Dartmouth viewplanes under study

[fenwick16]

I can't see any advantage to additional viewplanes. I think the number of viewplanes should be reduced in both Dartmouth and Halifax. Having viewplanes bylaws results in highrises being built at strange angles, unusual geometry and generally stifles development.

It makes more sense to me to have height designations for various parts of Dartmouth like the HRM-by-Design in Halifax (but less restrictive) and have provisions for overriding height limits through development agreements (allow taller buildings whenever agreed upon by Council).

As opposed to the decade old statistical prediction of declining growth in the HRM, the population is increasing. Now isn't a time to create obstructions to growth.

[Empire]

Viewplanes in Dartmouth are a non-starter. No one uses the Dartmouth Common, there is no one downtown, and there is simply no justification for any viewplanes in Dartmouth. Part of the justificaion in Halifax for viewplanes is for a view from the waterfront to the citadel. Having said that, I never want to hear about a viewplane from Brightwood again.

Recommendation: Abolish all viewplanees in Dartmouth. Many more people will enjoy views of Halifax harbour from highrises then the current number of zero that gaze out to sea.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by Empire

Viewplanes in Dartmouth are a non-starter. No one uses the Dartmouth Common, there is no one downtown, and there is simply no justification for any viewplanes in Dartmouth. Part of the justificaion in Halifax for viewplanes is for a view from the waterfront to the citadel. Having said that, I never want to hear about a viewplane from Brightwood again.

Recommendation: Abolish all viewplanees in Dartmouth. Many more people will enjoy views of Halifax harbour from highrises then the current number of zero that gaze out to sea.

I'm not entirely against view planes. I use the Dartmouth Commons quite often being as how I work right next door. And there are many people who go through the park on their ways to and from work either in the office buildings around or to get to the bus terminal. There are also a lot of people in the summer that just chill out on the hill overlooking the harbour. It's a gorgeous view and I think one or two viewplanes could be considered. There are not a whole lot of developable lots in between the Commons and the water. There is one site owned by WDCL but the rest is all CN and they are not giving up any land any time soon in downtown Dartmouth. If the viewplanes were done correctly they could still leave room for a tower or two on either side of them.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I'm not entirely against view planes. I use the Dartmouth Commons quite often being as how I work right next door. And there are many people who go through the park on their ways to and from work either in the office buildings around or to get to the bus terminal. There are also a lot of people in the summer that just chill out on the hill overlooking the harbour. It's a gorgeous view and I think one or two viewplanes could be considered. There are not a whole lot of developable lots in between the Commons and the water. There is one site owned by WDCL but the rest is all CN and they are not giving up any land any time soon in downtown Dartmouth. If the viewplanes were done correctly they could still leave room for a tower or two on either side of them.

I think a concession should be made. Perhaps 3 viewplanes. All three from Dartmouth Common and narrow.

1. Looking to the mouth of the harbour.
2. Looking to the citadel.
3. Looking to the bridge.

In return for the 3 viewplanes density bonusing would apply and allow greater height outside the viewplanes. Views from Brightwood would be protected throught the 3 viewplanes.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Empire

I think a concession should be made. Perhaps 3 viewplanes. All three from Dartmouth Common and narrow.

1. Looking to the mouth of the harbour.
2. Looking to the citadel.
3. Looking to the bridge.

In return for the 3 viewplanes density bonusing would apply and allow greater height outside the viewplanes. Views from Brightwood would be protected throught the 3 viewplanes.

Yes, if they are going to in effect restrict some development, they must allow for taller development in other areas.

Jono - My concern is that like 20-30 years from now this legislation will be used to thwart other developments in Dartmouth, as has been seen in Halifax.

[someone123]

The main problem I see is that this process tends to be hugely slanted in favour of a small minority of current residents. A group of a few residents can call up their councillor and suddenly the city is contemplating a policy that will force 3,000 people to live somewhere else, ironically depriving them of the lifestyle and views that others are trying to keep for themselves (I think many people are okay with this because they think of it in terms of depriving "greedy developers" of money -- but even if this is true it is a small part of the story).

