The Skyline discussion thread; Calgary, US, World; I ain't even care, just discuss

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

If we were to have it here, it could lose the massive podium.

(Except maybe for our stupid FAR laws... damn it FAR 20, I want FAR 50!)

Yeah, the YWCA site is available for redevelopment, and the base FAR is 4.0. For downtown real estate in the newly developing east village.

I know you can go 12 with bonuses, but even that, imo, is complete BS.

Why do we need a maximum floor area ratio downtown? Let the height be ruled by the shadowing rules, and otherwise let the market pick the heights. Guaranteed extra awesome.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Yeah, the YWCA site is available for redevelopment, and the base FAR is 4.0. For downtown real estate in the newly developing east village.

I know you can go 12 with bonuses, but even that, imo, is complete BS.

Why do we need a maximum floor area ratio downtown? Let the height be ruled by the shadowing rules, and otherwise let the market pick the heights. Guaranteed extra awesome.

I actually want minimum FAR and floorplate restrictions. Bonuses would go towards floorplate.

(I don't know if that would actually work. People, feel free to edumacate me.)

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

I actually want minimum FAR and floorplate restrictions. Bonuses would go towards floorplate.

(I don't know if that would actually work. People, feel free to edumacate me.)

I can't see why it wouldn't. Some of the residential districts have a minimum density attached to them. (A certain number of units per hectare is required)

Problems can arise with that sort of thing. As an example, I looked at a lot which was one of the high density residential zoning types that has a minimum density, but the lot wasn't very big. Once you added up all the setbacks, the floorplate of the building you could build wasn't large. To get the required number of units, it would have been very tall and skinny. In fact, it would have been taller than the maximum allowable height. So there was no legal building that could be built on that site under current zoning.

So, when done well there isn't a reason why a minimum FAR could be in place, but it adds complexity to the process.

[Scrambler]

Couple from my current home town of Fukuoka in Southern Japan. Certainly lacks the big buildings that are in Osaka, Nagoya and Tokyo. The downtown Tenjin area has 100's of buildings all about the same height. Fukuoka Tower is the only one that really sticks out.

[Table 5]

I bet you wouldn't find one piece of trash in that first shot. Looks so clean...I love that about Japan.

[Scrambler]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I bet you wouldn't find one piece of trash in that first shot. Looks so clean...I love that about Japan.

No trash/litter and very little homelessness and crime. There are several things I love about this country and that is certainly one of them.

[Brannigans Law]

could you have found a crappy picture to use? jesus lol.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I actually want minimum FAR and floorplate restrictions. Bonuses would go towards floorplate.

After thinking about it more, I would probably would probably divide my process into short-term developments and long-term developments. Short-term would have a maximum FAR that is below the minimum FAR for long term - this means you can take a parking lot to standalone restaurant or whatever that can still easily be redeveloped, but not into a lowrise/midrise that will underutilize land for 50 years.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Scrambler

Nice shots! Feel free to cross-post them to the Never Ending Photo Thread!

[DownhillGoat]

Absolutely fell in love with Chicago's skyline. I'd say I actually prefer it to NY. The blend of modern and vintage along Michigan Ave was nothing short of breathtaking.

These might not follow flameswin's photo posting guidelines, but here's some building/skyline(ish) pics. They're a little rough, haven't touched any up yet.

Spoiler!