Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
I don't remember the details but I think this was a strange case where the viewplanes were based on "monuments" on the Citadel that were either difficult to find or one way or another were not where they were thought to be. City Hall may not even have known what was going on in this case. If they can't clearly communicate requirements once the developer has given them enough information then there's a problem.
Some rules are necessary but others can be poorly conceived, and all rules have a cost. I think councillors frequently fail to appreciate practical concerns like the ones that tripped up this development when they vote in favour of complicated rules. I also think that some anti-development people deliberately try to craft cumbersome rules that serve as roadblocks for developers. The public and councillors seem to often mistakenly take these at face value or accept distorted reasoning from special interest groups. Before HRM by Design for example it was common for anti-development activists to claim that there was a 40 foot height limit downtown, and that development agreements were attempts to get around the rules when in fact they were always part of the framework.
|
I agree on both points. When a rule is written based upon the placement of a marker or monument, I always get nervous because the monument can be removed or destroyed (accidentally or on purpose) and then what do you do? My feeling with the viewplanes is that in this day and age - if they are going to be retained then they need to be reshot using GPS. This way, the exact coordinate of the viewing point can be determined and then the viewplane angles shot from them and there would be no need for markers.
That said - I didn't agree with Mr. Metledge's view that the viewplanes should've been looked at as part of the regional centre plan initiative. I think it's more of a regional planning issue, because the downtown and the viewplanes are key policies to the RP and the local plans.
My view (pardon the pun) would be that the next time a Regional Plan is done, that be included as part of the review. This way, its an excuse to use the latest technology to shoot them and then perhaps an architecture of GIS firm could be hired to show how changes in the viewplanes would affect the view. For instance DMJ has suggested combining VP9 and 10 - how would that affect the view? What if the height cap wasn't around 8 stories but was more around 10? How would that affect things...and so on. This way people could see pictoral representations and judge for themselves rather than this nonsense of the STV crowd.