Comment 122669

By Locke (registered) | Posted March 21, 2018 at 09:40:15 in reply to Comment 122653

Jason, in the link you provide with examples of "skyscrapers" in Vancouver, you'll note: * The majority of these 64, completed, under construction, planned and unbuilt (vision or cancelled) towers are less than 40 storeys * Of the 14 completed towers 40-storeys or taller, only one was built before 2009 when the height restrictions were increased.

Vancouver used to have lower limits (and still has limits that protect certain views, such as the approach to city hall). Developers in Vancouver complain that city restricts too many buildings to 300ft (90m) when they should be 150m (500ft). The city still have quite restrictive limits and have specifically, pre-emptively, created locations for 5 exemptions when Brent Toderian was chief planner. But as Toderian notes, the height exception would likely fall far short of even 700 feet tall.

The expectation is that there will be buildings which exceed the height limit in Vancouver. I'd expect in time Hamilton would follow a similar path, allow occasional height exceptions and eventually raise the height limit again.

The reality is, no matter what limit you put in place, developers always want to push higher. If they want to go higher, the onus is really on them to prove why they should be exempted.

To understand where I get my understanding of 30ish-storey limits in Vancouver, please see the article, supplied earlier by RobF for a sense of how height is worked with there. https://biv.com/article/2016/01/vancouve...

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds