New Tools for View Controls in Canada's Capital

NEW TOOLS FOR VIEW CONTROLS IN CANADA’S CAPITAL

SURP 824 REPORT 2016 APPENDIX A: POLICY A PPENDIX A: POLICY

Author Policy Title (Year) Support for View Protection Controls

National Capital Commission Canada’s Capital Views Protection (2007) Strong Support (NCC) Outlines current view protection policies that are intended to protect and enhance the symbolic primacy of the national symbols. It explains the significance of the symbols as a means to represent the Nation’s identity and values (democracy, justice, and natural environment).

View Study for Hull (1993) Strong Support This strongly supports view protection. However, it should be noted that this document was prepared as a proposal from the NCC to the Ville de Hull (now Gatineau). It outlines how view protection policy should be implemented through zoning by-laws.

Canadian Register of Historic Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Strong Support Places Heritage Places (2010) This set of standards and guidelines outlines the best practices for protecting the integrity of cultural landscapes. While not specific to the national symbols, this document strongly advocates for the protection of viewsheds, sightlines and development of controls, which impact the setting of the cultural landscape.

Public Services and Good Neighbour Policy (2011) N/A Procurement Canada (PSPC) The Good Neighbour Policy ensures that local urban development priorities are considered by the Public Services and Procurement Canada, when making Real Property decisions on behalf of the Government of Canada. The policy does not directly relate to view protection of the national symbols in the National Capital Region, however it does advocate for cooperation and collaboration with local/municipal governments.

Parliamentary and Judicial Precinct Area Site Weak Support Capacity and Long Term Development Plan (2006) The policy includes a brief excerpt outlining Canada’s Capital View

OLICY Protection Policy (2007) developed by the NCC. Otherwise, the policy does not specifically discuss view protection. It does however outline the visual power associated with both the Parliamentary and Judicial Triads, which overlook the Ottawa River and the ‘wild escarpment’, which collectively form A: P

the essential components of the national symbolic image.

Community Based Investment Strategy (2012) N/A There is no mention of the Parliamentary Precinct. The Strategy does suggest that PSPC work in partnership with local governments and integrate sustainable development principles into decision-making. PPENDIX A

A - 2 New Controls for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada A PPENDIX Author Policy Title (Year) Support for View Protection Controls

Public Services and Parliamentary and Judicial Precinct Area Site Weak Support Procurement Canada (PSPC) Capacity and Long Term Development Plan (2006) The policy includes a brief excerpt outlining Canada’s Capital View Protection Policy (2007) developed by the NCC. Otherwise, the policy does not specifically discuss view protection. It does however outline the visual power associated with both the Parliamentary and Judicial Triads, which A: P overlook the Ottawa River and the ‘wild escarpment’, which collectively form the essential components of the national symbolic image.

Community Based Investment Strategy (2012) N/A OLICY There is no specific mention of the Parliamentary Precinct. The Strategy does suggest that PSPC work in partnership with local governments and integrate sustainable development principles into decision-making. Federal Sustainable Development Strategy 2012 N/A

Progress Report The Federal Sustainable Development Strategy states “all newly constructed federal office buildings are required to meet the LEED Canada New Construction Gold level of environmental performance.” Shortly after the Strategy was adopted by Public Services and Procurement Canada, the private sector was very quick to respond by upgrading the environmental performance of new buildings and buildings that were being modernized. This demonstrates the strong influence the federal government has over the private sector. City of Ottawa Zoning City of Ottawa Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 (2008) Strong Support In the zoning by-law, blocks are individually zoned in the central area with site-specific schedules that enforce height limits in order to protect the visual integrity and symbolic primacy of the Parliament Buildings. The height controls in the site-specific schedules (Schedule 12 to Schedule 53) are largely controlled by height (listed in metres above sea level) that cannot be exceeded. Official Plan

City of Ottawa Official Plan Amendment 150 (2013- Strong Support 2014) Policies in Section 3.6.6 strongly support the protection of the visual integrity and symbolic primacy of the Parliament Buildings and other national symbols. This is completed through the implementation of angular planes, height limits and identification of key viewpoints. This is further supported through Annex 8A, 8B, 8C, and 8D. Section 4.11 further protects views of the national symbols from two locations in Beechwood Cemetery. Section 2.5.6 states that areas where 30 -storeys or more are permitted a view and skyline analysis must be completed to asses the impact of the proposed building on the views and skyline.

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada A - 3 Author Policy Title (Year) Support for View Protection Controls

City of Ottawa Central Area Secondary Plan (2009) Strong Support Support for visual integrity and symbolic primacy of the Parliament Buildings through height limits and protection of views from the pedestrian level in the downtown. This is enforced by the Secondary Plan (Section 1.3.3 Policy f). Similarly to the Official Plan, the Secondary Plan’s policy I in Section 1.4.3 states that the City of Ottawa shall protect the views of the Parliament Buildings from two viewpoints at Beechwood Cemetery.

Design Guidelines Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy 20/20 Strong Support (2002-2004) This document shows strong support for view protection controls by recommending the views identified by the NCC and the City of Ottawa be safeguarded. Additionally, the Strategy recommends the height controls in place do not need to be revised and recommends built form guidelines that respect height controls in order to protect the views of the national symbols. Urban Design Objectives (2007) Moderate Support The Urban Design Objectives document recommends the preservation of distinct views as they are important for the community and for way finding; however the document does not clearly recommend controls and tools that can be used in order to protect views of the national symbols.

Ottawa Transit Oriented Development Guidelines No Support (2007) Despite encouraging density at transit stations, the Ottawa TOD Guidelines do not address view protection controls of the national symbols. TOD Guidelines are created in conjunction with the Official Plan and all other applicable regulations, therefore, Official Plan height restrictions protecting OLICY the views of the national symbols over-rule the guidelines.

Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing Strong Support The Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing strongly supports the

A: P (2009)

protection of views of the national symbols through its built form guidelines stating that high-rise developments must protect the views already created and must contribute to the skyline of Ottawa. For example, guideline nine states that high-rise developments should preserve and enhance views and vistas and must not block or detract from views to landmarks such as the national symbols. These Guidelines are created in conjunction with the Official Plan and all other applicable regulations and strengthen the support

PPENDIX for view protection A

A - 4 New Controls for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada A PPENDIX Author Policy Title (Year) Support for View Protection Controls

City of Ottawa Plans Transit Oriented Development Plans: Lees, Hurdman, No Support

Despite encouraging increased density at transit stations, the Ottawa TOD

Tremblay, St. Laurent. Cyrville, and Blair (2014) A: P Plans do not address view protection controls of the national symbols. The density zoning regulations for the TOD Plans consist of three zones:

Low TOD Density Zone (TD1): a minimum density of 150 units per net OLICY hectare for residential or a minimum Floor Space Index (FSI) of 0.5 for non- residential land use. Buildings in this zone shall range in height from two storeys to six storeys;

Medium TOD Density Zone (TD2): a minimum density of 250 units per net hectare for residential or a minimum FSI of 1.0 non-residential land use. Buildings in this zone shall be no more than 20 storeys in height; and,

High TOD Density Zone (TD3): a minimum density of 350 units per net hectare for residential or a minimum FSI of 1.5 for non-residential land use. Buildings in this zone shall be no more than 30 storeys in height.

As the Lees and Hurdman Stations are closest to the project study area, the height and density targets for these TOD Plans were further analyzed. The Lees Station TOD Plan consists of all three density zones. However, the TD3 zone, which is to consist of maximum 30 storey buildings, has exceptional spot heights of 35 and 45 storeys for the Lees TOD Plan. According to Section 10.1.7, if a building more than 30 storeys is proposed, the building design would have to demonstrate how it contributes positively to Ottawa’s skyline with attractive and distinctive building tops.

The Hurdman Station TOD Plan also consists of all three density zones. Different from the Lees Station TOD Plan, the TD3 zone height limits are to respect the 30 storey limit, with no exceptional spot heights. While identifying height limits and requiring buildings that are higher than 30 storeys to demonstrate that the proposed buildings contribute positively to Ottawa’s skyline with attractive and distinctive building tops, the TOD Plans do not outline view protection policies of the national symbols.

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada A - 5 Author Policy Title (Year) Support for View Protection Controls

City of Ottawa Strategic Plans City of Ottawa Strategic Plan 2015-2018 N/A Supports city-wide planning and development initiatives, and establishes a plan for the current council term. The Strategic Plan does not specifically outline height or view protection controls.

Residential Land Strategy for Ottawa (2006-2031) N/A The Strategy does not discuss or apply to view protection controls of the national symbols.

Community Design Plans Centretown CDP (2013) N/A Not within project study area.

Ville de Gatineau Plan d’Urbanisme (2015) Program Particulier D’Urbanisme: Le coeur du centre- Moderate / Weak Support ville The plan has moderate to weak support for view protection as it mentions the showcasing of views, but never alludes to specific policies protecting them. Below are the policies that outline views:

Section 756.1 Quartier de la chutes des Chaudières supports view protection in part. This is a vision statement rather than a policy, that outlines that it wants to favour planning of public and private space on and east-west axis between le point des Chaudières and the Portage Bridge to showcase important views. OLICY Section 756.7 Section de la Rive delineates a development on the ride of the Outaouais River. This would permit pedestrian activity along the banks of the river to allowing the public to enjoy the view. On the other hand, it A: P describes that they want to delineate the entries to downtown through the

establishment of taller buildings on the boarder of the corridors of the Portage and Chaudière bridges.

In the Pole Ludique Section, it describes a wish to preserve the character of Portage, reducing the maximum height for frontage onto la promenade du Portage and Laurier. PPENDIX A

A - 6 New Controls for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada A PPENDIX

Author Policy Title (Year) Support for View Protection Controls

Part 2— “Le parti d’aménagement” Oreitation No Support Ville de Gatineau d’aménagement et actions (Section 282) There is no support for view protection in this part, however, the section emphasizes cultural identity and introduces view protection of the Gatineau A: P Hills.

The policy is described below: OLICY

Policy 3 (Section 295) pertains to the valorization of cultural identity within the Ville de Gatineau. However, the word ‘encourages’ is used rather than a more enforceable term when it comes to their criteria.

Action 3.3 specifically states that to maintain cultural identity, they should “protect and frame the views of the Gatineau Hills”. Plan Particulier D’urbanisme Centre Ville Weak Support There is some mention of supporting view controls, however, it pertains to the Portage Bridge. The by-laws have not been changed or amended to comply to this. The policy is described below:

In the Pole Ludique Section— it seeks to preserve the character of Portage, reducing the maximum height on la promenade du Portage and Laurier St. The plan notes that the maximum heights were revised to implement the Secondary Plan. However, the zoning by-laws need to be changed in order to adopt these modifications. Réglement de Zones Sous Section 5 (611) No Support Height Limits are defined by zones in the Ville de Gatineau, however there is no mention of view protection in this document. This section provides a table and outlines the maximum height limits in the downtown core. In Section 612, the amendments are noted [these zones are in the Domtar Lands]: Zone c-08-259: one building can have a height limit of 75m Zone c-08-264 : one building can be over 99m Zone c-08-264: one building can be over 71m.

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada A - 7 APPENDIX B: STAKEHOLDERS A PENDIX B TAKEHOLDER RELATIONSHIPS AP : S A PPENDIX Actors Interests Resources Action Channels

 Crown land  Public consultations  Access to court challenges Indigenous Communities  Recognizing their symbols as national  Court appeal  Local knowledge symbols  Media appeal

B: S B: Federal  Significant land ownership

 Preservation of the symbolic primacy  Planning and development TAKEHOLDERS  Political influence of the Parliamentary Precinct expertise Government of Canada  Development partnerships Organizations  Scenic views  Occupant of the area  Implementation  Tourism  Political influence  Federal spending power

 Protect the views of the national symbols to maintain the identity of the  Political influence and partnerships area  Planning and development National Capital expertise  Land use planning approval on federal land Commission (NCC)  Preservation of both built and natural heritage  Land ownership  Public consultations  Enhancing the national capital  Main custodian and occupant of the area  Land use planning implementation Public Services and  Preservation of symbolic primacy  Significant land ownership Procurement Canada  Managing and maintaining diverse  Development partnerships (PSPC) real-estate portfolios  Political influence  Political influence  Large renovation budget Provincial  Political influence  Legislative process Government of Ontario  Public affairs and infrastructure  Infrastructure funding  Tourism agencies  Tourism funding  Provincial policy guidance  Political influence Gouvernement du  Legislative process  Public affairs and infrastructure  Infrastructure funding Québec  Tourism agencies  Tourism funding

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada B - 1 Municipal

 Implementing Official Plan, secondary plans, urban design guidelines and  Planning expertise City of Ottawa, Planning , zoning by-laws Infrastructure and  Municipal authority for policies,  Create and enforce policies Economic Development  Maintaining and protecting the identity of plans and regulations  Build and maintain infrastructure Department the national capital  Land ownership

 Representation of councilors  Protecting and enhancing the quality of  Planning Committee approval life of residents  Local knowledge City Council  City Council approval  Protecting and enhancing the reputation  Approving or denying  Consultation with residents of the City of Ottawa development applications

 Implementing Official Plan, secondary  Planning expertise Ville de Gatineau, plans, urban design guidelines and Municipal authority for policies,  Create and enforce policies Département zoning by-laws  plans and regulations Build and maintain infrastructure d’urbanisme  Maintain and protect the identity of the  national capital  Land ownership TAKEHOLDERS B: S

 Protecting or enhancing the quality of life  Representation of councilors Planning Committee approval of residents   Local knowledge Conseil Municipal  Protecting and enhancing the reputation  City Council approval  Approving or denying of the Ville de Gatineau  Consultation with residents development applications PPENDIX A

B - 2 New Controls for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada A

Local PPENDIX

 Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods

 Maintaining an attractive community for  Media outlets Public visitors  Local knowledge  Public consultations  Maintaining views of the national S B: symbols TAKEHOLDERS

 Impacts on surrounding areas  Media outlets  Maintain or increase value of real-estate  Local knowledge Community Groups  Public consultations  Protect and/or enhance the National  Local lobbying  Ontario Municipal Board appeal Capital Region

 Enhancing the national capital to promote tourism  Local knowledge  Media outlets Tourism Industry  Increasing interest in the area through views of the national symbols  Marketing and tourism expertise  Advertising  Maintaining scenic views

 Increasing commercial real estate  Development applications development  Planning and real estate expertise  Following policies  Maintaining or increasing the value of Development Industry real estate  Local knowledge  Partnerships  Maintaining or establishing exclusive  Access to capital  Implementation access to views to improve real estate  Access to local lobbying  Marketing value

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada B - 3

APPENDIX C: EXISTING CONDITIONS APPENDIX C: EXSITING CONDITIONS

Silhouette Rating Viewpoint # as Adopted from and Location Picture Notes Capital Views Classification Protection Plan 1 The Centreline of • Foreground view disruption from C Sussex Dr., where vegetation and light posts to the Control it intersects with eavesline of Parliament ‘Weak’ Viewpoint the centreline of Macdonald- • Spires of the Peace Tower, Cartier Bridge National Gallery and East Block are visible

• Foreground and background distracting, National Symbols overwhelmed

• Important view for the scenic approach route offered by Sussex Dr.

! 2 Midpoint along • Foreground view disruption, C Sussex Dr. primarily by vegetation and light Key Viewpoint between the posts. Background view disruption ‘Weak’ Macdonald- from Central Business District Cartier Bridge (CBD) to the east and Boteler St. • Spires slightly more visible than viewpoint 1. National Symbols overwhelmed

• Important view for the scenic approach route offered by Sussex Dr.

! APPENDIX C : EXSITING CONDITIONS

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital | Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada ! C-2! APPENDIX C : EXSITING CONDITIONS Silhouette Rating Viewpoint # as Adopted from and Location Picture Notes Capital Views Classification Protection Plan 3 Sussex Dr. at the • Foreground view disruption to the B forecourt of the ridgeline of Centre Block Key Viewpoint National Gallery ‘Moderate’ • Obstruction by vegetation, street lamps, and Three Watchmen statue

• Silhouette of Centre Block visually dominant

• Important cultural viewpoint from National Gallery

! 4 The summit of • Background view obstruction B Nepean Point behind East Block and east side of Key Viewpoint Parliament Hill “Moderate’

• World Exchange Plaza visible over the ridgeline of Centre Block

• Background of East Block obstructed, but Parliament is not overwhelmed

• Clear views of Ottawa River and Escarpment, foliage well managed

w Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital | Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada C-! 3 New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital | Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada Silhouette Rating Viewpoint # as Adopted from and Location Picture Notes Capital Views Classification Protection Plan 5 Ascending ramp • Centre Block visually dominant B of the boardwalk Key Viewpoint along Alexandra • Background view obstruction on ‘Moderate’ Bridge, just east east and west side of Centre Block of Rue Laurier in Gatineau • Vegetation obstructs the foreground view of the escarpment

! 6 High point of the • Centre Block visually dominant, B ramp of the however the dense built form to Control Alexandra Bridge the east of parliament detracts ‘Moderate’ Viewpoint boardwalk. visual attention

• No foreground view disruptions • Background view obstruction behind West Block

• Chateau Laurier silhouette enhances vista

APPENDIX C - EXSITING CONDITIONS

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital | Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada C-4! ! APPENDIX C - EXSITING CONDITIONS Silhouette Rating Viewpoint # as Adopted from and Location Picture Notes Capital Views Classification Protection Plan 7 Mid point on the • Centre Block visually dominant B Alexandra Bridge Key Viewpoint • No foreground view disruptions ‘Moderate’ • Built form to the east is visually distracting and overwhelming for Parliament

• Château Laurier silhouette complementary to the view

! 8 Mid point on the • Very similar to viewpoint 7 B Alexandra Bridge Key Viewpoint to the viewing • Centre Block visually dominant ‘Moderate’ platform at the south end of • No foreground view disruptions, Alexandra Bridge slight background disruption to East Block

• Built form to the east very distracting

NewC-5 ToolsNew Toolsfor View for ControlsView Controls in Canada’s in Canada’s Capital Capital | Nouveaux | Nouveaux outils outils pour lapour protection la protection des vues des dansvues dansla région la région de la decapitale la capitale du Canada du Canada ! C-!5 Silhouette Rating Viewpoint # as Adopted from and Location Picture Notes Capital Views Classification Protection Plan 9 Viewing platform • Centre and West Block have B at the south end unobstructed foreground and Key Viewpoint of the Alexandra background ‘Moderate’ Bridge • Confederation and Justice buildings obscured by background development

• Slight vegetation overgrowth • Elevation is favourable to enhance view

! 10 Terrace level in • Foreground views unobstructed B front of the Key Viewpoint Museum of • Elevation allows for clear ‘Moderate’ History in silhouette Gatineau • Library prominence enhances view • U.S. Embassy clearly visible • Slight background disruption to the east of Parliament, by the Bell Building

• Righthand shoulder of the view slightly detracts from prominence of Centre Block !

APPENDIX C: EXSITING CONDITIONS

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital | Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada ! C-!6 APPENDIX C : EXSITING CONDITIONS Silhouette Rating Viewpoint # as Adopted from and Location Picture Notes Capital Views Classification Protection Plan 11 The viewing • West Block obscured by A platform in front vegetation. Foreground vegetation Key Viewpoint of the Museum of strengthens view ‘Strong’ History at the edge of the • West shoulder commercial Ottawa River in buildings do not detract attention Gatineau from National Symbols

• Elevation of Parliament makes the Centre Block and Library dominant

! 12 The intersection • Foreground view disruption D of the Portage Control Bridge and Rue • View completely obstructed by ‘Lost’ Viewpoint Laurier in trees Gatineau • No view of National Symbols

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital | Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada ! C-7 New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital | Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada C-!7 Silhouette Rating Viewpoint # as Adopted from and Location Picture Notes Capital Views Classification Protection Plan 13 The midpoint of • Main building form is still legible B the Portage but most of East Block obscured Key Viewpoint Bridge, between ‘Moderate' Gatineau and • Dark and dense built form in the Victoria Island foreground of vista is visually distracting

• National Symbols have to compete for viewer’s attention

! 14 Portage Bridge, • Fully legible silhouette of the A south of Victoria Centre Block, Library and West Key Viewpoint Island Block above the tree line ‘Strong’

• National Gallery visible • No background disruption from this view, foreground is also clear

! APPENDIX C : EXSITING CONDITIONS

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital | Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada ! C-!8 APPENDIX C : EXSITING CONDITIONS Silhouette Rating Viewpoint # as Adopted from and Location Picture Notes Capital Views Classification Protection Plan 15 Eastern end of • Silhouette obscured up to the C Victoria Island Centre Block roof Ridgeline Key Viewpoint ‘Weak’ • Parliament is barely visible • Foreground foliage view obstruction

• Dark built form in the foreground of vista competes with National Symbols

! 16 Point on the • Parliament barely visible D Ottawa River Key Viewpoint Parkway, • View is overpowered by the Central ‘Lost’ overpass above Business District (CBD) the CPR tracks • Important view point for drivers, however commercial buildings are the focal point of the view

• Function of parkway has changed. Increasing speed of cars affects how National Symbols are seen

NewC-9 ToolsNew Toolsfor View for ControlsView Controls in Canada’s in Canada’s Capital Capital | Nouveaux | Nouveaux outils outils pour lapour protection la protection des vues des dansvues dansla région la région de la decapitale la capitale du Canada du Canada ! C-!9 Silhouette Rating Viewpoint # as Adopted from and Location Picture Notes Capital Views Classification Protection Plan 17A Nicholas St. & • Only the Peace Tower spire is C King Edward visible Key Viewpoint ‘Weak’ • Foreground view disruption from vegetation to the west, DND building to the east.

• Peace Tower overpowered by the DND building

• Important viewpoint for when people are driving into the city using Nicholas Ave.; should be better views of Parliament

17B Nicholas St. • Views are completely blocked by D between vegetation and construction Key Viewpoint Somerset St. E. ‘Lost’ and Osgoode St. • Peace tower not visible

• Walking north on site, tree cover increased

• Important viewpoint for people driving into the city using Nicholas Ave.

• Temporary ‘lost’ view

APPENDIX C: EXSITING CONDITIONS

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital | Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada ! C-!10 Silhouette Rating APPENDIX C : EXSITING CONDITIONS Viewpoint # as Adopted from and Location Picture Notes Capital Views Classification Protection Plan 18 Viewing platform • Middle of Mackenzie King bridge B on the Mackenzie offers the best relative views of Key Viewpoint King Bridge National Symbols ‘Moderate’ above the Rideau Canal • Views improve while walking east on the bridge

• Foreground view disruption by National Art Centre and vegetation

• Centre Block is visually dominant

19 York St. at • Foreground view disruption by C ByWard Market cars, vegetation, street lamps Key Viewpoint St. ‘Weak’ • Obstruction to the ridgeline of Centre Block

• Peace Tower and Library spires are visible

• Complementary surrounding built form

• Important view point considering the popularity and vibrancy of Byward Market

NewC-11 ToolsNew Toolsfor View for ControlsView Controls in Canada’s in Canada’s Capital Capital | Nouveaux | Nouveaux outils outils pour lapour protection la protection des vues des dansvues dansla région la région de la decapitale la capitale du Canada du Canada ! C-!11 Silhouette Rating Viewpoint # as Adopted from and Location Picture Notes Capital Views Classification Protection Plan 20 York St. at Sussex • Only the tip of the Peace Tower D Dr. visible Key Viewpoint ‘Lost’ • Vegetation obstructing up to the ridgeline of the Peace Tower

• Difference in elevation could be responsible for the lack of Centre Block visibility

• Moving up the stairs or changing viewpoint to top of stairs would allow for better sightline

! 21 Metcalfe St. at • Only view interruptions are traffic A Wellington St. lights and traffic (not visible in Key Viewpoint selected picture) ‘Strong’

• Clear silhouette of Centre Block • Perfect view

APPENDIX C: EXSITING CONDITIONS

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital | Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada ! C-!12 Existing Views Conditions Chart Continued (Supplementary Unnumbered Viewpoints in Sector Plan) APPENDIX C : EXSITING CONDITIONS

Silhouette Rating as Sector Plan View Location Picture Notes Adopted from Capital Classiﬁcation Views Protection Plan

Rue Laurier at Other Important • Foreground commercial B Rue Viewpoint obstruction, the eye is drawn to Courcelette the foreground rather than the ‘Moderate’ (Gatineau) National Symbols

• Clear silhouette of Centre Block and Library

• No background disruption • Favourable elevation for the sightline of Centre Block

! Rue Laurier at Other Important • No view of Centre Block, Peace D Rue de l’hôtel- Viewpoint Tower etc. de-Ville ‘Lost’ (Gatineau) • Canadian Museum of History slightly visible

• Considerable foreground view disruption

• Purpose/significance of this viewpoint is unclear

NewC-13 ToolsNew Toolsfor View for ControlsView Controls in Canada’s in Canada’s Capital Capital | Nouveaux | Nouveaux outils outils pour lapour protection la protection des vues des dansvues dansla région la région de la decapitale la capitale du Canada du Canada ! C-!13 Silhouette Rating as Sector Plan View Location Picture Notes Adopted from Capital Classiﬁcation Views Protection Plan

Rue Laurier at Supplementary • No views of National Symbols D Rue Victoria Control (Gatineau) Viewpoint • Vegetation completely ‘Lost’ obstructing foreground and all views

• The purpose and significance of this viewpoint is unclear; what is meant to be seen here?

! Rue Laurier at Other Important • Design of Canadian Museum of D Rue Papineau Viewpoint History enables views of (Gatineau) Parliament, however there is a ‘Lost’ poor and obstructed view of National Symbols

• Foreground view disrupted by vegetation

• Top of National Gallery barely visible

• Important cultural viewpoint, better sightline required

APPENDIX C: EXSITING CONDITIONS

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital | Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada ! C-!14 APPENDIX C : EXSITING CONDITIONS Silhouette Rating as Sector Plan View Location Picture Notes Adopted from Capital Classiﬁcation Views Protection Plan

LeBreton Other Important • Centre Block and Library visible B Flats, outside Viewpoint above eavesline War Museum ‘Moderate’ • West block spire visible above eavesline

• View disruption in the right foreground, by the former National Library, National Symbols are overpowered

• Treeline enables good view

! Murray St. Other Important • Foreground view disruption by C and Sussex Viewpoint vegetation, and large poles to the Dr. west ‘Weak’

• Peace Tower spire visible above eavesline

• Centre Block is visually overpowered because of foreground

NewC-15 ToolsNew Toolsfor View for ControlsView Controls in Canada’s in Canada’s Capital Capital | Nouveaux | Nouveaux outils outils pour lapour protection la protection des vues des dansvues dansla région la région de la decapitale la capitale du Canada du Canada ! C-!15 Silhouette Rating as Sector Plan View Location Picture Notes Adopted from Capital Classiﬁcation Views Protection Plan

Major's Hill Other Important • No foreground or background B Park (near the Viewpoint disruptions to Centre Block; clear beginning of silhouette ‘Moderate’ Alexandra Bridge) • East Block view is obstructed by commercial buildings in the background

• Library is prominent from this viewpoint

• Foreground foliage slightly overgrown

! Near Supplementary • Elevation enables a fairly clear B Astrolabe Control silhouette of Centre, West and Theatre on Viewpoint East Blocks. Escarpment ‘Moderate’ Nepean Point unobstructed by foreground foliage

• Background obstruction behind East Block

• Confederation and Justice buildings overpowered by background development

• Built form on the shoulders of vista distract views !

