[Dmajackson]

This can be for any future talk on viewplanes/sightlines around HRM since we seem to have a fair number of them and there is another one proposed;

Council approves protection for Northwest Arm sightline
PAUL MCLEOD, METRO HALIFAX
December 10, 2008 05:00




The Halifax Harbour sightlines have been a valuable tool for heritage activists and a thorn in the side of some developers.


Yesterday, council took a step toward maintaining sightlines, but this time in the Northwest Arm. The sightlines would prevent anything from blocking certain viewpoints.


“It’s a beautiful spot and to me it’s just as important as protecting views in downtown, the harbour and Citadel Hill,” said Purcell’s Cove-Armdale Coun. Linda Mosher. Mosher said everything from pedways to signs to new trees could threaten the view.


Mosher proposed a motion to have HRM staff develop plans for new sightlines for the Arm. Council approved the motion unanimously, meaning HRM staff will bring a report back to council for a vote.

[Keith P.]

I watched this last night when she raised it at council -- one of the more ridiculously dysfunctional council meetings in recent memory, BTW -- and the concept is totally absurd. What she was talking about was the kind of restriction that would prevent, for example, the construction of a pedestrian overpass on Dutch Village Rd., the planting of a tree in the center of the roundabout, erection of signage in the roundabout, you name it. Apparently her theory is that nothing should impede the view of the Arm for drivers coming down Dutch Village towards the roundabout. Frankly I'd rather they be looking at traffic rather than the scenery. There is no chance of anything being built on the shoreline by the roundabout or along that stretch of Quinpool that could possibly impede the view, so I fail to understand why these measures are even necessary.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I doubt this will really have any impact... although it is like giving the anti-development people another weapon for their arsenal.

[Barrington south]

The shore line of Quinpool is very barren....it could definitely use some tree's ....to bad

[HaliStreaks]

The shore line of Quinpool is very barren....it could definitely use some tree's ....to bad

I think we should all rally together to protest that viewplane and that trees are badly needed in that area :rolleyes:

[Jonovision]

Not too mention that strip of Quinpool would be great for some really cool small apartment buildings.

[HaliStreaks]

Not too mention that strip of Quinpool would be great for some really cool small apartment buildings.

Shhhh! You'll let them on, "trees" in that area can be our new code word for these small apartment buildings lol.

Seriously though, this has made me totally look down even more on council than I have before... ugh. :hell:

[Barrington south]

Thanks for your sarcasm Halistreaks...I guess i care about the aesthetics of Halifax a little more than you. Sure I love skyscrapers, but I don't want Halifax looking like Sao Paulo, we need some greenery!

[spaustin]

I guess this would kill a bridge across the Arm at some point too. I think the bigger threat to the Arm is unrestricted infilling of the water (the Arm has a lot of waterlots from what I understand) and monster homes replacing stately old mansions. That house and the infilling that occurred by the public dock at the end of Oakland Street is a disgrace.

[Nouvellecosse]

Does anyone have a map or diagram of the current Citadel Hill view planes?

[fenwick16]

Does anyone have a map or diagram of the current Citadel Hill view planes?

Halifaxboyns directly me to the following map: http://www.halifax.ca/giss/Disclaimer.php (you must click the disclaimer in order to enter). Once you get into the GISS website you will have to zoom into the HRM and select layers on the right, then select planning information. It might take a few minutes to figure out all the options but there is a lot of information on this website.

Just as a side note, I have always disliked these viewplane bylaws and would like to see them scrapped as well as the overly restrictive height limits in the HRM by Design.

[mcmcclassic]

The viewplane from the Brightwood golf course is huge on that mapping tool. All of downtown Dartmouth is consumed by it :(

[fenwick16]

The viewplane from the Brightwood golf course is huge on that mapping tool. All of downtown Dartmouth is consumed by it :(

Is Queen's Square outside of this viewplane?

I wonder who came up with the idea of having a viewplane in downtown Dartmouth, and how do such bylaws get introduced with so little study into the economic effects of such height controls. It really amazes me that where towers would be expected to be built, in the downtown areas, is where these height controls have been introduced.

[hfx_chris]

Is Queen's Square outside of this viewplane?
No, Queen Square is right smack in the middle of it. But I wonder when the Brightwood viewplane was created? QS may have been constructed prior to it.

[mcmcclassic]

I still firmly believe that there shouldn't be viewplanes from private property. If you're golfing at Brightwood shouldn't you be more concerned with your golf game and not if you can see the Harbour? :haha:

[Nouvellecosse]

Halifaxboyns directly me to the following map: http://www.halifax.ca/giss/Disclaimer.php (you must click the disclaimer in order to enter). Once you get into the GISS website you will have to zoom into the HRM and select layers on the right, then select planning information. It might take a few minutes to figure out all the options but there is a lot of information on this website.

