Urban Planning

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Can anyone explain why we need a cap at 45 storeys downtown? I mean, there is no mountain view to protect. Why not just eliminate the cap, and take each proposal on a case-by-case basis?

The answer is no, nobody can explain it, because there is no logical answer to that question. Which is typical London, no logic. Let the business cases determine the heights.

[Snark]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

The answer is no, nobody can explain it, because there is no logical answer to that question. Which is typical London, no logic. Let the business cases determine the heights.

In the context of redeveloping as many hectares of the downtown as possible with the goal of eliminating as much as possible urban decay/underutilization and associated socioeconomic problems, would it be better to have one 100 story tall building that redevelops and occupies one or two hectares, or three 35 story buildings that occupy three to five hectares?

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Snark

In the context of redeveloping as many hectares of the downtown as possible with the goal of eliminating as much as possible urban decay/underutilization and associated socioeconomic problems, would it be better to have one 100 story tall building that redevelops and occupies one or two hectares, or three 35 story buildings that occupy three to five hectares?

I think letting the developer decide if what I assume would be huge costs to build that high makes sense is the way to go. Why does it have to be either or though? Your example is extreme obviously, but playing along as my point will be the same, maybe the 100 today on that one site and then a decade down the road other super talls or almost as talls on the space that otherwise would have already been taken up by those 35's. There are probably sites downtown now with 12-15 floors built in the last 30 years that might look better with 30-40s now and now the people in those buildings are leading the opposition to anything taller coming along and messing up their views.

[Cantilever]

I think they put the limits in so they don't get as many calls from constituents. Otherwise known as NIMBYs. They can just say my hands are tied by "The Plan" please stop calling me...

I think we have seen it has and will still be case-by-case in practical terms. York's 53 & 43 floor proposals are the best example so far.

[jammer139]

The small number of NIMBY's against the proposed changes should be ignored in todays city council meeting as they should be unanimously approved.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...ked-townhouses

[MolsonExport]

NIMBYs only get their way in some parts of town. Certainly not in my part of town (Hyde Park), where there have been four highrises (to date) and several medium-rises erected near the corner of Hyde Park Rd/South Carriage Road, since I bought into the neighbourhood. The view from my backyard has been transformed.

[jammer139]

City council approves the changes to the London Plan.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...omes-out-mayor

https://london.ctvnews.ca/4-storey-s...eets-1.7051040