APPENDIX C: EXSITING CONDITIONS

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital | Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital | Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada ! C-!16

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

ONTROLS C

YBRID H

AND

Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom United Scotland, Edinburgh, Canada Ontario, Kingston, Kingdom United England, Oxford, LTERNATIVE    A ONTROL C

ONES Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils C

AND

ROTECTION P ORRIDORS

Austin, Texas, United States of America of States United Texas, Austin, Australia Canberra, Canada Scotia, Nova Halifax, Kingdom United England, London, America of States United Oregon, Portland, Canada Columbia, British Vancouver, IEW IEW V V      

OF 1: Primary height control diagram (Hammer, control height 1969) Primary 1: -

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools Figure D

YPE T

BY ONTROLS

bec, Canada bec, é EIGHT ITIES , Qu H

elph, Ontario Canada elph, Ontario

Gu Finland Helsinki, Montréal America of States United D.C., Washington,

LANKET    

B D.1 C APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D each of responsibility the is Government Federal the by owned not property heritage of protection Canada, In site. the of conservation regarding owner property the on rules impose to jurisdiction Government Federal the Act Monuments and Sites Historic the under designated Site Historic National a However, 1990. in Site Heritage National a as Immaculate Lady Our of Church the designated Government Federal The of OurImmaculate. Lady Church the of planning views protect developed, to city established was the policy As area. the to visitors community the historical is town of out and residents strong many in attracts that presence Immaculate a building with Lady core, architectural downtown Our unique of a side considered narrow Church and The streets streets. main a broad includes which to square, centre, designed town city was European city a The resemble 1800’s. the in Canada Company the of headquarters the was and history rich a has city The Toronto. of City the from kilometres 112 Ontario, southwestern in located is Guelph of City The G D.2.1 B D.2 -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin UELPH P LANKET R LANNING O C ESPONSIBLE L NTARIO ITY , C OCATION

OF ANADA 1

, C

G UELPH ANADA

B ODY

, does not provide provide not does ,

EIGHT B MAXIMUM UILDING T P M HREE C ETRO OPULATION L ITY ADY L

(2011

— │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du 121,688 : CLOSEST IMITS C : 141,097 : SIX

CHURCH

ONTROLS STORIES H vistas of Guelph’s built and natural features. The The features. natural Plan and built Official Guelph’s of vistas viewsand protected existing the enhance and preserve those Of must town city. the states 3.6 the Section objectives, in declared upheld be to objectives design The city, the generations.future its and for preserved is heritage Ontario’s Immaculate Lady ensuring Our of Church the for conservation heritage in initiatives city’s the for recognized award The Award Trust. Heritage Ontario Heritage the by Leadership Community Ontario the Governor’s received Guelph Lieutenant of City view the for 2012, In policies protection. is planning yet several register, into the incorporated on property cultural heritage site’s designated the non a is church recognize The community. the in value register heritage the on Properties Register. listed is Heritage church Municipal the the Guelph, on listed of City the Within respective legislation. its under government local and provincial ) EIGHT

iy f ulh fiil Plan Official Guelph of City O

; UR

also mandates identification and and identification mandates also C M HURCH C W P ITY ETRO ARE D ROTECTED ( IMMACULATE PEOPLE HAT : 1,475/ : ENSITY

: 335/:

OF B

3 PER V

EING OUR IEWS

KM KM 2 KM

) LADY

2 2

salse urban establishes B T LANKET YPE C T ONTROLS

YPES

OF HEIGHT 2 N -

/ C A pressures advocating for tall buildings within its city city its within buildings tall for advocating pressures development faces also Guelph cities, growing all Like downtown city’s church. the than height in greater be to are allowed the in structures and no buildings Additionally, new church. the of view the obscure area may downtown the in built structures or buildings few no a and properties that states clearly policy Zoning properties. commercial zoned residentially mostly by vantage various surrounded is from church The core. downtown the in points church the to lines sight preserve clear to designed were that areas view protected identity. and The character city’s the to adds it as church cultural Lady or Plan Our features resources. heritage of heritage natural of Church vistas and the views other to addition in of protected, be to Immaculate views established More vistas. the and 3.6.7, section views in specifically new potential of protection

APITAL OF CONTROLS

iy f ulhs oig By Zoning Guelph's of City

also strongly emphasize view protection of the the of protection view emphasize strongly also

A L Downtown Guelph’s Secondary Secondary Guelph’s Downtown GE ANDSCAPE BAROQUE

1827 OF

- ITY fiil Plan Official Law

establishes five five establishes

requires requires 4

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

- Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils

2: This image showcases how building heights in Guelph are not permitted to exceed the Church of Our Lady - Figure D Immaculate2007) (Padraic, to

The The

5 Official objective

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools Official Official Plan storey storey building in the - 6 Secondary Plan amendment that would allow law law - Zoning Zoning By density urban growth. - and

building aligns with the city’s highfor determined that views of impacted, the and church the would city not amended allow be its for the construction of the condominium. area area with commercial space on the lower floors. development faced The multiple criticisms centred around its appropriateness for Guelph and view protection of the church. Following a Visual Impact Study, it was Plan the development of downtown. an The building 18 would be the tallest in the limits. In 2012, The Tricar Group sought an

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin Guelph, 2016) Guelph, of Church Our the Lady Immaculate. map This retrieved fromis byzoning Guelph’s D Map - 1:map This displaysthe thefivein to protectprotectedcorridors City view ofviewsGuelph of

│Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du - law (Citylaw of

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

- 5

that protect national EARNED L

Official Plan’s

ESSSONS

laws and - recognized by the National Ontario Heritage Capital Trust. collaboration with the The City Commission of Ottawa and Ville Gatineau de can to encourage national symbols in work a similar manner as the City of both cities in Guelph. to protect Local government in Canada’sRegion National should Capital also significant sites through multiple legislate planning policies protection similar to of the City of Guelph. In its collaboration with the NCC, local planning bodies can work towards implementing planning policies within their zoning by monuments. Guelph has protection set through its an Church policy of work exemplary Our Lady throughout around the example Immaculate the city. and Although of its designated the site views property is on a non Register, the the Municipal city’s Heritage efforts have been formally

D.2.1.1 L   Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools

3: Frontal view of the Church of Our Lady Immaculate in the City of Guelph - Figure D (Ontario2012) Plaques,

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D landscape, national Finland’s of part important an as Helsinki defined has Environment of Ministry Finland’s views. protectprominent to aspirations national strong capital. and cityscape prominent national the of cityscape the symbolizes and Helsinki of historic silhouette the characterizes it, the surrounding in archipelago elements natural This and greenery urban Square). the with together and (Senate city the of centre Senaatintori the represents square City the Empire in historic Helsinki’s Centre in found cathedral a the Tuomiokirkko, the most is result, Helsinki The in monument identity. prominent a national Finland’s in As part an integral play country. city the in the buildings political and monuments of centre cultural to grown since and the educational, has financial, political, major and the as become 1812, chosen in was Finland of Helsinki capital Finland. of Baltic Gulf the on Sea’s situated islands 315 on and peninsula on a Finland, Uusimaa, in located is of Helsinki The City H D.2.2 -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin ELSINKI C P ITY R LANNING U

OF USIMMA ESPONSIBLE L

OCATION H , F , ELSINKI

7 esni s nw fr it’s for known is Helsinki , F

INLAND INLAND

B C OUNCIL ODY

B M UILDING M AXIUM P ETRO C OPULATION ITY L (75.5 (2011

│Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du H 629,512 : : 1,441,601 : IMITS EIGHT

FT H development as they enabled views of the the of the views silhouette. the from emerging buildings in enabled public and churches only with roofs, level of these landscape a created they important and city of the across Cathedral Tuomiokirkko as especially Both Square. development were Senate regulations and in buildings important the monuments of views protect to the set 5 of limit height strict to a downtown, the of according center iconic the Centre, City Empire the In regulation. built was be would feet) (75.46 downtown Helsinki’s of majority a result, a As enforced. metres 23 of height maximum a building defined, be not could street the of width the the than If feet). (8.2 higher metres 2.5 than be more by width not street could the building that any dictated of regulation called height This time. that regulation at place A in had Germany Berlin, that regulation a upon policed. modeled tightly Rakennusjärjestys been have character urban and growth of controls result a as and )

) OF

EIGHT

W P M C a dvlpd n 85 n was and 1895 in developed was ARE T ITY ROTECTED ETRO D HAT ( UOMIOKIRKKO PEOPLE : 2,945/ : ENSITY

: 389/: B

PER V EING

IEWS KM KM 2 KM )

? 2

Rakennusjärjestys 8

- storeys was was storeys B M T LANKET ULTI YPE C - T F ONTROLS

UNCTIONAL YPES

H OF EIGHT

C height limit calculations(Cityheight 2011) of Helsinki, D Figure guidelines were created by the city planning planning for appropriate city considered are the that city areas out the by zoning laid across guidelines new zoning created These result, department. a were As guidelines allowed. what previously than higherwas buildings change of This well. development as enabled plans city by planning regulated could be heights in now building where change city the a across policies signaled 1932 Regrettably,

APITAL OF C ONTROLS

APITAL

- 4: Helsinki’s Rakennusjärjestys Regulation outlining Regulation Rakennusjärjestys Helsinki’s 4:

A L C C GE ANDSCAPE HARTER APITAL O

OF THER : 1812 : 1550 :

ITY

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

- 7

- rise -

regulation began in the 1960’s and

12 Following these new Rakennusjärjestys changes, exemptions resulted to in the the construction of buildings a few across large high the resulted in city. a disruption of These the skyline over prompting the exemptions years, the City have of Helsinki to Study commence as part a of the new Views general plan review in 2016. The study was undertaken future to development help will understand affect the how skyline rise once buildings and high new bridges are constructed across the city.

11 regulation in zone A

Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils Additionally, the Empire City

10 Rakennusjärjestys 5: View of the Tuomiokirkko in the Helsinki City Centre (City of Helsinki, of 2011) Centre (City City the the Helsinki Tuomiokirkko of View in 5: - Figure D and in the Empire City Centre to maintain the symbolic character of the area. Centre and a few around other the city nationally centre and significant archipelago fall under areas protection the of the Finland, who strictly prohibit any new development that National Board of would upset the nationally symbolic character Antiquities of these in areas and the silhouette they form. In the 1930’s, the City of Government purchased a large Helsinki portion of land in order and the National to enforce the New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools storeys storeys separate -

9 2). -

storeys with a separate -

storeys, no negative effect on the

Maximum of 16

– No new development that exceeds the present If the building height exceeds 16 Some Some new development but with some conditions:

- - – evaluation mustevaluation 6 (Figure be done evaluation on the effects; and C national landscape, and each development must viewed separately; be Ba B maximum of 16 These are zoned: A building heights; were to be monuments of national significance. established to protect buildings and development, and highlighted areas where restrictions

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin Map D Map - 2:Helsinki’s ZoningGuidelines throughzones ‘A’ showing ‘C’on city mapthe 2011) (City ofHelsinki, │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

laws -

rise rise development in the - EARNED L

ESSONS the Empire City Centre. The National Capital Region still has the ability to enact policies and/or by that will prevent the ongoing degradation of views and to preserve views that unobstructed.remain The The development of a national ideology about the symbolic character of historic crucial role in the preservation of buildings views in Helsinki. plays a Acknowledging views of important city landmarks as being crucial to the city’s identity has worked to create a sense continue to of advocate pride for views. The preservation in National of Capital Helsinkians these towards Region should developing who work stronger thereby public forming a awareness, better associated with national symbols. perception of identity Despite the fact that high past has affected views of the Empire City Centre, Helsinki is striving policies that will prevent to the loss of develop any views of comprehensive

D.2.2.1 L   Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools 6: Helsinki’s Cathedral stands out on the skyline at (Hurson, night 2014) skylinestandson the out Cathedral Helsinki’s 6: -

Figure D

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D D.2.3 M D.2.3 -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin Figure D Figure C ONTRÉAL ITY P ET

R LANNING OF -

7:View of Montréal from lookoutParc duon a Mont PROJECT Q ESPONSIBLE

L UÉBEC M M OCATION ONTRÉAL ONTRÉAL , C , C

URBAINS ANADA

ANADA , B URBANISE

ODY

B UILDING M P C ETRO 200 ITY OPULATION L : 1,649,519 : (2011 : 4,127,100 : M IMITS │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du

(656

H ) EIGHT FT

)

Royal2014) (Shaswary,

M W P M OUNT C L ARE ITY ROTECTED AWRENCE ETRO D HAT ( PEOPLE : 4,517/ : - ENSITY ROYAL

: 898/ : B

PER V EING

IEWS

R KM AND IVER KM 2 KM )

? 2 S

. B T LANKET YPE F ORMER C T ONTROLS

YPES

H OF EIGHT

C C onan te iy sd lne hih lmt that limits height the of blanket views used protect city to the effort an mountain, in 1920, to Prior 1988. in Site Heritage a as province the Mont Montréal, of identity and history the to mountain the the provides of importance to Due and city. the east, of the panoramas breathtaking to other Seaway Lawrence St the skyline, downtown Montréal’s of entirety the overlook the of feature defining city. a is and feet) space green (731.62 largest metres 233 today. Montr includes of peak, largest its at level sea above height evident a at still standing pattern, street gridiron irregular public an and throughout, scattered squares town, the surrounding walls fortified with style bastide in out laid originally was Montréal landscape. (Mont Royal is Mount mountain, Montréal River. 3 the where Ottawa Montréal, of Island the on located the and River Lawrence Qu southwestern in located is Montréal, de Ville or Montréal of City The

APITAL

APITAL OF C ONTROLS 14

ac u Mont du Parc

é - oa ws elrd y h ct and city the by declared was Royal bec, at the junction of the St. St. the of junction the at bec, A - L oa icue sei vsa that vistas scenic includes Royal GE ANDSCAPE O

1642 OF THER

C -

Royal), dominates the the dominates Royal), ITY

13 15

Mont - peaked peaked - Royal, Royal, é al's al's APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

- Royal Royal -

Royal from l’avenue l’avenue Royal from - 8: View looking toward Mont toward looking View 8:

- Figure D Avenue. College Mont McGill College/McGill the Note 2011) cross mountain on(Gagnon, visible the

- -

bowl” 21

- on the 19 . and Royal, Royal, its - - Plan This is thought to

20 Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils Royal. Royal. This helps increase - Mount Mount Royal Protection Plan the Montréal Master Plan Marie. As per Section 5.1.1 of Part III: -

22 which also explores issues such as Marie gives Montréal it’s “hill -

) ) builds on the awareness of the history, and presence of viewpoints significance and corridors that of protected.are Mont roof upwardsroof as per section8.1.0.1 of the As one looks at the skyline of Montréal, they will likely notice a cluster of the tallest buildings in the middle of the city (in gradually decrease in the height as they Central move The outwards. cluster of these Business tall buildings in the District) centre lightlycorrespond to which where the located. This peak is of due the to policies the mountain additional set is height by control Borough of Ville the Complementary Document, the Borough Marie must of set additional height Ville limits as identified in the map titled “Building Heights”. The policies imposed on Ville appearance setting dimensions that up (purposely) fractal dimensions of the mountain. do a not correspond skyline give Montréal a more favourable look or esthetic where to with the built form (buildings) fractal and the natural form (Mont Royal) both complement and contrast each other. The Mount Royal Protection and (2009 Enhancement Plan (1992) accessibility, visitor services, public outreach, habitat protection, and heritage preservation in terms of buildings the on or near Mont unchanged to this day, although that it the should height be limit noted does such not as apply antennas or to chimneys apparatuses that extend from the

16 The Plan laws - storeys. - map titled Royal were New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools - Master Plan’s Master Master Development (which encompasses laws of each of the city’s

- states “borough by 18 Montréal Master Plan (2004), Montréal Master Plan’s Marie District - sets the maximum height for any Royal, Montréal enforces blanket height -

The The city set additional protection policies

whichever is lesser), a height which corresponds to the highest point of the mountain. This limit remains Master Master Plan development within Montréal at 200 metres (656.16 feet) (or 232.5 metres (762.76 feet) above sea level, Although Although Montréal uses view views of Mont corridors to illustrate limits to achieve its view protection objectives. maintain views of the mountain that building and is situated at the the extremity or in river the path when of a view” which applies previously mentioned maps. to views identified in the Complementary Document must include rules building and construction or criteria extension that project seeks ensure to new Interest Towards Mount Royal” identifies seven broad vistas and 32 mountain. view Section corridors looking 5.1.3 toward of the the 27 boroughs. The “Views of Interest from Mountbroad Royal”, vistas identifies looking 10 towards from the city. In the addition, the map mountain, titled “Views of outwards when it released the setting the criteria for view protection implemented in the zoning by policies to be the downtown identified area) 12 was mountain view from introduced. viewpoints scattered corridors district. The throughout the facing toward the Stronger view implemented in 1990 protections when the Plan for for the Ville Mont limited all development within the city to 10

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D -

12 Figure D Figure

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin - 9:Diagram of Montréal’s‘Hill Skyline Bowl’ and (Ville 2004) Montréal, de │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

- 13

EARNED L

Royal draws visitors and residents - attempts to find new and innovative ESSONS

can be enjoyed affinity for the landscape allows and may increase citizen visitors to advocacy develop for an Gatineau preserving may implementing them. be programs aimed able Ottawa at increasing enjoyment to the and of replicate greenspaces national this symbols with along by views Point. the of river, the and Nepean The Mount Royal Protection Plan (2009) and Enhancement ways of garnering public interestenvironment, in and the cultural history, significance Royal. of Mont The significance of a landmark, the more likely they are more to advocate for preserving views of the people area. The NCC could use understand this document garner as public a the interest guideline in to preserving views national symbols. of the Parc du Mont alike, and gives the public impressive they viewpoints would otherwise not be able Having an to iconic experience. public green space where views

D.2.3.1 L

  Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils Royal looking towards the downtown core (T.E.A lookingthe downtown towards Royal - New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools

10: “Submerged Montreal”. A photo taken from Mont A photoMontreal”. taken from “Submerged 10: -

Figure D Photography, 2012)

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D L’Enfant The city. Pierre the for today. foundation city the the created and in spaces found public of buildings design the influenced Washington greatly of City the the as known collectively are plans These city. capital the for framework design urban an established 1793 The residential and commercial areas. vibrant hosts also prominent the city but core, most monumental federal its Washington’s be may feature economy. local for the billion $6.7 to 17.4 close generating year each approximately visitors international million 1.6 attracts and visitors domestic city million The institutions. art and museums iconic several with along borders, within its government federal of branches three has city unique a is city The identity. and character ownauthentic its with place the States, United the of capital the Potomac the As Virginia. and Maryland on of states the bordering River, city compact a is D.C., Washington, W D.2.4 -

23 New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin

L’Enfant Plan L’Enfant ’nat Plan L’Enfant ASHINGTON U D.C. O D.C. P NITED R LANNING ESPONSIBLE L

FFICE S OCATION TATES

OF . These planning principles principles planning These . which serves as the planning planning the as serves which

, D.C, U D.C, , and 1902 1902 and

P B

LANNING A ’nat Plan L’Enfant ODY MERICA

NITED McMillan Plan Plan McMillan 40 B 27

P M UILDING created a a created M M ENNSYLVANIA

P 49

(130 (130 ETRO

C S (90 Plan of of Plan OPULATION ITY M TATES L (2015

: 672,228 : FT (160 (160 : 6,097,684 : IMITS FT │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du )R )C

ESIDENTIAL H OMMERCIAL FT plays a critical role in the federal government’s government’s the titled study federal long a lead NCPC the the 1997, In legacy. in role protect to (NCPC) interests critical Commission a Planning plays Capital National The Washington of growth. city’s forthe foundation City the space the core Together, region.the into out extending and the open in both projects, many for and framework strong The park system. recreation regional a established and comprehensive city the in offices government for enclave an created Mall, National the of vision original movement. The Beautiful City the by influenced buildings civic and spaces public grand of notion the reinforced The design. streetscape city’s the within parks and space open integrating grid orthogonal the on avenues diagonal of series a established plan the Additionally, point. middle the at Capitol U.S. the with quadrants, four into sectioned grid orthogonal regular

) A OF EIGHT )

VENUE ON

ciln Plan McMillan

MERICA ;

; Legacy Plan Legacy L’E C W FANT P the Plan of the City of Washington’s Washington’s of City of the Plan the ITY ARE D ROTECTED ( focused on restoring L’Enfant’s L’Enfant’s restoring on focused PEOPLE HAT : 4,251/ : ENSITY

P AND

LANS B

ciln Plan McMillan PER

EING , which acted as a guide to to guide a as acted which , M IEWS

has functioned as the the as functioned has KM

CMILLAN KM 2 24 )

- range planning planning range McMillan Plan Plan McMillan provided a a provided B T LANKET YPE Plan of of Plan P C OLITICAL T ONTROLS

YPES

H OF EIGHT

C Buildings cannot be greater than 6.1 metres (20 feet) feet) (20 metres 6.1 than greater be cannot Buildings legislated federally the through city developing a within preserved been have monuments national of views century, a than more For the Places. of part and are protect sites to work the preserve jointly Service the Parks and Office National Preservation Historic State Columbia memorials Washington. several and throughout Mall National the by spaces Plan NCPC’s Additionally, via and implemented the still buildings, is in Element Design Urban NCPC’s and by legislated policies public time over in preserved spaces, blocks developable open of design The streets, growth. future its for accommodating while vision, planned Washington’s of City the protect C

APITAL

APITAL OF C ONTROLS

opeesv Pa fr h Ntoa Capital National the for Plan Comprehensive

proposed policies to preserve historic open open historic preserve to policies proposed

Plan of the City of Washington Washington of City the of Plan

A L Memorials and Museums Master Master Museums and Memorials GE ANDSCAPE B National Register of Historic Historic of Register National EAUX ulig egt Act Height Building 25

1790 ’nats Plan L’Enfant’s OF

s el te itit of District the well, As

RTS C

ITY

has been been has of 1910. 1910. of as many many as . APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

EARNED L

ESSONS 12: This image displays the horizontal character of - development in the region. As mentioned local above, planning policies are influenced policies by federal that emphasize are national all monuments framed in to the protect area. and Preservation of Washington’s national monuments has been successful due to the strong partnership of the federal government and local working jurisdictions together to interest in address the areas United States’Washington of capital region. mutual continues As development to is evolve, planning guided bodies. growth Canada’s National Capital Region by and must federal also work and towards identifying mutual and local goals objectives for the Gatineau region to with create Ottawa accentuate national symbols. urban and design policies that To ensure preservation of national monuments in Washington, multiple bodies legislative work collectively and to judicial guide growth and

Figure D Washington D.C. where national monuments are prominent 2011) within silhouette (Highsmith, the city’s   D.2.4.1 L

Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools

29 11: An aerial view of the Washington Monument which is a prominent landmark (Mark, 2016) (Mark, is landmark a Washington prominent Monument which the of aerial view An 11: - Since the founding of the city, the federal

27 Federal Federal government plays an important role in Figure D federal areas of the region as well to maintain 28 -

Washington’s historic urban fabric. decisions directly influence planning activities city. in the non government has played an active role in and its development planning to ensure that the meets expectations set forward nation’s by the aforementioned capital plans. Federal laws, regulations, policies, and funding a maximum of 27.43 metres (90 feet) for streets residential and 39.62 metres (130 feet) streets. on commercial in height more than the width of the facing street, with

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D A D.3.1 V D.3 -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin Figure D Figure USTIN AND C T P IEW EXAS ITY R LANNING

Z - OF ESPONSIBLE 13:Austin’s State 2010) Capital Building (Seeger, L ONING , U , U

OCATION A A NITED USTIN MERICA

NITED C D EPARTMENT

S P

ORRIDORS TATES B

LANNING

ODY

TATES OF

OF B UILDING M

P A ETRO C OPULATION ITY MERICA L V (2016) : 931,830 931,830 :

: 2,010,860 : ARIABLE IMITS │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du AND

EIGHT

IEW S TATE W P M

C ARE ROTECTED ETRO C ITY D HAT ( PEOPLE C : 1,296 : APITOL ENSITY ONES

: 180/: B

PER V EING

IEWS KM B KM UILDING 2 KM )

2 ?

V T IEW YPE

C C T S ORRIDORS TATE ONTROLS

YPES OF C ONES

C Landmark in 1986. The Capitol building dominated dominated building Capitol The 1986. 288.71 in or Landmark metres (88 D.C feet). Washington in Capitol Building National the than taller it making feet) (308.4 metres 94 at stands building Capitol The alike. Texans political and Austinites important for pride deep of point a an is and function, serve to continues capitol The Capitol State the Legislature. State Texas the Capitolhouses as State Serving Texas the completion, it’s since Texas 1888. of Building in later years constructed be would which building, Capitol grand the Square.” “Capital the be would what to river the from stretching created north was Avenue running Congress survey, original this In town. new the was out laying entrepreneur, and surveying an with charged Waller, Edwin capital, the new of the capital on the located as 1839. in Texas Houston city replaced American River, Colorado southern a Austin, C APITAL

APITAL

AND 34

V The Capitol was declared a National Historic Historic National a declared was Capitol The 32 IEW

The Capital Square would eventually house house eventually would Square Capital The

- south through the middle of the grid, grid, the of middle the through south 30

Immediately afterAustindeclaredwasImmediately A L GE ANDSCAPE O

1839 OF THER

ITY

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

Although Although the view corridors are Corridors can range from several n, 2007)

40 41 View protection is a very hot topic in Austin

42 protection. protection. As of 2013, three corridors of the protected were view “endangered” by Preservation Texas. considered “lost”, and three as of the view to determine the height limit that should be implemented in the corridor. These the restrictions limit types of corridors between development the viewpoint and permitted the base Capitol’s of within the Dome. these miles to 70 viewsheds from a width metres of 15 metres (50 feet) to less (229.66 feet) than in five length, feet. protected, and they are not set in stone, and flexibility may be granted community when objectives. In the early necessary 2000s, granted relief in was in order to revitalize the order also Mueller Airport and to expand reach Stadium. the and University of prominentPreservation Texas Texas’ continue community Football to advocate groups for view such as

39 Texas The The City of Austin

37 Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils identifying 30 view corridors to be City of Austin's Land Development

level) of the viewpoint and the angle - after after an extensive study was completed. State The The two jurisdictions have of different definitions 38 protection protection in the Code view protection Government Code was granted protected, four of under which city. were the not identified by view corridors, the and many of the corridors have slightly different dimensions or descriptions in their respective documents. Under the two jurisdictions there are protected view corridors established across the city. 35 Instead of enacting maximum a building blanket height for regulation all development, restrictions setting height were a determined (using formula) a and mapped trigonometric within corridors. each of This the calculation identified height (from sea takes into account the corridors were established by both the State of Texas and the City of Austin in Planning Department 1983. identified 30 view corridors for 35 New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools

36 14: Austin’s Trigonometric formula used to calculate maximum height limits in view corridors (Austin Downtown Commissio (Austin in height limits view corridors maximum used formula to calculate Trigonometric Austin’s 14: - Figure D rise developments over 60 metres (196.85 feet) - The The Capitol building was the tallest building from its In response to losing some of the iconic views Capitol, of the and the fear of losing more, capitol view attention in Austin, was now obscured by the erection of much buildings. larger booming economy and steadily increasing population, the 1970’s and 1980’s saw high the construction of 17 in height. The Capitol, which was once the centre of by by the Chase Bank tower in 1975. The next year, Bank the of America Centre took the top spot standing at 100 metres (328.09 feet). As a result of Austin’s would would exploit in order to build buildings.taller completion in 1888, until 1974, when it was overtaken maximum height zoning ordinance was established in 1932, limiting building height to just under 61 metres (200.13 feet), the policy had holes that developers Austin’s skyline for almost a century. Although a APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin Map D Map - 3:Austin’s view corridors the Capitol towards State Building (Austin Commission, Downtown 2007) │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

- rise rise -

EARNED L evaluating view corridors, the

- evaluating view corridors on a - ESSONS

developments in each view corridor. This is more agreeable with developers as it allows for high development within the city, allows for but them to take place in it areas that do not strategically affect the view corridor. Ottawa and Gatineau may be able to enact similar policies thus strategically allowing development while not obstructing views. View protection is a joint effort by both the State of Texas and the provincial government City has of not Austin. become with view protection involved in Canada’s Although Capital Region, it the may be useful Governments to step for in to the implement protection policies which can complement their existing own Ontario and ones. As Quebec views of sense Parliamentof pride of all Canadians, contribute it may be ideal toin the advocating for the Government Quebec of to Ontario recognize and these interests. views as provincial The The City of Austin is pressures facing and heavy the development amount limited. of available By land is re regular basis, the city can determine which views should continue to be protected and which views may be of lesser importance or have already been lost. Including the public determine in which this views process the public helps connected to. feels By re strongly NCC may decide to eliminate already views which been have lost. greater time, attention and resources in protecting This may allow for the highest views. quality putting Austin has a formula for determining the specific maximum height allowance in foreground

 D.3.1.1 L   Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools 15: View of the State Capitol Building from South Congress Avenue. Note the large buildings in the forefront large South buildings from the Avenue. Note Building Congress State Capitol the of View 15: -

which overwhelm the Capitol (Michael, 2010) (Michael, which Capitol the overwhelm Figure D

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D many established This Washington in found corridor axial the mimicked Griffin city. surroundings. that urban the the view to which from viewpoints across design and basins lakes of the occurring series a naturally into transformed the and of waterway along created was feature axis a well, river As site. future defining capital’s the ‘monumentalized’ the be to argued is This away. kilometres 25 located Bimberi Mount and end, one on Ainslie Mount by defined axis an along itself situate to site of the features natural the used that orientation axial its was plan Canberra the of element crucial A construction. of beginning the from centerpiece Canberra national a become city, to opportunity the planned had entirely and an institutions As cultural, organizations. military and judicial, educational, governmental, scientific, major many in hosts Griffin Mahony and Government Federal the to Marion home is city Australia’s the 1913, and Griffin as Burley architect American Walter internationally the by Designed known capital. planned is Territory, Capital Australian the in located Canberra, of City The D.3.2 C D.3.2 -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin ANBERRA N ATIONAL P T R LANNING A ERRITORY USTRALIAN ESPONSIBLE L OCATION

C APITAL , A , , A

USTRALIA C

USTRALIA APITAL A B UTHORITY ODY

B UILDING P C OPULATION ITY L (2013 RL 591 RL : 361,488 : IMITS │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du

H the Territory as the centre of national capital functions, functions, capital national of centre the as Territory the pre “the as matters such the for responsible of are they the interests such as the and by capital, of care established take to was Commonwealth Authority Capital Government.” Australian National a the remains capital of national responsibility the as function and role “Canberra’s therefore Territory, Capital Australian and the Canberra governs Authority Capital National The one in city the in area. institutions Defense important most the the House, Parliament and Russell, at Headquarters the by anchored symbolism”. political city systematic a important with “accordance and in arranged features structures natural by the oriented with city today, known is it as Triangle Parliamentary multi This area. draw the and to city attention the align to aim an in monuments and buildings important of corridor similar a create to D.C. )

EIGHT

P ( - ARLIAMENTARY PEOPLE eminence of the role of Canberra and and Canberra of role the of eminence W P ARE C ROTECTED 44 D HAT ITY

ENSITY : 428/ : h Primnay rage is Triangle Parliamentary The

PER V EING IEWS

P KM City Hill City

RECINCT KM

- 2 axial plan formed the formed plan axial ?

