Look and feel guidelines

“We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.”

- Winston Churchill

A reader sent me some ideas and pictures (great tools at getting ideas across). The issue at hand – as I understand it - is the aesthetic guidelines in the city. 

Many of you would know that the City’s Heritage Development guidelines are set up to ensure that renovations and infill development in the heritage designated areas are consistent with a “heritage” look and feel – particularly when it comes to scale.

My reader sent two examples of buildings that are outside of the designated heritage areas that likely wouldn’t have been developed/renovated as they were, if within the heritage area.

I don’t begrudge private developers who play by the rules for developing properties as the see fit (I may criticize design, but try to accept that a business decision by a developer is her/his own business). 

Still, different rules could lead to different outcomes by challenging developers to go down a different road (the risk here is, of course, that if the rules make development cost-prohibitive we may see empty lots stay that way for too long or older buildings become dilapidated because no developer wants to take on an “appropriate” redevelopment scheme).

The photos are of an infill project that is likely less than 80% of the block’s average height (as would be required in a heritage zone) and of a brick building that has been given a non-brick (reportedly vinyl) makeover. 

I know a landlord (not related to the buildings pictured) who has been trying to redevelop his building exterior to better represent heritage standards.  He has not been able to justify the expense in terms of dollars and cents to this point.  His building might actually look better than it currently does if it had new vinyl siding, but that’s not in the cards as its in the heritage zone.

The problems is, renovation dollars applied to fixing up kitchens, bathrooms and other interior elements tend to increase rents, whereas there might be less of a correlation between rents and exteriors (I’ve lived in a few very nice apartments in “ugly” buildings and paid higher rents than I could have in buildings with properly portioned windows and repaired brick work).

You may recall (if you’ve been reading for years or have scoured the archive) that I’ve talked about the vinyl issue before (way back in 2006), when I suggested that exteriors may not be the most important part of buildings to tackle in a city with significant substandard housing. 

Now, with what is possibly a more nuanced understanding of the issue, I do think that we could consider putting in more effort as a community toward encouraging developers to be cognizant  of look and feel issues when working in our city (and helping them be motivated to act accordingly, as some are aware of these issues but not able to make a business case to go down the aesthetically appealing road). 

Thoughts always welcome.

Infill Housing

Infill housing has been built in many lots in the South End over the last couple of years. The majority of the housing is in the form of townhouses. Many of these homes are being listed and sold for around $200,000. I imagine that these homes are attracting more affluent people into this "priority neighbourhood." I wonder how these new south end homeowners will impact the services available in the neighbourhood. I imagine that these new neighbours will be vital to the area attracting a new grocery store - as businesses looking to set up shop will want to move into neighbourhoods with high purchasing power. I expect the Harbourfront Condos will also help attract new businesses to the neighbourhood.

Queen Street Apartments - Siding started

The apartments that are being constructed on Queen Street are now being sided. The siding appears to be cement-board of some type.

Community consultation

John Rocca wrote a commentary published in the today's Telegraph Journal entitled Adopt a better planning process. Rocca suggests in it that community consultation is key to a healthy planning process. The article attracted this comment from user Uptown Girl:

Community consultation WORKS. To cite myself as an example, I was very
worried about the Abbey Court development until my questions were addressed at a
community information session that the Church of St. Andrew and St. David
VOLUNTARILY held early on in the planning process. In fact, the church went out
of its way to invite community participation in the information sessions (and
there were several) by distributing announcement flyers at residences in the
neighbourhood. As a result, I am now wholeheartedly in support of the project
and in fact very much looking forward to it.

The current system forces those with concerns to "fight" developers rather than converse with the. I believe consultation helps communities support projects and have their voices heard in a constructive way. I think Uptown Girl's comments demonstrate that simply trying to have a development approved by city hall is far inferior to open and honest dialogue between developers and community.

How many townhouses could you fit?

Not being an architect, I can make no guaranty of accuracy, but the way I read the zoning bylaw, one could likely fit around 20 townhouses on the site of the proposed Tannery Court.

This estimation is based on the required side yards (1.5 m), front yards (1.5 m), minimum width for townhouses (5.5 m) and minium area of 80 square metres of a 3 bedroom unit in an RM-IF zone. I estimated units around that are 5.5m X 7.3 m with two-floors, for a total of 864 square feet per unit.

Without information about demand for and rent levels for this type of townhouse, or construction cost information, I am unable to say if this would be a good use of the land for an investor. Still, this sort of development would likely be viewed with more favour by neighbours.

