Dan Appell, October 29, 2010
Here is a flyer produced by the Brechin Hill Community Association.
This group has had a difficult time getting their message out. I thought we could help.
I encourage everyone to attend the City’s Open House on November 3, 4:30pm to 8:30pm at the Ecole Océane, 1951 Estevan Rd. It’s time we started working with our neighbours to built a city worth living in. If we can stand united we can make a difference.
Image via Wikipedia
Dan Appell — October 11, 2010
One of the key components of the draft plan for the Newcastle+Brechin Hill Community is a recommendation that residential zoning be changed to accommodate a population that far exceeds all projections for growth.
The zoning recommended would allow for a population of between 12,000 and 20,000 people. If we use the cities own projections (8% every five years) that population range won’t be achieved until we approach the next century. There is considerable margin of error here, and we are assuming unlimited economic and natural resources are available to support this population growth.
We must ask ourselves: Why are we planning for such a large population? And why are we projecting such a plan so far into the future?
I image, one argument would be to insure the infrastructure is in place to accommodate these numbers of people when they arrive. We wouldn’t design a bridge based on present traffic loads, we would build a bridge based on projections of traffic loads 10, 20, 30 years into the future. In the case of Newcastle+Brechin Hill we must plan for an extreme eventuality.
However, our population projections suggest that we would not have to make any significant response to this increased population for, at least another 30 to 50 years. It’s not like these people are going to show up all at once. If 9000 to 17,000 people did show up all at once, we wouldn’t have the resources to execute this plan anyway. We are not building a bridge. There is no reason to believe that infrastructure capacity cannot continue to be increased incrementally to accommodate the relatively slow and incremental increase in population. So, the question remains: Why plan for such a large increase in population?
Another argument might be that the city plans to increase the population in this area at a rate faster the rest of the city. Currently, Read the rest of this entry »
Dan Appell — October 4, 2010
“A base height up to 8 storeys above Stewart Avenue is specified for the Medium High Density Waterfront designation. Additional height may be supported as part of a rezoning and development approvals process where a proposed development provides additional amenities . . . “ (Draft Newcastle+Brechin Community Plan)
The city planning department is giving a handful of developers permission to build on the waterfront whatever they want, whenever they want.
The planning department is abdicating its responsibility as planners to the detriment of the whole community. This is so negligent that we must ask ourselves what is the point Read the rest of this entry »
Dan Appell — September 20, 2010
The Brechin Hill neighbourhood plan steering committee just gave me a copy of the draft of the “Newcastle + Brechin Neighbourhood Plan.” The steering committee has had it for about three days.
I’ve had a brief look at it, and I was exposed to the raw, exhausted emotion of the steering committee. From what I’ve seen, I would say this is a neighbourhood plan in name only.
___________________________
Here are the offending bits of the draft copy of the Newcastle+Brechin Neighbourhood Plan.
These bits are key. With these bits the rest of the plan is useless as in un-do-able. Without these bits, the community might have a chance. If this was modified to conform to a Medium Density Neighbourhood then we probably would see progress. Click images to enlarge.
___________________________
The most contentious issue is waterfront development along Stewart Avenue. Here the city is allowing unlimited development with densities equal to the downtown core. This is so destabilizing, as far as the neighbourhoods Read the rest of this entry »
Dan Appell – September 4, 2010
Dear Councillor Unger,
Thank-you for listening to my comments at the financial planning meeting, August 30, 2010.
After the meeting you asked me for a definition of “sustainability.” This definition is culled from a variety of sources and seems to be widely used. I find it useful.
Sustainability involves the maintenance of the systems that sustain us, so that these systems can continue to sustain us, and our children and our grandchildren and so on.
The definition provided by city staff for the production of the revised OCP is not incorrect. It is cumbersome, and much harder to put into practice.
You said that you thought the term was somewhat trendy and en vogue. This is ironic, because decisions regarding “sustainability” have the longest reach into the future and the broadest effect on the present.
If I may, I would like to offer you an easy to use guide that might help you make decisions that maintain the systems that sustain us — Always seek solutions based on the efficiency of their practice. Remember, efficiency has three components; productivity, consumption and waste. Efficiency is improved when productivity goes up, consumption goes down and waste is eliminated. If every idea, or design is tested based on its ability to improve efficiency, then it is much easier to find solutions that have a lasting and positive sustainable impact.
I do believe that if every councillor and mayor made a habit of practicing this test, we would soon be discussing sustainable tax decreases, not tax increases.
If you need further explanation or assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Dan Appell
Dan Appell – September 1, 2010
To the Editor, Nanaimo News Bulletin
Re: Seawalk condo project on hold, Aug. 28.
I am troubled by the mayor’s attitude toward the Seawalk condo project. His attitude leaves us with a very big, ugly hole in a primary location for an indefinite amount of time.
That hole does not make this city attractive to potential investors who might contribute to the economic development of this city.
That hole does not improve the impression this city leaves on tourists who would otherwise encourage their friends to visit this city.
And that hole does not make downtown a more appealing place for us to live and visit.
That hole is costing us money, or it is making Read the rest of this entry »
Dan Appell – August 22, 2010
Newsweek published an interesting little primer on the green movement. It touches only briefly on the issues involved in changing our behaviour so that we can create sustainability, but it does touch on all the issues.
Dan Appell — August 3, 2010
I have some concerns related to the Port Place Mall development and with broader planning issues related to ocean side development, retail development, downtown development and the planning process in general.
I have a lot of concerns.
Its difficult to know where to start.
I decided to start at a point that is somewhat arbitrary, and then proceed in a way that touches on certain issues I believe should be considered in much greater depth.
I’m starting from is a gap in the presentation materials that have been given to us, pertaining to the Port Place Mall redevelopment proposal.
We’ve seen an animation of a car driving through and around the site. We’ve seen some 3d renderings, some elevations, and plans. We’ve seen a drawing that is supposed to represent a view corridor analysis (I didn’t understand that one at all). And we saw a shortened version of a shadow study. What we didn’t see was what this project will look like from the boat basin. I think this view is relevant.
I don’t think any one of us would argue that we have one of the most beautiful harbours in the world. In that most beautiful harbour Read the rest of this entry »
Dan Appell — July 22, 2010
To the Editor, Nanaimo News Bulletin
Re: Brechin residents don’t own city’s waterfront region, Letters, July 17.
I must respond to John Bailey’s very insulting letter.
To start, I am not a resident of Newcastle/Brechin Hill, but I have been involved in the community’s efforts to create a plan for itself. The property owners that I have met during this planning process are all working very hard to protect the value and increase the equity of their property. Their efforts are commendable.
The property owners of Brechin Hill are also trying to promote and defend the very best practices of urban development – development that is both sustainable and benefits everybody in Nanaimo.
Unfortunately, a few developers, would like to take value away from the Brechin Hill property owners, and use that to pay for amenities along the waterfront.
Bailey might be all right with that, because it looks like he gets something for nothing. The developers like it because they really do get something for nothing. Sadly, the people who pay for this, are our neighbours in Newcastle/Brechin Hill.
What these developers are trying to do on our waterfront isn’t right and it isn’t fair. It represents the very worst in urban planning practices.
The fact that certain city planners are doing their best to help these few developers, at the expense of a whole neighbourhood, is a disgusting shame. We need to put a stop to it.
Dan Appell
nanaimocityhall
Ron Bolin
gordfuller
sunnydan