2 )

, thereby hosting thereby ,

V T IEW YPE P 46 OLITICAL

C C T

ORRIDORS ONTROLS

The The YPES OF C ONES

tts ht “ that states Act Management) by authority given is that policy Areas’ ‘Designated the in inclusion their through implemented are policies These BurleyGriffin. Lake across from cityscape the of views protect to as well as Peninsula, Acton the from monuments Capital National the of views protect from out radiating corridors to view Precinct, protect Zone Parliamentary when the in backdrop corridors view a as act protect to policies there are addition In city. the viewing they because Hills the Inner requiring place the and in mountains nearby of views the of preservation policies many are there this, achievement.” and life Australian symbolizes and spirit, Australian the embodies the which of elements Canberra.” Plan Capital key for and plan the life original for Griffins’ national respect Australian and of values, symbol the as and CAPITAL

APITAL

AND the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Land and (Planning Territory Capital Australian the

V IEW

otne t spot abra s “city a as Canberra support to continues h Ntoa Cptl Plan Capital National the

(1988) A L GE ANDSCAPE 1913 O

. OF THER

Section 10(1) of the act act the of 10(1) Section

ITY 48

47 To complement complement To

49 The National National The may specify specify may

iy Hill City , to to , APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

17: City of of City 17: - Figure D axialCanberra’s plan onshowing axis land theright upper corner roads and that five outradiate Capitol from (Source:Hill Burley 1914) Griffin,

By By integrating the city as a symbol into of the nation city Canberra planning became an documents, important was monument worth the that preserving thereby whole creating a identity cultural of that is Through tied increased to the symbols public in Canada’s national National Capital promotion, buildings. Region can be national emphasized as an iconic monument together, and therefore become a national stronger heritage piece instead of of our entity between two cities. a divided heritage



Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils EARNED L

ESSONS current current land use planning after the general aims of the initial plan for the city. The continual use of the original plan has led Canada’s National to Capital a Region strong greatly would from benefit city the identity. implementation of reflect policies the early that aims of its city plans and the importanceof the national symbols. reflect Canberra has neighbouring policies mountains and hills that that are part of the city’s protect landscape. This is a strong precedent views to support of the protection development of of natural policies implemented by both Ottawa and Gatineau. features on that the could be Canberra has been able to maintain corridors strong view to the capitol as a result of modeling

  D.3.2.1 L

51 may set

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools Plan may set out special

Plan As As well, Section 10(2)(d) of the Act

50 16: Canberra’s Capitol Hill along the land axis across Lake Burley Griffin Griffin Burley Lake along theHill across land axis Capitol Canberra’s 16: -

Figure D (Explore Australia, 2010)

requirements for the development being of a Designated Area), being requirements any that are area (not desirable in the interests National of the Capital.” development in Designated Areas and the priorities in carrying development.” out specifies such that “the planning, design and the National Capital to be Designated Areas. 10(2)(c) of the SectionAct further states that the out detailed conditions of planning, design and areas of land that have the special characteristics of

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D D.3.3 H D.3.3 Citadel (Tourism city core the Nova 2016) and Hill Scotia, D Figure -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin - 18:is This viewan aerial of Halifax displaying ALIFAX P N R LANNING OVA H ESPONSIBLE ALIFAX L M

OCATION S , C , UNICIPALITY COTIA

R ANADA EGIONAL , C

B ANADA ODY

B UILDING P M C 27 ETRO OPULATION ITY L M (2011 : 297,943 : IMITS

│Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du 408,702 : (88.6

H harbour, creating a ‘picket fence’ effect with restrictive restrictive with effect fence’ ‘picket a creating harbour, the of of view the obstruct would it ends planes, view protected narrow the between built structures be to and allowed were buildings tall If planes. view between the in policies protection adopted Council Halifax 1978, In hill. on the points specific from corridors view protect to planes view 10 adopted Council Halifax 1974, In Hill. Citadel from views preserve to limits height and planes view protected regarding policies Municipality passed Regional have (HRM) Halifax and Halifax of City The people 800,000 annually. hosting attraction tourist popular a also is Hill Citadel significance, historical its to addition water. the to closer hill, the of base the at homes which defense their constructed for who settlers first hill Halifax’s prompted the on built was guardhouse its wooden A to Harbour. due Halifax the city overlooking orientation the Hill defend Citadel Military years. British 50 the helped over in for role history significant Scotia’s a Nova played has Hill Citadel Halifax’s ) FT EIGHT

)

Municipal Planning Strategy Strategy Planning Municipal

W P C ARE ITY ROTECTED C D HAT ( PEOPLE ITADEL : 1,077/ : ENSITY

PER V EING

IEWS KM ILL KM 2 )

? 2

to protect views views protect to V T IEW YPE P

ROVINCIAL C CORRIDORS T 52 ONTROLS

YPES OF In In CONES

C constructed under or adjacent to edges of a protected protected a of edges to adjacent or under constructed by the of 77 Section Furthermore, feet). (90 metres 27.4 visible be shall Hill of height aat Citadel stand which ramparts Citadel’s the above of vicinity the in located altered, is which structure or building no that legislates also 70 Section constructed, plane. view protected that a city through protrude the erected, may in zone any in be located or reconstructed, shall building By Use Land Halifax Strategy Planning recent most been the have in planes. forward Hill carried view Citadel between regarding view policies the Protection more off walling adopted avoid to Canada, Hill, Citadel of of vicinity the in heights control to policies Government the proposals, from development planes. view several Canada, of ends the between views of Parks protection for advocating for of behalf intervened on The buildings. Government, tall Federal between gaps narrow from views

APITAL

- OF APITAL

AND law states that if a proposed building is to be be to is building proposed a if that states law

VIEW

In 1985, Halifax Council, with support support with Council, Halifax 1985, In

. 55 A L - Law Law GE ANDSCAPE O

1749 OF THER eto 2 sae ta no that states 24 Section

ITY

Halifax Municipal Municipal Halifax APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

4:This displays view planes that were - Map D created by the City of Halifax in 1974 to protect views from Citadel Hill to the 2016) Regional(Halifax Municipality, Halifax Harbour

Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils EARNED L

ESSONS 19: The prominence of the clock tower on Citadel Citadel theon clock prominencetower 19: of The - view view of Halifax without obstructed views resulting from clusters of tall buildings. Canada’s National Capital implementing Region similar policy organizations with can local in planning partnership also Capital Commission using Halifax as reference. with the work National Halifax towards Regional Municipalitystrong advocate in Halifax working to protect Committee view is planes as the a city continues having organizations to similar evolve. to As STV, well, also vital plays a role protection. It would be extremely beneficial in to have raising similar awareness organizations around Region under the in guidance view of the National Capital the Commission. National Capital Planning Planning policy in Halifax works to between view protect planes, views creating a complete skyline

Figure D stands 2012) (Skumar84, outHill skyline on the D.3.3.1 L   . The The 57 New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools

56 ‘HRMbyDesign’ ‘HRMbyDesign’ Plan

58 partisan groups in Halifax that actively advocates -

of planning policies and Halifax organizations Regional such Municipality as, the Committee, collaboration. working in works to raise awareness among regarding the smart general development public and view preservation.Successful preservation of views in Halifax are a result considerable considerable input in the recent Moreover, Save the View (STV) is a coalition of eleven non for view corridor protection of Citadel Hill. The group been been very active in protecting views from Citadel advocating Hill, for Heritage the establishment Conservation of HRM’s District first and has had planning planning policies that Province’s may Heritage be Statement in to Heritage conflict the Trust with Board of the of Nova the Scotia. This committee has Provincial Provincial Government works towards with the preserving municipality regions. heritage Additionally, a and Halifax Committee Regional communicates its Municipality concerns regarding HRM’s surrounding The The Heritage Statement for Nova Provincial Scotia Government’s role to defines identify, preserve, the and protect significant natural and cultural heritage. lying lying outside but adjacent to an edge of the view plane must not be parallel, unless the edge of the view plane is toparallel the immediate street. view plane, then the sides of the proposed structure

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS London, and the 32 boroughs in London. This This London. D in boroughs 32 the of City and the of London, Corporation the London, of Mayor the between responsibility shared a is London in Planning of D.17.2). views (see Figure Cathedral Paul's St. iconic the influences negatively which rapid Gherkin”, “The and improper as known commonly Axe, Mary St. 30 at building the of of because construction the is this of example key and A development. lost city the regulations across been views many planning have result, a of As ahead guidelines. develop and grow to city the forced have that pressures intense of focus the been also the has London and city. the views of character these threatening lifespan, British its the during of head the growth unimaginable through gone has city the Empire, as history other longstanding and its river of result the a as Yet, city. of the throughout buildings iconic views incredible offers Thames, and a River the as along located position is It its capital. and cultural influence, financial its status, world is England London, D.3.4 L D.3.4 -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin ONDON G E REATER NGLAND P R LANNING ESPONSIBLE L

OCATION L , U , E , ONDON NITED NGLAND - renowned for its Global City City Global its for renowned

A B K UTHORITY INGDOM ODY

B UILDING M P C ETRO ITY OPULATION L 59 : 8,673,713 : (2015 :13,879,757 IMITS

N/A │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du

and around World Heritage Sites including views to to views including Sites Heritage World around and in development controls 7.10 Policy views; through strategic or local on tall done impact adverse that an have is requires not should which buildings This 7.7, Policy London. as: such of policies skyline the views enhance and or improve to buildings tall and large the In the Plan. in found are that policies and principles the reflect must which a Framework create Development Local plans London in neighbourhood Boroughs policies. that its to requires conform and planning city its the for and city the The needs. in changes to according plan this renew the and review continually to called and (2011), Authority, London the Greater through city the a for producing strategy development for spatial responsible is Greater London of Mayor the The established city. the plan can they which through body Authority London planning collective ) EIGHT

odn Plan London

London Plan Plan London P AND S ALACE M T . P C W P ETRO

ITY T ARE tee r plce ta require that policies are there , D AUL ROTECTED OWER HAT (

PEOPLE : 5,518/ : OF ENSITY : 1,656/ : ’

W B

cs s giig document guiding a as acts

C PER V OF ESTMINSTER EING ATHEDRAL

IEWS KM

L 2 KM ONDON )

London Plan Plan London V T IEW M YPE London London ULIT

G C C T LOBAL ORRDORS ONTROLS -

YPES F OF UNCTIONAL C ONES

C C across the city that fall under the jurisdiction of the the of Plan jurisdiction the London under fall that city the across settings.” their and assets heritage to and environment historic access the improve and enhance protect, “identify, to the in policies well, As an of been growth London. across skyline and city has the the there of control views affected has that buildings tall in increase help development, to the inappropriate for London ability of the despite Mayor Yet, city. the throughout provide can Plans of who development Mayor the in the guidance from done assistance be can with This city. the surrounding of views their and on environment have will views buildings that planned impact strategically The of city. the across number a protects the to authority provide which 7.12, and 7.11 and, them; APITAL

APITAL

OF AND

London View Management Framework Framework Management View London

AND

V as to the appropriate location of tall buildings buildings tall of location appropriate the to as

IEW

There are many World Heritage Sites Sites Heritage World many are There including: Maritime Greenwich, Royal Royal Greenwich, Maritime including:

A L Plan GE Plan ANDSCAPE B C.43 AD C.43

AROQUE lo ugss sesn the assessing suggests also OF

direct neighbourhood plans plans neighbourhood direct

61 C

ITY Local Development Development Local

that APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

- ground, -

London View Management EARNED L

, is a strong document in support of ESSONS rise development disrupting important views corresponding policy, itsachieved. Therefore this document does aims not have meaningful are influence not over except being planning on occasions in where the the Mayor considers city, of a London view critical to the identity of and the its history. The city creation of a guiding document would be beneficial to the National Capital Region to start developing policy corresponding to the view corridors to development. protect them The National Capital Region could benefit from the from London harmful consideration View of the and foreground, background Management middle of each should view. be paid to all aspects of a view, especially if Special attention Framework’sa lost view can be salvaged by foliage changes in the foregroundmiddle or ground. London is development of guiding policies in response to high a - strong example around the city. Despite the good intentions of of the Mayor the of London, the new developmentstudy to identify current and of lost views would have a skyline been more proactive a few National decades Capital Region earlier. has The the opportunity to be proactive in national symbols are studied and protected prior ensuring to important future development pressures. sightlines of The guiding document, Framework view protection because policies it across is the not city. being Yet, used to implement

 D.3.4.1 L   rise - , which poses Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils London Plan rise buildings that were meant to -

been been paid to accentuate and add to the dynamic encouraging skyline of London development in policies throughout that the will risks to views that are considered less significant. As a result, many views have been lost across the city to the development of high improve and add to existing views. the skyline, and to not harm In comparison, Paris also decided to allow a high tower in their quickly downtown came to realize that development core of this scale (Montparnasse) would and significantly affect views result, they have of since required development its to occur skyline. away As from the core in a La Défense where it’s presence would not have an effect on the city’s skyline. London has also allowed concentrated high rise development away from the downtown core area. in the Canary Wharf lines have not been protect development used from interrupting the character of to implement policies these to areas. Additionally, considerable attention has as a World New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools , authority is given is forward thinking,

Plan , which protect them by London London Plan

20: The obstructed The obstructed 20: 63 - London View Management Framework

the background (Attractions the background (Attractions Map, 2016) Figure D St.view of Paul’s Cathedral in present with‘Gherkin’ the Management Plans. While this it is only a guiding document and these protected view identified for designated views: St Paul’s Cathedral, the Palace of Westminster and the Tower of London which are also individually supported by World Heritage classified as London panoramas, prospects, linear views, and river strategically townscapeimportant landmarks in London have been views. However, three Through Through policies in the to the supplementary guiding document management and implementation of todesignated views the continual development that character. could harm the site or its under under additional protection through UNESCO’s Heritage Management Plans the use of a buffer zone. The buffer zone protects the heritage site and the surrounding area from any Westminster Abbey, including St and the Tower of London. These sites are recognized to Margaret’s Church have outstanding universal value and therefore fall Botanic Gardens Kew, Palace of Westminster and

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D the of adoption the 1979, In 1980s. the in peaking history, city’s the throughout Portland of City the by developed policies protection view of shortage no been has There boosting while pride. civic city the Beautiful surrounding features natural City the of views the spectacular complement to attempt an in by the boulevards wide to and parks inspired grand included movement, Helens Bennett, St. Mount Edward and east northeast. the to Mount of Hood views spectacular with city the of heart the Washington creating renamed 400 over included which (later Park) to Park City commitment impressive century, for its famous 19th was strong and city late the throughout a the greenspaces In had 1843. Portland in founded Portland 1840s, River. was the Willamette in pioneers the by of settled bank Originally the on situated USA, Oregon, in located city northwest Pacific a is Portland D.3.5 P D.3.5 -

26 onon Plan Downtown

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin 65 66

ORTLAND

O The T P REGON HE R LANNING

P ESPONSIBLE S Greater Portland Plan Plan Portland Greater L P ORTLAND USTAINABILITY LANNING , U OCATION A MERICA NITED , U , dniid egt iis for limits height identified

AND NITED S UREAU B

TATES ODY -

acres of greenspace in in greenspace of acres

TATES B (1912), by by (1912), UILDING M P

ETRO OF C OPULATION ITY L V (2015

: 583,776 583,776 : : 2,389,228 : ARIABLE IMITS A │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du MERICA

H each on a predetermined set of criteria which included included which criteria of set predetermined a on each evaluating protection, for citizens) (by nominated views 1989 in and the natural released protect and and resources.” space scenic open Conservation conserve municipalities “to all Land required that requirement Oregon planning state new a the released Commission Development 1981, In and (1985), Study Corridor view Plan Additionally, Greenway water. the including areas policy special Portland’s of of bodies many of fabric the into built regularly was protection and parks, also city buildings, bridges, for policies the protection view enacted Portland, with notable the associated most views Although the scenic Hood. considered largely Mount are and mountains Helens St. Mount of corridors view preserve to core downtown Portland’s )

EIGHT

hs 330 This the Central City Plan City theCentral Scenic Views, Sites and Drives Inventory Inventory Drives and Sites Views, Scenic M (1983), the the (1983), OUNTAINS W P 68 (1979), the the (1979), C ARE - ITY ROTECTED page report identified over 300 300 over identified report page n epne te iy f Portland of City the response, In D HAT ( PEOPLE : 1,689/ : ENSITY

AND PER V EING

IEWS KM Macadam Corridor Plan Plan Corridor Macadam

B KM 2 ) RIDGES

(1988). ? 2

Terwilliger Parkway Parkway Terwilliger

V Willamette Willamette T IEW YPE

C C T - ORRIDORS wide wide ONTROLS

YPES OF C N/A ONES

C ae rgnmti frua o aclt allowable calculate to City the for allows This Texas. Austin, as height building formula trigonometric the same development, site the a uses of Portland city. the across on variable is and basis calculated terms is limit In height maximum downtown. the in zoning updated limits, Zone Resource Scenic newa of creation the and maps, height revised citizen involvement, management, vegetation Resources acquisition, land criteria includes for Scenic plan This inventory. the in Corridors: identified and (1991) Plan Protection Sites, the released Views, Bureau Planning Portland The or full legislation. had already city or views state enacted previously from 131 protection partial the of Many drives. mountain scenic scenic and sites, scenic views, panoramas, city views, bridge views, category: possible each in each ranked and placed were of views 131 and completed, was Scoring resource others. among accessibility, and quality visual protection, of feasibility

APITAL

AND

V IEW

A L GE ANDSCAPE

to guide the protection of views views of protection the guide to O

1843 OF THER

ITY

- Scenic Scenic by - site site APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

- lists

Plan (1991) also has (1991) places a

EARNED L

Scenic Views, Sites, and Corridors: Scenic Views, Sites, and Corridors:

ESSONS

Scenic Resources Protection Plan provisions for establishing bike routes in areas and with important viewpoints pedestrian or view corridors. This is done to allow for residents to feel pride in their city, while enhancing and quality making the city a more of aesthetic place to live. life When updating active transportation plans, it may be a good practice for the NCC, City of Ottawa and Ville de Gatineau to locate corridors. routes along scenic Portland’s Scenic Resources Protection Plan heavy importance on vegetation management view in corridors throughout the city. The permitted species, requirements, tree and pruning removal public measures and & on private guarantee that both planting vegetation lands. complements and does This not policy obstruct aims views. This to couldlesson for be the National very Capital Region valuable which vegetation has obstructing many of the views national symbols. of the Portland’s

  D.3.5.1 L

Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils

23: Portland’s Trigonometric Formula Trigonometric Portland’s 23: - 22: View of Hawthorne Bridge, asce- Bridge, protected Hawthorne of View 22: - Figure D 1991) (Bureau Planning Portland, of Figure D Park Waterfront in Port- nicMcCall Tom resource, from 2011) (Hartnup, land

70 New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools

72 As As Portland’s population

71 21: View of Mt. Hood over Portland (Gunn, Portland (Gunn, over Mt. of Hood View 21: -

Figure D 2012)

from from developers (and citizens) to lift many of the height limits throughout shortages, but there are the citizens also speaking out in city favour of protecting and retaining them. to address housing development in exchange for a provision that benefits the city and/or the public. continues to increase, there have been many calls design before review being approved by the city. Portland also has policies which allow which for “bonuses” may increase the maximum height for a across the directing development to city other areas. As a further way (mountains, of controlling development, applications bridges, must undergo etc.) while of Portland to prioritize and protect chosen views

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D in future city’s priority top a identified the reports These 1979. and for 1978 vision public’s the regarding the studies mitigate two conducted Vancouver skyline, city’s the help on To high that landscape. effects city’s adverse the of part high core, downtown the in land available of scarcity Vancouver’s the to Due of City has the views of planningobjectives. part the crucial of a become preservation and maintenance the result, a synonymous As nature.” to “connection become city’s the Mountains, with have the views and Shore These shoreline the mountains. both North to backdrops and the views caters and skyline to unique a developed has Vancouver proximity and Ocean widely Pacific the on location stunning its of result a As is and City, cities. livable most world’s the Global of one be to considered Beta a become to grown the Burrard has The city Columbia. of British coast the west on the Inlet between and River peninsula Fraser the a Georgia, of Straight on located is Vancouver D.3.5 V D.3.5 -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin - rise buildings have become an inevitable inevitable an become have buildings rise ANCOUVER C B ITY P RITISH R

LANNING OF ESPONSIBLE L

V 73

C OCATION ANCOUVER

OLUMBIA , C , - rise development can have have can development rise

B , C

ANADA C ODY

OUNCIL ANADA

B UILDING M P ETRO C OPULATION ITY L V (2011 : 603,502 : : 2,313,328 : ARIABLE IMITS │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du

H included public consultations, leading to the the to 36 of total a in resulted and leading Council City by adopted were consultations, guidelines The views. additional of identification public which included 2011, in guidelines the of review a After cone. view a puncture will they not or whether determine to buildings proposed of height the assess which planes angular of use the through done is This development. not large supporting will still that while corridors, city view affect the around places in buildings high rise of design and development the encourage to is guidelines of set this of goal The viewpoints. different of number a from Creek False and skyline, downtown of the mountains, the protecting city the creation across corridors the Guidelines in Protection resulted This conducted. would the 1989 In lost. been have views these city, the from intervention without and city the across skylines threaten to began 1980’s Mountains. the the Shore in pressures development studies, North these shoreline, Following the the and of skyline, views downtown of preservation the for )

EIGHT

O W CEAN P M C ARE ITY ROTECTED ETRO D HAT ( PEOPLE

: 5,249/ :

AND ENSITY V (2011) identifying 26 view view 26 identifying (2011) : 804/: IEWS B

PER

V M EING Vancouver View Study View Vancouver

IEWS OUINTAIN KM

KM 2 KM )

? 2

T V YPE IEW B C - ETA T scale scale View View

C C ONTROLS was was

YPES OF ORRIDORS ONES G - LOBAL

C views and make room for new high for new room make viewsand protectimportant to of Vancouver City the allow would This downtown. the in occur to more development allow to viewand cones current aroundthe get tool to the after developed was capacity Benefit newdevelopment. the allowfor corridor to view respective the adjusting for responsible be then would Theof Vancouver City exchange. in benefits public provide to theyagree if viewa corridor obstructing building, of their density the developer a increase to This toolallows planning tool. a as capacity” of “benefit development potential Guidelines Protection the to adjustment One protectedviews. affecting without corridors ofview outside areas in development tallerhigh allow to city of the ability the determine to was studies ofthese The purpose (2013). Review of Vancouver: City the by beencommissioned have studies Twoadditional Vancouver. in cones protectedview

AND

APITAL OF

V ITY

IEW

(2011) and and (2011)

View Protection Guidelines Guidelines Protection View

O THER The Higher Building Review Review Building Higher The A L that came about in 2016 is is the 2016 in about came that The Heritage Area Height Area Heritage The GE ANDSCAPE

/ P

1886 OF ICTURESQUE

ITY - 74 rise development rise development were in place as a place as in were

- rise

View APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools

75 24: Vancouver skyline, showing views to both the water and the mountains in the distance (Shah, 2013) (Shah, distance in and thethe water mountains showingthe viewsskyline, to both Vancouver 24: - Figure D

view corridorsview around the city. of benefit capacity, a study has been requested by City Council to determine the long term development potential of this tool and the effects it on may have at the same time. explore To the foreseeable potential

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D -

30 MapD

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin - 5: City of Vancouver Cityof Vancouver 5: View Protection Guidelines Guidelines Protection View │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du showing all 36 view corridors (City of Vancouver, 2016) of Vancouver, (City corridors view all 36 showing

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

that started with . The use of a survey in 1989. The National EARNED L

rise development became problematic -

ESSONS View Control Study View Protection Guidelines View Protection Guidelines to gauge the Capital public’s Region’s skyline could prove to opinions be a strong of resource the to support the protection National of views across the region. Before high for their skyline, leader in Vancouver view protection was through the the considered creation of a the Capital Region implement a view protection guideline stillof the same has scale the as development that does opportunitynot suit the Vancouver background of to the capital’s skyline. to prevent any more Public support and public perception Vancouver’s of views of skyline, mountains, plays a large part in the adherence of developers to and shoreline the

D.3.5.1 L

  Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools 25: This figure illustrates the proposed skyline that was chosen by council with heavy influence from the public, -

Figure D Vancouver, of (City 1997) standingfeet) metres (1969 at 600 towers including two Landmark

