There are other ways to redevelop the downtown than with 30 storey buildings

Nearly everyone is in agreement that the Lawrence and Leon Avenue area of the downtown needs to be redeveloped. The question is whether Phil Milroy’s plan which has been refined by consultant Graham McGarva and City of Kelowna personnel, but which essentially remains intact, is the best and the only remaining way to do this?

The City maintains that everything else possible has already been done to accomplish this revitalization. City Manager of Community Development and Real Estate Doug Gilchrist’s report lists all of the initiatives that the City has undertaken in that regard including “Gospel Mission Relocation”. Gospel Mission relocation?  Perhaps I’m missing something, but isn’t the Gospel Mission still there?

In his report to city council last summer, first on his list of the weaknesses of the downtown identified by consultant Ray Spaxman is “the street activity generated by the Gospel Mission facility.” But instead of proceeding to move this facility, the City has recently backed away from an earlier offer to provide the land for the move. Obviously, then, not everything possible has been done to redevelop this area, which also includes a more earnest job of improving streetscapes than the feeble attempt to date.

McGarva and Gilchrist also claim that the present C-7 zoning for the area which specifies a 14 storey height restriction does not provide enough height and density to give developers the needed incentive to undertake new projects there. However, it seems that no one told builder Shane Worman who is presently finishing his seven storey mixed use structure near the corner of Leon Avenue and Pandosy Street. In a recent conversation, he stated that such a height is economically viable for him. And if it is economically viable for one builder, why wouldn’t it be for others?

Obviously, then, there are other ways remaining to redevelop the Lawrence and Leon Avenue area while staying within the present zoning for the downtown and without having to resort to 30 storey highrises. The City should be applying itself to these solutions and not wasting taxpayer money to draw up a comprehensive development plan the purpose of which is to make one out of town developer and some other downtown landowners even wealthier than they already are.

Consider Milroy plan only within a new Downtown Plan

Regarding the downtown redevelopment plan, there has been a lot of public reaction to matters such as building heights and the trade-off of density for amenities, but little regarding the planning process that the City is following.  I am speaking about creating a comprehensive plan for the four block area in question that is in isolation from the remainder of the downtown.

In a report to city council last summer City, consultant Ray Spaxman criticized the City for the ad hoc planning that was happening downtown with there been too many overlapping plans and not enough authority given to the overall Downtown Plan to coordinate them. But it looks like the City is about to do it once again and create another plan there that isn’t tied in with the Downtown Plan.

In their submissions to the City two prominent groups with an interest in the downtown have made similar observations. The Downtown Centre Strategy Task Force which was commissioned by the City to advise it on downtown matters said in their report that “The proposed plan has been created in isolation … of the surrounding downtown area” and that “a holistic approach to land use, height and density of the whole downtown … is necessary before the proposed height and density of this four block area is considered.” Similarly, the Downtown Kelowna Association observed that “this exercise has yet to show itself in context to the entire downtown.”

Although some residents naively believe that the building heights and density found in the Milroy plan will be confined to that area, it is far more probable that they will set the standard for the rest of the downtown. Therefore, the City should follow the recommendations in the Spaxman Report and immediately commence revising the Downtown Plan.

Green development is not sustainability

I couldn’t help but be struck by the oxymoron in a headline to an article entitled “More green buildings needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions” in the March 14^th Kelowna Daily Courier.  How could constructing more buildings, I asked myself, reduce carbon emissions? But then instead of just seeing the unintentional humour in the headline, it occurred to me that it totally captured the naïve folly of the green building movement.  Green building is construction which increases the efficiency by which resources like energy, water, and materials are used while reducing the harmful impacts of such construction on the environment. But although green building methods do increase efficiencies and reduce harmful impacts, they are still a long way off from being sustainable as a sustainable activity is one that can continue indefinitely without doing damage.  Take a green building technique like LEED certified construction, for example. Structures built to a LEED gold standard reduce the energy consumed by about 50% compared to a conventional building, but they still result in a net increase in the demand for energy as opposed to building nothing at all. And in a day and age when we can look forward to a time when there will be an insufficient amount of energy available to maintain our current lifestyles, any increase in energy demand is too much and is simply not sustainable.  Although I applaud those who advocate more efficient buildings, I wonder if they aren’t also doing the public a disservice. This is because they proffer the deception, which is eagerly received by developers, builders, and others,  that green building is a sustainable practice when in fact it is not. In that regard, those in our community such as our mayor who propose that rapid growth is acceptable as long as it is “green” growth are merely proposing a band-aid solution to our problems at a time when our city (and the world) is hemorrhaging to death. 

Note: In an excellent article, Dr. Glen Barry exhorts us to look beyond attempts to greenwash growth and to get to the core of sustainability through the only genuine path — fewer people and less consumption. http://earthmeanders.blogspot.com/2008/01/time-to-stop-greenwashing.html

Kelowna’s growth rate accelerates to 4.2%

In its attempt to provide the public with all the news, occasionally the media misses a very important story. Such was the case when BC Statistics recently reported that Kelowna’s year end population for 2007 was 116,479 which amounts to an increase of 4,677 residents from the previous year and an annual growth rate of 4.2%. Perhaps the media is just getting tired of reporting on the city’s rapid growth, but these figures merit special attention because never before in the city’s history has it grown by so much in one year. Furthermore, the 2007 figures come on the back of growth rates of 3.2% and 3.0% for 2005 and 2006 respectively, and show that Kelowna’s growth is not slowing as some had forecast but accelerating.

Why should this be of concern to us? If our growth continues at last year’s rate, the city’s population will double by the year 2025 which is clearly unsustainable as it puts serious strains on our community. The most obvious strains will be on our infrastructure, in particular our road network as more vehicles are added increasing an already serious problem with traffic congestion. Also such a torrid rate of growth weakens our social networks as new residents cannot be assimilated that quickly into the community. Finally, it portends large future tax increases in order to provide for the public services needed by the expanded population such as policing.

Some communities elsewhere have identified that an annual growth rate beyond 2% is clearly undesirable and have taken steps to limit their growth to that amount. I would suggest a 2% solution to Kelowna’s rapid growth as well and that such a growth rate cap be incorporated into the city’s Official Community Plan which will be revised over the next two years. However, what is still needed is a city council that has the will to implement such a policy as our present mayor and council are lacking the vision, courage, and determination to act in the best interests of the majority of residents as opposed to those sectors of the community (such as developers and builders) that benefit from rapid growth.