Bayers Road Widening

[worldlyhaligonian]

I have to say this again, but a major reason for the widening help public transportation. The buses currently don't operate as fast (i.e. traffic is so heavy they barely move and obstruct other traffic as well, trapping people behind them). Active transportation could be built into this also. Don't buy into the blanket statements of Watts and company. This was planned for and now can be approached in a modern fashion with dedicated bus lanes and even bike lanes if done properly (i.e. inside of the sidewalk). Painting bike lanes is not appropriate any time, ever.

In terms of walkability, I usually walk behind... not on Bayers Rd. I bet alot of you anti-widening people have never even been in the pubs before... there could be bike paths installed. Unfortunately there are social problems back behind there and many of you would feel uncomfortable walking through there at night.

This is not as a big deal as the opponents are making it out to be. In fact, for the city to function like a modern european city... its required. This ain't downtown and flows need to be sorted.

If you think there won't be some sort of "car" in the future... you are crazy. Even in the places with the availability of great public transportation, cars are owned by people. I'm not saying they have to be powered by oil.

Given that Halifax's population continues to grow, this is an important piece of infrastructure going forward.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I think you're right.

Nearly everyone I know around my age (people in their 20s) is choosing non-suburban living options -- even my peers who have children. This is partly due to financial restrictions (it's cheaper to own a condo and be near large parks than it is to settle down in the suburbs).

Interestingly enough, my friends who have strongly considered the 'burbs ultimately chose against them because, in their opinion, that sort of lifestyle is 'greedy'. Expecting the government to provide perfect roads, with perfect police and fire protection, near perfect schools and perfect hospitals (and there had better not be long waiting times!!) just so you can live far away from the masses and have your own little castle in the middle of what was once lush forest...is pretty damn greedy; I agree.

Interesting line of thinking. What do the numbers say? How much more expensive is it to live in the suburbs than to live downtown, and where do the increased costs come from?

I don't really get the 'greedy' conclusion, but you're entitled to your opinion. However, you make it sound like people in the suburbs don't pay taxes, like they are getting all these government services for free...

You also make the assumption that everybody who lives outside of the downtown works downtown, also not true. Nor do they all live in "castles". There are lots of "castles" on the peninsula (take a walk through the south end sometime) - are you suggesting that these 'greedy' people should donate their land so their houses could be torn down to build skyscrapers?

It seems to me like many people want to put others into pigeonholes and project those who don't prescribe to their exact beliefs and preferences as being "bad". I wish we could all try harder to accept one another and see things from their point of view so we could all develop a greater understanding. I think there's room for all of us in this great city.

Thankfully, there are people out there with vision and who strive for a greater understanding of the entire situation to try to arrive at a goal that works for everybody. This article from the Herald, in my opinion, is an indication of such thinking:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/busines...or-pedestrians

Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't, but creative thinking which accepts that people will never always want to live the same lives as others is the type of thinking that will arrive at the greatest solutions (IMHO).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't really get the 'greedy' conclusion, but you're entitled to your opinion. However, you make it sound like people in the suburbs don't pay taxes, like they are getting all these government services for free...

This report has a bunch of interesting information on this question: http://strategicurbanpartnership.com...s-approved.pdf

The reality is that, under HRM's property tax system, there's little relationship between the cost to provide services and taxes paid. Suburban residential property owners pay the lowest taxes (lowest mill rate and lower assessments), while commercial property owners pay much higher rates that subsidize residents. In my experience, few suburban homeowners are aware of this subsidy.

Here's a breakdown from the report. The only thing that made this possible is that HRM is maybe 5% Kingswood type developments subsidized on the backs of a much larger urban and commercial tax base. If that were to go up to 50%, the city would have chronic problems paying for its services and infrastructure. This style of development simply isn't a viable long-term option, unless people want their property taxes to triple.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

This report has a bunch of interesting information on this question: http://strategicurbanpartnership.com...s-approved.pdf

The reality is that, under HRM's property tax system, there's little relationship between the cost to provide services and taxes paid. Suburban residential property owners pay the lowest taxes (lowest mill rate and lower assessments), while commercial property owners pay much higher rates that subsidize residents. In my experience, few suburban homeowners are aware of this subsidy.

