Open mike: Concrete jungle

Last week the Fairmont Southampton Princess announced plans for a major redevelopment. 91 new "golf villas" will be built and made available for fractional purchase and vacation rental, while the existing golf course will lose half of its 18 holes to a new Golf Academy and tennis courts.

Bill Cook is concerned about the loss of green space:

“What worries me most is the possibility that existing golf courses can be used to erect condominiums and other town house buildings. Golf courses preserve open space and when viewed from the air, it shows what a valuable role they play in creating a more pleasant living environment.

There should be in my opinion, strict rules that govern the use of such open green land, and I do not think that is the case at present.”

Tiger Bay wonders about the impact of making the new residences available as vacation rentals:

“Will these houses have car rights, like the ones at Castle Harbour? Sustainable development anyone?

Government of course will love the idea: big tax base increase and the ability to pretend it improves tourism.

How are golf courses zoned?

Bermuda concrete jungle.”

It's the emasculation of the golf course that disappoints me. The Southampton Princess and St. George's are the only 18-hole courses short enough for a golfer as bad as me to hack his way round. There's already talk of St. George's being redeveloped as a "championship course". Where will us amateurs play if the course at the Princess disappears too?

Comments

[Dave on 08.03.06 at 17:50]

I dont think the school will bring crowds of people to the island but it will bring a few. And any gain is better than none. People who stay at the princess now dont come to play golf, if the school is built some will come for the golf school and the island experience. If they actually do go along with this i think the gvmnt needs to step in and say that the remaining land cannot be touched (houses built upon) or something along those lines. I agree that we need to keep what we got, but some change is needed. However, Riddell's Bay has/will/has been in talks about selling land on the course which isnt being used..again for condo. If this trend seems to continue some change will be needed...

[Bill Cook on 08.03.06 at 18:18]

I think a lot of us old timers who led a more simple life before Bermuda became overcrowded and polluted with cars etc.
A big deal was to have a party on the beach at night on weekends, roasting sausages and drinking cold beer playing our guitars etc.

Now we have become invaded with these humongous corporations, who take our banks, rape the land, by seducing the weak minded and greedy so destroying the quality of life for those we leave behind when we say goodbye.

Progress is not spelt with an F !

If they are going to screw us at least have the good manners to kiss us on the lips first !

[SmokingGun on 08.03.06 at 18:32]

Bill - More and more I've tended to think our country's motto should be "Quo Fatal Ferunt".

Much like "They came, they saw, they destroyed."

[stuart J Hayward on 08.03.06 at 18:52]

Chris Broadhurst writes:
"We need to build upwards, not outwards NOW!"

NoVote writes:
"Only one thing to say: Build Up,Up,Up,Up,Up...."

A genuine question: If building UP hasn't resolved the housing problems in every big city from New York to Hong Kong, why should WE view it as a solution?

[Phil on 08.03.06 at 18:57]

Even if it hasn't resolved the housing problems there, just think how much worse they would be if in place of every apartment block there was a cottage.

[tilti on 08.03.06 at 18:57]

Stuart, but building up has aided in the housing crisis in both of those cities. It may stil be difficult to aquire a great house in NY, but there is something that hits at almost every price range. Just imagine what the cost of housing there would be without the high rises.

[stuart J Hayward on 08.03.06 at 19:05]

Limey writes:
"Even if it hasn't resolved the housing problems there, just think how much worse they would be if in place of every apartment block there was a cottage."

For perspective, think how much worse it would be HERE if in place of every cottage there was an apartment block. I don't think Bermuda ought to be looking to New York or virtually any other place on the planet as a model for our future.

[SmokingGun on 08.03.06 at 19:07]

Stuart - with all due respect, in very simplistic terms, if the average house in Bermuda had just one more floor our housing issue would be moot and it really wouldn't make the island look that much different. However, the real point is that it does make sense to have a little bit of density in the form of taller buildings to the tune of 8 to 10 stories. I certainly wouldn't consider we'll ever have to worry about being a Hong Kong or New York city.

I just happen to have been in New York over the week-end and I can never get over the fact that at any given time close to 8 million people are walking around over my head.

[stuart J Hayward on 08.03.06 at 19:07]

tilti writes:
"Just imagine what the cost of housing there would be without the high rises"

Just imagine what the quality of life will be here with high rises. Finding ways to pack more people into this Island is not a sustainable solution.

