Architects for the proposed Bank of Bermuda/HSBC development on the site of the old Trimmingham?s property on Front Street have changed their design?s facade ? but continue to demand a seven storey building.

New plans submitted last Friday include frontings for two 50 foot tall buildings and a specialty retail shop ? replacing the ultra-modern exterior first proposed in October for 39, 41 and 43 Front Street.

When 23 objectors said the proposed building did not fit the character of Front Street, the Bank revised the plans on December 21. However, the Department of Planning felt the December plan was a highly contemporary form of architecture, inappropriate for this location in Hamilton.

?It appears that this may not be the best site in the city to accommodate the applicants needs. There are a number of other locations that may be more suitable for this form of development,? Anna Eatherly wrote for the Department of Planning on January 10.

?The Department is of the opinion that the height, scale and massing of the building does not blend in with the surrounding buildings and is not characteristic of the area.?

In Cooper & Gardner?s new design ?The Front Street elevation will now read as two distinct and traditional buildings? architect Julia van Beelen wrote the Development Applications Board. The scale and massing of the building have been reduced, Reid Street looked more traditional, the pedestrian lane was deleted along with a 30-foot modern facade, she said.

?The Front Street sequence will involve the retention of the former Trimingham?s building as before, and a new 50-foot transitional face on the east side of Front Street,? said. ?It is submitted that this revised design provides a bundle of public benefits well beyond that required by the Development Plan, and that the additional height and reduced setbacks requested in exchange for these benefits will not have an adverse impact on the design, the pedestrian environment and the amenity of the surrounding area.?

?The revisions further improve the quality of the pedestrian environment,? she said. ?The seventh storey will not have an adverse impact because of the setback (56 feet) from Front Street.

?The seventh storey is entirely acceptable given the location of the building relative to the sidewalk on Front and Reid Streets, and the Harbour,? Ms van Beelen added, concluding that the new design?s appearance was traditional and complimented the very special character of Front Street.

Government planner Anna Eatherly wrote to the Board last fall the bank?s application does not comply with height regulations and pointed out the new AS Cooper?s building on the same block was allowed to be built to seven storeys because Reid Street at that point is higher than at the western end.

An additional storey would have a negative impact on the quality of the pedestrian environment on Front Street, Reid Street and the neighbouring buildings in this very historic part of the city, she said. And she said the installation of public art did not change the fact it was a seven-storey building.

?The applicant has provided grounds for increased floor-to-floor height,? she said. ?However, the Department does not support the use of discretion in this case as these increases along with the infringements to the required setbacks and the additional storey increase the massing and scale of the building.?

The new bank would affect the skyline of the city and set a bad precedent for future development, she said.

?The ability to design a new building which sits comfortably with its surroundings in the Front Street Historic Area has already been proved in the approval of a number of other applications,? she said. ?These applications were all in much smaller sites and managed to comply with the maximum number of storeys permitted. It would be unfair to these recently approved developments and set an unacceptable precedent for future proposals within the Historic Area, if the additional storeys proposed on this proposal were supported or approved.?

A proposed walkway would feel claustrophobic and un-welcoming, she said. In conclusion, the proposed building was so non-compliant that it did not warrant the Development Application Board?s discretionary approval, she wrote.