Quote:
Originally Posted by jjavman
|
A couple quotes from the CBC article that I broadly agree with (
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfo...ng-1.5393689):
"Just, hotels are for visitors; they're not for people that live here, generally speaking, and I think that the Atlantic Place building itself and the parking garage were, in its incarnation, one of the biggest mistakes ever made in terms of development in the downtown."
"It's long been my view that we live in a bowl and there's a ridge right at the top of it — it always confounded me why nobody would ever look at this situation and be like, 'Oh, I'm gonna build something tall on the ridge instead of down in front of everybody else.'"
I'm curious how you'd disagree with this sentiment, or maybe see it as irrelevant or unimportant? Hotels _are_ mostly for visitors, not for locals. They do nothing for the neighbourhood they're built in.
Think of what it's like having the place next to you as a fulltime AirBnB and you get the idea.
Same goes for all of these high-rises. Why must they be built on the waterfront? Why not on "the ridge"? Downtown is _tiny_; why do we need more buildings that take up an entire block? This isn't even an old versus new debate, or progress vs heritage, it's about having a built environment that's actually enjoyable to walk around in.