Quote:
Originally Posted by wardlow
Okay, so there would be two single-storey buildings on a 1.3 acre site instead of one. Technically this is increased density, but still not density appropriate for a downtown context.
That's saying very, very little.
No one would deny that Earls was a huge draw at a time when downtown didn't have many draws. But a low-density scattering of single-storey, single-use, pre-fab buildings (however busy they may be) is not what the downtown should be.
And anyway many Earls locations in other cities are in buildings two storeys or taller, and even the one at Polo Park is taller than what they were proposing on Main.
|
To me, a brand new building (
built right up to the property line) that attracts people at all times of day is a win for that area, particularly when it replaces dilapidated surface parking. If all of a sudden property values skyrocket in the area and there is demand for taller or "higher and better" uses, then it can be knocked down in 30 years (this shouldn't be an issue for anyone here, many who are hoping the existing building, not even 30 years old, be demolished).
Also, I don't get the pre-occupation with height over use, form, aesthetics, etc. Height is great, but why should it trump all other factors. Very, very few buildings along Osborne or Sherbrook (two of our most urban strips) are over 35 feet, and even fewer are 3 storeys or more. Same goes for the high streets in many of Canada's great urban downtowns.