the creatives approach to city planning

As Bermuda gets ready to welcome a new City of Hamilton Plan in the coming months, one can't help having a wee bit of an "oh" feeling about it when it would be nice to experience an "Oh!" level of excitement. It could be that, with a moribund construction industry, there's little point in getting revved up.

On the other hand, this may be an opportunity to engage the public in a completely different way without the developers' sword of Damocles hanging over the planners' heads.

The image below is the City of Hamilton several years ago, when applicants seeking planning permission for tall hotels/office buildings/residences were tripping over themselves to start digging. Much of the commercial floor space was erected but the more interesting hotels did not come to fruition. The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 is something of a reflection of its time. A plan for dealing with the demand for new office spaces with expansive floor plans.

view southwest over the city of hamiltonSo, what about a different approach to public engagement? Well, Creative CityMaking is a programme in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which seeks to foster collaborations between artists and the Minneapolis city planners with the goal of "providing both with new tools for working with diverse communities."

The idea is to stimulate new ways of thinking about and planning for the city by having the creative community and civil servants view each others' challenges with fresh eyes. In particular, as outlined by  Theresa Sweetland, Executive Director of Intermedia, the organisation partnering with the City of Minneapolis, the collaborations - 

will integrate new perspectives into planning and bring more diverse groups of people to the table to discuss the challenges and opportunities facing the city. We also believe that collectively, these artists and planners will create a vision and a living set of policies for the city that will result in a more active, healthy, culturally authentic and vibrant public realm.

Normally, in Bermuda, we bring forth a Report of Survey giving a run down of the studies undertaken which form the basis for the policies of the new plan. It would be nice to think outside the box (yes, a dreadfully over used expression) and gain the input of a diverse set of creative minds as we seek to make the City of Hamilton, as I've said before, a great place to live, work and play.

and we think we have problems

Reading the blog post highlighted here, Teaching Urban Planning in Kabul, I am reminded that the environment for urban or town planning in Bermuda really, in the general scheme of these things, is quite reasonable.

Jade Maiwand, Kabul’s main street, bordered by fortified complexes. image: pietro calogeroToday I mulled over interpretations of subdivision legislation without appreciating that at least we have property rights and planning law. I listened to an architect understandably frustrated with aspects of Conservation Services' minutia (at an indescribable level) not realising having the ability to consult was probably a luxury.

Even my nascent project (more about that much later), which will go some way towards answering the question posed here - what can planners do? - is made easier by having a framework of functioning government departments, a healthy group environmental activists and an active creative community.

Anyway, read this short article by Pietro Calogero (I will post part 2 when the next installment is available) and be humbled by the challenge.

observations of a planning consultant #101

On transparency and its good buddy clarity. We appear to be a little lacking in both these days, and I speak specifically of the permissions granted by way of Special Development Orders. I am prompted to this observation by The Royal Gazette article regarding the Grand Atlantic development: "Grand Atlantic housing project may be completed without BHC". According to the article, the Grand Atlantic developer will seek planning permission for 52 one-bedroom residential units.

image: onsite engineeringI'm not a brilliant person or a highly intellectual one but even my average intelligence is being somewhat taxed by this project. 

The original SDO was approved by the Minister of the Environment in 2007. Since then, it has been amended twice. First, in 2009, when the description of the hotel development was changed. I don't know in what way, exactly; it's hard to tell.

It was amended a second time in 2010 specifying:

• a topographical survey was to be completed;
• the affordable housing units had to be setback 50 feet from the coastline;
• plans for the final design of the hotel had to be submitted to and approval by the Minister of the Environment;
• a grant of planning permission for 20 new fractional units of approximately 1500 square feet each; and,
• a new (replacement?) site plan for the property. 

And so we arrive back at transparency and clarity. Do you see where I'm going with this? What exactly was approved? Why was it changed? What exactly has been erected already? What exactly is still to come? And, given that SDOs are generally used for the benefit of the national interest, how does the permission now being sought fit this picture?

The plans on deposit at the Department of Planning, combined with the actual built structures on the site, would suggest that 78 units are erected already. However, according to the newspaper article, not so.

Colour me bewildered, and pity Joe Public because he hasn't a chance. Quite frankly, I'm sure the Minister is totally confused now too.

It leads me to this suggestion: a complete overhaul of the SDO system is needed. The Ombudsman report, Today's Choices Tomorrow's Costs, focused mainly on environmental impact assessments. However, transparency and its by-product clarity would be good outcomes of a revamped process - not a facelift but a "start over". Good for the Minister, good for the Department of Planning and good for the people of Bermuda whose limited land mass is being consumed "in the public interest".