[Bill Cook on 08.03.06 at 19:09]

Comparing Bermuda to either NY or HK is unrealistic statistically.

Manhattan is exactly same size as Bermuda but there are more people living on 5th Ave than live in Bermuda,but even so still has Central Park and Van Courtland park etc.

In the future Bermuda will not have the luxury of choice regarding building up, in my opinion.

Well designed high rise buildings that are environmentally friendly utilisisg solar energy etc hurricane proof with state of the art technology and having nurseries for children and facilities for seniors is possible.

The resulting preservation of land for trees lawns and playgrounds etc would be of great benefit.

We have never really had forward planning we merely react to emergencies which is very harmful long term.

[SmokingGun on 08.03.06 at 19:10]

"Finding ways to pack more people into this Island is not a sustainable solution."

Well I'm absolutely with you there.

[stuart J Hayward on 08.03.06 at 19:23]

SmokingGun writes:
"in very simplistic terms, if the average house in Bermuda had just one more floor our housing issue would be moot"

However, our water supply issue would be exacerbated, as would our liquid and solid waste issues, aso.

"... and it really wouldn't make the island look that much different."

Perhaps not on Google; but it would in the number of vehicles entering our roads in the mornings, the number of trips of waste trucks,,

"However, the real point is that it does make sense to have a little bit of density in the form of taller buildings to the tune of 8 to 10 stories. I certainly wouldn't consider we'll ever have to worry about being a Hong Kong or New York city."

Ahhh, but don't you see, it's always a little more and a little more. New York and Hong Kong didn't get to where they are overnight, or by design. Incrementally they crept up on themselves. We never intended that Hamilton would have to have traffic lights, or Front Street four lanes (that still get clogged), or the Harbours and Bays become marine parking lots. These things occurred a little bit at a time. Of course we could adjust all facets of our environment (physical, social, economic, cultural, political, psychological...) to accommodate more people — this is what New York et al have done. But some of us like Bermuda — we couldn't have invented this exquisitely beautiful place — and want not to squander it into just another high-rise habitat. Let's not settle for what others have done.

[Bill Cook on 08.03.06 at 19:41]

The technology already exists to reduce waste to a form of powder and will soon be used in mega cruise ships etc

The choice will be to have small houses on a little plot of land as we continue to fail to plan ahead and keep increasing the need for mor and more money to run our increasingly inept system instead of finding ways to reduce the need of impractical growth,

We can then all join hands and meditate or pray for a miracle per your belief that somehow it will all work out and our beauty will be immortal.

Given the choice for the same number of inhabitants to be housed in little homes or in large well thought out complexes thus preserving open space would seem easy as if same units were in some ways self contained nurseries etc travel on our overcrowded roads would be reduced also.

[observor on 08.03.06 at 20:16]

Finding ways to pack more people into this Island is not a sustainable solution

Stuart, are you suggesting that Bermuda should maintain its current human stock? If so, in the absence of other significant contributors to our economic pie, how do we address growth in IB and the corresponding opportunities presented Bermudians?

[Phil on 08.03.06 at 21:53]

Stuart

What's so bad about Hong Kong anyway?

The skyscrapers are only confined to a small part of the territory. In the rest, the houses are small and spread out and there's a hell of a lot of great hiking country.

Bermuda should preserve its cottages and green space in the outlying parishes. But let's build up in Hamilton.

[silencedogood on 08.03.06 at 22:01]

I agree with Limey. Building up in certain locals eases the pressure on outlying greenspace. Building in hamilton, which is "urban" (for bermuda at least) already might also reduce the need for cars and other offending articles of civilization.

Unless people leave or die this problem will arrive at some point so better to plan for it.

I think NY brownstones are much more attractive than certain densely populated areas of bermuda where there is no yard right now and everyone lives on top of everyone else.

[stuart J Hayward on 09.03.06 at 11:34]

Bill Cook writes:
"We can then all join hands and meditate or pray for a miracle per your belief that somehow it will all work out and our beauty will be immortal."

I don't EVER recall saying or even suggesting I believed that "somehow it will all work out..." You disrespect me and the forum to put that out there.

[Bill Cook on 09.03.06 at 11:43]

Stuart,,
I meant you can meditate or pray acc to the type of belief one follows not referring to YOU personally.

Sorry if I gave that impression.

Maytbe I should have said "one can" meditate or pray acc to their type of belief.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 09.03.06 at 11:52]

Observer,

Are you saying that chasing the dollars is more important than quality of life?

[Tiger Bay on 09.03.06 at 12:10]

Today's news is that John Jefferis wants to build 55 condos in two eight-storey buildings on the site of the tennis courts of Coco Reef.

See here: http://tinyurl.com/z7tnr

Let's get that straight: eight story buildings less than 100 yards from the shoreline. By comparison, the Elbow Beach hotel is only 5 stories. WTF??!!

That valley is taking licks: Elbow is just finishing a huge condo complex (previously woodland) overlooking the site and Gilbert Lope's proposed 90 units are also nearby.

[stuart J Hayward on 09.03.06 at 12:13]

observor writes:
"Stuart, are you suggesting that Bermuda should maintain its current human stock? If so, in the absence of other significant contributors to our economic pie, how do we address growth in IB and the corresponding opportunities presented Bermudians?

Maintaining, or better reducing, Bermuda's "current human stock" isn't practicable though ultimately desirable. Unfortunately, we have moved from an era when the paradigm was that the economy served people. We now believe that people serve the economy and are reduced to sacrificing virtually every facet of our lives to the "economic pie". As a result, we think of traffic congestion, waste inceration, speedway roads, demand-driven housing crises, increasing frequency and intensity of violence (need I go on) as normal, inevitable, commonplace. The financial "oportunities" for Bermudians (and others, by the way) are fraught with liabilities, few of which are posted as part of the "opportunity" deal.

Part of the task of the Sustainable Develompent Initiative will be to link the benefits and penalties so we at least know what we're bargaining for when we give free rein to IB growth.

[stuart J Hayward on 09.03.06 at 12:42]

Limey writes:
"Bermuda should preserve its cottages and green space in the outlying parishes. But let's build up in Hamilton."

Based on your assessment, Limey, (What's so bad about Hong Kong anyway) I may have erred in citing Hong Kong as an example to be avoided. My point was and is that the combined package of friendly people, tranquil life, pristine beaches and bays, and so on, that makes Bermuda unique, is worth preserving beyond the short term vision of financial captains for whom the skyscraper visage and mentality is the norm. I want to resist Bermuda becoming just another stop on a globalised economic tramway.

Building UP merely to accommodate an economy-driven expanding population is reactionary. We deserve better.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 09.03.06 at 13:00]

Stuart,

I fully agree with you. Bermud ais one of the most beautiful places on earth and I do not want the aesthetics of my country destroyed in the name of the "almighty dollar".

Bermuda's existing limitation of height of buildings is by design and while I do not disagree with some alterations to the existing height restriction I believe we need to be very careful so that we do not change to overall appearance and uniqueness of Bermuda.

[SmokingGun on 09.03.06 at 13:03]

55 Condos at Coco Reef?

My prediction is that in 10 years time Bermuda will be one of the most over-run time-share (call it what you will) locations in the world. There will not be enough natural infrastructure to make it the destination of choice and it will be too crowded with people who will save money by eating in. Bermuda can expect to have a significant portion of it's indigenous people simply become indigent at the expense of a few who happen to have the inside track with today's bunch of cowboys.

So the Government had better start building some cheap subsidized apartments to start renting out.

[Phil on 09.03.06 at 13:15]

Stuart

I agree that we shouldn't put skyscrapers up simply for the sake of it.

But as others have pointed out, building up could actually be environmentally beneficial to Bermuda (for example, by reducing the traffic on the roads and congestion on the buses because more people live within walking distance of their place of work). Building up in Hamilton will make it easier for us to preserve the rest of the Island.

I should stress that I'm mainly talking about the need to build high-rise apartment buildings in Hamilton. I'm opposed to the idea of high-rise office blocks, as I don't see that they offer the same benefits.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 09.03.06 at 13:24]

Limey,

I don't know if those arguments about the cars and buses are accurate. The only times you get any mass use on the roads is mornign rush hour and evening rush hour. During the day most of the vehicles are parked and in many instances the vehicles on the roads during the day are commercial. Regarding buses, the day to day use of buses under the existing bus schedules will not change, the buses still need to operate on the routes they currently operate, as they are there for the convenience of those using public transportation.

Also, look around the major cities of the world and the amount of pollution that is generated.

[tilti on 09.03.06 at 14:10]

Guilden, I think Limey's point was that if more people lived within a 5-minute walk of their office, they would leave teh cars at home and walk or ride a bike there. Sound crazy? that's what happens in Amsterdam and it's great.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 09.03.06 at 14:44]

Tilti,

You are missing my point. Most of the auto pollution in Bermuda is not being caused by private vehicles as most are already parked most of the day.

More peope living within the city will not reduce the use of the roads from commercial vehicles nor will it reduce the use of the roads for buses. There will still be a bus leaving Hamilton every 15 minutes travelling to St. George, for example.

Therefore, the reduced pollution is not a valid argument. That is all I am saying.

[Raptor on 09.03.06 at 15:11]

How about getting buses that run clean? There are lots of them in other countries. In the U.S. they say "CNG" on the back (clean natural gas--?), and they are very pleasant to drive behind. Bermuda has incredible air pollution on the roads.

[thisgrassman on 09.03.06 at 15:34]

You are missing my point. Most of the auto pollution in Bermuda is not being caused by private vehicles as most are already parked most of the day.

Posted by Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 09.03.06 at 14:44

Spoken like a true Bermudian. I am sorry Guilden but our obsession with the car really does blind us to the facts.

You mean to tell me the twice daily nonsense of
the "rushhour" to get to work in Hamilton by car is not damaging the environment? A bus is inherently more efficient transporting people - both in energy used and emissions produced.

I challenge anyone to do an informal survey on cars driven into and from town during the rushhour and I will bet nearly 50% of those are only occupied by the driver. Any country serious about sustainability would not tolerate such gross waste

[Chris Broadhurst on 09.03.06 at 15:49]

"If building UP hasn't resolved the housing problems in every big city from New York to Hong Kong, why should WE view it as a solution?

Posted by stuart J Hayward on 08.03.06 at 18:52 "

Stuart,

My thought in my original post was that we can either continue to build out or start to build up.

If we build out, we will then have to build up when we totally run out of land.

Building up now would seem to be the lessor of the two evils IMHO.

CB

[Phil on 09.03.06 at 17:59]

Guilden

I was not referring to pollution in my comments. I was referring to the number of people on the buses (the express bus from St. George's in a morning is often full before it even leaves the town), and the congestion on the roads.

It stands to reason that the more people that live in Hamilton, the less the overcrowding on the buses and congestion on the roads will be during rush hour.

[Zoom on 09.03.06 at 18:14]

WTF is the deal with those HUGE poles on the Warwick skyline? Is that at Belmont or Warwick Workmans? HIDEOUS!!!!! How does something like that get approved?!!!!

[RedOnion on 09.03.06 at 19:10]

I saw those poles today, they are on the Belmont property, just to the east of the main entrance on Middle Road. I have no idea what they are for, but from the spacing and overall size it might be a tennis court lighting system or something similar.

This will be a serious eyesore, correct that, it already is an eyesore.

[SmokingGun on 09.03.06 at 19:22]

Golf Driving Range?

[RedOnion on 09.03.06 at 19:31]

Smoke, only for a putter or wedge. It seems to only be about 100 feet long or thereabouts.

[Tiger Bay on 09.03.06 at 19:34]

Just makes me depressed. What an amazing piece of ugliness to inflict on all of us.

Shame on Belmont and shame on Planning.

The Planning law seems to weigh down on small homeowners in so many ways ... but big developers and the true atrocities have total carte blanche.

[SmokingGun on 09.03.06 at 19:35]

Must be that short game thing we've all got to start learning. Mind you it's fun to see Tiger out drive most people with just his putter.

[SmokingGun on 09.03.06 at 19:39]

"but big developers and the true atrocities have total carte blanche."

Posted by Tiger Bay on 09.03.06 at 19:34

Apparently from today's article on CocoReef in the RG they say land designated for tourism has no height restrictions. And apparently no restrictions on taste.

[Earth First on 09.03.06 at 19:45]

This government talks about sustainable development while overseeing the most rapid desecration of Bermuda's landscape since Fort Bell.

[Tiger Bay on 09.03.06 at 19:50]

"they say land designated for tourism has no height restrictions"

Tourism is the fairytale loophole that Belmont, Castle Harbour, Fairmont, and now LocoReef are driving through ... these are not tourism developments, they are condos for sale.

[SmokingGun on 09.03.06 at 20:01]

Tiger Bay - ain't that the exact truth. Eventually we will be over-run by tourists and visitors not of our choice and totally out of our control. I guess no-one cares if we become a mini Daytona Beach. Each of these developments will add so much pressure on our fragile infrastructure. But hey, make hay whilst the sun shines......

[Tiger Bay on 09.03.06 at 20:12]

Politics.bm: "How on earth did Belmont get approval to post those huge poles?"

Tiger Bay: "They told Alex Scott they were antennas for his TV station."

[Bill Cook on 10.03.06 at 08:12]

In Adrian Robsons sports commentary this morning in the RG he described vey well in my opinion the situation with the proposed development of the 145 units on the par 3 golf course in SPH.

Ironic that a sports reporter cares more than our environmentalists about preservation as all we hear is silence, hopefully soon to be broken.

Condomania is the new buzz word.

[Triforce on 10.03.06 at 12:49]

"I challenge anyone to do an informal survey on cars driven into and from town during the rushhour and I will bet nearly 50% of those are only occupied by the driver. Any country serious about sustainability would not tolerate such gross waste"

Over 50%, easily. But, people are not going to give up their car to use public transport that costs $4 for one ride or $55 a month and only offers late service along North Shore to the east and Middle Road to the west, even if they have to deal with $8-a-day parking. There's not enough disincentive to driving. But that's another topic.

I'm just tired of this crazy townhouse theme that's become popular. I know it's most profitable to do that, but I'd like to think that something reasonable can be achieved with a series of small one or two bed apartment complexes with no frills in the Hamilton area under $2K a month?

"Golf villas" just won't do it.

[Zoom on 13.03.06 at 21:20]

Those 100 foot high nets at Belmont are THE MOST UGLY THINGS I HAVE EVER SEEN. I officially hate golf.

Thanks for making a pigsass out of the skyline Belmont. Planning: what were you thinking?

[SmokingGun on 15.03.06 at 16:47]

Hilton Grand Vacations at Ariel Sands.

200 plus more condo's going up. No wonder Mike showed up at the JetBlue bash.

All I can say is there had better be a Catherine Zeta look-a-like contest involved somehwere.

[Amin Swan on 17.03.06 at 18:42]

The Hilton project are actually not condos per say, these Vacation Villas are a new trend in Hotel operations, I'll tell you that the Hilton name is a golden egg. As I mentioned in previous posts, many brand name companies have millions of loyal customers, who when planning vacations will first look for what they know, and Hilton will indeed guarantee occupancy thought the year. This is a great move for Bermuda.

[stuart J Hayward on 18.03.06 at 12:30]

Bill Cook writes:
"Ironic that a sports reporter cares more than our environmentalists about preservation as all we hear is silence, hopefully soon to be broken"

Bill, as one of those "environmentalists" you condemn for their silence, I must protest. First, if we were to comment publicly an everything all the time, we would wear our voices out (and your ears). In other words, some of us choose our battles and our battlefields.

Perhaps more importantly, it an easy and perhaps cheap shot to criticise anyone for what they didn't do. In my own life, despite the myriad of things I actually get done there are countless ones I don't. On any given day I could be targeted for nto reading this or that publication, not responding to this or that outrage, not polishing my shoes or trimming my moustache. I hope you see my point. I think it is sometimes unfair to condem someone else's failure to match up to our expectations.

As for us environmentalists (please note: I am not authorised to speak for any of them) we need all the encouragement you can muster — most of us are rank amateurs.

[Bill Cook on 21.03.06 at 08:43]

It was interesting to note that with regard to the plans for turning the Ariel Sands property into a Hilton vacation project, that Michael Douglas indicated this would actually create an increase in the Green area by demolishing the cottages and consolidating the units in clusters how high I do not yet know.

It would be interesting to see the plans as it is a fairly flat area and height may be limited so it will be interesting to see how they will do this but it is encouraging that Mr Douglas as a Bermudian is sensitive to the problems we face it seems.