Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjimbc
Having lived in an absolutely wonderful city with incredible neighborhoods and street-life (DC), in which no building was taller than about 14 floors due to extreme height restrictions, I always find this talk about skyscraper heights to seem rather "phallic"  . I think some of the streetscapes here are quite nice, but they pale in comparison to the scale of buildings and quality of the sidewalks and street fronts and facades there. And I am NOT talking about the federal buildings downtown. The neighborhoods outside the federal area are amazing . . . great scale of people to buildings, outdoor cafes, great attention to the building facades (due in part to the lower buildings), a much broader city of neighborhood hubs. Paris is the only city I've seen that does it better, and not in all aspects.
If you think having a parade of monoliths makes a city livable or more impressive, you should really rethink your ideas of cities and visit a few more (i.e. not just hong kong or others on the Pacific rim). Vancouver does not have the street widths - or land area downtown - to be another New York or Chicago. It would become a monolith of shadows with the narrow streets that dominate most of downtown. You might get a postcard or two out of the deal, but it could easily destroy the very ambiance that makes downtown Vancouver special.
Review the view cones, certainly, but what I always read in discussions here sounds more like angry vitriol calls to abolish them all together, which would just be pathetically dumb. The city would suffer if that were to happen. |
agree, Washington is a very good example of how nice can be a city with no skyscrapper.
That says, it is a very expensive city, so the buildings can be nice too
Also beside Georgetown, I didn't see "incredible" street life, and even there nothing impressive, and rest of the city looked too me pretty dead after 5pm, so curious to know which neighborhood you refers (anyway, it was still pretty good by American standard)
bottom line you mention 2 cities which have among the most stringent urban restriction, and see how architect have worked out well with it, and resort to do great thing, the restriction helping to give some coherence to the whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hed Kandi
Singapore, with its imposed 750ft height cap, serves as a better example of a model city for Vancouver. Its skyscrapers are not overbearing; cast very few shadows; do not deter from street ambiance; and still provide for a remarkable looking skyline.
|
At least the Washington DC example can still apply to Richmond