Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Rod
can Vancouver please take a look at the view cones again? I think there should be a segment of downtown, say the Financial District area, that is exempt from the viewcone policy as long as the towers are architecturally significant following some school of architecture.
Other cities around the world have mountain settings and skyscrapers (even supertalls) are done tastefully so that there is a blend. To restrict downtown for the sake of being able to see the complete northshore view from City Hall is just a ridiculous restriction that is holding Vancouver back from being more of a national/world player.
Im not saying throw up a ridiculous tower like Seattle's Columbia Center (950 feet on a 400+ foot hill), but I am saying a tower like Washington Mutual and Two Union Square would do WONDERS for Vancouver's downtown in both height, office space, and skyline view. Those towers are only about ~150 feet taller than Shangri Li, that's not that much difference; particularly if located Hong Kong style (ala, on/near the waterfront) and if you consider RBC vs. Shangri La is 200 feet.
I think a couple of 800-986 foot office and/or mixed use office/residential towers TASTEFULLY done should be encouraged, and if 986 would give canada its first/only supertall.
|
surrey can build 5 200m+ in its central core, adn it doen'st change its status, because cracks will still be walking around...all i'm saying is that infrascture doen'st change a city's status unless the software changes along, which means culture...van's problem is that it lacks its own unique culture, which is still better than calgary because that one lacks culturei n general, which is still better than winnipeg because it doen'st have the infastructure, which is still better than regina, because i've never heard ppl going there,