Amenities, Variances and Density Bonusing

I attended the recent “downtown Charette” hosted by City staff. The City is currently updating the Official Community Plan for the Downtown neighbourhood and this exercise was designed to solicit community input. The staff involved were knowledgeable, respectful and approachable and “no idea was dismissed”. Attendees chose between four design groups. The group I participated in touched on issues such as replacing and/or including rental housing units, senior residential spaces, daycares and schools etc. in new developments. The community participants brought different ideas to the table and showed great vision. I really enjoyed the event and hope that some of the input will be considered in the planning process for Downtown development.

The area included as “Downtown” was essentially from the waterfront to Royal Avenue and from Albert Crescent and along the waterfront to the Krueger Paper site. Two major properties up for discussion were: (1) the property adjacent to the Degelder site on Carnarvon; and (2) the vacant lot previously known as St. Mary’s Hospital.

The height of the Degelder project has created permanent shadowing on surrounding properties. There is (at least) one highrise in the vicinity that I’m sure will never see direct sun again. One idea put forward that may work in spite of this shadowing problem was a mixed use/mixed density development in a style we referred to as the “Village at Carnarvon”. One thought was to include the Civic Centre on this site. The Civic Centre is being funded entirely (so far) by casino money. It has yet to be decided what will be incorporated into the facility, but we have been led to believe it will include a large art component.

The discussion for the old St. Mary’s site (owned by Bosa and currently listed for sale) was lively. I have always felt that any redevelopment on that property (that is not a new hospital) would have to have include a community amenity; one that would be accessible to all residents. Keeping in mind the pride this City has for its history, my thought would be to include a new museum.

The City currently has a museum at the back of Irving House. The building is completely unsatisfactory. In fact, the City-commissioned Cornerstone Report completed in June 2004 identified that there was risk to the collections, personnel and public from seismic deficiencies.

There have been discussions to include a museum in another building at the Quay, but the proximity to the water has been identified as an environmental condition that would be harmful to the collection. A museum on the St. Mary’s site could include a memorial to the hospital incorporating some of the tiles that had been saved from demolition - perhaps even recreating the garden. It would also compliment and support Irving House, an existing museum that cannot be moved to another area as the location is a large part of its historical value.

If a developer were to give the City adequate space for a museum (and perhaps even sponsor the entire museum) or a different amenity, concessions, likely in the form of variances, would need to be afforded. Bearing in mind this is a large parcel of property, the surrounding zonings and the fact that the developer needs to make a profit, is this something the community would be prepared to accept and if so, to what limits? One 20 storey highrise? Or 2 highrises? Higher or lower? More or less? Mixed density? Townhouses? Commercial? Mixed use? All of these ideas? What are your ideas for the site? Is trading variances (Density Bonusing) for amenities something that would be generally accepted city-wide?

Susan Wandell