The idea of viewplanes has some merit but to make a reasonable decision many factors need to be considered. I can think of a few:
-Is it a public view? (Brightwood is NOT -- why is the city involved?)
-Is it a unique view? (We have huge stretches of waterfront open to the public on both sides)
-What is are the real costs of having the viewplane? (Generally huge even though there's little money spent up front)
-How many people actually take advantage of the view? (This is the benefit to be weighed against the costs. Because it already exists we can easily measure this)

A viewplane from a well-used park that only cuts across one or two small publicly-owned lots is probably reasonable. A viewplane that nobody knows of that cuts across 10 blocks is not.

[Keith P.]

Really, though, a lot of laws both municipal and otherwise get put in place because of small minorities yet when taken as a group have a huge effect on the population at large. It is the infamous "squeaky wheel" effect that govts seem to always pander to.

Be it "for the children", or the environment or other more fringe causes, govts seem unable to resist such appeals. As a result we have laws like these viewplane provisions along with other equally absurd and largely unnecessary laws like the ban on weed and feed, measures to restrict cats or allow chickens, stiffer penalties for drinking and driving if kids are in the car... one could go on and on. All of these pander to interest groups but really are either unnecessary, ineffective, wrong-headed or merely symbolic. Every law that gets passed brings with it more cost, more bureaucracy, and in many cases, restricts peoples freedoms unnecessarily.

We need a lot fewer laws, not more.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Be it "for the children", or the environment or other more fringe causes, govts seem unable to resist such appeals. As a result we have laws like these viewplane provisions along with other equally absurd and largely unnecessary laws like the ban on weed and feed, measures to restrict cats or allow chickens, stiffer penalties for drinking and driving if kids are in the car... one could go on and on. All of these pander to interest groups but really are either unnecessary, ineffective, wrong-headed or merely symbolic. Every law that gets passed brings with it more cost, more bureaucracy, and in many cases, restricts peoples freedoms unnecessarily.

One problem in the HRM is the culture of public consultation. The idea seems to be that if you can achieve consensus in public consultation you get fair policies. This is incorrect. Many people cannot comment in these forums. For example, people who will be looking for an apartment in 5 years in Dartmouth but don't know it yet cannot attend the viewplane hearings. They are nevertheless affected.

Another very common problem is concentrated vs. distributed effects. If you have a policy that is worth $5,000 to one person and costs everybody else $2 you will get one person speaking in favour and probably nobody who cares enough to speak against (it takes a lot of time and effort -- well over $2 worth). This continues until the tax bill becomes a classic "death by a thousand cuts" scenario.

The drunk driving stuff is like this (actually slightly worse due to social stigma -- you will get painted as being "for" drunk driving if you are against cruel and unusual punishment). There's a small group of people who suffered some kind of tragedy and are now irrationally bent on restricting alcohol consumption. Everybody else suffers when you can't even go out at night anymore because of overzealous police officers and the threat of prison for having a BAC that is 0.001% over the limit. Here in BC the liquor laws are draconian and I doubt that they are based on any rational argument or statistics.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

The drunk driving stuff is like this (actually slightly worse due to social stigma -- you will get painted as being "for" drunk driving if you are against cruel and unusual punishment). There's a small group of people who suffered some kind of tragedy and are now irrationally bent on restricting alcohol consumption. Everybody else suffers when you can't even go out at night anymore because of overzealous police officers and the threat of prison for having a BAC that is 0.001% over the limit. Here in BC the liquor laws are draconian and I doubt that they are based on any rational argument or statistics.

Very well said. I think you have described the absurdity around liquor laws extremely well. Being against ridiculous excesses in such laws does not mean that you are in favor of drunk driving -- but that is how such a stance would be positioned by these groups. The same is true over the absurd excesses imposed upon smokers - being against some of the craziness does not mean you are in favor of smoking, but no politician dares to take that stance.

