Dartmouth viewplanes under study

[Takeo]

In case you missed it in today's paper:

--------------------------

HRM issues tender for consultant
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE City Hall Reporter
Sat. Jan 23 - 4:49 AM
Conflict that’s surrounded legislated viewplanes and proposed commercial or residential towers in Halifax has long affected the downtown core.

As a result, ambitious development plans have sometimes been put on hold, scaled down or scrapped.

Now, city hall is seeking a consultant to look at view protection in Dartmouth, says a proposal request from Halifax Regional Municipality. It says the successful firm must not only examine protected harbour vistas that exist, it’s to consider better or additional ones.

The municipality’s tender document says a consultant will be hired to identify a maximum of six candidate harbour views and "simulate (the) potential impact of development" in Dartmouth on such vistas. Simulation would likely be done with computer models.

City staff want to firm up the policy linked to views of Halifax Harbour from Dartmouth, a task that planning staff briefed regional council on about a year ago.

Municipal planner Mitch Dickey said Friday two official viewplanes exist in Dartmouth: one from the Dartmouth Common, established in 2000, and the other from the Brightwood golf course, designated in 1978.

"In addition, corridor views down numerous streets to the harbour are protected," the proposal request says.

Mr. Dickey said public input on the Dartmouth viewplanes study will be sought, probably in spring or summer. The issue will eventually go to the Harbour East community council.

According to the proposal request, available on the municipality’s website, "the purpose of the viewplanes is to maintain views of the harbour from . . . specific points" in Dartmouth. "This goal is implemented through restrictions on building height."

Mr. Dickey said the issue arose during planning for the multi-phase King’s Wharf project at Dartmouth Cove, on the site of the former Dartmouth Marine Slips. He said that development falls within the viewplane from the sloping Brightwood course.

"The (protected) viewplane . . . is actually not at the highest point in Brightwood, which is something we do want to look at," Mr. Dickey said. "There is a higher location (on the course), and there is a better view" of the water below.

On the Halifax side of the harbour, there are four designated viewpoints on Citadel Hill, Mr. Dickey said. From these four points, there are 10 viewplanes.

Asked about the controversy hooked to highrise projects in Halifax possibly hopping the harbour to Dartmouth, Mr. Dickey said city hall is simply seeking precision in its planning rules.

"It’s a major issue in Halifax and it always has been in Dartmouth to a lesser extent, mostly in terms of the confusion caused by the vagueness of the current protected viewplanes," he said. "Our hope here is to provide greater clarity where it is lacking."

The competition for the viewplanes study closes Feb. 9. A spokeswoman for the municipality said a consultant is required because city staff have enough on their plates.

Coun. Gloria McCluskey (Dartmouth Centre) told The Chronicle Herald that protected views in Dartmouth have been firmly established, but she’s not sure if more are needed.

She said the one from the Dartmouth Common goes back further than 2000, though she could not recall the exact year it was set.

"I’m hoping that when they do this study that they will go to different locations and find out whether in fact we are protecting what we should be," she said.

[Takeo]

So to sum up... the thinking is... that Brightwood view plane created a lot of controversy. How should we deal with that? I KNOW!!! Let's create MORE view planes!!! Six ought to do it!!! Let's spend tax dollars on a bunch of overpaid consultants to dream up six NEW view planes. That'll end all the controversy over view planes.

[Jonovision]

This is totally ridiculous. I can understand some view planes from the Commons. And maybe not enough exist now. I'm not sure where the one does exist at the moment. But we certainly do not need any new, let alone the existing view plane from Brightwood. It is a private property and should not be given exception. If we can have viewplanes from Brightwood than we can have viewplanes from private residences. There is no difference in my eyes.

[mcmcclassic]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

This is totally ridiculous. I can understand some view planes from the Commons. And maybe not enough exist now. I'm not sure where the one does exist at the moment. But we certainly do not need any new, let alone the existing view plane from Brightwood. It is a private property and should not be given exception. If we can have viewplanes from Brightwood than we can have viewplanes from private residences. There is no difference in my eyes.

Agreed. I don't know why the city is taking steps to ensure that nothing tall gets built here! Downtown Dartmouth has some of the most underutilized land in the HRM, but by adding more viewplanes, nothing tall would ever be built there.

This city has to stop letting the opinions and desires of a very select few dictate what's best for the ~385,000 other people also living here.

[sdm]

total waste of time and space.

We need an election now, and hopefully that may yield better candiates to vote in. We need people with vision and some backbone.

This is so backwards in terms of development and economic growth its not even funny.

[spaustin]

Viewplanes should be reserved for unique places like Citadel Hill and the Dartmouth Common. Adding more without an actual reason or demand for them is really silly. What I do support is viewplanes in a more general urban design kind of way. When new development is proposed we should think about how views from public streets will be affected. Blowers Street in Halifax is a good example of what happens when no thought is given. Looking up Blowers, you're looking at the garage door of Cambridge Suites on one end whereas the entrance to Metro Park is on the other. It's bookended with ugliness and there is no reason why good design couldn't have addressed some of that.

Oh and I agree with what everyone else has so far posted, Brightwood should never have gotten a view plane because it's private property.

[hfx_chris]

As I recall during the public hearings, the majority of people who spoke had absolutely no problem with view planes being disturbed, including representatives from Brightwood. I think the only ones who cared were the folks who live in Admiralty Place, the stepped residential building along Alderney Drive.
The viewplanes from Brightwood should be scrapped. The viewplanes from the Dartmouth Commons, while nice, I don't think should hinder development. The only street-level viewplane I actually appreciate is the one down Portland Street. But I don't think that view is in any danger of being ruined.

[Barrington south]

this is sad and embarrassing

[Wishblade]

I thought the whole reason for viewplans in Halifax was because of citadel hill, and the history associated. Dartmouth should have no viewplanes. They make absolutely no sense.

[ZET]

The view from the Dartmouth commons (of Halifax) is amazing. The view up the harbor is already affected by queen's square and the seniors building. ZET

[worldlyhaligonian]

We should be able to sue the city over stuff like this. What a waste of time and resources.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by ZET

The view from the Dartmouth commons (of Halifax) is amazing. The view up the harbor is already affected by queen's square and the seniors building. ZET

The view from Dartmouth Common is amazing and I think that the viewplanes in place protect that. Dartmouth common may have 10,000 visitors a year as opposed to the citadel at over 500,000. There is no other arera in Dartmouth that warrants a viewplane. I think the Brightwood viewplane is not so much for the members of Brightwood but really represents any view from that elevation. Even so, it is over the top and this exercise will no doubt expose that.

[dartmouthian]

they should be getting rid of the brightwood viewplane, not adding new ones.

[City_of_Lakes]

The view from Dartmouth Common is beautiful! The picture on my computer background is a photo of Halifax taken from there lol. But the placement of MORE protected viewplains in Dartmouth is a ridiculous idea...

There must be a conspiracy going on. Pretty soon there will be protected zones in place that will allow people to demand King's Wharf to be stepped down dramatically in height.

[halifaxboyns]

There was a brief story on CBC tonight about this (along with Dan English's resignation as CAO).

Here is the link.

Now for my 2 cents:

I realize that many people in HRM see the viewplanes in two ways: Obstructionist or protectionist. Now; whatever your opinion - considering that the Citadell is one of the biggest tourist draws in Halifax - I will grant that some (not necessairily all) viewplanes there are worthwhile. I think we can have a fair bit of discussion about the 'George's Island' viewplane - which is also the one with a fabulous (note my sarcasm) view of the refinery. Is that one worth while? Perhaps, perhaps not. The two that cover the south end for the mouth of the harbour - it's a nice view; I miss it, I personally think it has value, but the heights allowed could probably creep up slightly with minimal disruption to view.

Now about Dartmouth. Let me first start off by saying, I grew up on the Halifax side; but I have nothing against Dartmouth - I've worked in Alderney Landing before and I loved going there for the Multicultural festival.

That being said, I think the Brightwood viewplane is the biggest and singlemost destructive viewplane for Downtown Dartmouth. It is the one that casts over most of Downtown and has capped height at an unbelievably short height. The only reason that King's landing made it through was because the rules were ambiguous and because it just barely was outside the Brightwood viewplane (BV). Now that being said - i do believe in the value of the ones from the common's park. It's a beautiful park and a beautiful view; which should be protected and considering what little developable land in those two viewplanes are covered (for now) - seems to be reasonable.

