[Halifax] Nova Centre | 65-58-58 m | 16-15-14 fl | Completed

[OliverD]

I think the rise of big box stores has more to do with cost than anything else. Mall rents are expensive because the tenants are also paying for a significant area of common spaces. As the market became more competitive retailers were forced out of malls. This is why the trend in enclosed malls seems to be towards higher-margin luxury retailers who can afford those expensive rents.

[Nouvellecosse]

I think the rise of big box stores has more to do with cost than anything else. Mall rents are expensive because the tenants are also paying for a significant area of common spaces. As the market became more competitive retailers were forced out of malls. This is why the trend in enclosed malls seems to be towards higher-margin luxury retailers who can afford those expensive rents.

But then that begs the question of why the malls trend took hold to begin with? If enclosed malls are so much less efficient and cost effective, wouldn't that have been apparent from the beginning? People were obviously willing to pay any additional embedded costs for several decades, so either the shopping experience appealed to people or there was some other factor involved such as zoning. There wouldn't have been anything else that would made the big box development style infeasible. Or perhaps the notion of shops being embedded into urban streetscapes was so historically engrained into the cultural mindset that artificially simulating this was the only way to add legitimacy to suburban shopping.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Absolutely. Just because you happen to have a car doesn't mean you're forced to bring it with you everywhere you go. Personally, while I have a car that i use mostly for going out of town or to transport bulky items to/from locations outside downtown (mostly suburban) I don't consider it desirable or ethical to bring internal combustion vehicles with a single occupant to city centres and I refuse to do it. It's different for someone with young children or disabilities but for the majority I'd prefer to see parking at fringe areas like the HSC, Quinpool stripmall, etc where people can walk or take transit shuttles in. Best to think of the downtown as if it were a huge shopping mall and commercial/recreation complex. Obviously not something that you drive your car directly into, but that there are ways to help people get around due to the large area compared to a normal building.

I actually wonder if that's part of the reason we've seen a decline of the indoor shopping mall versus big box store and strip malls over the last 20 years. That people are just too lazy to do that much walking. A large shopping mall is similar in scale to the downtown of some small towns and cities and is a totally pedestrianized environment. Even though they were often set in suburban areas, surrounded by parking, had no history or character, and were totally climate controlled, they were still ultimately pedestrian zones. Therefore they were just not a big enough concession to the automobile which must have complete, unfettered access to every human territory. :rolleyes:

IMHO, where the downtown is headed is just fine.

- Residential development for those who want/can afford it. Benefit is that it brings support to downtown-based retailers and restaurants - everybody benefits from that.
- Less surface parking, which means better use of land supplies for residential and business alike.
- More public parking located within new buildings - people who choose to bring their cars downtown can still park them, they just have to pay to do so.
- A few streets converted to pedestrian-centric, giving people a place to enjoy festivals, patios, etc. and not worry about getting run over by a car or bus.

Basically it is becoming everything for everybody. You can get there by transit if you wish, you can bike there if you wish, you can take your car for speed, convenience, shelter from bad weather, mobility issues, etc.

I've long tired of all the extremist values continually bickered about here. At this point Halifax is completely accessible by car if you wish, so the sky isn't falling in that regard. Halifax is not big enough (like London, UK, for example) where banning cars from the downtown makes any sense whatsoever, so why push for it other than a personal preference. Transit could use improvement, and I think we will get it. If we all stepped off our high horses and conceded that we can all share the downtown and try to get along we'd all be better off, IMHO.

As far as malls being more walking than big box parks - think again. Try driving to Bayers Lake on a Saturday and parking anywhere near one of the big box stores - then you still have to walk once you're in it because the stores are huge. Indoor malls allow you to hit a large number of stores with minimal walking, and if you are only going to one store there are usually enough entrances that you can park close enough to get to that store with little walking, if you wish. Therefore, I don't think there's much of an argument that box stores exist because car drivers are too lazy to walk around an indoor mall.

Big box stores exist because of cost advantages - large space allows for large inventories and selection at relatively low square footage costs. The ability to order items in large quantities brings down the per-unit cost. So really it's a business decision, not a car vs pedestrian decision. :2cents:

[JET]

I fully realize. I was responding just as much to NDPer4life's tone in his/her post as much as anything else. He/she comes across as a pretty sanctimonious and holier-than-thou left wing ideologue.

A downtown lifestyle is something that everyone should be able to aspire to if they so wish. Sacrifices will have to be made however (downsizing, maybe only one car if any car at all, etc). Halifax suffers from the problems of geographic constraint upon it's core, very much like Vancouver. I can foresee in the future this driving an exponential increase in housing costs in peninsular Halifax which may drive many people out of the market, especially people with families. Developers might take advantage of this by building more microcondo suites than anything else. City council should be cognizant of this and make sure that in the future, residential developments in the core should have a suitable number of two or even three bedroom units available, perhaps with a relatively reduced rental cost per square foot, so that young families aren't forced out into the exurban cultural wilderness........

As for parking, Bus transit isn't necessarily convenient or practical for all people for a variety of reasons. People will still need to have the ability to drive into the downtown if they so wish. There will need to be an appropriate amount of parking options, and a certain number of streets will have to be maintained as traditional thoroughfares so that people can get around. Side streets can be made into shared spaces (like Argyle), but streets like Hollis or Barrington need to maintain their current character. There is a middle ground here.

I find that most of your posts are quite reasonable, but calling another poster "a pretty sanctimonious and holier-than-thou left wing ideologue." is quite unreasonable. Having a bad day at the hospital?

[FuzzyWuz]

Only until access problems drive most of the businesses under.

We need to make a project where plaques go up near well designed successful pedestrian friendly parts of the city and the plaques have pessimistic quotes about the situation from Keith P., our resident wrong person.

[FuzzyWuz]

Yet in virtually every case where a "pedestrian mall" has been tried in Canada it has been a total failure.

Sparks street?

[Keith P.]

Sparks street?

Failure.

Granville Mall?

[Keith P.]

We need to make a project where plaques go up near well designed successful pedestrian friendly parts of the city and the plaques have pessimistic quotes about the situation from Keith P., our resident wrong person.

Time for me to short all my bronze and monument-maker stocks.

[Keith P.]

I find that most of your posts are quite reasonable, but calling another poster "a pretty sanctimonious and holier-than-thou left wing ideologue." is quite unreasonable. Having a bad day at the hospital?

Consider the subject of the comment, then decide.

[Keith P.]

But then that begs the question of why the malls trend took hold to begin with? If enclosed malls are so much less efficient and cost effective, wouldn't that have been apparent from the beginning? People were obviously willing to pay any additional embedded costs for several decades, so either the shopping experience appealed to people or there was some other factor involved such as zoning. There wouldn't have been anything else that would made the big box development style infeasible. Or perhaps the notion of shops being embedded into urban streetscapes was so historically engrained into the cultural mindset that artificially simulating this was the only way to add legitimacy to suburban shopping.

Don't confuse enclosed malls with big-box stores. That latter are a far more recent development. The attraction of malls when they first started to appear in the 1950s and 60s was quite logical. A wide range of stores conveniently located next to each other, typically either with weather protection or completely indoors, with ample, convenient, free parking. No more schlepping up and down hills in foul weather, no more waiting for the bus or looking for on-street parking, just pack yourself up, make your purchases, put them in the car and go. People just generally liked it better than downtowns pretty much all over North America.

Big-box was almost always based simply on lower pricing and broader assortment than the traditional department/hardware store. That may no longer be the case in some instances but that was how it began. The sheer size of the buildings meant they were located in suburbia.

[Keith P.]

I've long tired of all the extremist values continually bickered about here. At this point Halifax is completely accessible by car if you wish, so the sky isn't falling in that regard. Halifax is not big enough (like London, UK, for example) where banning cars from the downtown makes any sense whatsoever, so why push for it other than a personal preference. Transit could use improvement, and I think we will get it. If we all stepped off our high horses and conceded that we can all share the downtown and try to get along we'd all be better off, IMHO.


Yet many of those in the planning community see the car as the enemy and make no bones about it. Projects like Argyle are just the start of the latest war on the car, no doubt. I feel certain we will soon hear calls for more street closures. Those kind of extreme positions elicit extreme reactions in response. DT Halifax is not exactly full of expressways, and traffic is managed poorly at best. But HRM continues to make it worse and harder for motorists to get around. At some point all those DT businesses are going to run out of pedestrians willing to be their customers while those of us who live outside of walking distance will gladly take our business where we feel welcomed.

[Nouvellecosse]

IMHO, where the downtown is headed is just fine.

- Residential development for those who want/can afford it. Benefit is that it brings support to downtown-based retailers and restaurants - everybody benefits from that.
- Less surface parking, which means better use of land supplies for residential and business alike.
- More public parking located within new buildings - people who choose to bring their cars downtown can still park them, they just have to pay to do so.
- A few streets converted to pedestrian-centric, giving people a place to enjoy festivals, patios, etc. and not worry about getting run over by a car or bus.

Basically it is becoming everything for everybody. You can get there by transit if you wish, you can bike there if you wish, you can take your car for speed, convenience, shelter from bad weather, mobility issues, etc.

There are vast amounts of the metro area for which being a pedestrian or cyclist are unfriendly as fuck. Burnside, Bayers Lake, and Dartmouth Crossing are all larger than downtown. If cars have vast expanses tailored specifically for them and downtown is supposed to be shared equally by everyone, then were are the large areas tailored specifically to walking and cycling?

I've long tired of all the extremist values continually bickered about here. At this point Halifax is completely accessible by car if you wish, so the sky isn't falling in that regard. Halifax is not big enough (like London, UK, for example) where banning cars from the downtown makes any sense whatsoever, so why push for it other than a personal preference. Transit could use improvement, and I think we will get it. If we all stepped off our high horses and conceded that we can all share the downtown and try to get along we'd all be better off, IMHO.

To be clear, I'm not really in favour of a totally auto-free downtown and would prefer an auto-calmed as there are differently-abled people and special circumstances where exceptions would be reasonable. But of we were to discuss auto-free zones, being small is no more a "con" against it than it is a "pro' for it. While not having as much public transit may be a "con", being small means there's also less area to cover on foot compared to a huge metropolis, and in Halifax's case, limited space due to constraints imposed by the harbour, Citadel Hill, narrow streets, and historic buildings most of us wish to preserve. And while I definitely prefer garage parking over surface parking, that doesn't do much to address major issues like traffic congestion and safety associated with large number of automobiles being present downtown. And remember, if downtown were auto free, transit could be faster and more efficient and have higher patronage.

I've long tired of all the mushy middle grounding and pandering. People who claim to believe in progressive solutions but wring their hands about pushing for them because they're afraid of potential opposition. When you identify major problems and challenges, take a firm stance and advocate for decisive change. If mushy half measures is what you genuinely feel are the best solutions in terms of efficiency and functionality, then fine - advocate for them on their actual merits. But if it's just an attempt to appease or find middle ground with nay-sayers, that's not an actual reason. You don't need to advocate for them as they can advocate for themselves and they won't return the favour. Every idea or position will have those who oppose it, but that's ok since we live in a democracy and not a consensus.

[Haliguy]

Failure.

Granville Mall?

Granville Mall would be a failure even if it wasn't a pedestrian street. Its a dead-end zone with very poor access on one side. No through traffic hardly at all.

And its a deadend because of the Cogswell interchange.

[Keith P.]

And, like clockwork, the latest salvo in HRM's war on motorists:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/municipal-planners-want-to-discourage-driving-on-some-halifax-streets-1.4393795

The headline says it all:


Municipal planners want to discourage driving on some Halifax streets
Open houses held to present options aimed at reducing car traffic, encouraging cyclists

[OldDartmouthMark]

There are vast amounts of the metro area for which being a pedestrian or cyclist are unfriendly as fuck. Burnside, Bayers Lake, and Dartmouth Crossing are all larger than downtown.

I agree that Burnside is bad for lack of sidewalks. I imagine that was a cost issue, and that lots of people would be up in arms if the city spent a bunch of money on adding sidewalks to Burnside (which I think should be done). I can imagine there would be tons of opposition here to the effect of "why are they spending all that money in Burnside? Should be spent on the downtown...".

Bayers Lake and Dartmouth Crossing are actually not bad to walk around, but they are, by nature, big. So lots of walking. Cycling shouldn't be all that bad in DC, but again by nature, Burnside has a lot of large truck traffic (industrial park) so you are taking your life in your hands being on a bike. Would it make sense to reconfigure Burnside to favour bicycles? Not in my opinion - it needs to function as an industrial park and thus trucks need to have priority. Would be nice if they could make some bike-only paths that cut through the park though - but again: money.

Bayers Lake is just poorly designed for everybody - it's hazardous to drive a car through there, so it would have to be moreso for a bike.

If cars have vast expanses tailored specifically for them and downtown is supposed to be shared equally by everyone, then were are the large areas tailored specifically to walking and cycling?

I think this is about functionality more than anything. While it appears to be the opinion of cyclists that some kind of favour is being done to car drivers that everything is being designed for them, I can't help but think while bicycling is great for exercise and low pollution, it isn't all that practical in Canada (a vast country that is cold and slippery half the year) as a main source of transportation. I don't need to go into all the reasons I say this, as you stated that you own a car so obviously you wouldn't go to the expense and trouble if you didn't have a need for one. However, a few of the obvious/main ones are: weather, traveling long distances, moving goods, transporting multiple people especially children and elderly, speed and efficiency to get from place to place, etc. etc.

So I don't just see it as one group being favoured over another, I see it more as a functionality issue.

To be clear, I'm not really in favour of a totally auto-free downtown and would prefer an auto-calmed as there are differently-abled people and special circumstances where exceptions would be reasonable.

That seems reasonable to me as well.

But of we were to discuss auto-free zones, being small is no more a "con" against it than it is a "pro' for it. While not having as much public transit may be a "con", being small means there's also less area to cover on foot compared to a huge metropolis, and in Halifax's case, limited space due to constraints imposed by the harbour, Citadel Hill, narrow streets, and historic buildings most of us wish to preserve. And while I definitely prefer garage parking over surface parking, that doesn't do much to address major issues like traffic congestion and safety associated with large number of automobiles being present downtown. And remember, if downtown were auto free, transit could be faster and more efficient and have higher patronage.

First of all, downtown Halifax is an excellent place to walk right now (construction zones aside). In fact I regularly make a point of going there (after parking the car in an underground lot) and just walking around. It's great! So I can't see an argument that it is bad for pedestrians.

I don't cycle anymore, but I cycled lots back in the 1980s and 90s when the street environment was much less hospitable to cyclists than it is now. We didn't have the one-metre rule, or designated bike lanes, and people were certainly much less aware of cyclists' needs than they are now. Guess what? No problems. I was always aware of my surroundings, did regular shoulder checks to see what was coming up on me, watched parked cars to see if somebody was about to open a door in front of me, watched for pedestrians about to step out in front of me, etc. etc. Also, when choosing routes I always chose the ones I knew would be less busy, to minimize potential issues. Through all that I never thought that downtown was a bad place to cycle.

Regarding traffic congestion: is it really all that bad in the downtown (with the exception of "rush hours" which are bad everywhere)? I mean, go to Toronto and experience traffic there - when I come back I'm always amazed at how good traffic is here - there's always room for improvement, though. But again I don't see the necessity of going to the extreme and making it "car-free" other than it being some kind of victory for the cycling community.

If I may rant a little: My impression is that many cyclists today seem to want the world to pander to them. While I applaud the efforts of the city to make it a more hospitable place to cycle, it seems like the cyclists don't want to do their part in sharing the roads and keeping themselves safe - they want the government to do this for them. To be honest, the cycling community sometimes comes across as a bunch of whiny spoiled brats who yell everytime something isn't done to prioritize everything for them. I'm sure that's not how they view themselves, but every time I hear something coming from them in the media, it always seems like they think the rest of the world is wrong, and their view is the only right one. :2cents:

I've long tired of all the mushy middle grounding and pandering. People who claim to believe in progressive solutions but wring their hands about pushing for them because they're afraid of potential opposition. When you identify major problems and challenges, take a firm stance and advocate for decisive change. If mushy half measures is what you genuinely feel are the best solutions in terms of efficiency and functionality, then fine - advocate for them on their actual merits. But if it's just an attempt to appease or find middle ground with nay-sayers, that's not an actual reason. You don't need to advocate for them as they can advocate for themselves and they won't return the favour. Every idea or position will have those who oppose it, but that's ok since we live in a democracy and not a consensus.

Where do I start with this one?

I think I'll simplify my answer and just say that a city has many varied citizens with many varied needs. Taking a hard "take-no-prisoners" stance is basically saying that your needs are more important than others' needs, which is essentially selfish. So while you may view something as being "mushy middle grounding", it is probably more like let's consider everybody's needs, and not just the cycling community.

Take it for what it's worth, they are just my views and my intention is just to have healthy, involved conversation, not to offend anybody. So please take no offense as it's not intended as such.

[Halifax]

And, like clockwork, the latest salvo in HRM's war on motorists:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/municipal-planners-want-to-discourage-driving-on-some-halifax-streets-1.4393795

The headline says it all:


Municipal planners want to discourage driving on some Halifax streets
Open houses held to present options aimed at reducing car traffic, encouraging cyclists


I think this is ridiculous. I wonder what the stats are on how many people actually use a bicycle. I think it is even more ridiculous considering the climate here - this isn't Vancouver.

[MonctonRad]

@OldDartmouthMark - very well said!! :tup:

The downtown in Halifax has to be shared by everyone. The solution lies in the "mushy middle". If nobody is satisfied with the solution, this usually means an appropriate compromise solution has been obtained.

Here in Moncton, we have been quite lucky with our bicycle solutions. The city has been constructing an extensive trail system for the last 10 years using old railway ROWs, power ROWs and natural features like linear parks centered around streams. These trails intersect in places and happily converge on the downtown area. It is entirely possible for me to walk (or cycle) about 80% of the way from my house to the downtown area (a distance of over 8 km) on paths completely separate from roadways. Our mayor (Dawn Arnold) famously cycles to work at city hall almost every day that the weather allows, and she lives in my neighbourhood. It's too bad that Halifax doesn't have the flexibility for something similar.