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D international and national, local, important includes 2011 Plan Management Site Heritage of protection the under is area specific This 1995. in Site Heritage World a as identified was which Edinburgh of Towns New and Old of the exception the with whole city This city. the of area urban the for 2010 Plan Local City the adopted Council Edinburgh of City the city, historic this of a character the maintain to order In created have here skyline. iconic Edinburgh’s found defined has that landscape picturesque distinguishing monuments buildings the of and Many fortification. for opportunities formation rock large a of rocky advantages natural The a landscape. hilly in and resulting activity, volcanic was early that by landscape formed a of top on of located Firth is Edinburgh the on Edinburgh. Scotland, of city capital the is shore, of southern Forth's Belt Central the Along A D.4 D4.1 E D4.1 -

32 The Old and New Towns of Edinburgh World World Edinburgh of Towns New and Old The

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin DINBURGH S C COTLAND ITY P LTERNATIVE R

LANNING - OF

ESPONSIBLE L now called Castle Hill Hill Castle called now

E OCATION DINBURGH which is the current land use plan plan use currentland the is which ,U NITED , S , 76

COTLAND B

C ODY INGDOM

OUNCIL

Plan

- 2016 , U

manages the the manages ZONE AND N B O - NITED . This area This . Edinburgh Edinburgh UILDING

M DEFINED P

provided provided AROUND ETRO C OPULATION ITY L (2014 : 492,680 : : 1,229,380 :

IMITS

│Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du

K H LIMIT

UNESCO INGDOM

H of landmark buildings, the city’s historic skyline, skyline, historic city’s the buildings, landmark of “available beyond, views and city the includes within points, vantage many city from the of landscape The site. the from city the of views and Site building Heritage the of silhouette the protect tall controlling to plans city the area, surrounding By this in development through controls. them been planning protecting have of local hopes district the heritage with the defined of outside city the across views key additional document, guidance district. Study heritage the in the located Through also is country, the in government of seat the housing Building, Parliament Scottish The protection. view of focus the it making city the of part this of importance the defines creates, this New Georgian planned panoramas and views the and skyline, the iconic the Town, and Town the Old between medieval contrast the Castle, Monuments Edinburgh Edinburgh. as of such rest the different than requires protections therefore and buildings, historical YBRID )

/ EIGHT

BUFFER

SITE

dnug Ct Lcl Plan Local City Edinburgh

C O LD W P C ONTROLS

ARE AND ITY ROTECTED 77 D HAT ( E PEOPLE : 1,828/ :

DINBURGH ENSITY

EW B

PER V EING

IEWS KM OWNS KM 2 )

? 2

and a Skyline Skyline a and T A YPE LTERNATIVE C ITY C B T UFFER ONTROLS

YPES OF OF

DINBURGH

C Z policies that require new development to “respond to to “respond to development new require that policies created also has Council City protection. added as site the around zone buffer a for need the reviewing as well as continuation its ensuring and policy skyline resulting of result, City Plan a the Management As by skyline. place the for in Edinburgh already protections to add to and value universal outstanding sites the protect to of order in Site Heritage City the around zone buffer defined a The develop to protection the view on opinions and Site. public agreeing findings study’s Heritage the used Council World Edinburgh Edinburgh the of Towns New and Old the from and to city views the around key understand and analyze to conducted was Study Skyline a concern, this address To views. key of preservation for the problem serious a be could city the around development urban new the of scale Therefore, and pressure here. found buildings historic the and Site Heritage World the across are views key these of Forth.” of Firth the and countryside open the hills, and area, urban the within hillsides undeveloped

/H ONES APITAL OF YBRID

A L is in charge of monitoring the the monitoring of charge in is P B GE ANDSCAPE C URGH ICTURESQUE ITY

OF : 1889: : 1125 :

C ITY

the Heritage Heritage the 78 Many APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

- rise -

EARNED L

renowned skyline. A consultation - ESSONS effective to development that protect could views to harm and from the the and Old and New skyline Towns Edinburgh of the and World control Heritage Site. Edinburgh Yet, high the Council City requirement by UNESCO with increased protections of has of the responded Heritage Site’s local skyline policies. to through The their National own Capital choose to thisseek out Region a heritage designation for all of could the national monuments in the region and move to protect the area municipalities with that are not local as restricting as policies those handed down by UNESCO. from both Edinburgh Edinburgh has developed a strong identity that is tied to its world session was held to determine the opinion of local stakeholders on the importance of view protection in Edinburgh. The findings from session the consultation matched the Skyline academic Study that findings was conducted, of indicating that there the was a strong need for view protection in the city that was Conducting a Skyline Study also in a similar manner to supported Edinburgh by would it’s Capital greatly citizens. Region and this could benefit be used to view the present protection options to the National City of Ottawa Ville de Gatineau that supported are by the public. and The development of a buffer zone has proven

  D.4.1.1 L

Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils 26: Edinburgh picturesque skyline picturesque displaying Edinburgh 26: - Figure D in Heritage thespires World church theof prominence 2015) (Calvin Site & Moggridge, New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools in its proximity. 79

6: Edinburgh Old and New Towns World Heritage Site Map (Edinburgh World (EdinburghHerit- Map World andHeritage New TownsSite World Old Edinburgh 6: - Map D age, 2016)

have have resulted practices in to protect advancing heritage sites development and the thinking use of buffer from zones as a method surrounding about of protection. best townscape, views, landscape, quality scale, of the materials World and Heritage These Site” new policy developments on view protection and reinforce the distinctive patterns of development,

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D D.4.2 K D.4.2 Figure D Figure -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin - 27:Frontal ofview Kingston City 2012) Hall(D, INGSTON P K B R LANNING UILDING INGSTON O ESPONSIBLE L NTARIO OCATION

, C D

P , C EPARTMENT LANNING ANADA ANADA

B ODY

B UILDING P M C ETRO OPULATION ITY L V (2011 : 123,363 :

ARIABLE IMITS │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du 159,561 :

H at preserving the esthetic and cultural heritage of the the of heritage cultural and esthetic the preserving at aimed policies many enacted has Kingston of City The prominent most Kingston’s of Century. 21st the into landmarks one as serve George would architect by and 1844 in square the behind built onward. be designed would Browne, Hall, 1801 City from Kingston’s space community important square market the at used popularly time. pattern gridiron the following site, town century. a as surveyed first 19th was Cataraqui as known the of the half it throughout first centre made military major location a as Kingston’s invaluable Rivers, Cataraqui and Lawrence St. the of confluence the at Ontario, Lake on Situated 1844. until 1841 from capital first Canada’s as served Kingston City,” “Limestone the Nicknamed )

EIGHT

The original town plan included provisions for a a for provisions included plan town original The

C – ITY ( PEOPLE

D which would be built and serve as an as serve and built be would which

EFENSE H W M P C ALL ARE D ROTECTED ETRO ITY HAT ,W ENSITY : 273/ :

S : 82/ : B ATER

PER TRUCTURES V EING IEWS KM , H KM

? 81 84 2 ISTORIC

n 74 te area the 1784, In 2

)

T A YPE LTERNATIVE F C T ORMER ONTROLS

YPES OF 83

C C policies within the Market Square Heritage Heritage Plan Official Square the via enacted located policies protection is Market Hall City within. which the of District, Conservation within policies development and design strict sets Plan 2013, in updated District Conservation Heritage Square the addition, In decades. over for two waterfront and downtown the around skyline. development influenced city’s heavily study the This on buildings institutional and civic the of prominence the ensuring and character historic its preserving area, downtown Kingston the redevelop Ontario Kingston, when 1960 released in Muirhead and Stephenson created first were policies protection skyline and View downtown. historic its especially city,

/H APITAL

APITAL OF YBRID

This document is accompanied by view view by accompanied is document This

(2010). View protection policies are are policies protection View (2010).

City of Kingston’s Springer Market Market Springer Kingston’s of City Ti suy ie t reinvent/ to aimed study This . A L GE ANDSCAPE O

1673 OF THER

ITY

City of Kingston’s Kingston’s of City A Planning Study, Study, Planning A

85 (1985),

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

- Visual Official Official Plan

The The eight remaining views

89 88 are are required before any adjacent views views are identified in Schedule 9 of the Heritage Areas, Features and Protected identifies Views which over 30 viewpoints in with view corridors that the terminate at the downtown water’s edge. area These views include sightlines of Barriefield Village, the four Martello towers, Fort Henry, Fort water bodies Frederick, such as and the Kingston Inner Harbour and Lake Ontario. Policies regarding development adjacent to these protected views which are do not found permit development that in would obstruct Section sightlines 8.6, (including structures). In addition, adjacent development structures of that facilities buildings would or complement make the it and/or more view popular and/or and enjoyable encouraged. for For visitors National are Historic Sites Martello such Towers, Fort as Henry, the Fort Frontenac, Rideau and Canal the (a UNESCO World Heritage Site), Impact Studies development can take place. would would obstruct the view. are protected through height enforced limit directly behind policies City Hall, that with the are height maximum increasing as a person moves building. Directly behind City Hall, in the Market Square away from the Heritage District, the maximum height must not exceed the tallest building in the block (the building must also be contained in the district). At building present, in there this is district standing no taller Flanking than City City Hall. Hall to Lower the Princess north and Street southwest, northwest, parts Heritage of the the Old Area, Sydenham Heritage has a lower height and Area limit, increasing as a person moves to the awayfurther from City Hall. Along with protections offered to City Hall, additional Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils by Baird Sampson Neuert Architects

There were previously 11 Downtown viewpoints, however, Harbour the Study Area Architectural recommended that three viewpoints in the background Guidelines of City Hall be removed as allowable development New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools . In the plan,

Official Plan 4) of the - 28: Kingston City Hall at night. Note the background development obscures the prominence of City Hall on Hall the City of obscures prominence development night. thethe Note background at Hall City Kingston 28: -

Figure D 2013) (Howells, Kingston skyline Hall. Area Area (Schedule DH eight viewpoints have been with identified all for view planes protection terminating at the cupula of City outlined in the Downtown and Harbour Special Policy

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D high regarding pressure downtown. its in development development (1990). of the Part IV wellunder be protected thus would and Landscape” “Cultural a as the area designate skyline the Kingston that limits, recommends study height the this, maximum follow combat To lost. be still could feature skyline prominent to were area the in development If skyline. City future Kingston’s of in Hall importance the ensure strong to not continue are to enough they protected, be may cupula the of institutional Study Guidelines and Architectural civic development. by dominated landmarks once was which skyline Kingston’s affected negatively has This Hall. City of southwest and south just erected buildings many been has there high decades, three past the Over protection view issue. an be to continued has many implementation policies, have does Kingston Although -

36 - rise hotels, condominiums, and apartment apartment and condominiums, hotels, rise

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin 91

The City, to this day, is still facing heavy heavy facing still is day, this to City, The - is now overwhelmed by private private by overwhelmed now is The Downtown Harbour Area Area Harbour Downtown The

warns that while views views while that warns Heritage Act Act Heritage - rise rise │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du   D.4.2.1 L D.4.2.1

Heritage Conservation District, new developments developments new District, Conservation Heritage Square Market the of part as Hall City including By project or building complement the national national the complement views. obstructing whilenot symbols building or their make to project ways innovative find to designers and developers for allowing by development foster NCC, the by still can requirement This Gatineau. and/or Ottawa use to tool good a national be the may symbols, to proximity close in developments a Requiring proceed. and can approved gets development before affected negatively be will views allows any if determine to city the This Study. Impact Visual a of completion with charged are developers development, to Prior and Hall City of context. and feel historical its preserving surroundings immediate protect the to District Heritage Square Market the in development allowable influences This district. the by zoning the in included limits height to adhere to required are ESSONS - law, and to maintain the character of character the maintain to and law,

L EARNED iul mat Study Impact Visual

for for the cupulaof the City Hall(City2010) ofKingston, D Map - 7:map This view shows terminatingat planes

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

- (1960). The vision emphasized the (1960). emphasized The vision edestrian space (Stephenson & Muir- edestrian & space (Stephenson f p f

A Planning Study, Kingston, Planning A Ontario Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools 30: A Sketch of the proposed development of the Kingston waterfront from from the waterfront of the Kingston proposed development of A Sketch 30: - 29: View of Kingston Waterfront from Point Frederick in 1960 (Stephenson & Muirhead, 1960) in & Muirhead, 1960 (Stephenson Frederick Point from Waterfront Kingston 29: of View -

head, 1960) Top: Top: Figure D FigureBottom: D large amounts included o also theand harbourof boaters, by onuse buildings the civic emphasized and skyline, institutional

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D the in years. implemented overfifty for Cityof Oxford been view have and which buildings policies, high cone of establishment the to observations led These setting. rural surrounding city its be the and could within development Oxford by of influenced views negatively the that the realized local of 1960s, officials early views the By documenting 1674. since in skyline Oxford role crucial a calendar, played academic Oxford broadsheet The annual an cities. Almanac, surrounding various from from was points skyline earliest vantage the include The core also that meet. centuries historic rivers 17th city’s and 16th the from date Oxford the of views published where the established and respectively, River centre city the of and east and west the Thames into flow Cherwell River The environment. physical core city’s its by shaped also is character the unique Oxford’s towers. diverse form of to and spires domes, of consisting skyline and townscape medley together The comes years. buildings 1000 nearly that spans history architectural unique a showcases Oxford D4.3 O D4.3 -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin XFORD E NGLAND P O R LANNING XFORD ESPONSIBLE L , E , OCATION , U

C NITED NGLAND ITY

B OUNCIL K INGDOM ODY

N 1,200 B O 18.28

UILDING DEVELOPMENT P M OF C ETRO OPULATION

M ITY C M L

(2014 ARFAX (3937 (60 : 171,380 : IMITS │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du 244,000 : FT

H T ) the areas that are of special importance for the the for importance special of are that areas to for close the or granted within be proposed not structures and will buildings permission that HE.10 and The Plan perimeters. Local its Oxford and boundaries city’s the within the by identified 1991 for Plan Local Plan Local the by introduced were planes view additional The planes. view new building four of addition in an of exception documents tall the with today, unchanged planning largely remain and for Oxford, subsequent the of formed unsuitable report foundation this from were Principles construction. the cones within areas the view that recommended report The buildings. historic distinct on focusing view each with corridors city the View of center the to skyline. points these from drawn Oxford were the of views provided multiple that city the of perimeter the around evenly Report Officer’s Council’s City Oxford The FT

) OWER EXCEEDING WITHIN EIGHT

) RADIUS

in 1986 and were formally adopted in the the in adopted formally were and 1986 in 10 P 10

of 1962 highlighted six points spread spread points six highlighted 1962 of Oxford Local Plan Plan Local Oxford W P C ROTECTED ARE clearly states under Section HE.9 HE.9 Section under states clearly ITY ROTECTED D HAT ( - PEOPLE 2001 : 3,270/ : ENSITY

PER City Architect and Planning Planning and Architect City V

EING . Protected view corridors corridors view Protected . V

IEWS KM IEW KM 2 )

P ? 2

OINTS

are located both both located are

T C A ULTURAL YPE LTERNATIVE Oxford Oxford C T ONTROLS

YPES OF

/ E

C conservation areas as part of their judicial judicial their of part the by Act Planning defined as as designations These responsibility. areas conservation of character designated the enhancing and preserving to caution are extra pay must suburbs authorities planning local Act, the of 72 its eastern Section Under of Act. same the under areas conservation majority and the and Oxford northern of core historic 1990 The Act Areas) Conservation and Buildings (Listed by protected the under protected buildings are listed statutory that buildings are skyline city’s the define and corridors view Oxford’s high historic The new development. for plans city the as character the Plan by mandated policies supplement views. these Plan2007 Action EndArea compromise be the can in found skyline would Oxford’s of protection that view Additional height a of are that buildings or Oxford, of views of preservation DUCATIONAL

APITAL OF YBRID acknowledging the need to preserve the skyline’s skyline’s the preserve to need the acknowledging

Oxford Core Strategy 2026 Strategy Core Oxford work to further protect the character of of character the protect further to work

A L P GE ANDSCAPE ICTURESQUE

1071 OF –

2016

ITY

. Both plans work to work to plans Both .

and the the and Oxford Local Local Oxford Planning 93 West West

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

- (Oxford City Council, 2005) City (Oxford Oxford’s Local Plan Oxford’s 8: This illustrates the 1200 metre (3937 feet) (3937metre feet) 1200 the This illustrates 8: - Map D the 10view Tower and protected radiusCarfax around cones in

Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils

EARNED

ESSONS 32: View from Carfax Tower looking out looking Carfax Tower from View 32: -

Figure D the Note uniform towardsOxford. of the City heighttower building the around 2016) (FreeCityGuides, Trust, Historic professionals to produce England collaborative studies on view and other protection. professional and planning public awareness These regarding the significance of studies view protection National help in Capital the Commission raise city. can setting The work up towards similar partnerships produce in reports the that future to will around help stronger raise view awareness protection National Capital Region. policies in the The City of Oxford has protecting been its very skyline successful multiple and in city planning views legislations based cities from on and surrounding varying unison to protect and enhance views. The National judicial levels that Capital work Commission in recommendations to present local planning bodies can in take the National Capital Region, using policies guidance that are currently for implemented to skyline. preserve Oxford’s Oxford Cityorganizations such as, Council the Oxford Preservation works with several

  D.4.3.1 L Policies Policies National

reinforces 94

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools NPPF

95 ) ) of 2012.

must be taken into account in all

NPPF 31: The view of St. Mary’s Tower St.view of Mary’s The 31: - Figure D across visible spires highlighting theand towers (Aishimsa, Oxford 2013)

for currentfor and future generations. planning planning decisions and supported neighbourhood by plans in England. the The local and the government’s overarching national aim historic environment and to its heritage preserve assets its protection protection policy is Planning Policy also Framework (NPPF written into set forth by the the the area as the city continues to evolve. Lastly, view

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D 2009 Montréal, de Ville 22. 2004 Montréal, de Ville 21. 2012 Bingham, 20. 18 2012 Bingham, 17. 2001 OldMontréal, 16. 2004 Montréal, de Ville 15. Murray,1967 14. 2014 Hodge &Gordon, 13. 2011 CityofHelsinki, 12. 2012 CityofHelsinki, 11. 2011 CityofHelsinki, 10. 2011 CityofHelsinki, 9. 2012 Cityof Helsinki, 2011; CityofHelsinki, 8. 2011 CityofHelsinki, 7. Tracey,2013 6. 2013 O’Flanagan, 5. 2016 Guelph, Cityof 2011; of Guelph, City 2001; CityofGuelph, 4. 2016 CityofGuelph, 3. 2016 Trust, Ontario Heritage 2. 2016 Tourism, Guelph 2016; CityofGuelph, 1. N -

- OTES 40 19. Ville de Montréal,de Ville 2004 19.

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin

│Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du National Capital Planning Commission, 2013 Commission, Planning Capital National 23 45. 44. 43. 42. 2007 Commission, City Downtown ofAustin 41. Gregor,2007 40. 2007 Commission, Downtown CityofAustin 39. 2016 CityofAustin, 38. n.d. Austin, Preservation 37. 2016 Urban Habitat, and of TallBuildings Council 36. n.d. Austin, Preservation 35. 33 2003 CityofAustin, 32. Reeves,2016 31. Library,2016 Public Austin 30. 2016 Office, Preservation Historic State 29. 2016 Office, Planning Historic National 28. 2016 Office, Zoning DC 27. 2016 Office, Preservation Historic State 26. 2016 Commission, Planning Capital National 25. - - 24. National Capital Planning Commission, 2016; Commission, Planning National Capital 24. 34. Texas State Preservation Board (SPB), 2016a (SPB), Board Preservation TexasState 34. Australian Government, 2016; Australian 2016; Government, Australian Vernon,2006 2013 Texas, Preservation n.d. Austin, Preservation

69. Portland Bureau of Planning, 1988 Planning, of PortlandBureau 69. 2016 Development, and Conservation of Land Oregon Department 68. 1988 Planning, of PortlandBureau 67. 2016 Oregon, CityofPortland, 66. 1915 Bennett, 65. 2012 Authority, Greater London 2016; Authority, Greater London 64. 2012 Authority, Greater London 63. 59 2016 Scotia, of Nova Heritage Trust 58. 2008 Scotia, of Nova Government 57. 55 53 2016 Scotia, Nova Tourism 52. Part Four 2016, Authority, 50 Introduction 2016, Authority, 47 Introduction 2016, Government Australian 46. - - - - - 62. Greater London Authority, 2016 Greater Authority, London 62. 2016 Municipality, Halifax Regional 56. 2010 , Save View the 54. Government Australian 51. Australian 49. Government Vernon, 2016. Vernon,2016. Government

— National Capital Authority, 2016; 2016; Authority, Capital National

— National Capital Authority, Capital National

— — National Capital National CapitalNational APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

- Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools

94. City Council, Oxford 2015 90. City of Kingston Planning and Development 80. Edinburgh World Heritage, 2011,

- - - OTES Government, 2012 92 95. Department Communitiesfor and Local Department, 2010 91.Baird Sampson Neurt Architects, 2007 88. SampsonBaird Neurt Architects, 2007 89 87. City of Kingston Planning and Development Department, 2010 85. & Stephenson Muirhead, 1960 86. Architects ERA Inc, 2013 83. Kingston Historical Society, 2011 84. Corporation of the City The of Kingston, 2016 81. Macpherson, 1963 82. Hodge, 1985 75. City of Vancouver, 2011a; City of Vancouver, 2016 76 73. City of Vancouver, 2011; City of Vancouver, 2016 74. City of Vancouver, 2011a 71. Bureau Portland of Planning, 2008 72. Billings, 2015 N 70. of Bureau Planning, Portland, Oregon, 1991

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D of From District Governemnt. of Columbia District (2016). ofZoning. Office DC Preservation Plan,Historic Comprehensive DC (2007). ofPlanning. Office DC Austin, center: The skyscraper (2016). Urban Habitat. and Buildings of Tall Council (2016). Council. of, City Edinburgh, (2010). Council. of, City Edinburgh, Plan. Preliminary Australia of Capital Federal Canberra (1914). BurleyGriffin. of effectiveness evaluating and view:comparing of the The cult (2012). S. Bingham, fuel politics, Portland shape market of housing Pressures (2015). R. Billings, E. (1912). Bennett, D (2007). Architects. Neuert BairdSampson Canberra (2016). Government. Australian Government Australian of view of Preservation chapter3151. code: Government (2016). Cityof. Austin, (2003). Cityof. Austin, City Austin, Aust A -

42 PENDIX :B in Pub

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin Retrieve Columbia Office of Zoning: http://dcoz.dc.gov/main.html Zoning: of Office Columbia ofPlanning. Office DC Washington: Element. Retrieved USA. 2016). ModifiedSeptember preliminary https://stumblingpast.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/ from Retrieved 1 Kingston, University Queen’s Vancouver. and Montréal in protection view corridor market http://www.pressherald.com/2015/11/15/pressures from Retrieved Herald. Press Portland The overdevelopment. clashes recurring Study Guidelines Architectural australias http://www.australia.gov.au/about Plan. Capital GV/htm/GV.3151.h http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ from Retrieved Capitol. State Corridors View Library. (2016). Aust (2016). lic Library. of, Downtow - shape d from - capital - The Greater Portland Plan. Portland Greater The - plan 115.

- South Congress Avenue Preservation Plan Preservation CongressAvenue South . portland

- h n Commiss

from http://skyscrapercenter.com/city/austin from - National Capital Authority. (2016). Consolidated National National Consolidated (2016). Authority. Capital National ttp://www.austinlibrary.com/ahc/faq1.htm ttp://www.austinlibrary.com/ahc/faq1.htm canberra

- city

- politics history center; center; in history - 1914.jpg IBLOGRAPHY (2007). ion. (2007). Edinburgh Local Development Plan Local Development Edinburgh Plan. Local Edinburgh City

. Cityof Kingston . - fuel – - -

recurring australia/australian owntown and Harbour Area Area Harbour andowntown from Retrieved city. capital Australia’s

Downtown Development and Capitol Capitol and Development Downtown was Aust when was │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du

- clashes

development/ - story/canberra .

in founded - housing

(Plan as as (Plan

- - Encyclopedia of French Cultural Heritage in North America. (2007). Mount Royal Royal Mount (2007). America. North in Heritage Cultural of French Encyclopedia http:// from Retrieved Map. Site WorldHeritage (2016). Heritage. World Edinburgh World of Edinburgh Towns New The and Old (2011). Heritage. World Edinburgh Planning National (2012). Government. Local and Communities for Department Halifax Regional Municipality. (2016). Halifax Regional Municipality Plan Area. FromArea. Plan Municipality Halifax Regional (2016). Municipality. Halifax Regional Bylaw. Retrieved Zoning (2016). of. CityGuelph, of City from Retrieved Plan. Secondary Guelph Downtown (2011). of. CityGuelph, Retrieved Plan. Official of Guelph City (2001). of. CityGuelph, From Guelph IMMACULATE. OURLADY OF CHURCH (2016). GuelphTourism. view?the where’s corridors: view Capitol the Revisiting April 13). (2007, Gregor. L. Spatial Development The Plan: The London (2016). Authority. GreaterLondon Retrieved Framework. Management View London (2012). Authority. GreaterLondon Scotia. Nova for Strategy A Heritage (2008). Scotia. of Nova Government Free Plan.Heritage Market City Conservation (2013) Square District ERA Inc. Architects - City www.ewht.org.uk/news/67/143/World PLAN2011 SiteMANAGEMENT Heritage London. Policy Framework. http://www.region.halifax.ns.ca/planning/HalifaxPlanArea.php guelph.ca/city http://guelph.ca/plans Guelph: http://guelph.ca/plans https://visitguelphwellington.ca/listing/918 Tourism: news/2007 http://www.austinchronicle.com/ from Retrieved Chronicle. The Austin the_london_plan_malp_final_for_web_0606_0.pdf https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ from Retrieved 2011. Alterationssince with Consolidated London Strategyfor london https://www.london.gov.uk/what from http://www.free Guides.com: Department Development and Planning of Kingston Mount_Royal_Park,_a_Precious_Natural_and_Cultural_Heritage.html se.org/en/article www.ameriquefrancai http:// from Retrieved heritage. cultural and natural precious Park,a - Guides.com. (2016). Carfax Tower, Oxford. Retrieved Retrieved Oxford. Tower, Carfax (2016). Guides.com. - plan/supplementary - 04 - hall/by - 13/465117/ - laws - and - and - - strategies/official planning -

city - - policies and - guides.com/oxford/carfax

- strategies/downtown - guidance/london - we - - -

Heritage 2/zoning 542/ from City of Guelph: http:// of Guelph: City from - 2016. - do/planning/implementing - plan/

- Site - by

- law/ -

map from City of Guelph: Cityof Guelph: from

from Free from - view

secondary - - tower/ management

- City

- - plan/

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

- -

from

Lieutenant - corridors/ - hsmbc/res/ - from from https://

view - capitol

- Scenic views, sites, and Corridors: 2016. City Oxford From Council: - Events/2013/Feb/2012 -

Skyscrapers since 1888. Retrieved .

