New from the Newcastle+Brechin Front
Dan Appell: March 28, 2011
So city staff presented their so-called plan for Newcastle+Brechin Hill to council. They asked that the plan be endorsed and then they asked council to “direct staff to prepare alternatives for Council’s consideration regarding building height above four (4) storeys on portions of the waterfront within the Medium High Density Waterfront designation.” Council unanimously decided only to receive the document and also instructed staff to reexamine the zoning in the rest of the neighbourhood as well as considering alternatives for heights along the Brechin waterfront. This was a small victory for the Brechin Hill neighbourhood, a large defeat for city planning staff, and a major setback for the would-be developers of towers on the waterfront.
The planning document was scheduled to have first and second reading at this upcoming council meeting, but now it is off the agenda. We haven’t got word from city staff as to what they intend to do. Most of the people from the neighbourhood are taking the weekend off. It is a rare moment of relative calm, allowing most of us to relax while waiting for the other shoe to drop.
My thinking is that the city might let this planning effort slide off the radar screen. Since all they wanted to do was open the door wide for developers and towers by the water, its hard to imagine the city very eager to entertain alternatives. Also, the plan is already over budget. Spending more time and money on it doesn’t assure them any greater hope of success. And, if they lie low for a while the whole debacle and their own incompetence might soon be forgotten.
A core group of us are going to continue producing a plan for this neighbourhood. The neighbourhood still needs a plan (a real plan), but without the pressure from the city, this effort might, also, just slide away. I think there is enough material now to construct a small document that is far superior to the cities’ document. I suspect another few weeks is all that is required to compile it, so that it is presentable. It would be a shame to let all this effort go to waste at this late date. Still, it is hard to imagine a venue that would allow this material to be presented.
So far we’ve got something substantial for the Brechin Waterfront. This includes height restrictions, but it allows for a considerable amount of development. We’ve calculated that there is room for around 700 residential units (over 1200 sq.ft.) in that area and that doesn’t include the hotel site or anything north of Stone’s property. We have some policies for encouraging resident driven infill development for the present “neighbourhood” part of Brechin Hill, and we have some methods for encouraging high density development along Terminal Avenue. There is still work to be done, but the foundation for a stronger and more vibrant community will be put into place shortly. We have focused our energies towards being relevant, considerate, directional and doable. The result is becoming almost the complete opposite of what the city produced.
I might be expecting too much, but I would like to demonstrate the extreme difference between good planning and what the city does. If we can highlight the advantages of good planning we can make a case for elevating planning to a level were the activity can make a real contribution to the improvement of this city. In my heart, at least, hope springs eternal.
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
Much of the waterfront land will require MAJOR expenditures for enviromental cleanup. How do you suggest it be paid for if you are not going to allow viable development especially when most of the current owners did not cause the problem but the legacy of those long time Nanimoites who worked there years ago did. Development does not necessarily mean highrise. It means being sensible and not stopping everything. There is a mindset that no change, no development, no growth and no progress is just fine!!!! Sorry, don’t agree.
Jacques: There is a mindset that any change, any development, and any growth are signs of progress. This is more than adequately dis-demonstrated by the million dollar a year drain on taxpayers who have better uses for that money, not to mention the huge capital drain which was required to get to that loss.
I am willing to grant you that both of the above positions on development are extreme and that we need to find some common ground, but at this juncture I don’t see much reaching out on any side. Any ideas on how this could be accomplished? I do not believe that an Economic Development Corporation which is built on taxation rather than participation is the answer. How do we get the best out of people when they really have nothing in particular at risk?
This is an interesting problem; who should pay for the “MAJOR expenditures for cleanup?” Should it be the industrious people who made the mess and profited from the production on those lands? Should it be the federal tax payer, or the provincial tax payer or the civic tax payer who in various ways benefited from the production on that property. Or should it be the people who happen to be living in the neighbourhood?
If I understand the cities’ so-called plan correctly, then the city has determined that the neighbourhood ought to pay for this cleanup by accepting a loss of value to their properties.
Its not a plan, its a scheme: We take something of value from somebody, give that value to somebody else who promises to use a portion of that value to clean up his property, then the cleaned property is sold for a profit, and that profit is never returned back to the neighbourhood from which it was taken. That is some ‘stinkin’ thinkin’. The fact that our planning department is embracing this scheme, shows just how completely messed up these so-called planners are.