Since your roadways (in Halifax) have to be shared however, compromise solutions are necessary. Right now the cyclists down there seem to have the upper hand with the city planning department. Let's hope that Halifax keeps a sense of balance on this issue........

[IanWatson]

I agree that Burnside is bad for lack of sidewalks. I imagine that was a cost issue, and that lots of people would be up in arms if the city spent a bunch of money on adding sidewalks to Burnside (which I think should be done). I can imagine there would be tons of opposition here to the effect of "why are they spending all that money in Burnside? Should be spent on the downtown...".

(...)

Would it make sense to reconfigure Burnside to favour bicycles?

The city has actually been putting a ton of sidewalks in Burnside lately, plus they recently built that AT connector (bike + walking path) from the new highway bridge, along Burnside Drive, to Commodore Drive. I wouldn't be surprised if Burnside was the leading "neighbourhood" in terms of overall length of retrofit sidewalk added in the last couple of years.

[terrynorthend]

And, like clockwork, the latest salvo in HRM's war on motorists:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/municipal-planners-want-to-discourage-driving-on-some-halifax-streets-1.4393795

The headline says it all:


Municipal planners want to discourage driving on some Halifax streets
Open houses held to present options aimed at reducing car traffic, encouraging cyclists

Love it! Those streets (Allan/Oak/Harvard and Vernon) need a traffic haircut! I'm all for making these unpalatable for through traffic. Disclosure: this is my neighbourhood.

[alps]

I'm excited too. These streets are not that important to motorists (Robie is a quicker alternative to Vernon, for example), but they are critical links for cyclists.

It's great that they're looking at sorting out the dog-leg intersection at Vernon/Coburg/Seymour, which feels relatively dangerous on a bike.

I think this is ridiculous. I wonder what the stats are on how many people actually use a bicycle. I think it is even more ridiculous considering the climate here - this isn't Vancouver.

Winter is not a big hindrance, most of the time the roads are not covered in ice. Cycling in winter in Halifax is totally do-able.

[someone123]

Winter is not a big hindrance, most of the time the roads are not covered in ice. Cycling in winter in Halifax is totally do-able.

The funny thing is we had a little snow here in Vancouver a few days ago. Having lived in both cities I find it interesting how people here say the weather is great for cycling but people in Halifax say the weather makes it impossible. There is more going on than just the minor difference in weather.

There are also lots of cyclists in Scandinavian cities like Helsinki and they are no better climate-wise.

[Haliguy]

The funny thing is we had a little snow here in Vancouver a few days ago. Having lived in both cities I find it interesting how people here say the weather is great for cycling but people in Halifax say the weather makes it impossible. There is more going on than just the minor difference in weather.

There are also lots of cyclists in Scandinavian cities like Helsinki and they are no better climate-wise.

Yeah and the way the winters have been the last few years it's been fairly warm until the end of January almost.

[Halifax]

Winter is not a big hindrance, most of the time the roads are not covered in ice. Cycling in winter in Halifax is totally do-able.

When and if the snow comes though, the bike lanes no longer exist lol

[Nouvellecosse]

I agree that Burnside is bad for lack of sidewalks. I imagine that was a cost issue, and that lots of people would be up in arms if the city spent a bunch of money on adding sidewalks to Burnside (which I think should be done). I can imagine there would be tons of opposition here to the effect of "why are they spending all that money in Burnside? Should be spent on the downtown...".

Bayers Lake and Dartmouth Crossing are actually not bad to walk around, but they are, by nature, big. So lots of walking. Cycling shouldn't be all that bad in DC, but again by nature, Burnside has a lot of large truck traffic (industrial park) so you are taking your life in your hands being on a bike. Would it make sense to reconfigure Burnside to favour bicycles? Not in my opinion - it needs to function as an industrial park and thus trucks need to have priority. Would be nice if they could make some bike-only paths that cut through the park though - but again: money.

Bayers Lake is just poorly designed for everybody - it's hazardous to drive a car through there, so it would have to be moreso for a bike.

I've been to all of these areas, and have spent considerable time in DC and Burnside using all three modes so i know first hand that yes, they're very hostile to pedestrians and cyclists and very friendly to cars. You seem to seem to be equating pedestrian friendly with presence of sidewalks. Tons of extremely pedestrian-hostile areas with sidewalks exist. Things like wide streets, highly rounded corners, high curbs, long intervals between crossing signals (Where they even exist), long stretches between crossings, high traffic speeds, buildings set far back from the street with entrances facing parking, long walks through large areas of parking to get to buildings... for important commercials areas to have any lack of sidewalks means it's among the worst.


I think this is about functionality more than anything. While it appears to be the opinion of cyclists that some kind of favour is being done to car drivers that everything is being designed for them, I can't help but think while bicycling is great for exercise and low pollution, it isn't all that practical in Canada (a vast country that is cold and slippery half the year) as a main source of transportation. I don't need to go into all the reasons I say this, as you stated that you own a car so obviously you wouldn't go to the expense and trouble if you didn't have a need for one. However, a few of the obvious/main ones are: weather, traveling long distances, moving goods, transporting multiple people especially children and elderly, speed and efficiency to get from place to place, etc. etc.

So I don't just see it as one group being favoured over another, I see it more as a functionality issue.

I had a parent die and the other parent who doesn't drive give me the car. I would not have bought one. I wouldn't even have accepted one if Halifax was designed in a less auto-centric way. But eve with Halifax's poor design characteristics, I certainly don't "need" one.


First of all, downtown Halifax is an excellent place to walk right now (construction zones aside). In fact I regularly make a point of going there (after parking the car in an underground lot) and just walking around. It's great! So I can't see an argument that it is bad for pedestrians.

Nobody said it was bad for pedestrians. I just happen to support policy that makes it better for pedestrians and cyclists rather than policy that invites more motor vehicles. But downtown isn't what I'd call my favourite place to walk either. With the level of traffic there is more noise and pollution than desirable (I'd love to see HT convert to electric buses) and crossing streets can still be pretty tricky the higher traffic levels. In some places the sidewalks also too narrow.

I don't cycle anymore, but I cycled lots back in the 1980s and 90s when the street environment was much less hospitable to cyclists than it is now. We didn't have the one-metre rule, or designated bike lanes, and people were certainly much less aware of cyclists' needs than they are now. Guess what? No problems. I was always aware of my surroundings, did regular shoulder checks to see what was coming up on me, watched parked cars to see if somebody was about to open a door in front of me, watched for pedestrians about to step out in front of me, etc. etc. Also, when choosing routes I always chose the ones I knew would be less busy, to minimize potential issues. Through all that I never thought that downtown was a bad place to cycle.

This reminds me of the, "Well in my day, we talked 10 miles in a blizzard" type of speeches. Things probably were worse for cyclists in the past and there were always the resilient few who still managed. But being "better than it was" and being "as good as it should be" aren't the same thing. The best approach with nearly everything is take what you're given and make the most of it that you can. People were given something worse back then and made it better, and we have something that's still flawed and can do the same.

If I may rant a little: My impression is that many cyclists today seem to want the world to pander to them. While I applaud the efforts of the city to make it a more hospitable place to cycle, it seems like the cyclists don't want to do their part in sharing the roads and keeping themselves safe - they want the government to do this for them. To be honest, the cycling community sometimes comes across as a bunch of whiny spoiled brats who yell everytime something isn't done to prioritize everything for them. I'm sure that's not how they view themselves, but every time I hear something coming from them in the media, it always seems like they think the rest of the world is wrong, and their view is the only right one. :2cents:

Funny, that's the same impression I get from some motorists. The difference is, with motorists it's a little more understandable since for the last 60 or so years everything was done to prioritize them, so obviously they're accustomed to it.

However, I don't think it's helpful to use such terms as they're divisive and unproductive.


Where do I start with this one?

I think I'll simplify my answer and just say that a city has many varied citizens with many varied needs. Taking a hard "take-no-prisoners" stance is basically saying that your needs are more important than others' needs, which is essentially selfish. So while you may view something as being "mushy middle grounding", it is probably more like let's consider everybody's needs, and not just the cycling community.

Take it for what it's worth, they are just my views and my intention is just to have healthy, involved conversation, not to offend anybody. So please take no offense as it's not intended as such.

I'm not offended; I just think you're wrong. Taking a firm stance isn't saying that others' needs are less important; it's saying that you genuinely believe the solutions you push for are the best ones for society and taking the time and energy to advocate for them is the opposite of selfish. What would be selfish is to not bother getting involved and not passionately trying to improve one's society. But remember, just because you disagree with someone on the best way to do things doesn't mean that either of you "need" to do things your own way. Letting on that calling for change isn't respecting other's "needs" is simply emotionally charged BS. I don't "need" to use active transportation and could drive everywhere like many other people, while many other people could adapt to using cars much less, at least in certain parts of town. I just happen to believe that me driving everywhere would be worse for both me and society, while seeing a decrease in driving would be an improvement, and censoring my honest opinion out of fear that someone else might not like it is just silly. You'd have a point of if I was insulting people or calling them names for disagreeing or saying that they're acting like spoiled brats or something.

