It’s too ugly!

Comissiong takes another dig at Hyatt project

More details are emerging following a series of strong objections tabled by heritage officials to the construction of the 15-storey Hyatt Centric Hotel on Bay Street, St Michael.

The 182-room development with 19 private residences is to be built approximately 172 feet, three inches high or 52,500 square metres, making it the tallest and also, according to outspoken attorney-at-law and social activist David Comissiong, the most “disproportionately large, domineering, ugly, out of character structure” in the heart of what was previously designated a UNESCO Heritage Site.

An illustration of the proposed Hyatt Hotel placed within the context of the Bay Street environment. (inset) David Comissiong

It is his latest dig at businessman Mark Maloney who is the man behind Vision Developments Inc. — local developers of the controversial luxury resort. Comissiong had previously brought action in the law courts challenging the Hyatt development on several grounds, including that the requisite environmental impact assessment (EIA) was not carried out and that no town hall meetings were held with the public.

With a ruling still pending on the matter, Barbados TODAY has obtained copies of a April, 2016 memo written by the Chief Town Planner Mark Cummins to the Permanent Secretary (Defence and Security) in the Prime Minister’s Office, in which Cummins clearly spelt out the objections of the Barbados National Trust (BNT) and the Barbados Museum & Historical Society (BM&HS) to the proposed development.

The memo also revealed that in addition to the multi-storey hotel, the original proposal submitted on March 30, 2015, was also for the construction of a pier, three restaurants, a bar, pool and spa.

However, by correspondence dated December 18, 2015, the agent for the developers informed the Chief Town Planner that the proposed offshore structures should be deleted from the present application, as it was their intention to re-apply for these structures at a later date.

This has however not served to quell the raging controversy surrounding the US$100 million development, with the BNT expressing “grave concern” about the
negative impact a building of this size, height and design will have on the UNESCO Heritage site of Historic Bridgetown and its Garrison.

“There are concerns about the effect that such an intervention would have on our inscription and the sustainability of our status and accreditation,” the Trust was quoted by the Town Planner as saying.

Following a heritage impact assessment (HIA), which was carried out by the developers, the BNT further contended that the building was “neither attractive nor appropriate for the site in that its scale overshadows all other buildings within the designated heritage area, and the design will appear as a huge square block from all approaches”.

It also raised concern that such a major intervention will have a serious visual impact on the skyline of the entire heritage site.

“This is not therefore just a localized issue because it will dominate the length and breath of the historic landscape which was the basis on which the World Heritage Status was awarded.

“Furthermore, the erection of such a building within the boundaries of the designated heritage site will create a precedent for the construction of other intrusive building types within the zone,” the Trust said, while suggesting that there was still room for compromise and adaptation of the plans to create “a more integrated architectural style and density”.

The BM&HS also took issue with the suggestion in the HIA that the proposed building would have no discernable impact on the “original footprint of the existing street layout.

“Whilst this statement is correct, it omits a consideration of the visual impact of the 15-storey hotel and four storey event facility in relation to the OUV [outstanding universal value] of the site,” it said, while calling for further assessments to be done.

The museum also voiced objection to the construction of a 21-foot bridge over Highway 7 at Lower Bay Street, complaining that it would significantly alter the streetscape, layout and visual impact of the historic property.

However, the Ministry of Transport and Works said it had no objection in principle to the Hyatt project, although it called on the applicant to ensure that the road reserve was kept clear to enhance visibility. It also requested that the pedestrian bridge crossing Highway 7 be constructed at a minimum height of six metres above the roadway and that proposed footpaths be appropriately ramped to facilitate access by the physically challenged.

17 Responses to It’s too ugly!

  1. Lisa Moore
    Lisa Moore June 30, 2017 at 10:30 pm

    Should I ? I think I’ll pass

    Reply
  2. Alex Alleyne June 30, 2017 at 10:39 pm

    Why don’t you go up to DOVER BEACH and really do something for BIM.
    When done , write on CRICKET, stick to what you good at…..SPORT.

    Reply
  3. Jennifer June 30, 2017 at 11:05 pm

    David boy this high habitation sure looks like a GOLIATH. It sure distorts our long treasured little England look, that so much of us hold so dear to our hearts. But then again……………….
    Now why would these environmental rapist look for validation from a people via town hall meetings. They never had that level of respect before to do this and our superficial yokers helped to ensure that they never gave that respect by gluing themselves onto them and becoming confederate and instead played the minuscule role and sought their validation. We have to be the only people on this planet who have power and does not want or know how to use it. We are the only people who keep cutting our legs off and putting them back on like a prosthesis. We the people who have become occupiers standing in the MAJORITY have become the MINORITY in POWer scavenging for the crumbs thanks to our yokers. From the global changes and coastal concerns from various governments who are well informed, please hurry up and build/finish this “skyliner”.