Dan: Two comments. First, is the use of the waterfront a matter for the adjacent neighbourhood to decide, for the city as a whole to decide, or something in between? It we lived in an undifferentiated landscape such as a prairie town in Alberta, it would not make much difference, but in the case of major geographic variability such as a sea shore or hills/mountains the question is not clear and must be decided by political means. What is your take on this issue?
Second, if the concern is high-rises on the waterfront, what happens if the plan is left to languish and the above question is not solved. We are all aware of the amount of spot rezoning that takes place here. Do the high-rises just become more spot rezonings and nothing is gained?
I hope that your plan will go a long ways to resolve the issues involved. We all have a lot at stake here. Where and when will it be presented?
I don’t suspect anyone is against the development of Brechin, we are all after the same goal. A reasonable limit on the height of the waterfront buildings would be my personal issue – We don’t want to look at the side of an ugly high-rise of “8+” stories that was build on the cheap. Brechin is a nice area to live in and the greed and foolishness of the city could easily ruin it permanently. What they allowed near the core of downtown is nice 4 story buildings with a store frontage at the bottom – I just don’t want to stare at the side of a 30 story high-rise for the next thirty years so some developer can make a small fortune. Long term it will help Nanaimo as well – the nicer it is in the core the more tourism it will bring, the denser it will become.
I think any imposition of use or form by the public on private development that is to be on private land has to be made with the utmost circumspection.
That said’ the public does have some say in use and form because almost any urban development takes place in a public forum. In a dense urban setting every building has some measure of influence within the public sphere.
In this case, the neighbourhood is arguing for a height limit. And its only a height limit. The neighbourhood is not trying to determine use, density, access, materials, structures or anything else that would make a building a building. I believe this neighbourhood as a right to make a determination of height for this area, based on the probability that beyond a certain height a building will significantly impact the value of neighbouring properties.
The city may also choose to impose other limitations, but it would have to argue that each limitation is required to protect some aspect of the commonwealth.
Beyond the issue of height, I think anything else can be taken as recommendations. I would be ‘recommending’ urban form and public policy which I think would be advantageous to the developers. Whether they would want to accept my recommendations is their decision.
Spot re-zoning is another issue, that, so far, no planning document seems to be able to prevent. Sadly, we are still subject to political whims.
The best planning documents are simply arguments for certain policies, practices and urban form. The most relevant and influential planning documents are arguments for more efficient policies, practices and urban form. But as Douglas Adams so wisely pointed out; no completely foolproof system can withstand the determined ingenuity of complete fools. No matter how sound the argument, spot re-zoning will be attempted.
Good job Dan and company. Complete your work then appear as a delegation before Council and present your own neighbourhood plan for adoption. Neighbourhoods do not need a centralized planning authority telling them what is good for their neighbourhood.
As for the idea that the solution to pollution is densification, please note that the Planning Department just spent pots full of tax payer money game playing for two days at the Convention Center with high priced consultants only to conclude that the best use for polluted sites along Nicol Street is community gardens in raised beds of soil!
Hmm, does that count as revenue generation for the Convention Centre????????
Question? Why are those cash starved, nearly bankrupt oil companies not required to return the site to it’s pristine state, before they polluted the site with faulty tanks??
Let me suggest several possible answers to Jim’s question.
1.The city bylaws are so weak and full of holes there would be no chance for success should the city pursue the matter.
2.Legal action against companies with unlimited resources pretty well guarantees failure.
3.Staff recognizes that money spent on legal fees reduces the amount in the pot for their annual salary and benefit increases and this takes precedence over the public good.
4.Nanaimo senior staff are unmotivated and prefer to sit in their office writing memos to each other.Why stir the pot when life is good?
5.The vast majority of Nanaimo citizens couldn’t care less that their town is replete with eyesores like the numerous abandoned gas stations along the main streets.We deserve these sites.
6.City council also doesn’t care that the town is becoming less attractive every year.
7.Mayor J.Ruttan is frequently quoted as saying “it’s so difficult”,which will be his legacy.
You might note that Stewart Avenue is a Provincial highway, in fact Route #1 which is the Trans Canada highway. That hardly makes it a neighourhood road and, in fact, it defines the two distinct neighbourhoods. We all seem to be concerned about designation and plans. The designition of Stewart is primary Provincial highway and, as part of the TransCanada, part of the national highway system. That does not in itself justify row to row highrises but it must be kept in perspective this is not a neighbouhood street. Good luckj with the alternate plan.
Please Note that the FPCOW meeting for April 4 is being held at the Shaw Auditorium and not at the City Hall boardroom.
There are several items on the agenda dealing with the Newcastle + Brechin Plan.
The meeting is at the usual time of 4:30 PM.