Dartmouth viewplanes under study

[Keith P.]

Are viewplanes a concept unique to Halifax planning? I don't know if I've ever heard of them referenced anyplace other than here.

I believe they are in general a bad idea and as implemented in HRM are a very dumb concept indeed.

I cannot believe that HRM is wasting money trying to formalize and perhaps create new viewplane absurdity in Dartmouth. I find Dickey's comments very troubling as he sounds as though he is in favor of expanding viewplane regulations, which is ridiculous.

Any viewplane involving Brightwood is nonsensical. Not only is it a private club and thus exclusionary to the average citizen, it is certain to be developed sooner or later. Hence the viewplane is not the one you currently see at ground level, but will be at whatever is the height of what gets built there. Therefore it is unlikely to matter much unless they limit Brightwood to singe family homes, and even then I fail to see why those people's views should be considered special.

As for the Dartmouth Common... whatever. I would suspect that on any given day more people would be enjoying the view from whatever tallish buildings get built in these viewplanes than there would be using the common lands.

Just abandon this nonsense entirely and get on with ridding Dartmouth's downtown core and shoreline -- what should be its most valuable land -- of all those empty, dusty lots. It is incredible that such property is not developed.

[fenwick16]

I often think that the reason for all the viewplanes bylaws and other red tape is to purposely slow population growth (it certainly doesn't encourage it). I really think that for many councillors and residents, high growth is considered to be on par with cancer and must be eradicated. I would state their goal as - "Keep Halifax beautiful, don't let it become like Toronto!" It sounds great and can even be considered to be responsible growth by some. However, Torontonians can grow up in Toronto and expect to live there their whole life if they so desire, whereas many transplanted Haligonians and Nova Scotians will have to admire the beautiful scenery on the internet and occasional visits from afar.

So, as much as I would like to see the population growing by 10,000 per year, I think that it will be vehemently opposed by the anti-development crowd.

[Jonovision]

Viewplanes are not just a Halifax concept. They exist in many other cities. Two prime examples that come to mind are Vancouver and London. Although in Vancouver I believe they are referred to as view corridors. They are in place to protect views of the mountains from certain points around the city. I believe they are also under review at the moment. And in London, England there are view planes in place to protect public views of Saint Pauls Cathedral.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Are viewplanes a concept unique to Halifax planning? I don't know if I've ever heard of them referenced anyplace other than here.
regulations, which is ridiculous.

Any viewplane involving Brightwood is nonsensical. Not only is it a private club and thus exclusionary to the average citizen, it is certain to be developed sooner or later. Hence the viewplane is not the one you currently see at ground level, but will be at whatever is the height of what gets built there. Therefore it is unlikely to matter much unless they limit Brightwood to singe family homes, and even then I fail to see why those people's views should be considered special.

As for the Dartmouth Common... whatever. I would suspect that on any given day more people would be enjoying the view from whatever tallish buildings get built in these viewplanes than there would be using the common lands.

Just abandon this nonsense entirely and get on with ridding Dartmouth's downtown core and shoreline -- what should be its most valuable land -- of all those empty, dusty lots. It is incredible that such property is not developed.

There was discussion about Brightwood being involved with a land swap with HRM and it being parkland. In that scenario many people get to enjoy the view. I don't want to see the refinery, but I do enjoy the harbour view. As for the commons, a lot of people go through in a day. It's not Desolation Row. JET

[halifaxboyns]

There is now officially a case number.

[Dmajackson]

This is going before HECC next week;

Case 01367

[halifaxboyns]

Looks like my dream scenario might be coming true. There was enough public input to get staff to propose to eliminate the brightwood viewplane.

I guess this is the first step - very interesting report.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Looks like my dream scenario might be coming true. There was enough public input to get staff to propose to eliminate the brightwood viewplane.

I guess this is the first step - very interesting report.

The most interesting part is the amount of effort and therefore cost it involved to do something which should be largely self-evident.

Really, due process is one thing, but the amount of time and effort involved in this is simply absurd.

The comments of some of the speakers at the public meeting show the absurdity of the process. One person -- scarily, a former Dartmouth alderman -- stated that nothing over 2 storeys should be built downtown. How ridiculous is that?

HRM really needs to look long and hard at their processes for this sort of thing and make a real attempt at streamlining the process to reduce the tremendous cost involved.

[Jonovision]

It sounds like something good could come of this. I was quite worried for a while that nothing would change. But the elimination of the Brightwood viewplane could drastically change the face of the downtown, which I think is a good thing. I think their suggestion to review other planning policies regarding building heights and massing is something the area really needs. Downtown Dartmouth could easily accommodate another 10,000 people if midrises and a few highrises were allowed.

[fenwick16]

One point that I noted in the report was an acknowledgment that narrow towers would preserve more of the view of the harbour than short buildings with large footprints (I am paraphrasing).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

HRM really needs to look long and hard at their processes for this sort of thing and make a real attempt at streamlining the process to reduce the tremendous cost involved.

The planning process for a lot of this stuff is ridiculous. It often reminds me of the old story of three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Local homeowners are greater in number so they decide the fate of councillors and they force policies even for future developments where there is no opposing voice (it's not practical for a developer to oppose regulation of every lot just in case they buy in the future). 10 years later when somebody actually wants to build they're told that the issue has already been decided.

This happened for example to the empty lot behind the government building on Barrington near Morris Street. Once they learned that the government was in the process of selling they rezoned the lot for townhouses only. At best this means another lengthy bureaucratic step for the current owners if they want a reasonable development on that lot. At worst they'll never bother to develop it and we have another permanent parking lot.

[halifaxboyns]

For me; the difficulty with some of these regulations is how technical they can be. I mean if you asked me to calculate the building heights of a building in one of the viewplane from the point the viewplane casts down to the harbour I would look at you with a stunned look. These regulations are hopelessly technical and some people (both staff and developers) can't understand them.

My feeling would be that there could be a better system of regulation using building height modifiers much like what we use in Calgary. So when a land use is approved by council - only council can set the height. So for example a C-COR1 district could have a height modifier of 50 metres which would be shown on the land use map as C-COR1h50. You could do the same thing and the development officer cannot vary the height. This way it would be preset, only council could change it and you would end up having policy that would say why the height was established - to preserve the view. This would be far less technical on people to understand.

But I think (in the end); I share Jono's opinion - this will end up being a positive thing. I also think that Fenwick's paraphrasing is quite right - with thinner buildings at the higher levels, I suspect you will see more people get on board with development because the effects could be offset.

[Dmajackson]

Regional Council will be talking about the changes on Tuesday and presumably approve the starting of public consultation necessairy to move forward;

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...0208ca1021.pdf

[halifaxboyns]

Hennsbey wasn't too happy about removing the viewplane from Brightwood - he wants to get the lands to make it a park. Wile wants it kept - Gloria McClusky is willing to get rid of Brightwood. I'm shocked.

[halifaxboyns]

Well the project moves ahead for further public engagement and consultation.

[halifaxplannermitch]

Just to let folks know that HRM is looking for public comment on views from the Dartmouth Common. A public open house is being held on April 20 from 6:30 pm to 9 pm. Details are available at http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case01367Details.html

The city, working with CBCL Ltd, have selected 6 candidate views from the Common. The views will each be ranked & prioritized, based on public input. Once the preferred views are identified, development scenarios for the vacant waterfront lands along Alderney Drive will be prepared & modelled. A report will then go back to council that recommends new/revised viewplanes, while also providing for realistic development scenarios. The issue of a viewplane from Brightwood Golf Course will be dealt with at another public meeting in June.

It would be great if Skyscraper folks could attend and held determine what views might be worthy of protection!

[Empire]

Originally Posted by halifaxplannermitch

Just to let folks know that HRM is looking for public comment on views from the Dartmouth Common. A public open house is being held on April 20 from 6:30 pm to 9 pm. Details are available at http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case01367Details.html

The city, working with CBCL Ltd, have selected 6 candidate views from the Common. The views will each be ranked & prioritized, based on public input. Once the preferred views are identified, development scenarios for the vacant waterfront lands along Alderney Drive will be prepared & modelled. A report will then go back to council that recommends new/revised viewplanes, while also providing for realistic development scenarios. The issue of a viewplane from Brightwood Golf Course will be dealt with at another public meeting in June.

It would be great if Skyscraper folks could attend and held determine what views might be worthy of protection!

Does anyone know how many people use the Dartmouth Common on a yearly basis? The Public Gardens sees ~5000 per day.

[hoser111]

Originally Posted by Empire

Does anyone know how many people use the Dartmouth Common on a yearly basis? The Public Gardens sees ~5000 per day.

I'm guessing 3!

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by halifaxplannermitch

Just to let folks know that HRM is looking for public comment on views from the Dartmouth Common. A public open house is being held on April 20 from 6:30 pm to 9 pm. Details are available at http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case01367Details.html

The city, working with CBCL Ltd, have selected 6 candidate views from the Common. The views will each be ranked & prioritized, based on public input. Once the preferred views are identified, development scenarios for the vacant waterfront lands along Alderney Drive will be prepared & modelled. A report will then go back to council that recommends new/revised viewplanes, while also providing for realistic development scenarios. The issue of a viewplane from Brightwood Golf Course will be dealt with at another public meeting in June.

It would be great if Skyscraper folks could attend and held determine what views might be worthy of protection!

It is possible that there will be no viewplanes established? I ask this question to not be rude, but to establish why this whole process is being initiated.

The idea of viewplanes imposes somewhat arbitrary rules for development in downtown Dartmouth. The original concept of viewplanes for Halifax was centered around the citadel, but I don't see any legitimate reason for viewplanes for Dartmouth.

My only concern is that this debate is about "what viewplanes" instead of "viewplanes", yes, no, maybe a few.

I am concerned because any legislation generated will clearly support anti-development attitudes in downtown Dartmouth going forward.

I know someone123 will agree with me.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

It is possible that there will be no viewplanes established? I ask this question to not be rude, but to establish why this whole process is being initiated.

The idea of viewplanes imposes somewhat arbitrary rules for development in downtown Dartmouth. The original concept of viewplanes for Halifax was centered around the citadel, but I don't see any legitimate reason for viewplanes for Dartmouth.

My only concern is that this debate is about "what viewplanes" instead of "viewplanes", yes, no, maybe a few.

I am concerned because any legislation generated will clearly support anti-development attitudes in downtown Dartmouth going forward.

I know someone123 will agree with me.

I dunno about that, but I certainly do, and I agree totally with your views (pardon the pun).

If Dartmouthians want to look at Halifax, they have numerous vantage points from which to do so. The Dartmouth Common has no claim to deserve having any viewplanes protected. The entire concept seems deeply flawed if not totally asinine. HRM should be begging for any development in the wasteland that is downtown Dartmouth. Imposing arbitrary and unjustified barriers to such development seems completely absurd.