Kelowna Construction

[Pejamu]

Originally Posted by jimmyboy95

Another large sprawl development "Canyon Creek Estates" is proposed out McCulloch Rd, near Myra Canyon Rd turnoff. Not an area I want to see developed, but at least there will be upgrades to McCulloch Rd. That one stretch on the east side of the first creek canyon is even scarier than Westside Rd! Couldn't find a website for them, and this project may be having troubles. The new streets were pushed through in Spring 2017, but nothing seems to have continued since. I'm really hoping the neighborhood will be a bit more of a rural style instead of suburban. Leave some of the Ponderosa Pines and Douglas-fir.

I delivered a package for a excavating company to the address of that development about a month ago, there were only 2 guys there that i could see with one pickup truck and one digger so its still somewhat active.

[Twindragon]

I was downtown today and I saw a fence go up where the parking lot is behind the old bargain store on st paul. Looks like they will be starting to work on brooklyn very soon.

[Phrescata]

Originally Posted by Twindragon

I was downtown today and I saw a fence go up where the parking lot is behind the old bargain store on st paul. Looks like they will be starting to work on brooklyn very soon.

Exciting news!
This tower is taller than Ella, correct? I wonder when the next 2 towers on this site will be announced.

[giallo]

I chose multiple photos to give you some perspective of downtown. It seems like you just focused in on one (like the construction photo you've posted here a couple of times), and completely missed the other photo with the boats in the foreground.

Anyway, we obviously disagree. Kelowna's skyline, while not large, it much better than other cities its size, and it'll add another three buildings over 12 storeys in the next year or two. If everything gets built that has been approved, maybe, just maybe, Kelowna will meet your standard of what a city's skyline of 200,000 people should look like.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by giallo

it'll add another three buildings over 12 storeys in the next year or two.

Will any of those buildings be downtown?

[KevD]

Originally Posted by giallo

I chose multiple photos to give you some perspective of downtown. It seems like you just focused in on one (like the construction photo you've posted here a couple of times), and completely missed the other photo with the boats in the foreground.

Anyway, we obviously disagree. Kelowna's skyline, while not large, it much better than other cities its size, and it'll add another three buildings over 12 storeys in the next year or two. If everything gets built that has been approved, maybe, just maybe, Kelowna will meet your standard of what a city's skyline of 200,000 people should look like.

I appreciate your effort to try and show Phil a proper representation of Kelowna but unfortunately it’s a lost cause. Phil is an anti-kelowna troll and is best to probably just be ignored when he’s clearly only coming here to be negative and bash our beautiful city. Sorry Phil, but it had to be said.

[240glt]

I remember when the first Landmark buildings went up, people were lamenting that it wasn't downtown, and that's fair enough, in the early to mid 90's the downtown could've used the injection of business and people. But in retrospect Kelowna actually dodged a bullet, Can you imagine if it had been built downtown now ? Yes the newest tower is quite nice but the older ones are pure suburban office park stock and there's no guarantee they'd have been any different if they were located in the downtown. Instead now Kelowna has walkable animated streets full of amenities and small businesses rather than blank walls and parkades. Other cities like Edmonton went the other route, building large soul-less buildings which create barren soul-less streets and that can never be changed back. Kelowna should consider itself lucky in that regard.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by 240glt

I remember when the first Landmark buildings went up, people were lamenting that it wasn't downtown, and that's fair enough, in the early to mid 90's the downtown could've used the injection of business and people. But in retrospect Kelowna actually dodged a bullet. Can you imagine if it had been built downtown now? Yes the newest tower is quite nice but the older ones are pure suburban office park stock and there's no guarantee they'd have been any different if they were located in the downtown.

Their location is exactly why they're, "pure suburban office park stock", had they been put downtown like they should have been, no one would be saying that about them.

Originally Posted by KevD

I appreciate your effort to try and show Phil a proper representation of Kelowna but unfortunately it’s a lost cause. Phil is an anti-kelowna troll and is best to probably just be ignored when he’s clearly only coming here to be negative and bash our beautiful city. Sorry Phil, but it had to be said.

This is so wrong it actually made me laugh out loud since I have nothing against Kelowna, in fact given your real estate prices I figure Kelowna's got to be a pretty nice city actually although it's been decades since I was there. My only objection has been city council's incompetence at zoning tall buildings downtown where they should be, like every other city, which I have repeatedly stated. Hopefully this time you'll catch it

You shouldn't apologize though, even though you're wrong I like hearing opinions.

[240glt]

Those are great photos of Kelowna and I think they illustrate perfectly why people love it there. Kelowna has a lot of really great qualities and the lack of a defined skyline really isn't a factor in the city's desirability. I'd rather a nice city in a beautiful natural environment with lots of recreational opportunities and a good climate than say, Edmonton, which has the second tallest tower outside Toronto but is a bit of a shithole regardless.

[240glt]

Their location is exactly why they're, "pure suburban office park stock", had they been put downtown like they should have been, no one would be saying that about them.

