Ramako
Moderator
The OP makes no comment on such matters. It's not that kind of document. I mention 'towers-in-the-park' by way of comparing how much open space they allowed for. Whereas the current penchant for 'Tall Buildings' is swallowing-up open space and abusing the public realm, sometimes as offensively as the NEON. I see the direct link between open space and quality of life. Do you agree? How important is open space for you? Regardless of the magnitude or extent of intensification there must be a good and comprehensive public realm outcome. That didn't happen with the NEON. It was as if the planners had gone blind! It will be a great example of bad planning for a very long time.
I know it doesn't. I was just being facetious. Of course, this document is the relevant one (and please note the first graphic on the top of page 9).
On the question of "open space", I agree and I disagree. While I think that open space, in the form of parks, public squares and wide sidewalks are incredibly important to ensuring a healthy public realm, I don't think that the open spaces created by towers-in-a-park contribute a positive effect because they are typically narrow strips of grass suitable for little more than dog walkers. They totally deaden the street and make the pedestrian experience a dreary, sterile and windswept one. They are the height of suburban thinking and are a totally discredited vestige of '50s and '60s planning principles. This blogger describes the 21st century's revulsion to them better than I could.
So I don't mean any offense, but if your idea of good planning with respect to the public realm is "towers in a park", then I'm not so sure you're as much of a planning heavyweight as you fancy yourself.
Last edited: