Fresh Westend sketches show potential placement of units
A Bermudian architect was enlisted to draw sketches that would help people visualise how buildings proposed for the Fairmont Southampton could be incorporated into their surroundings.
Colin Campbell, a managing director of OBMI Bermuda, was taken on by Westend Properties Ltd, which has requested a special development order for in-principle permission to add up to 250 tourism and residential units at the resort.
The hotel developer said in an advertisement published in The Royal Gazette yesterday that full architectural renderings would be required when a planning application for development — a DAP1 — is submitted in the event that the SDO is approved.
Westend Properties added that Mr Campbell was engaged “in the meantime … to create some preliminary sketches to better visualise the new units in the context of the surrounding landscape”.
A statement from the architect added: “These images are a first draft of structures which meet the needs of travellers while being evocative of Bermuda.
“More and more, people are travelling and looking for authenticity.
“Bermuda has maintained its look and feel as an authentic destination for years, and it makes sense for the developers to apply the best of Bermuda’s architectural language to this project, reminding visitors that they’re in Bermuda and nowhere else.”
The images included in the advert showed views from South Road that indicated how the two, three and four-storey units might look in the context of their environment.
Another offered a perspective from along Harbour View Drive near the entry to the hotel.
The notice also included “a letter in response to the critics” where Westend took issue with several statements about the SDO application contained in an advert that ran this week.
An advert published on Tuesday was stamped by the Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce, the Bermuda National Trust and the Bermuda Audubon Society.
It claimed that Gencom, the Miami-based investment firm of which Westend is an affiliate, “could have already started the long-overdue renovation of the hotel and proceeded with the 2009 SDO, which allows 130 additional units”.
The advert said many of the 250 units in the latest proposal would be built “on protected green space” and that the plan represented “a massive overdevelopment of the land”.
It added: “The high-density development model is wrong for Bermuda, and ongoing construction for decades will damage the viability of the hotel.
“The site’s best tourism asset — its world-class golf course — will be modified and downgraded, with its greens surrounded by multistorey condos.”
The advert highlighted tax concessions estimated at between $121 million and $133 million over 15 years and a government guarantee of up to $75 million. It claimed the developer had “failed to prove the economic benefit to Bermuda and Bermudians”.
Westend said in its open letter yesterday that none of the land where it proposed to build units was “protected green space”, adding: “The property is zoned for tourism, residential and recreational use; at this point, none of it is considered protected land.”
Its advert added that the Turtle Hill Golf Club “will not be ‘downgraded’ but will remain the world-class, 18-hole, par-three” course loved by Bermudians and tourists.
The statement claimed that construction will be carried out thoughtfully and that economic gains related to the development would be significant.
It added: “Through this project, the Fairmont Southampton is poised to become the largest private employer on the island.”
A statement from BEST, the Bermuda National Trust and the Bermuda Audubon Society yesterday — on the eve of the deadline for submissions in response to the SDO request — said the charities were “baffled” by the claim that none of the land proposed for the construction of units was protected green space.
It added: “If that were true, there would be no need for a special development order at all; they could simply put in a regular planning application for the development.
“The fact is that five acres on which they propose to build units is green space that is zoned Recreational, which is a Conservation Base Zone that is protected from residential and tourism development.”
The organisations said a map in the advert that showed where a change of zoning was sought was “inaccurate and misleading” and failed to include two additional areas.
They added: “If Gencom provides misinformation on something so basic and easily checked, how can we be sure that the other information it provides is correct, including its calculations of economic benefit and the argued necessity to build so many units for a viable tourism product?”
The charities believed that planned reconfigurations to the golf course would “absolutely change the experience” of playing there.
They added: “If Gencom is really in the business of creating a first-class tourism product why would it risk tinkering with the one first-class asset it already has?
“It only makes sense if the real motivation is maximising profits for investors.”
The statement said: “The environmental lobby was accused of fearmongering and exaggeration when we fought the SDO for Tucker’s Point in 2011. But many Bermudians were appalled at the recent development at Shark Hole on Harrington Sound Road, where a narrow strip of coastline has been carved up to build a large private house for an overseas owner.
“That was protected coastal reserve given away for development in the 2011 SDO.”
It added: “We all want to see the Fairmont Southampton hotel reopened and a thriving and successful year-round resort on the property.
“We are not saying no to any new development, just that the developer should be limited to the 130 units approved in the 2009 SDO.”
Westend was invited yesterday to comment on the charities’ statement, but the company was unable to provide a response by press time.
The deadline for representations and objections in respect of the SDO application is today.
• To see copies of the adverts and statement in full, see “Related Media”
Need to
Know
2. Please respect the use of this community forum and its users.
3. Any poster that insults, threatens or verbally abuses another member, uses defamatory language, or deliberately disrupts discussions will be banned.
4. Users who violate the Terms of Service or any commenting rules will be banned.
5. Please stay on topic. "Trolling" to incite emotional responses and disrupt conversations will be deleted.
6. To understand further what is and isn't allowed and the actions we may take, please read our Terms of Service
