ByeByeBaby said:
The thing that gets me is the appellant introduced a 'tall tower separation' 'best practice' of 18 to 24 metres from guides in Toronto and Ottawa, apparently we don't have a guideline. However, every nearby pair of tall towers in Mission that doesn't involve a street? 12 metre separation.
Click to expand...
Those 12 metre separations were done way before tower separation was considered best practice in urban design. Even 10 years ago when I was working in Calgary City Hall, tower separation was a consideration for City Hall urban designers in the Beltline and Downtown. The 18-24 metre best practice is widely used in Vancouver and Victoria as well. It's a standard in big cities.
 
The irony in all this is Toronto and Ottawa are almost certainly the worst big cities in Canada in terms of allowing towers to be so close to one another that you could practically high five one another...so whatever guidelines they have there, they don't seem to apply them.

1774548735764.png
1774548844352.png
 
I won't be surprised if the developer tweaks it and comes back. They'll slim the building profile and add another floor or two?
 
I'd argue that tower separation should be much less of a thing at 15 storeys, which I consider midrise as opposed to highrise. There is no comparison to the Stampede Station situation, or those big towers in TO and Ottawa I posted the pictures of. In this case, SDAB got it wrong IMO.

I heard a theory that the appellant wants to put the developer into a situation where they will need to buy her property in order to build anything economical.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top