Not a bad start on the NIMBY bingo card from the CA spokesperson:
"In terms of information, there's a lot that we're interested in from CNIB's perspective about this level of density. There's information [we need] from the city on the infrastructure, the safety, the impacts on, say, Tom Campbell's Hill, where there's a view."
Click to expand...

Good points raised -- the city loves to frequently approve unsafe buildings if only the CA wasn't on the case. Building code building shmode, the city says. And, yes the impact on Tom Campbell's Hill; building a tall building here could reduce the view of... the tall buildings a little farther away. The nerve of these selfish jerks possibly compromising a view -- that's one thing that everybody in the community can enjoy!
 
Last edited:
If you zoom in on a picture from the applicant outreach summary you can see a massing diagram for the site:
1709314811737.png
 
ByeByeBaby said:
Not a bad start on the NIMBY bingo card from the CA spokesperson:


Good points raised -- the city loves to frequently approve unsafe buildings if only the CA wasn't on the case. Building code building shmode, the city says. And, yes the impact on Tom Campbell's Hill; building a tall building here could reduce the view of... the tall buildings a little farther away. The nerve of these selfish jerks possibly compromising a view -- that's one thing that everybody in the community can enjoy!
Click to expand...
The absolute dumbest, I guess Ramsay should have been protesting all the towers going up in Victoria Park. Completely ruined the skyline view from the hill there...
 
ByeByeBaby said:
Not a bad start on the NIMBY bingo card from the CA spokesperson:


Good points raised -- the city loves to frequently approve unsafe buildings if only the CA wasn't on the case. Building code building shmode, the city says. And, yes the impact on Tom Campbell's Hill; building a tall building here could reduce the view of... the tall buildings a little farther away. The nerve of these selfish jerks possibly compromising a view -- that's one thing that everybody in the community can enjoy!
Click to expand...
How friggin annoying. With all the pressure to get new hosing in the city, hopefully the city doesn’t pay much attention to these people.
27 story towers, perfectly fine and that location.
 
You guys are rough with no design yet. 27 storeys will stand out. It could end up a cheap spandrel tower like the one in Edmonton. The cheapness will become the focal point the more you look at it.

I like to think the safety concern wasn't over building codes but, all the blind people that will be living here and crossing streets. It's funnier to me.
 
Last edited:
There are potentially many reasons to hate this development... we're just saying that "blocking our view from the hill" is not a particularly great one at this point.

But you're right, it's a fairly prominent location, so it better not be ugly. Although I look forward to all the various blindness themed puns if that's the case.
 
Hopefully it will be more distinct...Sunalta Heights is ok filler, but it's pretty forgettable design wise. At this height, this tower will act as a bit of a gateway project to Bridgeland and the inner city in general.
 
Having my views from my windows altered by new development would be upsetting. Some people would be more upset. People get very possessive and silly when angered. Their ire not going to affect sound city building.
 
maestro said:
You guys are rough with no design yet. 27 storeys will stand out. It could end up a cheap spandrel tower like the one in Edmonton. The cheapness will become the focal point the more you look at it.

I like to think the safety concern wasn't over building codes but, all the blind people that will be living here and crossing streets. It's funnier to me.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t care less if it was a cheap spandrel tower, their reasons for opposition aren’t valid in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top