Quote:
Originally Posted by king10
We can still pioneer innovation and technology, I dont see how that translates to "we're never going to be great because we don't build buildings as tall as possible".
There are tons of proposals and Under Construction sites downtown which will add thousands of residents to the core. It sounds like every proposal is met with complaints that it's not 50 stories just for the sake of height and nothing to do with city building. We can have a great downtown core with dozens of 12 to 30 story buildings with thousands of residents moving downtown, and businesses following. I don't understand the infatuation with height, and I don't understand what height limits have to do with curtailing the Citys vision, innovation and industry.
|
And with this we have basically come to the crux of the issue. There is the idealistic crowd where the sky is the limit to make buildings, where the success is visually based compared to other big cities, and then there are those who, as much as it might seem to be nimbyism, half the time isn't, when you consider privacy shadow and overall other disturbances such massive buildings plopped in their neighbourhood bring.
Urban planning isn't something that any average joe can do - it's why there are people who do it. There are tons of things to consider, not just the obvious ones you see on the surface. Part of my education WAS urban planning.
-----
There are many things you have to factor in - visibility-disruptance of areas, zoning, noise control, traffic, walkability.
For example, don't get me wrong, building up in the core is smart, but specifically, in the CORE, where things are all within walking distance - so that eliminates the need for cars as you don't have to drive all over the city to get what you need.
Building up in the sprawl areas doesn't make sense, because now you still need cars to travel everywhere, and this causes congestion. It's why you build highways away from the core so people from, say, toronto, don't have to drive through the downtown core to get to those outside areas. It's why the urban development basically has the highest buildings in the core and the housing and bedroom communities sprawled outside of it.
Now what you could do if you also want high rise buildings elsewhere is to have several "cores" where all the amenities people need is within those clusters, but this poses another problem, in that it causes silo communities who have no need to venture out of their little bubbles. Toronto has this problem. They aren't willing to venture out 15 mins to somewhere else in their own city nevermind say travel to see you in hamilton.. you get a "the world revolves around me" mentality when you build like that, so I still think core intensification is the way to go.
personally, I'd love to see the buildings around the gore, and along james st be the tallest, as this is without a doubt THE core area of the city. That IS the downtown.
Unfortunately visually the AGH and all those buildings and jackson forms this giant concrete jungle that acts like a giant city roadblock in continuing ones visual feeling of a downtown past that. It's too overwhelming. And thus, in my mind at least, I picture the downtown as ending where jackson starts, and moving east until the entrance to downtown hamilton. I don't feel the association much with the downtown core past say the bus stop, because those giant buildings I don't feel a connection with it. That area of the city was never meant to be built that way however - the original plans involved a lot more beauty that was later canned due to dost, so the giant concrete jungle area has been a bone of contention for at least 50 years in the minds of hamiltonians. Personally I think they should just bulldoze the whole area and consider it a failure. Keep the skyscrapers but that's about it.
Personally, I love what hamilton has done with the buildings of the past - keep the 3-5 story buildings that were old, jazz them up, and plop a giant skyscraper or condo on top, recessed back. Walking down the street you're mainly going to notice the storefront area, not the giant over all building, so that still has to be visually appealing. A building that's ALL glass, is frankly boring. But to see the old culture shining through, that's what interests me, but I don't mind having a mixture of old and new as well as totally old and totally new.
-----
Now upon saying that there are some areas that are definitely NIMBYism - like areas that already have a ton of tall apartment buildings and condo - like the television city condos area - no reason that can't be as tall as it claims.
Making every condo downtown over 30 stories however... ehhh no. If anything the buildings should be tallest near the escarpment , but staggered enough to still be able to see the overall view of the lake and surrounding escarpment area from the parks up on the escarpment, and peter down towards the lake. Toronto made the mistake of building giant condos all along their waterfront, thus obstructing its overall view as you drive into the city. They also don't have the escarpment so close to the downtown like we do where a view from it is so important.
You have to understand., there are only about 2 or 3 views FROM the escarpment where you can actually SEE the city - the rest are obstructed by the trees OF the escarpment - so preserving those views is paramount. And yes in the past buildings have been placed that partially obstructed it, but rules were different back then and it wasn't EVERYWHERE. We need a good staggering to give our skyline some definition, but not so much that it obstructs all views and forms canyons. This is why the life of a planner is so difficult - you have to take so much into account.
Now if you want to build giant skyscrapers that reach to the sky, you know where the best place to build is - and that's ON the escarpment - no obstructions no issues no nothing, except of course all the residential areas which the massive buildings would overshadow.
And we do have areas that are basically "condo parks" or "apartment parks" - seriously, I don't look at them and swell with pride and go "WOW LOOK AT ALL THOSE TALL BUILDINGS, NOW THATS WHAT A CITY SHOULD LOOK LIKE" tbh I find it a bit depressing, and the area always feels oppressive and shadow-filled. So staggering is key, and intensify shaping the core into the tallest area, like their latest phase for the city looks like.
A city should have an overall shape to its look too, visually, not just tall things peppered everywhere. Toronto understood this - it's why they built the cn tower, and everything to slowly peter away from it. That gradual spike of development look. They use the CN tower as their tallest indicator. We use the escarpment. That's never gonna change unfortunately.
Prev
Linear Mode
