Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
I think many of SLC's towers are too wide, and are a reflection of the wide blocks, and lack of restrictive zoning. This tower and others(American Stores/Wells Fargo), could definitely be or could have been much taller. In Seattle, the zoning code limits widths of towers, and also limits the location proximate to other buildings in order to maximize light and space in between towers. They have been trying to follow Vancouver's zoning guidelines. If any of you are familiar with Vancouver, there are a lot of skinny glass condo towers that are located and designed to allow for more light and air in between them. Zoning heights in Seattle, however, are strictly followed.
In SLC, to only require Design Review if you exceed the height limit is very lax. For almost any building proposed in Seattle, it is required to go through a Design Review and also Early Design Guidance, and often times they will require you to revise and come back multiple times.
|
I strongly support width restrictions for towers. I’m interested how those restrictions are worded in Vancouver’s zoning. I love Vancouver’s look—more than any western city in the US.
I also support design reviews for buildings with a large footprint in general, like a lot of the monstrous apartment buildings going up. The new Milagro Apartments are downtown and occupy a huge footprint but never went through a design review and they ended up being very ugly. They are extremely imposing.