Just as a side note, I have always disliked these viewplane bylaws and would like to see them scrapped as well as the overly restrictive height limits in the HRM by Design.Thanks, I was able to see the view planes map, and I'm feeling very frustrated that the view planes are so extensive. It's one thing if the view planes were the only major restriction, since we could just shoehorn extra density into the non-view planed areas by using extra height. But considering that there are severe height limits as well, including the absurd provision preventing a building from being visible from within the Citadel, the downtown is just getting stifled. I kind of wish that the Texpark site was getting a tall office building instead of hotel/condo, considering it's one of the few really places and not within a view plane. It would be a great place for HRm's new tallest if it wasn't for the "Visible from parade square" business.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/41/viewplanes.jpg

[fenwick16]

Thanks for the image Nouvellescosse of the viewplanes (I don't think that there was a good quality image posted before).

With the passing of HRM by Design, the only place that the Citadel ramparts maximum height now exists is in the crosshatched area of the post-bonus height map below (2nd map). This post-bonus height is only allowed with a building considered to be a public benefit or if a penalty is paid - without these conditions the pre-bonus height applies. The numbers on the maps are in meters (for example Fenwick Towers is 98 meters). I was shocked when I first saw these maps. You can see that there is serious opposition to tall buildings in Halifax (or in other words, serious opposition from the powerful minority). You can also see that if the Nova Centre or Texpark developments don't get built then the next proposals for those sites will be significantly shorter. I would say the next tallest building in the HRM will be in Dartmouth at King's Wharf (if it is allowed).

(http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/DHLUBandDesignManual.pdf )
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/6831/prebonusheight.jpg

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9182/postbonusmaimum.jpg

[Wishblade]

^ That just goes to show how desperately we need to get rid of the Cogswell Interchange. It's right in the middle of the area where tallest buildings are allowed.

[halifaxboyns]

Halifaxboyns directly me to the following map: http://www.halifax.ca/giss/Disclaimer.php (you must click the disclaimer in order to enter). Once you get into the GISS website you will have to zoom into the HRM and select layers on the right, then select planning information. It might take a few minutes to figure out all the options but there is a lot of information on this website.

Just as a side note, I have always disliked these viewplane bylaws and would like to see them scrapped as well as the overly restrictive height limits in the HRM by Design.

Glad my use of the GIS could be helpful. Now I think people are realizing how much some of these viewplanes gobble up places that could use redevelopment. I agree with the comment about the brightwood viewplane - totally a waste of time (considering if the place were to close; what would you be protecting??). Plus, viewplanes should be from public property not private land.

There is a diagram in this article (http://www.canadianarchitect.com/issues/story.aspx?aid=1000196393) that shows the Halifax viewplanes.

[halifaxboyns]

No, Queen Square is right smack in the middle of it. But I wonder when the Brightwood viewplane was created? QS may have been constructed prior to it.

My understanding is that a former mayor (now serving on Regional Council) enacted the viewplanes after several tall buildings went up in Downtown (through appeals).

[hfx_chris]

Ok, makes the most sense that the viewplanes went in after the buildings were constructed

[halifaxboyns]

Ok, makes the most sense that the viewplanes went in after the buildings were constructed

The ones in Halifax stemmed mainly from Maritime centre. It's my understanding that the application was not approved by the City; but that it was an appeal decision to allow the development to proceed.

So in order to limit impact, the viewplanes on the Halifax side were created - which is why today two of the viewplanes cast on either side of maritime centre. This way, if in the future they were wanting to expand the building - it could not happen.

[someone123]

The Maritime Centre to me almost perfectly demonstrates what's wrong with the viewplanes. I think they could probably be done well but there would have to be far more emphasis on urban design.

By the way, they added extra floors to the top of the Maritime Centre a few years after construction. You can see the seam in the concrete if you look closely. I believe that the Centennial Building also had an addition onto its side. Maybe we'll be able to add TD to that list in a few years (although that one will also get new glass cladding)...

Here's the skyline in 1967, pre-viewplanes and pre-tall buildings (from hazegray.org):
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/photarch/67fleetc.jpg

I'd like to find some clearer ones from the 1950-1990 period.

[fenwick16]

My understanding is that a former mayor (now serving on Regional Council) enacted the viewplanes after several tall buildings went up in Downtown (through appeals).

