Posted Oct 16, 2013, 12:26 AM
|
|
Give us a kiss
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: mtl
Posts: 1,250
|
|
I guess I just don't understand what the current limit - the height of mount royal - is supposed to achieve. I keep reading that it is to protect the views of the mountain, but clearly being allowed to build towers exactly as high as the mountain (and likely more of them, since you can't go higher) defeats that purpose. We're effectively incentivizing building a wall in front of the very feature we're purporting to protect.
One of the issues I have with our skyline, apart from the relatively slow rate of change, is the plateau effect of the big 5 (especially the 1000 - 1250 - CIBC trifecta to the west). The new condo developments in that area will mitigate it somewhat, but just imagine having a couple nice 250 m and one 300 m somewhere around there too - it would give a much more attractive crown effect. And I really don't know how a 300m tower blocks views any more than a 150m one from street level anyways.
Of course allowing this would require a cool-headed debate and actual reflection from our politicians and the population at large, therefore it will not happen - not in a world where our next chief politician is likely to be made of about 60% populism and 50% opportunism, with the remaining 40% being a general mix of personal ambition and corruptibility (he's a large guy, he gets 150%), and the population voting him in seem to be doing so on the basis of "i've heard of this guy". you can bet the "tall buildings will ruin our views" platitude will have more impact on this demographic than any argumentation based on facts and (god forbid) figures.
/rant.
|