Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
We'll definitely have to agree to disagree (and it's okay, it's just opinions). IMO there's no need to be able to see mountains from the middle of the city. It's certainly useful to have mountains nearby (for hiking, skiing, etc.) but from an urban point of view I'd rather have more density than views, no question.
Now, of course, what's really strange here is that as you point out, Vancouver is an unique case where "more density" doesn't actually always mean more density; it can just mean "more empty condos sold to Chinese money launderers" with no increase in density.
All things considered though, in the real world there probably will always be a link between the number of units and density, if only because new units will help keep the prices in check.
|
Not to belabour my point, but I don't think that a handful of supertall buildings contributes much to a city's density or urbanity in any meaningful way. I like very tall skyscrapers for the vista they create in the cities where they exist, but the vista created by snow-capped mountains is more impressive than any skyscraper we could ever conjure up. I don't think any expensive city ever solved its affordability problem by allowing 80 storey towers where it had previously only allowed 40 storey towers.
To answer your question about the Empire Landmark: most Vancouverites are unaware the building is being considered for demolition. The building is also very skinny and not that much taller than its surrounding neighbours that it really impacts mountain views.
Of those people that think about the present Empire Landmark, the building is not really considered to be a
landmark. I don't know Vancouverites that have strong feelings about the building, either positively or negatively. It's pretty inoffensive as brutalist structures go, but it's also not particularly special. There is a revolving restaurant at the top, but it's mostly a kitschy, overpriced place that is only popular with Chinese foreign exchange students.