[eastcoastal]

Not from Spryfield, Clayton Park or Lower Sackville methinks.

Downtown Halifax needs to belong to all the residents of the metro area, not just those fortunate denizens who can either afford to live there (the rich), or choose to live there (empty nesters and unattached young professionals).

I think belonging to residents is about more than parking... I do hear vacilating anecdotal views that 1) there is never ANY parking and 2) there IS parking, it's just not always easy to find.

I tend to believe #2, but have been in the position of circling a few blocks downtown trying to find a convenient spot for what feels like FOREVER frequently enough to make me think twice about taking my car. The issue for me is that transit is not well organized here.

I tried finding some good data on parking in downtown Halifax, but I'm not sure that it's been well studied. So far it all seems very anecdotal.

However. I must say that my PERSONAL belief is that providing lots of on-street parking is not a strategy that makes downtown for all residents. In my opinion, that makes it for cars.

I am happy to see all the celebrants on the street for the re-opening, but the real test for Argyle Grafton will be how well it's used and loved a year from now.

[eastcoastal]

...

Big box stores exist because of cost advantages - large space allows for large inventories and selection at relatively low square footage costs. The ability to order items in large quantities brings down the per-unit cost. So really it's a business decision, not a car vs pedestrian decision. :2cents:

Some of those cost advantages come from tax breaks provided by the Municipality to those in industrial/business parks where big box stores go, don't they?

[eastcoastal]

Failure.

Granville Mall?

Granville Mall sucks. I think that's because it's one-ended and not well connected to other pedestrian locations. Maybe not. Maybe it's because pedestrian-oriented spaces are doomed to fail... but I really don't think that's the case.

[Nouvellecosse]

@OldDartmouthMark - very well said!! :tup:

The downtown in Halifax has to be shared by everyone. The solution lies in the "mushy middle". If nobody is satisfied with the solution, this usually means an appropriate compromise solution has been obtained.


If that's the case, then calling for people to censor or soften their opinions will not have the desired results. If side A softens and moves to the mushy middle out of concern for side B and side B continues pushing just as hard, then the final compromise won't be in the middle; it'll likely to be skewed toward side B. As citizens we all have voices and it's up to us all to advocate for ourselves and what we feel is best. It isn't our responsibility to advocate for, or defer, to someone else's preferences. It's the responsibility of others to advocate for themselves and for decision-makers to find the best solution or balance

[IanWatson]

When and if the snow comes though, the bike lanes no longer exist lol

HRM did a pretty decent job clearing the Rainnie Street bike lane last winter. Hopefully they can learn from that experience and do better elsewhere.

[Keith P.]

If I may rant a little: My impression is that many cyclists today seem to want the world to pander to them. While I applaud the efforts of the city to make it a more hospitable place to cycle, it seems like the cyclists don't want to do their part in sharing the roads and keeping themselves safe - they want the government to do this for them. To be honest, the cycling community sometimes comes across as a bunch of whiny spoiled brats who yell everytime something isn't done to prioritize everything for them. I'm sure that's not how they view themselves, but every time I hear something coming from them in the media, it always seems like they think the rest of the world is wrong, and their view is the only right one.



Certainly this is how the HCC comes across and several of their higher profile advocates like Wedge and Lane certainly fit this description to a tee. Their opinions are the only correct ones and everyone who disagrees is a philistine, essentially is how they come across. The amount of money HRM has spent on their cause is ridiculously out of proportion to the number of people using the infrastructure, and comes across to those of us who need vehicles to get around as insulting when we see little to nothing being done to address problem areas in the roadway network. Everything HRM has done in that regard recently has made things worse, in fact.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I've been to all of these areas, and have spent considerable time in DC and Burnside using all three modes so i know first hand that yes, they're very hostile to pedestrians and cyclists and very friendly to cars. You seem to seem to be equating pedestrian friendly with presence of sidewalks. Tons of extremely pedestrian-hostile areas with sidewalks exist. Things like wide streets, highly rounded corners, high curbs, long intervals between crossing signals (Where they even exist), long stretches between crossings, high traffic speeds, buildings set far back from the street with entrances facing parking, long walks through large areas of parking to get to buildings... for important commercials areas to have any lack of sidewalks means it's among the worst.

I agree with your assessment.

I had a parent die and the other parent who doesn't drive give me the car. I would not have bought one. I wouldn't even have accepted one if Halifax was designed in a less auto-centric way. But eve with Halifax's poor design characteristics, I certainly don't "need" one.

Very sorry for your loss.

I wasn't questioning your decision to own a car, only suggesting that if you have one then you recognize the advantages that they can have.

Nobody said it was bad for pedestrians. I just happen to support policy that makes it better for pedestrians and cyclists rather than policy that invites more motor vehicles. But downtown isn't what I'd call my favourite place to walk either. With the level of traffic there is more noise and pollution than desirable (I'd love to see HT convert to electric buses) and crossing streets can still be pretty tricky the higher traffic levels. In some places the sidewalks also too narrow.

Agreed on the noise and pollution, though from my perspective it's mainly the large diesel-powered vehicles that are the issue. Electric buses would be great, along with eliminating or rerouting the large container trucks.

I still think it's a great place to walk, though.


This reminds me of the, "Well in my day, we talked 10 miles in a blizzard" type of speeches. Things probably were worse for cyclists in the past and there were always the resilient few who still managed. But being "better than it was" and being "as good as it should be" aren't the same thing. The best approach with nearly everything is take what you're given and make the most of it that you can. People were given something worse back then and made it better, and we have something that's still flawed and can do the same.

LOL... thinking about the Monty Python skit...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAdlkunflRs


Funny, that's the same impression I get from some motorists. The difference is, with motorists it's a little more understandable since for the last 60 or so years everything was done to prioritize them, so obviously they're accustomed to it.

However, I don't think it's helpful to use such terms as they're divisive and unproductive.

Agreed. We should all work harder to understand others' perspectives.


I'm not offended; I just think you're wrong. Taking a firm stance isn't saying that others' needs are less important; it's saying that you genuinely believe the solutions you push for are the best ones for society and taking the time and energy to advocate for them is the opposite of selfish. What would be selfish is to not bother getting involved and not passionately trying to improve one's society. But remember, just because you disagree with someone on the best way to do things doesn't mean that either of you "need" to do things your own way. Letting on that calling for change isn't respecting other's "needs" is simply emotionally charged BS. I don't "need" to use active transportation and could drive everywhere like many other people, while many other people could adapt to using cars much less, at least in certain parts of town. I just happen to believe that me driving everywhere would be worse for both me and society, while seeing a decrease in driving would be an improvement, and censoring my honest opinion out of fear that someone else might not like it is just silly. You'd have a point of if I was insulting people or calling them names for disagreeing or saying that they're acting like spoiled brats or something.

That's fine. It's your prerogative to think I'm wrong, just as much as it's mine to think you're wrong.

You talk about being divisive, yet that's exactly what you are promoting. Not that your opinion is any less valid than anybody else's, but it's just an opinion. :2cents:

[OldDartmouthMark]

The funny thing is we had a little snow here in Vancouver a few days ago. Having lived in both cities I find it interesting how people here say the weather is great for cycling but people in Halifax say the weather makes it impossible. There is more going on than just the minor difference in weather.

There are also lots of cyclists in Scandinavian cities like Helsinki and they are no better climate-wise.

As mentioned, I haven't cycled here in many years, I've never been to Vancouver during a snow storm, and I've never been to Scandinavia. So I can only speak to my own experiences of cycling and driving in the winter in Nova Scotia. Nouvellecosse is in a better position to give an assessment than I am, in terms of today's winter cycling experience.

IMHO, cycling in Nova Scotia winter is definitely doable, and I see many hardy souls doing so in winters - more now than ever. (back when I did it, I would never see anyone else riding a bike out in the snow).

A couple of issues that I perceive to be problematic are as follows:
(1) While the roads are typically well salted (which must wreak havoc on all the metallic components of today's bikes - I sprayed light oil on mine "back in the day") there are times when I see cycling to be extremely dangerous in the winter. In a snowstorm, when traction and visibility are extremely bad, it's not uncommon to see cars off the road or into snowbanks - put a cyclist in the path of one of those and you don't need an imagination to understand the result. Ice hiding under snow is another hazard that could make a ride go bad in a hurry (I fell off my bike in such conditions years ago and was lucky to have escaped serious injury as I fell on a stone grave marker when riding through a park).

(2) Narrowed roads due to snow banks. Snow banks are inevitable here in the winter, and narrower roads lead to more hazards for bicyclists. If the snow banks are high an additional hazard is in place as a car driver may miss seeing just the head of the cyclist protruding above the snow. This also raises the possibilities of bicycle/pedestrian collisions, which is a real risk that nobody ever seems to talk about.

IMHO, there's increased risk and it's up to the cyclist to determine what is acceptable for themselves.