Here's a breakdown from the report. The only thing that made this possible is that HRM is maybe 5% Kingswood type developments subsidized on the backs of a much larger urban and commercial tax base. If that were to go up to 50%, the city would have chronic problems paying for its services and infrastructure. This style of development simply isn't a viable long-term option, unless people want their property taxes to triple.

Great information. Thanks for that!

It's an interesting document which was definitely created by a side wishing to promote an idea (which is not a bad thing, just an observation).

I didn't read over the whole 30 pages in great detail, nor am I an expert on city planning, but to me it seems like the gist of the presentation is that since property taxes are based on assessment cost rather than area quantities of the land being used, that Halifax is no longer bringing in enough tax dollars from the urban core and thus the move should be to increase residency (by both business and private dwelling) in these areas to increase the total taxes collected.

In the document you've posted, I think the fact that they are using a Kingswood-type development is interesting as they are comparing an urban environment to the extreme suburban environment (as you mentioned, in the 5% range). That being said, I would like to see numbers that more reflect what the average suburban dwelling would be (i.e. smaller "postage stamp" lots, such as in Bedford and Clayton Park West, as well as many parts of Dartmouth). I would suspect that these areas are much less subsidized than this document would make it appear.

Also, I'm curious, if the suburbs are such a drain on the city economy why did Halifax push for amalgamation into HRM when many of these outlying communities which are now being considered (by some) as "greedy" suburbs were doing fine as stand-alone communities beforehand? For example, when I lived in Dartmouth I recall that the services provided their citizens appeared to be superior to that of Halifax (road clearing and maintenance being one of the obvious ones, but water and sewer also included). It appeared that once amalgamation occurred, Dartmouth's services suffered as a result.

Bedford and Sackville seemed to be doing fine as well.

Perhaps if these communities had been left to survive on their own, then urban Halifax would have been able to thrive without the "drain" of the "greedy" suburban communities?

All in all, though, I agree that HRM should be concentrating on making improvements to the urban core that it has neglected for decades and give the people who want to live downtown the option to do so. It will benefit everybody in the long run.

[halifaxboyns]

Being a planner - this information is quite telling. In terms of ODM's comment about places like Clayton Park or Dartmouth, while the costs to service would not be as extreme as the rural example provided - it would still be high. I'd guess somewhere past the average of the two, I'd guess in the $2500 to $3000 range. Keep in mind, most of Fairview/Clayton Park still use the 40 to 50' lot frontage formula as does Dartmouth, Bedford and Sackville.

So while it's still less than the rural example; it's not great compared with a higher density, which will often be the lesser cost. Just to give a different example of these costs, this is a video of a presentation which Rollin Stanley (the GM of Planning out here in Calgary) gave to a civic group and he talks about the servicing costs for new subdivisions out here. If you skip to 22:00 minutes, he starts giving examples and some of it is quite frightening.

His talk about the good tax generators (at 31:00) is quite interesting. The study that Fenwick included; really supports Rollin's comments that we want to build more of the 'green' versus the 'red' (watch the video - you will understand).

[Antigonish]

Really interesting video HBNS, enjoyed that.

[Drybrain]

Yeah, WOW. Infrastructure costs of greenfield communities are a net drag on city revenues for at least 30 years from the date of construction. That alone is enough reason to say: Stop greenfield construction and build within our existing infrastructure-serviced area.

Part of the problem with this discussion is how intense and polarized people are about their own personal choices—observing the situation in Toronto, where a "suburban" mayor has pitted himself against "downtown elites," it's become terribly clear that the downtown vs. suburbs conversation is super-unproductive, especially as people start taking their own prejudices as talking points.

So you have people on one side shouting that suburbanites are stupid sheep who live horrible, unsustainable lives, and then you have suburbanites accusing urbanites of wanting to cram everybody into high-rises. Those are caricatures, but the people with the most caricatured and simplistic viewpoints tend to dominate the discussion, unfortunately, leading to bad feeling on both sides, and little rationality when it comes to what should be a supremely rational issue--like, say, property-tax reform.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Being a planner - this information is quite telling. In terms of ODM's comment about places like Clayton Park or Dartmouth, while the costs to service would not be as extreme as the rural example provided - it would still be high. I'd guess somewhere past the average of the two, I'd guess in the $2500 to $3000 range. Keep in mind, most of Fairview/Clayton Park still use the 40 to 50' lot frontage formula as does Dartmouth, Bedford and Sackville.

So while it's still less than the rural example; it's not great compared with a higher density, which will often be the lesser cost. Just to give a different example of these costs, this is a video of a presentation which Rollin Stanley (the GM of Planning out here in Calgary) gave to a civic group and he talks about the servicing costs for new subdivisions out here. If you skip to 22:00 minutes, he starts giving examples and some of it is quite frightening.

His talk about the good tax generators (at 31:00) is quite interesting. The study that Fenwick included; really supports Rollin's comments that we want to build more of the 'green' versus the 'red' (watch the video - you will understand).

Excellent information! Thanks for posting that! Didn't have time to watch the video in its entirety, but what I did see was an eye-opener for me.

I really appreciate this forum as an educational opportunity.

Looks like HRM has it's work cut out for it, but it is not too late to make something happen.

I have a question... we pay quite a bit of tax on fuel in this province. Do the municipalities get any percentage of that for infrastructure maintenance? I believe that is the purpose of the tax, to maintain the roads used by the purchasers of gasoline/diesel, but I'm doubting that's what it is entirely used for.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

So you have people on one side shouting that suburbanites are stupid sheep who live horrible, unsustainable lives, and then you have suburbanites accusing urbanites of wanting to cram everybody into high-rises. Those are caricatures, but the people with the most caricatured and simplistic viewpoints tend to dominate the discussion, unfortunately, leading to bad feeling on both sides, and little rationality when it comes to what should be a supremely rational issue--like, say, property-tax reform.

Here here!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Now that this thread has been sufficiently derailed, I have another question.

Where do business/industrial parks fit into the picture? They are generally in suburban areas and I would think tend to take traffic out of the urban core.

It sounds to me like they could be good revenue generators, if taxed at similar rates to the downtown, and also could contribute to relieving the pressure on infrastructure by contributing to the "reverse commute" situation that was referred to in the video.

Sorry to throw this discussion too far off topic (not about skyscrapers either...)

[halifaxboyns]

Wow, great comments - I'll have to pass this along to my GM that you enjoyed his video. I'd actually suggest watching it in full and he gave a similar presentation to staff. One thing I like about Rollin is the way he presents - it's very similar to my style (I like videos like that - I totally want that cul-de-sac video he has).

To answer your question ODM - business parks would be in the 'red' in his presentation; they don't make a lot of money. There is very little about suburban development that actually makes good money to pay for the cost - and building more of it; doesn't help because while you may get more revenue, you spend more to get it so the net effect is bad.

In terms of your comment Drybrain - I'm going to blow everyone's mind and post yet another video, which I think would really help HRM with it's Regional Centre plan. This video will also further illustrate the cost differential of suburban growth - looking at Australia. This also adds to the point I made in one of the other threads about converting office buildings into residential - for the downtown.

This video is a presentation done by Rob Adams, who is the Director of Urban Development with the City of Melbourne (I had the chance to meet him a few years ago - really interesting guy and I am a huge fan). This is his presentation at TED Sydney - but he talks about how Melbourne could double it's population using 7.5% of it's total area. I won't say anything more about it - it's about 18 minutes long. But worth watching...it blew my mind. This is a much longer version of his presentation he gave at SFU - which gives more of the history, which is really interesting...enjoy!

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

I think you are right about that. It seems to me they read a theory in a book, for example, that we should not add lanes. They do not remember what it was like before we added lanes or build some of the roads we have built in the last 60 years. Just imagine had we not built hwy 102 or Bayers Rd.
I remember as a kid watching traffic on the Bedford Hwy; it was the only road into town in those days. It was generally bumper to bumper for a lot of the time. We could wait 10 minutes for a break in the traffic just to cross the highway.
I also remember when it took 4 hours to travel from Moncton to Halifax. Again bumper to bumper and stop and go thru Wentworth. The same from Lantz into the city. It was so exciting when BiHi got built out to the airport and the traffic eased.
I also remember the 401 in Toronto when it was a 4 lane divided highway. Just imagine that same highway without the extra lanes.
I also remember when gas was $0.30 per gallon and who ever thought we would pay today's prices. Well we do, so I am sure we will when the price goes up to $200.00 per barrel.
It is an interesting experiment to not add lanes or improve roads; we do not know how it will have affected us until 60 years into the future and then it could be too late to try and catch up.

The thing is, if the 401 was still 2 lanes each way (or 4 lanes each way, or really anything ressembling a "normal" highway), it would simply be acknowledged that it's not a very quick route into the city and fewer people would choose to live in suburbs along it. If the 401 had fewer lanes, I can almost guarantee that the GO network would be much more developed by now (out of necessity) or that there would be alternate routes into the city and traffic would simply be dispersed more evenly, in addition to residential development simply being focused in other areas. As it stands now you basically end up with 6+ lanes (one direction) of bumper-to-bumber traffic every rush hour for very long stretches.. adding more lanes will create a positive effect for traffic reduction for a very short time, then development will shift heavily towards the 401 corridor (because of the sudden improvement in convenience) and then the new lanes will quickly be filled by the new commuters moving into the new 401-oriented subdivisions. It's not just a theory from a book, it's pretty much exactly how the GTA has been/continues to be developed.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That's one definition. Not all would agree with it.

How do you define progress? Don't be afraid to be specific.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

I won't speak for everybody, but I think there's a growing group of younger people who just aren't that interested in what suburbia has to offer. They don't want the lawn, the two-car garage, and the commute by car. They want to live in the city where there is a lot of activity going on, even if it means accepting less living space. They'll drive if they have to, but they'd prefer to walk or bike. Increasingly this group of people includes some of the most talented who would move to a city like Halifax, the sort of people who often drive economic development.

I think a factor that isn't very well recognized is that the urban environment generally seems to be preferred by younger, mostly single people, while the suburbs appeal mostly to families with young or school-aged children. In Halifax, there is a disproportionate number of 20-somethings due to the universities and the military bases, and perhaps more importantly, people in Halifax tend to wait longer to get married/settle down and have children than elsewhere. In the area of BC where I'm living most of the people I've met over the age of 24 are married and/or have children. Conversely, most of my friends in Halifax have no interest in marrying before the age of 30 (with a few exceptions - and the exceptions are the ones who chose to live in the suburbs).

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

So you have people on one side shouting that suburbanites are stupid sheep who live horrible, unsustainable lives, and then you have suburbanites accusing urbanites of wanting to cram everybody into high-rises. Those are caricatures, but the people with the most caricatured and simplistic viewpoints tend to dominate the discussion, unfortunately, leading to bad feeling on both sides, and little rationality when it comes to what should be a supremely rational issue--like, say, property-tax reform.

Hear, hear!

That sort of reform, however, is quite difficult to accomplish, considering the amount of politicians who are willing to pander to suburbanites, as suburbanites most often (I've found) complain about already paying too many taxes.

No one enjoys paying more taxes, but with the information we're seeing on this forum from halifaxboyns and someone123, clearly, suburbanites are not paying their fair share.

If you want to live far away from the masses, you should be expected to pay more for public sevices and infrastructure. Subsidising the 'burbs and rural areas is a major debt burden for provinces.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Wow, great comments - I'll have to pass this along to my GM that you enjoyed his video. I'd actually suggest watching it in full and he gave a similar presentation to staff. One thing I like about Rollin is the way he presents - it's very similar to my style (I like videos like that - I totally want that cul-de-sac video he has).

