|
|
Post by John Zeger on Jul 3, 2005 13:31:31 GMT -5
The Residents Association Coalition of Kelowna (RACK) was organized in the Spring of 2005. It is a group of residents associations in our city but does not include all residents associations. The group is headed by Wayne Pierce. RACK has come out in support of the Simpson Covenant which protects the waterfront properties where Lawson Landing is planned for by stipulating that there be no commercial development on these lands. RACK also supports the Downtown plan which would allow for highrise structures downtown up to 12 storeys (and maybe higher the way city council is handing out variance permits) just one block away from the foreshore.
The July 3, 2005 (Sunday) issue of the Capital News contains a letter to the editor showing what the Kelowna waterfront presently looks like, what it would look like if highrises were allowed to be built on the waterfront (Honolulu) and what it would look like if highrises were allowed recessed from the waterfront for several blocks (Chicago). Although as in the Chicago example some views of the waterfront would be preserved, it is still a pretty ugly sight. It really scares me that Kelowna could be developed in this manner which would be allowed under the current Downtown Plan, and it scares me that people like Wayne Pierce who will likely be a candidate for city council this Fall and others from RACK may be elected as it will still result in the creation of an ugly downtown resembling Chicago.
|
|
|
|
Post by prodevlp on Jul 3, 2005 15:22:39 GMT -5
"as it will still result in the creation of an ugly downtown resembling Chicago." Ha ha ha ha!  |
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 3, 2005 15:35:04 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I too think it's ugly. I assume you are implying that it's waaaaaaay beyond ugly to the point of being ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by prodevlp on Jul 3, 2005 20:28:08 GMT -5
No I think it is one of the modern world's most beautiful skyline. Although I do like what that guy envisions because I don't want a waterfront like Honolulu. That is why I like Lawson Landing's idea of the boardwalk and park.  |
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Jul 3, 2005 20:55:35 GMT -5
Well, I guess that's a concrete aficionado's notion of beauty. Thanks, pro-concrete. I rest my case. Ha, ha, ha, ha!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 3, 2005 22:35:36 GMT -5
Gad, that sure is ugly, and even worse in color.
Those poor people.
And is that really water, or just treated effluent?
|
|
|
|
Post by prodevlp on Jul 4, 2005 21:55:58 GMT -5
I don't know what to say to that.
What about Manhattan's skyline?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 5, 2005 12:32:03 GMT -5
Same comments, although we KNOW that it's treated effluent in that case. What about the skyline along Isaac Lake in the Bowron Lake's chain? www3.telus.net/Rick_and_Linda/Images/isaac2.jpgNow, that's definitely pure water, and everyone there was very very happy. There's something to strive for in our downtown vision. |
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Jul 5, 2005 12:41:40 GMT -5
Beautiful, Rick! I took some pictures of the Westside (sans highrises) from City Park yesterday and will post them as soon as the are developed. Beauty is to be found in nature and not in concrete.
|
|
|
|
Post by prodevlp on Jul 5, 2005 21:37:43 GMT -5
I would like to see your pictures of my sprawl filled Westside. Yes that is a beautiful place rick. I personally like both extremes. The peace and quite of a village in the mountains, and the noise and boom of a metropolis. Call me crazy. And, John, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I love both nature and "concrete."
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 6, 2005 1:09:12 GMT -5
I would like to see your pictures of my sprawl filled Westside. Yes that is a beautiful place rick. I personally like both extremes. The peace and quite of a village in the mountains, and the noise and boom of a metropolis. Call me crazy. And, John, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I love both nature and "concrete." Thanks for the post. Personally, I don't see the picture of Isaac Lake as an extreme. Rather, it's an image that we all need to keep in mind in our planning, and hopefully something that we can all experience in our lifetimes. I know that many inner city children in the slums of the world will never be that fortunate. And I hope that you read my posts in another thread about noise. I won't call you crazy, but I understand where you're coming from, I think. Finally, I really don't want to get into relativism ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder"), as I believe that there are standards that we can all agree upon. I think that you agree regarding the natural beauty I've posted, and I think that that gives us a basis for getting beyond relativism (which I call moral, ethical, and aesthetic anarchy) to something that we can all live with. |
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Jul 6, 2005 11:16:18 GMT -5
I would like to see your pictures of my sprawl filled Westside. Yes that is a beautiful place rick. I personally like both extremes. The peace and quite of a village in the mountains, and the noise and boom of a metropolis. Call me crazy. And, John, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I love both nature and "concrete." The notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder contains some truth but yet is also a gross oversimplification. It begs the question "what is the origin of the idea of beauty in the mind of the beholder?" Some philosophers would argue that our original notion of beauty comes from nature, but as most of us live in a man-made world our notion of beauty has also been shaped by our build environment and by social and cultural influences. Early philosophers such as Plato saw beauty as a quality that existed independently but which was reflected in the material world as well. Recently, scientists have discovered universal aspects to beauty such as simplicity, harmony, and symmetry which can be found in all cultures and civilizations. Therefore beauty has an objective aspect. But one cannot deny that our notion of beauty does not also have a subjective component and is in part a product of our socialization through what our family, friends, and larger society consider beautiful such as what the media viz., television, tries to define for us. So where does your concept of beauty come from? Does your notion of beauty come from within or without? Do you think highrises are beautiful because that view is consistent with the natural origins of beauty or because this is what the media (not to mention planners and developers) are telling you that you should consider to be beautiful? |
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 6, 2005 11:21:12 GMT -5
... relativism (which I call moral, ethical, and aesthetic anarchy)...
Sorry, I forgot to add "and intellectual suicide" to that list -- something that many seem to have committed in this city.
|
|
|
|
Post by prodevlp on Jul 6, 2005 20:33:24 GMT -5
The reason I find hi-rises beautiful is because I seem to have always found buildings(not all), and building things beautiful. As far as I remember it all started with the lego brick. That is where I found that creating large structures could be fun, and thus I tried to create "beautiful" structures.
And Rick, the reason I said extreme, is because it is an extreme on the spectrum I was talking about. Nature-----City/Metropoli.
|
|
