I'm trying not to take offense...are you serious with this link? I have a master's degree in architecture for whatever that is worth - I am aware that small spaces exist in the world that are attractive.
I gave an example of a public right of way that typically separates residential buildings in this city. You plucked an image of a mews in a European city off of the internet.
You aren't seriously suggesting that the space between these two buildings, elevated 20+ feet off of the ground on a private building atop a parking deck in the shadow of a 13 story building will look ANYTHING like the image that you have put forward are you?
Of course I'm not stating that the space on top of the deck will be the same as a retail-fronted laneway in Australia. However, if my comparison was inapt because it wasn't 20' off the ground on a private building atop a parking deck, why wouldn't yours be for giving an example of a typical public right of way in our city (which we assume is normal and could easily be questioned) with all sorts of irrelevant dimensions (such as driving and parking lanes, which I assume won't be present on this courtyard)? As holmstar points out, it's up to the architects and designers to make it inviting, maybe like common courtyards surrounded by 6-8 story buildings. And as seanrichardryan points out, light and views won't be hard to come by for the units in the northern tower.
Ultimately, I don't care since the developer is only screwing themselves with the design if no one would want the southern facing units.
My example was meant to give a sense of the scale, not to illustrate the "look/feel" of what 60' represents.
Anyone can walk down a "neighborhood connector" and get a feel for what that 60' is like relative to tall buildings on either side forming an urban canyon. I wish that I could say the same for the beautiful space that you offered as an example - nothing like that space exists in this city and very few in this country and probably NONE that are new construction and not long established historical spaces. It is an "appeal to emotion" fallacy to offer an image like the one you provided and say that the space in question will look anything like your example.
I acquiesce the point that "tight" spaces can be attractive and while your example illustrates that point, there are important distinctions to be made.
As for the courtyards example, in my experience in this city 60' is very standard for a courtyard building (which is why I offered the 60' right of way as an example). 60' with 6 stories of height is a completely different experience to 40' and 13 stories of height but that should go without saying.
Last point, I'd be very interested to see the space that you offered as an example on google earth. I'd wager that this space is on the "short leg" of a street grid and that the adjacent buildings were no taller than 4 stories. This is important spatially if there is a short zone of "compression" (like your image), which QUICKLY opens up again on either side. In your example, the perception that light, air and pedestrian activity are within very close proximity is of major importance. On the roof of a second story parking deck, with a 13' story building looming over you and 150' of building forming the canyon wall beside you is a very bad experience in my view.
With the density occurring in this city and infill happening quickly, I'd rather wait for a better proposal for this site.
Cheers for engaging in the philosophical argument.
