Quote:
Originally Posted by SFUVancouver
Moreover, were the site to have been able to absorb more height than what is proposed, that would still not have been a guarantee that the developer would have pursued the additional height.
As has been belaboured time and again, there are numerous considerations to determining the height, size, architectural expression, and market positioning and development timing of a building. The maximum entitled density and height of a site may not correspond with the level of risk the builder is prepared to take on for the project, let alone their financial resources or the shock tolerance of their proforma, and they have to make these decisions decision 5-7, sometimes as much as 10 years out.
|
Obviously. All of that was acknowledged (in a less laborious way) in the second to last sentence of my post.
But I disagree with your aesthetic evaluation. Neither Carmana Plaza nor the vastly taller Shangri-La across the street feel unwelcome on that part of Robson Street. The current building will be virtually identical in height to Carmana Plaza, thus succeeding only in creating an uninteresting tabletop effect with its immediate neighbour, something we already have too much of in Vancouver. The addition of seven or eight more floors, by contrast, would not only create a more varied and dynamic urban landscape, but also provide a gentle stepping stone between Carmana Plaza and the vastly taller Shangri-La, softening the giant difference in height between the two.
Carmana Plaza already plays a transitioning role between Robson Street and Georgia Street. What is needed is a building which plays a transitioning role between Carmana Plaza and the vastly taller Shangri-La.
Prev
May I second (or third) that? I think if it were really tall it would seem "out of sync" and would overpower Alberni Street, which is supposed to be (I'm told) the "Rodeo Drive" of Vancouver.
Linear Mode
