11-27-2017, 11:43 AM
Clearly, they do not know quite how to handle the ideas of Heritage:
-Complement adjacent built form through compatible height, scale, massing, and materials (be like the existing heritage)
-Sensitive transition to surrounding urban contexts, accounting for both the existing context and the planned vision for an area (be like the existing heritage, yet somehow heritage can have a planned future vision which is both the same as what has been, and yet not)
-Implement design cues (materials, architectural features, colours, rhythms) from good surrounding built form. (be like the existing heritage)
-Tall buildings should not interrupt or impose upon an existing or planned neighbourhood character or the public realm. (be like the existing heritage)
-Tall buildings should be contemporary and not replicate existing or historical architectural styles. (DO NOT be like the existing heritage)
and it goes on like this, pages of how to be like existing buildings, even when the forms the TBUDG is telling adjacent buildings to replicate are *terrible* (e.g. Kaufman has one of the worst pedestrian and streetfront presences in the city, somehow even worse than structured parking lots; this is not something we should replicate).
They even have both the point that TBUDG does not restrict abrupt changes in height explicitly mentioned, and then also guidelines for how sites which force abrupt changes in height should not be deemed appropriate for tall buildings. This feels a lot like a chicken-in-every-pot guideline which can be used to justify or cancel any project.
-Complement adjacent built form through compatible height, scale, massing, and materials (be like the existing heritage)
-Sensitive transition to surrounding urban contexts, accounting for both the existing context and the planned vision for an area (be like the existing heritage, yet somehow heritage can have a planned future vision which is both the same as what has been, and yet not)
-Implement design cues (materials, architectural features, colours, rhythms) from good surrounding built form. (be like the existing heritage)
-Tall buildings should not interrupt or impose upon an existing or planned neighbourhood character or the public realm. (be like the existing heritage)
-Tall buildings should be contemporary and not replicate existing or historical architectural styles. (DO NOT be like the existing heritage)
and it goes on like this, pages of how to be like existing buildings, even when the forms the TBUDG is telling adjacent buildings to replicate are *terrible* (e.g. Kaufman has one of the worst pedestrian and streetfront presences in the city, somehow even worse than structured parking lots; this is not something we should replicate).
They even have both the point that TBUDG does not restrict abrupt changes in height explicitly mentioned, and then also guidelines for how sites which force abrupt changes in height should not be deemed appropriate for tall buildings. This feels a lot like a chicken-in-every-pot guideline which can be used to justify or cancel any project.