[Architype]

Canadian Cities Heritage Issues and Height Restrictions

Since there was some discussion of this in various other threads, including the Canadian City proposals thread, I think the issue warrants a thread of its own so there is somewhere specific designated to discuss these issues.

Post your thoughts on this and related topics; it should be interesting to see that every city handles this issue to some degree in it's own way.

[Architype]

Vancouver


Tackling the fear of heights

From the newly announced “Telus Gardens” to the seven mega-tower sites recently approved in the downtown core, one thing seems certain: Vancouverites can expect to look up, way up, to see the future of development in the city.

Tall towers may be an icon of urban development, but for many in Vancouver, up is not a comfortable direction — particularly as the issue of increased building heights extends to traditionally mid-rise areas. Case in point: Chinatown, where those in favour of building towers are preparing for a showdown against concerned community groups at the Chinatown Height Review public hearing scheduled to take place tonight at city hall.
...

For those in the business of building towers, Yuen says going up is the most efficient way to ensure affordable housing and sustainable development downtown where land is at a premium
...

Height may not be appropriate for all areas of the downtown, says Yuen, adding he understands the reticence of community groups, academics and citizens who unleashed a torrent of opposition in January in response to a city staff recommendation to increase building heights in the Downtown Eastside.

Article: http://www.westender.com/articles/entry/news-tackling-the-fear-of-heights/news-and-views/

[-Harlington-]

Just waiting for a Halifax fourmer to start going off, lol

[Architype]

The way these issues are dealt with in the West, such as Vancouver & Victoria is the complete opposite of how it is dealt with on the East Coast (Halifax & St John's).
I'm not really familiar with what happens in Central Canada (Toronto & Montreal), but I think the attitude is similar to that of Vancouver. Also, in areas such as the Exchange (Winnipeg), what are the restrictions, and how is new construction (if any) dealt with?

[DizzyEdge]

The main height restrictions in Calgary are:
- shadow restrictions on the bike path system on the north side of downtown
- shadow restrictions on the Stephen Avenue historic pedestrian ave
- I believe shadow restrictions on most Downtown/Centre City parks

[graupner]

No building in Montreal can be taller than Mont-Royal.
No exception.

Many current buildings tried to be in the 60-70 floors range, all denied by City Hall.

[roccerfeller]

I am not sure about Winnipeg, but I think the ground is not ideal for building tall buildings.

I believe if you need to build a tall tower in the Peg, you gotta build much deeper on average than you would in other cities.

Although I don't know if this entirely qualifies as a "height restriction"

Heritage Issues, well the Exchange District is classified as a historic site, and the city (as a whole)now moves in a direction to try to preserve the historic buildings there, rather than tear them down and replace them.

The Exchange arguably takes up half of the downtown space (north of Portage) so it is potentially relevant towards future decisions that might decide where to put an office or residential tower.

[drew]

I am not sure about Winnipeg, but I think the ground is not ideal for building tall buildings.

I believe if you need to build a tall tower in the Peg, you gotta build much deeper on average than you would in other cities.


From my experience, I think this can be classified as an "old wives tale".

Bedrock in Winnipeg is not out of reach. It can range from 40 to 70 feet below the surface, which is not far enough to prevent any construction of tall buildings.

If the market dictated a tall building in Winnipeg, it could be built.

[Coldrsx]

Edmonton it depends on the area. Core is 150m, but up to 200m now with D.O. approval. Most areas include a 10m bonus for higher levels of design and or commitment to certain things.

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x164/coldrsx/misc%20photos/Picture1-20.png
(http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x164/coldrsx/misc%20photos/Picture1-20.png)

[Architype]

Heritage Issues, well the Exchange District is classified as a historic site, and the city (as a whole)now moves in a direction to try to preserve the historic buildings there, rather than tear them down and replace them.

The Exchange arguably takes up half of the downtown space (north of Portage) so it is potentially relevant towards future decisions that might decide where to put an office or residential tower.

Does that mean there is no way a modern tall (or otherwise) building would be allowed in the Exchange District? If permitted, would it have to be a faux historic style?

[Calgarian]

Heritage buildings? what are those?:rolleyes:

[Architype]

Heritage buildings? what are those?:rolleyes:

Winnipeg, but maybe not Calgary.

Winnipeg rivals the Eastern cities with the Exchange District in terms of a cohesive collection of buildings from the same era.

Vancouver too, has it's fair share, especially in the Gastown and adjacent area. Anything 100 years or more is old out here.

[-Harlington-]

There is a ton of ''viewplanes'' and height restrictions in Halifax mostly to protect a particular view from citadel hill and a golf course in Dartmouth and the random pointless restrictions across the city

the worst is probably the NIMBYS or heritage trust that tend to oppose everything and anything proposed here

recently there was a seven story seniors home i think, proposed on the peninsula and apparently it was to tall according to residents

[Architype]

In Vancouver, heritage conservation outside a specialized area like Gastown only means conserving a specific heritage building (or facade), but does not mean conserving the entire block it sits on. In the East the mentality is towards the latter, and a lot of new construction is a pretty terrible faux historic, especially in residential.

I find Halifax is a mixture of both conservation and modenization, with sometimes good, and sometimes not so great a result. I also thought there are a few larger proposals there which have been approved, but still have not being built for some other reason.

[Coldrsx]

" and a lot of new construction is a pretty terible faux historic."

yup.... we did a pretty kick ass job in the last few years of showing the digression in some of our nods to the past.

[-Harlington-]

I do like the fact that Halifax is like a mix of old and new, and there is some good modernism here considering its the maritimes.

But for the amount of proposals that go through and the size of Halifax there is way to much negativity towards projects that would help the city and not enough towards things that should be put aside for awhile.

The negativity gets frustrating for a lot of people but at least its getting a little better and we know things get built eventually, ahah

[someone123]

There are a few problems with heritage preservation in Halifax. The first is that most heritage policies are penalties rather than incentives -- owners must wait to demolish buildings, etc. All this does is depress the value of older buildings, but this has been the approach (aside from some particular areas like Barrington) since it is "free" for the municipal government.

Another problem is that anti-development policies are often presented as heritage preservation. Preventing buildings from being constructed on parking lots is not heritage preservation. Public views might be considered heritage but they are generally much less important than preserving actual buildings.

A huge number of developments have been proposed recently in Halifax (thousands of residential units and 1-2 million square feet of office space) because developers wanted to get them in before new planning regulations were in force. They won't all be built and those that are will go up over a period of many years.

There's a lot of negativity about Halifax from the media, because that's how things are there, but the reality is that there's more urban infill happening in Halifax than anywhere else in the region. The stock of heritage buildings is also easily #3 in Canada after Montreal and Quebec City. The situation is not so bad.

[1ajs]

we got a 8 story hieght limit in the exchange district here in wniipeg

[aastra]

Another problem is that anti-development policies are often presented as heritage preservation. Preventing buildings from being constructed on parking lots is not heritage preservation.

Anti-development forces tend to cloak themselves in noble "heritage preservation" garb in Victoria, too. Recently there was a proposal for a small mixed-use building on the waterfront in the old town next to the bridge. Many critics insisted that the project was an assault against Victoria's well-preserved past. In fact, the empty spaces, traffic islands, and parking lots along that waterfront were created just a few decades ago, in the wake of the demolition of several 19th-century commercial buildings. Suffice it to say, genuine concern re: preserving/restoring the old waterfront's historic form is not in evidence.

Meanwhile, many of the same critics were eagerly supporting the city's mission to replace the bridge. Built in 1924 and designed by Strauss, that ugly old bridge just didn't fit, don't ya know?

[vid]

Thunder Bay's height restrictions are based on zones. The draft by-law eliminated a lot of them but I just went through the final copy and it looks like they sneaked back in. A local group called Opportunity Thunder Bay is fighting to have an area in Thunder Bay declared height limit free to encourage development of skyscrapers. As if height limits are the thing that is holding them back.

5.7 HEIGHT Restricted Area

5.7.1 Scope: This Section 5.7 applies in addition to all of the other REGULATIONS in
this BY-LAW, to the lands on the map that forms Section 5.7.5 to this BY-LAW that
are identified as "AREA 1" and "AREA 2" and "AREA 3" on that map.
The REGULATIONS in this Section 5.7 are considered to supersede the maximum
HEIGHT REGULATIONS contained in the individual ZONE categories applicable
to the lands on that map.

Section 5.17 applies to the land regulated by this Section.

5.7.2 REGULATIONS for AREA 1: The lands identified as "AREA 1" on the map in
Section 5.7.5 of this BY-LAW must conform to the following REGULATIONS:

(a) no BUILDINGS or STRUCTURES may be constructed in such a way that any
portion exceeds an elevation of 216.0m above mean sea level; and

(b) Section 5.17 does not apply.

5.7.3 REGULATIONS for AREA 2: The lands identified as "AREA 2" on the map in
Section 5.7.5 of this BY-LAW must conform with the following REGULATIONS:

(a) no BUILDINGS or STRUCTURES may permitted to be constructed in such a
way that any portion exceeds an elevation of 222.0m above mean sea level;
and

(b) Section 5.17 does not apply.

5.7.4 REGULATIONS for AREA 3: On the lands identified as "AREA 3" on the map in
Section 5.7.5 of this BY-LAW, the maximum HEIGHT allowed for any BUILDING
or STRUCTURE is 10.0m.

5.7.5 Map Showing AREAS 1, 2, and 3

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/7134/mapvr.jpg

5.7.6 Offences Related to the Height Restricted Areas:

(a) No person shall DEVELOP or USE any land within AREA 1 on the map in
Section 5.7.5 of this BY-LAW without meeting the requirements of the
REGULATIONS in Section 5.7.2.

(b) No person shall DEVELOP or USE any land within AREA 2 on the map in
Section 5.7.5 of this BY-LAW without meeting the requirements of the
REGULATIONS in Section 5.7.3.

(c) No person shall DEVELOP or USE any land within AREA 3 on the map in
Section 5.7.5 of this BY-LAW without meeting the requirements of the
REGULATIONS in Section 5.7.4.

Source (http://www.thunderbay.ca/Assets/City+Government/Departments/Dept+-+Dev+Services/docs/New+Zoning+By-law/By-law+100-2010.pdf).

By zone:

Rural "area", 15m except in some cases, 10m
Rural "residential", 10m

Residential 1 or 3 (singles, semis and duplexes), 10m
Residential 2 (larger singles, semis, duplexes), 12m
Residential 4 (Prefabricated Dwelling Zone -- trailer parks, lol), 10m
Residential 5 (residential future zone), 10m

Mixed use 1 (apartment with less than 4 units), 10m
Mixed use 2 (apartments on arterial roads), 20m for apartment, 14m for anything else
Mixed use 3 (apartments and long term care homes), 45m

Neighbourhood Centre 1 to 3 have limits from 10m to 20m, depending on context

C1 - Urban Village, 14m
C2 - Urban Centre, 15m
C3 - Highway commercial, 12m
C4 - Arterial commercial, 12m
C5 - CBD. There is no height limit, no parking restrictions, basically anything goes, with the exception of the limits shown in the map above, and perhaps flight path restrictions as the other CBD zone is under the flight path of our airport.
C6 - Regional Centre (shopping malls), 15m

Waterfront Development Zone -- a 20m setback from the shore line and 30m setback from any rail line, with a general height limit of 10m for most permitted buildings (which is a handful), but a 7 storey/25m limit (whichever comes first) for apartments and hotels. This was created for our waterfront development called Prince Arthur's Landing, which has three 7 storey, 25m buildings. The hotel developer is seeking to have that increased to 8 storeys/25m, but the committee of adjustment turned them down. They're appealing to city council.

Industrial zones - 1 Light (17m); 2 Medium (15m or 17m); 3 Heavy (no limit); 4 Extractive (no limit); 5 Utilities and Services (no limit); 6 Prestige [office parks] (17m).

Airport zone, no limit. Open Space zone, 15m limit. Constructing buildings in environmental protection zones is illegal in almost all circumstances. Major Institutional (hospital, university, etc.), 30m limit. Future Development, 10m.

---

With the Prince Arthur's Landing project protecting some street corridor views of the Sleeping Giant, the downtown Port Arthur limits look something like this:

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/2175/dtpalimit.jpg

Only the three areas in red, orange and yellow are legally defined. Everything else I've added to the map. The height limits in Port Arthur are basically to ensure a decent view of the shoreline from Hillcrest Park. Why it is necessary to see the shoreline from Hillcrest Park, I don't know.

As for heritage, the city doesn't seem extremely concerned. The designation means little, and people here are more than happy to see anything old come down to make way for a shiny new dirt lot. Anti-development forces here are more "OMG the status quo is so pretty I don't want public art in my boring dog walking park full of yachts behind a fence and an ice cream stand that is only open 6 days a year!!!!!", or "OMG! If a 6 unit apartment is built on this 4 lane road, we'll have gridlock and the whole city will be engulfed in shadows!" Interesting, our tallest building (west of the Waverley Park lookout) is positioned so that its shadows don't really affect much except late in the day.

[roccerfeller]

we got a 8 story hieght limit in the exchange district here in wniipeg

Does that mean there is no way a modern tall (or otherwise) building would be allowed in the Exchange District? If permitted, would it have to be a faux historic style?

I dont think they'd allow, with the current bylaws, a modern tall building in the exchange, but by the waterfront area (east side of the exchange) they allow residential units to be built only thing is, as 1ajs mentioned, there is a height restriction.

We still have tons of space in downtown outside of the exchange for residential or office towers to be built, even have some unused high rise pads. If these were to get used up, which would require a Calgary boom :D, then hypothetically all these lots were filled and we needed a modern tall in the Exchange, the bylaws might have to be revisited. That said, it would not be within the heart of the district...because the fabric of the exchange would be disrupted. If anything, modern talls would be built around (think Central Park in Manhattan).


There are no restrictions within the exchange specifically that say it has to be faux historic, none that I am aware of, and there are a few projects covering lots that do not look like they'd mesh with the surroundings.

The fact it's a historic site though makes it one of those tricky things; flexible and fluid in some regards, staunch and immovable in others.

Its seen a mini-renaissance (which is ongoing) and theres tons of action there right now behind the scenes. I think it was mentioned in the MB/SK thread there's like 45 projects happening there currently

[1ajs]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/5150256400_b7b7cb2c7c_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4065/4716472782_fbd45859f5_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3143/2611398138_cdd0a9c2f9_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2536/3878994607_c693c6754c_o.jpg


http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9788/77989665.jpg


http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/5446/52073886.jpg

proposed mix use parkade on james witch will be across the st from a an entire block of buildings thats in the process of being converted to lofts and offices with floors to be added and a new building going up on an empty lot along it
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/5288/parkadejamesave.jpg


lots of building renoes going on to........

such as this one on portage that was abandond for over a decade and now being reborn as apartments
http://media.winnipegfreepress.com/images/avenue.JPG

winnipegs issues have become an advantage for in ways as we have avid community of heritage lovers doing it right almost... out biggest issue is the city contridicting its self...........

[SFUVancouver]

There is an active and ongoing discussion about height and heritage in the downtown east side/Gastown/Chinatown area of Vancouver. Unfortunately the generally well meaning social activists who work in the area with the sizable poor/addicted/mentally ill population in the neighbourhood are dead set against anything other than more social housing and social/medical services. They feel that anything other than more of the same is gentrification and an attack on the poor.

No building freeze in Downtown Eastside, city manager says
FRANCES BULA
VANCOUVER— From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Mar. 21, 2011

There is no freeze on building in the Downtown Eastside, no matter what neighbourhood advocates or fearful developers think.

That’s the word from Vancouver’s increasingly hands-on city manager, Penny Ballem, who is personally negotiating with Downtown Eastside groups over how to conduct a planning process for the oft-discussed neighbourhood, while also working to ensure that development continues in the area.

We want to respect that process but we are absolutely not putting a moratorium on there,” said Ms. Ballem, who has had two meetings with the local groups. “We want to move ahead on as many things as we can there. Some are within existing policy and some are aligned with what people want down there. But there’s no moratorium.”

Ms. Ballem said 150-foot towers likely won’t go ahead while the city and neighbourhood groups are negotiating to create an overall plan for the area. But there are other projects – some that exceed current height restrictions and will require rezoning, and others more modest – where the city will move forward.

“In the interim, there are 10 to 12 inquiries or applications that we are going to be bringing forward as a group to council in the next while.”

Some of the projects will bring low-cost housing to the area – though not the social housing that neighbourhood groups say has to be the priority – along with other needed space for health facilities or social-enterprise groups.

Ms. Ballem acknowledged that owners and developers have been confused ever since city council decided abruptly last month that it would postpone a decision about increasing allowable heights in some parts of the Downtown Eastside.

That decision came after only a few days of public pressure from academics and neighbourhood groups, who said the increased heights would lead to increased development pressure and speculation in an area that has historically been home to the city’s biggest pool of low-cost housing.

In the weeks since the decision, which stipulated that the city would work with a committee that included neighbourhood activist groups, developers and their consultants have expressed bewilderment.

“I don’t think anybody has a sense of what you can or can’t do,” said Robert Fung, a developer who has specialized in rehabilitating small, historic buildings in Gastown and the Downtown Eastside. “There’s been a lot of concern and a general sense of confusion. The decision was completely counter to what council had been moving toward after five years of height studies and reviews.”

Mr. Fung had been planning a tower on the corner of Abbott and West Pender that, although it’s blocks away from Main and Hastings, has been stalled as a result of the council decision.

He is also currently rehabilitating a small residential building on Carrall, not affected by council’s decision since it doesn’t involve a rezoning.


Read more (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/no-building-freeze-in-downtown-eastside-city-manager-says/article1950891/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=National&utm_content=1950891)

[Architype]

Ms. Ballem said 150-foot towers likely won’t go ahead

Apparently neither Vancouver social housing advocates or the city mgr. have embraced the metric system yet.

Anyway, why not put up a 30 storey social housing tower at Main & Hastings which will make everyone happy.

[vid]

Apparently neither Vancouver social housing advocates or the city mgr. have embraced the metric system yet.

We use imperial for a lot of things here too. Sort of a "metric is official, but use imperial when telling things to the plebes" kind of thing. A lot of people don't know how tall 150 feet or 50 meters is anyway.