|
Posted Jan 18, 2021, 5:19 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,564
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P.
That's an interesting find, @alps. It seems odd today to read about a developer talking about a project in such a laissez-faire way - "Oh, maybe we'll build it taller (or shorter) and maybe we'll build two or maybe just one". Today there would be hundreds of pages of city requirements, full of minutiae dictating what could and could not be done.
|
I thought that was odd too. Maybe in those days the approval conditions merely dictated the maximum parameters of the project, and they got approval for the whole thing at the outset. You would also expect there would be significant engineering implications.
Regarding the view plane amendment, city council minutes record that a public hearing was held on the matter on August 6, 1974:
Quote:
Amendment to Zoning By-law as it deals with View Plane No. 6
A Public Hearing was held at this time to consider the above-noted subject.
[...]
His Worship then called for those persons wishing to speak in favour of the application.
Mr. Gordon Archibald, General Manager, Maritime Telegraph & Telephone Co. Ltd. reviewed the chronology of events leading to the application for an amendment to View Plane No. 6. He requested that the view plane be varied by the requested 48 minutes, which would still give a full view of George Island framed by water. Mr. Archibald responded to questions from members of Council.
Mr. Michael Novack, Vice President, Trizec Corporation, reviewed briefly the requested amendment, and asked that they be allowed to create this very important landmark that would frame Barrington Street and reanimate it, and create a downtown that we would all enjoy. Mr. Novack replied to questions from members of Council.
There being no further persons wishing to speak in favour of the application. His Worship called for those persons wishing to speak against.
Mr. Terry McGrath, speaking on his own behalf. stated that Council left a great legacy to future Councils in the form of the Views By-law and this is the first challenge to that legislation. He stated that if this challenge is successful, it might set a precedent for future Councils that would destroy this great piece of legislation. He stated that if View Plane No. 6 is violated with Council's approval. the legislation re. view planes is violated. He felt that unless there are very strong arguments why the view plane legislation itself should be thrown out by this Council, it would not be warranted for this Council to create an exception and in effect now violate and make its own legislation no longer a propos. Mr. McGrath replied to questions from members of Council.
Mr. J. A. Belgrave, Area Superintendent, Historic Sites (Halifax), Parks Canada, read a brief dated August 6, 1974, copies of which were circulated to members of Council.
Mr. Roger Sarty, a history student, stated that for over two centuries the development of the City of Halifax has centered on the view from the Citadel and felt that this is a huge historical issue. He stated that only in the last ten years have there been encroachments on the view from the Citadel. He stated that Citadel Hill is a major tourist attraction and the natural beauty of the Province creates a tourist industry which is extremely labour intensive and provides far more jobs than capital intensive industry ever could. He stated that by destroying the view, as the proposed tower will, the tourist appeal will be destroyed and he submitted that tourism contributes a good deal more to the economics of the City than the short term construction employment and municipal taxes which will be derived from the proposed development. He referred to his letter to the MailStar on July 9 and two responses from residents of the United States published on July 23, 1974, supporting his position.
Mr. David Lachapelle, with the aid of diagrams, indicated how the floor space requested by the applicant can be accommodated entirely outside the view plane without an amendment. He felt that if Council stands fast by their decision in this case, the decision of adopting the views legislation, they will encourage development by the fact that developers will know from now on that Council will not make any amendments to the view plane legislation and the situation will be much more stable which will make it easier to develop.
Mrs. Elizabeth Pacey stated that in the beginning it was believed that the proposed building would provide a substantial green space and would be twelve to fifteen stories, now it appears to be two towers of some twenty stories which will be very high, not only from the Citadel but from Barrington Street. She stated that the best view of George Island was deleted mainly for the proposed building and she felt Council should retain View No. 6 in its entirety. She stated if Council continues at the rate of giving two degrees per month, it would only be ten years when all the degrees would be lost.
Mrs. Stewart stated the real decision to be made is whether views legislation passed by City Council will stand or be gradually whittled away by a flexibility amendment to the Views By-law. She felt the erosion of views are irretrievable and the worst predicament developers can find themselves in is uncertainty about governmental restrictions. She felt that if the legislation is subject to never-ending review, this will inflict an atmosphere of uncertainty among developers. which will almost certainly result in continued erosion of the views. She stated that knowledge of the rules results ultimately in their successful adaptation to the new situation. She urged Council not to depart from the recently decisive passage of the Views By-law.
Mr. Howard Salvers stated that Halifax has something very unique and as far as View Plane No. 6 is concerned, the uniqueness concerns a view of George Island.
Mr. George Rogers, President, Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, read a brief dated August 6, 1974, copies of which were distributed to members of Council.
Mr. John Way, Chairman, Downtown Committee, stated he would like to speak to the motion and not particularly take sides. He read a brief, undated, copies of which were circulated to members of Council.
Mr. S. Langmaid, representing the Community Planning Association of Canada, stated he wished to speak to the motion, and read a letter dated August 6, 1974, copies of which were circulated to members of Council.
Mr. L. Collins, representing the Halifax Landmarks Commission, reiterated his former stated position that this should not become a precedent in respect to view plane legislation in the City.
Mr. Jeffrey Marshall referred to legislation recently passed in Montreal whereby a six-month freeze to 44 ft. in the downtown core has been placed on development, the same being in effect in Toronto with the exception that the height restriction is 45 ft. He suggested that Council should make no concession in the matter of the view planes which has only been adopted by Council.
Mr. Alan Ruffman reiterated comments made by him at a previous meeting and suggested that because of the interest generated in the community by the views legislation, if this amendment is passed by City Council it will be appealed to the Provincial Planning Appeal Board, commenting further on the period of time that might elapse before such an appeal would be heard and a decision made.
Mrs. M. Rozinski speaking on behalf of C.O.S.E.C., stated that they realized that it was the intention of Council to allow a building for Maritime Tel. & Tel. on the site of Barrington, Salter and Hollis Streets, when the Views By-law was passed, and the proposal was accommodated when the view from the ramparts was used. She commented on the height of the present proposal and stated that it is very important how the development will relate to the top of the Citadel. She urged Council to weigh the matter very carefully.
No further persons wished to speak against the proposed amendment.
|
Council subsequently approved the amendments to the view plane on August 15. It makes me wonder if there were any other view plane amendments since then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark
Do you have a link to the 1982 aerial view? I'm wondering if it can be blown up to see how the footprint of the MT&T building impacted the MC.
|
I got the aerial photo from the province's "DataLocator" system:
https://nsgi.novascotia.ca/datalocator/indexing/
Unfortunately they only provide these thumbnails. I think to see the full sizes you need to purchase the photos.
Thanks for posting all these old pics!
|
|
|