WHY?
Opinions are more likely to be validated when they have consistency through explanation and demonstration as opposed to without. Hence, the intent of this section is to list and explain our reasoning why we think high-rises such as The Capitol's current proposal induce more harm than good to the city. This section is a work-in-progress and as time permits, it will go more in-depth with each of the topics below. It is important to mention that this list is not exhaustive and most of these arguments relate to urban design. Other dimensions such as the social goodness of this project for the city could be open to debate.
Our arguments include:
Our arguments include:
1. The loss of a human-scaled environment
2. The negative impacts for the urban space
3. The erosion of the urban character of downtown Kingston
4. The establishment of a precedent for future high-rises
5. The conflict with the City of Kingston's Official Plan
2. The negative impacts for the urban space
3. The erosion of the urban character of downtown Kingston
4. The establishment of a precedent for future high-rises
5. The conflict with the City of Kingston's Official Plan
1. The loss of a human-scaled environment
The most obvious and disconcerting physical characteristic of The Capitol is its height, a proposed massive 20-storey residential tower. For some people, the arrival of a skyscraper is a sign of economic success, a great way to inject needed density or synonymous with an exciting and glamorous city. This is highly debatable and it’s important to point out that even if they sit in the right context, they come at a price: the depreciation of the human-scaled environment.
With respect to our urban spaces, the majority of people understand more or less the concept of human scale. In a nutshell, it relates to the interaction we have with the surrounding environment, in which we feel comfortable based on our physical body dimensions, capacities, and limits. For example, due to its height, a skyscraper is not considered to be a human-scaled building since, after a certain height, we as humans face a threshold and are not able to distinguish what’s going on. Would you be able to recognize someone on a balcony located on the 10th floor of a building who's shouting your name? How about on the 15th or the 20th floor? Not only do pedestrians lose the discernment and awareness of their surrounding environment, but people uprooted that high from the ground also fail to have a connection with the street and, therefore, feel more isolated. Jan Gehl, an acclaimed Danish architect and planner, concluded from his studies that building heights respecting human scale and generating a comfortable environment for pedestrians are between three and six storeys. This doesn’t come as a surprise as most buildings in historic neighbourhoods and new successful pedestrian-oriented developments rarely go into the double digits. This also explains why we like to stroll in downtown Kingston: it has the so-called small town feel that we all cherish. It is important to underline that even with a setback, a building can still be too high, just like Princess Towers, and it harms the human-scaled environment. The next section will precisely address this topic. Back to the top |
|
2. The negative impacts for the urban space
In our minds, we all have streets and places we prefer to walk as they invite leisurely, safe walks as opposed to others. Some of them are dull to our minds yet others are so interesting and memorable that we find ourselves coming back to them again and again. What is it that makes a street attractive and desirable? Pedestrians are attracted to well-designed streets where they feel comfortable and that can mean different things. For example, a human-scaled environment, as previously discussed, is one of several determining factors. For the purpose of this website, we’ll also examine how the design of buildings can positively or negatively impact pedestrians’ experience.
STREET DEFINITION
People like big open spaces and long uninterrupted views, but they also love and need environments that are spatially contained to feel comfortable. Indeed, open spaces are only good as their edges and when it comes to streets, pedestrians enjoy walking on them when they provide a good sense of enclosure, just like your living room. In other words, a great street must be well-defined, both vertically and horizontally. Edges, including buildings, walls, and trees on a street usually define it vertically; the length of the spacing between these two edges defines it horizontally. Studies and observation suggest it’s a matter of proportion and absolute numbers that ultimately gives us a well-defined street. The wider the street is, the higher the buildings need to be in order to create this sense of enclosure. |
With that said, what is then the desired proportion that will determine the optimal building height and achieve a good sense of enclosure? Most comfortable and attractive streets have a ratio (vertical to horizontal) ranging between 1:1 and 1:2. For example, the width of Princess Street in downtown Kingston is around 18 metres and buildings have an average of 3 to 4 storeys, which result to a ratio of approximately 1:1,35. We can transpose this same principle for Queen Street to determine the appropriate height for buildings. When calculating the width of the right-of-way and the building’s setbacks on Queen Street, we end up approximately with 24 metres. Depending on the design of the building, this width is the equivalent of 7 or 8 storeys, which is higher than the current 6-storey limit in the Zoning Bylaws. Unfortunately, with a building height of 61 metres (20 storeys), The Capitol is highly out of scale and would result to a ratio of 2.5:1 or 2.5 times too high.