No that's not true. There was no authority in Kelowna that would have required anything different. There is no magic rule that says that buildings downtown look better than buildings in office parks. It's what the developer decides to build, and without some sort of guiding standards that's what you get. I'll bet anything that if those buildings had gone downtown they'd look exactly the same.

As I said before, tall buildings are not a panacea for downtrodden downtowns. Just look at Edmonton. Luckily Kelowna's downtown has shifted to more of a lifestyle/ experience type of environment which suits the city very nicely.

[KelownaResident]

I have to agree with 240glt. Although Edmonton has a lot of tall buildings it just feels dead and boring. I like Kelowna because of the feel you get walking down the streets. Tree-lined sidewalks and lots of businesses on Bernard makes for a nice ending for lunch or dinner after a walk on the promenade starting from the dolphins. Mind you, it could use some cleaning up around Leon and Lawrence, but that'll come in time I think.

[Twindragon]

Im not sure why there is even a debate on whether or not the kelowna dt has a good skyline or not. Personally I think its non existent but its going to get better in the next 5 years and beyond. The area around prospera is going to be particularly good with one water street and ellis parc. If they build those other proposed towers in the parking lot of prospera (which im sure they will) Kelowna is going to look very different. Sure the buildings aren't sandwiched next to each other but I think once you have brooklyn and ella and all of the other highrises you will be able to have some nice views looking north coming off the bridge.

At least kelowna has some decent developments proposed. If you look at cities like regina or saskatoon which are close to the same size there have barely been any highrise developments since the 80s I think.

[GSS]

Agree about it being non existent. A couple of highrises does not make a skyline. I will evolve over time, but right now there is no skyline.

Regina and Saskatoon...in particular Regina have actual proper skylines. While not as much is being built or proposed, their downtowns and skylines are more more complete and diverse. Regina's actually had 3 or 4 buildings built since the 80's. Not sure about Saskatoon.

Originally Posted by Twindragon

Im not sure why there is even a debate on whether or not the kelowna dt has a good skyline or not. Personally I think its non existent but its going to get better in the next 5 years and beyond.

At least kelowna has some decent developments proposed. If you look at cities like regina or saskatoon which are close to the same size there have barely been any highrise developments since the 80s I think.

[GSS]

Re: Kelowna skyline vs Regina/Saskatoon. It's not even close.

Regina


Kelowna

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by 240glt

No that's not true. There was no authority in Kelowna that would have required anything different

Really? Kelowna doesn't have zoning laws?

Originally Posted by Twindragon

Im not sure why there is even a debate on whether or not the kelowna dt has a good skyline or not. Personally I think its non existent......

I'm glad to see a least someone here agrees with me

[aastra]

2018 as a whole saw a record breaking 2,080,372 passengers travel through the airport, which is the first time the airport has seen over two million in one year!

As coincidence would have it, Victoria airport's 2 millionth passenger was flying in from Kelowna.

[KevD]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

I'm glad to see a least someone here agrees with me

I think most of us agree with you that Kelowna's skyline is pretty non-existent and scattered at best. It's just a very tired statement that I've heard over and over and over again. It's an annoying statement to frequently make especially now when Kelowna's downtown is currently in a highrise boom and the "non-existent skyline" will soon change very quickly. All I want to see Phil are more positive and informative contributions to this thread.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Really? Kelowna doesn't have zoning laws?

Don’t be obtuse. Of course Kelowna has zoning bylaws, but those bylaws (in any city) still only give cities limited powers and don’t have a material impact on what a building will look like. Edmonton was forced to implement a committee called the EDC a while back because in spite of the zoning bylaws in place local developers were consistently building hideous garbage.

Seriously man, whining about the Landmark development is so 1995. Move on.

[Phrescata]

Well the numbers are in, and 2018 was a record breaking year for YLW!
December was once again the airports busiest month ever with 210,926 passengers.
2018 as a whole saw a record breaking 2,080,372 passengers travel through the airport, which is the first time the airport has seen over two million in one year!
I believe this now ranks YLW as Canada’s 10th busiest airport.


https://okanaganedge.net/2019/01/11/...est-in-canada/

[Phil McAvity]

^Exactly

It's astounding that the two cities are almost the same size

Originally Posted by KevD

All I want to see Phil are more positive and informative contributions to this thread.

I'll work on it coach!

Originally Posted by 240glt

Don’t be obtuse. Of course Kelowna has zoning bylaws, but those bylaws (in any city) still only give cities limited powers and don’t have a material impact on what a building will look like. Edmonton was forced to implement a committee called the EDC a while back because in spite of the zoning bylaws in place local developers were consistently building hideous garbage.

Seriously man, whining about the Landmark development is so 1995. Move on.

My whining actually started with the Kiwanis Tower in 1976 and then reached a crescendo with Landmark VI in 2012 which demonstrated that Kelownians have never had any idea how to manage urban growth but you're talking about design panels/committees, not zoning laws because zoning laws simply designate which buildings can go where in a city whereas design panels/committees decide on the aesthetics of buildings and i've never bitched about the quality of the buildings in Kelowna, only their location, which zoning laws cover. What does EDC stand for?

So are the 3 buildings that are soon wrapping up all going to be downtown?