Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
It's not a skyscraper, it's 60 metres. It will be a bit out of place, for now, but so what? It negatively impacts nothing.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
I really don't. Again, it isn't a skyscraper, but to be honest I do agree it will be out of place - however the developer could well have thrown in a proposal for 20 floors expecting to compromise on a lower number.
No, I don't live there but I am familiar with the area. Is it just the height you are opposed to?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by X_ting_on
Or the pro side just couldn’t come up with a decent argument (or any argument really) of why we shouldn’t be against it.
I think I speak for those opposed as saying we were against a 20 floor tower, that’s what this has always been about. Nobody could give a good reason why we shouldn’t, and instead kept on about us being nimbys, and continued on pushing that there is a BRT station nearby as the rational behind having the tower. And that’s it, no real argumentvyo speak of, and that’s why the pro camp went silent.
|
As you can see from a couple of my early quotes, I never said that this was a perfect proposal and most people agreed a shorter, more thought out proposal would be better for the area. This isn't because a tall building would be bad, per se, just that while there is nothing in the area it would probably be a more effective way to build up the area.
What annoyed me was your complete lack of rationality in regards to height. There is literally nothing about the proposal that would negatively impact anyone that would be different than if the proposal was 6 floors. Nothing. You even admitted that the shadowing would effect no one. Yet when asked what real reason you had to oppose the height, you claimed my question wasn't worth a response. You also accused anyone who showed any support for a taller building as hypocritical as you assumed we wouldn't support a similar building in our own neighbourhoods - but this is not the case.
Threaded Mode