Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5
There are potentially a million view cones in the city, with the vast majority of them being far nicer than the ones at south False Creek, or the very limited view from the Granville St. Bridge.
If intruding on a view cone affords us the opportunity to add much needed rental stock, or more social housing for the working poor, I'd say that's a good trade-off.
By allowing the Capitol Residences to rise to 42 floors, the city gained a 20 million dollar expansion of the Orpheum Theatre.
If allowing developers to build 450' towers in the DTES means, because of density bonuses, new, safe housing for addicts and other hard to house, then I say go for it. Couple that with the much needed density that is needed to rehabilitate the area.
A few view cones seem trivial compared to other issues facing the city.
|
I totally disagree. As delboy pionts out, views like the one from the Garnville Street bridge are "wow" moments that impress not just locals, but tourists who provide a lot of the city's economic activity.
And there are 101 different mechanisms the city could have created to gain expansion of the Orpheum.
I'm not sure why we'd try high rise low income housing in the DTES, when that method of social housing has spectacularly failed in "projects" across North America. Mid-rise has proven to work, and even better would be to build stock outside the toxic environment of the DTES.
Demolishing view cones for "much needed rental stock" sounds nice, but in reality we all know it would just go for more high-priced condos.
Taking your argument to the extreme, why not just build on Stanley Park to provide much needed rental stock and social housing? After all, Vision's STIR program is halfway there already, shortchanging amenities and future livability to calm the rental stock chicken littles.
Threaded Mode