|
MICROCLIMATE
The second disadvantage of high-rises like The Capitol is the formation of a negative microclimate. A microclimate is the specific climate of a small and precise area and in an urban setting, it can be a neighbourhood, a city block or the corner of a street. They can exist as the result of the natural environment, but they can also be generated by the built environment, which include buildings. Depending how buildings are designed and how high they are, they can provide a comfortable setting for pedestrians or altogether render this undesirable. For instance, they can provide shade when it’s hot or conversely not obscure sunlight and warmth when it’s cold. Why is this important? People respond and react quickly to meet their comfort: if you watch people walking on Princess Street on a hot day, you’ll see more people on the shady side of the street; on a cooler day, the opposite is true. Since Kingston is located in a temperate climate with cold winters, sunlight is particularly valuable and so, it’s important to make sure that during these harsh months, the built environment doesn’t overly shadow the urban space. Hence, when buildings are being erected, their design have to be adapted to the local weather conditions and offer the best environment for pedestrians to enjoy the outdoors. The more comfortable our open spaces are, the more we can enjoy being outside and the more animated the city will be. GOOD URBAN DENSITY When it comes into practice, how can we add needed density and still create a desirable environment for our neighbourhoods? It turns out that urban density comes in many forms and impact the environment very differently. One high-rise with large green lawn occupying can offer the same number of housing units in a more compact built environment. Hence, the question is finding out the appropriate type of built environment that would provide both a reasonable density and a livable environment. Many cities addressed this matter by regulating on the overall design of the building: mid-rise buildings from 5 to 12 storeys with angular planes. Angular planes refer to the angle of the successive setbacks of a building's storeys (see image). The rationale behind angular plane regulations is, amongst others, to ensure adequate sunlight for pedestrians transiting outside. When studying sun rays directions during sun movement in the interest of allowing reasonable sunlight in the built environment, the standard for angular planes is commonly established at 45 degrees. In practice, many cities in Ontario such as Toronto use a mix of zoning bylaws to achieve the optimal density while not creating any negative impacts on the streetscape: 45 degrees angular plane, between three and six storeys street-to-wall height, and an overall height restriction of 11 storeys (see image). Simply put, this winning combination generates mid-rise buildings that offer great and well-balanced density that the City of Kingston can apply in certain areas in the Central Business District.
In the specific case of The Capitol, the residential high-rise has a setback of 3 meters and is built on top of a parking structure that acts as a podium. With the number of storeys being proposed, this will result to an angular plane of 86 degrees, way above the current 39 degrees in the Zoning Bylaws. In other words, the very acute angular plane of the building combined with an excessive building height will overly shadow the urban space. Back to the top |
3. The erosion of the urban character of downtown Kingston
It seems that the most frequent argument cited against high-rises in downtown Kingston is the incompatibility with the urban character. People say it doesn’t fit with the “look and feel” of the area, but what does that mean exactly and is there a way to evaluate the conformity of new developments within the existing built environment?
URBAN CHARACTER
To begin, we must clarify what we mean by “urban character” or “urban identity”. There isn’t an exact definition of these terms, but most planners and architects would agree that it has to do with the local distinctiveness of the built environment. It’s the amalgamation of many similar physical qualities of an area and when combined, exudes this “look and feel” we can distinguish from other areas. The urban character of an area can include everything from buildings, to street furniture and even open spaces themselves.
For example, a great deal of tourists and local residents are very fond of Old Montreal because of, to name a few, the beautiful unique buildings and landmarks that reflects the richness of the culture as well as the history of the city, the refined boutiques, cafés and summer patios that offer great opportunities for social interactions, and the interesting organic street layout that provide a delightful place to stroll around. All of these unique characteristics contribute and forge the charming character of Old Montreal and we wouldn’t want to weaken it by adopting an “anything goes” policy. For instance, we would feel disconcerted if a high-rise covered in glass windows was allowed to be erected next to the Notre-Dame Basilica because it, stated bluntly, just doesn’t fit in with it’s surroundings. However, cities are organic systems and change are both needed and desired in order to adapt to our needs. That said, what can we then regulate to allow welcoming growth without destroying the overall urban character?
URBAN CHARACTER
To begin, we must clarify what we mean by “urban character” or “urban identity”. There isn’t an exact definition of these terms, but most planners and architects would agree that it has to do with the local distinctiveness of the built environment. It’s the amalgamation of many similar physical qualities of an area and when combined, exudes this “look and feel” we can distinguish from other areas. The urban character of an area can include everything from buildings, to street furniture and even open spaces themselves.
For example, a great deal of tourists and local residents are very fond of Old Montreal because of, to name a few, the beautiful unique buildings and landmarks that reflects the richness of the culture as well as the history of the city, the refined boutiques, cafés and summer patios that offer great opportunities for social interactions, and the interesting organic street layout that provide a delightful place to stroll around. All of these unique characteristics contribute and forge the charming character of Old Montreal and we wouldn’t want to weaken it by adopting an “anything goes” policy. For instance, we would feel disconcerted if a high-rise covered in glass windows was allowed to be erected next to the Notre-Dame Basilica because it, stated bluntly, just doesn’t fit in with it’s surroundings. However, cities are organic systems and change are both needed and desired in order to adapt to our needs. That said, what can we then regulate to allow welcoming growth without destroying the overall urban character?
COMPLEMENTARY WITH VARIETY AND ORDER
When it comes to buildings, new additions have to show respect to one and another. In other words, they have to complement with their neighbours and only then will the urban character be strengthened, not diluted. Complementary buildings are mostly expressed and determined by their heights and how they look.
|
|
URBAN CHARACTER OF THE LOWER PRINCESS STREET
With a clearer definition of what constitute the urban character of an area and how to preserve it, we can now take a closer look of the downtown core of Kingston. Within the heart of the city, there are several sub-areas with distinctive urban characters. For example, the built environment of the North Block its surroundings, is not the same as the one near the waterfront. For the purpose of this website, we will focus on the Lower Princess Street Retail area, as defined in the Downtown and Harbour Area Architectural Guidelines Study where The Capitol and other possible high-rises are being proposed.
In this low-rise central part of the city, buildings are in brick or in stone and are typically between 2 and 4 storeys. Two notable exceptions include the Princess Towers (16 storeys) on Division and Princess St and the Skyline (12 storeys) on Brock and Division St. In close vicinity of The Capitol, there are three noteworthy landmarks: St Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, Queen St United Church and St Paul’s Anglican Church, all with spires as high as the equivalent of a seven-storey building.
IMPACT OF THE CAPITOL
While the building design of The Capitol does have several characteristics not in tuned with the urban character, it’s worthy to mention the ones that do. First, conserving and giving new life to the old Empire Theatre building on Princess St is welcoming. Indeed, retaining the facade will preserve the historical cultural heritage of what this building used to be. We also applaud the setbacks both on Princess and Queen St in the effort of conserving the small-scaled streetscape. That being said, although the setbacks do slightly soften the visual perception of the 20-storeys high-rise, the massing still significantly impact both the skyline and the urban character of the area. When we observe buildings around the old Empire Theatre, they average three storeys and no much more. Hence, installing a high-rise more than six times taller than the neighbouring buildings is out of proportion and would stick out like a proverbial sore thumb. When standing in the proximity, even with setbacks, it is impossible not to look up and gape at it. A comparable precedent is Princess Towers which, because of its substantial height, pedestrians as much as drivers can notice it very well regardless whether or not it possesses setbacks. In the Official Plan of the City of Kingston we have a good example which demonstrates the importance of new developments required to have a compatible scale with the surrounding context, protecting in turn the existing urban character. In section 8.9, it is stated that new buildings in the City Hall Square (CMS) will have to maintain and support a scale that is compatible with the existing heritage buildings and the character of the area. “maintain and support the scale and character of City Hall Square and be compatible with the heritage buildings within the Downtown area east of Bagot Street when new development and redevelopment is permitted;” This same principle should hold true for the most part of the city, particularly in districts with important heritage value like downtown Kingston. Should a tower like The Capitol be constructed, it would dominate the skyline, dwarf heritage buildings and landmarks such as the Queen St United Church and St Paul’s Anglican Church. The urban character would be degraded because this high-rise has no correlation to the characteristics and features that gave downtown Kingston its identity for hundreds of years. Back to the top |
This webpage is still under construction. Please be patient while we work on the subsequent sections.