Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Sums up the whole thread.
"In hindsight, NIMBY histrionics are unjustified. In foresight too!"
The only exception I might grant is the Sheldon Chumir supervised consumption site. That one seems like it might have been a bit of a disaster.
Personally I think The Bow sucks specifically because it unbalances the skyline, but I don't recall anyone advancing that argument, nor do I think that would've been grounds to oppose the project. And I like the height and density, I just wish is was distributed better across downtown. Like if Oxford was our tallest and the East Village more substantial, the Skyline wouldn't have so much of a cliff at the East end.
|
Hindsight is always an interesting POV when it comes to urban design. Definitely fun to take a look back into the design time machine. Did you ever see the original vision for the Bow Tower? Take a look at this early vision of the project below from Fosters + Partners; a good example of how designs, particularly of high profile projects, usually always go through different design iterations and critical feedback before the final vision is executed:
Another example: the original vision for the selected 2009 Studio Bell concept too, which was public at the time but ended up quite different from the architect's original vision:
As for NIMBYism, I've always had a chuckle at it when it relates to urban, high density areas. You live in an urban centre, where change and development is virtually guaranteed as a city grows. It's been happening for decades, if not generations, and will continue to happen as population changes, technology develops, economies ebb and flow, and society evolves. Perhaps the country or far-out suburbia would be a less stressful and more blissful experience for the NIMBYer.