How tall is too tall for Nelson’s waterfront? Public feedback on the city’s Sustainable Waterfront and Downtown Master Plan said “no more than four storeys” but council opted for a more flexible standard in a bid to not handcuff future councils.
Instead of prescribing the number of storeys, councillors asked the height limit be 14 metres and adjusted the wording to read:
Buildings should not be taller than 14 metres.
City council wants to see buildings no taller than 14 metres on the central waterfront. Photo by Chris Shepherd.
Initial wording from the city’s consultant writing the master plan read: “buildings shall not be taller than four storeys.”
The difference was all in the words “should” and “shall.” Should implies a suggestion while shall is a clear directive, one Mayor John Dooley took exception to.
“I find that much too restrictive,” Dooley said.
The question arose during council’s review of the draft master plan, a document that will eventually be adopted into the city’s Official Community Plan, itself a guide the city’s future growth and development.
The review on Wednesday, May 18 was fairly straight forward until council hit on the issue of building height on the waterfront.
Dooley said the city is struggling with finding affordable housing in Nelson and he wants future councils to have the option of approving taller buildings if they’ll bring affordable housing to the city.
“The more units you can put on a space, the more affordable they can be.”
Dooley didn’t face any opposition but councillors looked for assurances from city staff and the consultants, IBI Group, that Nelson’s view of the central waterfront would be protected and buildings kept to 14 metres.
Affordability and height collide
Coun. Deb Kozak says recent community consultation on sustainability showed the residents want some denser housing options and taller buildings are needed to make that happen.
She would be willing to see taller buildings on the extremities of the waterfront, mentioning the far eastern and western portions.
“If we loosen the wording a bit for some flexibility I want to ensure we don’t lose track of what we want to see on the central waterfront,” said Kozak.
Coun. Kim Charlesworth agreed taller buildings would be appropriate, but only if the council and communityof the day agree through public hearings, she said.
Future councils can always make changes
Councillors noted the word “should” gave them the flexibility to negotiate with developers.
The 14-metre limit could be relaxed in the course of writing agreements with a developer, said Dave Wahn, city planner. The city could give a developer greater height to build in return for affordable housing, green space or other amenities.
The Kutenai Landing buildings would be 16.75 metres tall.
No bearing on Kutenai Landing
The 14-metre restriction won’t have any impact on Kutenai Landing. That project was first approved in 2007 and won’t be affected by height restrictions set out in the Sustainable Waterfront and Downtown Master Plan.
Building height was a contentious issue during Kutenai Landing’s approval in 2007. The developer, Mike Rink, initially wanted to build six-storey buildings but settled for five storeys instead.
No work has begun on those buildings, but if they’re ever finished they’ll stand 16.75 metres tall.
Past and future decisions
Dooley was happy to have the more flexible wording approved by council. He asked them to consider Chahko-Mika Mall, another contentious presence on the waterfront.
The mall was build in the 1980s “when the community was falling apart and we needed jobs. Would we do that today? Maybe not, but it made sense then.”
Dooley said the council of the day has to make decisions based on current priorities and conditions and he’s glad today’s council didn’t settle on wording that could handcuff future city leaders.
Loading ...
14m is pretty low; considering trees in the Kootenays are easily 35m high. And high is a great alternative to sprawl.
Our builder buddies would probably tell us that going up is far cheaper than increasing footprint.
I’m really interested if those against taller building are so ONLY because a potential viewscape is blocked (shadowing other residents would be an issue).
If only so, is that the trade-off towards affordable housing, sustainable housing, and a host of other benefit to cities and villages?
There is a three story housing complex in Slocan (I believe it is Ray Chaouette’s project); that housing sits unfinished over over two years (not sure why). At one point half the roof came back off; local complaints focused on height.
Elsewhere village footprints are maxed out (although New Denver could undertake boundary expansion) and going up would makes good sense.
Our mountains are rugged; our trees are immense. Architecture lends naturally then to multi-story buildings.
Everywhere I go, I turn and see magnificent landscapes. Should I expect the same from my livingroom or front porch?
You make great points that we’re surrounded by magnificent landscapes, Dave, but how many people make the effort to actually go out and enjoy it, as opposed to taking it all in from their porch?
That said, if the buildings were well designed and actually nice to look at, I think taller buildings would be OK.
It’s like you suggest, as did council, taller buildings make for easier densification. In a community like Nelson, where there’s no room for sprawl, we’ll have to look up for where to put people in the future.
Cheers,
Chris
An ugly one story building, like the mall, has far more impact than a nicely designed multi story project with a small footprint and some interaction with the environment, both physical and human.
While I hear what Chris Dawson is saying, it has to be taken in the context of one the ugliest shorelines within city limits in the province of BC with the most potential.
An airport, dump, mall and hotel all dominate the Nelson waterfront.
Who cares about some multi story buildings as long as they look nice and fit in. It makes more sense than backfilling more of Kootenay Lake for ugly one story buildings.
With respect, we can build nice buildings anywhere, without disrupting other people’s views, or access to, waterfront. Lets keep the waterfront for the whole community and build more density upslope. Heck, we could even provide transit services to get people home after a nice walk along the shore.
Having grown up in a larger waterfront city east of here, and having seen how it closed off view point access. I would support smaller (lower) structures the closer you get to the waterfront. You need to have that visual connection to the waterfront from the downtown core. Having a larger “green space” buffer zone between the water and Lakeside Dr would be nice too.
I’m not trying to be difficult here, Chris, but are you able to say why it’s important to “have that visual connection to the waterfront from the downtown core”?
I’m ask because I’m curious to hear from people what’s important for the city.
Chris, thanks for asking. We live on the water here in Nelson. If we were to allow development that cuts off the view, then we may as well be in any other city that doesn’t have a lake beside it. The water gives people here a sense place, and calm. Maybe it’s a zen thing. I do not know. For me personally I would rather look out over the water, than a city street.
Thanks, Chris. If I understand you, it’s a matter of keeping what makes Nelson distinct, right?
In a nutshell sort of.