the Milroy plan

[CRCP]

Member's posts follow:

[John Zeger]

Although I completely agree with the need for revitalizing the Lawrence and Leon area of the downtown, I am disturbed by the way that Kelowna city council has decided to go about it. As pointed out in an excellent article by Jennifer Smith and Adrian Nieoczym (“Private sector given a shot,” Capital News, Aug. 22), the city has effectively surrendered control of the planning of that area to Phil Milroy and Westcorp. For all the rhetoric spouted by city staff that the city will have the final say on any plan, only the very naïve believe that Westcorp would invest $200,000 to study the development potential of the area if it seriously thought that the city might actually nix its proposal in the end.

In reporting to city council, Corporate Services Manager David Shipclark told them that the creation of a comprehensive development zone for the area was made necessary because everything else that the city had tried in the past had not succeeded in revitalizing the area. Although city council did offer parking and tax concessions to developers, they failed to remedy the most obvious and critical obstacle to its redevelopment namely, moving the Gospel Mission. Although a 2005 study recommended that the Mission be moved, city council never had the backbone to act on its recommendations but instead sat by and watched the area deteriorate further. Had city council acted in a timely manner to move the Mission, the redevelopment of the area would already be proceeding and in a way that would still allow maximum city control of its planning details.

Additionally, one of the more troubling aspects of the deal that the city has struck with Westcorp is that makes the new downtown plan which city council decided to initiate a few weeks ago superfluous. A new downtown plan would have made possible broad public input into the future shaping of the downtown, but now the public will only get to comment on Westcorp’s ideas at a point very late in the process making genuine public participation nearly meaningless. Furthermore, once the plans are finalized, the hands of future city councils will be tied as they will not be able change them for up to 20 years. This will put the present autocratic city council in a position of power that their previous decisions have demonstrated they do not deserve to have.

Last, and definitely not the least disturbing, is the potential of this plan to undermine our city identity which has been shaped by our physical relationship to the mountains and the lake. Although the details of the plan have not yet been determined, Phil Milroy is not a man who thinks small and it is a foregone conclusion that it will include several highrises in excess of 20 storeys as was the case with the Lawson Landing development.
I would assert that a concentration of such buildings within proximity of City Park and the lake will further erode the uniqueness and liveability of Kelowna until it becomes little more than a pale imitation of Vancouver situated in the BC interior.

[John Zeger]

Although the Lawson Landing project was offensive, the concept plan for downtown redevelopment revealed on September 14 poses an even greater threat to Kelowna’s city character for which our downtown provides the focal point. Lawson Landing shocked city residents because of the heights of the four highrises contained therein, the massing of these structures, and their proximity to the lakefront. The downtown redevelopment plan goes far beyond Lawson Landing with thirteen highrises of similar heights to Lawson Landing, at even greater densities, and not much further removed from the lake. If approved, this area will become the template for the redevelopment of the remainder of the downtown and areas beyond.

No doubt some in our city will welcome this proposal because it seemingly offers a solution to the problems of drug related activity and crime on Lawrence and Leon Avenues. However, this proposal will not solve these problems but rather will only displace them onto nearby neighbourhoods such as the Abbott Street corridor and the North-end. This is precisely what happened in Vancouver in the 1980’s and 90’s as Gastown and Yaletown were being redeveloped with highrise condos which resulted in poverty, drug activity and prostitution moving to and concentrating in the Downtown Eastside.

Kelowna has formed an identity as a friendly and livable small to medium-size city where the residents enjoy a close relationship with nature. If this proposal succeeds and if Vancouver continues to be used as a model for redeveloping our downtown, Kelowna will lose its unique identity and become just a pale imitation of that city with all of its attendant problems of traffic congestion, crowding, and crime. We should be looking elsewhere for a model downtown such as the city of Santa Barbara. Proudly displaying its heritage and keeping in harmony with its natural surroundings, Santa Barbara’s human-scale downtown has been recognized as one of the most successful downtowns in California and all without a single highrise!

The downtown redevelopment plan is designed to appease the Downtown Kelowna Association and to cover up for Kelowna city council’s failure to move the Gospel Mission which has been the obstacle to the redevelopment of the Lawrence and Leon Avenue area all along. However, the downtown does not belong to the DKA but rather to the residents of Kelowna who in the end should have the final say on what happens there and to the fate of an incompetent city council which has fallen down on its responsibilities and turned to an out of town developer to bail it out.

