ProjectEnd
Superstar
Have we not read this exact post on the previous page? C'mon, sunnyray, there's really nothing new here: too high, too dense, too near other structures, incorrect land use yada yada yada...
I'm guessing that 100m height limit was enacted over 15 years ago when the original buildings were being planned. Many moons have passed and many stories constructed since then. I'm not sure of any exact numbers but does anyone have a rough estimate of how many new buildings around or over 100m were constructed in that same period? We live in a different city, a larger city, a denser city. I'm not going to chide you with flip remarks about where you 'should live,' but sunnyray, since your initial objection, you seem to have run out of material.
I do hope Hullmark gets built at 164m and if possible, Emerald Park as well (maybe nudging 200?!). To object to these developments so vehemently yet with so little evidence and so weak an argument seems a little absurd if you ask me. Furthermore, if moderators are having to step in to edit your posts, I'd either tone it down or seek greener pastures.
I'm guessing that 100m height limit was enacted over 15 years ago when the original buildings were being planned. Many moons have passed and many stories constructed since then. I'm not sure of any exact numbers but does anyone have a rough estimate of how many new buildings around or over 100m were constructed in that same period? We live in a different city, a larger city, a denser city. I'm not going to chide you with flip remarks about where you 'should live,' but sunnyray, since your initial objection, you seem to have run out of material.
I do hope Hullmark gets built at 164m and if possible, Emerald Park as well (maybe nudging 200?!). To object to these developments so vehemently yet with so little evidence and so weak an argument seems a little absurd if you ask me. Furthermore, if moderators are having to step in to edit your posts, I'd either tone it down or seek greener pastures.