Quote:
Originally Posted by jslath
I will counter by saying: why does Halifax need a skyscaper to put it on the world map? Quebec City has Old Quebec and Chateau Frontenac; Montreal has Habitat, Old Montreal, and Mount Royal; Ottawa has the Rideau Canal and Parliament; Paris has the Louvre; Toronto has the ROM.
Well I'm not opposed to a signature building, I question the preoccupation on height. I wonder what Freud would say about that?
|
This. Tall buildings aren't a prerequisite for density, nor do they put cities on any hypothetical map, unless they're exceptionally, record-settingly tall--which Halifax won't get anyway.
Toronto, Calgary, Seattle, etc. would have all the same benefits and drawbacks without their respective towers. And there's a long list of cities without tall, iconic structures. In Canada, Ottawa, Montreal, and Vancouver all come to mind, if you disregard the Peace Tower. (And Halifax already has taller buildings than that.)
Again, I'm pro skyscraper. I just think that the height fixation in Halifax works both ways: While the older, established Heritage Trust-ish crowd are fixated on height to a bizarre extent (to the point that they're ignoring more substantive heritage issues that would be more worth their time), the built-it-baby-no-questions-asked crowd is fixated on height as a panacea for urban problems. But tall buildings won't make
or break the city. There are lots of great high-rise cities, and crappy high-rise ones, and lots of great low-rise cities, and crappy ones.