Quote:
Originally Posted by davidcappi
|
From the story:
"Ward 2 councillor Jason Farr says without a rezoning application, it's still early days in the plan, despite Lamb's "very good job of promoting and marketing" with "a lot of flash, pizzazz and media attention."
It's why Farr is reserving his opinion until the proposal goes through the planning process.
But he points out the city policy doesn't allow lower city high-rises to be built higher than the top of the escarpment; Lamb is starting off with a higher ground elevation than most."
Seems the part I've bolded is not official policy yet, based on what I can find (if anyone else knows better, please point the way). This is from the
Downtown Hamilton Tall Buildings Study (May 2017 draft), regarding objectives for the "Tall Building Guidelines" on p.48:
Based on the consultative process, to confirm that there is strong identification with the Niagara Escarpment as a primary topographical and natural asset; therefore, to establish that new tall building’s should be no greater in height than the Escarpment
I don't think anyone wants to see a wall of 50-60-70 storey towers interrupting the view from Sam Lawrence park to the harbour and vice versa, but certainly there should be room for variances on a case by case basis where taller towers may be allowed. A no-taller-than-escarpment policy might even result in the same kind of wall effect eventually anyway, from certain popular angles. Isn't an aesthetically pleasing skyline worth considering in all this as well?