Rize opponents criticize the height of the Mount Pleasant project, as seen in this City of Vancouver virtual model superimposed over the shorter original from Rize.
Photograph by: submitted photo , for Vancouver Courier
To the editor:
Re: "City's Rize amendment lipstick on a pig?" April 20.
What a poorly researched, prepared and delivered article on the Rize deal by Mr. Garr. Dismiss the strongest opposition as a result of "social media" whereas I suppose the regular news media takes a truer line.
Lipstick on a pig hardly touches the degree to which this project fails the community and the city's long-term neighbourhood and sustainability goals. This is not a question of whether Rize is a hideous structure, which Reimer is right it is, but that it fails on so many levels from community consultation to fundamentals established by the community plan.
My sense is Garr hasn't read the plan, digested the critical discussion of what "density" means nor even started with a primer of the "Overarching Principals" that are to be used in future directions of the neighbourhood; may I suggest section 3.4 of the plan to begin.
Longtime artists, residents and professionals from all urban design and architectural fields rejected this project. From Brent Toderian to Jim Leyto and even the AIBC, they see the podium tower as unsuitable, especially in historic districts such as Mount Pleasant. There are so many ways to add density as speaker after speaker explained without the damage that this project will inflict. Yet time and time again we hear that in order to achieve density towers are necessary.
Robert Sutherland, Vancouver
...
