highrise hotel proposal

[CRCP]

Member's posts follow:

[John Zeger]

Good for the residents of Penticton as 300 attended a public hearing to protest three highrises on Skaha Lake between 13 and 18 storeys! These residents obviously value their quality of life more highly than do residents of Kelowna. Here the only event that will draw over 100 people is a Rockets game.

www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-24303-21-.htm#24303

[John Zeger]

There was more on this story in the Okanagan newspaper on Nov. 25, 2006 where it was reported that the height of these structures is an issue in Penticton. Again contrast this with the attitude of Kelowna city council and many residents here that aren't concerned with height at least as long as these buildings aren't in their own backyard. Penticton resident Loraine Stephanson is quoted as saying "Some of us believe our landscape should define our skyline." This sounds like something that I've been saying in Kelowna for years but it seems like very few people have been listening.

The Okanagan newspaper reports that Penticton city council got support for the highrise proposal from the Penticton and Wine Country Chamber of Commerce. In this case that is something that Penticton and Kelowna have in common as the business community in both cities seems oblivious to quality of life issues and is totally focused on profit growth.

[John Zeger]

Building height and density is becoming a bigger issue in Penticton all the time. Responding to the public uproar over the multi-highrise Waterside Resort proposal, Penticton city council sent the matter back to the planning department. The developer was quoted as saying that he will come up with a new design on the property, hopefully one without highrises.

In a related matter some community resistance has been reported to a proposed five story apartment complex that is slated for an area currently zoned as low density on Lee Street. Some neighbourhood residents want to keep it as low density and are planning to fight the proposal.

Penticton residents are showing a high degree of awareness of the threats to their quality of life posed by highrises and high density development. Perhaps that mood will become infectious and will spread to other Okanagan communities.

www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-24625-21-.htm#24625

[nick]

Penticton faces challenges quite a bit different than Kelowna. It's geographic position between two lakes severely limits its options for expansion. The hillsides to the east are becoming crowded already, and the hillsides to the west are mostly Penticton Indian Band property.

[John Zeger]

If there are no reasonable growth options other than building highrises, perhaps Penticton should consider stabilizing its population at or near current levels and stop issuing residential building permits.

[nick]

I can't help but think that arresting population growth would have a detrimental effect on economic growth as well. There may be some middle ground that could satisfy the majority. If there is no land left then it would seem that increased density is the only logical solution, given that continued population growth is assumed to be part of the equation. The question in Penticton seems to be what form that density increase would take. I agree that highrises would be out of place in that particular area, but there are plenty of three and four story structures already in the area.

[Rick Shea]

That's one of the myths typically trotted out when growth controls are suggested.

It's interesting that Germany, with near zero population growth, has what many consider to be a healthy economy, with a good growth rate.

Indeed, during a decade of relatively rapid population growth in Vancouver, 95 percent of the people were actually worse off economically.

The benefits of economic growth in Vancouver have not been shared by all citizens. Rises in
income have been increasingly concentrated among the wealthiest echelons of Vancouverites,
escalating the disparity of incomes between rich and poor. Between 1991 and 2001, only the
wealthiest 5% of families enjoyed any increase in real income; the remaining 95% experienced a
decrease, and over half of individuals and families experienced a decrease of at least 20%. In
addition, the income gap for families grew from 7.8 to 12.8, an increase more than double that in
Canada as a whole. The richest 10% of families had incomes of $127,000
compared to $9,900 for the poorest 10% of families. Among unattached individuals, the income
gap grew by 100% over the 10-year period, as compared with an average of 33% among other
large cities.

Source: Canadian Policy Research Networks "Social Sustainability in Vancouver," available at www.cprn.org/en/doc.cfm?doc=1538

Linking population growth to economic growth is a fallacy, but one that is so commonly stated that most people don't even seem to question it.

If you wish to get caught in that cycle, then where will you stop? It's an endless dog-chasing-its-tail scenario. How will economic growth happen when you have stuffed as many people as possible into Penticton, and what will the quality of life be like for those who can still afford (or want) to live there.

[Rick Shea]

nick said:

If there is no land left then it would seem that increased density is the only logical solution

Perhaps you can explain why this is a "logical solution." As well, at what point would density be at its maximum, and what would you do then?

Increased density has apparently not been a "solution" in Los Angeles, which is one of the most dense urban areas in the United States, or in other areas that have tried to implement so-called "smart growth" measures.