However, Brightwood has really stiffled downtown development in Dartmouth a lot and I think this project, may be quite short sighted given the potential that King's Wharf could have to spur and revive the area. However, I'm getting the impression from some friends of mine who work with HRM - that this may be a project that someone told someone, who told someone to do (if you get my drift).

I've done some research and there does not appear to be a Municipal Case number on the HRM website; however there is a link to the Planner managing the project from another case. I'm hesitant to post it unless the group feels this may be appropriate to provide some comments and feed back. Thoughts everyone? I realize it's easy to find - but I think if we're going to comment, it should be respectful and simply focus on the planning issues.

My hope is that we could provide comments - which could, if a report goes to council, be attached.

What does everyone think? There seems to be a strong negative feeling over this - perhaps we should mobilize some emails?

[fenwick16]

Yes, I think that a lot of thought should go into any emails that are sent. I watched the CBC clip, and I got the general feeling that there are very few young progressive people at the meeting (and few old progressive people). The biggest problem is that people in favour of development (the majority according to surveys) usually do not go to these meetings.

[Jonovision]

From todays Herald. It seems at least some of the people at the meeting realized the nonsense that is the Brightwood viewplane.


Viewplanes vs. development focus of Dartmouth meeting

Staff tells public session city wants to clarify sightlines in need of protection


By DAVENE JEFFREY Staff Reporter

Dartmouth residents and de velopers who attended a pub lic meeting Wednesday weren’t too concerned about protecting views from a city golf course.

“Brightwood by its nature is not public," said businessman Patrick O’Regan, a Dartmouth resident.

“You’re putting the needs of private members ahead of the public’s."

O’Regan was among fewer than two dozen members of the public who attended the evening meeting at the Find lay Centre in Dartmouth.

Halifax Regional Municipal ity hired CBCL Ltd. to study protected viewplanes from the Brightwood Golf and Country Club and the Dartmouth Com mon.

City planner Mitch Dickey said the study was needed to clarify the viewplanes and to look at others that may be worth protecting.

“We’re trying to protect important visual resources," Dickey said, while at the same time defining the view plane parameters so city staff can answer development questions.

The viewplane from the golf course cuts a wide swath across the Dartmouth water front.

Wide viewplanes hamper future development in areas like the marshalling yards, said Ross Cantwell of the Waterfront Development Corp., which is looking at building an apartment com plex on the Dartmouth water front near the Kings Wharf development.

It’s more cost-effective to build taller buildings on smaller parcels of infilled land, Cantwell said. There is room for a highrise or two to spike up, which would in crease the downtown pop ulation density while still preserving much of the view from the Common, he said.

And density is what is re quired for Dartmouth’s down town to come alive again, O’Regan said.

“Dartmouth is dying for rejuvenation," said developer Tony Maskine, a Dartmouth property owner.

Resident Trevor Parsons told the group he is concerned about the views from the Common and he worries that installing a soccer pitch there, as is being talked about, would limit the general pub lic’s use of the park and abil ity to enjoy the views.

But summer is a poor time to try to sample public opin ion, said resident John May.

And Frances Howard told the group she believes city staff ignore the opinions of Dartmouth residents and she’s not taking their stated intention to define the view planes at face value.

“I’m very suspicious they’ve got something up their sleeve," she said.

(djeffrey@herald.ca)

‘We’re trying to protect important visual resources.’

MITCH DICKEY

City planner

[Dmajackson]

I agree with the statements so far about HRM's apparent favourism toward Briightwood Golf Course which should not have any viewplanes to begin with let alone add more on. I'd have to see where the Commons ones are being added but I imagine I could support them in some fashion.

[Jonovision]

I was not able to attend the session last night, but I would advise everyone to send in their comments so they can be made part of the public record.

[halifaxboyns]

I added the link to the clip from CBC which if you pause it at the right time shows the expanded viewplanes proposal.

I'm sure if you email Mitch Dickey (the planner from HRM) he might be able to send out a PDF?

Brightwood has been the single worst viewplane affecting the downtown of Dartmouth and it will be something I suspect Councillor McClusky will fight to retain, expand and protect. While I don't agree with her, I can see her perspective - it would make the site better.

From the perspective of a private developer, it would also make the golf course that much more valuable should it be bought out. That being said, we are 17 years away from a new regional plan so who knows what could be on the radar if HRM's growth keeps increasing. If it were to grow to levels of over 10,000 people a year you'll see alarm bells go off.