Leslie Bridgers is right to question the proposed tower in Portland (“30-story tower will be Portland’s next architectural regret,” Dec. 12). But beyond aesthetics, our planning board owes us answers about precedents, process and purpose.

Can Portland’s housing needs be met without a structure taller than any building in comparable coastal cities — and twice as tall as our next tallest? Victoria tops out at 85 m; Reykjavík at 74.5 m; Hobart at 73 m. Halifax has buildings over 100 m, but none downtown. The city sized up “peer cities” like Worcester and New Haven, industrial legacy cities, rather than true maritime coastal peers. Why?

Was the 380-foot height allowance, a 73% jump, ever presented with visual renderings? Or buried deep in a thousand-page zoning overhaul as “increased height in areas targeted for growth”? Citizens who participated in ReCode don’t recall skyline visualizations. Isn’t a sudden rise this significant worth putting on display?

We are a city bound to the sea, adept at welcoming visitors, punching above our weight through arts, food and culture. Is erecting this lone vertical presence, a move typically made by a city flexing competitive dominance or civic virility, growing in a way that honors who we are? Is a fake lighthouse, when we have actual ones pulsing all around us, really the best we can do?

I appreciate the abundance agenda and agree red tape won’t help our housing issues. But, can the planning board tell us why going all the way with this singular bold assertion is the right move, or is there a better way?

Emily Bruce Plumb
Portland