– and - Scenic Views, Sites Drivesand Inventory Award.aspxOld Montréal (2000). Montréal;Old - _2016 -

Heritage

Ontario -

s - timeline. Retrieved from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/archives/ article/284506? Retrieved from https://www.preservationaustin.org/uploads/ CVC_Background.pdf www.preservationtexas.org/endangered/texas centuries of history. Retrieved from http://www.vieux.Montréal.qc.ca/ histoire/eng/introa.html Goal 5. Retrieved from https://www.oregon.gov/LCD/pages/ goal5explan.aspx Preservation Trust. https://www.oxford.gov.uk/downloads/download/414/ oxford_local_plan_2001_ Canada. From Parks Canada: http://www.pc.gc.ca/clmhc protection.aspx RetrievedPlan. from http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/218810 www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/528508. Scenic Resources Protection Plan main.html http://www.vieux.Montréal.qc.ca/tour/etape16/eng/16text3a.html recipients announced. From Ontario Heritage Trust: http:// www.heritagetrust.on.ca/News Governor Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils Preservation Austin. (n.d.). Background on the Capitol view corridors issue. Preservation Texas (2013). Texas Capitol view corridors. Retrieved from http:// Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. (2016). Explanation of Oxford City Council. (2015). Assessment of theView Oxford Cones. Oxford: Oxford Oxford City Council. (2016). Local 2001 Plan Parks Canada. (2014, December 20). Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Portland Bureau of Planning. (2008). DesignUrban Assessment; Portland Central Portland Bureau of Planning. (1988). CityPortland, of. (2015). of the History west quadrant. Retrieved Portland, Oregon, Bureau of Planning. (1991). of. Portland, (2016).City Oregon, records & management;Archives Portland Office Zoning. of (2016). DC Office Zoning. of Retrieved from http://dcoz.dc.gov/ Old Montréal. (2001). 16 Place d’Armes Ontario Heritage Trust. (2016). 2012 Lieutenant Governor's Ontario Heritage Award

- -

hall condo - - 1875. -

guelph - City of KingstonCity

downtown - history/history/city -

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools story/2749320 -

meeting/ -

public -

22. of - - Montréal Master Plan. Mount Royal Protection and Enhancement Plan.

subject

- . from from http://www.kingstonhistoricalsociety.ca/chronology.html

be - to -

public meeting. From Guelph Tribune: Mercury http:// www.guelphmercury.com/news project National Capital; Federal Elements. America's Capital. Montréal. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 26 163(3), 171. Washington, DC. https://www.cityofkingston.ca/explore/culture Ontario History. Retrieved Official Plan Association, 51(1), 8 introduction to the principles, practice, and participants (6th ed.). Toronto, ON: Nelson Education. kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston: asemakaavaosaston selvityksiä. www.htns.ca/committees.html

O'Flanagan, R. (2012, March 3). Downtown Guelph condo project to be subject of Novascotia.com. (2016). Nova Scotia. Retrieved from http://www.novascotia.com/ National Capital Planning Commission. (2016). Federal The Planning Agency for National Capital Planning Commission. (2013). Height The for Master Plan National Capital Planning Commission. (2016). Comprehensive The forPlan the Murray, Murray, L.A. (1967). Frederick Law Olmsted and the of Mount design Royal Park, Montréal, Ville de. de. (2004). Ville Montréal, Montréal, Ville de. (2009). Macpherson, K. (1963). Naval service vessels on the Great Lakes 1755 Kingston, CorporationThe of the City of. (2016). Historic City Hall. Retrieved from Kingston, City of, Planning and Development Department. (2010). Kalman, H. (2014). Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. NewRoutledge. York: Kingston Historical Society. (2011). Chronology of the history of Kingston. Hodge, Hodge, G., Gordon,& D. L. (2014).A. CanadianPlanning communities: An Hodge, G. (1985) The roots of Canadian planning. Journal of the American Planning Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia. (2016). Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia. From http:// Helsinki, City of. (2011). Korkea rakentaminen Helsingissä. Helsingin APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D Views” “Vancouver of Implementation Report: Council (2011a). Cityof. Vancouver, (2011). Cityof. Vancouver, (1997). Cityof. Vancouver, Second On To Immediately Move Tricar 10). Hopes August (2013, S. Tracey, 18 approve Guelphcouncillors May 8). (2012, S. Tracey, Nova From Site. Historic National Halifax Citadel (2016). Scotia. Nova Tourism Capitolgrounds. The Texas (2016b). (SPB). Board Preservation TexasState Retrieved Capitol. the of History (2016a). (SPB). Board Preservation TexasState http:// from Retrieved history. Capitol (n.d.). ofRepresentatives. TexasHouse (1960). G. & Muirhead, G. Stephenson, of Office of Columbia District (2016). (SHPO). Office Preservation Historic State Retrieved Heritage. & History Fort Henry: (2016). Commission. Parks Lawrence St. Not Should Halifax in Hill Citadel The from View February). (2010, The View. Save ofTechnology. Institute Georgia alleysof Austin. the Activating (2016). B. Reeves, -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin http://vancouver.ca/docs/planning/final from Retrieved Downtown. the in Buildings forHigher Opportunities and immediately www.guelphmercury.com/news http:// from: Retrieved Tower. Condo Guelph Downtown downtown/ story/2701983 http://www.guelphmercury.com/news from: Retrieved downtown. gclid=COeRsN_D2c8CFQeQaQod9OUJqQ citadel http://www.novascotia.com/see Canada: Scotia, http://www.tspb.texas.gov/prop/tcg/tcg/grounds.html from Retrieved http://www.tspb.texas.gov/prop/tc/tc from www.house.state.tx.us/about of Kingston. historic http://planning.dc.gov/page/ Office: Preservation Historic From Planning. http://www.forthenry.com/history from www.savetheview.ca/pdf/CCtowersOttawabrief.pdf http:// View: The Save CentreFrom . forConvention a BeSacrificed handle/1853/55169/blake_reeves_activating_the_alleys_of_austin.pdf Retrievedfrom https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/ - national - preservation

- on - - - second historic guelph View Protection Guidelines. Protection View Study. Skyline Vancouver Downtown - office - - - councillors downtown site/1440?

- us/capitol

A Planning Study of Kingston, Ontario, City Ontario, of Kingston, PlanningStudy A - story/4026950 - - guelph approve - heritage/ - history/

- - council condo - - 18 history/tc │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du

- storey - - - tricar

storey condo tower storey tower condo - tower/ -

report.pdf do/attractions/halifax

- - - condo history.html hopes

- - tower to - move -

- -

Westley, F., Zimmerman, B., & Patton, M. (2006). Getting to Maybe: How the World World the Maybe:How to Getting (2006). M. & Patton, B., Zimmerman, F., Westley, Pre is Where Landscape Canberra: (2006). Vernon,C. http:// from Retrieved Views. Vancouver’s Protecting (2016). Cityof. Vancouver, D D D D D D D Figures Appendix: ------7: Shaswary, E., (2014, August 5). Mount Royal: Parc du Mont du Royal:Mount Parc 5). August Shaswary,E.,(2014, 7: https:// 2. Cathedral Helsinki 23). December (2014, Hurson,R. 6: Helsingin Helsingissä. rakentaminen Korkea (2011). Cityof Helsinki. 5: Helsingin Helsingissä. rakentaminen Korkea (2011). Cityof Helsinki. 4: December Retrieved Immaculate. of OurChurch Lady (2012). Ontario Plaques. 3: from 2016, 4, December Retrieved Commons. Wikimedia P.Padraic,(2007). 2: Ottawa Topography. Control Height (1969). Siler. & Greene, P.,Hammer, 1: NdduVT 8vskPZ pg94WN - pxBfVo in/photolist from https://www.flickr.com/photos/121187534@N07/15267481929/ Ha7R2d qWf7je HVZJyY zgtgx5 CdWPZf LvBUDz www.flickr.com/photos/robhurson/15575180273/in/photolist selvityksiä. asemakaavaosaston kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston: selvityksiä. asemakaavaosaston kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston: Plaque_Wellington34.html http://www.ontarioplaques.com/Plaques/ from 2016, 4, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Padraic 1969) in created Work (Original D.C. Washington (Rep.). AreaStudy Central is Changed. Toronto: Vintage Canada. Vintage Toronto: Changed. is Routledge. NY: (pp.130 Cities Capital Century Twentieth Planning (Ed.), views.aspx vancouver.ca/home sv53b - - - - rHdCmT - - 8jebaH pg8S3M - pZsCyr JhG8yA - - 5vKGiP q4NZsk - MTA89L swZruj - BoJH1K

tceku

- pg8Qt4 - -

- - qW6c5k - - - pvAMbb zSKzk FJ4Gzo HfLCZq qHMZtf 83thWP - - q14cnQ pvAK3U - - Mo6GCA rKjbEt - - 8jhpRy property - f2nb2A - - - - - quzRoR EX6oMo - qNcGTz - gYnVMz xizE5q HS79KY 83Xhgn - - dt4Mx9 ppeAi5 -

MTA5Qs - pxCYhT - - development/protecting 5V9Puy - AWzyko - - MR37kD - - sTvohd - - 841mRY qgzynj

H1EpM1 - bfEur2 5V5pG2 - - Ndduvz 8vvp85

- pxCXSV - - - DNJji3 yBdm1K - FVEdWF 6ofFMA - - FJfSMv - - 5vKHd2 sEA78W e8mTFJ - - NhCxNE pg9Pmk - - - eminent. In D. L. A. Gordon L. D. In eminent. CUxkRF 7eaYCF - - - - t6RUxX FJq6DD MLnUkC Fd4sAD - - - 5V5quZ 83XghK

qHGzAz - - Mo6M7q/ h8u5jS - - - vancouvers BqjfB8 27HuTM - - - Royal. Retrieved Retrieved Royal. 149 ). New York, ).New 149 sBkknQ - - qvMZR3 - KcmGPW 4zZwoE - - - 8je9JF 6uXScz CfDkjw - pg96QN - JAB5bM

- - h8ukFb - pJjSsV Jw5bMb - - - qut3WY NkQGRg - 27Hv6M - - - toHBEj pg8NP2 zyXokX ------

APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS

- - - - 45

------7jqM4d bVnK8V quBBSi - - - 9fwoMs f46qqJ kdziAA AeUDji - - 7BgzuT a36wSo - - aF7nkm - - - pyEW8p - 7P48Bg

edMsfE bWs6F5 - - tV29ER 5a8RpT 9cUuLH - - ccJZjC rqZk9X f46EE1 ryDzvC - aQvhPP - dGJeAE - - - - - 8uVwh2 rpZbq3 - do/attractions/ - -

7SedrZ - CrGCnr a2xQg2 - - False Creek, Burrard Creek, False Burrard agvRQE qSAvZx 8GLESX adFSV8

- cathedral/ fUJhjk

rm4jvM - LzYR8T - - - - 4Bmt65 89Sh92 - 8EcWkZ - - – - - nkEAsC ccyWi - -

pauls aJWV3z 9LMu2J edinburgh/ - - - - oJih29 FtQLGE p7mYtA accRqK

- - 4EiWLc qDhWPs 9gBa5C - cfoSDu - 8GPRQy GSoLY - - - - ass6wN - - 7JfgaU - 4vmKYd - - Vancouver Vancouver study

9TiukS – 7iDBB1 -

P37hj - - Lv5yFT acK3Da HrRjWV - site/1440? 5ahDTt - -

- mmjyDM aGtzXF CEHu7H BDL9NX 7E5TRF ------7LVMBz - oU7PoV 1914.jpg - 7BYDHy - - 7KzvLS 3AqMcN

- - mwztV6 bcq7i2 acMLHY - historic 9aREqB - - 7Zco2P - - p5yAo9 pXL8dN rhQRCe - - 82ZEgz - - - - rt2GpV 7KaFcC 8CRRw7 r7SPf 7NqfFv - - - canberra e5Kcfx - - 6npvaQ - aFh8cf - dbkT74 - jT7HF6 - 6oJ4xF 7D49kZ JxBetN national aQve9x - - - - -

- - plan - dy2y5y 7S4yUA FZ45A - rxb5z5 4ZEbep - - e6uQcc ireDpa - - q1wRUN bBxtFy b3wBMV 9htc6n - - - dVEo7T - - citadel - dzSaVF e1LgS9 - - -

- Bridge. Bridge. Retrieved 2016, from https://www.flickr.com/photos/ harshilshah/14918512522/in/photolist qjZXhr CvJa1R aV1D2e www.colmog.co.uk/portfolio/skyline https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Town_Clock,_Halifax,_NS,_May_2012.jpg attractionsmap.com/city/london/listing/st https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffgunn/8237668817/in/photolist dxWcWH rKFv16 ckbqeo gpzGWG az76jG 9AibjK Retrieved Bridge. 2016, https://www.flickr.com/photos/ from: ruthanddave/6034004871/in/photolist f3RqQe 7K1Z2R 7PyjCT eH161f 5a6eow f46r2f Scenic Resources Protection Plan. Retrieved from https://stumblingpast.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/ from Retrieved preliminary Nova Scotia, Canada: http://www.novascotia.com/see halifax gclid=COeRsN_D2c8CFQeQaQod9OUJqQ 25: City of (1997). Vancouver, Downtown Vancouver Skyline Study. 26: Moggridge.& Colvin (2015). Skyline Study Edinburgh. Retrieved from http:// 20: Attractions (2016).Map. St. Paul’s Cathedral. Retrieved from http:// 21: Gunn, J. (2012,November 26). Portland OR:downtown. Retrieved 2016, from 22: R. Hartnup, (2011, August 10). Tom McCall Waterfront Park and Hawthorne 23: of Planning Bureau Portland. (1991). Scenic views, sites, and Corridors: 24: H. (2013,Shah, August 26). Canada 17: Burley Griffin.17: Burley (1914). Canberra Federal Capital of Australia Preliminary Plan. 18: Tourism Nova Scotia. (2016). Citadel Halifax National Historic Site. From 19: Skumar84. (2012). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved December 4, 2016, from Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada D du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils ------D D D D D D D D D D ------vDDx ------4uYVj6 zTq9e - - bsqDh3 pf7CKG tGxda4 - aTit9K - - - a3DHj4 - guAGj TEije - 2bjWAy pWGSsh - 4vVFKF FaTvvW cecu7L - - - - - 8XsyTo - yUBaj - Pmzx3w 9aTExb mWCMGu - - 6DXoa - - 8biNQd q7pyEC - qQNU4n - - fKuWE 6RLpJ

yUB8c qcP6zM - - - 6qPbSE - qJGczz 72L3Pi - - - 4yTJFE - yXbPu - PteRXB 6G4Jdb -

- bkBvbH ghr1Z4 jW23H - - - gsB11k diCYaQ

qQiHBL - oYH9tL Territory - 3y9kFQ bkFJnk diCXHo ------7HDdwx iBhm9 - - bwCNm - aVeVcc suu2D1 - 9CJZeM pPUkju - e4ZTxT - - - 8SDi9 fJQMcT aDS66D

kVe5Ui - 12019/ Capital - - - ex3beX djEvDP czqkxw - - - bwnvQR - - - CeYRxi - nBLXo7 - yUAZR - 6L3ui2 - 6RLpH New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools 8mcj3R - KyBNE7 dXtjLz b4iTZe - 5xoYDW - - - - pgRyR3 o54i7M diCY5s - - - bkFVvR m27Jwk

- - 92VeaT czqq2h dy99j - iBhmb - - -

pymuda czqoxu - gYwBag foVQy5 - NjMDKi 96hhy - - - 5b64Lv - 6RLpF - bz1yGP - mFWYcF ADZwY e6QGA6 - 7jCmAo - dWz5BG 4cTMZ - - - dHf5gS - - 4d6Vqe - - pPUvR1 pWfTdF - qcPjic KkJKSF diCXY5 - daQoyL F4UmXN - - eNkN4e zTqc5 feZjdh ADZLb - - 5WLX2M -

- - - - qFgyUw -

7LHsie 8tiVzd - EPZ5po

- - - cE6wss - 6Nckdu 6q1LL dgRf3A - - - qcVMLC 341arF o7v6YR pWoa7s bSpxoi 8wxtRy f6H3NA 2cGYk4 a5hLCn - 96hgB 4NCoJz ------cJe1FJ egYMRA - - - - - 3x8Gxb aXr9yn - - bWcgNY dfZQme www.exploreaustralia.net.au/Australian www.flickr.com/photos/milbot79/5222088196/in/photolist 7pkzwU qoWTev pWgaJB 8mppac egYNFf CQGfb dH79Rz 5FBAJE View Corridors. loc.pnp/pp.print www.flickr.com/photos/stuseeger/7369279712/in/photolist - 5tpRd3 dauFnS cMM99q MyoCUM https://pixabay.com/en/users/tpsdave December 4, 2016, Library from The of Congress: http://hdl.loc.gov/ www.flickr.com/photos/33581067@N08/6849689520/in/photolist brhs4b oHntjz r1m3bF bkG4sX Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mont_Royal_from: Retrieved _Avenue_McGill_College.jpg PartPlan, III. Complementary Document.

16: Australia. Explore (2010). Australian Capital Territory. Retrieved from http:// 15: Michael (2010, November 30). Downtown Austin, TX. Retrieved from: https:// 14: Austin Downtown Commission. (2007). Downtown Development and Capitol 13: Seeger, 13:S. (2010, Seeger, April 2). Texas State Capitol. Retrieved from https:// 12: Highsmith, C. Prints and(2011). Photographs Reading Room. Retrieved 11: Mark, D. (2016, 28). August RetrievedPixabay. December 4, 2016, from 10: T.E.A 10:Photography.(2012, T.E.A March 17). Submerged Montreal. https:// 9: Ville de. Montréal, (2004). Appendix B: the centre’s skyline. Montréal Master 8: Gagnon, J., (2011, 29). May Mont Royalvu de l'avenue McGill College. ------D D D D D D D D D APPENDIX D: PRECEDENTS D D D D D D Maps Appendix: D D D D D D ------5: City of Vancouver (2016). Protecting Vancouver’s Views. Retrieved from http:// from Retrieved Views. Vancouver’s Protecting (2016). Cityof Vancouver 5: Area. Plan Municipality Regional Halifax (2016). Municipality. Halifax Regional 4: DowntownCapitol (2007). and Development Downtown Austin 3: Commission. Helsingin Helsingissä. rakentaminen Korkea (2011). Cityof Helsinki. 2: http:// Cityof Guelph: from Retrieved ZoningBylaw. (2016). Cityof. Guelph, 1: Free 32: https://www.flickr.com/ Flickr: from January Retrieved (2013, J. 19). Aishima, 31: (below) No.107 Illustration (1960). G. & Muirhead, G. Stephenson, 30: (above) No.106 Illustration (1960). G. & Muirhead, G. Stephenson, 29: https:// from Hall.Retrieved City 4). December Howells,(2013, S. 28: hall. city harbour 20120514_1976 Kingston_ON May J.14). (2012, D., 27:

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin views.aspx vancouver.ca/home HalifaxPlanArea.php http://www.region.halifax.ns.ca/planning/ from Retrieved Corridors. View selvityksiä. asemakaavaosaston kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston: guelph.ca/city http://www.free Guides.com: D5ooC1 9d53br - 7i6Dtj - zftE5d photos/biker_jun/8394538105/in/photolist Kingston. CityOntario, of AStudy waterfront Planning improvement. ofKingston, to waterfront jjL8o www.flickr.com/photos/108371337@N03/11244849263/in/photolist 20hall Retrievedfrom https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=kingston%20city% 8M1oMi 7LDLkX - City - i8EMVr - - - 4Hc6p1

7LzyqZ

Guides.com. (2016). Carfax Tower, Oxford. Retrieved fromTower, CarfaxOxford. Free (2016). Guides.com. - 8TCtmk - yxS9qt -

oAWK1T

- - 971yS1 day. A Planning Study of Kingston, Ontario, Cityof Kingston. Ontario, of Kingston, Study Aday. Planning - - zxFkRC hall/by -

zbg8ay - - z3PMMR 8HUqMw - 8MiMCG -

property - - 74mCwu - laws - ziaAdv dkhjMm - - m4h53o 8TFyyS - - and 5qAbW8 - - - development/protecting 9AE2jw city - - - tDoxrd policies nRF57z - -

JJGb5W guides.com/oxford/carfax - 5VPDx7 - - HGXUXR 6aQmX - k3FRDv - - 2/zoning HLLYk - 7RHBjd - z3JPAj │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du - - - 8TCsjM dMNcHB KcwFM8 - - 971yJ1 8TiyfF - by - - 5p4Tpc 6NvoHf - law/ - - nMr8BA ygxxs5 - vancouvers - - - 971yYW eKL3Ag ajP6Ya

- - rsk4Ed yYo33a - - tower/ zrjd1W -

6Nvitj - - 7iA3Nf z3HGgU

- -

proposed the - - - 6xu9Pa 856s3k

- - zhfwyg xvzneb - - City - -

- - - D D D - - - 8: Oxford City Council. (2005). Oxford Local Plan2001 Local Oxford (2005). Oxford 8: CityCouncil. Schedule area. policy special harbor and Downtown (2010). Cityof Kingston. 7: from Retrieved Site Map. WorldHeritage (2016). Heritage. WorldEdinburgh 6: Council. DH http://www.ewht.org.uk/news/67/143/World - 4. City of Kingston Official Plan. Official Cityof Kingston 4.

- Heritage - 2016. Oxford: City Oxford 2016. - Site - map

APPENDIX E:

OXFORD METHODOLOGY TABLE APPENDIX E: OXFORD METHODOLOGY E A -

PENDIX :

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin        moves around view? doeswaytheeye the this andhow affect distributed view How in arethefeatures feature orotherfeatureofinterest? aemphasizes afocal create that etc. channeled view buildings, oftheview framing expanseLayout, and   view ofthe Context What provides framing if there is any? is there if framing provides What landscape? of the openness the with orcontract balance it Does landscape? the How is open landscape? of the features focal the Where are mid foreground, of the are characteristics the What horizon? obscure an recede into distance vie long a long orview a it is is or are discernible all features clearly view this ashort inwhich youIs How can see? far group)? middle narrow, a treesframing with foreground partbroad (e.g. a orapply just it all to this Does expansive)? or and broad focused and narrow (e.g. view of the arch the is Howbroad appreciated is what it? about seenaffect from will it close up away this Is orhow and far is prominent? most what affect this how does and seen asset heritage the is direction Fromwhat O -

how does the location of the viewing place affect the experience of the heritage assessment as a whole? as awhole? assessment the oftheheritage place affect experience oftheviewing does thelocation how XFO RD METHOLOGY │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du — Does this absence of framing provide majestic sweeping vista or does framing trees, trees, vistadoes sweeping or framing majestic provide offraming Does this absence - ground and background and how do these vary? these how do and background and ground T AB LE

w i n which features in the in features which n

th e APPENDIX E: OXFORD METHODOLOGY

iew? d dominant more in m v oun an historic experience theof

suchtrees as in a historic park or parish graveyard? — Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada E E du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools how do the buildings contribute to the character of the view? of character to the contribute buildings how do the

- how doeshow of the the elevation viewing or other elements place landscape the in affect the character view? or the

- view andview connection with the viewers?past How does the greenery influence appreciationof focal features in the view? anyDoes area the of greenery make a particular contribution to the identity ofcommunity a What are the different characteristicsof the contribution of greenery tothe foreground, middle and background? How does the greenery contribute to the transitions between areas? What contributions thisdoes make to the aesthetic valueof thesein areas the view or partsof them? the greeneryDoes represent formal planning that intended is to have an aesthetic impact in view,the it orrepresentative is Does a on a feature hilltop or in raised thearea landscape moreappear prominent than features?other doesHow the influence of elevation vary across the viewing place? How does the dominanceHow influence elevation the relative ground, themiddle of foreground, background and skyscape? Does the elevation provide an expansive foreground or is this by a steepforeshortened thatslope makes the middle and backgr the view? Does levela low viewing point make the skyscape dominant more and leave areas of the middle ground and background hidden fro Does naturallythe eye travel down a hillside to focus on whatever is in the valley below?         Characteristics Green    Topography  APPENDIX E: OXFORD METHODOLOGY E -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin       view? valueofthe aesthetic features Focal       characteristicsArchitectural Are these features that contribute to the identity of one or a number of communities by memorializing their origins or histor origins their memorializing by of communities number a of oneor identity the to contribute that Are features these them? to draw attention foreground or background the feature in ofa presence the or does prominent make features othercompeting of absence the Does E.g. prominence? its/their to contributes landscape surrounding the in What design? unified a to contribute to otheror each value historical and theiraesthetic affect juxtaposition their does how together, clustered are several If features of it? part narrow a to viewthe or confined across spreadout it Is accident? or by design historical oftheir feature intentional an views in role focal its/their Is several? feature or focal there a Is community? particular of a identity the to contribute character of architectural anyareas Do ? development theirseparate illustrating by allowin by example, value? For or aesthetic historical their to contribute that of buildings areas between gaps Are any there view? ofthe value or aesthetic historical the to contribute this does and prominent particularly buildings Areof the any differently? view ofthe value or historical aesthetic the to contribute they mean that uses different of development, periods different of evidence provide have that groupsof buildings different do features What vi the to contribution theiralignments influence aesthetic and densities of buildings shapes, heights, How materials, dothe view? the in identified be can of buildings or groupings areas buildings, individual Which -

what provides the focus of a view, how does it do this and how does it contribute to the historical and historical tothe does contribute dothisit andhow it how thefocusdoes what ofaview, provides

how do buildings contribute to the character oftheview? character how tothe dobuildings contribute │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du — are theyde are

g t y r y ew? signed to compete with compete to signed , o epresenting activities? epresenting hem to stand apart or apart stand to hem r other influences rother

th em more em APPENDIX E: OXFORD METHODOLOGY

ons ati ed the the ed enc trees that frame views and

atures atures strongly to change in f thef picturesque quality of the fe

t o

Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada E E du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils

how do diurnalhow and seasonal changes in light influence the character of a view? What

- New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools

how do featureshow that across run the landscape, to its contribute or lead the eye thestructure view, around

sunlight and could cover? What seasonal changes in foliage affectwhat isvisible, including architectural characteristics andfeatures? focal there anyAre other changes, such as seasonal flooding that expectedare to influence the characterof view? a How does the extent theof skyscape contribute to the quality Is of the view? it constrained by the surrounding such features contribute to a formal parklandis it setting or the openness and lackof framing partof a wider rural character thatis par view? How does this affect your appreciationof features in the view? E.g. by casting shadows, highlightilluminating or particular development of the landscape and have had specific uses in the past. They may have particular historical and aesthetic associ aesthetic and historical particular have may They past. in the uses specific had have and landscape the of development function. and development their to relating Examples to consider might include roads, rivers, canals, or railway lines. These represent specific features that have influ have that features specific represent These lines. or railway canals, rivers, roads, include might consider to Examples

    Skyscape, light and the seasons features landscape of the are likely to change in predictable What fashion? conditions are recognized the best as it? to view Infrastructure contribute historical its to and aesthetic value? 

APPENDIX E: OXFORD METHODOLOGY E -

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin    Detractors ofcommunities? ofidentity orcohesiveness impact aesthetic toits contributes andexperience,that activity more human past about reveal could that withandevents, people past aconnection provide FeaturesUnique the Oxford View Cones Oxford View the Oxford of City the from Table taken the view’s historical or aesthetic value? aesthetic or historical view’s the particula a for making past the appreciated was viewa that area of an within characteristics the alter significantly they Do more pro value being by asset's heritage the to amake positive contribution that features the from away eye draw they the Do values. communal evidential and historical, include also might includes This significance? asset's heritage the to contribution positive a make are to considered that features hide they Do — how does features perceived incongruousas orunattractive detract fromits heritage value? -

— is there anything unique in the view not covered by the questions above that contributes to its ability to the toits contributes that by above questions notcovered unique intheview is thereanything Draft Report Draft ’ s methodology of assessing views ( assessing of s methodology , 2014) ,

│Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du The Assessment of of Assessment The

rly

it positive contribution to positive contribution s aesthetic value but aesthetic s min ent?

APPENDIX F: WORKSHOP APPENDIX F: WORKSHOP WHAT WE HEARD F        that VIEWPOINTS comments of summary a is workshop: the during communicated participants following The found attendees the that further be should researched. interesting thought and on studies and case viewpoints precedent existing on feedback requested team project The participate. SURP to invited were and students parties, interested Kingston, in Stakeholders, Planning Ontario. Regional and Urban of School Queen’s at held was workshop a 2016, 28, October On A -

PENDIX F:WORKSH

viewpoint 2 viewpoint at as such views, from away takes lighting Street are striptease visual a views dynamic and exciting most the among perform that Viewpoint views ruins Place Ville de along (i.e. Street) Nicolas Bridgeand Alexander traffic by impacted be can Viewpoints ones are dynamic the views interesting The most viewpoint20 instance for seasonal; are viewpoints of variety A quite look hours evening the during nice would Island Victoria from Viewpoints New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin

│Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du

PRECEDENTS HALIFAX HALIFAX       OXFORD    VANCOUVER    xod s itrsu, o t a smlr om to form similar has context that in Ottawa it so picturesque, is Oxford working UNESCO to well as policies municipal the with due study case Interesting in incorporated Oxford’s be whether CapitalNational Region could see tools to implementation it interesting so building, be one would protecting only not are They view conetools and zones buffer with approach Interesting topography. to due context Ottawa to Comparable City European are or not successful they whether see to interesting be would but Ottawa, from different is protecting are Vancouver, they What in pressures development Region Capital National the to similar is which of lot A City Canadian same that the out look to interesting be controls would view of types different under uses the Halifax in not occurring is Region Capital National protected; that are pressure being development they is what however to structure Similar City Canadian   GUELPH     PORTLAND    MONTREAL lower the allowed height limits were limits height allowed the lower permissible the downtown, church main werethe to went you closer storeys six Lady Our Immaculate, of Church limit the from height away further where incremental an established Guelph City Canadian the to of Ottawa escarpment natural compare to interesting be would policies; protection the in mountains the includes Portland further into looked had be should Portland they for engagement Public where plan views management forvegetation strategies scenic a Created City American Region Capital National the into incorporated be can they if see to at looked be could tools engagement public Their be can which Ottawa in escarpment natural the to similar features, natural its for out Stood City Canadian

. The APPENDIX G: QUESTION AND ANSWER APPENDIX G: QUESTION AND ANSWER G - 2 to on with capital. benefit thecity the ar an is This then. issue this discussed Ottawa and Works Public recall don’t I downtown. their in build to how on guidelines should respect Public celebrate and Works. family. The responsibility ison aswith part theNCC, us, ofadiscussion within afederal government received, Works Why statement. appropriate an is this believe not do I cities. the of responsibility the is It plans. local of respectful are comments written down weremanually with verbatim andpaper, oftheoriginal pen be andmay not questions andanswers. at least at welcome should We Paris. and Canberra, Washington, does as symbols national and symbols our after looking of record a have we serious, has This population. whole the of behalf on Government Federal the of and Gatineau and Ottawa and NCC the of responsibility Works an agreement Public side, theGatineau & anagreement implemented on withNCC performance of their buildings meeting by theLEED GOLDstandards. being recent A Region. Capital National the in Program Property Real their delivering when policy control view NCC’s the considers various Following A Comment A: Q: Commentfrom another audience member on the topic: Thank you for your comment. The project team recommends that PSPC enhance their ‘Good Neighbour Policy’ to include a provisio a include to Policy’ Neighbour ‘Good their enhance PSPC that recommends team project The comment. your for you Thank Your comment was that PSPC shouldn’t lease buildings in viewsheds… is that what you are inferring? PSPC leases space in build in space leases PSPC inferring? are you what that is viewsheds… in buildings lease shouldn’t PSPC that was comment Your

PENDIX G:Q

N ew to do view do to pioneer a aspects of aspects

Con as part as

and the answers the and h project the from trols

to lease to another audience another forVie

of this, of in protection? the w

evoking Control

commercial team’s

presentation this s in s

provided

should positive

Canada’ T final presentation final UESTION ADWR his office m falls

der s suggest with ember by Capital

change

un the project the space

project on │Nouveau

a conversation. a the topic: the within the cities the

occurred

in Ottawa, in stakeholders x team. It is important is It team. outil

them. Before Public Works argues too strong against its capital role, a while ago there was was there ago while a role, capital its against strong too argues Works Public Before s

to make to It is easier is It pour la pour when

N on ON,

This This protection and industry and

they

change

doesn’t that

December for

required des vu judgement, future buildings. future

in requirements in

to note that note to just es professionals. dan

come 7, buildings s la decapitale région la Canada du 2016, not

down

no recording no us There

as a be - if they if - motivated

The

– to question that leasing would obey the height limits. It is the Itis heightlimits. leasing that would the obey LEED

Good w following is following

device zoning meet a document a neighbour, GOLD

landlords and answer and the Certified was a list of questions of list a

to improve to it used. released

comes period in order for the federal federal the for order in requirements Instead, pu

down was t the onus on Public Public on onus the t by the environmental environmental the ea we could work could we ea example of PSPC PSPC exampleof Ottawa

and held to held

questions to become very very become respect. of comments comments the city. the

ings that ings

setting dis n that that n

cuss We We and and APPENDIX G: QUESTION AND ANSWER

- ublic public public Halifax Halifax

rocess, sked to ould be g p tures. tures. At eau that evaluate of wpoints? the other -

s s p e because because it d a ities ities to see n c tin pic

of vie

iv o r our work that nderstand nderstand the ect of t u

evaluation in their case were from across the - Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada G du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools

I am very intrigued by the part of public engagement. In your research, did you come across any really good examples regardin Halifax Halifax was a city examined for the best practices section of our report. Halifax is an especially relevant case to this proj Vancouver Vancouver had great many examples of public participation that included multiple rounds of public consultation, including act

: When you were out and about looking at were viewpoints, there any others that you believe should be protected or chosen as : : When we were our doing fieldwork, our primary concern was finding the mapped viewpoints and figuring out where to take the

if they should add or change any viewpoints. Through this process, two new viewpoints were added from Olympic village and all solidified.were viewpoints A: Halifax Halifax also removed a viewpoint that was on a golf course consultation that for was Halifax; on it privately helped owned toland. This improve was view a planes very and effective eased method development here. equally successful strains, and we feel such public consultatio shares shares a similar geography with the National Capital Region; Harbour, similar the to the views views of needing Parliament from re Gatineau across the Ottawa River. The public was rank invited proposed to viewpoints an openin house order an of preference, and select elements of each view to determine what made it special. From thi A: Q: engagement? purpose purpose of the viewpoints, and thought they didn’t offer good views of national symbols. existing and new Consulting viewpoints is the one of our public team’s recommendations. The more public has greatly the best idea t of places within Ottawa and Ga can integrated with policy. their input be and protection so be included good views, in view should provide the time of our visit, I don’t believe we discussed other locations we though deserved protection; that was beyond the scope day as we had difficulty finding the existing viewpoints. There were a few points in Gatineau, however, where the group didn’ What about the Gatineau Hills? Gatineau What aboutthe A Q

APPENDIX G: QUESTION AND ANSWER G cone view isand what ofabuilding allowablebeforeinterrupting height theview cones. the where demonstrate to Earth, Google of top on files KML layering as such tool, accessible publicly a incorporate by zoning the he the through considered being is it building, new a proposing when mind developers a to come not does policies control view A: control view of think will developer a where process? law, real into this put you do How zoning? the into put be to going is this how Q: did way We The viewpoints. boulevard. the the to around viewsaround them andtherelationship between them down dynamic the it of narrowed all we protect also And would sequences.viewpoints certain view protecting included that study knew we 1993 because The good. it makes what of “pop” the of topic: the on member audience another from Comment well, wouldBeyond that, kindofhoping Iwas ofyou haveabetter thatall answer forme. want anA. be to th in point last the at reveal big the to up obstruction some for allow to okay it’s that is idea The route. that along view OneIthinkabout. thingthat tried,isto couldbe andhavea approachknow, views14,bseries, you ,14c, 14d mea 14a, as a have I something is it this, approach to how for As approaches. contradictory seemingly two these combined successfully had A: How doweLookatthe reintegrate thisconcept? viewBridge, from oftheEast weBlock Mackenzie see an oblique next see to going are you what Q: -

4 The project team reviewed the City of Ottawa’s Zoning By ZoningOttawa’s of City the reviewedteam project The I’m happy you brought this up. It was either Lawrence Vale or an author, I think it was Sonne, that discussed how Ottawa and Ottawa how discussed that Sonne, was it think I author, an or Vale Lawrence either was It up. this brought you happy I’m The elements of things that we need to think about in the future, you mention Picturesque mentionyou future, in the thinkabout to need we that things elementsTheof As a developer, the first thing that comes to thought when proposing a new building is not view control protection. Have you you Have protection. control view not is building new a proposing when thought to comes that thing first the developer, a As

New Controls forNewControlsView Controls Canada’sCapitalin

- law. However, as view protection of the national symbols is very important, the NCC, City of Ottawa and Ville de G de Ville and Ottawa of City NCC, the important, very is symbols national the of protection view as However, law.

–

like meandering a forest. In contrast, we are very Beaux Arts at the Centre block block Centre the at Arts Beaux very are we contrast, In forest. a meandering like │Nouveauxoutilsla despour protection dans la devues capitale la région Canada du –

it ispicturesque.it west The andthetowers blocks arebeaux arts.

This is not two contradictory topics. This is what makes this place so unique. The part The unique. so place makesthis what Thisis topics. contradictory two not is This - law and identified it as strong support for view control policies; the policies; control view for support strong as it identified and law

–

Picturesque is about oblique views,obliqueabout is Picturesque

what do you prowhat you do

–

the lawn is lawn the e s e equence, that you that equence, sur ear refore, even ifeven refore, bee atineau could atineau ement forthe ement s a s lier on in the the in on lier igh

tho pose? beaux art. art. beaux re located located re n thinking thinking n aboutis it you t limits in limits t G atineau ught of of ught

move

th is APPENDIX G: QUESTION AND ANSWER

5 d

- of

our our s awa awa take tt we we offered to

ts a bad rap, ing ge

for the NCC, but

rate revenue, but nly ene

Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada G du Canada région la capitale de la dans vues des pour la protection Nouveaux outils

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │ Controls Capital View in for Canada’s New Tools

did you come across any that look at what happens to the views at night, anything that could change

It is challenging for the NCC to effectively garner public opinion and input from Canadians. These symbols and views are owne You talk about expanding the definitions to include the river and the two shores and opened the door for this, this uniquenes As a Former SURPer, congratulations. The graphics were great, this was an interesting topic, well done. an interesting done. great, topic, well were The this was graphics SURPer, congratulations. a Former As I agree, that was an excellent presentation. A few things: the other cities that have been studied through view protection. O I really enjoyed the part of your recommendation about Public Engagement. about Public Engagement. of your the part recommendation I really enjoyed

In any of the case studies Unfortunately, lighting and ‘night views’ were not within the scope of this project. of this project. were the scope not within views’ and ‘night Unfortunately, lighting

us, we have a good amount of work to do. have a good amount of work we us, COMMENT: the Capital Region! The landscapes, foreground, and background on both sides of the Ottawa river, this information that is be these these views belong to all Canadians, how do you effectively engage Canadians? These images Ottawa. in here granted for them that you see are breathtaking and COMMENT: by all Canadians not just the cities. The Cities face their own issues, they are trying to build their cities, they want to g but there are many other cities that are not capitals who believe view protection is fantastic. protection View is good not o feathers. as a whole, but it a few maythe population ruffle COMMENT: is in a bubble. It is nice to see 41 other cities around the work with view protection and many of them not capitals. The NCC COMMENT: COMMENT: ADDITIONALCOMMENTS: A: perspective on lighting? on perspective Q:

APPENDIX H:

ETHICS APPENDIX H: ETHICS office. Furthermore, anyhard copies recordings This is aworkshopThis techniques H - 2 withdrawn any should not toanswer feelobliged any study important symbols andCanada’s are protected, hashadview capital its H. This This This This Kingston, Ontario. David Dr. SarahCranston,Carmichael, Lesley Adhia, Rabiya www.ethics.gc.ca/default.aspx) and Queen's A What willhappen tomy Is Are thereany What is m 1:

p PENDIX H:TCS

y ti lanning tools to control iconic iconic lanning tools to control N res s me without consequence. Youmay ew p tudy w OFINF LETTER articipation voluntary? Yes. itbe Although would begreatly ill require oneill require totwovisits, anhourtotwo ofabout hours in length. earch is earch thi Con G s study has from trols w ordon, inthe us ill be keptill be onapersonal comp risk ed forview forVie b the study. the study. een bygranted clearance the General Research Ethics b s in this eing ab c w ourse intendedourse togivestudents experience inpreparing aplan under conditions out? purpose The is ofthisresearch to research Capital toolsfortheNational Commission’s Control ORMATI c re onducted by onducted Pulcine, by Natalie Aidan Emilie Coyle, Sc

sponses? Youranswers study? c s in s ontrols in othercapitals and selected N hool of Urban andRegionalhool ofUrban Planning, part Canada’ ON There areno There known economic, orsocial physical, psychological, risks 82 — SURP view s Capital s m uch as s of its national symbols. Most city capital aterial that aterial c hoose torefrainfrom uter │Nouveau U n 4: niversity niversity otes with password protection,andany w N Mus ill be keptill be Only confidential. x EW TO y w outil ou find objectionable orthat ill bedestroyed upon het, andHenn p s olicies olicies pour la pour V FOR OLS protection ( http://www.queensu.ca/urs/research-ethics). http://www.queensu.ca/urs/research-ethics). ans ap orth wering a particular question, aparticular wering ormay preciated if you would ifyou preciated answer allmaterial as a Hovi,herein referred toastheProjectunder Team, of thesupervision c of C IEW ontrols for overacentury. Projec The des vu American cities cities American B the Departmentand Planning ofGeography atQueen’s J oard according toCanadianoard according research principles ethics’ . Kennedy, Paul Bell, Olivia Fortenbacher, Jonathan Fortenbacher, . Kennedy,PaulBell, Olivia com es ONTR dan ex pletion of the s m perimenterswill haveaccess to this p la decapitale région la Canada du INCANADA OLS notes lans have controls to ensure akes that ta y ou feel uncomfortable. You ken of theinterview m ight useful be precedentsfor Canad r esearch. ’S CAPIT that as also sociated witsociated s imulate professional practice. The The practice. imulate professional t AL Team, will re be request to be completely request completely be to w that ill also Planni frank vie this h this m inform ly ng ay ws ofnationally b as e kep B also s ranch toimp ranch p tudy. tudy. ation. Interviewation. ossible, you searching By in a locked t inalocked wi rd, Caitlin rd, Caitlin U (http:// thdraw thdraw a’s niversity c apital. - rove at in

A PPENDIX

What if I have any questions or concerns? Any questions about study participation may be directed to the Natalie Pulcine at na-

[email protected] or 613-302-8022, Emilie Coyle at [email protected] or 613-449-2802, or Dr. David Gordon at 613-533-6000 H: E ext. 77063 or [email protected]. If you have any ethical concerns or complaints, you may contact the Chair of the Queen’s Universi- ty General Research Ethics Board at 1-844-535-2988 or [email protected].

THICS Again, thank you. Your interest in participating in this research study is greatly appreciated.

Written Consent

By signing below, I am verifying that: I have read the Letter of Information and had it explained to me. I am aware that I can withdraw my participation in this study at any time and may request any information collected about me be removed. I know my personal information will be kept confidential, and that this information will not be released without my permission. I know who I should contact regarding questions about this research or if I should have any ethical concerns about my participation or how the research was conducted.

Participant’s Name ______Date______

______Signature of Participant

______Confirmation by Student Researcher

< My initials below indicate whether I am willing to have my picture/image shown in presentations>

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada H - 3 I.2. CONSENT FORM—SURP 824: NEW TOOLS FOR VIEW CONTROLS IN CANADA’S CAPITAL WORKSHOP

Name (please print clearly): ______

I understand that I will be participating in an interview for the SURP 824 project ‘New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital’.

I understand that my participation in this study is voluntary and I may withdraw at any time. I understand that every effort will be made to maintain the confidentiality of the data now and in the future. Only team members and su- pervisor(s) in this research project will have access to the data. The data will be kept in a locked office. The data may also be published in professional journals or presented at scientific conferences, but any such presentations will be of general findings and will never breach individual confidentiality. All data containing personal identifiable information will be destroyed upon completion of the project. Should you be interested, you are entitled to a copy of the findings and can obtain one from the Queen’s School of Urban and Regional Planning.

I am aware that if I have any questions about study participation they may be directed to Natalie Pulcine at [email protected] or 613-302-8022, and/or to Emilie Coyle at [email protected] or 613-449-2802, and/or to Dr. David Gordon at 613-533-6000 ext. 77063 or [email protected]. Any ethical concerns about the study may be directed to the Chair of the General Research Ethics Board at [email protected] or 1-844-535-2988.

I have read the above statements and freely consent to participate in this research:

Signature: ______Date: ______THICS H: E

PPENDIX

A H - 4 New Controls for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada

A PPENDIX

I.3 INTERVIEW SCRIPT

Interview Script

First of all, thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. I really appreciate you taking the time out of your schedule to speak with H: E me. To remind you of our project, the NCC has tasked us, a group of Master's student from Queen's University's School of Urban and Regional Planning, to produce a final best-practice precedent catalogue that will demonstrate our research on the techniques used for view controls in other capitals and selected North American cities that may be useful precedents for Canada's capital. In the end, after analysis on existing THICS views and policies, our team will suggest new approaches and tools that could improve view controls, and recommend ways to enhance com- munication and public understanding of view control policies.

City of Ottawa Questions 1.How did the view control policies that are in place at the City of Ottawa get developed and implemented? 2. As a planner working in the city, how do you interpret these tools and policies in place at the City of Ottawa? 3. Are you aware of how many, if any, zoning by-law amendments (and/or OPAs) have occurred to allow buildings in the central area that go above the height limits that are in place to protect the views of the National Symbols? 4. Beechwood CDP states that a view protection study for Beechwood Cemetery was to be undertaken – are you aware of what this study stated in its findings? Do you have a copy? 5. With the construction of the LRT, and the implementation of TOD guidelines and Plans for Lees, Hurdman, Tremblay, St. Laurent, Cyrville, and Blair; do you see the potential of increased height around LRT stations setting precedents for the allowable height near the stations closer to the downtown core? 6. Do you believe that citizens are aware that the view protection policies that are in place? 7. Are you aware of any tools that are used that enhance the views or showcase them to the public? (i.e tourism, tours, apps, maps, web- sites). 8. What have you seen elsewhere in regards to view controls or public awareness of view controls?

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada H - 5

Interview Script

City of Vancouver and City of Portland Questions: 1. Can you provide some background on how the view control policies came to be? Were there any specific cities the policies were modeled after? 2. With these policies, what do you feel is the biggest challenge to implementation? 3. Do you feel like these policies would hold up in the face of larger development pressure as the city continues to grow? 4. How big of a role do you believe that the public plays in view protection in the city? How in depth was the public consulted when the policies were created? 5. Do you believe that citizens know that these policies are in place? If yes, has the city attempted to increase awareness? 6. Was there any public consultation on the use of benefit capacity around the city? 7. Are you aware of any tools that are used that enhance the views or showcase them to the public? (i.e. tourism tours, maps, apps, web- sites) 8. Was there ever an attempt to quantify the economic generation in the city from views being protected? Are you aware of the monetary off- set in the city when high-rise developments are pushed outside the core? 9. Do you feel that there are additional policies that could enhance view control protection in the city?

10. Are there any other things you would like to mention? THICS H: E

PPENDIX

A H - 6 New Controls for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada

A PPENDIX

Interview Script H: E

City of Halifax Questions: 1. Can you provide some background on how the view control policies came to be? Is the City of Dartmouth involved in the policy as well? THICS 2. With these view protection policies, what do you feel is the biggest challenge to implementation? 3. Do you feel view protection policies would hold up in the face of larger development pressures as the city continues to grow?

4. Are the citizens of Halifax aware of the view protection policies? Were they consulted when the policy was created? How has HRM attempted to increase this awareness? 5. Has a study been done to quantify the economic generation in the city from views being protected? For example, high-rise development being prevented in the core, how is revenue in the core being impacted by that? 6. Are you aware of any tools that are being used in Halifax to enhance views showcasing them to the public? Do you know tools being use in any other cities?

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada H - 7 Interview Script

City of Guelph Questions: 1. Can you provide some background on how the view control policies came to be? 2. With these view protection policies, what have you found to be the biggest challenge for implementation? 3. In your experience, how are the view protection policies holding up as pressure for larger development increases as the city continues to grow? 4. Are the citizens of Guelph aware of the view protection policies? How were they consulted when the policy was created and again for the secondary plan? How has the City of Guelph attempted to increase this awareness? 5. Are you aware of any tools are that are being used in Guelph to enhance views showcasing them to the public?

THICS H: E

PPENDIX

A H - 8 New Controls for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada

BIBLIOGRAPHY Andaz. (2016). Facebook Post. Retrieved from: //www.facebook.com/ Billings, R. (2015). Pressures of housing market shape Portland politics, fuel AndazOttawa/?fref=ts recurring clashes over development. The Portland Press Herald. Retrieved 2016, from http://www.pressherald.com/2015/11/15/ Appleyard, D., Lynch, K., & Myer, J. R. (1964). The View from the Road. pressures-housing-market-shape-portland-politics-fuel-recurring- Cambridge: Published for the Joint Center for Urban Studies of the clashes-development/ Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University by the M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Bingham, S. (2012). The cult of the view: comparing and evaluating effectiveness of view corridor protection in Montréal and Vancouver. Austin Public Library. (2016). Austin history center; when was Austin Queen’s University Kingston, 1-115. founded? Retrieved 2016, from http://www.austinlibrary.com/ahc/ faq1.htm Bobrowski, M. 1995. Scenic landscape protection under the police power. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 22(3), 693-696. Austin, City of Downtown Commission. (2007). Downtown Development and (page 745) Capitol View Corridors. Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. (2016). Central Scenic Resources Austin, City of, Downtown Commission (2007). Downtown Development and Protection Plan Part 1: Scenic Resources Summary Capitol View Corridors. Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. (2016). Central Scenic Resources Austin, City of. (2003). South Congress Avenue Preservation Plan. Protection Plan Part 1: Scenic Resources Summary, Results and Austin, City of. (2016). Government code: chapter 3151. Preservation of Implementation Plan (Discussion Draft, Working paper). Retrieved view of State Capitol. Retrieved 2016, from http:// from: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/69859 www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.3151.h Burley Griffin. (1914). Canberra Federal Capital of Australia Preliminary Australian Government - National Capital Authority. (2016). Consolidated Plan. Retrieved from https:// National Capital Plan. stumblingpast.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/preliminary-plan- canberra-1914.jpg Australian Government. (2016). Canberra – Australia’s capital city. Retrieved from http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/ Canada's Historic Places, Parks Canada. (2010). Standards and Guidelines australian-story/canberra-australias-capital-city for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2nd ed.). Baird Sampson Neuert Architects. (2007). Downtown and Harbour Area Canadian Sky Photo. (2016). Top 10 most photogenic urban highlights in Architectural Guidelines Study. City of Kingston. Canada. Retrieved 2016, November 23 from http:// www.canadiansky.co.uk/canadian-city-breaks/top-10-most- Bellett, Gerry (2014, March 05). Mount Pleasant residents sue city to photogenic-urban-highlights-in-canada

protect mountain views. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from http:// www.vancouversun.com/news/ CBC News. (2007, 11 September). Montrealers asked to dream up new look Mount+Pleasant+residents+city+protect+mountain+views/958374 for Pine-Parc interchange. Retrieved 2016, from: http:// 3/story.html www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montrealers-asked-to-dream- up-new-look-for-pine-parc-interchange-1.683507?ref=rss Bennett, E. (1912). The Greater Portland Plan. Chen, W & Jim, C Y. (2009). Value of scenic views: hedonic assessment of Bennett, E. (1915). Report of the Federal plan commission on a general private housing in Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91, plan for the cities of Ottawa and Hull (Rep.). Retrieved 2016, from 226-234. https://qshare.queensu.ca/Users01/gordond/

IBLIOGRAPHY planningcanadascapital/bennett1915/ B

2 New Controls for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada

B Chen, W & Jim, C Y. (2010). Amenities and Disamenities: a hedonic analysis Encyclopedia of French Cultural Heritage in North America (2007). Mount of the heterogeneous urban landscape in Schenzen, China. The Royal Park, a precious natural and cultural heritage. Retrieved from IBLIOGRAPHY Geographical Journal, 176 (3), 227-240. http://www.ameriquefrancai se.org/en/article-542/ Mount_Royal_Park,_a_Precious_Natural_and_Cultural_Heritage.html City of Edinburgh Council. (2010). Edinburgh City Local Plan. ERA Architects Inc. (2013) Market Square Heritage Conservation District City of Edinburgh Council. (2016). Edinburgh Local Development Plan (Plan Plan. City of Kingston Planning and Development Department as Modified September 2016). ESRI Story Map. (2016). (website and smart phone application). Retrieved Clement, E. (2009, September 14). Un nouveau parc sur le mont Royal en from: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/en/ 2010. La Presse. Retrieved 2016, from http://www.lapresse.ca/ actualites/montreal/200909/14/01-901705-un-nouveau-parc-sur- Farris & Reid Global Historical Institute for Innovation and Development

le-mont-royal-en-2010.php (2016). On This Spot App. Retrieved from http://onthisspot.ca/ Conversation with Dr. David L.A Gordon [Personal Conversation]. (2016, Flynn, K. (2015, July 16). Snapchat filters can now be sponsored by brands; November). McDonald’s takes first spot. Interanational Business Times. Retrieved from: http://www.ibtimes.com/snapchat-filters-can-now- Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. (2016). The skyscraper center: be-sponsored-brands-mcdonalds-takes-first-spot-1969360 Austin, USA. Retrieved 2016, from http://skyscrapercenter.com/ city/austin Free-City-Guides.com. (2016). Carfax Tower, Oxford. Retrieved 2016, from Free-City-Guides.com: http://www.free-city-guides.com/oxford/ DC Office of Planning. (2007). DC Comprehensive Plan, Historic carfax-tower/ Preservation Element. Washington: DC Office of Planning. Freedom Trail Foundation, The. (2016). Establishment of the Freedom Trail. DC Office of Zoning. (2016). District of Columbia Governemnt. From District Retrieved from: https://www.thefreedomtrail.org/about-foundation/ of Columbia Office of Zoning: http://dcoz.dc.gov/main.html establishment.shtml Department for Communities and Local Government. (2012). National Garrod, J. & Willis, K. (1994). An economic estimate of the effect of a Planning Policy Framework. London. waterside location on property values. Environmental and Resource du Toit, Allsopp & Hiller. (2006). Parliamentary and Judicial Precinct Area Economics, 4, 209-217. Site Capacity and Long Term Development Plan. Gatineau, Ville de. (2008). Programme particulier du centre-ville du Toit, Allsopp, & Hillier. (1993). Ottawa Views 1993 (Canada, National Gatineau, Ville de. (2015). Compilation administrative au 22 juin 2015 in: Capital Commission, City of Ottawa). Règlement de plan d’urbanisme numéro 500. By-law number 500- Eadicicco, L. (2016, September 19). Google’s new app wants to be your 2005. personal travel guide. Time. Retrieved from: http:// Gatineau, Ville de. (2015). Règlement de zonage: Règlement numéro 502- time.com/4500242/google-trips-travel-app-2016/ 2005 Edinburgh World Heritage. (2011). The Old and New Towns of Edinburgh Google Earth. (2016). Vancouver, City of. Retrieved from: https:// World Heritage Site Management Plan 2011-2016. www.google.com/earth/ Edinburgh World Heritage. (2016). Edinburgh World Heritage. Retrieved Google Maps. (2016). #MTLMOMENTS: Places to take amazing pictures. from http://www.ewht.org.uk/ Retrieved from: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1XU- z-X742Y5Ix990YfSEcXzjN20&ll=45.52629810291909%2C- 73.57484149999999&z=12

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada 3 Gordon, D. L. (1998). A City Beautiful plan for Canada’s capital: Edward Guelph, City of. (2016). Zoning Bylaw. Retrieved 2016, from City of Guelph: Bennett and the 1915 plan for Ottawa and Hull. Planning http://guelph.ca/city-hall/by-laws-and-policies-2/zoning-by-law/ Perspectives, 13, 275–300. Halifax Regional Municipality. (2013). Staff Report: Project 01367- Government of Canada. (2013). Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. Downtown Dartmouth View Planes-Amendments to the Regional Retrieved December 17, 2016, from https://www.ec.gc.ca/dd-sd/ MPS, Dartmouth MPS, and Downtown Dartmouth MPS and LUB. default.asp?lang=En&n=F15A366A-1 Halifax Regional Municipality. (2016). Halifax Regional Municipality Plan Government of Nova Scotia. (2008). A Heritage Strategy for Nova Scotia. Area. From http://www.region.halifax.ns.ca/planning/ HalifaxPlanArea.php Greater London Authority. (2012). London View Management Framework. Retrieved from https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/ Hammer, P., Greene, & Siler. (1969). Ottawa Central Area Study (Rep.). implementing-london-plan/supplementary-planning-guidance/ Washington D.C. london-view-management Hammer,P.Greene, & Siller. (1969). Ottawa Central Area Study. (Canada, Greater London Authority. (2016). The London Plan: The Spatial City of Ottawa, the National Capital Commission and the Ontario Development Strategy for London Consolidated with Alterations Department of Highways.). Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates. since 2011. Retrieved from https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/ Helsinki, City of. (2011). Korkea rakentaminen Helsingissä. Helsingin default/files/the_london_plan_malp_final_for_web_0606_0.pdf kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston: asemakaavaosaston selvityksiä. Gréber, J. (1950). Plan for the national capital: General report submitted to the National Capital Planning Committee (Rep.). Retrieved 2016, Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia. (2016). Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia. From from https://qshare.queensu.ca/Users01/gordond/ http://www.htns.ca/committees.html planningcanadascapital/greber1950/ Hodge, G. (1985) The roots of Canadian planning. Journal of the American Gréber, J. (1950). Plan for the National Capital: General report submitted to Planning Association, 51(1), 8-22. the National Capital Planning Committee (Canada, National Capital Hodge, G., & Gordon, D. L. A. (2014). Planning Canadian communities: An Planning Service). Ottawa: King's Printer. Retrieved 2016, from introduction to the principles, practice, and participants (6th ed.). http://www.pastottawa.com/include/ottawa/files/General% Toronto, ON: Nelson Education. 20Report_Jacques%20Greber_OCR.pdf Hollis, L. (2015, July 14). How are protected views shaping our cities. The Gregor. L. (2007, April 13). Revisiting the Capitol view corridors: where’s the Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/ view? The Austin Chronicle. Retrieved 2016, from http:// cities/2015/jul/14/how-protected-views-shaping-cities-heritage- www.austinchronicle.com/news/2007-04-13/465117/ development-how-have-they-been-enriching-our-daily-lives-since-

Guelph Tourism. (2016). CHURCH OF OUR LADY IMMACULATE. From Guelph 1989/ Tourism: https://visitguelphwellington.ca/listing/918 Interview with Dr. P.F [Telephone interview]. (2016, November) Guelph, City of. (2001). City of Guelph Official Plan. Retrieved 2016, from Interview with former Chief Urban Designer from the City of Vancouver City of Guelph: http://guelph.ca/plans-and-strategies/official-plan/ [Telephone interview]. (2016, November) Guelph, City of. (2011). Downtown Guelph Secondary Plan. Retrieved 2016, Interview with J. R [Telephone interview]. (2016, November) from City of Guelph: http://guelph.ca/plans-and-strategies/ downtown-secondary-plan/ Interview with M.B [Telephone interview]. (2016, November) IBLIOGRAPHY B

4 New Controls for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada B Interview with Senior Planner from the City of Vancouver [Telephone Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the city. Cambridge, Mass: MIT. Retrieved interview]. (2016, November) from: Stamps, A., Nasar, J.L. & Hanyu, K. (2005). Using pre- IBLIOGRAPHY construction validation to regulate urban skylines. Journal of the Kalman, H. (2014). Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. New York: American Planning Association, 71(1), 73-91. Routledge. Lynch, K., Banerjee, T. & Southworth, M. (1990). City sense and city design: Kingston Historical Society. (2011). Chronology of the history of Kingston. Writings and projects of Kevin Lynch. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Retrieved 2016, from http://www.kingstonhistoricalsociety.ca/ (page 483) chronology.html Macpherson, K. (1963). Naval service vessels on the Great Lakes 1755- Kingston, City of, Planning and Development Department. (2010). City of 1875. Ontario History.

