Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16
In fact I said the opposite to your interpretation of what I stated - I didn't say that a proposal for the twisted towers should allow twin 48 storey towers. I am not really in favour of twin 48 storey towers. What I stated was that there was no reason for reducing the height limit (through HRM_by_Design) from ramparts maximum which was approximately 90 m (which is 27 - 29 storeys, depending on the design for a residential tower).
I remember when that site was put up for sale. Part of the sales pitch from representatives of HRM was that a building could go to ramparts maximum since it wasn't in a viewplane. This was also indicated by the vote in Council - I believe it was 15-5 in favour of the United Gulf development agreement. So it seems as though people in the minority pushed for the lower height limit. I don't understand your reasoning in believing that HRM_by_Design wasn't to codify what the majority of Haligonians wanted - why wouldn't it be? Several workshops were held; are you indicating that all these workshops were held not to receive input from the majority but to convince people to select a predetermined plan?
|
Sorry I wasn't clear. I did understand that you didn't particularly favour this proposal, but that you were critical of the heights set by HRMbyDesign which you felt were arbitrary.
Why bother hiring professionals if you're going to let Joe Public make the rules anyway? I think the public workshops were held to get public opinion, but ultimately, it was the professionals who made recommendations (that council changed at will anyway). While I think the public is perfectly capable of stating its opinions, I do not believe it is educated enough to function as an urban planner or urban designer. Just does not have the education.
While I can only speculate on the reasons for establishing a height below the ramparts (not being an educated planner or urban designer myself), I have to wonder if the new height is any less arbitrary than the ramparts law. I know, the ramparts bylaw is based on not seeing buildings from 5 (or so) predetermined points in the parade square of the citadel. I'm sorry, but I think that's a pretty messed up way to guide the urban form of a city people actually live and work in - to make it feel like good-ole-scalping-indians-days from inside an old fort built by our former colonial masters?
So, HRMbyDesign is supposed to be guided by best practices of contemporary urban planning and design. Ostensibly, the heights are guided by the public workshops held, advice from real estate and design professionals, and the input from the (presumably) educated professionals hired to give advice. While I can't say they are absolutely the right heights now, I can't really say that they are better or worse than the ramparts laws. What I will say, is that the intended coherency of heights that relate from one block to the next (I know... doesn't always happen...) is important, and that height planned on a multi-block scale may be the right step.
I don't know if there is a realistic condo market for a building like this. Even if there was, I think something like this might put a serious pause on any other residential development downtown for some time.