Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext
Turn it around - what is so great about taller towers? NYC is full of buildings taller than Vancouver's, most of them so banal that if you were shown a picture in isolation you wouldn't be able to identify where they were, much less what the name of the building was.
Vancouver's unique selling proposition is the mountains, there are literally a handful of cities in the world that combine an ocean setting with tall mountains. Why obscure that for private profit and make no mistake, that is what it boils down to. No developer is building with a goal of leaving some outstandingly beautiful tall building as a legacy for the ages, they're doing it to line their pockets.
|
If you have been through Asia, or South America, a city among both mountains and the Ocean is not as rare as one might think (even Seattle is pretty much in the same boat as us, yet with taller far more iconic pinnacles among the skyline)
And no, it is about more than profits. The city of van should build up as much as possible, especially around transit hubs if it wants to be a “green” leader.
Ironically arbitrarily stunting towers to retain views of the mountains from very specific nearly random points leads to further fueling housing sprawl up the sides of those very mountains.
And how are tall tower developments any different than townhouse or suburban sprawl developments when it comes to motives from the developers?
I far prefer a city of tall “bland” towers as you call them that encourages public transit use than a never ending suburban sprawl of bland.
Threaded Mode