However, my thinking is that the difference between winter cycling in Vancouver and Halifax is more than just a state of mind. I may be wrong, but I feel that Halifax has more severe and more frequent physical hazards than does Vancouver for winter cycling. :2cents:

Great 'Nova Centre' thread! :haha:

[OldDartmouthMark]

The city has actually been putting a ton of sidewalks in Burnside lately, plus they recently built that AT connector (bike + walking path) from the new highway bridge, along Burnside Drive, to Commodore Drive. I wouldn't be surprised if Burnside was the leading "neighbourhood" in terms of overall length of retrofit sidewalk added in the last couple of years.

Hey, that's great news. I hadn't realized that such an effort has been put into it. :tup:

[MonctonRad]

Agreed on the noise and pollution, though from my perspective it's mainly the large diesel-powered vehicles that are the issue. Electric buses would be great, along with eliminating or rerouting the large container trucks.

Agree with you on the container trucks. I have no problem with electric busses either. FWIW, I also have no problem with turning a number of side streets in the downtown area into shared spaces. I just believe that main streets need to be used for vehicular traffic ( to maintain commerce), and that sufficient (enclosed) parking be maintained downtown to allow people to drive there if they so wish.

FWIW, Speaking of the container trucks downtown, I know someone on the board of the Halifax Port Authority and have personally spoken to him/her about this issue. They are all well aware of the problems of having HalTerm on the peninsula. They have also been studying the "big fix", which would be relocating the terminal off the peninsula and onto the Dartmouth shore.

This is an incredibly expensive proposition (well north of a billion dollars) and they would only recover $200-$300M by selling the current port properties in the south end for redevelopment. As such, significant federal/provincial investment would be necessary to make this ever happen.

My friend however is not discouraged. He/she feels that it could be marketed to the other levels of government as the cure for what ails downtown Halifax:
1- eliminate truck traffic in the core
2- free up the rail cut for a reliable regional commuter rail service
3- free up a large tract of waterfront land for redevelopment, including a new cruise ship terminal

As for a proposed Dartmouth container terminal, this would not necessitate container trains running along the Dartmouth waterfront downtown. According to my friend, there is another right of way available coming from the northeast that could be used to service the facility.

It will be interesting if this ever comes to fruition......

]You talk about being divisive, yet that's exactly what you are promoting. Not that your opinion is any less valid than anybody else's, but it's just an opinion. :2cents:

This is the main problem I have with activists. They may have some good points you can agree with, and you may be willing to make some accommodations for their point of view, but a true zealot will be so uncompromising that they will never agree that what you are proposing is ever enough. It's always their way or the doorway. Furthermore, many activists are "professionals", and once they have exhausted themselves with one cause, they will move on to the next one. You often see the same people over and over again at a variety of different demonstrations that superficially seem unconnected.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Agree with you on the container trucks. I have no problem with electric busses either. FWIW, I also have no problem with turning a number of side streets in the downtown area into shared spaces. I just believe that main streets need to be used for vehicular traffic ( to maintain commerce), and that sufficient (enclosed) parking be maintained downtown to allow people to drive there if they so wish.

FWIW, Speaking of the container trucks downtown, I know someone on the board of the Halifax Port Authority and have personally spoken to him/her about this issue. They are all well aware of the problems of having HalTerm on the peninsula. They have also been studying the "big fix", which would be relocating the terminal off the peninsula and onto the Dartmouth shore.

This is an incredibly expensive proposition (well north of a billion dollars) and they would only recover $200-$300M by selling the current port properties in the south end for redevelopment. As such, significant federal/provincial investment would be necessary to make this ever happen.

My friend however is not discouraged. He/she feels that it could be marketed to the other levels of government as the cure for what ails downtown Halifax:
1- eliminate truck traffic in the core
2- free up the rail cut for a reliable regional commuter rail service
3- free up a large tract of waterfront land for redevelopment, including a new cruise ship terminal

As for a proposed Dartmouth container terminal, this would not necessitate container trains running along the Dartmouth waterfront downtown. According to my friend, there is another right of way available coming from the northeast that could be used to service the facility.

It will be interesting if this ever comes to fruition......



This is the main problem I have with activists. They may have some good points you can agree with, and you may be willing to make some accommodations for their point of view, but a true zealot will be so uncompromising that they will never agree that what you are proposing is ever enough. It's always their way or the doorway. Furthermore, many activists are "professionals", and once they have exhausted themselves with one cause, they will move on to the next one. You often see the same people over and over again at a variety of different demonstrations that superficially seem unconnected.

FWIW, I don't think it's possible to have a downtown totally free of vehicular traffic anyhow, as you always have to leave provisions for delivery, emergency vehicles, etc. Plus, as you mentioned, in Halifax a lot of businesses would suffer (commerce) from the reduction in traffic. A person can say all they want about foot traffic, bicycles, and transit (which is not good currently) taking up the slack, but I'm not so sure it would.

Regarding Halterm: My favourite proposal has always been the rail link to a depot outside of the city to link to trucking there. It adds an extra step, but basically eliminates unnecessary trucking within the city completely. In my eyes, it's such a clean system - move it out by rail, transfer to trucks which can avoid getting caught in traffic and narrow roads and can jump right on to the main highway.

To be clear, I think activism as an activity to affect change is a good thing overall, but I agree that the extreme viewpoints and not-give-an-inch standpoints are just a waste of time (because nobody takes them seriously) and give the majority of activists who are actually working to improve a situation a bad name (i.e. 'zealots'). From what I see, a lot of extreme activists just seem to get some kind of rush out of 'the fight', and really don't want to compromise anything as it would take the rush out of it.

[Nouvellecosse]

That's fine. It's your prerogative to think I'm wrong, just as much as it's mine to think you're wrong.

You talk about being divisive, yet that's exactly what you are promoting. Not that your opinion is any less valid than anybody else's, but it's just an opinion. :2cents:

And that's where you're wrong. Stating an opposing opinion isn't divisive. The fact that people have opposing opinions means they're already divided. How people interact with one another after the divide is established determines whether or not they can come to a compromise or instead become entrenched. If they show contempt and disrespect toward one another in their language and tone then things shut down.

I don't know why you'd assume people are unable to compromise simply because they have strong opinions. Compromise comes into play when making a decision, allowing people to work together to find a solution that's as good as you can all agree on. It doesn't mean that you consider the compromise to be better than your original proposal nor does it mean changing your opinion to conform to others'. But in our case none of that is relevant since we're not making any of these decisions. We're only sharing our opinions. So no, I'm no promoting divisiveness.

[OldDartmouthMark]

And that's where you're wrong. Stating an opposing opinion isn't divisive. The fact that people have opposing opinions means they're already divided. How people interact with one another after the divide is established determines whether or not they can come to a compromise or instead become entrenched. If they show contempt and disrespect toward one another in their language and tone then things shut down.

I don't know why you'd assume people are unable to compromise simply because they have strong opinions. Compromise comes into play when making a decision, allowing people to work together to find a solution that's as good as you can all agree on. It doesn't mean that you consider the compromise to be better than your original proposal nor does it mean changing your opinion to conform to others'. But in our case none of that is relevant since we're not making any of these decisions. We're only sharing our opinions. So no, I'm no promoting divisiveness.

Maybe I misunderstood your post. Your rant about the "mushy middle ground" sounded like you were against compromise. i.e. mushy middle ground = compromise

So is your point that I should be saying "damn all the cyclists and pedestrians because I want to drive my car everywhere" - if I actually want there to be a more balanced environment - in order to counter the "ban all cars" side of things? I guess I'm confused. :shrug:

[Colin May]

Some of those cost advantages come from tax breaks provided by the Municipality to those in industrial/business parks where big box stores go, don't they?
There are no tax breaks for businesses in industrial/business parks.
Where did you get that idea from ?

[Colin May]

[QUOTE=MonctonRad;7982345]

" As for a proposed Dartmouth container terminal, this would not necessitate container trains running along the Dartmouth waterfront downtown. According to my friend, there is another right of way available coming from the northeast that could be used to service the facility.

There is no such right of way. There is the old route that ran past Shearwater and out along the Eastern Shore; it is now a trail. On the Dartmouth side there is only one, passing through downtown - stuff that. Getting a deal with CN over the use of the cut is the only solution, and the cheapest. Federal funding can be put to better use in HRM, we'll need the money for a new MacKay bridge.

[terrynorthend]

This thread seems to have significantly digressed from Nova Centre recently. Perhaps these discussions should be moved to "active transportation" or elsewhere.

As for Nova Centre, is there any word on a hotel operator yet? Did I hear correctly that the convention centre hall was opening in December?

[Nouvellecosse]

Maybe I misunderstood your post. Your rant about the "mushy middle ground" sounded like you were against compromise. i.e. mushy middle ground = compromise

So is your point that I should be saying "damn all the cyclists and pedestrians because I want to drive my car everywhere" - if I actually want there to be a more balanced environment - in order to counter the "ban all cars" side of things? I guess I'm confused. :shrug:

Your post made it seem like i and others should alter our opinions to better conform to the mainstream/status quo since the mainstream doesn't like any idea of curtailing car usage and tends to react negatively toward it. It suggested that the fact that people do things in a particular way (either by preference or custom) means they're unable to change and that arguing for change is somehow disrespectful or inconsiderate to them. This of course would be ridiculous.

