|
|
Post by John Zeger on Feb 14, 2005 16:45:36 GMT -5
On Feb. 8, 2005 CHBC ran a story on a new plan for the revitilization of downtown Penticton. The plan calls for their downtown to become more pedestrian friendly by creating wider sidewalks, adding new planters and installing new streetlights. Downtown businesses there will pay for 50% of the costs of these improvements. The downtown revitalization plan did not include any megaprojects such as Lawson Landing. Several months ago Kelowna Daily Courier columnist Ron Seymour scoffed at similar suggestions as a way to improve Kelowna's downtown as old-fashioned. Well, I believe Penticton is and has been on the right track all along, as its downtown is already more inviting than Kelowna's and probably will stay that way too. In fact, Kelowna's downtown is probably the least attractive of the three major Okanagan cities. Who's fault is that? I would blame the Downtown Kelowna Association and their members who have done little to improve their our storefronts and seem to have the attitude that the city should bail them out of their problems while they do nothing to help themselves. Their solution to improving downtown is to proceed with Lawson Landing and seem
oblivious t o the negative impact that project will have on the city's character while focusing entirely on its impact on their profits. I think our downtown businessmen could learn a lot from the attitude of their counterparts in Penticton and scrap the idea of Lawson Landing while picking up a paint brush instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by ScratchingMyHead on Mar 9, 2005 2:48:08 GMT -5
Mr. Zeger states: "Well, I believe Penticton is and has been on the right track all along, as its downtown is already more inviting than Kelowna's and probably will stay that way too."
Ok, why not pack up and more there?? I am sure they would love to have you since they seem more inline with your views. It is not like you have roots here?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Mar 13, 2005 17:09:39 GMT -5
When I moved to Kelowna I liked it just fine the way it is and still do. It's not me but you that is dissatisfied with our city as is. Instead of trying to change it into becoming a miniature Vancouver, why don't you just move to Vancouver or is it that you are just too lazy?
|
|
|
|
Post by ScratchingMyHead on Mar 13, 2005 23:43:39 GMT -5
LOL! Nice try. The fact is I love how Kelowna has been growing for the last 12 years just like it is now. I am not complaining like some people here.
By the way, did you do ANY research about Kelowna and it's growth outlook BEFORE you moved to Kelowna. Considering Kelowna is the 3rd largest city in BC outside of Van and Vic I wonder what made you think that this regional economic and tourist city would not grow. If what you preach is really SO important to you I would think you would have choosen a smaller town.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo916 on May 11, 2005 11:22:16 GMT -5
i agree.
i have lived in the kelowna area all my life. the truth is that kelowna has changed very little since the 70s.
we have continued to expand outwards, which has damaged the habitats around the city.
kelowna needs to grow upwards in order to continue to function as a city.
go up dilworth mountain and look down on your city.
then look around for some images of cities that were bombed during world war 2.
notice a resemblence?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on May 12, 2005 10:23:20 GMT -5
You think the way you do because you like your friends at movekelownaforward hold Vancouver as a model for Kelowna and that all cities must be replete with highrises in order to quality as cities and without highrises they look "bombed out." What a narrow and limited view of urban form you have! Do some research on Boulder, Colorado and you will learn that they have a 35' building height restriction in this city of 95,000 in order to protect residents' spectacular view of the nearby Rocky Mountains. But then you would probably say that Boulder looks "bombed out" as well. Thanks for visiting our site and please return when you have something intelligent to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo916 on May 12, 2005 11:08:58 GMT -5
Kelowna's population is above 95,000 and is rapidly increasing.
the point is, that Kelowna cannot expand outwards anymore, there is no more room.
we may have the third largest population in BC, but our density is extremely low.
if the entire city of kelowna only allowed midrises "in order to preserve the view", then 15 years from now we will be facing this same argument again, as the population will once again outgrow kelowna.
as for penticton's city plan, well Penticton has a lower population than Westbank, so i would hardly compare it to a real city like Kelowna
|
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on May 12, 2005 16:27:00 GMT -5
Actually, the population density of Kelowna isn't all that low. Would you believe it is almost the same as Edmonton? Further, CRCP is not nor ever was an advocate of sprawl. We favour "controlled growth" i.e., setting an annual limit to population growth as is already done in dozens of progressive cities in the U.S. and some in Canada. In recognition of the environmental and social limitations to growth we further recommend an eventual population ceiling beyond which the city will not grow, the level of which will be determined by extensive public input. In Boulder, Colorado that population is 123,000.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo916 on May 12, 2005 18:16:52 GMT -5
i do not completely dissagree with controlled growth, but i do see a problem with it in Kelowna.
Kelowna is a retirement destination, therefore people come here when they get old, and people living here stay here when they get old.
by placing a population cap, no younger population would be able to move in, and kelowna's population would be stuck with a large majority over the age of 65
|
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on May 13, 2005 9:20:18 GMT -5
Demographic trends in Kelowna over the past 20 years have seen an increase in the percentage of retirees living here. Projections are for this trend to continue. This is occurring largely because the free market is being allowed to determine the population mix of the city. So controlling the growth of Kelowna won't exacerbate this problem but will probably serve to stop this population imbalance from getting worse. Other CRCP policies such as requiring developers to provide affordable housing for families with children will serve to increase the percentage of people in the 21-39 year age group. Contrast this to the present city council's actions to encourage numerous luxury condominium projects like Lawson Landing which will just house more retirees, childless yuppies, or high-income transients. And our support for initiatives such as UBC-Okanagan and the development of high-tech industry locally will give the city's younger residents better paying jobs than the present minimum wage jobs being created to serve Kelowna's aging population. It is a myth that we need a fast growing population to have economic prosperity and I have the statistics to back this up!
|
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jun 16, 2005 20:09:12 GMT -5
I agree that Kelowna should enhance the down town area in any way possible. Wider side walks, planters, and streetlights, etc., would no doubt be an improvement. Increased activity in the area should also help to flush out the homeless problem in the area somewhat. However, I do not believe this is as far as it should be taken. The proposed building plans for downtown are not unattractive, and would be taking another positive step in the same direction as the other improvements would. Leaving downtown the way it is could be disastrous, and simply cause the growing problems down there to take over. This would have a very negative effect on the businesses, obviously, since the activity in the area would diminish as it became a less and less desirable place to be. However, as change is made to enhance the area, so should Kelowna look ahead to bigger projects. Saying that some change is all that's needed is not a reason to live in the past. If Kelowna continues to live 30 years behind the times, no doubt it will out grow these improvments after a while, and problems will return.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 18, 2005 12:03:56 GMT -5
Hi, Cathy.
Sorry, I've been awfully busy and haven't had a chance to respond to all your posts.
Can you please define what you mean by "30 years behind the times?"
Other threads have mentioned Banff, and I can point to other examples as well (Kimberley and so on) where keeping that "quaint" feeling has actually helped tourism.
Kelowna is far from quaint however. As far as I can see, we now have all the problems that modern cities have, and, if that's the case, then I'd rather be back about 30 years thanks.
|
|
