8 replies to this topic

[Scaper]

I will tell you what's behind this tree....it's directly on this property behind this tree......hmmmmm???

Well O.K. it's Regent Park's 17 story tower. What you can't see it??? That's because a City tree blocks it out completely a hundred feet away.

The tower on the left side just poking through is the ten story tower....the taller of the two can't even be seen.





Here is another example....@ the CIBC Building Looking directly up in the air at the ground floor of the City's tallest office buildings....What all you see is blue sky???

Huh....interesting!!!

[Holden West]

But if you're coming down Yates past Fernwood the Regent's Park tower blocks a significant portion of the views to the Sooke Hills. If the tower were skinnier the view would be much improved.

[Ben Smith]

Your facing the wrong way in the CIBC picture!

Face south Douglas and you may see the very corner of Sussex if your lucky!!!

And you'll spot Orchard House...barf..

Ben

[Mike K.]

I guess the point is that these highrises aren't staring down the populace as it walks the streets.

Well, where's that 50m CIBC building from street level? Where's the 17-storey Regents Park? Could they, perhaps, be less prominent to folks walking along sidewalks then some members of our community associations and media articles may want us to believe?

[stargazer]

But if you're coming down Yates past Fernwood the Regent's Park tower blocks a significant portion of the views to the Sooke Hills. If the tower were skinnier the view would be much improved.

But shouldn't you be paying attention to the road??? :-D

[Scaper]

I am writing this from my hospital bed because he didn't. :cry:

[Doc Sage]

^^^^Hope everything is getting better.

I see what you are saying. If a tall buiding's upper floors are set back from it's actual foot print, it's impact is lessened to a viewer on the sidewalk. No tunnel effect. Good point.

Thank you,
Doc Sage

[aastra]

Apparently Kelowna has approved a new tallest for that city. Some interesting quotes from the article:

The tower will be the tallest building the city has ever seen, and marks a sharp departure—though not unprecedented—from the 16-storey height maximum set by City of Kelowna zoning.

Several other buildings...all exceed the height set by city zoning, a height characterized by city staff as a guideline not a scientifically defined max-point.

“Most of those heights were kind of boiler-point heights…It wasn’t scientific, it wasn’t based on streetscape…there’s not hard and fast rule,” said city manager Ron Mattuissi.

“When those heights were put in place Kelowna was a very different place.”

Interesting how a small city like Kelowna -- with its very small, very lowrise downtown -- settled on a 16-story height restriction.

I think we can all agree that height restrictions are not "scientifically defined". In Victoria's case, a height restriction was imposed that was well lower than numerous extant buildings. In Kelowna's case, a height restriction higher than Victoria's restriction was deemed appropriate for a flat and rather suburban downtown that contained only a couple of significant buildings.

I'm not a height junkie, I just find it rather ridiculous when people claim that short, stocky buildings are the holy grail of urban design. If that was true, then small cities like Nanaimo or Kelowna are throwing their glorious lowrise futures away as we speak. Hello highrises, goodbye tourism bonanza. Are they crazy?

Or perhaps it's not quite as simple as all that.

[Ben Smith]

Just cause you have higher buildings doesn't mean tourists dissappear!

Thats ludacris.

The tourists come here because, since they only go to the Empress + Government Street, they are under the totally bizzare impression that Victoria is a British town. I'm sure if you asked them what country they were in when they came here, they would say Great Britain!
Foolish really.

Government street has an English accent, but go a block up and Douglas suddenly looks very, very North American.

Ben