I actually think I misunderstood your stance and had the impression that you understand and accept that such change is desirable but were simply too afraid of conflict and backlash to say so, and that you felt others should be as well. Looking back, I should have realized it was more a case of you being aligned with the mainstream/status quo and not actually believing that change is desirable since you used several common pro status-quo arguments.

For example, suggesting that I obviously must accept the necessity of cars since I have one myself. This is a tautological argument which basically justifies things being how they are because they are how they are, while arguing that it's impractical to change things because of this. In reality, when an individual argues for change in a larger system such as our societal transportation system, it may not be practical for that individual to change on their own as long as they exist within the context of that system, but that says nothing about the feasibility of system-wide change. Most of the impracticality citied by those using this common argument relate to the impracticality of change for an individual acting at odds with the larger system.

Numerous other pro status-quo argument tactics exist such as suggesting that change is "too extreme" or "too disruptive" or "impractical" or "too difficult" or "not a priority" and the list goes on and on. Most of these tend to be either irrelevant since they don't actually address the merits of the proposed change or they focus disproportionately on the drawbacks or costs of change while ignoring or downplaying those of the current situation. But it can be easy to miss some of these if they're slipped into larger, more complex arguments.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Your post made it seem like i and others should alter our opinions to better conform to the mainstream/status quo since the mainstream doesn't like any idea of curtailing car usage and tends to react negatively toward it. It suggested that the fact that people do things in a particular way (either by preference or custom) means they're unable to change and that arguing for change is somehow disrespectful or inconsiderate to them. This of course would be ridiculous.

I actually think I misunderstood your stance and had the impression that you understand and accept that such change is desirable but were simply too afraid of conflict and backlash to say so, and that you felt others should be as well. Looking back, I should have realized it was more a case of you being aligned with the mainstream/status quo and not actually believing that change is desirable since you used several common pro status-quo arguments.

For example, suggesting that I obviously must accept the necessity of cars since I have one myself. This is a tautological argument which basically justifies things being how they are because they are how they are, while arguing that it's impractical to change things because of this. In reality, when an individual argues for change in a larger system such as our societal transportation system, it may not be practical for that individual to change on their own as long as they exist within the context of that system, but that says nothing about the feasibility of system-wide change. Most of the impracticality citied by those using this common argument relate to the impracticality of change for an individual acting at odds with the larger system.

Numerous other pro status-quo argument tactics exist such as suggesting that change is "too extreme" or "too disruptive" or "impractical" or "too difficult" or "not a priority" and the list goes on and on. Most of these tend to be either irrelevant since they don't actually address the merits of the proposed change or they focus disproportionately on the drawbacks or costs of change while ignoring or downplaying those of the current situation. But it can be easy to miss some of these if they're slipped into larger, more complex arguments.

Look, enough of the bullcrap.

Terrynorthend is right - this "discussion" has diluted the Nova Centre thread enough, and I'm going to end my part in it right now. It all started as a discussion over the Argyle/Grafton street makeover (which doesn't have a thread of its own) and went out in left field somewhere after that.

You're being way too complicated over trying to guess my intent. I'll end it where I started with my quote about how I feel about the streetscaping:

IMHO, where the downtown is headed is just fine.

- Residential development for those who want/can afford it. Benefit is that it brings support to downtown-based retailers and restaurants - everybody benefits from that.
- Less surface parking, which means better use of land supplies for residential and business alike.
- More public parking located within new buildings - people who choose to bring their cars downtown can still park them, they just have to pay to do so.
- A few streets converted to pedestrian-centric, giving people a place to enjoy festivals, patios, etc. and not worry about getting run over by a car or bus.

Basically it is becoming everything for everybody. You can get there by transit if you wish, you can bike there if you wish, you can take your car for speed, convenience, shelter from bad weather, mobility issues, etc.

It is what it is. If you consider my views too mainstream for your liking, I'm OK with that. They are my views and I don't depend on your judgment to decide how I feel about things.

Have a nice day. :)

[Jonovision]

A lot of the pavers have now gone in on the new plaza on the former Grafton St.

Also Neptune's renovations are almost complete and they are working to convert their balcony over sackville to a glassed in expansion to their upper lever.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4585/37708872914_43a9102c10_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ZscQah)20171114_154037 (https://flic.kr/p/ZscQah) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4575/24552508328_453a54a24f_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DpC2k7)20171114_154052 (https://flic.kr/p/DpC2k7) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4521/37708864034_1f7d39fc72_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ZscMwb)20171114_154100 (https://flic.kr/p/ZscMwb) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4561/24552500548_c378c167e5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DpBZ1Y)20171114_154136 (https://flic.kr/p/DpBZ1Y) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

[Jonovision]

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4550/24635116298_29a28a99b4_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DwVpNs)20171118_123702 (https://flic.kr/p/DwVpNs) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4559/24635114478_cc6cc3c9f5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DwVpg5)20171118_124030 (https://flic.kr/p/DwVpg5) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4582/26731511869_1d3e720243_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GJaZaF)20171118_124245 (https://flic.kr/p/GJaZaF) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4572/24635110998_2d0820e849_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DwVoe5)20171118_124652 (https://flic.kr/p/DwVoe5) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

[Jonovision]

Some textured concret going in on off of Prince St and the big BMO sign is up on the front of the tower.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4568/24918915858_80ab36fb4a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DXZXwj)20171122_152710 (https://flic.kr/p/DXZXwj) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4569/24918912038_30a85f97fb_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DXZWos)20171127_130900_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/DXZWos) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4518/23927387767_a29410a0e7_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Cso7Lp)20171130_165830 (https://flic.kr/p/Cso7Lp) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

[steve61]

Some textured concret going in on off of Prince St and the big BMO sign is up on the front of the tower.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4568/24918915858_80ab36fb4a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DXZXwj)20171122_152710 (https://flic.kr/p/DXZXwj) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4569/24918912038_30a85f97fb_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DXZWos)20171127_130900_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/DXZWos) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4518/23927387767_a29410a0e7_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Cso7Lp)20171130_165830 (https://flic.kr/p/Cso7Lp) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

Having signs on the upper levels of the building completely kills the look. Tacky and way out of proportion. Extremely disappointing.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Having signs on the upper levels of the building completely kills the look. Tacky and way out of proportion. Extremely disappointing.

Tacky yet somehow fitting. Wondering how long it will be before the name is changed from the Nova Centre to the BMO Centre...

[Halifax]

Tacky yet somehow fitting. Wondering how long it will be before the name is changed from the Nova Centre to the BMO Centre...

I actually like the signs up better than when it was bare - looks really nice at night.

[Wigglez]

I actually think the size of the lettering visually changes the scale of the building. Before the signage the building looked massive and bulky and quite out of scale to buildings currently around it. The signage makes the building look a little smaller, a better mid sized building development.

That's just what I see though.

[yal]

I actually like the way it looks as well

[connect2source]

The B M O looks off-centre, I'm guessing the BM red and white round logo is going to be place to the right of the letters. I've never seen B M O placed anywhere without the logo beside it.

[Jonovision]

I wanted to hate the logo but it does to something to centre the geometry of North half of the building and does make the scale of the whole development work better. Who knew?!:shrug:

[yal]

The B M O looks off-centre, I'm guessing the BM red and white round logo is going to be place to the right of the letters. I've never seen B M O placed anywhere without the logo beside it.

They put the logo to the right as well. It would look ridiculous without it :)

[steve61]

I wanted to hate the logo but it does to something to centre the geometry of North half of the building and does make the scale of the whole development work better. Who knew?!:shrug:

I'm assuming this won't be the only logo on the building as more tenants are announced. My fear is that the building will be littered with signage once it gets filled.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Welcome to The Nova Centre "Rogers/BMO/To-be-announced Square"™!

:haha:

I really should reserve judgement until it's finished and all the branding is brightly lit at night. Still not comfortable with branding a former city street, I guess...

[IanWatson]

I'm assuming this won't be the only logo on the building as more tenants are announced. My fear is that the building will be littered with signage once it gets filled.

None of the other towers downtown have more than one brand (TD, CIBC, RBC, 1801 Hollis, BDC, etc.). I suspect that one of the conditions a company requires for putting up the big bucks to have their name on a tower is that they get exclusive rights.

Though in this case I imagine the hotel tower will have some sort of signage, though it may only be along the podium level (Rank got the windows along the Prince Street side removed from the development to make room for a signage band).

[terrynorthend]

None of the other towers downtown have more than one brand (TD, CIBC, RBC, 1801 Hollis, BDC, etc.). I suspect that one of the conditions a company requires for putting up the big bucks to have their name on a tower is that they get exclusive rights.

Though in this case I imagine the hotel tower will have some sort of signage, though it may only be along the podium level (Rank got the windows along the Prince Street side removed from the development to make room for a signage band).

On a side note, I noticed a few weeks ago some guys removing the BMO sign from the top of the building on George. It is currently unbranded I believe. Has BMO abandoned that address completely?

[Keith P.]

On a side note, I noticed a few weeks ago some guys removing the BMO sign from the top of the building on George. It is currently unbranded I believe. Has BMO abandoned that address completely?

Yes. My contact there said they were moving last Friday and over the weekend.

[steve61]

None of the other towers downtown have more than one brand (TD, CIBC, RBC, 1801 Hollis, BDC, etc.). I suspect that one of the conditions a company requires for putting up the big bucks to have their name on a tower is that they get exclusive rights.

Though in this case I imagine the hotel tower will have some sort of signage, though it may only be along the podium level (Rank got the windows along the Prince Street side removed from the development to make room for a signage band).

True about the other office buildings but this is essentially four towers and if they decide to slap logos on each it could get really messy especially when placed on the higher floors.

Hopefully I'm wrong. When the checkerboard glazing first started going up I thought it was terrible but once finished I thought it looked amazing.

[hoser111]

True about the other office buildings but this is essentially four towers and if they decide to slap logos on each it could get really messy especially when placed on the higher floors.

Hopefully I'm wrong. When the checkerboard glazing first started going up I thought it was terrible but once finished I thought it looked amazing.

If I'm not mistaken, Jono's 2nd pic reveals some anchoring hardware for signage on the upper floors on the Prince street side, just wrapped around from that BMO sign.

[Jonovision]

If I'm not mistaken, Jono's 2nd pic reveals some anchoring hardware for signage on the upper floors on the Prince street side, just wrapped around from that BMO sign.

The BMO sign went up on both the East and North faces of the tower.

[Jonovision]

Pedestrian level lighting is turned on. The BMO branch is now open and part of the sidewalk on Sackville is now open as well.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4737/24050867477_ff7278f329_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CDhYYV)20171207_121647_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/CDhYYV) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4568/38029031185_ef5a6aec79_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ZWuJ4t)20171207_121709_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/ZWuJ4t) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4545/25043813758_2fa1858906_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Ea36jo)20171207_121759 (https://flic.kr/p/Ea36jo) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4525/38028997945_7f832ce8c5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ZWuybn)20171207_121907 (https://flic.kr/p/ZWuybn) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4559/27138627229_91a583fa6e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Hm9yo2)20171207_121808_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/Hm9yo2) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

[Jonovision]

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4559/27138599059_01879fec65_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Hm9q1k)20171207_122028_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/Hm9q1k) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4555/25043787088_d12def5d36_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Ea2Xoy)20171207_122032 (https://flic.kr/p/Ea2Xoy) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4635/38199930264_5cff1e8e44_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/21cACpj)20171208_071859 (https://flic.kr/p/21cACpj) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4533/38879663552_e5560a9564_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/22eErqL)20171208_071949 (https://flic.kr/p/22eErqL) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

[Keith P.]

The building still seems largely inaccessible. I wonder how BMO clients get in?

[ILoveHalifax]

I wonder how BMO clients get in?

DUH!! Thru a door?

[Keith P.]

DUH!! Thru a door?

Thank you for that incisive comment.

Let me rephrase the question: I wonder WHERE BMO clients get in?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Thank you for that incisive comment.

Let me rephrase the question: I wonder WHERE BMO clients get in?

My guess:

https://i.imgur.com/0SxYN9e.jpg

[Keith P.]

My guess:

https://i.imgur.com/0SxYN9e.jpg

Is that Argyle St.? Is that also the entrance to the office tower?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Is that Argyle St.? Is that also the entrance to the office tower?

I think that's 'Rogers Square' (the street formerly known as Grafton).

[hoser111]

I think that's 'Rogers Square' (the street formerly known as Grafton).

It is... That shot basically looking from the PG/Grafton corner. No doubt quite a scramble going on in the week prior to opening!

[Nouvellecosse]

Look, enough of the bullcrap.

Terrynorthend is right - this "discussion" has diluted the Nova Centre thread enough, and I'm going to end my part in it right now. It all started as a discussion over the Argyle/Grafton street makeover (which doesn't have a thread of its own) and went out in left field somewhere after that.

You're being way too complicated over trying to guess my intent. I'll end it where I started with my quote about how I feel about the streetscaping:



It is what it is. If you consider my views too mainstream for your liking, I'm OK with that. They are my views and I don't depend on your judgment to decide how I feel about things.

Have a nice day. :)

Whoa... what I was discussing had nothing to do with disliking ideas because they're mainstream and everything to do with being willing to embrace good ideas regardless of whether or not they're at odds with the mainstream. This whole thing started with you attacking other people's opinions because they weren't mainstream enough for your liking, not with me criticizing your opinions. I'm sorry if you find that way too complicated because, it really isn't. :)

[OldDartmouthMark]

Whoa... what I was discussing had nothing to do with disliking ideas because they're mainstream and everything to do with being willing to embrace good ideas regardless of whether or not they're at odds with the mainstream. This whole thing started with you attacking other people's opinions because they weren't mainstream enough for your liking, not with me criticizing your opinions. I'm sorry if you find that way too complicated because, it really isn't. :)

Why are you digging up an off-topic discussion from a few weeks ago? I've long been finished with it.

And, FWIW, I wasn't attacking anybody's opinions (nice attempt at adding drama!), I was just expressing my own.

Now, let it rest... please!

[Keith P.]

Why are you digging up an off-topic discussion from a few weeks ago?


A really slooooooooow internet connection perhaps? :haha:

[Nouvellecosse]

Why are you digging up an off-topic discussion from a few weeks ago? I've long been finished with it.

And, FWIW, I wasn't attacking anybody's opinions (nice attempt at adding drama!), I was just expressing my own.

Now, let it rest... please!

I don't often search through the subforums, and instead I simply click on things that come to the top when I have time. I was busier several weeks ago and didn't have time to keep up with the forum and now I'm less busy. Not that this is in any way relevant? Fact is, I will respond to any topic any time that I have something I want to say, and you're welcome to do the same. But I'm not forcing anyone else to take part, but conversely, I won't have another member force me not to.

As far as the attack, I was referring to this:



I've long tired of all the extremist values continually bickered about here. At this point Halifax is completely accessible by car if you wish, so the sky isn't falling in that regard. Halifax is not big enough (like London, UK, for example) where banning cars from the downtown makes any sense whatsoever, so why push for it other than a personal preference. Transit could use improvement, and I think we will get it. If we all stepped off our high horses and conceded that we can all share the downtown and try to get along we'd all be better off, IMHO.


The bolded part is absolutely an attack on other people expressing opinions you don't agree with, for the implied reason that they're too "extremist" aka, not mainstream enough. It wasn't sharing your own opinion of the topic; it was criticising other people for sharing theirs. Denying it doesn't change this.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I don't often search through the subforums, and instead I simply click on things that come to the top when I have time. I was busier several weeks ago and didn't have time to keep up with the forum and now I'm less busy. Not that this is in any way relevant? Fact is, I will respond to any topic any time that I have something I want to say, and you're welcome to do the same. But I'm not forcing anyone else to take part, but conversely, I won't have another member force me not to.

As far as the attack, I was referring to this:



The bolded part is absolutely an attack on other people expressing opinions you don't agree with, for the implied reason that they're too "extremist" aka, not mainstream enough. It wasn't sharing your own opinion of the topic; it was criticising other people for sharing theirs. Denying it doesn't change this.

Spin it however you like.

OK, it's an attack rather than my opinion that I'm tired of extreme values, i.e. all cars should be taken off the road because they are the reason for all our problems, or, the city should spend $0 on bicycle lanes because they are pandering to special interest groups. My opinions lie in the middle of that, and to be honest with all the world events that seem to be centred around extreme values and not being able or willing to understand anybody else's point of view but their own, I'm quite tired of it all. So, sorry for 'attacking' you.

And yes, we all need to step off our high horses every now and then and try to see things from other perspectives. So, again, sorry for the 'attack'. I hope you can recover from it. :rolleyes:

Why do I get the idea that you really enjoy arguing? :shrug:

Now, can we go back to this thread being about the Nova Centre? Please??

Edit: In the interest of avoiding further derailment of the Nova Centre thread, I started a thread in the General section that can be used to continue this discussion, attack, or whatever it is. I think there are some good points made that do merit further discussion, or at least some axes to grind. So if there are any more points to be made, the thread is: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=8015246#post8015246. If not, then it will soon fall, unanswered, to the bottom of the list and we can consider this topic done (for now, anyhow)...

[IanWatson]

Thank you for that incisive comment.

Let me rephrase the question: I wonder WHERE BMO clients get in?

You can now walk all the way through the Grafton plaza, with access points to the BMO door. Unfortunately it looks like they rushed to get the pavers down... A lot of them are not installed well and are quite uneven.

[eastcoastal]

You can now walk all the way through the Grafton plaza, with access points to the BMO door. Unfortunately it looks like they rushed to get the pavers down... A lot of them are not installed well and are quite uneven.

Isn't Grafton now "Rogers?"

[Keith P.]

You can now walk all the way through the Grafton plaza, with access points to the BMO door. Unfortunately it looks like they rushed to get the pavers down... A lot of them are not installed well and are quite uneven.

What a shock. A return of the old 1980s ankle benders. Many predicted this but Mason assured us these would be different. Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

[IanWatson]

Isn't Grafton now "Rogers?"

Yes, but I refuse to call it that. Bad enough a public street became privatized. Worse that the name has been changed to the highest bidder.

[IanWatson]

What a shock. A return of the old 1980s ankle benders. Many predicted this but Mason assured us these would be different. Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

To be clear, this is only on the Nova Centre plaza part. The pavers on the pedestrian streets done by the city are great.

[someone123]

One would think the interior plaza, if installed correctly, would last really well since it shouldn't be exposed to much water. Water that works its way into cracks and then freezes and expands is what does much of the damage to those surfaces.

[RangerNS]

One would think the interior plaza, if installed correctly, would last really well since it shouldn't be exposed to much water. Water that works its way into cracks and then freezes and expands is what does much of the damage to those surfaces.

That , and all of the plaza is above a heated space. Some of it is going to freeze, sure, but its not going to get the 100 freeze/thaw cycles that NS streets usually get.

[Haliguy]

What a shock. A return of the old 1980s ankle benders. Many predicted this but Mason assured us these would be different. Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

It's not the same

[q12]

Joe Ramia says the convention centre is 98% complete. Says hotel will be announced in a few weeks

https://twitter.com/MariekeWalsh/status/941703908115787776

Official opening today:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRGGxX7X0AApknS.jpg

https://twitter.com/scanway/status/941682163849691136

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRGYpsWXUAAIpLB.jpg
https://twitter.com/hfxconventions/status/941701644877811713


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRGXY5yX4AUjiUP.jpg
https://twitter.com/DrRob_Thacker/status/941700267887783938

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRGWQGqX0AUnywG.jpg
https://twitter.com/DrRob_Thacker/status/941699021713887235

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRGV9_rWkAA_CTn.jpg
https://twitter.com/DrRob_Thacker/status/941698703554961408

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRGBaAnWAAAJJUS.jpg
https://twitter.com/DrRob_Thacker/status/941676100249374721

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRGWQGqX0AUnywG.jpg
https://twitter.com/DrRob_Thacker/status/941699021713887235

[q12]

Halifax convention centre officially opens five years after first proposed (7 photos)

https://www.halifaxtoday.ca/local-news/halifax-convention-centre-officially-opens-five-years-after-first-proposed-7-photos-792079


https://vmcdn.ca/f/files/halifaxtoday/images/photo-albums/halifax-convention-centre-opening/121517-20171215_121020.jpg;w=960;h=640;bgcolor=000000

https://vmcdn.ca/f/files/halifaxtoday/images/photo-albums/halifax-convention-centre-opening/121517-20171215_102502.jpg;w=960;h=640;bgcolor=000000

https://vmcdn.ca/f/files/halifaxtoday/images/photo-albums/halifax-convention-centre-opening/121517-20171215_102619.jpg;w=960;h=640;bgcolor=000000

https://vmcdn.ca/f/files/halifaxtoday/images/photo-albums/halifax-convention-centre-opening/121517-20171215_103240.jpg;w=960;h=640;bgcolor=000000

HALIFAX — The convention centre portion of a massive $500-million construction project that dominates downtown Halifax has officially opened its doors, several years behind schedule.

Built with $169 million in taxpayer funding, the 120,000-square-foot Halifax Convention Centre is to host its first event — the Canadian weightlifting junior nationals — on Jan. 20.

Convention centre CEO Carrie Cussons says 90 events are already booked for the first year of operations.

Cussons says that number includes nearly three times more national and international events than have ever been hosted at the city's much smaller convention facility.

First announced in 2012, the entire one-million square foot development known as the Nova Centre, includes a hotel, office tower and public plaza.

Construction began in January 2013, but the timetable was dealt setbacks after developer Argyle Developments had to make design changes and mechanical upgrades to the building.

Joe Ramia, Argyle's president and CEO, says construction is about 98 per cent complete with the finishing touches expected to be ready by March.

[Keith P.]

I don't quite get the meaning of the blue "O" on the signage. I figured they would use the "H/\LIF/\X" design too.

I hope they have some blinds for those windows. The solar gain at times will be massive and the light blinding.

Glad to see its open. The early bookings are promising.

[terrynorthend]

I don't quite get the meaning of the blue "O" on the signage. I figured they would use the "H/\LIF/\X" design too.

I hope they have some blinds for those windows. The solar gain at times will be massive and the light blinding.

Glad to see its open. The early bookings are promising.

It does appear to look quite nice inside. Hopefully there will be something interesting that I can attend there in the new year.

[Empire]

It does appear to look quite nice inside. Hopefully there will be something interesting that I can attend there in the new year.

Hopefully they do something with the columns....paint - dryvit - tile - glass?

[connect2source]

I don't quite get the meaning of the blue "O" on the signage. I figured they would use the "H/\LIF/\X" design too.

I'm confused about the "O" too, looks as if the "O" theme continues up the grand stairway as well.

Otherwise, with all it's flaws and delays, it is quite beautiful and exciting.

[someone123]

Otherwise, with all it's flaws and delays, it is quite beautiful and exciting.

It's a nice modern building and it came along with a great transformation for Argyle Street. It is hard to think of any equivalent spaces in downtown Halifax that existed before this was built. The library was similar, and Queen's Marque will be too if it is successful.

I am not sure how likely it is but if I had to pick the next area for an overhaul it would be the Dennis building, the empty lot behind it, and the north end of the Province House block.

[Jonovision]

You can now walk through the covered street.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4646/24276135837_a7823247b2_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CZcxqa)20171216_134351_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/CZcxqa) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4641/24276132227_c632ffd8ef_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CZcwkV)20171216_134347 (https://flic.kr/p/CZcwkV) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr

[eastcoastal]

You can now walk through the covered street.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4646/24276135837_a7823247b2_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CZcxqa)20171216_134351_HDR (https://flic.kr/p/CZcxqa) by Jonovision23 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/36229421@N02/), on Flickr



Wow

I'm yet to be convinced that Rogers St. is an inviting place to be. I will have to visit in person (and wait until there are storefronts... there will be storefronts, won't there?) before firmly closing my mind though.

[MonctonRad]

:previous:

Looks like an incipient wind tunnel to me (and rather cold and uninviting too).

Of course it might be better once all the fixtures are complete and tenants have moved in.

At the very least, it would give pedestrians someplace to hide during a sudden rainstorm..........

[Keith P.]

I was downtown today so I decided to roll past and check this out.

The rebuilt Argyle St in this block was relatively passable even despite the trucks parked in front of Nova Centre unloading things. However the next block south on Argyle is already proving to be a disaster. Foamcore signs zip-tied to poles trying to indicate where cars are and are not allowed. The sign poles are everywhere and very close to the one narrow travel lane just waiting for a snowplow to break/bend them. Not sure how vehicles are supposed to drop people off or make deliveries. I predict this will need to be rethought soon.

The Rogers Plaza (?) section pictured above was still blocked off when I was there with a "no vehicle access" sign posted. Having a crew there digging a trench at the Sackville St end did not make it seem inviting. But the entire development is still very much a construction site and largely unfinished at street level. I could not see where the parking garage was accessed nor could I tell how to visit the BMO site. Still a long ways to go on the outdoor parts and with winter coming it will likely take a while.

[Colin May]

Premier McNeil had baloney in his remarks saying that this development caused the building boom in Halifax and that before the start of the Nova center there was not much activity.
In February 2012 there were 12 cranes visible on the Halifax skyline. I guess his speechwriter is from away.

[Keith P.]

The sign poles are everywhere and very close to the one narrow travel lane just waiting for a snowplow to break/bend them. Not sure how vehicles are supposed to drop people off or make deliveries. I predict this will need to be rethought soon.



Nailed it:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRWsTjOX0AIb-H6.jpg

[someone123]

Looks like an incipient wind tunnel to me (and rather cold and uninviting too).

Of course it might be better once all the fixtures are complete and tenants have moved in.

It's possible that this would become a wind tunnel, but wind studies were completed as part of this development. I would guess that the covered portion was included in the study.

Most of the wind problems downtown are older buildings built before wind studies were common, and the main issue is "downwashing"; air that collides with a vertical building facade and is deflected downward toward pedestrians. This problem is easy to mitigate with setbacks on upper floors, wind screens, etc.

One potential problem with the covered street is that daylight is very bright. It is easy for artificially-lit places to look like caves in the day even if they appear well-lit at night. We won't know what this area will look like until it's finished though. It's just a bare skeleton right now.

[Franco401]

Shared Space pedestrian streets are typically built with little to no signage at all. Big oversight putting that there.

[Halifax]

Nailed it:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRWsTjOX0AIb-H6.jpg

LOL good call Keith

[Keith P.]

Shall we officially term this debacle on Argyle St "Mason's Folly"?

I am thinking of starting a poll as to when it will again all be ripped up.

Mason's Folly (https://twitter.com/benwedge/status/943842658543460352)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRkz4_8W4AEPpmO.jpg