To answer your question ODM - business parks would be in the 'red' in his presentation; they don't make a lot of money. There is very little about suburban development that actually makes good money to pay for the cost - and building more of it; doesn't help because while you may get more revenue, you spend more to get it so the net effect is bad.

In terms of your comment Drybrain - I'm going to blow everyone's mind and post yet another video, which I think would really help HRM with it's Regional Centre plan. This video will also further illustrate the cost differential of suburban growth - looking at Australia. This also adds to the point I made in one of the other threads about converting office buildings into residential - for the downtown.

This video is a presentation done by Rob Adams, who is the Director of Urban Development with the City of Melbourne (I had the chance to meet him a few years ago - really interesting guy and I am a huge fan). This is his presentation at TED Sydney - but he talks about how Melbourne could double it's population using 7.5% of it's total area. I won't say anything more about it - it's about 18 minutes long. But worth watching...it blew my mind. This is a much longer version of his presentation he gave at SFU - which gives more of the history, which is really interesting...enjoy!

Thanks again for posting great educational material for those of us who really want to understand the big picture. Can't speak for the rest of us, but in my case, having little experience from the civic planning point of view, I might never have had the motivation to check out this type of presentation nor would I have found a 'good' one without some type of guidance.

I plan to watch them in their entirety this weekend, when I have a few spare minutes to really absorb the info.

[halifaxboyns]

I met Rob at a conference in Vancouver some years ago and it was amazing to speak to him. I found his idea of selling density profound because if HRM could even do 25% of the high density that he calculated; that's 500,000 people (roughly) without ever having to build another suburban house. Profound...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Where do business/industrial parks fit into the picture? They are generally in suburban areas and I would think tend to take traffic out of the urban core.

I am not sure this is correct. Let's say you move a big business from downtown to Burnside:

- You now have people living in places like Clayton Park who have to cross most of the city to get to work. The fact is that, in the context of metro Halifax, the peninsula is the easiest spot for an average group of people to get to.
- They might have taken the bus before, but they probably won't now if they can avoid it; the office parks are hard to serve with transit and so they have horrible transit service.
- On top of all this the city has to take a financial hit to build a bunch of new infrastructure. Or they could pass this all on to developers and suddenly downtown would be a lot more popular.
- Also, the physical environment of the office parks sucks. You have to drive to get anywhere and there aren't good lunch places or places to go after work. This is fine for some people but a big negative for others. It's why tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft have started building office campuses in urban settings. That's what their employees want in SF/Seattle/Portland/Vancouver. Expect the same trend to come to Halifax in 5-10 years.

I would say that the city has tried out the office park model pretty thoroughly with Bayers Lake and Burnside and the results are less than stellar. They even suffer from traffic congestion.

It would be much better if Halifax just built a proper transit system. That alone would probably "solve" traffic problems in the sense that it would create a quick way for large numbers of people to get downtown. If the downtown really did get unsustainably busy (highly debatable in a town with under half a million people), there would then be opportunities to build up secondary employment centres on brownfield sites near train stations.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Conversely, most of my friends in Halifax have no interest in marrying before the age of 30 (with a few exceptions - and the exceptions are the ones who chose to live in the suburbs).

There seems to be a big urban/rural divide and a blue/white collar divide, but the overall trend is toward smaller households and more mobility.

I am not sure how much of this is cultural and how much of it is dictated by economic factors. Young people now tend to spend a lot more time in school and they have to move around more now to find good jobs.

[Antigonish]

Another great video, thanks. The 7.5% model seems like the most practical approach to solving a number of Halifax's developmental and growth problems. Those examples he gave with accompanying diagrams shows that with proper transit corridors you could grow the population and tax base to support the growing infrastructure without even compromising the strict height bylaws on the peninsula.

The images showing the growth of 5-6 story buildings along the transit corridors with the [somewhat] suburban growth in between reminded me of the South/West/North End neighbourhoods in Halifax. Very thorough and pragmatic, a vision that seems to be currently lacking in HRM. Have you ever thought of working for HRM again HBNS?