We did not vote our city council in to have them turn around and give away our “air rights” to a developer from Nova Scotia, for no other reason than to allow that developer to build a few luxury suites, at the expense of impacting the long-term benefit of our tourism industry — an industry highly dependent on our esthetically beautiful city views, including our downtown East End Heritage Districts.
This is the same developer who attended the city’s legally required public consultation meeting where he aggressively told the participants — and later citizens through the media — that he will not change his design or remove the overhang feature of his hotel.
He’s stated publicly that it is a development citizens of our city will be proud of.
What arrogance is this? How foolish the council would be to listen to this developer as his proposed development will impact the city’s own important tourism industry, especially when such a development is in breach of international and national standards for new architecture in historic settings.
Let’s not forget the Atlantic Place garage was only removed from historic district zoning, not because its location was not historic, but because the garage was out of scale and form with the historic district’s architecture in which it sits.
This is a district where visitors arriving at Clift’s/Baird’s Cove view a National Historic Site, the court house, a site dating from 1720, and an institution and beautiful edifice built to be seen from the harbour.
Visitors and residents also see the historically important Water Street Commercial National Historic District.
From the harbour the proposed development will also completely obliterate the view of the majestic and iconic National Historic Site Anglican Cathedral, the oldest parish in North America, dating from 1699 and a parish that has been seen from the harbour for 300 years. The cathedral is also a significant part of the internationally important National Historic Site Ecclesiastical Precinct, a district of immense importance to our citizens and our present and future tourism industry.
Principle 14 of the United Nations Vienna Memorandum for Cities states that, “contemporary architecture in the historic urban landscape should respect the inherited historic landscape, when developments for socio and economic purposes are being planned.”
Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for new developments in heritage settings numbers 10, 11 and 12 states that, “make the form and the architectural detailing of the new elements physically and visually compatible with the character of the historic place so that the essential form and the integrity of the historic place will not be impaired and that it is both insubordinate to yet distinguishable from the historic place.”
The UN also states development in historic places should also not attempt to be “iconic” as it is the “history and structures of a historic place that is iconic and must be respected.”
This is a principle decided upon by 55 Countries and 600 architects and heritage professionals.
If the city council approves the overhang, and subsequently the hotel development, they will also, I believe, be acting in contradiction to their own Envision Municipal Plan, now before the provincial government for approval.
The plan states it will “protect our heritage streetscapes and our St. John’s Ecclesiastical District National Historic Site.”
To state this development will not affect these districts is completely misinformed and a abrogation of the councillors’ duty to the voters.
The city has not even completed a full impact assessment of this development on our historic city and our growing cultural tourism industry.
Where is the city’s accountability to the public on these matters as they are merely custodians of an inherited heritage where uninformed decision making can destroy what has taken 500 hundreds years to create.
The days are long gone when politicians should be acting as if they know best.
Our heritage is not council’s property to alienate from recognized heritage principles for increased coffers. Once undone there is no going back.
Enough is enough — work within our history not against it.
Heather MacLellan
St. John’s
