Last edited by ahmad.m.atiya; 2011-Feb-14 at 00:00.
Why bother hiding sewage so far underground then? Being offended by foul odours is a purely aesthetic issue. Deal with it.
^ 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?
Last edited by golodhendil; 2011-Feb-14 at 17:41.
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.
Last edited by junctionist; 2011-Feb-14 at 22:53.
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!
What has this thread turned into? A discussion about sewage? WTF?
Of the 3 biggies going up right now, i wonder if the L-Tower will top off before Ice and Aura.