Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian
... the overgrowth will look good eventually. You could argue the back of Park Victoria is worse except it has a sidewalk. There is event a path further down....
|
Winter will come, and the overgrowth will die.
The back of Park Victoria may be bad, but that doesn't give future developments in this city a free pass in being just as bad or marginally better. "Oh, you think Project A, B, or C is bad? You know, Scotia Square exists, right?"
The connecting path between the apartments and the seniors' facility is a nice thing, but it doesn't diminish the lousy attitude the rear takes toward the street. I like the Gladstone side with all the townhouses too... I just think the backside is weak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian
...If across the street was another set of towers with a pedestrian friendly front, it would all be perfectly fine.....
|
I don't agree - I still think it would receive a failing grade. Better developments across the street would be hampered by quite a stretch of blankness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian
....I don't expect perfection from the back of the building its the least of that side of the development's problems...
|
There may be bigger "problems, but the way the building treats the street doesn't do enough to fix those problems. I understand Gladstone shouldn't be expected to fix the evils of a full street of questionable residences and semi-industrial spaces, but I would argue that by treating the street as a back alley, the development encourages future uses consistent with a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 street - or nice wide flat back alley.
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian
...Get rid of all that 🞵🞵🞵🞵 on the other side of the street and redevelop. This whole area has so much potential.
|
I agree. Lots of potential. It's a great location for some density.