Comment 103941

By screencarp (registered) | Posted August 14, 2014 at 10:49:12

Oh well that's better. We'll just photoshop some trees into it! You'll never see the buildings that way. Magical 30 meter high trees that appear from nowhere and all look exactly the same.

Please tell me you're not actually buying this nonsense. Look at the first two photographs. Do you see that tree line on the edge of the slope? Those trees will be cut down before they even start building. Those are the supposed trees that would block view of the building. Do those trees look as tall as the imaginary trees in the rendering? No, they're shorter than the utility pole. Do you see a line of (much) taller tree's behind those trees? No, the land slopes downward from there.

Why on earth would they care about the view, if the entire building is going to be hidden by trees? Why would they undertake an expensive and complex build to build condo's with a view of trees? They wouldn't nor would they want to hide their buildings. Walk along Stinson and look at the site. These three monoliths are going to overshadow the entire neighbourhood and dominate the entire view of the escarpment. You'll be able to see them from East to Cumberland, and they're going to spoil one of the few nice things about the Stinson neighbourhood.

That is assuming they don't take the whole plateau down during the construction. These are NOT being built on solid land, this is fill. According to the construction manager, they're digging down to the base of the escarpment, installing pylons and building the buildings on those supports. Again, it's about trust and my trust weakens with every lie and misrepresentation. I'm still stunned that the planning committee accepted "vegetation" as appropriate visual mitigation.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds