TH E
D R AF T
C IT Y
O F
H A M I LTO N
P L A N
2015
R E P O RT
O F
S U R VEY
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 PREPARING A NEW CITY PLAN ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 CITY PLAN WORK PROGRAMME ................................................................................................................................. 9 2.3 OTHER PLANS, PROGRAMMES AND STRATEGIES ............................................................................................................. 9 3.0 KEY ISSUES IMPACTING THE CITY OF HAMILTON ......................................................................................... 11 3.1 CITY’S POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY ...................................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.1 Land Uses .................................................................................................................................................. 14 3.2.2 Strategic Development Sites ..................................................................................................................... 16 3.3 BUSINESS IN THE CITY ............................................................................................................................................. 25 3.3.1 Employment trends ................................................................................................................................... 25 3.3.2 Commercial development ......................................................................................................................... 26 3.3.3 Retail, Restaurants and Entertainment ..................................................................................................... 27 3.3.4 Industrial development ............................................................................................................................. 30 3.4 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................................... 31 3.5 VISITING THE CITY .................................................................................................................................................. 36 3.6 PARKS AND OPEN SPACES ........................................................................................................................................ 38 3.6.1 The City’s Parks ......................................................................................................................................... 38 3.6.2 Street Trees and Landscaping ................................................................................................................... 45 3.7 SERVICING THE CITY ............................................................................................................................................... 46 3.8 AN ACCESSIBLE CITY ............................................................................................................................................... 49 3.8.1 Traffic and Parking .................................................................................................................................... 49 3.8.2 Enhancing the Pedestrian Environment .................................................................................................... 58 3.8.3 Accessibility and Universal Design ............................................................................................................ 61 3.9 THE PUBLIC REALM ................................................................................................................................................ 62 3.10 PROTECTING AND ENHANCING THE CITY’S HERITAGE ................................................................................................... 65 3.10.1 Listed Buildings and Historic Areas ......................................................................................................... 65 3.10.2 Cathedral View Corridor .......................................................................................................................... 67 3.11 ENSURING HIGH QUALITY DESIGN ........................................................................................................................... 68 3.11.1 Building Height ........................................................................................................................................ 68 3.11.2 Urban Design and Appearance ............................................................................................................... 72 3.11.3 Building Setbacks ................................................................................................................................... 73 3.11.4 Public Art ................................................................................................................................................. 76 3.12 CLIMATE CHANGE AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES ......................................................................................................... 78 4.0 THE NEW CITY OF HAMILTON PLAN ............................................................................................................ 81 4.1 VISION ................................................................................................................................................................. 81 4.2 PROPOSED DISTRICTS ............................................................................................................................................. 82 1 4.2.1 Proposed Historic and Retail district ......................................................................................................... 83 4.2.2 Proposed Contemporary Business district ................................................................................................. 84 4.2.3 Proposed Residential and Community district .......................................................................................... 84 4.3 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................................................... 86 5.0 SUMMARY NOTE ........................................................................................................................................ 87 2 FIGURES Figure 1: Public Consultation for new City of Hamilton Plan ........................................................................................ 8 Figure 2: City of Hamilton Work Programme................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3: Population and Household Trends, City of Hamilton ................................................................................... 11 Figure 4: Population Density, City of Hamilton ........................................................................................................... 12 Figure 5: Household Trends, City of Hamilton ............................................................................................................ 12 Figure 6: North West Hamilton Census District .......................................................................................................... 13 Figure 7: City Land Uses .............................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 8: Major Uses by Floorspace ............................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 9: Arable field off Cedar Avenue, City of Hamilton .......................................................................................... 15 Figure 10: Corporation owned land in the City of Hamilton ....................................................................................... 16 Figure 11: City of Hamilton Plan 2001 Development Brief Sites ................................................................................. 17 Figure 12: Security fencing and container dock on the City Waterfront ..................................................................... 18 Figure 13: No. 5 Car Park on the City Waterfront ....................................................................................................... 18 Figure 14: No. 1 Car Park on the City Waterfront ....................................................................................................... 18 Figure 15: No. 1 Bike Parking on the City Waterfront ................................................................................................. 18 Figure 16: Public opinion on future land uses for the City's Waterfront ..................................................................... 19 Figure 17: Par‐la‐Ville car park ................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 18: Public opinion on future land uses for Par‐la‐Ville car park ....................................................................... 21 Figure 19: City Hall car park ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 20: Public opinion on future land uses of City Hall car park............................................................................. 23 Figure 21: Victoria Street Clinic ................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 22: Victoria Street Clinic car park ..................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 23: Public opinion on future land uses for Victoria Street Clinic site ................................................................ 24 Figure 24: Employment Trends ................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 25: Jobs by Occupation Groups, Department of Statistics Employment Surveys ............................................. 25 Figure 26: Vacant lot, 31‐33 Church Street ................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 27: City Developments built since 2001 ........................................................................................................... 27 Figure 28: Retail floorspace in the City ....................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 29: Washington Mall, Church Street ................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 30: Principal Shopping Area (Fig. 1.1 City of Hamilton Plan) ........................................................................... 29 Figure 31: Public opinion of the Residential Bonus policy ........................................................................................... 33 Figure 32: Public opinion on more residential in the City ........................................................................................... 34 Figure 33: Fort Hamilton ............................................................................................................................................. 38 Figure 34: Aerial photo of Fort Hamilton .................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 35: Barr’s Bay Park ........................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 36: "We Arrive" statue, Barr's Bay Park ........................................................................................................... 39 Figure 37: Point Pleasant Park at Albouy's Point ........................................................................................................ 40 Figure 38: Queen Elizabeth Park (formerly Par‐la‐Ville Park) ..................................................................................... 40 Figure 39: Victoria Park .............................................................................................................................................. 41 Figure 40: Art Festival in Victoria Park ........................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 41: Wesley Square ........................................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 42: Alfresco dining in Wesley Square ............................................................................................................... 42 3 Figure 43: Jubilee Park ................................................................................................................................................ 42 Figure 44: Waterfront Square ..................................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 45: Parkette on Waterfront near No. 5 car park .............................................................................................. 43 Figure 46: Cedars Garden on Dundonald Street ......................................................................................................... 43 Figure 47: Pembroke Canal ......................................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 48: Potential community garden/park in North West Hamilton ..................................................................... 44 Figure 49: City of Hamilton Watersheds ..................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 50: Morning traffic at Spurling Hill .................................................................................................................. 49 Figure 51: Traffic along Front Street ........................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 52: Registered Road Vehicles 2000 to 2010 ..................................................................................................... 50 Figure 55: On‐street public parking on Reid Street ..................................................................................................... 55 Figure 57: Private Parking in the City of Hamilton ...................................................................................................... 56 Figure 58: Car and bike parking on the City's waterfront ........................................................................................... 57 Figure 56: Pedestrian Volumes in the City of Hamilton .............................................................................................. 59 Figure 60: Lower Reid Street ....................................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 63: Historic Areas, City of Hamilton Plan 2001 ................................................................................................ 66 Figure 64: Public survey opinion on Views of the Anglican Cathedral ........................................................................ 67 Figure 65: The City of Hamilton's skyline .................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 67: Seon Place, 139 Front Street, City of Hamilton .......................................................................................... 70 Figure 68: View of Front Street ................................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 70: Maxwell Roberts Building, 1 Church Street ................................................................................................ 73 Figure 71: 19 Par‐la‐Ville Road ................................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 72: Sidewalk abruptly ends at the Dallas Building, 7 Victoria Street ............................................................... 75 Figure 73: Proposed standard 12 feet wide sidewalk ................................................................................................. 75 Figure 74: Public Art, 139 Front Street ........................................................................................................................ 77 Figure 75: Public Art inside DLBE Building, 58 Court Street ........................................................................................ 77 Figure 76: Public Art, 12 Wesley St ............................................................................................................................. 77 Figure 77: Public Art, 20 Church St .............................................................................................................................. 77 Figure 78: City of Hamilton with a projected sea level rise of 0.59 metres ................................................................. 79 Figure 79: City of Hamilton with a projected sea level rise of 2 metres ...................................................................... 79 Figure 80: Proposed Districts, new City of Hamilton Plan ........................................................................................... 82 4 1.0INTRODUCTION
1.1Background
The City of Hamilton is Bermuda’s capital, the Island’s administrative, political, financial and business centre, retail and entertainment core, and major port and transportation hub. The history of Hamilton began in 1790 when the Bermuda Government set aside land for the creation of a town in the centre of the Island, and it was officially incorporated in 1793 by an Act of Parliament. The town of Hamilton became the capital of Bermuda in 1815, and in 1897 it became known as the City of Hamilton ahead of the consecration of the Cathedral of the Most Holy Trinity (Church of England) which was under construction at the time. The City is named after Sir Henry Hamilton, who was the governor from 1786 to 1793. The City of Hamilton has transformed from a trading port and residential neighbourhood to an international business centre where the majority of the Island’s population works and which has a growing residential community. The City covers 177 acres and contains the Island’s main landmark buildings including the Anglican Cathedral, the Sessions House, the Cabinet Building as well as City Hall. It also has some of Island’s the best examples of residential, commercial and institutional architecture, and some of Bermuda’s largest and most modern buildings. 1.2PurposeofthisReport
In 1973, the first development plan for the City of Hamilton was produced followed by a second development plan in 1984. The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 has been the operative development plan for the City for the last 13 years having been published as the operative draft plan in February 2001 and approved as the final plan in July 2002. A new, up‐to‐date plan is needed to reflect the current needs of the City’s users, and to guide the development and management of the City for the next 5 to 10 years. Data from the Census 2010, the City of Hamilton Traffic Study 2010 and the City of Hamilton Land Use Survey 2011 has been collected and analysed to assess population, housing, traffic, development and land use trends in the City over the last decade. Other datasets on planning applications, planning appeals and land valuation records have also been examined. The Department of Planning, working in partnership with the Corporation of Hamilton, has conducted a review of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 and assessed the effectiveness of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 policies in achieving the Plan’s goals and objectives. As a part of the general review of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001, the Department of Planning has prepared a series of Issues Papers which collate the data, research and public consultation for key topics including the Historic Environment, Design, Living in the City, Visiting the City, Utilities, Traffic and Parking, the Pedestrian Environment and Public Art. The key findings and recommendations identified in these issues papers are included in this Report of Survey. 5 6 2.0PREPARINGANEWCITYPLAN
2.1CommunityInvolvement
Community involvement is a high priority both in the preparation of development and local plans and in the implementation of them by way of planning application decision making. Effective community involvement of stakeholders, consultees and the public can bring many benefits. It ensures that plans and policies reflect local needs and ideas to provide effective solutions to the City and Island. This helps to achieve better outcomes and foster ownership. Input has been sought from key stakeholders and the general public throughout the review and plan preparation stages of the new City of Hamilton Plan. Since 2011, there has been an on‐ongoing public consultation programme to involve the community in providing feedback on the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 and in offering ideas and recommendations for the new City Plan. This public consultation process continues until the new City Plan is approved as the final plan. Figure 1 provides a list of the public consultations held and proposed. 7 Type of Public Consultation Description Questionnaire City Plan questionnaire comprising 30 questions – distributed to all agents ‐
placed on Department of Planning website and Corporation of Hamilton website, hard copies made available at Department of Planning reception, emailed to skakeholder groups (including the Development Applications Board, Architects/Agents, Chamber of Commerce, Environmental Coalition Organisation, Sustainable Development Roundtable). Received 135 responses. 2011/12 North West Hamilton Neighbourhood Questionnaire – distributed to all properties in North West Hamilton. August 2013. Cruise Ship Passenger Interviews – August 2012
Chamber of Commerce, Environmental Coalition Organisation, Greenrock, Sustainable Development Roundtable, Development Applications Board, Corporation of Hamilton Development Infrastructure and Future Committee ‐ 2011‐13 Visitor Interview surveys Presentations made to and meetings held with stakeholders Consultees for Issue Papers Website Listed of interested parties Facebook Page Community Events Travelling display Community meetings Corporation of Hamilton, Architects/Agents, Real Estate Agents, Government Departments including Sustainable Development, Energy, Public Works, Environmental Protection, Telecommunications, Bermuda Fire and Rescue Services, Ministry of Tourism, Bermuda Economic Development Corporation, Bermuda Waterworks Ltd, BELCo, BESCo ‐ 2011‐
13 City Plan documents available, City Plan notices, questionnaires, requests for comments posted (ongoing) List of emails of interested parties compiled to inform of public meetings and events (ongoing) Department of Planning Facebook page (articles, information, notifications of events) – launched in March 2013 Harbour Nights (July/August 2012)
Annual Exhibition (April 2012 and April 2013) City Plan travelling display seeking public input – Oct/Nov 2013 Meetings with City landowners – individual and group meetings ( Oct/Nov 2013) Topic Issues Papers (internal), City of Hamilton Report of Survey, Draft City of Hamilton Plan Draft City of Hamilton Plan (2014/15)
Department documents Media (local press, TV, radio) Public Draft City of Hamilton Plan (2015)
Exhibition/Displays Formal written Draft City of Hamilton Plan (2015)
consultation Figure 1: Public Consultation for new City of Hamilton Plan 8 2.2CityPlanWorkProgramme
Figure 2 illustrates the key milestones in the work programme for the review of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 and the preparation of the new City of Hamilton Plan. Figure 2: City of Hamilton Work Programme
2.3OtherPlans,ProgrammesandStrategies
The new City Plan will aim to complement the vision and objectives detailed in other government plans and programmes including the sustainable development implementation plan “Charting our Course: Sustainable Bermuda” (2008), the National Tourism Master Plan (2012), the Bermuda Energy White Paper (2011) and the North East Hamilton Economic Empowerment Zone. One of the key objectives of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 is “to achieve the economic and social regeneration and environmental improvement of North‐East Hamilton” (objective 1(e)) and proposed that an action plan be prepared to identify tangible improvements which could be implemented to improve the quality of life for the residents of North East Hamilton. 9 In June 2007, North‐East Hamilton was designated as an Economic Empowerment Zone under the Economic Development Act 1968 through the Economic Development (Designation of Economic Empowerment Zone) (North East Hamilton) Order 2007. In July 2008 a strategy document entitled “North‐East Hamilton Economic Empowerment Zone Background, Vision and Land Use Strategy ‐ Bringing North‐East Hamilton to Life”, was approved by the Cabinet. The research and analysis contained in this strategy will form the basis for the North‐East Hamilton Local Plan. The new City of Hamilton Plan will form the strategic development plan for the whole of the City of Hamilton; however the North‐East Hamilton Local Plan will contain the detailed planning and development control regulations for this area. 10 3.0KeyIssuesImpactingtheCityofHamilton
3.1City’sPopulationandHousing
According to the Censuses of Population and Housing, the City of Hamilton’s resident population increased by 4% over the last decade from 969 residents in 2000 to 1,010 residents in 2010 (See Figure 3). Eighty two percent of the City’s residents live in the North East Hamilton area. Figure 3: Population and Household Trends, City of Hamilton While the Island as a whole also saw a population increase of 4% from 62,059 to 64,237, Pembroke Parish (including the City) experienced a 6% decline with the population of Pembroke Parish falling from 11,306 in 2000 to 10,610 in 2010. The population density within the City and Island as a whole has risen, yet in Pembroke Parish the population density has declined (see Figure 4). 11 Figure 4: Population Density, City of Hamilton
As shown in Figure 5, the City has also seen a 15% increase in the number of households from 441 in 2000 to 508 in 2010, and surpassed the number of City households in 1991. The number of households island‐wide increased by 7% since the 2000 Census but there was a 4% decline in the number of households in Pembroke Parish over the last decade. Figure 5: Household Trends, City of Hamilton
12 The growth in the City of Hamilton’s population and number of households reflects the new residential apartment buildings built in the City over the last 10 years. These include the 60 residential units at Atlantis on Parliament Street, the 17 residential units at 10 Dundonald Street and the 54 residential units at 6 Dundonald Street. A further 52 residential units are proposed on Park Road. One of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001’s key objectives was to encourage new residential development in the City and this has been achieved. As stated by Coldwell Banker Bermuda Realty, city living apartments have been a very successful new sector in the rental market over the past 8 years either as owner occupied or rented to executives who may travel a lot and need an apartment near work during the week. The benefits of city living include the convenience of being within walking distance to work, shops, entertainment, restaurants, gyms and parks, as well as security with many apartment buildings having secure underground parking, security systems and keyed entrances. Amenities within the apartment buildings vary with, for example, Atlantis offering a pool and gym and Number Six offering secure parking and views of Victoria Park. Residential rental and sales prices within the City have fallen and city living units continue to be in demand for local residents as well as insurance companies who employ local and international professionals. The main residential area of the City is in North East Hamilton which will have its own local plan in the near future. The Census 2010 shows that a further 13% of the City’s population lives in North West corner of the City. Figure 6 shows the boundary of this Census District 5‐30. Figure 6: North West Hamilton Census District
13 3.2DevelopmentintheCity
3.2.1LandUses
The City of Hamilton has a mix of land uses comprising office space with retail, residential, institutional, light industrial, industrial, parks and even some agricultural land. The City building use survey conducted by the Department of Planning in 2011 shows that the majority (47%) of city built space is used for Office, 18% is used for Retail and 12% is used for Residential (see Figure 7). Figure 7: City Land Uses
As shown in Figure 8, there has been a steady growth in the amount of office floorspace in the City of Hamilton from just over 1 million sq.ft. in 1979 to 2.7 million sq.ft. in 2011. Residential floorspace declined from 650,000 sq.ft. in 1979 to 490,000 sq.ft. in 1996 but saw a significant increase to 685,000 sq.ft. in 2011. Retail floorspace increased to 1.3 million sq.ft,. in 1996 but has declined to just over 1 million sq.ft. in 2011. 14 Figure 8: Major Uses by Floorspace
Despite being the most urban area of the Island, the City nevertheless has one arable field that is actively farmed. The field is located on the western side of Cedar Avenue in the north of the City has been in cultivation for many years and is a valued visual amenity space (see Figure 9). This field demonstrates the versatility of the City of Hamilton in that a range of land uses are and can be accommodated. The City of Hamilton has the potential to become an even more sustainable and healthy city in the future. Figure 9: Arable field off Cedar Avenue, City of Hamilton
15 Respondents to the City of Hamilton public survey said they would like to see more residential uses, tourism uses, entertainment/cultural uses, alfresco dining areas, pedestrian only areas/pedestrian improvements, parks and open spaces, shuttle buses from parking areas and public art in the City. 3.2.2StrategicDevelopmentSites
The Corporation of Hamilton owns 65 acres of land within and on the outskirts of the City. Key development sites owned by Corporation include the Waterfront, Par‐la‐Ville car park and sites in the north west of the City including the former Corporation depot and land west of Canal Road (see Figure 10). Figure 10: Corporation owned land in the City of Hamilton
The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 identifies four sites that, if developed, could act as a catalyst for revitalising the City. The four sites are the Waterfront, Par‐la‐Ville car park, City Hall car park and the Victoria Street Clinic site. They are designated as Development Brief sites in Figure 1.1 of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 (see Figure 11). Policy 1.5 of the City Plan 2001 states that a development brief would be prepared for each site; however the Par‐la‐Ville car park site is the only one to have a development brief. None of these four strategic development sites have been developed. The purpose of a development brief is to provide a landowner and developer with supplementary planning guidance regarding a site’s potential development including preferred land uses, building heights, traffic and parking, and provision of open space. A development brief is a material planning consideration in the Development Application Board’s determination of a planning application as stated 16 in policy 1.5 and policy 4.1 of the City Plan 2001 (and policy DAB.1 of the Bermuda Plan 2008 Planning Statement). Figure 11: City of Hamilton Plan 2001 Development Brief Sites The intent of the new City of Hamilton Plan is to identify strategic sites as special study areas and to provide specific objectives for the development and/or enhancement of each. 3.2.2.1TheWaterfront
The City’s waterfront is a gem and one of Bermuda’s greatest assets. It comprises nearly one mile of harbour frontage and approximately 14 acres of land stretching the entire length of the City’s southern boundary from Barr’s Bay Park in the west to the container docks in the east with Front Street as its northern boundary. With the exception of a few buildings located near Albouy’s Point, the entire waterfront is owned by the Corporation. Hamilton was a working port before it became a city. The commercial docks were moved in the early 20th century to the eastern end of Front Street and the main cruise ship terminal was relocated to the Royal Naval Dockyard in 2006. The former cruise ship terminal at No. 1 Shed was demolished in 2008 and all cruise ship visitors now disembark at No. 6 Shed. Whilst the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 highlighted the waterfront’s potential for providing new open spaces and creative development, its main uses today remain the same as they did 10 years ago. The waterfront’s existing uses are primarily industrial (accommodating Bermuda’s only container port) and parking uses (including four public car parks with a total of 173 car and 258 bike parking spaces). See Figures 12 to 15. 17 Figure 12: Security fencing and container dock on the City Waterfront Figure 13: No. 5 Car Park on the City Waterfront
Figure 14: No. 1 Car Park on the City Waterfront
Figure 15: No. 1 Bike Parking on the City Waterfront
There are currently two parks on the City waterfront, Point Pleasant Park and Barr’s Bay Park. However, they comprise only one tenth of the waterfront land area, and they are both located in the far south western corner of the City. Public access along the rest of the waterfront, other than within these parks, is very limited. When asked in the Department of Planning City Plan survey (2011) what land uses the public would like to see on the waterfront, the top four answers were marine/water uses (84% of respondents), entertainment/leisure/cultural uses (78% of respondents), retail/restaurant uses (76% respondents) and park/open space (64% of respondents). Underground parking and a gaming/convention centre were the least popular with only 1% of respondents favouring these uses (see Figure 16). 18 Figure 16: Public opinion on future land uses for the City's Waterfront The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 recognises the importance of the enhancement and redevelopment of the waterfront as central to the revitalisation of the City and one of the City Plan’s key objectives is “to achieve the development and amenity potential of Hamilton’s waterfront.” Policy 1.5 and Figure 1.1 of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 identify the waterfront as a development brief site recognizing that it is important for there to be a shared vision for the waterfront’s future development and enhancement and for a comprehensive plan to be prepared. Policy 1.4 of the City Plan 2001 also sets out the general criteria for new development on the waterfront stating that new development should make adequate provision for public open space, public access, be of a high standard and not prejudice the implementation of a comprehensive scheme for the waterfront. Whilst no development brief has been prepared for the City’s waterfront, there have been a number of proposals for its redevelopment. Collectively, these schemes have incorporated a variety of proposed uses including land reclamation, transport interchanges, parking, parkland/open space, office buildings, residential buildings, a hotel, a casino, a new cruise ship terminal and cruise ship berths, a new ferry terminal and marinas. The schemes each have some common objectives including improved public amenity and access along the waterfront, the creation of more waterfront parks and open spaces, and development which complements the historic character of Front Street and supports the existing commercial properties. These objectives also reflect the sentiments of policy 1.4 of the City of Hamilton 19 Plan 2001. The intent is to incorporate these common objectives for the waterfront in the new City of Hamilton Plan. 3.2.2.2Par‐la‐Villecarpark
The Par‐la‐Ville car park site is approximately two acres in area and is strategically located in the City’s commercial centre overlooking the Queen Elizabeth Park (formerly Par‐la‐Ville Park). The site is owned by the Corporation of Hamilton and currently accommodates public parking for 286 cars and 222 bikes (see Figure 17). Figure 17: Par‐la‐Ville car park
The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 recognised that whilst public parking would continue to be a significant use of the site, there was substantial potential for exciting, new mixed use development. In 2005, a development brief was prepared by the Department of Planning for the Par‐la‐Ville car park site. The main objectives for the site’s redevelopment were:‐ (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
To realise a top quality development which brings new vitality to the City and is designed to the highest standards, not just in its built form but also in its treatment of open spaces in and around the site; To provide a public vehicle parking facility at below grade level which can accommodate at least as many car and bike parking spaces as are available in the existing public parking facility; To extend public open space into the site from Queen Elizabeth Park ideally through to Church Street; To allow pedestrian access through the site; To achieve physical improvements to Church Street and Par‐La‐Ville Road particularly in terms of the pedestrian environment along these two site frontages; To secure improvements to Queen Elizabeth Park; and To improve the environmental quality of the service road in the north‐east of the site and its immediate vicinity. 20 In 2006, an in principle planning application was submitted for the development of a Ritz Carlton Hotel, residences and public parking on the Par‐La‐Ville car park site. The Ritz Carlton Hotel and Residences ParLa‐Ville Car Park (City of Hamilton) Special Development Order was granted in 2006 and amended in 2009. The Special Development Order (SDO) has been renewed three times and is due to expire on 11 December 2016. The SDO gave in principle approval for the following:‐ 







The construction of a nine‐storey hotel and residence complex at the site of Par‐la‐Ville Car Park, with six storeys for the hotel and three storeys for the residences; A new hotel and residences comprising 150 rooms including suites, 60 luxury apartments, two restaurants, bars, a spa, gym and swimming pool; The construction of a 20,000 square foot conference facility along with 15,000 square feet of retail space on the road frontages; The construction of three levels of underground parking for up to 500 cars; The construction of a new amphitheatre and fountain at the north end of Queen Elizabeth Park; The construction of pedestrian overpasses connecting Queen Elizabeth Park to the hotel; The extension of Queen Elizabeth Park along the eastern boundary, connecting it with Church Street; and Vehicle access and egress from Church Street by redeveloping the existing service road on the east boundary of the site which will also be extended along the south boundary on the site and connect to a new vehicle access and egress at Par‐la‐Ville Road. Figure 18: Public opinion on future land uses for Par‐la‐Ville car park 21 When asked in the City Plan public survey what land uses the public would like to see the Par‐la‐Ville car park site used for, the top three answers were Tourism/Hotel, Residential and Park/Open Space (see Figure 18). The intent is for the objectives set out in the 2005 development brief for the Par‐La‐Ville car park site to be incorporated into a similar policy in the new City of Hamilton Plan. 3.2.2.3CityHallcarpark
The City Hall car park site is just over one acre in size and currently accommodates 192 car parking spaces and 98 bike spaces (see Figure 19). It is owned by the Corporation of Hamilton. The adjacent City Hall became a Grade 1 Listed Building in November 2013. On the south west border of the car park is Wesley Park (see Parks and Open Spaces). Figure 19: City Hall car park
The City Hall car park site has long been recognized as having great potential as a civic square which could bring vitality and ‘heart’ to the City and provide a significant contribution to the City’s public realm as an exciting space where people can congregate, visit cultural events and relax. No planning applications have been submitted for the redevelopment of the City Hall car park site; however there have been informal design sketches prepared which include new buildings, open spaces and underground parking. 22 When asked in the City Plan public survey what land uses the public would like to see the City Hall car park site used for, the top three answers were Park/Open Space, Entertainment/Leisure/Cultural and Tourism/Hotel (see Figure 20). Figure 20: Public opinion on future land uses of City Hall car park The intent is that the sentiments of the public survey results will be reflected in the new City Plan’s key objectives for the development of the City Hall car park site. 3.2.2.4VictoriaStreetclinic
The Victoria Street clinic site is approximately one acre in size and comprises the Government clinic and car parking for approximately 41 cars and 9 bikes (see Figures 21 and 22). The site is owned by the Bermuda Government. The site was designated as a development brief area under the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 and recognised as a potential redevelopment site which could help to regenerate North‐East Hamilton. Whilst there has been no change of uses on the Victoria Street Clinic site in the lifetime of the City Plan 2001, the area was identified as a Comprehensive Site in the preliminary draft of the North‐East Hamilton Economic Empowerment Zone Local Plan and a suitable site for a Civic Centre. 23 Figure 21: Victoria Street Clinic
Figure 22: Victoria Street Clinic car park
The City Plan public survey results indicate that the public would most like to see the Victoria Street Clinic site used for Government/Institutional uses, Office uses, and Parks/Open Spaces (see Figure 23). Figure 23: Public opinion on future land uses for Victoria Street Clinic site The local plan being prepared for the North East Hamilton area will examine potential development opportunities for this site. 24 3.3BusinessintheCity
One of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001’s key objectives is “to support Hamilton’s role as a main centre of commerce and shopping” (objective 1(f)) and the Plan permits office and retail development throughout the City to meet the varying needs of commercial development. 3.3.1Employmenttrends
Whilst Bermuda experienced significant economic growth in the middle of the last decade, the effects of the global recession on Bermuda were apparent by 2010. By 2012, according to the Department of Statistics Labour Force Survey Executive Report (October 2012), employment had decreased to 35,874 in 2012 and the unemployment rate measured at 8% (see Figure 24). However, there was some improvement in 2013 with the number of employed persons increasing by 115 workers to 35,989. The participation of women factored more heavily than men in this overall increase. 2013 Labour Force Employed Unemployed Unemployment rate Participation rate Average number hours worked per week in main job 38,558
35,989
2,569
7%
82%
41
2012 39,179 35,874
3,305
8%
83%
38
2010 39,780 37,197
2,583
6%
84%
42
2009 38,263 36,549 1,714 4% 81% 41 2000 37,879 36,878
1,001
3%
85%
40
Figure 24: Employment Trends Note: 1 ‐ 2013, 2012 and 2009 Labour Force Survey (there was no LFS in 2011) 2 ‐ 2010 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing Figure 25: Jobs by Occupation Groups, Department of Statistics Employment Surveys 25 As shown in Figure 25, leading industry sectors including international business, construction and business services have had substantial job losses over the last five years. 3.3.2Commercialdevelopment
The downsizing or closure of many companies has been particularly noticeable in the City where 90% of the Island’s employment is based. Of the 2,712,527 sq.ft. of office floorspace and 1,013,508 sq.ft. of retail floor space in the City (City Building Use Survey 2011), there was just under 500,000 sq.ft. of commercial space available for rent in October 2012. However, more recent estimates from local realtors are that there is approximately 600,000 sq. ft. of vacant floorspace within the City which is readily available to rent and a further 200,000 sq.ft of space that, with upgrades, is potentially rentable floorspace. The age, condition and location of the spaces vary as do the amenities available including parking, gyms, generators etc. Class A office spaces with amenities and water views rent more easily than Class B office spaces, and previous Class B office tenants are upgrading to these new Class A spaces. Commercial office space available for rent includes premium class A space in Washington House on Church Street, Seon Place on 141 Front Street, Windward Place on Crow Lane and Waterloo House on Pitts Bay Road. Other sites with approval for major office developments, such as 31‐33 Church Street (approval for 74,000 sq.ft.), remain holes in the ground (see Figure 26). Figure 26: Vacant lot, 31‐33 Church Street
One of the main aims of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 was to provide the planning framework to create a revitalized City. A key method of achieving this was to allow for a broad mix of land uses across the City rather than to regulate the type of land use within in a City block or district as previous plans had done. This approach is considered to have worked well with a mix of new office, retail and residential developments having been built across the City since 2001 (see Figure 27). 26 Figure 27: City Developments built since 2001
3.3.3Retail,RestaurantsandEntertainment
The City of Hamilton is the Island’s main retail hub providing shops, restaurants and places of entertainment. However, the City’s retail industry has experienced significant changes over the period of the City Plan 2001. The significant growth of online retailing and the economic recession have contributed to the decline in retail sales. Comparing year over year retail sales for the month of June for the last five years, there has been a steady decline. In June 2009, consumers spent an estimated $95.4 million on retail goods which decreased to $93.1 million in June 2010. In June 2013, consumers spent an estimated $90.4 million on retail goods, with retail sales decreasing by 1.6 per cent in June 2014. As shown in Figure 28, whilst retail floorspace had increased from 1.06 million sq.ft. in 1979 to 1.3 million sq.ft,. in 1996, there has been a decline of over 300,000 sq.ft. of retail floorspace in the last 15 years. The reduction in retail floorspace and the loss of variety in the main shopping area because of the closure of large department stores and their replacement by financial premises has resulted in a loss of quality shopping, and attractive and interesting window displays in prime locations. In addition, shops as well as offices tend to close at 5 p.m. leaving the City quiet and uninviting in the evening. 27 Figure 28: Retail floorspace in the City
The extension to Washington Mall, however, has provided a welcomed improvement to the retail experience (see Figure 29). In addition, whilst the number and distribution of restaurants, bars and other similar entertainment facilities in the City has remained fairly static, a number of restaurants and cafes have extended their premises outdoors and these provide popular alfresco dining areas. For the last 10 years, the Farmers’ Market has also proved to be a popular destination for visitors to the City on Saturday mornings. Figure 29: Washington Mall, Church Street
28 The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 recognises that the retail sector and principal shopping area are vital to ensuring the vitality and viability of the City. The Plan identifies the principal shopping streets as Front Street between Bermudiana Road and Parliament Street, Queen Street and Reid Street between Queen Street and Burnaby Street. It permits the development of new shopping, restaurant and other entertainment facilities throughout the City (policies 1.19, 1.25 and 1.26) and outdoor markets in suitable locations in the City (policies 1.21 and 1.27). Policy 1.1 of the City Plan 2001 allows for a broad mix of uses, including retail uses. However, policy 1.20 requires that on the ground floors of properties fronting onto any street within the principal shopping area (see Figure 30), only retail uses, restaurants and cafes and other similar uses that contribute to the vitality and interest of the area are permitted. The aim of this policy is to ensure that this core area of the City provides activities and uses that generate pedestrian activity which help to create a vibrant, livable city both during the day and at night. A review of planning applications in this area over the last 10 years demonstrates that policy 1.20 has generally worked well with the exception of one particular application for a change of use from retail to office at 75 Front Street which was approved by the Minister on appeal. In the last 10 years, a number of shops have been replaced by banking halls especially along Lower Reid Street. Whilst ‘banking halls’ fall within the definition of “retail” under policy 4.16 of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001, there are concerns that banking halls do not contribute significantly to the objectives of the principal shopping area. As such, it is considered that the definition of “retail” should be reviewed with consideration given to removing ‘banking halls’ from the definition of “retail” in the new City of Hamilton Plan. Figure 30: Principal Shopping Area (Fig. 1.1 City of Hamilton Plan) 29 A buoyant retail sector adds life and vitality to the City which helps to attract visitors and new residents. This can be provided by large department stores as well as small, boutique shops which provide quality and diversity to the shopping experience. It is important that the new City of Hamilton Plan continue to encourage retail development within the City’s core area and foster collaboration with the business community, the Chamber of Commerce and the Corporation of Hamilton to enhance the pedestrian environment within the core shopping area. Consideration has been given to expanding the Principal Shopping Area to include the whole of Queen Street and perhaps also Burnaby Street. The North Hamilton Economic Empowerment Zone and the City’s waterfront have great potential for retail, cultural and entertainment uses, and combined with improvements to the pedestrian environment, these areas could be magnets for visitors and residents which could help to revitalize the City’s economy. Later opening hours for shops and more night‐time events could also improve the City’s evening economy. As the economic hub of Bermuda and the centre of social and cultural activities, the City of Hamilton can attract its share of crime and anti‐social behaviour. Homelessness and begging have also been particular problems. Ensuring the safety and security of residents and visitors in the City is considered to be a fundamentally important issue. The Corporation has made efforts by installing CCTV cameras in key locations and has, in past years, had a City Security Ranger. The relocation of the Police Station, in 2011, to the more centrally located Dame Lois Browne‐Evans Building on Court Street is also an improvement. The Portas Review of UK High Street and Town Centres (2011) recommends that investment in and the creation of social capital in the heart of cities and towns will enable economic capital to follow to create new sustainable high streets of the future. Key recommendations from this review included the creation of a “Town Team” with a visionary, strategic and strong operational management skills and focus on making high streets accessible, attractive and safe. Similarly for the City of Hamilton, closer collaboration and joint working between all the City’s entities and stakeholders including the Corporation of Hamilton, the Department of Planning and other Government Departments, the Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Empowerment Zone, and City businesses and residents is needed. In July 2014, a Futures Committee for the City of Hamilton was established with the aim of working together to identify opportunities and facilitate action to re‐energise the City. 3.3.4Industrialdevelopment
The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 has a flexible approach to permitted land uses in the City and the only land use which is restricted is industrial development. New industrial development is not permitted in the City except if considered to be a minor extension to an existing industrial development (policy 1.22). Light industrial development may be approved at the discretion of the Board provided the site area does 30 not exceed 5,000 sq.ft. and the gross floor area of all proposed buildings does not exceed 3,000 sq.ft. (policy 1.23). Over the last 10 years, there have been 15 proposals for industrial/light industrial development in the City, 6 of which were refused either because they were considered to be more than ‘minor’ extensions to existing industrial developments or because they exceeded the gross floor area restriction for light industrial developments. Of these 6 applications, 3 were subsequently approved on appeal. The extension at Butterfield and Vallis was approved on appeal on the grounds that it represented only a 20% increase in the overall floor area and that it would improve site conditions through enclosure of existing industrial uses. The light industrial public storage building on Angle Street was approved on appeal on the grounds that it was not considered to be a use that would adversely impact the surrounding urban environment. The redevelopment of an auto repair shop was approved on appeal on Laffan Street on the grounds that the storage component was deemed acceptable given the nature of other uses in the vicinity. The most recent application to be evaluated under policies 1.22 and 1.23 proposed over 5,000 square feet of warehousing but was approved by the Development Applications Board exercising their discretionary powers under the Development and Planning Act. The Board noted that the application was for a redevelopment of an existing warehouse, with only 700 square feet of “new” warehousing space proposed. More importantly, the Board stated that as the proposal would not detract from the amenity or environment of the surrounding area, nor cause traffic congestion or road safety problems, it was supportable. The new City of Hamilton Plan is likely to continue to restrict industrial development in the City and to permit light industrial development subject to redefined size limits. 3.4ResidentialDevelopment
Until recent years, there had been a downward trend in the City’s residential population since the 1950s. This decline could have been due to a number of factors including the growth of the middle‐class in Bermuda at the end of World War II, suburbanization, the changing social conditions of Bermuda from a segregated society to a more integrated one, and improvements in transport including the introduction of the railway in 1931 and the private car in 1948. For the first time since the 1950s, the 2010 Census indicated a growth in the City’s resident population with a 4% increase since 2001 to 1,010. This population increase in the City was largely attributed to the construction of 3 major apartment developments. The total number of residential units in the City, based on Land Valuation Office (LVO) records in November 2011, was 629 residential units, of which 494 or 79% were located in North‐East Hamilton. The remaining 135 residential land valuation units are mainly located in North‐West Hamilton. 31 In 1950, there were some 806 occupied dwellings in the City of Hamilton. By 1980 the number had declined to 611 and by 2000 the City had 441 occupied dwellings. The 2010 census saw an increase of 13.1% to a total of 508 occupied dwellings. The Department of Planning’s City building use survey 2011 showed that 12% of the City’s floorspace is used for residential uses (see Figure 7). City residential units comprise detached homes, apartments and rooming houses. One of the key objectives of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 is to encourage residential development in the City and to enhance existing residential areas (Objective 1(d)). The City Plan 2001 recognises that the City is a convenient and attractive place in which to live, and by increasing the number of people living in the City, more life and activity would be created on the City’s streets, particularly during the evening. This increased activity would help to boost the City's economy, as more people would take advantage of City’s services such as shops and restaurants. It was further recognized that an increased residential population would raise the level of natural surveillance within the City and help to ease some of the concerns relating to safety and security. Additionally, by encouraging higher density living in the City, it would help to alleviate the pressure for residential development on green field sites around the Island thereby conserving valuable land resources. The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 envisioned that apartment house developments in the City would be a much more efficient use of land for supplying housing. It would also provide an opportunity for people to live closer to their places of employment and therefore reduce the need to travel to work by car. The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 sought to safeguard and improve the amenities of existing residential properties. The Plan also tried to encourage the development of new residential development by providing a ‘development bonus’ (one additional storey) for schemes that incorporated a significant amount of residential floor space (at least 50% of the total floor space). However, this residential bonus policy has not been an effective tool. Whilst the residential bonus is generally thought to be a good policy incentive particularly for a single use residential building, the requirement to provide residential uses on 50% or more of the total floor area for mixed use developments has proved to be a problem financially as well as logistically because of the different fire and building code regulations for residential and commercial spaces. Also, the incentive of one additional residential bonus floor has not proved to be enough to entice developers to build residential developments in the City. When asked how effective the public consider the Residential Bonus policy (policy 1.16) has been, there was a mixed response with 48 of the respondents (40%) stating that the Residential Bonus policy has been somewhat effective and 36 respondents (30%) stating that it has not been too effective (see Figure 31). There is an opportunity for the new City Plan to provide other incentives such as additional development space/floors in exchange for improvements to the public realm including public amenity spaces, covered walkways, water features and public art. 32 Figure 31: Public opinion of the Residential Bonus policy
The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 also aimed to assist in the economic and social regeneration and environmental improvement of North‐East Hamilton. Policy 1.17 provides for the adaptive re‐use of existing buildings in North‐East Hamilton in order to aid in the revitalization of the area. The City Plan 2001 recognises that many of the buildings in this area are small‐scale and of older construction which makes it difficult to comply with residential development standards for new development. Between January 1991 and January 2012, there were approximately 3,567 building permits issued in the City of Hamilton, of which only 244 or 7% were issued to properties in North‐East Hamilton. Of these, 4 involved new large scale residential developments (of 10 or more residential units) and 16 included smaller residential projects which mainly involved the adaptive re‐use of existing buildings. The City of Hamilton Plan 2001’s current subdivision policy, policy 1.2, states that the minimum lot size of any lot created must not be less than 7,500 sq.ft. Policy 1.3, however, provides the Board with the discretion to approve an undersized lot providing each lot created has a building in existence or approved prior to the commencement date of the Plan. Some agents are of the opinion that the new City Plan should allow for smaller lot sizes since most City lots are around 5,000 sq.ft in size. The results of the Department of Planning City Plan public survey 2011 indicate that the public generally feel that the City has been successful in encouraging new residential development in the last 10 years. 33 When the public were asked if they were in favour of seeing more residential development in the City, the majority (51 respondents or 43%) stated they would consider this very favourable and a further 46 respondents (39%) stated that they would consider this somewhat favourable (see Figure 32). Figure 32: Public opinion on more residential in the City
The apartment buildings built in the City over the last 10 years have been popular particularly amongst City workers, and they provide a viable and attractive alternative to living in the suburban parishes. The Atlantis residential development on Parliament Street has a landscaped roof‐top patio which is an attractive space that is utilized as communal space and for private parties. The complex also provides an interior pool, gym and games room for residents. There are also private balconies for each unit. The apartment buildings at No. 6 Dundonald Street and 10 Dundonald Street provide roof‐top terraces, and private balconies. Underground parking is also provided at No. 6 Dundonald Street. In consultations, the architects generally considered that the private outdoor space, in the form of a balcony, in these apartment developments is underutilized by residents. Conversely, the real estate agents considered the balconies to be purposeful, well utilized and very desirable for residents. The real estate agents recommended that planning regulations should require larger balconies to provide for more useable private outdoor space. Both the private outdoor space and communal open space provisions seem to serve a useful purpose in ensuring a high standard of residential accommodation and amenity. However it is considered that 34 some flexibility could be added to the policies so that the amount of private outdoor space can be reduced if an equivalent amount of communal open space is provided, and vice versa, less communal open could be provided in exchange for a larger area of private outdoor space. Communal amenity space can either be provided indoors or outdoors but must be considered useable and accessible to residents. The intent is for the new City of Hamilton Plan to continue to encourage residential development and the creation of sustainable City neighbourhoods which provide not only residential accommodation but open spaces and parks and community facilities. The expansion of the resident population of the City will need to be coordinated with the capacity of the City’s infrastructure (including its water supply, electricity supply and sewerage system) to accommodate increased numbers of people and development. All new major residential developments will need to demonstrate how the infrastructure demands of the development will be met including how sustainable practices and materials will be incorporated into the design of the building. 35 3.5VisitingtheCity
The City of Hamilton is the Island’s main retail and entertainment centre, and a major tourist destination for hotel and cruise ship visitors. It was the visit of Queen Victoria’s daughter, Princess Louise, in 1883 that officially launched Bermuda’s tourism industry and since this time cruise ships have been a regular feature on the City’s waterfront. However, more recently those cruise ships that were regular callers to the City are being phased out or diverted to markets elsewhere and the new, large Panamax and Post Panamax ships are too big to enter through Two Rock Passage and into Hamilton Harbour. Whilst there are still smaller cruise ships operating in niche markets which make occasional calls to the City of Hamilton, the loss of the regular callers poses is a concern for City businesses as cruise ship passengers and crew make a significant contribution to spending in Hamilton in shops, charter and tour boats, and local services. Since 2005, the Royal Naval Dockyard has been the Island’s principal cruise ship port and was further expanded in 2010 and 2013. As such, the ferry service from Dockyard to Hamilton plays a crucial role in bringing cruise ship visitors to the City. In order to accommodate the growing number of cruise ship visitors arriving in the City by ferry from Dockyard and to ensure that the best transportation facilities are provided to attract visitors to the City, a new transportation centre is required on the City’s waterfront. Efforts need to be made to ensure that the City offers cruise ship visitors a full day experience which includes a historic and cultural tour of the City and Fort Hamilton, and visits to the art exhibitions, shops and restaurants. In 2013, there were 340,030 cruise ship passengers and 236,343 air passengers to visit Bermuda. Whilst there are no statistics available on how many of tourists actually visit the City of Hamilton, cruise ship passenger satisfaction surveys indicate that cruise visitors are satisfied with the City in terms of cleanliness, safety and public transport but there is a below 50% satisfaction level in the areas of “variety of things to do”, “shopping” and “places to eat”. One main objective of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 is to “encourage the development of a range of top quality tourism, cultural and entertainment facilities” (Objective 1 (g)). Over the last 10 years, there have been 32 planning approvals for visitor related services in the City including cinema improvements, night clubs, restaurants, cafes and alfresco dining. Respondents to the City Plan public survey stated that they would be keen to see additional entertainment and cultural uses in the City including more al fresco dining, night time entertainment, street entertainment and an arts centre. The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 supports the provision of new tourist accommodation throughout the City. There is currently no hotel or other tourist accommodation within the City of Hamilton although there are a variety of tourist accommodations on the outskirts of the City that are within walking distance of the City including the Hamilton Princess Hotel, the Rosedon Hotel, Edgehill Manor Guest House, Rosemont Guest Apartments and Oxford Guest House. Proposals for two hotel developments were approved by Special Development Order at the Ritz Carlton Hotel and Residences Par‐la‐Ville car 36 park (2006 amended in 2009) site and the Stonehaven Development Condominium Hotel (2008) on Reid Street but neither have been built. The recent upgrades to the Hamilton Princess hotel, located just to the west of the City, are extremely encouraging and will no doubt bring additional visitor activity to the City. Revitalising the City of Hamilton is an integral element of the Island’s tourism strategy. The National Tourism Master Plan (2012) refers to the City of Hamilton as an “iconic modern city with Bermudian flare”. The National Tourism Master Plan 2012 states that the combination of eclectic historic architecture, modern development and prime waterfront creates a unique destination with opportunities for conference facilities, performing arts, signature restaurants, high‐end retail, live entertainment, nightlife venues and waterfront enjoyment. An objective for the new City Plan should continue to be one of encouraging and supporting the development of a new hotel in the City as well as a variety of local cultural, leisure and entertainment facilities with policy incentives given to encourage the development of visitor related uses. There is also an opportunity to develop high end mega yacht marinas on the City’s waterfront such as those in the Caribbean islands which would attract wealthy visitors. 37 3.6ParksandOpenSpaces
3.6.1TheCity’sParks
The Corporation of Hamilton owns and manages four main public parks and a number of smaller parks or parkettes within the City. The parks are open to the public and are often used for events such as music concerts, parties and art shows. The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 includes two policies on public City parks. Policy 3.27 controls new development in City parks to ensure that it is compatible with the character and function of the park and policy 3.28 encourages the creation of public and private open spaces in any new development. FortHamilton
Fort Hamilton covers 4.8 acres and is located just outside the eastern City of Hamilton boundary situated on a hilltop overlooking the City and Hamilton harbour (see Figures 33 and 34). Figure 33: Fort Hamilton
Figure 34: Aerial photo of Fort Hamilton
Historically, a former British Garrison, the Fort was used as the headquarters for the Bermuda Volunteer Rifle Corps from the mid‐1890s until the mid‐1930s. Fort Hamilton is the least damaged of the three forts of the Prospect Position, and is a significant land fort. The 30‐foot wide deep moat surrounding the fort used to be a dry moat but has been converted into tropical gardens with varieties of giant bamboo and fern. Fort Hamilton is now used as a visitor attraction and park, as well as a plant nursery. The Fort has become an integral part of the City of Hamilton’s parks and a variety of events are held here throughout the year including Halloween events as well as musical, dance and theatrical performances. 38 Barr’sBayPark
Barr’s Bay Park is 0.8 acres in size and is located in the south west corner of the City on the water’s edge of Hamilton Harbour with views of the nearby yacht club and marina. Barr’s Bay Park is popular for City workers during their lunch breaks, the boating community and for concerts and fishing events (see Figure 35). Figure 35: Barr’s Bay Park
Barr’s Bay Park is also home to the “We Arrive” statue created by Bermudian artist, Chesley Trott, to commemorate the arrival of 72 people on the slave ship Enterprise, in 1835. The statue was unveiled in February 2010 on the 175th anniversary of the ship’s arrival in Bermuda’s waters (see Figure 36). Figure 36: "We Arrive" statue, Barr's Bay Park
39 Albouy’sPointandPointPleasantPark
Located near the Hamilton Ferry Terminal is Albouy’s Point and Point Pleasant Park. This waterfront park is just under an acre in size and is a perfect spot to view the Harbour and passing boats (see Figure 37). Figure 37: Point Pleasant Park at Albouy's Point
QueenElizabethPark(formerlyPar‐la‐VillePark)
Recognised as the City’s premier public park, Queen Elizabeth Park (formerly named Par‐la‐Ville Park and renamed in April 2012 in honour of Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II’s diamond jubilee). Queen Elizabeth Park is 2.3 acres in size and is located off Queen Street near Perot’s Post Office and the Bermuda National Library. The park contains floral displays, native and exotic trees, and several statues and sculptures. Pathways meander through the park to connect Queen Street and Par‐la‐Ville Road (see Figure 38). Figure 38: Queen Elizabeth Park (formerly Par‐la‐Ville Park)
40 Queen Elizabeth Park is currently designated under the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 as within a Historic Protection Area. VictoriaPark
Victoria Park is approximately 2 acres in size and is centrally located in the City. It is a popular park for workers at lunch time and for musical, entertainment and social events (see Figures 39 and 40). In the heart of the park is the bandstand which was purchased by the Town of Hamilton to commemorate the golden jubilee of Queen Victoria in 1887. The bandstand was installed in 1889. In 2008/9, to commemorate Bermuda’s 400 years of continuous settlement on the Island, the bandstand was dismantled and shipped to a foundry in Scotland. Skilled laborers employed the same iron‐casting techniques used by the original creators of the bandstand to restore it to its original glory. The bandstand was returned to Bermuda, installed and officially reopened during a ribbon cutting ceremony in May 2009. The bandstand was listed as a Historic Monument in November 2013. Figure 39: Victoria Park Figure 40: Art Festival in Victoria Park
WesleySquare
Wesley Square is a 2,500 sq. ft. park located on the corner of Church and Wesley Streets and was officially opened in July 2009 (see Figures 41 and 42). The Square contains a monument by local sculptor, Chesley Trott, which was installed as part of the 400th Anniversary celebrations to commemorate the 1959 theatre boycott of cinemas in this area. This pedestrian only area, which is also used for alfresco dining, is a welcome improvement to the City’s public realm. 41 Figure 41: Wesley Square Figure 42: Alfresco dining in Wesley Square
JubileePark On the north eastern edge of the City boundary is Jubilee Park. In the early 2000s, this park was expanded in size to 2 acres, and restored and re‐landscaped. It was officially opened in 2002 to honor the golden jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. This park provides a valuable open space in the north of the City and a green link between the City and Parson’s Road Playground and Park (see Figure 43). Figure 43: Jubilee Park
42 WaterfrontSquare
In June 2010, a new public open space was created between the waterfront and Front Street beside the ferry terminal. Known as Waterfront Square, this space was formerly used as a motorcycle parking area. This square has provided some much needed public amenity space on the waterfront and is a popular place for residents and visitors to sit and enjoy the Harbour (see Figure 44). Figure 44: Waterfront Square
There are also a number of parkettes that add valuable public amenity space throughout the City (see Figures 45 and 46). Figure 45: Parkette on Waterfront near No. 5 car park Figure 46: Cedars Garden on Dundonald Street
There is potential to provide new and improved pedestrian links from the waterfront and parks in the south of the City along existing and improved pedestrian links, alleys and sidewalks to a new Pembroke Park and improved Pembroke Canal in the North of the City (see Figure 47). 43 Figure 47: Pembroke Canal
The Corporation owned vacant lot in north‐west Hamilton at the corner of Washington and Elliott Streets (see Figure 48) has the potential to be designated as a community garden or park which would provide an amenity area and encourage community food growing. Local residents and schools could help to manage the garden/park. Sidewalk improvements along Washington Street north, Laffan Street and Canal Street could also significantly improve pedestrian accessibility and amenity in this area. Figure 48: Potential community garden/park in North West Hamilton 44 3.6.2StreetTreesandLandscaping
Policy 3.25 of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 requires that high quality hard and soft landscaping is provided in all new developments and is designed to enhance pedestrian movement and comfort. The policy requires that a landscape scheme/plan be submitted with all development applications. Responses to the City Plan public survey 2011 expressed concern over the lack of landscaping around new developments, as well as the recent removal of mature street trees as part of road safety improvement measures. The Corporation of Hamilton has highlighted its increasing struggle to allocate sufficient space for mature street trees, while at the same time accommodating required utilities, on‐ street parking spaces, clear pedestrian pathways and intersections that meet international traffic safety standards. The architectural profession has noted that over the past ten years, landscaping has generally been of low priority in new developments, usually due to project budgeting issues or perceived, long‐term maintenance costs. It is recommended that the policies in the new City Plan place greater emphasis on providing adequate building setbacks on private property in conjunction with the provision of adequate public sidewalk space for street trees and landscaping. Consideration could be given to proposals providing new street trees or landscaping within an adjoining public sidewalk area, parking bay, or suitable off‐site location as an alternative to providing onsite landscaping. The preparation of a comprehensive streetscape enhancement plan for the City would allow technical officers and applicants to know where the Corporation proposes to make improvements to the streetscape. A landscaping design guidance note for the City would also help to outline the desired species and spacing of trees and plantings along each City street, the preferred location of tree pits, dimensions for new tree pits, preferred materials for tree grates and associated hardscaping, and provide property owners and developers in the City with the necessary technical information to design new development in a manner that will complement the Corporation’s ongoing street enhancement plans. 45 3.7ServicingtheCity
The City’s utilities include water supply and delivery systems, wastewater (sewage) collection and disposal systems, storm water systems, refuse collection and disposal systems, fire and emergency services, energy systems, renewable energy/sustainable development, and telecommunications systems. Water infrastructure in the City is owned and operated by Bermuda Waterworks Ltd. but many households in the northern half of the City receive water from the Government’s water system. Higher density residential units, commercial buildings, industrial buildings and hotels consume more water than roof catchments can supply so this is an important issue for future development in the City. Bermuda Waterworks Ltd indicates that it can provide sufficient water to meet the needs of any new major development in the City. The Corporation of Hamilton and the surrounding area has been serviced by a community sewerage system, discharging to the ocean off the South Shore, for about 90 years. Various treatment technologies have been used ranging from coarse screening to grinding up of the sewage, to the current fine screening. In 1990, the Corporation of Hamilton embarked on a series of studies to develop a long term wastewater management strategy. This resulted, in 1992, in the extension of the existing South Shore outfall into deeper water, incorporating a final diffuser section to aid dispersal of effluent into the ocean environment. In addition, a new wastewater treatment plant was built on Front Street and commissioned in 2002. It incorporates fine screening technology and a new effluent pumping system. Untreated sewage is screened at the Corporation’s Front Street wastewater facility and discharged through a pipe to a location off Hungry Bay. The wastewater system is running at about 50% capacity and will operate well into 2045 with minor changes. From a long term environmental standpoint there is a need to upgrade to primary treatment of wastewater rather than just fine screening of sewage. A new wastewater treatment facility would need to be constructed to accomplish this. One site within the City which is being considered for this is the Corporation’s former work yard on Dundonald Street. Another issue identified by the Corporation of Hamilton is the need for grease traps and soakaways to be installed in the City to address the issue of grease that is generated at eating establishments from entering the wastewater collection system. Approximately two thirds of the City of Hamilton falls within the Pembroke Marsh Canal Watershed storm water system (see Figure 49). The other one third of the City drains towards Hamilton Harbour. Much of the Pembroke Canal Watershed (north of Victoria Street) has a high water table and the Pembroke Marsh Canal has been subject to flooding in the past. All lands that are at or below 4 meters above sea level are affected by this high water table. These lands cover the northern half of the City. Improvements to and better maintenance of the Pembroke Canal system are needed to accommodate higher rates and volumes of stormwater runoff. The Ministry of Public Works is undertaking these 46 efforts through a series of upgrades and maintenance projects that have been and will continue to take place over the next several years. Figure 49: City of Hamilton Watersheds
New development proposals located within the Pembroke Canal Watershed Area will need to provide appropriate storm water drainage and disposal methods to ensure that storm water runoff takes place within the boundaries of the application site. The Corporation of Hamilton is responsible for refuse collection in the City. Refuse is delivered to either the Tynes Bay incinerator or the Government’s composting facility. The Government provides fire protection services for the City from its Hamilton Headquarters on King Street. The most challenging issue that the Fire Service has faced in the last 10 years is the construction of high rise buildings in the City and issues of access to the upper storeys. For those new developments that exceed the operational capabilities of the Fire Service, such as buildings exceeding 6‐7 storeys in height, additional fire prevention measures are necessary and are looked at on a case by case basis. Typically these include the installation of sprinkler systems and a dedicated on site water supply system for fire suppression. Electricity is provided by the Bermuda Electric Light Company (BELCo) from its diesel fired power plant located on Serpentine Road which is operating at full capacity. With energy demands expected to increase over the next 20 years, future distribution generation sites need to be considered. Renewable 47 energy sources such as solar and wind technologies are available for installation and purchase from private companies. Over the last 3 years, there has been a marked increase in the installation of solar panels within and outside the City. The Corporation of Hamilton is also looking at installing a large solar panel system on the top storey of Bull’s Head car park. In addition, greater emphasis through amendments to the Bermuda Building Code and the provision of guidance notes is being put on energy conservation measures and energy efficient building design. The intent of the new City of Hamilton Plan is to encourage all new developments to incorporate energy efficient and water conservation measures, and other sustainable design measures. The telecommunications market has increased significantly over the last 10 years and there are multiple telecommunications antennas throughout the City. All telecommunications providers are encouraged to collocate whenever possible. One of the main sites is located atop the BTC building on Washington Street for both M3 Wireless and Digicel. Telecommunication providers have highlighted the potential for disruption of cellular communications when new buildings are erected as these may block existing communications facilities. The Department of Planning Guidance Note GN 114 is used to assess the suitability of telecommunication proposals. 48 3.8AnAccessibleCity
3.8.1TrafficandParking
The City of Hamilton is Bermuda’s capital city and the hub of the island’s business, retail, entertainment and tourism activities. In addition, a number of public and private schools are located in and around the City of Hamilton and the Island’s container dock is located on the City’s waterfront at the eastern end of Front Street. As such, the City is a major generator of commuter, school and container related traffic (see Figures 50 and 51). Figure 50: Morning traffic at Spurling Hill
Figure 51: Traffic along Front Street
Traffic congestion in and around the City has long been a major public concern, and there have been many traffic studies undertaken and traffic reports written over the years. These include the Freeman Fox and Associates (FFA) in 1972, the Alaistair Dick and Associates (ADA) traffic study in 1989, the Symonds Travers Morgan (STM) City of Hamilton Traffic Study in 1997, the Ministry of Transport’s National Transportation Management Report in 2002 and the City of Hamilton Transport Planning Practice (TPP) traffic study of 2010. With the preparation of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001, it was recognized that an essential component of the City Plan would be the provision of a transport strategy which details the measures recommended for tackling the City’s traffic, accessibility and parking problems. A City of Hamilton Plan Transport Strategy was therefore prepared in 1999 and was based on the recommendations of the STM traffic study 1997. The Transport Strategy identified ways of minimising non‐essential traffic in the City’s central area, increasing highway capacity and improving the pedestrian environment. The TPP traffic study (2010) reviewed and updated the STM traffic study (1997) and provides current data on traffic patterns within the City of Hamilton. One of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001’s three goals is to achieve an “Accessible City”, to facilitate the efficient and safe movement of people and traffic in the City and to provide a more attractive pedestrian 49 environment. The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 has aimed to do this by reducing commuter traffic, improving traffic circulation, limiting the supply of private parking and enhancing the pedestrian environment. The number of registered road vehicles increased by 8% from 46,041 in 2000 to 49,662 in 2010. The number of private cars registered increased significantly by 12% from 19,993 in 2000 to 22,315 in 2010; however, the number of motor cycles registered only increased by 0.3% (see Figure 52). Figure 52: Registered Road Vehicles 2000 to 2010
The traffic count data from the TPP study in 2010 indicates that the volumes of commuter traffic entering the City in the morning 8 to 9 a.m. peak decreased by 4% from 9,629 vehicles in 1997 to 9,209 vehicles in 2010. There has been a significant decrease in commuters using the East Broadway and Cavendish Road gateways and a dispersal of traffic entering the City at alternative northern routes. In addition, the 2010 Census data shows that more City commuters are using the ferry service as a mode of transport to work than they did in 2000. One way in which the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 tries to reduce the amount of commuter traffic is to allow for a greater mix of land uses in the City, and in particular to encourage more residential development as a means of attracting City workers to live in the City and thereby reduce their need to commute. 50 The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 also aims to reduce car travel by encouraging the use of alternative, more sustainable modes of transport including public bus and ferry transport. Policy 2.1 of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 requires the submission of Traffic Impact Studies for major developments comprising a gross floor area of 50,000 sq.ft. or more as a means of assessing a development’s potential impact on the road infrastructure and exploring ways to mitigate any potentially negative impacts including providing options for public transport use, walking and cycling to work. An analysis of planning applications for developments in the City since 2001, showed that there have been 7 Traffic Impact Statements (TIS) submitted for City development proposals in the last 10 years and at least 25 development application proposals for which a TIS should have been submitted. Despite the underutilization of the current Traffic Impact Study policy, it is recommended that there remain a policy in the City Plan regarding the submission of a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) but that it be amended to give the Board the discretion to require a TIS based on the particulars of the development proposed such as the amount of parking proposed rather than the amount of building floorspace. The second transport objective of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 is “to provide for the most efficient management and circulation of traffic in and around the City and to minimize non‐essential traffic in the City’s central area.” As stated in the City of Hamilton Transport Strategy, the STM study 1997 found that 43% of all traffic entering the City in the morning peak hour did so from the south‐eastern corner of the City at East Broadway and Cavendish Road causing a major bottleneck. The TPP study showed that by 2010 this percentage had reduced to 36%. More specifically, by 2010 there was a 13% decrease in the number of vehicles entering the City along East Broadway from 3,132 vehicles in 1997 to 2,736 in 2010 and a 33% decrease at Cavendish Road from 924 vehicles to 617 vehicles (see Figure 53). Some of the contributing factors to this decrease in car traffic volumes at this south eastern corner between 8 to 9 a.m. include the improvement in ferry services from the west end since 1997, more commuters entering the City outside of the 8 to 9 a.m. rush hour, and a displacement of vehicles from East Broadway and Cavendish Road onto other routes. Happy Valley Road, for instance, saw a 22% increase in traffic between 1997 and 2010, and Parsons Road saw an 18% increase. Pitts Bay Road also saw and increase of 21% which may be a result of the office developments at Ace and XL off Gorham Road/Bermudiana Road built since 1997. In more recent years, traffic volumes have decreased further as a result of the recession and fewer workers travelling into the City. 51 Figure 53: Morning Traffic Flow at the City's gateways
The STM traffic survey results (1997) showed that the central area of the City was being used by many motorists as a ‘through‐route’ particularly in the morning peak hour with most vehicles entering the City from the south‐east heading west along either Front Street or Reid Street through to Bermudiana Road or Queen Street before heading north. The STM study therefore recommended the creation of a major distributor route which bypasses the City’s central area and runs from the east to the north of the City via Court and Dundonald Street and the reverse journey via either Dundonald or Church Street to King Street. The City of Hamilton Transport Strategy 1999 further recommended the establishment of a road hierarchy system for the City, whereby each road was categorized by road type and main function (establishing what priority should be given to pedestrian movement, parking, vehicular access to properties, local vehicular movement and commercial vehicular movement). The main purposes of this road hierarchy were to improve the co‐ordination of traffic movements in the City, to minimize non‐
essential traffic from the City’s central area and to utilize Court and Dundonald Streets as the main commercial traffic route from the south eastern corner to the north western corner of the City. The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 established, in Figure 2.1, and designated each road as either a Distributor Road, Access Road, Residential Street, Pedestrian Street or Pedestrian Priority Area (see Figure 54). 52 Figure 54: Road Hierarchy, City of Hamilton Plan 2001
Unfortunately the Road Hierarchy does not seem to have been used much in the assessment of planning applications or in the determination of appropriate infrastructural improvements. Also, whilst there have been road improvements in the City, often they have not been implemented in accordance with the Transport Strategy 1999. Traffic signal adjustments and upgrades have improved traffic flow at individual intersections; however, the minimization of non‐essential traffic in the City’s central area (between Burnaby Street and Queen Street) has not been achieved. The management of traffic flow through the City has not reflected the City Plan 2001’s road hierarchy nor deterred through traffic from using the City’s central area, and no new traffic calming measures to improve pedestrian safety have been introduced in the City’s central area. Instead, raised pedestrian crossings have been introduced along the City’s main vehicle distributor route (Dundonald Street) and access roads (such as Par‐la‐Ville Road and Church Road). The Department of Planning still considers that a priority for the City should be to reduce the amount of vehicular traffic travelling through the City’s central area. The TPP traffic counts (May 2010) indicate that over 1,000 vehicles travel through the very heart of the City in the morning rush hour along Reid Street and Queen Street. Lower Reid Street also accommodates a significant amount of on‐street parking (including 25 car parking spaces and 130 bike parking spaces) which detracts from the pedestrian experience. 53 In order to deter vehicular traffic from travelling through the City’s central area and improve pedestrian safety and amenity, traffic calming measures such as raised pedestrian crossings could introduced along Reid Street between Parliament Street and Queen Street indicating the priority given to pedestrians. The sidewalks along Lower Reid Street are between 8 to 9 feet on the northern side and 9 to 10 feet on the southern side. The northern lane of on‐street parking between Queen and Burnaby Streets could be removed to provide an additional 8 feet of space for a wider sidewalk and street trees. Although underutilized, the Road Hierarchy is still considered to be a useful tool in categorizing the types of streets, traffic volumes and composition, and provision of access points in the City. In order for the Road Hierarchy to be more readily understood and used in the assessment of development proposals and traffic improvements, it is recommended that it be developed further and integrated into a design vision for the streetscape as a whole to include criteria on street widths, building setbacks, building design, land uses, on‐street parking (loading/car/cycle) and street trees. Some stakeholders have also expressed their desire for more emphasis to be given to street corners as valuable City spaces which help contribute to the vitality of the City. Everyone has an opinion about parking. Visitors to the City, particularly shoppers, want to park as close to the retail stores as possible. Similarly commuters want to park close to their places of work, and retailers consider the availability of parking to be essential to sustaining this sector of the City’s economy. In addition, car parking funds provide an important revenue stream for the Corporation of Hamilton. Compared to other cities around the world, parking in the City of Hamilton is inexpensive. However, car parks generate traffic, on‐street parking hinders traffic circulation and driveways crossing sidewalks detract from the pedestrian environment and pedestrian safety. Whilst car users want more and accessible parking, they also want less traffic congestion. Parking issues are an important component of transport policy since the availability, location and price of parking has a major influence on people’s choice of mode of transport. Parking is also crucial to ensuring that the City attracts visitors and remains vibrant. The challenge is for the Corporation of Hamilton to provide sufficient public car parking to meet the needs of City users and residents, and for the Department of Planning to ensure that any new private car parking does not cause traffic congestion, circulation or safety issues, and does not detract from the pedestrian environment. The Corporation of Hamilton provides 2,021 off‐street public car parking spaces and 641 off‐street public bike parking spaces in the City (2010 Parking Survey) which are provided in 12 public car parks. All of these are surface level car parks except for Bull’s Head. The main improvement in the provision of public car parking in the City since 2001 was the construction of an additional storey at Bulls Head car park in 2004 which provided an extra 271 public car parking spaces. 54 The Corporation of Hamilton also provides 1,347 on‐street public car parking spaces and 2,258 on‐street bike parking spaces, 190 loading spaces, 24 taxi spaces, 10 doctors spaces, 30 police car spaces and 11 truck spaces, 105 residential permits and 11 disabled permits. On‐street public parking, whilst welcomed by shoppers looking for short term parking, is also considered to be a major contributor to traffic congestion and one of the main obstacles, both physically and aesthetically, to creating a pleasant pedestrian environment in the City. Nearly every street in the City currently has some on‐street public parking including those streets in the City centre which the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 classifies as ‘pedestrian streets’ and ‘pedestrian priority areas’ (see Figure 55). Figure 53: On‐street public parking on Reid Street
Meanwhile, Cedar Avenue with its tree‐lined streets, wide sidewalks and no on‐street public parking remains one of the most attractive yet busiest streets for vehicular traffic in the City (see Figure 56). Figure 56: Cedar Avenue ‐ tree lined with no on‐street parking 55 The Department of Planning’s survey of private parking (2010) indicated a total of 1,675 private car parking spaces in the City, 17% (282) of which are underground as well as 1,237 private bike parking spaces in the City, 47% (585) of which are underground (see Figure 57). Figure 54: Private Parking in the City of Hamilton
The City of Hamilton Plan 2001’s private parking policies have successfully achieved their objective of prioritizing parking according to the user and of not permitting any new private parking in the City’s central area (policy 2.3). In addition, there has been an increase in the provision of underground rather than surface level parking in new developments as specified in policy 2.11(b). It is considered that the new City Plan should continue the policy of requiring private parking to be provided underground wherever possible. The City Plan 2001 has sought to alleviate the problems of traffic congestion in the City by controlling the supply of private parking and by establishing a parking strategy which prioritizes the provision of private parking according to the level of need of different City users. The parking hierarchy gives the highest priority to the parking needs of disabled persons, City residents and businesses which require private parking to meet their operational needs. A lower priority is given to commuters who require long term, all day parking as it is considered that these commuters can use the public off‐street parking provided by the Corporation. The City Plan’s private parking standards are based on a maximum number of parking spaces to be provided, rather than a minimum parking standard elsewhere on the Island. Whilst this has proved 56 successful in limiting new private parking in the City, the lack of a mandatory requirement for the provision of private parking in new residential developments has put unwelcomed pressure on the Corporation to provide parking for City residents. This is an issue which will be addressed in the new City Plan. The significant increases in public car parking charges in April 2011, had the unintended consequence of displacing some commuters to the City’s peripheries where car parking is cheaper or free. Despite these increases, parking charges are still considered to be extremely low particularly on prime real estate such as the waterfront, and it is considered that some central car parks such as Par‐la‐Ville car park should have time restrictions to deter them from being used as long term car parks. The Corporation has recently conducted a review of the public parking and has made adjustments to parking charges and time restrictions to better reflect the priority users of each car park. All three of the City’s strategic development sites: the City’s prime waterfront (see Figure 58), the Par‐la‐
Ville car park and the City Hall car park, are still utilized for surface level public parking, with no significant steps having been taken to redevelop or enhance these sites. Figure 55: Car and bike parking on the City's waterfront
The City Plan public survey results showed that the public consider the most effective measure for reducing traffic congestion in and around the City to be improvements to the ferry and bus services, and the provision of more public car parks on the periphery of the City. Just over 50 percent of respondents thought that more public car parks on the periphery of the City would be very effective and 31% thought they would be somewhat effective in reducing traffic congestion. Two locations which have previously been identified as suitable locations for future multi‐storey car parks are Cavendish Road car park/the Fire Station site and Dundonald/Elliot Street car park (next to Goslings). A multi‐storey car park on the Corporation owned site at Cavendish Road on the City’s periphery could help to reduce congestion in the City. However, there are access issues with this site 57 that are costly to resolve. Another option for a multi‐storey car park is at the Dundonald/Elliot Street car park site which would also have the locational advantage of intercepting traffic entering the City from the north. This site will be subject to the provisions of the new North East Hamilton Local Plan. The City of Hamilton 2001 Plan’s objectives to reduce commuter traffic, minimize non‐essential traffic in the City’s centre, prioritise parking needs and improve the pedestrian environment are still valid and considered important objectives for the new City of Hamilton Plan. However, more effort needs to be made to integrate the transport/parking objectives with the land use and design objectives of the new City Plan so that the planners, developers, agents and landowners better understand the vision and priorities for the different areas of the City. In addition, there needs to be a common, shared vision for the City of Hamilton Plan and the Corporation’s strategies so that efforts with regard to improving traffic flow, parking and the pedestrian environment are coordinated and complementary. 3.8.2EnhancingthePedestrianEnvironment
The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 recognises the need to improve the safety, comfort and accessibility of the City for pedestrians and those people with mobility challenges. One of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001’s key objectives is ”to improve the pedestrian environment and enhance key pedestrian spaces around the City, taking into particular account the access needs of the less mobile” (Objective 2(d)). The City Plan 2001 identifies, in Figure 2.1, Lower Reid Street as a “Pedestrian Priority Area” as well as five “Pedestrian Streets” and seven “Pedestrian Links”. New developments within these areas are expected to provide improvements to the pedestrian environment. The Department of Planning’s pedestrian count survey in January/February 2013 revealed that on any one day of the week, during the peak hours of 8 to 9 a.m., 12 noon to 2 p.m., and 4.30 to 5.45 p.m., there were 28,000 pedestrians using the City’s main pedestrian routes (see Figure 59). It is likely that the pedestrian volumes would be much higher if the counts were undertaken during the summer months and tourism high season. 58 Figure 56: Pedestrian Volumes in the City of Hamilton
The majority of pedestrians use the streets within the City’s Principal Shopping Area (as shown in Figure 1.1. of the City of Hamilton Plan and Figure 31). However, the busiest street during the morning, lunch and evening is Church Street between Queen Street and Burnaby Street, and this stretch of Church Street actually falls outside the current Principal Shopping Area. Policy 1.20 of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 requires that only retail uses, restaurants and cafes or other similar uses that contribute to the vitality and interest of the area are permitted on the ground floors of properties fronting onto any street within the Principal Shopping Area. This section of Church Street as well as additional sections of Queen Street, Bermudiana Road and Reid Street may warrant inclusion within the City’s Principal Shopping Area. Pedestrian links between and within buildings, such as Walkers Arcade, Washington Mall, Chancery Lane, Fagan’s and Joell’s Alley provide valuable, vehicle‐free, north‐south connections for pedestrians. The Department’s pedestrian survey (2013) showed that Walkers Arcade and Washington Mall are 59 particularly well used. The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 (policy 2.17) has encouraged the provision of more pedestrian links and it is considered that the new City Plan should continue to do so. Three quarters of respondents to the Department of Planning’s public survey indicated that they believed the pedestrian environment in the City has improved. Pedestrian improvements have included wider and repaved sidewalks, more pedestrian crossings, safety improvements at pedestrian crossings, more dropped curbs, streetscape plantings and improvements to pedestrian links. A number of these were recommended in the Transport Strategy 1999 and new pedestrian improvements have been identified such as a pedestrian crossing at the Union Street/Victoria Street junction. No improvements have been made along Lower Reid Street (see Figure 60) which was identified as a “Pedestrian Priority Area” along which it was hoped that pedestrians would be able to walk freely in a street environment with few vehicles, relax in informal seating areas or sit and eat in al fresco dining areas. There have been several pedestrian enhancement schemes proposed for Lower Reid Street. The Department of Planning considers it important, in the first instance, to install traffic calming speed bumps on the pedestrian crossings along Reid Street from Parliament to Queen Street to improve pedestrian safety and to deter vehicles from using this street as a through route. Figure 57: Lower Reid Street
Waterfront amenity spaces, more city parks and open spaces, more pedestrian links, more street landscaping and more street lighting were highlighted in the 2011 public survey as improvements to the pedestrian environment in the City that the public are most keen to see. The public are particularly keen on seeing pedestrian improvements along Reid and Front Streets. 60 It is considered that the new City Plan needs to provide even greater policy emphasis on requiring new development proposals to include improvements to the public realm and the pedestrian environment particularly along the streets to be identified as Pedestrian Priority Areas and Pedestrian Streets and where priority areas and specific enhancements have been identified. There also needs to be greater collaboration between the Corporation of Hamilton, the Department of Planning, developers, agents, the National Office for Seniors and the Physically Challenged and other key stakeholder groups in planning, spearheading and implementing agreed priority enhancement projects. 3.8.3AccessibilityandUniversalDesign
The Census of Population and Housing results indicate that the proportion of seniors (aged 65+) increased from 11% of the total population in 2000 to 14% in 2010. In addition, in 2010 3,174 persons in the non‐institutional population suffered from a long‐term health condition which impacted their everyday life, a 12% increase from 2000. The 2010 Census results indicate that the disability rate increases with age. From 2000 to 2010, the number of disabled persons under 40 years declined by 7% whereas the number of disabled persons aged 40 years and over increased by 19%. The most frequently reported disabling conditions affecting Bermuda’s residents are seeing difficulties, complete blindness, high blood pressure and arthritis. The changing age and health profile of Bermuda’s population has significant implications on the built environment particularly as it relates to accessibility in and around spaces and buildings. One of the key objectives of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 is to improve the City’s pedestrian environment taking into particular account the access needs to the less mobile. The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 also requires all new buildings and alterations to existing buildings to be accessible to persons with physical disabilities, in accordance with the requirements of the Bermuda Building Code. The City of Hamilton’s Transport Strategy 1999 identified the concern with the lack of accessibility to and within many of the City’s public spaces and buildings for less mobile people (including senior citizens, wheelchair users, the physically challenged, the visually impaired and parents with strollers) and proposed a number of improvements for the City including dropped curbs, ramps, removal of clutter on sidewalks, tactile paving and parking spaces for disabled persons. Many of these sorts of accessibility related improvements have been made to the City over the last 10 years. The Department of Health’s National Office for Seniors and the Physically Challenged (NOSPC) has concluded that the standard of accessibility in the City of Hamilton is relatively good. This review was based on a checklist guide of Global Age‐Friendly Cities (2007) prepared by the World Health Organistion (WHO). The guide provides a checklist of key characteristics of the urban landscape and built environment that contribute to age‐friendliness and which help optimize opportunities for health, participation and security to enhance the quality of life of people as they age. The main features include:‐  Environment – pleasant and clean;  Green spaces and walkways ‐ well‐maintained, safe, adequate shelter, accessible toilet facilities, seating, pedestrian‐friendly, walkways free from obstructions and with a smooth level surface; 61 







Outdoor seating ‐ in parks, public spaces, bus stops, spaced at regular intervals, well‐maintained and safe; Pavements ‐ well‐maintained, smooth, level, non‐slip, wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs, low curbs that taper off to the road, clear of obstructions; Roads – safe crossings, adequate non‐slip, regularly spaced pedestrian crossings, visual and audio signals; Traffic ‐ strict enforcement of traffic rules and regulations with drivers giving way to pedestrians; Cycle paths ‐ separate cycle paths for cyclists; Public safety in all open spaces and buildings; Services ‐ clustered, located in close proximity to where older people live and can be easily accessed (such as on the ground floor of buildings), special customer service arrangements for older people; and Buildings ‐ accessible with elevators, ramps, adequate signage, railings on stairs, stairs not too high or steep, non‐slip flooring, rest areas, sufficient accessible public toilets. However, certain issues have been identified by the NOSPC as needing improvement in the City. These include the need for more street lighting and shade (particularly near public seating areas), better access to certain buildings including some recently built buildings, ramped access to buses and ferries, more parking spaces for disabled persons, and more curb free sidewalks especially on Front Street. It was recommended that the ‘universal design’ concept be applied to the City to ensure that the built environment is usable to the greatest extent possible by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life. 3.9ThePublicRealm
The public realm provides a setting for community life. It includes all parts of the urban environment that people can experience or access including public streets, sidewalks, alleyways, parks and open spaces (see Figure 61). The quality of the City of Hamilton’s public realm is vital to creating a vibrant and viable City environment that people want to visit, and live and work in. 62 Figure 61: The Public and Private Realms of the Streetscape
There have been some improvements in the City’s public realm over the last 10 years, particularly with regard to sidewalk improvements. However, there is scope for further improvements. An improved pedestrian network throughout the City would complement the existing vehicular network. Spacious sidewalks linked to parks that border the primary, secondary and tertiary vehicular routes would encourage more City residents, workers and visitors to walk and create greater connectivity between the different parts of the City and a more amenable pedestrian environment. These pedestrian corridors would be prioritised by the Corporation for sidewalk enhancements, tree planting and beautification. They could also provide links to historic buildings and key vista points. By working in close collaboration with the Corporation of Hamilton, key stakeholder groups, property owners and the public, the following are recommended to create a higher quality public realm and pedestrian environment in the City:‐ •


•
Enhance the quality of and public accessibility to the waterfront with a waterfront promenade and series of linked open spaces; Enhance public spaces, streets and pedestrian links, and connectivity along green corridors to public parks; Implement a rolling programme of improvements to the City’s streetscapes and public spaces; Improve the quality of public spaces and create new ‘destination’ spaces e.g. on the waterfront; 63 
•
•
•
•
•
Create vista points with information boards/signage to explain views of landmark/historic buildings to give a sense of place/identity, and promote the City’s heritage and tourism product; Improve the quality of the pedestrian environment, ensuring that pedestrian routes and crossings are clear, legible, safe and convenient; Create attractive ‘gateways’ to mark and enhance the main approaches to the City (from the road and by water), to improve their appearance, and achieve a sense of arrival and identity; Require environmental improvements and landscaping in association with new developments; Prepare and implement a creative lighting strategy to improve safety and add visual interest to the City’s streets and public spaces; and Prepare a Public Art Strategy identifying opportunities and key locations for public art and seek the provision of public art or contributions towards it in association with new developments. 64 3.10ProtectingandenhancingtheCity’sHeritage
Bermuda’s main landmark buildings including the Anglican Cathedral, the Sessions House, the Cabinet Building and City Hall are located in the City of Hamilton. The City also has some of Bermuda’s best examples of residential, commercial and institutional architecture and some of the island’s largest and most modern buildings. The challenge is to balance the need to upgrade and modernize the buildings within the City and to preserve key landmarks that enrich the urban fabric. One of the key objectives of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 is “to protect and enhance buildings of special architectural or historical interest and Historic Areas from unsympathetic development” (see objective 3(a)). 3.10.1ListedBuildingsandHistoricAreas
Until November 2013, there was only one listed building in the City of Hamilton, the Anglican Cathedral of the Most Holy Trinity, on Church Street (see Figure 62), which was adopted as a Grade 1 listed building in 1983. Figure 62: The Cathedral of the Most Holy Trinity
The Historic Buildings Advisory Committee (HBAC) conducted evaluations of potential listed buildings in the City of Hamilton between 1997 and 2000, and the Draft City of Hamilton Plan (February 2001) included a list of 63 proposed of buildings of special architectural or historical interest in the City of Hamilton. It was resolved at the Objections Tribunal and approved by the Minister that this list of proposed listing buildings should be deleted from the Draft City Plan 2001. In 2009, a committee was established to evaluate potential listed buildings in the City, and 49 buildings were deemed worthy of being formally listed under Section 30 of the Development and Planning Act 1974. 65 As a first step to listing more buildings in the City, in 2013 the Minister responsible for Planning listed 8 Government and Corporation owned buildings in the City of Hamilton. These are the Sessions House, Cabinet Building, the former Magistrates Court, the Old Town Hall, City Hall, Par‐la‐Ville (Library), Perot’s Post Office and Victoria Bandstand. A key objective in the new City of Hamilton Plan will be to continue to support the protection and enhancement of buildings of special architectural or historical interest and to emphasize their contribution to historical tourism in Bermuda. Policies will be included which direct the Board to ensure that the appearance, scale, design, materials and details of development preserve or enhance the quality and character of the listed building and its setting. In addition to protecting historic buildings, the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 also recognized the importance of protecting the historic, architectural and cultural character of areas and streets, and introduced four Historic Areas, as designated under Section 31 of the Development and Planning Act 1974 (see Figure 63). Figure 58: Historic Areas, City of Hamilton Plan 2001 The redevelopment of sites in the City is part of the City’s renewal process and building design policies help to ensure that new developments are of high quality design and in keeping with the character of the City. The Front Street image is iconic and greatly valued by residents and tourists. Much of the character of Front Street is derived from the facades of the buildings fronting the street. Sites on Front Street which have been redeveloped over the last 10 years include the former Trimingham’s/ HSBC site, the A.S. 66 Cooper site (131 Front Street), the former Seon site (139 – 143 Front Street) and the former Harbourfront building (23 – 25 Front Street). The results of the Department of Planning survey (2011) indicated strong public support for protecting historic buildings and areas within the City. The new City Plan will continue to include policies on protecting listed buildings and will look at providing more specific policies with regard to the Historic Areas identified to ensure that new development can co‐exist harmoniously. Additionally, consideration will be given to the expansion of existing Historic Areas and the creation of new Historic Areas. 3.10.2CathedralViewCorridor
The importance of the City of Hamilton’s skyline, particularly the dominance of the Anglican Cathedral, has long been considered an important benchmark for determining the scale of new development in the City. As such, the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 identified a Cathedral View Corridor within which new development would be closely scrutinized to ensure that it did not have a detrimental impact on the Cathedral. There have been a number of developments proposed within the Cathedral View Corridor over the last 10 years but only one of which raised concerns about the visual impact on the Cathedral. The public seem to have mixed opinions on the value of protecting the Cathedral’s view corridor and whether it should be retained in the new City of Hamilton Plan (see Figure 64). Figure 59: Public survey opinion on Views of the Anglican Cathedral The new City of Hamilton Plan will continue to protect the Cathedral and respect its dominance and setting; however, alternative design policy options to the Cathedral View Corridor will be considered. 67 3.11EnsuringHighQualityDesign
The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 aims “to secure a high quality of development and landscaping that is appropriate in scale, massing, height, style and design to its location” (objective 3(b)). A combination of design policies for building height, street level setbacks and upper storey setbacks aim to ensure that the scale and massing of development are appropriate for the site and its context. The design policies also aim to ensure that new buildings are designed to provide diversity and visual interest and enhance the pedestrian environment. 3.11.1BuildingHeight
Building height is controlled by three factors in the City of Hamilton Plan 2001:‐ (1) the O.D. height of the ridge of the Cathedral (138 feet O.D.) which new development is not permitted to exceed; (2) the maximum number of storeys permitted; and (3) the height of the storeys. One key question is whether the ridge of the Anglican Cathedral (138 O.D.) should remain the determining factor for the maximum heights of buildings in the City. The results of the Department of Planning’s public survey 2011 indicate a split opinion between those who are strongly in favour of retaining the Anglican Cathedral ridge line as a maximum height factor and those who are opposed to continuing to protect the Cathedral visual dominance. Likewise, the public seem to have split opinions on whether the new City Plan should permit taller buildings (i.e. higher than seven storeys). As can be seen in Figure 65 which shows the Cathedral ridge line viewed from the harbour, the building height provisions of successive City of Hamilton Plans have been successful in protecting the visual dominance of the Cathedral. The picture shows that the eave line of the Cathedral at 112 feet O.D. can be seen from the harbour and that recently developed buildings including the A.S. Cooper building (7 storeys), the HSBC building (6 storeys plus additional height for utility housing), the Orbis building (5 storeys plus utility house), were all developed in conformance with the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 policies and do not impact the visual dominance of the Cathedral. The Washington Mall complex which is a 6 storey building does not conform to the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 and was approved by the Minister on appeal. It has a very dominant visual impact on the City skyline and on City Hall due to its higher elevation and massing. The estimated height for the Washington Mall is 125 feet O.D. based on the planning approval. The older four storey buildings located directly south of the Cathedral also have a visual impact on the Cathedral because of their higher ground elevation and the height of the utility housing. 68 Figure 60: The City of Hamilton's skyline
Figure 66 shows the existing overall and street level maximum storey height provisions (as specified in Figures 3.4 and 3.6 of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001). Figure 66: Maximum Building Heights, City of Hamilton Plan 2001 The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 has building height limits of 5 to 6 storeys for the majority of the City but aims to encourage the redevelopment of the eastern side of the City by providing building height maximums of 6 to 7 storeys from Reid Street to Dundonald Street. The residential areas of North West and North East Hamilton have the lowest building height maximums of 3 and 4 storeys in the City of Hamilton Plan 2001. An additional storey to the maximum number of storeys is permitted in compliance with the Residential Bonus policy (policy 1.16). 69 The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 also identifies four development brief areas where building height maximums are not prescribed. This offers flexibility for the development of taller buildings in these locations where deemed appropriate. In the last few years, there has been increased pressure for taller buildings of 10 storeys to be permitted in the City, and a number of developments have been approved by the Minister on appeal which exceed the permitted maximum height regulations, including Seon Place at 139 Front Street (see Figure 67). Figure 61: Seon Place, 139 Front Street, City of Hamilton
The City of Hamilton, as Bermuda’s capital city and main business centre, is an appropriate location for tall buildings. By allowing taller buildings in the City, pressure could be reduced for development, particularly residential development, in open spaces in the rest of the Island. The City, therefore, plays an important role in meeting the development needs of the Island and in meeting sustainability objectives. In consultations with the general public, agents and other key stakeholders, there seems to be a consensus that taller buildings would be acceptable in the lower lying, northern locations of the City but taller buildings would not be acceptable on Front Street or where they would impede the view of historic buildings such as the Anglican Cathedral. Others feel that the case for taller buildings depends on their proposed use. There seems to be stronger support for taller, residential apartment buildings which could be an effective, economically viable and sustainable means of accommodating growing housing demand. There is also an opportunity for commercial developments to include residential units on the upper floors, as at Washington Properties on Church Street and Magnolia Towers on Parliament Street. The case for taller, commercial buildings is less strong given the substantial amount of untapped development potential in the City especially on sites on the eastern side of the City, and given the estimated 800,000 sq.ft. supply of vacant commercial space currently in the City. 70 The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 recognized that there had been an unequal distribution of development in and around the City during the 1990s with most office development having taken place on the western side and outskirts of the City, and little development having taken place on the eastern side of the City. This led to increased traffic congestion in the City’s centre with vehicles travelling from the south eastern city gateways through the city centre to the offices in the west. The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 therefore included policies which allowed for greater maximum building heights in the eastern side of the City (6 and 7 storeys) (see Figure 66). A number of new office buildings of 5 or more storeys have been built over the last 10 years in this area, including such developments as the Dame Lois Browne‐Evans Building (58 Court St), Veritas Place (65 Court Street), Andrew’s Place (51 Church Street) and Magnolia Place (15 Parliament St). Nevertheless, 95% of the buildings in the eastern blocks of the City remain below the maximum 6 to 7 storey height permitted, with the majority (77%) of buildings being only one or two storeys in height and therefore well below the maximum heights permitted in the City Plan 2001. There is also a large vacant site at lot 55‐59 Church Street and two large redevelopment sites proposed on Reid Street which have yet to come to fruition. There is therefore significant development potential in the eastern blocks of the City. The other area which, under the City of Hamilton Plan 2001, has been provided with maximum building heights of 7 storeys is located between Wesley Street, Washington Street and Dundonald Street (see Figure 66) just north of City Hall car park. New developments within this area include 10 Dundonald Street and the Argus Building (14 Wesley Street). There is also a 52 unit residential development proposed on Park Road. In this area approximately half the buildings are currently 5 storeys or more in height. However, approximately 40% of buildings in this area are only one or two storeys in height so there is also significant development capacity in this part of the City. The new City of Hamilton Plan could continue to use building height maximums to encourage the redevelopment of certain key areas and sites. Targeted redevelopment areas which could accommodate taller buildings may include the low lying north western areas of the City. This corner of the City also has good road access and public parking facilities. It is recommended that in the historic retail centre of the City, building heights should remain at 5 storeys. In the western parts of the City which have already experienced considered growth, it is also recommended that building height maximums should remain the same at 6 to 7 storeys. Policy 3.8 of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 limits the height of storeys to 14 feet on the ground floor and 12 feet for all other floors with some discretion to vary these. In consultations with stakeholders and in reviewing the storey heights of developments built over the last 10 years, it is recommended that the maximum height of storeys above the ground floor should be increased to 13 feet. This would provide architects and owners with greater opportunities to incorporate energy efficient measures (such as direct/indirect lighting systems) into building design. The increased height would also allow for better daylighting of deep floor plates, particularly those that lack access to light along a side elevation. A further benefit would be the additional space in each storey that could be allocated to the under floor 71 ducting which is part of many modern HVAC systems. At present, ducting is often accommodated by decreasing the floor to ceiling height on each storey which negatively impacts the habitability of office or residential space by reducing air circulation and light penetration. 3.11.2UrbanDesignandAppearance
The City of Hamilton comprises an assemblage of commercial, residential and institutional buildings, spaces and streets, as well as several landmarks of national historical significance to Bermuda, including the Anglican Cathedral, the Sessions House, Cabinet Building and City Hall. The historic and architectural features of these buildings, and the City’s natural harbour and waterfront are features which have contributed to the success of the City of Hamilton as a vibrant, architecturally distinctive and attractive urban centre. The objective of maintaining the “Bermuda Image” has had a long history. The Hamilton Building Ordinances of 1954 and 1965 restricted the use of certain materials for external roofs and walls, required that facings of buildings be hard cement plaster, and did not permit glazing tiles, all with the objective of maintaining the “Bermuda Image”. Successive City of Hamilton Plans have also stated the importance of maintaining the Bermuda architectural heritage of the City; however they have also established policies that permit contemporary building design to support the development of business, retail, government and residential uses in the City. The City has experienced considerable growth over the last two decades yet the architectural characteristics of Front Street, Queen Street and Reid Street have been retained. New buildings such as HSBC Harbourview Centre (37 Front Street) and A. S. Cooper’s (59 Front Street) have been designed to respect the pedestrian friendly scale along Front Street (see Figure 68). Figure 62: View of Front Street
The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 has encouraged the careful consideration of how the design of new buildings relate to the City’s architectural heritage particularly in the areas of Front Street, Reid Street, Queen Street and Burnaby Street. Rather than there being one distinctive building style, there is a pattern of development that has occurred over time which reflects Bermuda’s history and different 72 architectural features. These features include parapet, hipped and gable ended roofs, verandahs, ornate gable ends, Bermuda shutters, white roofs and pastel colours. In other areas such as along Par‐la‐Ville Road, Church Street, Victoria Street and Wesley Street, contemporary buildings have been the norm (see Figures 69 and 70). Figure 69: Power House, 7 Par‐la‐Ville Road
Figure 63: Maxwell Roberts Building, 1 Church Street
The City reflects a diversity of building designs which adds to its interest and appearance. The challenge is to maintain a balance between modern design and materials, and the City’s existing character and Bermuda architectural traditions. 3.11.3BuildingSetbacks
The main purposes of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001’s upper storey and street level setback policies are to introduce more articulation to the design of buildings and to create a high quality pedestrian environment. The results of the Department of Planning City Plan public survey 2011 indicate that there is strong public support for requiring building setbacks and providing a variety of building design. Policy 3.16 of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 requires upper storey setbacks on Front Street of 25 feet for the first upper storey and 15 feet for further upper storeys. Policy 3.10 provides scope for developments to extend through a City block from one road providing the extended storey does not project beyond a 30 degree line. However, these policies do not allow the Development Applications Board any discretion to vary these requirements. As such, these policies have come under the criticism from architects who feel that applying the same upper storey setback standard for every building on Front Street creates a very repetitive ‘wedding cake’ tiered appearance with little room for architectural expression. The issue is therefore whether the new City Plan should allow for some variation to the upper storey setback requirement. 73 Street level setbacks provide additional space in the private realm for sidewalks and amenity areas. They also reduce the impact of a building’s height and add variety of building form and visual interest along street frontages. Whilst most of the developments built over the last 10 years conform to the street level setback policies in the City of Hamilton Plan 2001, certain policies such as the 40% additional setback for buildings above 4 storeys, have had varying success in meeting their objective. As shown in Figure 71, the 6 storey building at 19 Par‐la‐Ville Road required an additional setback of 10 feet for 40% of the building front (in accordance with policy 3.13 of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001). It was argued that this setback is provided in the form of balconies built across 40% of the middle of the building front from the first floor to the sixth floor. However, this was not a correct interpretation or implementation of policy 3.13 since the pedestrian environment has not been enhanced and the massing of the building has not been reduced. In addition, the principal ground floor entrance does not provide level access for pedestrians from the sidewalk (as required by policy 2.18 of the City Plan 2001). Figure 64: 19 Par‐la‐Ville Road
A block to block survey of existing sidewalk conditions shows that there seems to be a lack of integration between the private and public realm in the City streetscapes. In addition, sidewalk widths vary greatly within the City (see Figure 72) and, in some areas, cannot adequately accommodate pedestrians, street furniture, lighting and street trees. 74 Figure 65: Sidewalk abruptly ends at the Dallas Building, 7 Victoria Street The challenge for the new City Plan is to provide setback policies that more clearly address the issue of improving the pedestrian environment. Some of the recommendations are:‐ 





to develop a comprehensive streetscape plan with a focus on improvements in the public realm; to standardize street level setbacks for each proposed district to achieve sidewalk widths of 12 feet (with the setback in the private realm being determined as the difference between the existing sidewalk width and 12 feet) (see Figure 73); to eliminate the current required additional setback for 40% of the building front (policy 3.13) and replace it with an additional setback for the entire building front; to reduce the current upper storey setbacks for buildings exceeding 4 storeys; to maintain the current policy of prohibiting blank walls (policy 3.21(e)); and to review the current natural light policy (policy 3.14) and establish more specific criteria for how new buildings can achieve natural light penetration. Figure 66: Proposed standard 12 feet wide sidewalk
75 It is also recommended that the new City Plan include the requirement for the submission of a Design Statement for certain development proposals demonstrating how the building design responds to Bermuda’s architectural style and is respectful to historic buildings in the area. The Design Statement would explain and illustrate the design concept for the proposal and include details on the proposal’s scale, massing, fenestration, detailing, materials, energy efficiency, accessibility, landscaping and integration with the public realm. 3.11.4PublicArt
Public art can enrich new development either as part of the detailed design of a building or incorporated an outside space. It can enliven streetscapes and the public realm, create interest and identity, provide opportunities for local artists, and contribute to local distinctiveness and a sense of place. Public art can include decorative stonework, paving, sculptures, street furniture, glazing, railings, signs, light fixtures, lighting, murals, water features and architectural design. The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 recognised the importance of public art. Policy 3.23 of the City Plan 2001 encourages the integration of public art in all developments and requires that a public art component be included in developments of 50,000 sq.ft. or more. The policy specifies that the artwork must be visible from the street and preferably external to the building. As an incentive to entice further public art in the City, policy 3.17 allows the requirement for upper storey setbacks to be substituted in part for a piece of public art. The City of Hamilton Plan 2001 public art policy has had varied success. The number of notable pieces of public art in the City has certainly increased over the last 10 years and they include sculptures, water features and tree grates (see Figures 74 to 77). However, there have been challenges to implementing the policy. With no definition of ‘public art’ in the City of Hamilton Plan 2001, technical officers have stated that at times it has been hard to agree with applicants what constitutes an acceptable piece of public art. The policy of encouraging public art in all new developments has had limited promotion by technical officers given the lack of any leverage available to require the applicant to do so. Whilst the policy of requiring public art in major developments has generally been applied by way of a planning condition, the planning condition has often not been implemented or enforced. There is also the issue of whether the public art component of a development should be provided on an alternative site to the proposal site, as was in the case of the HSBC sculpture provided at 39 Front Street. The results of the Department of Planning City Plan survey 2011 revealed very strong public support for public art and strong support for the new City of Hamilton Plan to encourage and require public art as part of new developments in the City. The types of public art the majority of respondents want to see more of in the City are water features and sculptures. 76 Figure 67: Public Art, 139 Front Street
Figure 69: Public Art, 12 Wesley St Figure 68: Public Art inside DLBE Building, 58 Court Street Figure 70: Public Art, 20 Church St It is recommended that further options for providing public art be explored. One option is the establishment of a Public Art Fund, into which all new developments contribute a proportional amount based on the size of the development. Public/private partnerships could be explored and a Public Arts Committee established to include a representative(s) from local artist groups, the Department of Planning, and the Corporation of Hamilton to facilitate communication and pro‐actively identify opportunities and administer the Public Art Fund similar to models that have been implemented in other jurisdictions like New York City. Priority sites which have high levels of pedestrian activity, high visibility, and a high contribution to the public realm could also be identified for public art works. A Public Art Planning Guidance Note could provide information to assist applicants on appropriate forms of public art, ensure the integration of the public art component into the development project, identify suitable locations for public art, and provide a list of local artists. 77 3.12Climatechangeandfutureopportunities
The National Trust commissioned report “The Impact of Climate Change on Bermuda” (2008) examines the impacts of climate change in particular sea level rise, rising temperatures, heavier flooding and more intense storm activity on the Bermuda’s infrastructure including its buildings and transportation systems. Factors which contribute to Bermuda’s vulnerability to climate change include:‐ • the small size of the island which limits the options available for adapting to climate change and sea level rise, • increasing urbanization and high population density, • the close proximity of much housing and infrastructure to the coastline, • intense competition for land use, • the relatively low‐lying nature of the land and the island’s geographical position which makes it vulnerable to tropical storm activity and associated storm surge, • limited natural resources and fresh water supplies, • depletion of the island’s non‐renewable resources and fragile, stressed ecosystems, • its geographic isolation and the distance to major markets and dependence on imports including food and oil, and • small internal markets and high sensitivity to external market shocks. The report states that a rise in sea level of 0.59 m as predicted by IPCC (2007) would result in 186.6 ha of land and 534 buildings in Bermuda being inundated with sea water. A 2 m rise, believed to be the upper limit attainable this century, would result in 819.3 ha of inundated land and affect 1,977 buildings. In both cases, the waterfronts and ports in both the City of Hamilton and Town of St. George would be significantly inundated, at least during high tides. Figures 78 and 79 show the areas affected within the City of Hamilton with a projected sea level rise of 0.59 metres and 2 metres respectively. 78 Figure 771: City of Hamilton with a projected sea level rise of 0.59 metres Figure 72: City of Hamilton with a projected sea level rise of 2 metres 79 As stated in the UK Town and Country Planning Association “Planning for Climate Change – Guidance for Local Authorities” (2012), planning plays a key role in tackling climate change by helping shape developments and places to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, minimize energy consumption, and minimize vulnerability to flood risk and high temperatures. The Department of Planning’s Bermuda Plan 2008 identifies those areas that are increasingly at risk from wave energy, storm surge, flooding and erosion through the Coastal Reserve Conservation Zone and the Water Resources Protection Area designations. The Bermuda Plan 2008 also encourages the efficient and sustainable use and development of land, the use of sustainable modes of transport, and the adoption of sustainable development principles including energy efficient building design, water conservation and use of renewable energy sources. In addition, the Department of Planning’s Coastal Protection and Development Planning Guidelines (2004) provide important information regarding appropriate coastal development for different coastal locations. These sustainable development provisions will be considered in the development of the new City of Hamilton Plan policies. There are opportunities to create or remodel outdoor spaces and buildings to be more resilient to climate changes in the future and to enhance the livability of, and quality of life in the City. For instance, the new City Plan can support the development of more greenery including gardens, parks, productive landscapes, green corridors, green roofs and walls which can help to manage higher temperatures, improve air quality, and manage flood and surface water. More greenery in the City also creates biodiversity and improves the aesthetics, and people’s health and quality of life. 80 4.0TheNewCityofHamiltonPlan
4.1Vision
The vision of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 is to strive towards a more sustainable city environment and for the City to develop as a place which:‐ • serves the best interests and needs of the community who live and work there and who visit it for shopping and leisure purposes; • provides a range of opportunities for development and employment; • provides a mix of residential and commercial uses; • creates compact development and controls urban sprawl; • encourages people to walk and cycle and is easily accessible by public transport; • respects its historical past and promotes high quality new development; and • provides interest, activity and enjoyment in a safe and comfortable environment. The sentiments of this vision are still valid today. However, it is recommended that this vision be updated with more specific goals for the future development of the City which are to:‐ 










support Hamilton in its role as Bermuda’s capital City and leading commercial and tourism centre; ensure the provision of a range of activities and facilities to meet the needs of people who live in, work in, shop in and visit the City; ensure that new development is supported by adequate infrastructure and services; encourage the growth of a sustainable, community orientated City environment through mixed use development, city living, universal and energy efficient design, and a high quality public realm; support adaptations to climate change and address the issues of increasing temperatures and greater risk of flooding such as by creating more green spaces, landscaping and permeable surfaces in the City; provide a City environment which is vibrant, dynamic, comfortable, enjoyable and safe during the day and at night; protect the City’s heritage and key landmarks, and enhance the City’s distinctive character; secure a high quality of design in new buildings and landscaped spaces; facilitate the efficient and safe movement of people and traffic into and within the City by improving accessibility and connectivity for pedestrians and the less mobile, encouraging increased use of public transport and introducing traffic management measures; and promote the regeneration and enhancement of particular areas of the City through a programme of action plans for key areas including the waterfront and lower Reid Street; and support the economic and social regeneration, and environmental improvement of North East Hamilton. 81 4.2ProposedDistricts
In order to promote a high quality sustainable city environment that supports both Bermudian architectural traditions and modern design, it is recommended that the new City Plan designate three districts (see Figure 80) each of which would have different design and development objectives:‐ 


an Historic Retail District within which the objective is to support and preserve the current architectural urban design characteristics and traditions; a Business District where a variety of design options would be permitted; and a Growth District where the emphasis will be on encouraging the redevelopment of sites, providing opportunities for taller buildings, and encouraging residential development and associated local services to achieve the environmental, social and economic benefits that an increased population will have on the City. Figure 73: Proposed Districts, new City of Hamilton Plan
82 The boundaries of each district would be based on existing characteristics of the area including topography and land uses, existing and permitted building heights, development trends and future development potential. Each district would also have objectives regarding land uses, traffic flow and the pedestrian environment. 4.2.1ProposedHistoricandRetaildistrict
The proposed Historic and Retail district would represent the City’s main retail hub and centre of pedestrian activity. It is an area representative of Bermuda’s architectural traditions and contains 24 buildings recognized as having historic and Bermuda architectural significance. Some of this area’s character defining building design elements include verandahs, balconies, upper storey landscaping, gable ends, Bermuda shutters, white roofs and walls painted in pastel colours which are representative of Bermuda architectural traditions and create iconic and Bermuda streetscapes, particularly Front Street. This district is close to three of the City’s main parks, Barr’s Bay, Albouy’s Point and Par‐la‐Ville/Queen Elizabeth, and includes one of the City’s four strategic development sites, the Waterfront. The objectives for this district will be to continue to protect Bermuda’s architectural heritage and eclectic design characteristics, maintain the Front Street and Queen Street Historic Protection Area, , improve the public realm, provide an attractive and safe pedestrian environment and pedestrian friendly scale, improve traffic management, and continue to support the street oriented retail and business environment. It is recommended that lower Reid Street continue to be designated a Pedestrian Priority Area and that Queen Street, and parts of Reid and Front Street continue to be designated Pedestrian Streets. Alternatively these streets could be designated within a Pedestrian Enhancement Area. Improvements to the public realm and pedestrian environment would be given high priority with the removal of some on‐street parking to create wider sidewalks to provide more space for pedestrians, street trees, landscaping, water features and alfresco dining, and the introduction of traffic calming measures along the main pedestrian streets of Reid and Queen Streets. As in the City of Hamilton Plan 2001, no on‐site parking would be permitted in this district. The policy of retaining retail uses on the ground floors of buildings within the principal shopping area would be retained with the definition of ‘retail’ being amended to omit ‘banking halls’. The height of buildings and design requirements are proposed to be based on the exiting building characteristics of the area with 5 storeys being the maximum number permitted. Building setback requirements would support the pedestrian friendly scale, Bermuda design characteristics and the existing built environment. The Anglican Cathedral’s visual dominance will be protected and development within this district would not normally be permitted to exceed 138 feet O.D. (the height of the ridge line of the Cathedral). The height of buildings would continue to range from three to five storeys with specific building setback 83 requirements to support the pedestrian friendly scale and existing built environment. The street level setback of 9 feet would be maintained for Front Street and verandahs would continue to be required. 4.2.2ProposedContemporaryBusinessdistrict
The proposed Contemporary Business district would represent the main business and commercial core of the City with tall, contemporary office buildings particularly on the western side (see Figures 95 and 96). Key landmarks include the Anglican Cathedral. This district is in proximity to Victoria Park and Par‐
la‐Ville/Queen Elizabeth Park. It includes two strategic development sites, City Hall and Par‐la‐Ville car park, and is close to the Economic Empowerment Zone of North East Hamilton. It is recommended that the objectives for this district should be to maintain and encourage commercial development and to provide opportunities for a variety of modern architectural styles. Building designs should reflect the status of the City of Hamilton as the centre of business but also be respectful to and compatible with landmark buildings in the area, such as the Anglican Cathedral. To encourage the redevelopment of the eastern side of this district, higher maximum building heights of 7 to 8 storeys would be permitted on the east and maximum building heights on the west would remain at 6 to 7 storeys. Additional building height could be earned by providing community benefits such as residential uses and pedestrian improvements. Upper storey setbacks and street level setbacks would be established to provide a pedestrian friendly scale and respect the existing built environment. As with the existing City of Hamilton Plan 2001, it is recommended that the new City Plan limits on‐site private parking for non‐residential developments on the western side of this district to that which meets the minimum operational needs of the site and be designated within a Reduced Parking Area. On the eastern side, on‐site private parking would be permitted in accordance with the maximum parking standards with some discretion permitted to exceed them. 4.2.3ProposedResidentialandCommunitydistrict
The proposed Residential and Community district would represent the north western corner of the City. This area has an established residential community comprising 13% of the City’s population and newer residential development. Other uses include the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St Theresa’s, the Corporation of Hamilton offices and depot, Bulls Head Car Park, Mount Saint Agnes Academy, Butterfield and Vallis, and various commercial and light industrial uses. Historic buildings include the St. Theresa’s Cathedral, Laffan Cottage and Aberley, on Laffan Street. The topography is low lying with small hills in the Laffan/Cedar Avenue area and Canal Road/Jacksons Road area, and the Pembroke Canal runs through the north corner of the area. The lower elevations provide the opportunity for higher buildings which should have limited visual impact on the City skyline and other parts of the City to the south. 84 Located in proximity to a number of gateways to the City, including Serpentine Road, Woodlands Road, Canal Road, and Cedar Avenue, and with the City’s only multi‐storey car park, this area is very accessible. There are also a number of potential redevelopment sites within this district.
The main objective for this district would be to provide for a range of development opportunities and a mix of uses. Residential development, seniors homes, day care centres and small businesses are considered particularly suitable for this area. Open spaces and parks, pedestrian improvements (in particular sidewalks and better lighting) and improvements to the Pembroke Canal as an amenity area and/or recreational space would be encouraged. In order to encourage the redevelopment of sites and to provide opportunities for taller buildings, building height would be in the 6 to 8 storey range with the Board given the discretion to permit buildings up to 10 storeys in areas of low elevation where community planning gains such as residential units, tourism development, street and landscaping improvements are provided and the building design achieves a pedestrian friendly environment. Traffic calming measures and improvements to Canal Road/Laffan street junction are already underway. 85 4.3CommunityInvolvement
As stated in section 2.1, the community’s involvement in providing input into the review of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 and in preparing the recommendations for the new City of Hamilton Plan has been invaluable. The Department of Planning intends to further improve its consultation processes with key stakeholder groups and with the public through better notification of planning application submissions. Social media (website, Facebook, etc) will continue to be used to distribute information and to invite and generate comments and ideas from a wide audience. Once the Draft City of Hamilton Plan is published, it will become the operative development plan for the areas of the City that it covers. However, continued public input and representation is encouraged during the formal public consultation stage. During the public consultation stage, comments and representations from the public are reviewed and resolved by the Department of Planning technical officers and an Objections Tribunal. Amendments are then made to the Draft City of Hamilton Plan and the final, approved City Plan is published. Once the City of Hamilton Plan is finalized, the public can continue to be involved by reviewing of planning proposals in the following ways:‐ 


Read about and provide comments on latest planning projects and planning issues on the Department of Planning website (www.planning.gov.bm) and Facebook page Get involved in pre‐application discussions for development proposals through attendance at public meetings organized by applicants Provide representations/objections to the Department of Planning on planning application submissions (posted on the Department of Planning website, in the Official Gazette or on the application site) 86 87 5.0SummaryNote
This Review and Strategy Report describes some of the economic and physical changes within the City of Hamilton over the last 10 years and reviews the effectiveness of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001 policies in achieving its goals and objectives. In preparing this report, the Department of Planning has worked very closely with the Corporation of Hamilton and has received valuable input from stakeholders, Government Departments, the business community and the general public. The ideas and comments gained at meetings, via surveys and at public outreach activities have shaped the recommendations put forward in this report which will inform the objectives and policies of the new City of Hamilton Plan and help to create a more vibrant and sustainable city. 88