[John Zeger]

Cherie Hanson’s recent letter to the editor on the flaws in the city’s downtown redevelopment survey has rightly put the spotlight on the public participation process of this proposal, and the public’s attention should be as much on the process as on the product of this contentious plan. However, it bears repeating that if implemented this plan which calls for 13 high-rise towers in a four block area with heights possibly in excess of 30 storeys will have a tremendous impact for better or worse on the character of our city.

In that regard and as the existing timeline is for city council to vote on the matter before Christmas of this year, I would ask if this is sufficient time for the public to consider, discuss, and debate all the repercussions of a proposal of this magnitude? This becomes especially critical when one considers that after making a deal with the developer on this project that it will bind future councils to this agreement for up to 20 years. There obviously is no room for making any mistakes the first time around.

Another consideration is that this past July Kelowna city council decided it was time to re-write the Downtown Plan commencing in 2008. As this redevelopment proposal if implemented will shape the outcome of the new Downtown Plan, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to consider the former within the context of the new Downtown Plan and put both to the public and city council for approval at the same time? This way the public will have an opportunity to enter into a visioning process on what kind of downtown they would like to see in a fresh and unbiased manner that hasn’t been predetermined for them as a mass of skyscrapers. Now is the time for the public to speak out by contacting their representatives on council and say that three months is insufficient time to make a final decision on a proposal that will change the character of the downtown and of Kelowna forever.

[John Zeger]

Kelowna city council claims it has run out of ideas for how to revitalize the Lawrence and Leon Ave. area of the downtown and has given the public the impression that the Milroy proposal is the only way left to accomplish this. As a result many think that this is a take it or leave it proposition and that we either accept the Milroy proposal or that part of the downtown will continue to exist as it has.

But it is possible to redevelop a downtown in a human-scale manner as is currently being down in Columbus, Ohio, the state capital. There a developer proposes to redevelop a neglected nine block area of the downtown as a livable neighbourhood without a single high-rise structure and instead creating townhouses, garden lofts, and bridge condominiums along with numerous parks and gardens. ( http://www.neighborhoodlaunch.com).

This is just one of many ways that the Lawrence and Leon Ave. area can be redeveloped, and city council would do well to consider that redevelopment area within the context of the new Downtown Plan study to commence next year thereby opening it up to more public input and alternative visions.

[John Zeger]

As the downtown redevelopment plan is being modelled after Vancouver projects such as Coal Harbour and False Creek, here is a view of some pictures of Coal Harbour which will give an idea of what downtown Kelowna will look like after the redevelopment project in our city is complete.
www.seethewestend.com/coal/coal.htm

[John Zeger]

Some members of Kelowna city council would like to see Kelowna become a world class city and see the Milroy plan, which calls for building heights at or above 30 storeys, as being a step in that direction. However, Paris, which is a world class city allows building heights of only 37 metres or approximately 10 storeys in its urban core! Therefore, I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that in order to be a world class city that we don't have to build lots of skyscrapers.

[John Zeger]

The group Citizens for a Livable Downtown has a new website. Check it out at www.livablekelowna.org.

[John Zeger]

J.L.’s letter of February 15 (“One or the other”) on Castanet regarding the downtown redevelopment proposal is so full of the logical errors that many others in this city are committing that it merits some time to address them.

Chief among these errors is that “high-rises are the opposition to urban sprawl.” Although J.L. prides him/herself on having common sense, this point of view is more common than it is sensible. The truth of the matter is that the suburbs (sprawl) begin as a reaction to dense urban cores with all their associated problems of crowding, congestion, lack of open space, crime, etc., which people wanted to get away from. Now that sprawl is being identified by many as our number one growth problem, some who have little knowledge of the history of cities are suggesting that the solution is to create very dense urban centres replete with highrises which would only begin the vicious cycle all over again. As internationally acclaimed architect Nikos Salingaros has pointed out, highrises and sprawl are mutually reinforcing and the solution is to break the cycle by creating compact cities with moderate densities and intermediate building heights.

A second logical error that J.L. commits is in saying that Kelowna, like other cities that have gone this route, can continue attract as many tourists despite having highrises along the lakefront. In my experience with cities, some of the most successful tourist destinations like Santa Barbara and Carlsbad, California do not have highrises along their waterfronts or in their downtowns. Carlsbad takes pride in its downtown “Village” which showcases the city’s heritage and draws tens of thousands of tourists annually. Carlsbad’s city council, upon recently being presented with a development proposal to revitalize their downtown, wisely said “yes” to increasing the density there but “no” to lifting a 45 foot height restriction which has been in place for decades.