My guess is that with units this small, the economics might be tight, but that's a guess.

Group opposes Tannery Court

I support citizens' right to organize and oppose developments. In the same way, I support my right to critique these efforts when I disagree.

I was given this leaflet last night by a group of my neighbours who oppose the Tannery Court development proposed for 185 Carmarthen Street.

I've posted on this development before, but here are my opinions of the complaints laid out on this "Dangerous" information sheet.

51 Unit 3 Storey building. This seems like a reasonable height to me.

Single People - Income Asst. ONLY. I believe that mixed income projects are ideal, though in the south end a diversity of people living in a dense neighbourhood helps accrue to tenants some of the benefits of a mixed income project .

NO HOUSING FOR FAMILIES. Not every development can meet every need. For instance, the condos on Water Street won't provide homes for low income singles, but the community seems comfortable with that.

Bad Planning - Less Parking, Less Green Space. There will be less parking and one fewer" snow ban lot." This will have to be addressed. The photo to the right illustrated the site and the current level of green space.

Creation of Unsafe Alley way. I don't understand this concern well enough to comment.

2 blocks away from School & Playground. So it is. This is true of the current parking lot as well.

"Warehousing" Poverty = Institution. Again, mixed income is ideal. Still a lot of single people living in poverty in the south end are already concentrated in older less suitable buildings. It offends me that the Facebook group promoted on the leaflet has comments suggestion prostitutes and drug dealers will use this as a "flop house."

NO CONSULTATION WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD. Had the developers consulted early on this could have led to more understanding between the different sides. Still the community had the opportunity to discuss this project during the zoning variance approval process.

Habitat for Humanity - Framing

The Habitat for Humanity house going up on St. Andrew Street is already framed on the main floor and the second floor appears to be well on its way. The volunteer team seems to be working fast.

Queen and Carmarthen

On Tuesday the Planning Advisory Committee will consider an application to build a 51 unit apartment building at the corner of Queen and Carmarthen Streets. The development will be built on a current parking lot and is said to only include 14 parking spaces for its 51 one-bedroom apartments. As I understand it, it is planned for all of the units to be available to those elidgible for NB subsidized housing.

One might expect neighbours to express concern about the density and lack of parking. From my experience in Zone E, there is enough residential parking available in the area, for some new on street parking. Interestingly, Carmarthen Street isn't in a residential parking zone, which I believe means overnight parking is allowed on the street without a city parking pass.

Apartments on Queen Street

The framing for the apartments on the third floor of the apartment building on Queen street is now visible through the windows of the brick facade.

Community Consultation and Urban Planning

A discussion on principles and procedures for making consultation work, a 2001 report by Dr. Lyn Carson and Dr. Katharine Gelber for the government of New South Whales (Australia), was commissioned to look at issues surrounding community consultation during the state's urban planning process.

The report suggests various community involvement tools including: "search conferences, citizens’ juries, consensus conferences, focus groups, charrettes, residents’ feedback panels, and deliberative polls/tele-voting."

The challenge with some of the above is getting enough people to participate as to allow for meaningful results.

The ONE (Old North End) Change charrette last fall was very well attended by community stakeholders. A charrette is “An intensive design process that involves the collaboration of all project stakeholders at the beginning of a project to develop a comprehensive plan or design”
(http://commpres.env.state.ma.us/content/glossary.asp).

More of these tools might be effective for Saint John's future urban planning. If the city moves forward with putting together new in-fill building guidelines, these tools might be utilized in reaching community consensus and strong plans.

In the case of in-fill building guidelines, if effective community engagement takes place, the policies that emerge will be endorsed by the community, and the city will be more likely to adopt the guidelines than those that were put together and shelved in 1994.

Moreover, to quote from Carson and Gelber: "Good community consultation can help create community members who are able to see themselves, and be seen, as active and engaged citizens who are resourceful, gifted and creative."

Infill housing: Calgary

While researching community stakeholders and their roles in infill housing guidelines I came across a document from the city of Calgary entitled "Low Density Residential HOUSING GUIDELINES for Established Communities"
(http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/1555_infill_guide_part1of5.pdf).

In Calgary's infill development permit process the term "community" is defined as "the community associations or their designated representatives, adjacent neighbours and/or interested residents."

The document states that "the City views community involvement as a positive factor in making decisions," however, during the permitting process "communities or residents should restrict their comments to the relevant planning factors."

This is different than the current system in Saint John where issues of tenancy, property value and economics of a project are considered. In Calgary it seems these are explicitly excluded from the community involvement part of the permitting process.