Comment 122592

By RobF (registered) | Posted March 19, 2018 at 13:48:12

This is just bizarre reasoning. The surrounding local context is that of a mixed urban neighbourhood that already has a lot of tall buildings.

Not really. Good planning requires fitting into a context and not overdeveloping/over-intensifying a parcel. Our City Planners should push back against this on those grounds.

Mr. Lamb is within his rights to appeal (like anyone else).

I think it is at best a toss-up whether he would win his appeal. He's asking for two towers on a superblock with two existing towers. If the city wants to defend rejecting the proposal it'll have plenty of ways to do so starting with minimum tower separation ... the proposal, like a few others, was submitted by the developer knowing it won't conform to the Tall Buildings design guidelines/policies in the new DTSP.

We need to get past the idea that intensification or good planning means as tall or large as a developer wants on the land they own. The staff report should not be read as saying no to a tall building on this site. It is saying this is too much. Come back with a more reasonable proposal.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds