Colonies Master Plan

What is the Intermediate Policy for the Colonies Master Plan? 
30/5/2011

 
The Master Plan for the Colonies, The process of planning the urban space of the German and Greek colonies, began three years ago by the Jerusalem municipality and the local planning committee led by architect Gabriel (Gabi) Curtis with the participation of the public led by Ginot Ha'Ir Community Council   

Parallel to the planning process a draw out campaign to stop small plans has been going on. Small plans were drawn up for single buildings and lots with no thought of the larger area and they create a new reality. A reality that could irreversibly effect the planning philosophy and the possibility to preserve important values in the urban space.

Our campaign against small plans has been very successful.
Following an appeals initiated by the community council against the plans for Hizkiyahu HaMelech 50, the National Planning Committee's board of appeals decided that plans cannot be discussed until a wide policy for the area is accepted. The committee's decision was made with the knowledge that a Master Plan for the area is being put together and therefore this postponement should not be long. After this decision all plans in the area were halted for over year  Halting plans while the Master Plans progress was staled created a huge amount of pressure (both political and legal) on the planning bodies to continue to advance plans in the area. The solution has been to set an intermediate policy that would allow the advancement of plans while protecting values of preservation until the completion of the master plan.

The core values of the intermediate policy
1. Setting out three areas of development and a preservation level for each area.
2. Setting out policy regarding height and building percents for the development areas – the building height will be a function of the area and the width of the street
3. Setting out guidelines for open space on each lot and for underground parking.
4. Setting guidelines that would help preserve the unique buildings in the space
5. Adding a permanent wrecking article that would enable wrecking a building after discussing all its preservation characteristics and its urban/community role – i.e. to wreck a building one would have to prove that it should be wrecked, and this is opposed to the situation today where to preserve a building one must show that it is worthy to be preserved.

the initial results of the intermediate policy have already been seen in decision on Emek Refaim 48 and the plans for Hizkiyahu HaMelech 50 that are being discussed in  court, it seems that the building could be saved and many other less publicized plan are being evaluated and approved or rejected according to the policy.
We see in the decision to uphold the intermediate policy and the values it states a meaningful achievements for the residents in preservation and an acknowledgement in the importance of planning the parameters of social and community development. The intermediate policy doesn’t handle all the aspects of planning and does not hold all the information required in complex decisions
this is expressed in decisions regarding characteristic buildings in the area.

The true test of the policy will be in its ability to provide guidelines that enable the continued work while allowing for wide planning policy of the master plan that will be able to focus on questions of movement, parking and the nature of community development.