GenerationLee
Senior Member
Except this time its not demo-ing decent older buildings that add to the urban fabric. So...better.
- Thread starter ProjectEnd
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
There is nothing unhinged about it...........LOL
Too over-the-top.
Look at the floorplates and the site area........
You're not getting a 3rd tower there....
And the floors plates are not exceptionally narrow. Its a reasonable choice.
I'm not saying its the one I'd make..........
Nah, let me be clearer, I wouldn't accept the proposed height, but would allow less significantly less separation in exchange.
Mathematically, you can't quite cut the height in 1/2 and the separation in 1/2 as you would have floor plates close 1400m2.
But there's play there.
Its fine to disagree with the City's massing choices here..........they are debatable. But not unhinged.
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
The problem is not with this site in isolation. The problem is with the entire neighborhood. 40 m of separation is going to hugely constrain what is buildable here.
Northern Light
Superstar
Fair, to a point, if the City is seeking this throughout the district.
Though....in general its important to remember (as I encourage City planning to do) the goals of thinks like separation distance or floor plate size limits, or the angular plane are about a means to an end.
Greater sky view, acceptable privacy, less shadowing (or greater access to sun), and the aesthetic consideration of not making making monolithic fortresses.
These all work together...........as example.....at greater height, greater separation becomes desirable, both visually and because the greater height results in longer shadows.
An angular plane, while overly crude and cumbersome when enforced thoughtlessly aims to address the same issue, and in a way so do restrictions on floor plate size.
One must examine the interplay of these. The measurable, objective effects and perceived, subjective ones., when taken together.
I won't get into how that works out here across the larger area, because I would need to go back and look at the current assumptions, in both the district plan and specific applications in process.
Doubtless I would disagree with some of the choices made.........but that's just too involved to put on this application for now.
In this particular case, I don't think pushing the towers on this block closer together does anything inherently useful. It doesn't really result in room for another tower. We could look at the i site as high mid-rise instead, with vastly different assumptions modeled out...... ( I might well prefer this) but I simply don't think we can say 40M has an obvious negative consequence here, unless you're linking that to aspects of the height for the form you don't like, that might evolve differently with a lesser separation.
Koops65
Senior Member
Last edited:
flonicky
Senior Member
GameOnBrad
Active Member
They do have a notice up on the site as well. I always look for these on my walks and sparks my curiosity to check the location on UT 