    Reply
  4. Karlos June 30, 2017 at 11:19 pm

    This rendering looks like a typical low rental apartment building that ca be found anywhere in North America or elsewhere. Shall we say very ugly and lacking in vision and sensory appeal.l

    Reply
  5. Sunshine Sunny Shine July 1, 2017 at 2:28 am

    For the sake of the mighty Tourist Dollar and to satisfy the mad appetite of an idiotic Prime Minister who he is yet to establish a legacy worth its weight in salt, the government of Barbados is willing to foist on the People of Barbados, yet another not to well thought out project, simiiar to the Cahill madness – Project Hyaaaatt woshing bing dumdey dahhh.

    Reply
  6. Rumboy July 1, 2017 at 4:50 am

    Stop opposing growth and development for Barbados. If left to some people Barbados would have no development or progress, no roads , schools, waste to energy plants, airports -one in St. Lucy please, no cement plant or St
    John polyclinic or beach facilities of any kind any where. We really need to ignore some people and move on not ignore them and do nothing. It is good that we have “pepull’ with Vision

    Reply
  7. Roger Headley July 1, 2017 at 5:48 am

    For those living within x radius of this monster – no privacy in yuh backyard and yuh know we bajans love we privacy since in 2017 some uh we still got pit toilets.

    Reply
  8. Carson C Cadogan July 1, 2017 at 6:12 am

    I am sure that the project is not as UGLY as Comissiong.

    Reply
  9. Saga Boy July 1, 2017 at 7:06 am

    It only a matter of time before that project materialises. There were objections to the ABC Highway as well. These projects always attract negative persons like David.

    Time to get this show on the road. Even the City MP is on board.

    I wonder how he would function in the countries so dear to his heart like Cuba and Venezuela?

    Reply
    • Sunshine Sunny Shine July 1, 2017 at 7:54 am

      Oh shut your P-Hole! After the nonsense that this administration set about doing in the name of so call good governance you think they had a right going down a wrong road to approve the without the necessary impact and feasibility studies? You mean all for the sake of a shytie party, string puppets like you and the idiot Carson Cadogan would sell you all souls? You people are pathetic and silly is tail hole.

      Reply
      • Carson C Cadogan July 1, 2017 at 2:38 pm

        The only one pathetic is you. And stupid as the day is long.

        Reply
  10. DE July 1, 2017 at 9:47 am

    I do not know why the Barbadian people do not learn sense. No wonder why there is the saying “Bajans have short memories”.
    We sit down and watch our island getting short change with a lot of these project and we continue to get fool by our authorities. They go in to partnership with a lot of these developers, hide all the information from the public, crash on the way down because they get lost and trick in the deal and the public is to accept the out come. Prevention is better than cure my friends. Look at the amount of project that gone down the drain and left by the wayside to die, money dead. This island was doing and going well, but from the time the authorities start jumping on every bandwagon with their eyes shut we start to become the depth of the sea.

    Reply
  11. Sam Clarke July 1, 2017 at 1:01 pm

    This is the most ugly design that i have ever seen in Barbados, but for the Eagle Hall Market. Maybe the same architect did this as well.
    This is a a pathetic piece of architecture that will be gracing Bridgetown. On this prominent piece of real estate , this ugly piece of architecture MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO BE BUILT.
    Why can there be architecture the likes of the Hyatt in Dubai, Miami and other parts of the world with Beauty?

    To give up this landmark location to this decrepit design, must never be allowed .
    Than you David for fighting for what is our right.

    Reply
  12. Saga Boy July 1, 2017 at 1:23 pm

    Sunshine you are pure emotions. The Town Planning Dept did their job. All that was required was completed. This is just a method of stalling a good project for the betterment of the country. Do you think an impact study will provide new information?

    Reply
  13. Greengiant July 1, 2017 at 1:28 pm

    If in my opinion David Comissiong was ugly in comparison to other lawyers in Barbados would I have a right to petition his presence in the law courts? Just asking.

    I wonder what is the real issue with this project for David, we are now hearing how ugly it is. While I can honestly remember asking during interschool sports back in the 70’s. Who is this boney red boy running distance for Harrison’s College, and in the early 80’s saying how hard faced and ugly he was while we were students on campus at the Eyrie. This I must admit was my only fault with him, and this never gave me the right to disrupt anything he was aiming to acheive.

    So David, just because the esthetics may not be pleasing to your eye doesn’t give you the right to disrupt the financial rewards of our nation and needy Barbadians. It’ time you butt out, take a trip to Maxwell beach and see if the adjustments being made there equates to beach encroachment or if the water course had been affected to the detriment of locals. That’s an issue heading into the rainy season. Maybe you or one of your partners in arms are on the payrol of the foreign investor there though. Just a thought.

    Reply
  14. Alex Alleyne July 2, 2017 at 10:25 am

    WOW, something POSITIVE for a change coming from Commie on the BEACH issue. Still need to see your face on the shores at DOVER now you are interested.
    I WILL STAY TUNED.

    Reply
  15. L King July 4, 2017 at 4:29 pm

    @Greenpoint and Carson and Rumboy

    If you want this why don’t you join with Maloney pack your bags and get the hell out off the island: you lot are as bad as slave owners that raped the women and beat the men to near death – and what for?

    Power, control and financial greed.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *