Comment 122723

By JasonL (registered) | Posted March 26, 2018 at 19:04:22 in reply to Comment 122722

agree on all counts..... I'd say that in our N American context, we need to take advantage of our one tiny area where we can go tall. Not that 30 storeys is tall, but you get the point. This central downtown zone is VERY small when you compare it to the entire region of Hamilton.
The lower city is 25,000 less people than it was in the 1970's. I'd suggest that Hamilton has more single family homes in it's downtown core than any other big city in the country.
And don't forget, those cities that are booming and full of pedestrians with a max height of 10/12 stories have those 10-12 storey street walls throughout their entire urban central districts. If we want to raze Westdale to Red Hill and replace all streets with 6-12 storeys, we too could achieve the same results.
But that option isn't an option.

I would have preferred a height restriction south of Young/Robinson, with relaxed heights in the immediate core. But at the end of the day, I understand what the city is trying to do. I just happen to think it's too punitive to development, business and investment.

As the urban planners have told us, good urban density and lively cities do not require high rises.

Don't forget, the two most dense cities in the US and Canada (Vancouver and NYC) are extremely lively, walkable and transit-friendly and are loaded with high-rises. When the street-level is done right, high-rises can make for an amazing urban environment to live in. Vancouver is always ranked near the top of the world's livable cities lists. Toronto has been rocketing up the charts in the last 15 years too. Based on real life experience in well-planned Western cities, I'd say high-rises offer far more good than bad.

Comment edited by JasonL on 2018-03-26 19:39:23

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds