Halifax Viewplanes/Sightlines

[hfx_chris]

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

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by hfx_chris

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):


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

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

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]

Originally Posted by 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):


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]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

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]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

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):

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by someone123

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):

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

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by hfx_chris

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

This information report is going to council tonight:
Northwest Arm Viewplane study.

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]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

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]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

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.