It amazes me that such bylaws can be introduced with so little thought and debate. Such decisions can have a profound effect on the development potential of these areas. It simply forces development out to the suburbs because a few people don't like highrises.

[fenwick16]

The Maritime Centre to me almost perfectly demonstrates what's wrong with the viewplanes. I think they could probably be done well but there would have to be far more emphasis on urban design.

By the way, they added extra floors to the top of the Maritime Centre a few years after construction. You can see the seam in the concrete if you look closely. I believe that the Centennial Building also had an addition onto its side. Maybe we'll be able to add TD to that list in a few years (although that one will also get new glass cladding)...

Here's the skyline in 1967, pre-viewplanes and pre-tall buildings (from hazegray.org):
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/photarch/67fleetc.jpg

I'd like to find some clearer ones from the 1950-1990 period.

The skyline is much better now with the tall buildings. I actually like the Maritime Centre - it looks far better than many buildings from that era.

[hfx_chris]

The ones in Halifax stemmed mainly from Maritime centre. It's my understanding that the application was not approved by the City; but that it was an appeal decision to allow the development to proceed.

So in order to limit impact, the viewplanes on the Halifax side were created - which is why today two of the viewplanes cast on either side of maritime centre. This way, if in the future they were wanting to expand the building - it could not happen.
Yeah, I was referring to Dartmouth...

[someone123]

The skyline is much better now with the tall buildings. I actually like the Maritime Centre - it looks far better than many buildings from that era.

I like the modern skyline more, although I think if I were to plan the city's development from 1950-2010 I would have heavily protected everything below Grafton Street or so. Some of the highrises replaced important heritage buildings. For example, the Royal Bank building was built over their earlier head offices (on the left, from NS Archives):

http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/share.asp?url=/nsarm/images/Notman&path=200714869&title=Notman%20Studio%20NSARM%20accession%20no.%201983-310%20number%20100019%20%20%20%20%20www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/%20%20%20%20%20c%202010

[fenwick16]

I like the modern skyline more, although I think if I were to plan the city's development from 1950-2010 I would have heavily protected everything below Grafton Street or so. Some of the highrises replaced important heritage buildings. For example, the Royal Bank building was built over their earlier head offices (on the left, from NS Archives):

http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/share.asp?url=/nsarm/images/Notman&path=200714869&title=Notman%20Studio%20NSARM%20accession%20no.%201983-310%20number%20100019%20%20%20%20%20www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/%20%20%20%20%20c%202010

I have to agree, buildings like this should have been saved.

[halifaxboyns]

Yeah, I was referring to Dartmouth...

If you scroll back - you'll see that I mentioned how the Dartmouth viewplanes came to be. It was mainly the same idea - tall buildings jumping up in downtown and one former mayor (now councillor's) glorious obsession with protecting a view from a golf course.

[Dmajackson]

So I just had some fun with ExploreHRM and the viewplanes tool and has anybody else noticed the redundant "targets"?

Take for example Viewplanes #9 and #10. Both viewplanes extend south over the Peninsula essentially cutting off half of the south-end from development (anything east of Fenwick). #10 ends up half on land in Ferguson's Cove, #9 overlaps it and stays on water. So essentially both aim at the exact same spot (Harbour mouth) but cut off more land than necessairy by using two different vista points. Both start on the road around Citadel Hill with #10 by itself on the west and #9 grouped with multiple others.

I cannot for the life on me figure out why #10 needs to exist. Is it really necessairy to have a single viewplane start from an unnoticable point on Citadel Drive when just a hundred metres to the west is another one facing the exact same direction?

If just this viewplane is removed countless acres would be opened up to highrise development adding hundreds (or thousands) of residents and offices to the land. Here's some the non-historic or parkland land that could be built up more properly;

Artillery/Queen/Sackville/Dresdon (100% opened up)
Artillery/SGR/Dresdon/Birmingham (small wedge remaining adjacent to Birmingham)
Clyde/SGR/Brimingham/Dresdon (larger wedge remaining along Birmingham)
Chruch Street (both sides opened up)
South, Tobin, Kent & Green (large chunks opened up)
Barrington/Inglis corridor from Smith-Victoria (completely opened up)

I should state I am perfectly fine with some viewplanes remaining if they are looking at key locations and from one or two specific locations on Citadel Hill. However redundant viewplanes (like #9 and #10) should have one or both removed in order to aloow downtown to develop around the important corridors.

[halifaxboyns]

So I just had some fun with ExploreHRM and the viewplanes tool and has anybody else noticed the redundant "targets"?

