Quote:
Originally Posted by c_speed3108
I am going to have to go with AylmerOptimist on this one. That location is certainly a very good spot to go high. It is already a tall neighbourhood so there is no issues of towering over houses and things. Plus it is right on the Transitway as well as future LRT etc....
|
I agree with you here. This is a good spot to go high and it's sufficiently out of the way from the direct sight lines to Parliament Hill to avoid a major debate with the NCC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by c_speed3108
That is a site that should go to about 25 floors at a minimum. It might even be cool to build the same size building just taller. This way a bit of space can be left around it. Sort like over at phase I with the fountain and such. We allow buildings to be constructed way too close to the street downtown and it ends up costing the city a small fortune in snow removal costs. Back them up from the street and leave so room. It also makes cool urban areas for outdoor patios and things in the summertime.
|
Here, I want to nuance something you're saying. Yes, it's great to have spaces for outdoor patios and yes, in all cases it's better to have wider sidewalks downtown. But to set back buildings for the sake of snow removal is a solution looking for a problem. In denser cities you can readily observe that the less "blacktop surface" there is, the less snow they need to remove. Wider streets, more snow. Narrower streets, less snow. It piles up higher but there is less of it, because more of it falls on rooftops.
In other words, if we plan setbacks for the sake of piling snowbanks, those setbacks will be covered in snow themselves and you'll end up with even taller snowbanks between the sidewalk and the building.