The problem with the OCP 2030 Hubs and Spokes option

In its continuing work on developing the 2030 Official Community Plan, the City of Kelowna planning department has generated a refined land use scenario based on the Hubs and Spokes option which was most favoured by the public but also including other popular elements. While this option has some desirable features, more work still needs to be done to make this latest scenario acceptable.

Anyone who has participated in the OCP 2030 planning process knows that the Hubs and Spokes option calls for fewer high-rises than does the present OCP and instead incorporates more mid-rise buildings, an idea with which I concur. But what struck me as odd is that our planners define a mid-rise building as one which is between 5 and 12 storeys. Now, I certainly don’t consider a 12 storey building to be mid-rise and neither do most professionals. The Wikipedia online encyclopedia states that “most building engineers, inspectors, architects and similar professions define a high-rise as a building that is at least 75 feet (23 m) tall” or about 7 storeys. The same source considers a low-rise as being up to 3 storeys which leaves a mid-rise between 4 and 6 storeys.

If most buildings in urban centres are restricted to 6 storeys or less, the reduction in density in urban centres can be compensated for by increasing the density of suburban neighbourhoods. This is the thesis of UBC Professor Emeritus of Architecture John Gaitanakis in his monograph On-Street Housing: The Densification of Single Family Residential Districts, a Sustainable Model for the Future. In this work Gaitanakis writes that rather than build environmentally unsustanable highrises, the density of suburban neighbourhoods could be as much as quadrupled primarily by allowing secondary suites and carriage houses, all without compromising ground orientation or exceeding the capacity of residential streets and services. I believe such a proposal is a workable and equitable solution to distributing an expected increase in population of 45,500 people by 2030 without forfeiting community aesthetics through the construction of unsightly high-rises and without subjecting the residents of urban centres to the negative impacts of crowding and congestion.

Kelowna’s unemployment rate soars — city policy to blame

It was reported that Kelowna’s unemployment rate shot up in May to 11.5% being one of the highest among major Canadian cities and well above both the provincial and national rates of 7.6% and 8.4%, respectively. At 11.5% it is now above the pre-boom peak of 9.1% of 1991.

Mayor Sharon Shepherd attributes this leap in the number of unemployed to a sharp slowdown in building activity and the fact that about one in four jobs locally is related to the construction industry. So much for Economic Development Commission Chairman Robert Fine’s claim that the local economy has been successfully diversified. The truth is that it has become dangerously dependent on the construction sector in recent years as a result of Kelowna city council not putting controls on the pace of development and allowing the free market to determine our rate of growth. And whenever controls are foregone in favour of a laissez faire policy, rather than there being a moderate expansion, one can expect boom to be followed by bust.

However, the fallout from all this will not just be a personal problem for those who have lost their jobs but will be felt by the entire community. Sociologists universally agree that a rise in unemployment results in a higher crime rate and an increase in alcoholism, family breakdown, mental illness and suicide. And although a relatively small number have reaped most of the benefits of Kelowna’s boom, we will all be paying for the bust. As we watch the statistics that track social disorganization tick upwards in the weeks and months ahead, we should all remember those short-sighted men and women who have sat on city council for the past decade and have encouraged this to happen. If they have gotten any of the credit for the good times, they should receive their fair share of the blame for the bad.