Comments on: Let’s hear it for the eco-preservationist freaks http://stephenkimber.com/2009/09/lets-hear-it-for-the-eco-preservationist-freaks writer, editor & teacher Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:08:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Neal Ozano http://stephenkimber.com/2009/09/lets-hear-it-for-the-eco-preservationist-freaks/comment-page-1#comment-688 Neal Ozano Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:21:18 +0000 http://stephenkimber.com/?p=812#comment-688 Build it on the Cogswell interchange. Everyone wins. Build it on the Cogswell interchange. Everyone wins.

]]> By: Liz http://stephenkimber.com/2009/09/lets-hear-it-for-the-eco-preservationist-freaks/comment-page-1#comment-606 Liz Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:21:40 +0000 http://stephenkimber.com/?p=812#comment-606 Regardless of the protection provided by the 70's view planes legislation or the heritage provisions in HRMbyDesign, this building will hugely block the view. Who would have thought that they would try to put an 18 storey building so close to the Citadel? An 18 storey building on Granville street is another matter. If there is to be a new convention centre in that location it needs to be a low rise. They can also put it somewhere else. The legislation is not working, the proposal is ignorant of possibilities. I say, keep the view. Regardless of the protection provided by the 70′s view planes legislation or the heritage provisions in HRMbyDesign, this building will hugely block the view. Who would have thought that they would try to put an 18 storey building so close to the Citadel? An 18 storey building on Granville street is another matter. If there is to be a new convention centre in that location it needs to be a low rise. They can also put it somewhere else. The legislation is not working, the proposal is ignorant of possibilities. I say, keep the view.

]]> By: Stephen http://stephenkimber.com/2009/09/lets-hear-it-for-the-eco-preservationist-freaks/comment-page-1#comment-605 Stephen Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:44:08 +0000 http://stephenkimber.com/?p=812#comment-605 Hi Stephen, while I do not like the aesthetics of these towers, I do not think that they would have been disallowed prior to HRMbyDesign. Rather than obliterate the 10 views protected in 1974, HRMbyDesign maintains those viewplanes. These towers do not intrude into those viewplanes as far as I know. Save The View is correct, they do intrude into the view of George's Island from certain viewpoints on the Citadel, but they are careful not to say that they violate the viewplanes, because they don't. Prior to HRMbyDesign, these towers would have been designed and approved during a Development Agreement process - where the only maximum height would have been that set by the Ramparts By-law. HRMbyDesign has set a maximum height lower than this for this area. Do I think it's a good design? Not particularly. Do I think that it would have been better without HRMbyDesign? No. Hi Stephen, while I do not like the aesthetics of these towers, I do not think that they would have been disallowed prior to HRMbyDesign. Rather than obliterate the 10 views protected in 1974, HRMbyDesign maintains those viewplanes. These towers do not intrude into those viewplanes as far as I know. Save The View is correct, they do intrude into the view of George’s Island from certain viewpoints on the Citadel, but they are careful not to say that they violate the viewplanes, because they don’t. Prior to HRMbyDesign, these towers would have been designed and approved during a Development Agreement process – where the only maximum height would have been that set by the Ramparts By-law. HRMbyDesign has set a maximum height lower than this for this area.

Do I think it’s a good design? Not particularly. Do I think that it would have been better without HRMbyDesign? No.

]]>