There’s much discussion around the redesign of Eindhoven’s Stadhuisplein.
This is evident from several reactions in the run-up to this week’s public consultation. A public meeting is planned for tomorrow. Then residents can express their concern or support for the municipality’s plans.
The height of the buildings is the main topic of discussion. Last week, Stichting Beter Eindhoven (A Better Eindhoven Foundation) expressed its concern about the planned 160m-high residential towers. Some written responses reflect this.
‘Not Utrecht or Amsterdam’
But some people think such high-rises are a good idea. Or that 160 metres isn’t even high enough. One person, for instance, says that Eindhoven isn’t Amsterdam or Utrecht.
There, historical sightlines have to be preserved. According to the submission, Eindhoven should show its ‘daring side’. Buildings of 160m or higher would also make the skyline more varied.
Another respondent says 160 metres doesn’t have to be the limit. “It would be a missed opportunity for a region like Brainport. People are acting like 160m is very high and ambitious.”
“Globally speaking, 160 metres isn’t high. Buildings are only really high-rises at 200 or sometimes even 300m. The big, dynamic cities in the world – with which Eindhoven and Brainport have to compete to attract expats – have high-rise buildings of 300 to 600 metres.”
‘Needed to solve housing shortage’
“They’re sometimes even higher. Also, those in support of these point out that high-rises are needed to solve the housing shortage,” writes the resident.
On the other hand, some residents consider 160m (much) too high. They’re mainly worried about the wind and shade. The arrival of high towers would negatively affect the city’s liveability.
That’s the case in Vesta Tower and the Admirant, according to one resident. Another resident said he had no problem with high-rise buildings. But such structures would be better suited along the railway line than on Stadhuisplein.
In April, the council did a survey about building heights of up to 160 metres. At the time, 48% of those questioned said they were in favour of these. And 43% were opposed.
Translator: Melinda Walraven