[FuzzyWuz]

Originally Posted by someone123

....threat of prison for having a BAC that is 0.001% over the limit.

prison for a bac that is one ten thousandth of one percent over the limit? I kinda think that you can't even measure an amount that small. Exaggeration does not help your point.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by FuzzyWuz

prison for a bac that is one ten thousandth of one percent over the limit? I kinda think that you can't even measure an amount that small. Exaggeration does not help your point.

Err.. that's a thousandth of a percent and it's standard to give lab tests in PPM. The law just defines a threshold.

In practice I believe they round down by 0.01% using standard measurement instruments. Some of them are horribly inaccurate, so you could get in trouble for being well under, though I don't know how often those results are thrown out in court.

A second offence over 0.08 is up to 30 days in prison (first is 1-3 years of no license and a fine). Some lobbyists (e.g. MADD) want that changed to 0.05.

We could debate whether or not this is a good thing but my point is that the creation of legislation in this area has been incredibly one-sided. I've never seen an actual debate about this topic despite the fact that many people receive criminal convictions without having actually caused any damage.

[halifaxplannermitch]

There are 2 viewplanes now set from the Common. One is a wide angle of the mid harbour and downtown Halifax, the other is a narrow view of Georges Island. The viewpoint point is from the path below the ballfield. The problem - the 1970's mapping is wrong. You can't see George's Island from the viewpoint. And, the broader panorama limits building heights on all the vacant lands (city parking lots & CN lands) along the waterfront to 30'. Which basically prohibits development on one hand, while the local plan encourages development on the other hand. Not a great result.

The direction from Council is to look at other view options, while bearing in mind we need to provide for major development opportunities. So, a selection of the best views from the Common (which is used by hundreds a day, & growing) will be presented. Questions we'll ask - What features are appreciated from different parts of the Common? What makes a good view? Is it a wide angle? Are there features within a wide view that can be singled out, to protect a narrow corridor view? People need to tell us what they think - whether there should be no view planes or 10. The input will all be presented to Council. The 4 best views will be computer modelled to provide for development on those key sites.

The perception is that viewplanes prevent development - which admittedly is largely the case now with the Common view because it is so wide & because the view angle hits the harbour near the shoreline. But, to think about what happens elsewhere, the City of Vancouver has extensive protected viewplanes looking from the south across the city core to the north shore mountains. Have a look - they still allow major projects: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/views/listing.htm

The hoped for outcome here is balance - to achieve that city staff & council need broad input from varied people & groups. Which is why I'm here, asking people on this forum to attend on Wednesday & help determine what happens! OK, I'll shut up now.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxplannermitch

The direction from Council is to look at other view options, while bearing in mind we need to provide for major development opportunities. So, a selection of the best views from the Common (which is used by hundreds a day, & growing) will be presented. Questions we'll ask - What features are appreciated from different parts of the Common? What makes a good view? Is it a wide angle? Are there features within a wide view that can be singled out, to protect a narrow corridor view? People need to tell us what they think - whether there should be no view planes or 10. The input will all be presented to Council. The 4 best views will be computer modelled to provide for development on those key sites.

Something else to consider is that new buildings can easily enhance a view if they are well-designed. Part of the charm of urban views is that they have development. 95% of Nova Scotia has ocean views with no development.

How are you getting answers from people? Are you just asking questions like "is a wider angle good?" or are you showing them pictures of views? Often people don't actually know what they like -- they have an abstract idea that doesn't perfectly model what they like in practice.

Another good exercise that sometimes happens in Vancouver is giving people options within a certain framework. For example, you tell people "given the need to fit 1,000,000 square feet in this area, how would you arrange buildings to get the best view?" Questions like that are far more realistic because they capture actual trade-offs. If your question ignores costs then the answer won't be useful.

It should also be said that many of the Vancouver views that are preserved are also somewhat silly, and Vancouver has a serious housing shortage exacerbated by development restrictions that cut down on the housing supply. I know this first-hand since I live there. The idea of cutting down on downtown building heights to preserve mountain views for example doesn't make a whole lot of sense -- there are tons of unobstructed views of the mountains. Those laws only exist to pander to a very small minority in very specific parts of the city.

[fenwick16]

Since many people living in a city are people who like cities, there will be a large portion of the population who will like going to the Dartmouth Commons and Halifax Citadel Hill to look down on the city. So actually the view of Halifax from the Dartmouth Commons is one that people might enjoy more than the one of George's Island. Also many will like to look down on Dartmouth and see the new towers going up (so the city isn't blocking the view but is a part of the view).

When I lived in Halifax, and a few times when I went back, I would sometimes go up to the Citadel Hill not only to see the fort but also to see the city buildings. I think the most impressive view was the southern view - http://kentsauter.com/images/NovaSco...ax-Skyline.jpg (source: http://kentsauter.com/pages/photopag...cotia2008.html ). This southern view is especially impressive at night. The first time I saw this view, many years ago in the mid 70's, I was awestruck.

Personally, I wish that the viewplane bylaws on both sides of the harbour were abolished so that the municipality could develop naturally and people could view the evolving city with all of its buildings.

[FuzzyWuz]

Originally Posted by someone123

I've never seen an actual debate about this topic despite the fact that many people receive criminal convictions without having actually caused any damage.

Maybe you don't know what it's like to lose a loved one to a drunk driver. I have no sympathy for someone who gets nailed for being a smidgen over the limit. no sympathy, no respect, no patience, no time. And it's not about restricting someone's right to drink. it's deciding to get behind the wheel. Don't paint it as drinkers rights. I practiced that right till I was in my thirties and realized that I was done with it. Anyone who wants to drink is free to do so. I celebrate your freedom.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

Another good exercise that sometimes happens in Vancouver is giving people options within a certain framework. For example, you tell people "given the need to fit 1,000,000 square feet in this area, how would you arrange buildings to get the best view?" Questions like that are far more realistic because they capture actual trade-offs. If your question ignores costs then the answer won't be useful.

This is very similar to an exercise we did here in Calgary with the Plan It (Municipal Development Plan) during the Plan It summit. There was a select group that attended the 'build it' workshops, where everyone was split into groups with a giant aerial photo of an area and stats on how many people and jobs had to be fit into the area. Two groups (one of which I was in); actually had the area that lost population. But we had pieces we had to fit and we could decide on how we wanted to fit them.

It's a very visual exercise and it gets people thinking and I found it very interesting. I still have pictures of it and I think its still on the Plan It Twitter feed somewhere?

While I appreciate Keith's point of view - consultation is a key part of the process. People may not understand what a viewplane is, but it can be explained in a way that people could understand (either through diagrams or visual models). I think viewplanes have a place in HRM. One of the unique things I like about about home is that some of the views are preserved - it's not about getting big for the sake of being big. Growth has been organic and well organized (for the most part).

I think Mitch's point is well taken, there is a negative note attached to a viewplane but I think it's also made the city very interesting in how it's layed out. Also, for me, I think back to one of Keith's comments about the fact there is little to no demand for office development. So by not having a viewplane, would we really have that many more towers? I don't know.

Personally, I agree with the previous comment about the Brightwood viewplane - there isn't much point. But as Mitch points out the common's use in Dartmouth is growing and with King's Wharf being built, I suspect those numbers will skyrocket as more people move in.

For me, I think the way forward is to remove the viewplane that doesn't work for George's Island, adjust the other common VP so that some development can occur on the CN lands, but the view is maintained from perhaps a few higher points and remove the VP from Brightwood. This opens up the DT for more development.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Yeah, Brightwood should not have a viewplane... they can already see buildings and its not public land.

[halifaxboyns]

Did anyone make it to this? I'm affraid my flight home didn't get in until just before 10 and I got the days mixed up.

[Jonovision]

There is a survey online for this. It closes on the 6th.

http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case01367Details.html

Some interesting concepts in there. One of the options is a Varied Building Line viewplane. What a novel idea, a viewplane that lets buildings get built?!

[beyeas]

Thanks for pointing that out! I went and filled it out now.