NeilV
Active Member
It appears that the height reduction was largely due to shadowing on the park.So what’s people’s problem with height at this location?
It appears that the height reduction was largely due to shadowing on the park.So what’s people’s problem with height at this location?
what park?...the visionary park that has yet to be built?It appears that the height reduction was largely due to shadowing on the park.
they r definitely going to cut down chelsea green.
Yes, that park. I'm pretty sure Chelsea will shadow it, but they've designed 8 Elm to avoid any additional shadows.what park?...the visionary park that has yet to be built?
Is tall.So what’s people’s problem with height at this location?
Ugh tall?... a tall building surrounded by taller buildings is more suitable than a tall bldg. among short buildingsIs tall.
Despite having only elevations (one with a bit of colour), I thinkin' this might be rather good indeed despite haircut. Materials will decide of course but there's some strong hints that the exterior form (sculpting etc.) could yield a very pleasing tower.
For the record, 215m is far from shortA few key metrics from the meeting:
View attachment 185119
It's interesting that the FSI was not significantly reduced when going from 84 to 67 stories (31.4 vs 30.2), which further confirms that shadowing was the main factor. Once again the shadows have turned a tall and slender building into a short and fat one.