Kingston Official Plan. Maptionnaire. (2016). (website and smart phone app). Retrieved from: Kingston, The Corporation of the City of. (2016). Historic City Hall. Retrieved https://maptionnaire.com/ 2016, from https://www.cityofkingston.ca/explore/culture-history/ history/city-hall Maurice, L.P. (2013, August 3). A Successful Destruction. Retrieved from https://aswellblog.com/a-successful-destruction- Kronbauer, Bob (2012, August 03). What are Vancouver’s View Cones and db51159c6594#.p965kd40h how have they been enriching our daily lives since 1989? Vancouverisawesome.com. Retrieved from http:// Michael (2010, November 30). Downtown Austin, TX. Retrieved from: vancouverisawesome.com/2012/08/03/what-are-vancouvers-view- https://www.flickr.com/photos/milbot79/5222088196/in/ cones-and- photolist-8XsyTo-7pkzwU-f6H3NA-diCXY5-6RLpF-m27Jwk-kVe5Ui- diCYaQ-6RLpJ-pWGSsh-qoWTev-8wxtRy-5WLX2M-gYwBag-6RLpH- Lang, J. (2011). City branding. In T. Banerjee and A. Loukaitou-Sideris (Eds.), e4ZTxT-jW23H-q7pyEC-aTit9K-pWgaJB-pWoa7s-qcPjic-mFWYcF- Companion to Urban Design (pp. 541-551). New York, NY: 5xoYDW-pPUkju-ghr1Z4-8biNQd-pf7CKG-8mppac-qcVMLC-pWfTdF- Routledge. (page 544) foVQy5-dXtjLz-ex3beX-oYH9tL-qcP6zM-a3DHj4-egYNFf-egYMRA- Les Amis de la Montagne. (2014a). Activities and services. Retrieved 2016, feZjdh-e6QGA6-pgRyR3-fJQMcT-gsB11k-qQNU4n-bsqDh3-dfZQme- from http://www.lemontroyal.qc.ca/fr/activites-et-services/services- bSpxoi-qFgyUw-bz1yGP a-la-maison-smith.sn Montréal, Ville de (2004). Montréal Master Plan. Les Amis de la Montagne. (2014b). Short history of Mont Royal. Retrieved Montréal, Ville de (2009). Mount Royal Protection and Enhancement Plan. 2016, from http://www.lemontroyal.qc.ca/en/learn-about-mount- royal/short-history-of-mount-royal.sn Montreal. (2016a). A walk on Mount Royal á deux. Retrieved 2016, from http://www.tourisme-montreal.org/Discover-montreal/ Les Amis de la Montagne. (2014c). Outdoor activities. Retrieved 2016, from Neighbourhoods/Mount-Royal-and-surroundings/mount-royal-is-for- http://www.lemontroyal.qc.ca/en/activities-and-services/outdoor- lovers activities.sn Montreal. (2016b.) Mount Royal Park. Retrieved 2016, from http:// Les Amis de la Montagne. (2014d). Mission. Retrieved 2016, from http:// ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page? www.lemontroyal.qc.ca/fr/nous-connaitre/mission.sn _pageid= 7377,94551572&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&id=8 Les Amis de la Montagne. (n.d.). Mount Royal: A territory to discover, 1&sc=5 Interactive Map. Retrieved 2016, from http:// Murray, A. L. (1967). Frederick Law Olmsted and the design of Mount Royal www.lemontroyal.qc.ca/en/learn-about-mount-royal/a-territory-to- Park, Montréal. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 26 discover-interactive-map.sn (3), 163-171.

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada 5

National Capital Commission. (1994) Hull et la preservation des vues. Old Montréal. (2001). 16 Place d’Armes – Skyscrapers since 1888. Retrieved 2016, from http://www.vieux.Montréal.qc.ca/tour/ National Capital Commission. (1999). The Plan for Canada's Capital. etape16/eng/16text3a.html National Capital Commission. (2007). Canada's Capital Views Protection: Ontario Heritage Trust. (2016). 2012 Lieutenant Governor's Ontario Protecting the Visual Integrity and Symbolic Primacy of our National Heritage Award recipients announced. From Ontario Heritage Trust: Symbols. http://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/News-and-Events/2013/Feb/2012-

National Capital Commission. (n.d.). Netiquette: Public paricipation rules for Lieutenant-Governor-s-Ontario-Heritage-Award.aspx the NCC’s social media platforms. Retrieved from: http://www.ncc- Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (2016). ccn.gc.ca/about-ncc/netiquette Explanation of Goal 5. Retrieved from https://www.oregon.gov/LCD/ National Capital Planning Commission. (2013). The Height Master Plan for pages/goal5explan.aspx Washington, DC. Ottawa Tourism (2016). Facebook Post. Retrieved from: https:// National Capital Planning Commission. (2016). The Comprehensive Plan for www.facebook.com/pg/visitottawa/about/?ref=page_internal the National Capital; Federal Elements. Ottawa Tourism. (2015, July 15). Where to capture iconic photos of Ottawa. National Capital Planning Commission. (2016). The Federal Planning Agency Retrieved from: https://www.ottawatourism.ca/ottawa-insider/ for America's Capital. where-to-capture-iconic-photos-of-ottawa/ NCC-CCN. (2007). Canada's Capital Views Protection - Protecting the Visual Ottawa winter events guide (2016). Ottawa winter events guide. Retrieved Integrity and Symbolic Primacy of our National Symbols (Rep.). from: http://farandwide.much.com/ottawa-winter-events-guide/ Retrieved 2016, from http://www.ncc-ccn.gc.ca/sites/default/files/ Ottawa, City of. (2003) Central Area Secondary Plan, in: Official Plan: A pubs/NCC-Canadas-Capital-Views-Protection-2007.pdf component of Ottawa 20/20, the City’s Growth Management Nivala, J.F. (1997). Saving the spirit of our places: A view on our built Strategy. By-law No. 2003-203. Volume 1, Publication 1-31. environment. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy. 51(1), Ottawa, City of. (2007) Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines. 1-56. (page. 1) Ottawa, City of. (2007) Urban Design Objectives: A Reference Guide to Novascotia.com. (2016). Nova Scotia. Retrieved from http:// Creating Great Places and Great Spaces. Planning, Transit and the www.novascotia.com/ Environment Publication no. 2103 O'Flanagan, R. (2012, March 3). Downtown Guelph condo project to be Ottawa, City of. (2008). Zoning By-law No. 2008-250. subject of public meeting. From Guelph Mercury Tribune: http://

www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/2749320-downtown-guelph- Ottawa, City of. (2009) Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing condo-project-to-be-subject-of-public-meeting/ Ottawa, City of. (2014). Official Plan Amendment No. 150 to Official Plan: A Office of Zoning. (2016). DC Office of Zoning. Retrieved from http:// component of Ottawa 20/20, the City’s Growth Management dcoz.dc.gov/main.html Strategy. By-law No. 2003-203. Volume 1, Publication 1-31. Oh, K. (1997). Visual threshold carrying capacity (VTCC) in urban landscape Ottawa, City of. (2014). Transit-Oriented Development Plans: Lees, management: A case study for Seoul, Korea. Landscape and Urban Hurdman, Tremblay, St. Laurent, Cyrville, and Blair. Planning, 39, 283-294. Oxford City Council. (2014). An Assessment of the Oxford View Cones: Old Montréal (2000). Old Montréal; centuries of history. Retrieved from Consultation on Draft OCTOBER 2014. Oxford: Oxford City Council. IBLIOGRAPHY http://www.vieux.Montréal.qc.ca/histoire/eng/introa.html B

6 New Controls for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada B Oxford City Council. (2015). Assessment of the Oxford View Cones. Oxford: Portland, City of (2016). [Stakeholder Advisory Committee]. Retrieved 2016, Oxford Preservation Trust. from http://residentialinfill.participate.online/public- Participation IBLIOGRAPHY Oxford City Council. (2016). Local Plan 2001-2016. From Oxford City Portland, Oregon (2016a). Parks & recreation- cathedral park. Retrieved Council: https://www.oxford.gov.uk/downloads/download/414/ 2016, from http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/finder/ oxford_local_plan_2001_-_2016 index.cfm?&propertyid=97&action=viewpark Oxford Preservation Trust, & Oxford City Council. (2015). Assessment of the Portland, Oregon (2016b). Parks & recreation- waterfront park. Retrieved Oxford View Cones. Retrieved 2016, from https:// 2016, from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/finder/ www.oxford.gov.uk/info/20064/conservation/876/ index.cfm?action=viewpark&propertyid=156 oxford_views_study

Portland, Oregon, Bureau of Planning. (1988). Willamette Greenway Plan. Oxford Preservation Trust. (2016). Independent Guardians of Oxford. Oxford Preservation Trust. Retrieved 2016, from http:// Portland, Oregon, Bureau of Planning. (1991). Scenic Views, Sites, and www.oxfordpreservation.org.uk/content/independent-guardians- Corridors: Scenic Resources Protection Plan. oxford Portland, Oregon, City of. (2016). Archives & records management; Portland Palmqvist, R B. (1991). Hedonic Methods in Braden J B and Kolstad C D: timeline. Retrieved 2016, from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/ “Measuring Demand for Environmental Quality.” North-Holland, archives/article/284506? Amsterdam, 77-120. Preservation Austin (n.d.). Background on the Capitol view corridors issue. Parks Canada. (2014, December 20). Historic Sites and Monuments Board Retrieved 2016, from https://www.preservationaustin.org/uploads/ of Canada. From Parks Canada: http://www.pc.gc.ca/clmhc-hsmbc/ CVC_Background.pdf res/protection.aspx Preservation Texas (2013). Texas Capitol view corridors. Retrieved Perry, F. (2015, July 14). Which urban views would you protect? The 2016, from http://www.preservationtexas.org/endangered/texas- Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/ capitol-view-corridors/ cities/2015/jul/14/how-protected-views-shaping-cities-heritage- Public Works and Government Services Canada, Real Property Branch. development (2011). Good Neighbour Policy. Planning, Zoning, and Development Vancouver. (1997). Downtown Reeves, B. (2016). Activating the alleys of Austin. Georgia Institute of Vancouver Skyline Study (Rep.). Retrieved 2016, from Technology. Retrieved 2016, from https://smartech.gatech.edu/ council.vancouver.ca/970407/sp1.htm bitstream/handle/1853/55169/ Portland Bureau of Planning (1988). Scenic Views, Sites and Drives blake_reeves_activating_the_alleys_of_austin.pdf Inventory. Reid, G. (2006). The politics of city imaging: A case study of the MTV Europe Portland Bureau of Planning (2008). Urban Design Assessment; Central Music Awards Edinburgh 03. Event Management, 10(1), 35-46. Portland Plan. Retrieved 2016, from http:// Results and Implementation Plan (Discussion Draft, Working paper). www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/218810 Retrieved 2016, from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/69859 Portland Bureau of Planning. (1988). Scenic Views, Sites and Drives Sagal, K. (2015, August 10). Famous NYC landmarks & the most Inventory. Instagrammable places to take pictures in NYC. Smart Destinations. Portland, City of (2015). History of the west quadrant. Retrieved Retreived from: http://www.smartdestinations.com/blog/top-ten- 2016, from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/528508. pictures-to-take-in-new-york-city/

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada 7 Save The View. (2010, February). The View from Citadel Hill in Halifax Toronto, City Planning Division (2012). Official Plan Five Year Review – Should Not Be Sacrificed for a Convention Centre . From Save The Proposed Heritage Policies. Staff Report: Pg12037. Toronto: ON. View: http://www.savetheview.ca/pdf/CCtowersOttawabrief.pdf Tourism Nova Scotia. (2016). Halifax Citadel National Historic Site. From Schwartz, A. (2016). Retrieved from: http://www.theloop.ca/10-things- Nova Scotia, Canada: http://www.novascotia.com/see-do/ about-ottawa-that-make-other-capital-cities-jealous/ attractions/halifax-citadel-national-historic-site/1440? gclid=COeRsN_D2c8CFQeQaQod9OUJqQ Snapchat. (2016). Snapchat Home. Retrieved from: https:// www.snapchat.com/ Tracey, S. (2012, May 8). Guelph councillors approve 18-storey condo tower downtown. Retrieved from Guelph Mercury Tribune: http:// St. Lawrence Parks Commission (2016). Fort Henry: History & Heritage. www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/2701983-guelph-councillors- Retrieved from http://www.forthenry.com/history-heritage/ approve-18-storey-condo-tower-downtown/ Stamps, A. (2002). Fractals, skylines, nature and beauty. Landscape and Tracey, S. (2013, August 10). Tricar Hopes To Move Immediately On Second Urban Planning, 60, 163–184. Downtown Guelph Condo Tower. Retrieved from Guelph Mercury Stamps, A., Nasar, J.L. & Hanyu, K. (2005). Using pre-construction validation Tribune: http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/4026950- to regulate urban skylines. Journal of the American Planning tricar-hopes-to-move-immediately-on-second-downtown-guelph- Association, 71(1), 73-91. (page 75) condo-tower/ State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). (2016). District of Columbia Office Urban Strategies. (2004). Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy 20/20. of Planning. From Historic Preservation Office: http:// Vale, L. (2009). The urban design of twentieth century capital cities. In D. planning.dc.gov/page/historic-preservation-office Gordon (Ed.), Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities (pp. 15-37). Stephenson, G. & Muirhead, G. (1960). A Planning Study of Kingston, Vancouver, City of. (1997). Downtown Vancouver Skyline Study. Ontario, City of Kingston. Vancouver, City of. (2011). View Protection Guidelines. Texas House of Representatives. (n.d). Capitol history. Retrieved 2016, from http://www.house.state.tx.us/about-us/capitol-history/ Vancouver, City of. (2011a). Council Report: Implementation of “Vancouver Views” and Opportunities for Higher Buildings in the Downtown. Texas State Preservation Board (SPB). (2016a). History of the Capitol. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/docs/planning/final-council- Retrieved 2016, from http://www.tspb.texas.gov/prop/tc/tc-history/ report.pdf tc-history.html Vancouver, City of. (2015). Open Data Catalogue. Retrieved from: http:// Texas State Preservation Board (SPB). (2016b). The Texas Capitol grounds. data.vancouver.ca/datacatalogue/cityStreets.html Retrieved 2016, from http://www.tspb.texas.gov/prop/tcg/tcg/ grounds.html Vancouver, City of. (2016). Protecting Vancouver’s Views. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting- Todd, F. (1903). The Preliminary Report to the Ottawa Improvement vancouvers-views.aspx Commission (Rep.). Retrieved 2016, from https:// qshare.queensu.ca/Users01/gordond/planningcanadascapital/ Vancouver, City of. (2016a). Downtown Official Development Plan. todd1903/ Vernon, C. (2006). Canberra: Where Landscape is Pre-eminent. In D. L. A. Toronto, City of. (2016). Doors Open: Explore Toronto’s buildings. Retrieved Gordon (Ed.), Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities (pp.130- from: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly? 149 ). New York, NY: Routledge.

IBLIOGRAPHY vgnextoid=42eafa2cd4a64410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD B

8 New Controls for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada B Westley, F., Zimmerman, B., & Patton, M. (2006). Getting to Maybe: How the 2-6: Hammer, P., Greene, & Siler. (1969). Parliament Overpowered [Sketch]. World is Changed. Toronto: Vintage Canada. (Works located in Kingston). In Ottawa Central Area Study (Rep.). IBLIOGRAPHY Washington D.C. (Original work created in 1969) World Travel and Tourism Council. (2012, November). The Comparative Economic Impact of Travel & Tourism. Retrieved from https:// 2-7: NCC-CCN. (2007). Photo from Neapean Point. [Photograph]. The NCC’s www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/benchmark-reports/ 2007 Canada’s Capital Views Protection Plan the_comparative_economic_impact_of_travel__tourism.pdf 2-8: Hammer, P., Greene, & Siler. (1969). View of Gatineau and Ottawa. Figures [Sketch]. (Works located in Kingston). In Ottawa Central Area Study (Rep.). Washington D.C. (Original work created in 1969) 1-1: Grant. (1882). A First Glimpse of the Capital. [Picture]. Picturesque 2-9: Bronson Family, Library and Archives Canada. (1890). Timber Slide at Canada Volume 1: Wellfleet Press. Chaudière Falls in 1890. [Photograph]. #PA-147886, Ottawa. 1-2: NCC-CCN. (2007). Canada's Capital Views Protection - Protecting the Visual Integrity and Symbolic Primacy of our National Symbols 2-10: Bond, C. C., & Mahaffy, R. U. (1984). Where rivers meet: An illustrated (Rep.). Retrieved 2016, from http://www.ncc-ccn.gc.ca/sites/ history of Ottawa. [Photograph]. Woodland Hills, CA: Windsor default/files/pubs/NCC-Canadas-Capital-Views-Protection-2007.pdf Publications. 1-3: du Toit, Allsopp & Hiller. (2006). Parliamentary and Judicial Precinct 2-11: Dalton (1881). Painting of Parliament. [Painting]. (TEC 874.5). Area Site Capacity and Long Term Development Plan. 3-1: Grant. (1882). Picturesque Canada Parliament. [Picture]. Picturesque 2-1: Bennett, E. (1915). Sections of Wellington Street. [Sketch]. (Works Canada Volume 1: Wellfleet Press. located in Kingston). In Report of the Federal Plan Commission on a General Plan for the Cities or Ottawa and Hull. Ottawa. (Original 3-2: Karmaker. (2014). Image of the city, kevin lynch & case study. [Picture]. Retrieved on December 17, 2016 from http://www.slideshare.net/ work created in 1915) rajapukai/image-of-the-city-kevin-lynch-case-study 2-2: Bennett, E. (1915). Sections of Wellington Street. [Sketch]. (Works located in Kingston). In Report of the Federal Plan Commission on a 3-3: Wikimedia. (2008). Aerial view of National Museum of American General Plan for the Cities or Ottawa and Hull. Ottawa. (Original History. [Picture]. Retrieved on December 17, 2016 from https:// commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ work created in 1915) File:Aerial_view_of_National_Museum_of_American_History.jpg 2-3: Gréber, J. (1950). An unobstructed view of Parliament from the 1950. [Photograph]. (Works located in Kingston). In Plan for the National 3-4: Tavares, K. (2013). Manitoba Provincial Legislature Building. [Picture]. Capital: General Report submitted to the National Capital Planning Retrieved on December 17, 2016 from https:// commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Committee. Ottawa. (Original work created in 1950) File:Manitoba_Provincial_Legislature_Building.JPG 2-4: Gréber, J. (1950). Sketch of the Parliamentary and Judicial Precinct. [Sketch]. (Works located in Kingston). In Plan for the National 3-5: Stamps, A. (2002). Fractals, skylines, nature and beauty. Landscape Capital: General Report submitted to the National Capital Planning and Urban Planning, 60, 163–184. Committee. Ottawa. (Original work created in 1950) 3-6: Wikimedia. (2011). Reading around the world lets visit Rose. [Picture]. 2-5: Hammer, P., Greene, & Siler. (1969). View of Gatineau and Ottawa. Retrieved on December 17, 2016 from http:// [Sketch]. (Works located in Kingston). In Ottawa Central Area Study highlanddrive.blogspot.ca/2014/07/reading-around-world-lets-visit- (Rep.). Washington D.C. (Original work created in 1969) rose.html

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada 9 3-7: Stamps, A., Nasar, J.L. & Hanyu, K. (2005). Using pre-construction 6-2: Dee. (2012). Parliament at night.[Digital Image]. Retrieved 2016. validation to regulate urban skylines. Journal of the American 6-3: Gagnon, J. (2010). [Photograph]. Retrieved December 18, 2016 from Planning Association, 71(1), 73-91. (page 75) https;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ 3-8: Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the city. Cambridge, Mass: MIT. Retrieved from: Stamps, A., Nasar, J.L. & Hanyu, K. (2005). Using 6-4: NCC-CCN. (2007). Computer generated image of the composite of pre-construction validation to regulate urban skylines. Journal of the height control planes looking south. [Digital Image]. Capital views American Planning Association, 71(1), 73-91. protection plan. 3-9: Appleyard, D., Lynch, K., & Myer, J. R. (1964). The View from the Road. 6-5: Holzman, J., McQuarrie, J., & Tosh, R. (1999). [Photograph]. Ottawa, Cambridge: Published for the Joint Center for Urban Studies of the then & now. Ottawa: J. McQuarrie. Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University by the 6-9: NCC-CCN. (1990s). Viewpoint at Sir. John A. Macdonald Parkway M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Photograph]. Ottawa. 4-1: Brosius, H. (1967). The Centre of Ottawa [Sketch]. In Early Days in the 6-10: NCC-CCN. (1990s). Viewpoint at Sir. John A. Macdonald Parkway Ottawa Country. Ottawa: National Capital Commission. [Photograph]. Ottawa. 4-2: Gréber, J. (1950). Sections of Wellington Street [Sketch found in 6-11: NCC-CCN. (1990s). Viewpoint at Sir. John A. Macdonald Parkway Kingston]. Plan for the national capital: General report submitted to [Photograph]. Ottawa. the National Capital Planning Committee. Ottawa. (Original work created in 1950) 6-12: NCC-CCN. (2007). Canada's Capital Views Protection - Protecting the Visual Integrity and Symbolic Primacy of our National Symbols 4-3: Hammer, P., Greene, & Siler. (1969). Height Control Topography. (Rep.). Retrieved 2016, from http://www.ncc-ccn.gc.ca/sites/ Ottawa Central Area Study (Rep.). Washington D.C. (Original Work default/files/pubs/NCC-Canadas-Capital-Views-Protection-2007.pdf created in 1969) 6-13: Karsh, M. (1963). “Paper & Politics” [Photograph] 4-4: du Toit, Allsopp, Hillier, & PWGSC. (2007). Hammer Study Height Limits Digitized [Digital image]. Retrieved 2016, from http://www.csla- 6-14: Delcampe. (2015). Canadian One Dollar Bill [Digital image]. Retrieved aapc.ca/sites/csla-aapc.ca/files/Advocacy/Parl-Jud Precincts 2016, from https://www.delcampe.net/en_GB/collectables/coins- Development Plan.pdf banknotes/banknotes-canada/canada-1973-one-dollar-bill-unc- aml6239968-275423236.html 4-6: Cangrulo. (2016). Parliament ClipArt. Retrieved from: https:// pixabay.com/p-1160993/?no_redirect 8-1: Château Laurier. (2016). [Digital Image] Retrieved from: http:// www.fairmont.com/laurier-ottawa/media/photos/

4-7: NCC-CCN. (2007). Canada's Capital Views Protection - Protecting the Visual Integrity and Symbolic Primacy of our National Symbols 8-2: Ashcroft Homes (2015). Amenities. [Digital Image] Image retrieved (Rep.). Retrieved 2016, from http://www.ncc-ccn.gc.ca/sites/ November 24, 2016 from http://reresidences.com/amenities/ default/files/pubs/NCC-Canadas-Capital-Views-Protection-2007.pdf 8-5: Col. Chris Hadfield (2016). [Digital Image] Image retrieved November 4-8: Rohse, A. (2014). Ottawa Aerial View. Retrieved from: https:// 24, 2016, Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/ www.flickr.com/photos/23817022@N00/2220012510 AstronautChrisHadfield/photos/ a.157475407603538.32702.151680104849735/13984849001 4-9: Bullinski, C. (2006). Pink Lake Lookout. Retrieved from: https:// 69243/?type=3&theater www.flickr.com/photos/kasiaflickr/270731544 8-6: Château Laurier. (2016). [Digital Image] Retrieved from: http:// IBLIOGRAPHY 6-1: Trip Central. (2016.). Ottawa at night [Digital image]. Retrieved 2016. www.fairmont.com/laurier-ottawa/media/photos/ B