Take for example Viewplanes #9 and #10. Both viewplanes extend south over the Peninsula essentially cutting off half of the south-end from development (anything east of Fenwick). #10 ends up half on land in Ferguson's Cove, #9 overlaps it and stays on water. So essentially both aim at the exact same spot (Harbour mouth) but cut off more land than necessairy by using two different vista points. Both start on the road around Citadel Hill with #10 by itself on the west and #9 grouped with multiple others.

I cannot for the life on me figure out why #10 needs to exist. Is it really necessairy to have a single viewplane start from an unnoticable point on Citadel Drive when just a hundred metres to the west is another one facing the exact same direction?

If just this viewplane is removed countless acres would be opened up to highrise development adding hundreds (or thousands) of residents and offices to the land. Here's some the non-historic or parkland land that could be built up more properly;

Artillery/Queen/Sackville/Dresdon (100% opened up)
Artillery/SGR/Dresdon/Birmingham (small wedge remaining adjacent to Birmingham)
Clyde/SGR/Brimingham/Dresdon (larger wedge remaining along Birmingham)
Chruch Street (both sides opened up)
South, Tobin, Kent & Green (large chunks opened up)
Barrington/Inglis corridor from Smith-Victoria (completely opened up)

I should state I am perfectly fine with some viewplanes remaining if they are looking at key locations and from one or two specific locations on Citadel Hill. However redundant viewplanes (like #9 and #10) should have one or both removed in order to aloow downtown to develop around the important corridors.

Have a look on the Dartmouth side - if you took out the one from the golf course (which I should add is private land) - you'd open up most of Dartmouth too.

I support most of the viewplanes, but some of them don't exactly make sense. If need be for a compromise, I'd be willing to keep them all; but I'd want the elevation above sea level heights changed - so that a few extra floors could go up, especially around the train station.

I think if you set up a commuter rail - you could get some impressive development there.

[halifaxboyns]

This information report is going to council tonight:
Northwest Arm Viewplane study (http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/100817cai05.pdf).

[fenwick16]

This information report is going to council tonight:
Northwest Arm Viewplane study (http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/100817cai05.pdf).

When will these view planes bylaws ever end? It is just a way to stifle growth. It could for example be intended to ensure that a North West crossing is never built, no matter how badly needed it might become.

[reddog794]

mis-commented

[halifaxboyns]

When will these view planes bylaws ever end? It is just a way to stifle growth. It could for example be intended to ensure that a North West crossing is never built, no matter how badly needed it might become.

I don`t really understand the purpose of it at all. There aren`t really any lots that could affect the view much - although there are points along the map in the report that really only benefit rich land owners!

[halifaxboyns]

The problem I see (with more viewplanes) is that once you create rules and get them into bylaws; it's very hard to get them out or change them. Especially if they are there for a long time...people become used to them and expect them.

I don't really understand or see the value of preserving views here; because there aren't enough parcels that would cause or create view issues. The rotary obstructs so much possible development that the view corridor down Joe Howe will never be an issue - you'll always see the arm.

[Keith P.]

What a waste of money. I understand that it is Coun. Linda Mosher who is pushing for this, particularly as it relates to the one specific view of the Arm as you head down Joe Howe and into the roundabout. Why you are looking at the Arm when you are in the roundabout is another question. I look at that picture in the report and think how beautiful a properly designed, iconic bridge across the Arm would enhance it. She needs to get off this issue and start thinking of the greater good instead of appealing to squeaky wheels, which she has a tendency to do.

[halifaxboyns]

What a waste of money. I understand that it is Coun. Linda Mosher who is pushing for this, particularly as it relates to the one specific view of the Arm as you head down Joe Howe and into the roundabout. Why you are looking at the Arm when you are in the roundabout is another question. I look at that picture in the report and think how beautiful a properly designed, iconic bridge across the Arm would enhance it. She needs to get off this issue and start thinking of the greater good instead of appealing to squeaky wheels, which she has a tendency to do.

What I don't understand - is that there isn't really a building that could affect the view down Dutch Village Road to the arm; except for the small brick building. The only reason it 'might' cause problems is because of the road bending in order to create the approach to the roundabout.

I really agree with you - a really nicely designed bridge would make that view interesting (much like the view with the harbour bridges) and I don't like this idea. I agree with you - I think it's nothing more than an attempt to prevent the bridge.

This will only create problems down the road - because when the need is really obvious for such a bridge; we'll have to go and remove policies in order to get it done. As my boss is fond of pointing out - putting rules and policies into a plan or a bylaw is easy. Changing them or removing them - isn't so easy.

[eastcoastal]

The ones in Halifax stemmed mainly from Maritime centre. It's my understanding that the application was not approved by the City; but that it was an appeal decision to allow the development to proceed.

So in order to limit impact, the viewplanes on the Halifax side were created - which is why today two of the viewplanes cast on either side of maritime centre. This way, if in the future they were wanting to expand the building - it could not happen.

I was under the impression that the viewplanes were in place before the building was constructed (viewplanes are from the 70's I believe, but I don't know when Maritime Centre was built), but may have been in anticipation of it. After it was built, additional rules were added to prevent buildings from being constructed at angles to the street grid to prevent tall buildings from sneaking past the viewplanes by running parallel to them as the Maritime Centre did.

[halifaxboyns]

I was under the impression that the viewplanes were in place before the building was constructed (viewplanes are from the 70's I believe, but I don't know when Maritime Centre was built), but may have been in anticipation of it. After it was built, additional rules were added to prevent buildings from being constructed at angles to the street grid to prevent tall buildings from sneaking past the viewplanes by running parallel to them as the Maritime Centre did.

So I checked wiki - so this is what it said. The theatre that was on the site was demolished in 1974 and as it was being proposed - the heritage factions felt it had no place in downtown. So as they approved the development, they also had city council approve the viewplanes - so it was virtually simultaneous.

The building was then finished in 1977. So from what I understand - I guess it's orientation was a concession to get it approved; as was the way the viewplanes cut on either side.

There is a reference to a book which Elizabeth Pacey wrote on the issue which I'm tempted to try to find in the library - I think it would be an interesting read. Call it a fact finding mission on 'the enemy' lol.

[halifaxboyns]

I guess no one has been tracking this, but there is a viewplane study underway for the north west arm.

It looks like the second information meeting has already passed.

Here (http://www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/HRM-NorthWestArmViewPlane.html) is a link to the project website.

[Hali87]

reposted from the Fenwick discussion:

The view planes are fundamentally about preserving historical authenticity, not making the city more beautiful. The point is not to offer visitors the "finest views" but to allow them to experience more or less the same views that would have been present when it was an active military fortress. This is why heritage groups often fight to preserve the view of the oil refinery.

It all comes down to a tension between two different approaches to creating an interesting city: what we have now is a very academic approach that requires people to reflect on their surroundings and read up on the area's history. What I think a lot of people want (or even think that the view planes are meant for) is to preserve the most attractive views of the harbour while filling in the unattractive ones (like the refinery) with buildings or monuments, creating a very real improvement of the aesthetics that you really only have to see, not think about, to enjoy. I think a careful balance of the two is the best approach, but even that would require a revision of the view planes.

The Fenwick viewplane violation might be "insignificant" in that it won't really affect any views but it is "significant" in that if it is amended, we will no longer be able to say "the view planes are absolute and cannot be/have never been changed". This is of course much more important to some people than others.

[RyeJay]

The viewplanes should never be absolute. Some people believe we shouldn't have any viewplanes. I would be fine with some...

When I consider my usage of Citadel Hill, and all the people in my age group, it's a popular public space for picnics, or even a leisurely study space. I always brought my school work to the hill during sunny, non-windy days. As part of this atmosphere, it is nice to be able to see the water in between the downtown buildings -- but I need to acknowledge that it's the cityscape that is mostly contributing to this view's appeal.

There are simply way too many viewplanes. Limiting it to just a few, or even a couple, would still drive home the same point for anyone on the hill: yes...there is a harbour down there.

[halifaxboyns]

I'm not sure if people know this but Vancouver has a series of viewplanes - 12 if I am not mistaken. But they are no where near as big or wide as the ones HRM has.

[someone123]

I'm not sure if people know this but Vancouver has a series of viewplanes - 12 if I am not mistaken. But they are no where near as big or wide as the ones HRM has.

Yeah, I used to live in the Fairview neighbourhood around Broadway and Oak. There's a park there (Choklit Park -- weird name) that has protected views of the mountain. The views extend across the downtown, limiting building heights.

In my opinion many of those views are about as silly as the Halifax ones. Vancouver has all sorts of public beaches and waterfront areas that will have mountain views regardless of the height of buildings downtown. For the small park example I gave, most people don't even know it's there and in reality those view cones preserves a small number of mostly private views at the expense of density over an area of maybe 30 downtown blocks.

The Heritage Trust people are often misguided but at least the Paceys don't own a condo on Citadel Hill. There are typically huge conflicts of interest in these debates, like when the Martello residents complained about the YMCA.