I really don’t understand this kind of “Toytown Classicism” If you are going to reference that most abundant tradition, at least show some grasp of the basic principles.
You can certainly abstract and simplify the orders, as many architects have demonstrated. You can also bend the rules to great effect, as the mannerists did with their broken pediments and stretched proportions.
Architects like Vanbrugh and Hawksmoor could be quite brutal in their approach to massing. But in my view, this is just sloppy and arbitrary.
Architraves should sit on top of columns, not cantilevered out into space some random, irregular distance. Arches should spring from somewhere. At least give a hint at some structural logic and maybe think twice about varying the radius in such a cavalier manner.
Apologies if you have some connection to this building. It’s just my opinion, no offence intended. But really… the classical tradition is supremely flexible, if treated with some respect, even in Kelowna