potential yes, but a lot of Kelowna is very car oriented and sprawly, reminds me of a place like Langley City. The thing that would impress me is a concerted move to improve some of these environments, you don't need to get rid of the strip malls along Harvery for example, but providing better pedestrian and cycling realm on the major corridor would be a nice move.


.

I somewhat disagree, but mostly in the detail. Not every road needs a bike lane, and that's particularly true for the major roads. Cars are around to stay. Perhaps they will be electric, perhaps autonomous, but they will be around North America for many decades to come.

Choice is important, and some people will always choose to travel via automobile and as such can make housing decisions according to their desire to be close to a bike road network.

Kelowna is already putting lanes in on Glenmore, along Clement, the bigger idea of the bike infrastructure appears sound and clear.

Obviously, long term you can link up to Rutland, etc, but as far as the amount of work over the last 10 years to build from the core out, and into Pandosy, its been great progress.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I don't consider myself someone who wants to "ban" all cars or anything like that, but I don't really agree that not all streets need a bike lane or that it wouldn't be a good thing at the very least. Of course people will keep using cars if say you can only get direct access to around 50% off blocks comfortably with a bike.

I think in North America we have this chicken and egg problem very consistently where we say that cars will always be around and biking can never be a "big" thing, and so we build our infrastructure with that in mind and kind of dig our own grave.

At the end of the day (and reading the comment again), I don't really get why the idea that we should have more / comprehensive cycling infrastructure would imply cars wouldn't still be around, look at a place like the Netherlands which is quite possibly *the* most bike friendly place on Earth, there are still plenty of cars but the balance is just different - and thats what creates real choice, since it just means cycling is a real option for more people!

I think what I've seen in Vancouver (and Toronto for that matter) has been excellent, you are starting to see way more supporting infrastructure (like in the NL again). Transit exchanges have actual bike lockers (since most people with a half decent bike probably don't want their bike getting stolen or even just left out if its raining), offices and condos have large and functional bike rooms with convenient racks and repair stations, and now you even see offices with showers so that people can use them after commuting in if they would like. These are all relatively cheap things to implement but go really far in making cycling more accessible - and that only ends up helping people who drive either by choice or by necessity.

I think we can overall agree, I'm certainly pro investment when it comes to bike lane infrastructure.

I think the only distinction I was trying to make, perhaps not clearly, is that using bikes for transportation is not palatable for alot of people, and wont be for some years yet.

To not alienate that crowd by putting bike lanes everywhere is a smart approach - for now. No sense in creating a motivated lobby of old school geezers with too much time on their hands hell bent against bike lanes.

That being said, I think Kelowna is past that point in some regards too. Biking is becoming much more mainstream and a meaningful way to commute. Plus bike lanes create nice walking paths, and even the stubborn oldies can see the pleasure in that.