Comment 122613

By JasonL (registered) | Posted March 20, 2018 at 06:49:50 in reply to Comment 122608

I think we agree on much here, especially the part about building a critical mass first. I've not seen one proposal come through yet that would be our new tallest building. Every single development proposes to fall under our previous 'record' from 1974. We are arbitrarily setting the bar far lower than it needs to be.

And this has been discussed at length elsewhere, any building taller than 12ish stories downtown blocks the view of the harbour as seen from the escarpment, and really any building at all downtown blocks the view of the escarpment from downtown. We don't have 4,000 foot mountains. We don't have any mountains.

If any city staff had gone to Sam Lawrence Park to get a lay of the land they would realize that they are probably wise to use the escarpment height as max limit east of Wellington, but west of Wellington looking north there is no water to see. The skyline blocks the view, and the harbour is super narrow to the NW.

Finally, I think they've got the height restriction all backwards. I would see the value in it if the restrictions were for areas south of Hunter or Young. But Hunter to Wilson, Queen to Walnut/Catharine there is no reason for a height limit.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds