Kelowna Construction

[Vin]

When developers come-a-calling to a small resort town, the least a City council can do is to give good projects the chance to succeed: not reject them outright. When developers end up going to other provinces or elsewhere that can embrace large scale projects instead of building here, Kelowna will regret this. The recent number of larger project proposed at Kelowna must have bred some arrogance in the Permit board.

It is of no mystery why so many BC towns have remained hick towns for generations without the ability to take off. It all lies with the mentality of those running them.

[DKaz]

I think the problem is Bertram was never designated for that sort of height. It was supposed to wind down for a more medium density neighbourhood east of Richter. But CoK set a precedence allowing a 34 storey development at the corner of Bernard and Bertram. There's also a 20 storey BC Housing tower proposed north of Newtown's tower.

[KelownaResident]

This smells like the city protecting another company from other competition. The city is quite expedient at approving projects from Mission Group but less so from other companies. Let's hope this is just the planners recommending against but ultimately council voting through. Seems awful and suspicious if they approved all the 3 Mission Group towers and decline one literally next door to them.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by Vin

When developers come-a-calling to a small resort town, the least a City council can do is to give good projects the chance to succeed: not reject them outright. When developers end up going to other provinces or elsewhere that can embrace large scale projects, Kelowna will regret this. The recent number of larger project proposed at Kelowna must have bred some arrogance in the Permit board.

It is of no mystery why so many BC towns have remained hick towns for generations without the ability to take off. It all lies with the mentality of those running them.

While I do agree it was a bad move, I don’t think Kelowna has to worry about losing major developments to other provinces, nor is it a “small resort town” with a population pushing 200,000. What other in-demand, high-traffic resort destinations in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba can you think of that even come close to Kelownas popularity? Tbh, I can’t even think of one in each province as Kelowna literally Is that destination. BC wouldn’t lose any developments to Ontario as it’s a completely different world out that way, with their own raison d’etre.

[KelownaResident]

As suspected, the city rejects the project:

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelown...-Street#341129

Meanwhile they approved all three adjacent towers with all the variances and rezoning necessary to allow for short term rentals.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by KelownaResident

As suspected, the city rejects the project:

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelown...-Street#341129

Meanwhile they approved all three adjacent towers with all the variances and rezoning necessary to allow for short term rentals.

They're reasoning is actually reasonable.

What's not reasonable is that Bernard Block was allowed to proceed - that's bogus.

[KelownaResident]

@rofina

I actually agree with you. But once they allowed Ella to be erected, it was difficult for city council to reject other similar projects (high rises) especially if they are further away from the water.

The fact that city council will allow 4 towers of another company (Mission Group), all within 3 blocks from this proposal, and reject this one is a bit troubling to how business is conducted in this city of ours. I love Kelowna and would have preferred tall buildings to be stepped away from the water but once that ship has sailed I'd expect everyone to be treated by the same standards.

[DKaz]

It certainly stinks of corruption. They did allow Water St by the Park though.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by KelownaResident

@rofina

I actually agree with you. But once they allowed Ella to be erected, it was difficult for city council to reject other similar projects (high rises) especially if they are further away from the water.

The fact that city council will allow 4 towers of another company (Mission Group), all within 3 blocks from this proposal, and reject this one is a bit troubling to how business is conducted in this city of ours. I love Kelowna and would have preferred tall buildings to be stepped away from the water but once that ship has sailed I'd expect everyone to be treated by the same standards.

Valid points, were in agreement

The optimists view would be that they learned on the mistake of Bernard Block.

The realists view is that Mission Group probably pulled some favors at City Hall.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by KelownaResident

@rofina

I actually agree with you. But once they allowed Ella to be erected, it was difficult for city council to reject other similar projects (high rises) especially if they are further away from the water.

The fact that city council will allow 4 towers of another company (Mission Group), all within 3 blocks from this proposal, and reject this one is a bit troubling to how business is conducted in this city of ours. I love Kelowna and would have preferred tall buildings to be stepped away from the water but once that ship has sailed I'd expect everyone to be treated by the same standards.

And isn't it actually really nice to have a bunch of taller buildings located in the same urban core in the city centre? If not now, when? I don't understand the logic of this City Council. Something fishy is going on here.

[JayMi]

Originally Posted by Vin

And isn't it actually really nice to have a bunch of taller buildings located in the same urban core in the city centre? If not now, when? I don't understand the logic of this City Council. Something fishy is going on here.

Personally I agree with council’s decision. This is the first project of this magnitude to be denied. It is clear in the downtowns height map where the highest density projects are to be located. If this project was proposed on Leon or Lawrence I don’t think we see any issue with it. This proposal additionally trigger an OCP amendment in an area designated for medium density.

I also don’t think it shows favouritism to one specific developer. One Water street, Westcorp Hotel, Water Street by the Park, Stober Groups project by Gyro all received substantial height variances. This is the first project of this magnitude to turned down because of the applicants lack of work with staff and ignoring where the City is targeting this type of density. Stober’s, Kerkoff, Westcorp, any developer really have been given the green light when they’ve worked with staff and City Policies.

Council also said for this specific site that they do not believe 12 storeys is appropriate and that they have no issue with a taller proposal. Really worth watching the council meeting for this application. About an hour long and really informative.

[Vin]

With such an inflexible attitude, Kelowna will always remain a small town. A growing innovative city is one that can be flexible with certain high profile developments, especially one that can help with increasing the density, businesses, aesthetics, etc, of the area. From now on everyone is just going to play it safe and design up to the OCP limits. There won't be any exciting or avant-garde projects: just cookie-cutter ones that follow the norm because nicer, higher density or more aesthetically pleasing structures do come with heftier costs with the developers able to create bigger revenue margins.

This problem has been plaguing many BC municipalities in modern times, and now it is Kelowna's turn.

The next proposal, I am sure, will be a much more watered-down bore. The City asks for that, and the population accepts it. Then so be it.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by Vin

With such an inflexible attitude, Kelowna will always remain a small town. A growing innovative city is one that can be flexible with certain high profile developments, especially one that can help with increasing the density, businesses, aesthetics, etc, of the area. From now on everyone is just going to play it safe and design up to the OCP limits. There won't be any exciting or avant-garde projects: just cookie-cutter ones that follow the norm because nicer, higher density or more aesthetically pleasing structures do come with heftier costs with the developers able to create bigger revenue margins.

This problem has been plaguing many BC municipalities in modern times, and now it is Kelowna's turn.

The next proposal, I am sure, will be a much more watered-down bore. The City asks for that, and the population accepts it. Then so be it.

I think the real question is, why do zoning laws even exist? I mean what purpose do they serve other than creating an extra layer of bureaucracy by wasting taxpayer money fattening the wallets of city lawyers? Especially since so many areas get rezoned while amendments are constantly made to others and every project has to go before city council for approval anyway so can someone explain the purpose of zoning laws?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

The question I ask is, why do zoning laws even exist? I mean what purpose do they serve other than creating an extra layer of bureaucracy by wasting taxpayer money fattening the wallets of city lawyers? Especially since so many areas get rezoned while amendments are made to others and every project has to go before city council for approval anyway can someone explain the purpose of zoning laws?

Exactly. It is a general guideline, but should be allowed to have some flexibility especially on items that can offer more benefits that won't maim, hurt or kill anyone.

It isn't Moses' stone tablet from God.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by Vin

Exactly. It is a general guideline, but should be allowed to have some flexibility especially on items that can offer more benefits that won't maim, hurt or kill anyone.

It isn't Moses' stone tablet from God.

I'm pretty sure the elimination of zoning laws wouldn't result in anyone's injury or death because I don't think they exist as a safety measure (there are many other branches of government that do though), but rather as a safeguard to protect the architectural integrity of certain areas. All their removal would do is save taxpayer money by streamlining the cumbersome process of dealing with them as they're redundant. Also, if they're so easy to get around, why have them at all?

[JayMi]

Looks like 24 and 42 storey towers will begin later this year.

https://infotel.ca/inhome/kelowna-hi...n-sale/it84712

[Phil McAvity]

Here's the two towers mentioned in the previous post. The sky's really the limit in Kelowna unlike Victoria where's it's a big deal to build a 25 story building in spite of being about twice the size of Kelowna

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Here's the two towers mentioned in the previous post. The sky's really the limit in Kelowna unlike Victoria where's it's a big deal to build a 25 story building in spite of being about twice the size of Kelowna

Thank god that's the case. Absolutely no reason why Downtown Kelowna shouldn't be going sky high.

[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.

[KelownaResident]

This last rejected project is literally right next to The Block by Mission Group. Proposed 1 story less than Bertram. Proposed adjustable rental units. But straight up rejected. I watched the council hearing, and I feel as if there wasn't equitable treatment to what Mission Group usually gets away with.

Proving corruption is almost impossible... But once you see certain patterns developing... You have to ask yourself why does this happen. Can't take them just at their word. There are potentially significant financial implications to Mission Group of this project is approved. Perhaps it's the threat of a competitor next door. Or...?