By 2020, sunlight will be a hot commodity in New York City

[Sheba]

Suddenly towers in a park don't seem entirely evil...

...

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/new...wn_promo_news5

[excel]

Why is this in the Vancouver forum?

[Sheba]

...because lots of towers are being built - do we really expect different results because we're in a different city?

[tenthward]

Originally Posted by Sheba

...because lots of towers are being built - do we really expect different results because we're in a different city?

We have one tower above the height of 200 metres, with zero planned. I agree that its something to be cognizant of, but I don't think its even close to becoming an issue yet.

[Sheba]

True, not yet. But maybe now people will calm down a bit about towers in a park. The latest on that (there are more but I can't be bothered to look for all of them).

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

What we basically see is a laissez-faire approach, where each land parcel has a general land-use designation and FSR limit, and the rest is just a free for all. That's why we see so many tower-in-the-park designs in the worst places. (Chancellor, Vantage, and the Renaissance Towers come to mind as just some of the worst.)

[quobobo]

Seriously, I think you can do better than posting real estate analysis from the Weather Network.

"sunlight could become a scarce sight in New York City" is one of the worst exaggerations I've ever read and those towers are not even remotely representative of land use on the majority of NYC's land.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by Sheba

...because lots of towers are being built - do we really expect different results because we're in a different city?

In Manhattan, tower footprints encompass nearly the entire site. Now go take a look at even the densest handful of downtown Vancouver developments.

All comparisons between Manhattan and Vancouver are pretty much meaningless.

[Jebby]

This thread is stupid.

[tenthward]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

In Manhattan, tower footprints encompass nearly the entire site. Now go take a look at even the densest handful of downtown Vancouver developments.

All comparisons between Manhattan and Vancouver are pretty much meaningless.

How long ago was it that Manhattan had a comparable density to the present-day Burrard Peninsula? Anyone have any ideas?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Jebby

This thread is stupid.

I wouldn't quite say 'stupid,' but largely irrelevant. Vancouver is nowhere near Manhattan. Anyway, with walls of tall, dense buildings lining the streets,
of course there'll be a lack of street-level sunshine. It's a "given," and as such not really discussion-worthy to any great extent IMO

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I wouldn't quite say 'stupid,' but largely irrelevant. Vancouver is nowhere near Manhattan. Anyway, with walls of tall, dense buildings lining the streets,
of course there'll be a lack of street-level sunshine. It's a "given," and as such not really discussion-worthy to any great extent IMO

Sunlight is essential for (both mental and physical) health reasons!

[Klazu]

I think this is interesting, however this is a matter where Vancouver has been doing exceptionally well. Our towers are designed to have small foot print to maximize the openness of the our cityscape and views, and bring lots of light on the street level. And it has succeeded as our streets are not dark, excluding just few places in Downtown.

I can see this being a valid concern from "quality of living" perspective in cities like New York.

The only thing I don't fully buy in the article is the claim that "skyscrapers have been reducing air quality in Manhattan for decades". I know that it stinks in New York, but does that have anything to do with skyscrapers? I have always been under the impression that tall buildings actually accelerate winds on street level, not the opposite. The reason why New York stinks is how they pile all the garbage on streets like in a third world country. I was very surprised to see that on my trip there and I have never seen it in Canadian cities. We have alleys for that, but I guess in New York they forgot about that little detail...

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Sunlight is essential for (both mental and physical) health reasons!

Yes, I know, but what can you do in NYC, or even Chicago or TO? Tear down some of the tall buildings? It would seem their fate is already sealed regarding sunlight.
But as Klazu says, Vancouver seems to be doing well at letting sunlight get to street level. Large open spaces like Robson Square help.

[Tfreder]

Originally Posted by Klazu

We have alleys for that, but I guess in New York they forgot about that little detail...

To be fair, the decision to exclude alleys was made over 200 years ago (in 1811), long before they had invented dumpsters, garbage trucks, or even garbage collection. Since Canadian cities are generally newer, we've had the privilege of being able to learn from other cities' mistakes.

[twoNeurons]

Isn't there a new city in Korea just south of Seoul which has created an underground tunnel system for garbage? Essentially they treat solid garbage just like any other utility and bury it in the ground.

[Pinion]

Solution, just build a second level like the city in Deus Ex Mankind Divided and let the poors live in eternal darkness

• Video Link

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Klazu

The only thing I don't fully buy in the article is the claim that "skyscrapers have been reducing air quality in Manhattan for decades". I know that it stinks in New York, but does that have anything to do with skyscrapers? I have always been under the impression that tall buildings actually accelerate winds on street level, not the opposite. The reason why New York stinks is how they pile all the garbage on streets like in a third world country. I was very surprised to see that on my trip there and I have never seen it in Canadian cities. We have alleys for that, but I guess in New York they forgot about that little detail...

@Klazu, having a wall of highrises on the street can interfere with air circulation, negatively impacting air quality. This is an actual problem in very densely built-up cities such as Hong Kong and New York.

Vancouver? Can't see the built form with setbacks and relatively thin, short towers as impacting air circulation (or blocking sunlight) the same way. Might as well worry about cutting down those tall trees in Stanley Park. They block sunlight too...

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Tfreder

To be fair, the decision to exclude alleys was made over 200 years ago (in 1811), long before they had invented dumpsters, garbage trucks, or even garbage collection. Since Canadian cities are generally newer, we've had the privilege of being able to learn from other cities' mistakes.

New York would be a less vibrant, urban city if it had built alleys. I don't think too many New Yorkers believe it's a "mistake" to not have alleys; it's pretty much the norm with older cities worldwide.

Alleys (at least the North American definition of alleys) are a function of very new cities that were primarily built during the automobile age, and under the guise of use-oriented zoning and formal land use planning. It was to separate functions.

The article is silly because tall, skinny buildings produce less shadows than short, squat buildings. Ironically the NIMBYs in NYC want height limits, supposedly to combat "shadows", but it would have the opposite effect (think Venice Italy compared to Toronto; Venice is covered in shadows yet no highrises; Toronto is quite spacious yet tons of highrises). The vast majority of NYC isn't covered in tall towers, so it's a non-issue anyways.

And tall towers have nothing to do with air quality. Density plays a small role in air quality, but not building height. In any case NYC has fairly good air quality for a large city.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Isn't there a new city in Korea just south of Seoul which has created an underground tunnel system for garbage?

Yeah, the technology is already there, but so far it has only been considered for some new purpose-built eco-cities and I have not heard of old cities considering taking them into use.

In Finland garbage chutes used to be common, but they got stuck all the time and have been blocked already few decades. In US I have still occasionally seen those, but not sure if a solution for this. People will cram the strangest things in those when given the opportunity...

Originally Posted by Crawford

New York would be a less vibrant, urban city if it had built alleys. I don't think too many New Yorkers believe it's a "mistake" to not have alleys; it's pretty much the norm with older cities worldwide.

Not sure if maintenance alleys have much to do with "vibrancy" (unless you talk about grittiness), but they can improve living conditions. Just like sewers do.

In many Central-European cities buildings are built together to form city blocks, but there is a always a pathway into an inner yard where garbage cans are located. There is no need to pile your garbage on streets, encouraging a rat population.

Originally Posted by Pinion

Solution, just build a second level like the city in Deus Ex Mankind Divided and let the poors live in eternal darkness.

Never say never. We live amazing time with the first 1 kilometer tower under construction. If development of nano super-structures continues to progress, towers kilometers tall might be a reality in not-so-distant future. It might be that in year 2100 the rich live above the weather and since all interactions are done virtually at that time, never need to descend on filthy ground.