10 New Controls for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada B 8-7: Andaz Ottawa ByWard Market (2016). [Digital Image] Image retrieved 8-17: Ottawa Tourism. (2015, July 15). Where to capture iconic photos of November 24, 2016, from https://www.facebook.com/ Ottawa. [Digital Image] Retrieved from: https:// IBLIOGRAPHY AndazOttawa/photos/ www.ottawatourism.ca/ottawa-insider/where-to-capture-iconic- a.882400645204709.1073741828.833610013417106/101319 photos-of-ottawa/ 4692125303/?type=3&theater 8-19*: Google Earth. (2016). Vancouver, City of. [Digital Image] Retrieved 8-8: The Westin Ottawa (2016). Hotel Photos. [Digital Image] Image from: https://www.google.com/earth/ retrieved online from, http://4cc68dbf886c0e467bae- a3d32269d623c1a9114035d7104d3302.r94.cf1.rackcdn.com/ 8-20*: Google Earth. (2016). Vancouver, City of. [Digital Image] Retrieved responsive/1102/4cc68dbf886c0e467bae- from: https://www.google.com/earth/ a3d32269d623c1a9114035d7104d3302.r94.cf1.rackcdn.com/ 8-21: Montréal Tourism. (2015). Tourisme-Montréal. [Digital Image]

XLGallery/Exterior.jpg Retrieved from: http://www.tourisme-Montréal.org/blog 8-9: Andaz Ottawa ByWard Market (2016). [Digital Image] Image retrieved 8-22: Montréal en Histoires. (2016). Circuits Techno-Historic. [Digital Image] November 24, 2016, from https://www.facebook.com/ Retrieved from: http://www.Montréalenhistoires.com/circuits AndazOttawa/photos/ a.874516652659775.1073741827.833610013417106/962096 8-23: Maptionnaire. (2016). (website and smart phone app). [Digital Image] 110568495/?type=1&theater Retrieved from: https://maptionnaire.com/ 8-10: Ashcroft Homes (2016). Venturing into Ottawa a strong bet. [Digital 8-24: ESRI Story Map. (2016). (website and smart phone application). Image] Image retrieved November 24, 2016, from http:// [Digital Image] Retrieved from: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/en/ reresidences.com/venturing-ottawa-strong-bet/ 8-25 Google Trips. (2016). Google Trips. [Digital Image] Retrieved from 8-11: Ashcroft Homes (2016). Venturing into Ottawa a strong bet. [Digital https://get.google.com/trips/ Image] Image retrieved November 24, 2016, from http:// 8-26: Ulmon GmbH. (2015). City Maps 2go (version 4.7). [Mobile application reresidences.com/venturing-ottawa-strong-bet/ software].Retrieved from: http://www.ulmon.com/#get-the-app 8-12: Hing Winata Dharma (2016). [Digital Image] Image retrieved November 24, 2016, from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php? 8-27: Snapchat. (2016). Snapchat Home. [Digital Image] Retrieved from: fbid=1358411974169462&set=a.743707682306564.10737418 https://www.snapchat.com/ 30.100000020167053&type=3&theater 8-28: Sagal, K. (2015, August 10). Famous NYC landmarks & the most 8-13: Ashcroft Homes (2016). Venturing into Ottawa a strong bet. [Digital Instagrammable places to take pictures in NYC. Smart Destinations. Image] Image retrieved November 24, 2016, from http:// [Digital Image] Retreived from: http://www.smartdestinations.com/ reresidences.com/venturing-ottawa-strong-bet/ blog/top-ten-pictures-to-take-in-new-york-city/ 8-29: The Freedom Trail Foundation. (2016). [Digital Image] Retrieved from: 8-14: Cathedral Hill. (2016). [Digital Image] Retrieved from: http:// https://www.thefreedomtrail.org/about-foundation/ www.cathedralhill.ca/views.php establishment.shtml 8-15: Cathedral Hill. (2016). [Digital Image] Retrieved from: http:// 8-30: Ottawa, City of. (2015). Live Culture. [Digital Image] Retrieved from: www.cathedralhill.ca/views.php http://ottawa.ca/en/liveculture 8-16: ArtHaus. (2016). Facebook Post. [Digital Image] Retrieved from: // 9-1: Helsinki, City of. (2011). Korkea rakentaminen Helsingissä. Helsingin www.facebook.com/arthauscondos/app/600469859988196/ kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston: asemakaavaosaston selvityksiä. *8-19 & 8-20 Additional Citation: (KML data created by Centre for Landscape Research using raw data from Vancouver's Open Data Catalogue, 2010; Google Earth, 2016) New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada 11 9-2: Highsmith, C. (2011). Prints and Photographs Reading Room. 10-9: Halifax Regional Municipality. (2011, September 24). Flickr. Retrieved Retrieved December 4, 2016, from The Library of Congress: http:// November 30, 2016, from https://www.flickr.com/ hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.print photos/91220774@N03/8596679531/in/photolist-e6EejB-af48qp -fmdMSZ-ePoBMF-5BHFTs-6PbebH-bjggKD-5mqFBD-8Wnchc- 9-3 Montréal, Ville de. (2004). Appendix B: the centre’s skyline. Montréal eMLeqP-8Wn9TD-p1F4XD-imorU9-aaZ5AE-7sVxPL-25hfc-s4GRsu- Master Plan, Part III. Complementary Document. dKP4oA-EYpmV-6SfoY8-bXsZxy-cVxsW-8L13q-akP2GE-e4jc93- 9 -4: Mac Marketing Solutions. (2015). Towering Above the Rest. Retrieved 5H1hwp-adp2ZF-8q8xXP-c4oreC-nLGJRS-bAyWu2-pDrKFP-8p3czH- from http://www.macmarketingsolutions.com/blog/vancouver- 92WaX-nAEwwB-nFZnXT-8p6nNN-8p3cwH-bnE81A-siVSq5-cU35- skyscraper-skyline 77DqFR-8p3cyk-3cYQ-26AwE-6XW6b4-ytfc9-eQvwMb-q62tYL- 8pCoi5/ 9-5: Euloth, G. (2011, August 2). Halifax Waterfront. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ 10-10: Diliff. (2009, November 12). The view of downtown Montreal from eulothg/6020196226/ the Kondiaronk Belvedere and the Chalet du Mont Royal in Winter. Retrieved 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Royal#/ 9-6: Attractions Map. (2016). St. Paul’s Cathedral. Retrieved from http:// media/File:Mount_Royal_Montreal_Lookout.jpg attractionsmap.com/city/london/listing/st-pauls-cathedral/ 10-11: Montreal, Ville de. (2009). Accessibility. Mount Royal Protection and 9-7: Austin Downtown Commission. (2007). Downtown Development and Enhancement Plan. Capitol View Corridors. 10-12: Chaplin, K. (2010, May 11). Belvédère Kondiaronk, Parc Mont-Royal. 10-1: Rutherford, J. (2014). Edinburgh from Calton Hill [Picture]. Retrieved Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/ from https://www.flickr.com/photos/ kenngc/4609960575/in/photolist-82nfET-gFmKfX-6DbiRh-5Wyu4s- jockrutherford/12049087204/ 7vSXNK-6Dbik7-6DbhXm-aCkpDM-5xNKxf-aCo74m-cnCEd9-82ng4r- 82nfZK-7gXJHd-82nfAZ-82nfSz-gFmcTm-5xou41-6U1P32-dMuAgz- 10-2: easyjet.com. (n.d.). Vakantie in Edinburgh. Retrieved from http:// 5xNKsJ-79QJ7Y-5xNKmu-89PNZm-mXwBSM-5WudpX-84KZfd- www.easyjet.com/nl/vakantie/engeland/schotland/edinburgh/ dMA54C-dMuzKF-79QJnh-dMurrv-dMA2t7-79LT4P-dMA9Sq- 10-3: Edinburgh World Heritage. (2016). Edinburgh World Heritage. dMuAP2-dMAaNW-dMAatL-5xNJZS-dMutzF-dMzYY9-dMuPJV- Retrieved from http://www.ewht.org.uk/ dMA2L9-bHZnb6-5xJnvZ-dMurFT-dMusiV-gFmQBt-dMAbdm-79QJgu- 82qnoG 10-4: Edinburgh World Heritage. (2016). Edinburgh World Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.ewht.org.uk/ 10-13: Google Earth. (2016a). Pine Avenue West, Montreal, Quebec. Retrieved 2016, from https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.5116636, 10-5: Edinburgh World Heritage. (2016). Edinburgh World Heritage. -73.578102,3a,75y,274.49h,95.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4! Retrieved from http://www.ewht.org.uk/ 1sutPO9Qbb8c5JC7XByykWMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 10-6: Novascotia.com. (2016). Nova Scotia, Canada. Retrieved October 14, 10-14: Les Amis de la Montagne. (n.d.). Mount Royal: A territory to discover, 2016, from http://www.novascotia.com/ Interactive Map. Retrieved 2016, from http:// 10-7: Gorbould, P. (2006, October 26). Looking up at Citadel Hill, Halifax. www.lemontroyal.qc.ca/carte/fr/index.sn Retrieved December 4, 2016, from Flickr: Gorbould 10-8: CBC. (2016, January 09). Development will ruin Halifax Central Library's view, group says. Retrieved November 14, 2016, from CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-library- IBLIOGRAPHY neighbouring-development-1.3396207 B

12 New Controls for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada B 10-15: Aishima, J. (2013, January 19). Retrieved 2016, from https:// 10-23: Concord Pacific. (2016). Concord Pacific. Retrieved from https:// www.flickr.com/photos/biker_jun/8394538105/in/photolist- www.concordpacific.com/imgs/HomeGallery/vancouver.jpg IBLIOGRAPHY dMNcHB-eKL3Ag-z3HGgU-zftE5d-7LzyqZ-zxFkRC-ziaAdv-9AE2jw- 6aQmX-8TCsjM-ygxxs5-zrjd1W-zhfwyg-7LDLkX-yxS9qt-z3PMMR- 10-24: Google Earth (2016b). [View Cones in Vancouver]. Retrieved m4h53o-5VPDx7-z3JPAj-5p4Tpc-yYo33a-856s3k-7i6Dtj-4Hc6p1- 2016, from https://www.google.ca/maps *see note zbg8ay-dkhjMm-nRF57z-HLLYk-8TiyfF-nMr8BA-6Nvitj-xvzneb- 10-25: Onthisspot.ca. (N.D.). [Picture] On This Spot. Retrieved from 8M1oMi-oAWK1T-8MiMCG-5qAbW8-HGXUXR-KcwFM8-ajP6Ya- http://onthisspot.ca/ 7iA3Nf-9d53br-8TCtmk-8HUqMw-8TFyyS-JJGb5W-7RHBjd-6NvoHf- rsk4Ed-6xu9Pa-D5ooC1 Maps 10-16: Oxford Preservation Trust, & Oxford City Council. (2015). Assessment 2-1: Bennett, E. (1915). Heights Map. [Map]. (Works located in Kingston). In of the Oxford View Cones (Rep.). Retrieved 2016, from https:// Report of the Federal Plan Commission on a General Plan for the www.oxford.gov.uk/info/20064/conservation/876/ Cities or Ottawa and Hull. Ottawa. (Original work created in 1915) oxford_views_study 6-1: NCC-CCN. (2007). Computer generated image of the composite of 10-17: Pettinger, T. (2010, November 15). Retrieved November 30, 2016, height control planes looking south. [Digital Image]. Capital views from Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tejvan/5180197206 protection plan. 10-18: Library of Congress. (n.d.). Library of Congress, Oxford. Retrieved 9-6: Oxford City Council. (2015). Assessment of the Oxford View Cones. 2016, from https://www.goodfreephotos.com/england/oxford/ Oxford: Oxford Preservation Trust. general-view- of- oxford-and- high-street- 1890.jpg.php 10-1: Halifax Regional Municipality. (2013). Staff Report: Project 01367- 10-19: Rdguez, A. (2015, February 16). Portland at dusk: Mt Hood guarding Downtown Dartmouth View Planes-Amendments to the Regional downtown Portland at dusk. Taken from Pittock Mansion. Retrieved MPS, Dartmouth MPS, and Downtown Dartmouth MPS and LUB. 2016, from https://www.flickr.com/ photos/90642235@N04/19400834865/in/photolist-vyomhR- 10-2: Halifax Regional Municipality. (2013). Staff Report: Project 01367- ejX2Ne-kYfutT-eju9is-e6zxuC-u2eYks-nE5QF5-qHot2E-f5o4FB- Downtown Dartmouth View Planes-Amendments to the Regional ezHjMj-jkqwTv-srxUmW-ezHCnq-hyMSjJ-eAC52-655dEq-cMbebs- MPS, Dartmouth MPS, and Downtown Dartmouth MPS and LUB. BTH2vM-9bvVRT-8jKjS7-ZxDuR-sonWuA-q4Mraz-tuPvv5-eyHzwK- 10-3: Halifax Regional Municipality. (2013). Staff Report: Project 01367- BuBgTB-sw97qX-dByjPK-BgwQ8J-ixGyPj-g1ZGps-ssSyRn-ifUs7- Downtown Dartmouth View Planes-Amendments to the Regional rBC5Ao-cXAqeb-ipr4Ze-jfT1pG-eKtpYD-eZuV1t-rgTCFb-f2DFD2- MPS, Dartmouth MPS, and Downtown Dartmouth MPS and LUB. ejLRAy-fcNTHb-qRQrEp-oZGWqn-j3fACu-gj5rE-ekSVRZ-r7SK44- LrCUZQ/ 10-4: Halifax Regional Municipality. (2013). Staff Report: Project 01367- Downtown Dartmouth View Planes-Amendments to the Regional 10-20: Portland, City of. (2016). Stakeholder advisory committee. Retrieved MPS, Dartmouth MPS, and Downtown Dartmouth MPS and LUB. 2016, from http://residentialinfill.participate.online/public- *10-24 Additional Citation: (KML data created by Centre for Landscape Research using Participation raw data from Vancouver's Open Data Catalogue, 2010; Google Earth, 2016) 10-21: Axcordion (2007, September 9). St. Johns Bridge in Portland, Tables Oregon, USA. Retrieved 2016, from https:// 8-1 Fairmont Chateau Laurier (2016). Compare Rooms. Retrieved online commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St._Johns_Bridge.JPG. November 24, 2016, from http://www.fairmont.com/laurier-ottawa/ 10-22: Brx0 (2008, March 18). Spring cherry blossoms, waterfront park. accommodations/compare-rooms/ Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/ photos/78153302@N00/2359216075

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada 13

10-1: Oxford Preservation Trust, & Oxford City Council. (2015). Assessment D-8: Gagnon, J., (2011, May 29). Mont Royal vu de l'avenue McGill College. of the Oxford View Cones (Rep.). Retrieved 2016, from https:// Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ www.oxford.gov.uk/info/20064/conservation/876/ File:Mont_Royal_-_Avenue_McGill_College.jpg oxford_views_study D-9: Montréal, Ville de. (2004). Appendix B: the centre’s skyline. Montréal

Appendix: Figures Master Plan, Part III. Complementary Document. D -1: Hammer, P., Greene, & Siler. (1969). Height Control Topography. D-10: T.E.A Photography.(2012, March 17). Submerged Montreal. https:// Ottawa Central Area Study (Rep.). Washington D.C. (Original Work www.flickr.com/photos/33581067@N08/6849689520/in/ created in 1969) photolist-brhs4b-cJe1FJ-EPZ5po-7jCmAo-bkFVvR-czqkxw-bkFJnk- qJGczz-FaTvvW-oHntjz-aXr9yn-cE6wss-dHf5gS-czqq2h-CeYRxi- D-2: Padraic, P. (2007). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved December 4, 2016, 7HDdwx-72L3Pi-4vVFKF-r1m3bF-o7v6YR-daQoyL-5b64Lv-b4iTZe- from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Padraic aDS66D-bkBvbH-6DXoa-tGxda4-bkG4sX-2cGYk4-F4UmXN-czqoxu- D-3: Ontario Plaques. (2012). Church of Our Lady Immaculate. Retrieved KyBNE7-suu2D1-PteRXB-9aTExb-4uYVj6-cMM99q-6Nckdu-pPUvR1- December 4, 2016, from http://www.ontarioplaques.com/Plaques/ pymuda-6L3ui2-aVeVcc-6G4Jdb-Pmzx3w-MyoCUM-dgRf3A-KkJKSF- Plaque_Wellington34.html NjMDKi-8mcj3R-9CJZeM D-4: City of Helsinki. (2011). Korkea rakentaminen Helsingissä. Helsingin D-11: Mark, D. (2016, August 28). Pixabay. Retrieved December 4, 2016, kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston: asemakaavaosaston selvityksiä. from https://pixabay.com/en/users/tpsdave-12019/ D-5: City of Helsinki. (2011). Korkea rakentaminen Helsingissä. Helsingin D-12: Highsmith, C. (2011). Prints and Photographs Reading Room. Retrieved December 4, 2016, from The Library of Congress: http:// kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston: asemakaavaosaston selvityksiä. hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.print D-6: Hurson, R. (2014, December 23). Helsinki Cathedral 2. https:// www.flickr.com/photos/robhurson/15575180273/in/photolist- D-13: Seeger, S. (2010, April 2). Texas State Capitol. Retrieved from https:// pJjSsV-LvBUDz-q4NZsk-q14cnQ-ppeAi5-H1EpM1-sEA78W-qHGzAz- www.flickr.com/photos/stuseeger/7369279712/in/photolist- CfDkjw-toHBEj-CdWPZf-swZruj-FJ4Gzo-quzRoR-MR37kD-FJfSMv- cecu7L-vDDx-bWcgNY-6q1LL-ADZLb-ADZwY-92VeaT-bwnvQR-qQiHBL Fd4sAD-KcmGPW-zyXokX-zgtgx5-rHdCmT-qHMZtf-qNcGTz-sTvohd- -fKuWE-TEije-5tpRd3-96hgB-7LHsie-4cTMZ-iBhmb-nBLXo7-iBhm9- FVEdWF-FJq6DD-qvMZR3-qut3WY-HVZJyY-JhG8yA-HfLCZq-EX6oMo- 4yTJFE-yUBaj-zTq9e-dauFnS-a5hLCn-zTqc5-dWz5BG-diCY5s-djEvDP- qgzynj-yBdm1K-t6RUxX-sBkknQ-Jw5bMb-qWf7je-pZsCyr-qW6c5k- diCXHo-6qPbSE-guAGj-CQGfb-3x8Gxb-8tiVzd-4d6Vqe-dy99j-yUAZR- xizE5q-AWzyko-DNJji3-CUxkRF-BqjfB8-JAB5bM-Ha7R2d-BoJH1K- bwCNm-yXbPu-mWCMGu-dH79Rz-341arF-eNkN4e-96hhy-o54i7M- rKjbEt-HS79KY 8SDi9-3y9kFQ-yUB8c-2bjWAy-5FBAJE-4NCoJz D-14: Austin Downtown Commission. (2007). Downtown Development and D-7: Shaswary, E., (2014, August 5). Mount Royal: Parc du Mont-Royal. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/ Capitol View Corridors. photos/121187534@N07/15267481929/in/photolist-pg8Qt4- D-15: Michael (2010, November 30). Downtown Austin, TX. Retrieved from: 8jhpRy-pxCYhT-8vvp85-pg9Pmk-h8u5jS-pg96QN-pxBfVo-pg8S3M- https://www.flickr.com/photos/milbot79/5222088196/in/ pvAK3U-dt4Mx9-5V5pG2-e8mTFJ-83XghK-6uXScz-pg8NP2-sv53b- photolist-8XsyTo-7pkzwU-f6H3NA-diCXY5-6RLpF-m27Jwk-kVe5Ui- 8jebaH-pvAMbb-gYnVMz-841mRY-5vKHd2-5V5quZ-8je9JF-27Hv6M- diCYaQ-6RLpJ-pWGSsh-qoWTev-8wxtRy-5WLX2M-gYwBag-6RLpH- pg94WN-tceku-zSKzk-f2nb2A-5V9Puy-pxCXSV-7eaYCF-27HuTM- e4ZTxT-jW23H-q7pyEC-aTit9K-pWgaJB-pWoa7s-qcPjic-mFWYcF- h8ukFb-8vskPZ-5vKGiP-83thWP-83Xhgn-bfEur2-6ofFMA-MLnUkC- 5xoYDW-pPUkju-ghr1Z4-8biNQd-pf7CKG-8mppac-qcVMLC-pWfTdF- 4zZwoE-NkQGRg-NdduVT-MTA89L-Mo6GCA-MTA5Qs-Ndduvz- foVQy5-dXtjLz-ex3beX-oYH9tL-qcP6zM-a3DHj4-egYNFf-egYMRA- NhCxNE-Mo6M7q/ feZjdh-e6QGA6-pgRyR3-fJQMcT-gsB11k-qQNU4n-bsqDh3-dfZQme- IBLIOGRAPHY bSpxoi-qFgyUw-bz1yGP B

14 New Controls for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada B D-16: Explore Australia. (2010). Australian Capital Territory. Retrieved from photos/harshilshah/14918512522/in/photolist-oJih29-LzYR8T- http://www.exploreaustralia.net.au/Australian-Capital-Territory dGJeAE-AeUDji-qjZXhr-e1LgS9-7D49kZ-bcq7i2-CEHu7H-9gBa5C- IBLIOGRAPHY adFSV8-9cUuLH-quBBSi-CvJa1R-q1wRUN-8CRRw7-oU7PoV-9TiukS- D-17: Burley Griffin. (1914). Canberra Federal Capital of Australia 9LMu2J-CrGCnr-bWs6F5-aV1D2e-rxb5z5-6npvaQ- Preliminary Plan. Retrieved from https:// stumblingpast.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/preliminary-plan- D-25: Vancouver, City of (1997). Downtown Vancouver Skyline Study. canberra-1914.jpg D-26: Colvin & Moggridge. (2015). Skyline Study Edinburgh. Retrieved from D-18: Tourism Nova Scotia. (2016). Halifax Citadel National Historic Site. http://www.colmog.co.uk/portfolio/skyline-study-edinburgh/ From Nova Scotia, Canada: http://www.novascotia.com/see-do/ attractions/halifax-citadel- national-historic- site/1440? D-27: D., J. (2012, May 14). Kingston_ON harbour 20120514_1976 city hall. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/search/? gclid=COeRsN_D2c8CFQeQaQod9OUJqQ text=kingston%20city%20hall D-19: Skumar84. (2012). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved December 4, 2016, from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ D-28: Howells, S. (2013, December 4). City Hall. Retrieved from https:// www.flickr.com/photos/108371337@N03/11244849263/in/ File:Town_Clock,_Halifax,_NS,_May_2012.jpg photolist-jjL8o-i8EMVr-971yS1-74mCwu-tDoxrd-k3FRDv-971yJ1- D-20: Attractions Map. (2016). St. Paul’s Cathedral. Retrieved from http:// 971yYW attractionsmap.com/city/london/listing/st-pauls-cathedral/ D-29: Stephenson, G. & Muirhead, G. (1960). Illustration No.106 (above)- D-21: Gunn, J. (2012, November 26). Portland OR:downtown. Retrieved the waterfront to-day. A Planning Study of Kingston, Ontario, City of 2016, from https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffgunn/8237668817/ Kingston. in/photolist-dxWcWH-dy2y5y-r7SPf-p5yAo9-BDL9NX-GSoLY-nkEAsC- rpZbq3-pyEW8p-rKFv16-bBxtFy-JxBetN-82ZEgz-7LVMBz-7JfgaU- D-30: Stephenson, G. & Muirhead, G. (1960). Illustration No.107 (below)- ccyWi-7SedrZ-7P48Bg-ckbqeo-b3wBMV-7KaFcC-7BYDHy-7iDBB1- proposed waterfront improvement. A Planning Study of Kingston, aJWV3z-a2xQg2-edMsfE-gpzGWG-7S4yUA-rt2GpV-7KzvLS-Lv5yFT- Ontario, City of Kingston. 4EiWLc-rm4jvM-ryDzvC-a36wSo-az76jG-9htc6n-jT7HF6-7Zco2P- D-31: Aishima, J. (2013, January 19). Retrieved from Flickr: https:// aGtzXF-4vmKYd-8EcWkZ-aQvhPP-9fwoMs-9AibjK-dzSaVF-aQve9x- www.flickr.com/photos/biker_jun/8394538105/in/photolist- pXL8dN-mmjyDM-p7mYtA dMNcHB-eKL3Ag-z3HGgU-zftE5d-7LzyqZ-zxFkRC-ziaAdv-9AE2jw- D-22: Hartnup, R. (2011, August 10). Tom McCall Waterfront Park and 6aQmX-8TCsjM-ygxxs5-zrjd1W-zhfwyg-7LDLkX-yxS9qt-z3PMMR- Hawthorne Bridge. Retrieved 2016, from: https://www.flickr.com/ m4h53o-5VPDx7-z3JPAj-5p4Tpc-yYo33a-856s3k-7i6Dtj-4Hc6p1- photos/ruthanddave/6034004871/in/photolist-accRqK-8GLESX- zbg8ay-dkhjMm-nRF57z-HLLYk-8TiyfF-nMr8BA-6Nvitj-xvzneb- 5a8RpT-7jqM4d-f3RqQe-ireDpa-6oJ4xF-rhQRCe-7E5TRF-ass6wN- 8M1oMi-oAWK1T-8MiMCG-5qAbW8-HGXUXR-KcwFM8-ajP6Ya- 4Bmt65-ccJZjC-aF7nkm-7K1Z2R-FZ45A-aFh8cf-9aREqB-5ahDTt- 7iA3Nf-9d53br-8TCtmk-8HUqMw-8TFyyS-JJGb5W-7RHBjd-6NvoHf- 8GPRQy-fUJhjk-8uVwh2-7BgzuT-7PyjCT-dVEo7T-dbkT74-acMLHY- rsk4Ed-6xu9Pa-D5ooC1 acK3Da-FtQLGE-qSAvZx-rqZk9X-kdziAA-eH161f-e6uQcc-e5Kcfx- D-32: Free-City- Guides.com. (2016). Carfax Tower, Oxford. Retrieved from mwztV6-HrRjWV-qDhWPs-agvRQE-tV29ER-bVnK8V-5a6eow-4ZEbep- Free-City- Guides.com: http://www.free-city- guides.com/oxford/ 7NqfFv-3AqMcN-P37hj-cfoSDu-89Sh92-f46EE1-f46qqJ-f46r2f carfax-tower/ D-23: Bureau of Planning Portland. (1991). Scenic views, sites, and Corridors: Scenic Resources Protection Plan. D-24: Shah, H. (2013, August 26). Canada – Vancouver – False Creek, Burrard Bridge. Retrieved 2016, from https://www.flickr.com/

New Tools for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada 15 Appendix: Maps D-1: Guelph, City of. (2016). Zoning Bylaw. Retrieved from City of Guelph: http://guelph.ca/city-hall/by-laws-and-policies-2/zoning-by-law/ D -2: City of Helsinki. (2011). Korkea rakentaminen Helsingissä. Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston: asemakaavaosaston selvityksiä. D-3: Austin Downtown Commission. (2007). Downtown Development and Capitol View Corridors. D-4: Halifax Regional Municipality. (2016). Halifax Regional Municipality Plan Area. Retrieved from http://www.region.halifax.ns.ca/planning/ HalifaxPlanArea.php D-5: City of Vancouver (2016). Protecting Vancouver’s Views. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting- vancouvers-views.aspx D-6: Edinburgh World Heritage. (2016). World Heritage Site Map. Retrieved from http://www.ewht.org.uk/news/67/143/World-Heritage-Site- map D-7: City of Kingston. (2010). Downtown and harbor special policy area. Schedule DH-4. City of Kingston Official Plan. D-8: Oxford City Council. (2005). Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016. Oxford: Oxford City Council.

IBLIOGRAPHY B

16 New Controls for View Controls in Canada’s Capital │Nouveaux outils pour la protection des vues dans la région de la capitale du Canada