L Tower + Sony Centre (Castlepoint/Fernbrook/Cityzen, 58s, Libeskind/P+S)

[ahmad.m.atiya]

Believe it or not, some *would*--or at least, they wouldn't go all as if it were the 1890s rather than the 1990s we're talking about. Of course, judging from your posts in the 1 Sultan thread, you're not much of an "urban sensitivity" type in the first place...

I believe in urban development fuelled by demand and moderated by objective issues, such as the environment, infrastructure, etc. Im afraid that vistas can't be classified as an objective issue. In this case, for example, I would argue that the addition of Backstage might actually make for a better vista when viewing certain parts of the waterfront from the East.

[Tewder]

I believe in urban development fuelled by demand and moderated by objective issues, such as the environment, infrastructure, etc. Im afraid that vistas can't be classified as an objective issue.

Why not?

[MLiPreti]

Why not?

I think it's pretty clear why this isn't an objective issue. It's solely aesthetic based and implied importance.

[ahmad.m.atiya]

Why not?

An objective issue would not be influenced by opinions. Infrastructure, for example, is objective. I would consider lack of infrastructure a good reason to deny development rights in a certain area. The same can't be said for "vistas."

I think it's pretty clear why this isn't an objective issue. It's solely aesthetic based and implied importance.

Precisely.

[BobBob]

Why bother hiding sewage so far underground then? Being offended by foul odours is a purely aesthetic issue. Deal with it.

[golodhendil]

^ I would hope that, by the 21st century, most people realize there's more to sewage than just the odour.

On the other hand, what if our reactions to vistas could be more-or-less precisely quantitated or correlated with certain "desirable" brain states? Do vistas then become an objective issue that needs to be considered?

[Tewder]

I believe in urban development fuelled by demand and moderated by objective issues, such as the environment, infrastructure, etc. Im afraid that vistas can't be classified as an objective issue.

An objective issue would not be influenced by opinions. Infrastructure, for example, is objective. I would consider lack of infrastructure a good reason to deny development rights in a certain area. The same can't be said for "vistas."

There are all kinds of other considerations that may take precedence over development 'rights'. What of heritage issues, urban planning mandates, and issues surrounding the urban realm, including, yes, aesthetics? The desire to plan for these things is no less 'objective' necessarily than is the desire to promote all commercial development at any cost (which I understand is not what you're advocating, but just using an extreme to explain my point).

[junctionist]

An objective issue would not be influenced by opinions. Infrastructure, for example, is objective. I would consider lack of infrastructure a good reason to deny development rights in a certain area. The same can't be said for "vistas."

Some vistas are objective. They're the product of professional planning principles. Some are clear achievements in urban planning. It can be objectively stated that they make an area unique and are remarkable by comparing them to similar areas but without any significant vistas (or, of course, vistas that were destroyed).

Of course, part of the appeal is subjective: a vista may be seen as beautiful and culturally and historically significant. Those are valid subjective reasons, and most decisions are subjective, including whether infrastructure can handle the increased strain of development. For instance, some will argue that most of the new residents of a project will take transit, while others say that the roads will be congested to a standstill. Some say the existing sewers are inadequate and hence limitations are necessary, but others would say that increased population is good and the city should take every step to accommodate it by expanding the sewers.

A city with remarkable vistas is one step closer to beautiful, and beauty pays. But if you're inclined to disagree about the subjective merits you can't deny what you see: a conscious effort being made to shape the city in a way that makes certain buildings stand out in an unusual way, high-quality building with investment in architecture. There are even objective reasons for such planning in certain cases, such as increasing visibility and/or the appeal of an area, and establishing the preeminence of an institution.

Our lives are centred around subjective decisions and so is the practice of great city-building. People put thought into the furniture they buy for their homes and how it's arranged if they're in a position to do so. People spend their lives in a city, making certain sacrifices to live in an environment with beautiful public spaces. It becomes a part of their identity, something meaningful.

But maybe you don't care about that. My belief is that that's simplistic and leads to generic cities the likes you probably wouldn't pay to visit or spend time in or care much about, but the vista is physical, it's the work of professionals, and anyone can see the objective impact it has on the street. It's not something abstract or imaginary.

[dcc008]

It's plain and simple, the city wants a tall beefy skyline (vertical density), and they're getting it.

I think the definition of what a vista actually is has in relation to the debate been lost. Are we speaking on behalf of the architectural vista of a building's exterior? Or the vista outwards from the building?

In the case of 25 The Esplanade, it's west-elevation vista was preserved with the initial building layout skewed in relation to the street. From any other angle, this building is awful, huge strain to the waterfront "vista", completing the physical barrier between city and waterfront to go along with the Gardiner S*it-spressway.

That then, answers the question. Above is my opinion of a vista, someone else may beg to differ.

Conclusion? Vistas are subjective, ranging in scenario from location to location and stylistic/architectural taste from person to person.

Now if that's how I understand the discussion, meanwhile this is about something completely different, this could be a totally subjective answer and we're spinning in circles here folks!

[adma]

It's plain and simple, the city wants a tall beefy skyline (vertical density), and they're getting it.

Technically, it's Asian-boomburg-besotten skyscraper-message-board dorks who want a tall beefy skyline (vertical density). The city's just an accessory.

[ahmad.m.atiya]

Technically, it's Asian-boomburg-besotten skyscraper-message-board dorks who want a tall beefy skyline (vertical density). The city's just an accessory.

Yes, because higher density has absolutely nothing to do with higher land values, tax revenues, and lower infrastructure costs (per capita) whatsoever

[John Revolta]

Technically, it's Asian-boomburg-besotten skyscraper-message-board dorks who want a tall beefy skyline (vertical density). The city's just an accessory.

Yeah, that's what it is in layman's terms, but how would you describe it in a pretentious way?

[khristopher]

What has this thread turned into? A discussion about sewage? WTF?

[NIL OMNI]

Technically, it's Asian-boomburg-besotten skyscraper-message-board dorks who want a tall beefy skyline (vertical density). The city's just an accessory.

Adma, are the "message-board-dorks" that you claim want vertical density really disregarding the city as an accessory? (thanks for dusting off besotten, by the way). Are these concepts of verticality and city at ground level mutually exclusive? I know that in my small enclave, they work together well.

[Automation Gallery]

Of the 3 biggies going up right now, i wonder if the L-Tower will top off before Ice and Aura.