And Nick, please, before you trot out the usual string of cliche myths about growth, can you please have a look around this forum? The issue you have just raised has already been addressed in detail here, as have so many other issues and myths surrounding growth.

Thanks.

You are most welcome here, but it would be nice to have a discussion based upon fact, documented sources, and analysis.

[nick]

rickshea said:

Perhaps you can explain why this is a "logical solution."

That quote is taken a little out of context Rick. I said that increased density was the only logical solution assuming population growth is part of the equation. What other alternatives are there?

I don't claim to have all the answers Rick, I came here with hopes of learning something. I had also hoped to be treated with a little courtesy and respect, and not have my thoughts dismissed out of hand as "cliche myths".

[Rick Shea]

nick said:

That quote is taken a little out of context Rick. I said that increased density was the only logical solution assuming population growth is part of the equation. What other alternatives are there?

There are many alternatives if you give up that assumption, which is not one I share. The theories of "steady state" economics are well-developed, the idea that human population has already exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet is supported by diverse groups on the planet and in this valley, and even the Rockefeller Foundation, in a report commissioned by the President of the U.S. has said that further population growth will not solve any of the problems we face.

Continued growth is not an alternative in the real world, only for economists who fail to internalize environmental and human factors (and, I should add, for the speculators and the rest of the 5% who line their pockets at the expense of others).

And yes, I certainly do respect other opinions, but I guess I'm a bit tired of hearing the same old myths over and over, and that came through in my response. I'm really hoping for something new, for a change. Thanks.

So, to put this back on topic, if this highrise is built, then what? What's next? How many highrises will be built in Penticton, and what will be the consequences?

[nick]

rickshea said:

So, to put this back on topic, if this highrise is built, then what? What's next? How many highrises will be built in Penticton, and what will be the consequences?

I doubt the highrise will be built. Public opinion carries a lot of weight in Penticton, and the local residents are very well organized in opposition to the highrises in question. I believe what will happen is that the developer will be convinced to reconsider his design to bring it more in line with what is currently in the neighbourhood, a mix which already includes a number of two to four story structures.

There are not a huge number of highrises in Penticton at present. There is a group of five towers immediately west of the Cherry Lane Mall built over the last eight or ten years, catering to retired folk. The land was formerly undeveloped and the project met with little resistance. There is the "100 Lakeshore" project on the old Incola Hotel site, with the second of three towers currently under construction. There was a movement to have the property turned into a park due to its proximity to the beach, but the cost of the property was pretty high at a time when the city was looking at a number of other costly capitol projects. It would appear the city is considering their decisions on this type of developement very carefully.

[Rick Shea]

Yes, it does appear that way, unlike what is currently happening in Kelowna.

But the problem, as I see it, has been demonstrated time and time again elsewhere. Even with careful consideration and slower rate of construction of highrises, Penticton will eventually become crowded and congested just like everywhere else that has gone the route of highrises, just a bit more slowly.

Having lived in Penticton, and as a frequent visitor there because of relatives and friends, I do not look forward to that day.

[John Zeger]

Nick, I very much appreciate your participation in this forum. If you are a resident of Penticton, I look forward to any information and views that you can add here to keep us abreast of what is happening in that city. As I indicated in my initial post on the subject, I admire the local citizenry there for standing up for their quality of life and hope that Penticton takes a course different from Kelowna and decides that its quality of life is not for sale. Hopefully, Penticton can take a leadership role in the valley in this regard, as I don't expect that it will come from Kelowna.

[Rick Shea]

This brings up an interesting point, and thanks for prompting it Nick.

I wonder if there is some threshold population size beyond which residents have less and less input into these sorts of decisions. It seems that, the larger the city, the easier it is to have highrise and other large development proposals passed (a notable exception was Vancouver's temporary rejection of some box stores along Marine Drive).

Is the sense of community and common purpose of quality of life lost above a certain number, and thus lost in the relative anonymity of the crowd?

Neil Postman comments that we, as a society, have lost our "narrative" -- the powerful story and underlying sense of tradition that unites us in a common purpose. Herman Daly argues that our cultural focus on individualism and, to a certain extent, our current economic system serve to isolate individuals so that everyman is in fact an island. Is there a tipping point where, with so many people in one area, the value of, and input from, each individual becomes so diluted that the general community interest is lost? Or is it simply the "frog in the jar of water" scenario, where things erode so gradually that no one really notices the minute but inexorable changes?

One highrise may not destroy a community, but is it always a brick in a well-worn pathway?

Time for me to stop thinking out loud and do more research.