General Updates and News

[planarchy]

Sorry, no.

They are legislated and are there for reasonable, legitimate appeals.

Not frivolous appeals that are there not to adjudicate legitimate rights or claims, but simply to add extra costs to development.

Council is not fallible. But your post assumes appeal appeals are infallible. #Whoops

PS: Courts can award costs, if they appeal the UARB's decision. They should here, significantly.

Well Council approved a project and gave what is basically a density bonus for a "bonus" that doesn't actually exist.

These projects themselves seem fine and may be a good development. But there is a significant issue in this case with fairness and transparency in the process.

[hokus83]

What a surprise doing a thread search for planarchy shows the username complaining and fighting against developments in every post. Where do these trolls come from.

[Keith P.]

What a surprise doing a thread search for planarchy shows the username complaining and fighting against developments in every post. Where do these trolls come from.

The username choice speaks for itself, really.

[Drybrain]

This isn't an affordable housing project. The DAs do not require anything to be affordable. Council provided additional height and density based on a misunderstanding of the project. Public and Council support for the project is based on a perceived benefit that does not actually exist. #whoops

That's true about the DA, but I kind of doubt a charitable organization like the Housing Trust is trying to sneak a market-rate development through. At 50/50 market rate/rent-geared-to-income, it's a good mix and frankly, Gottingen can stand to be a bit spiffed up. I don't agree with the rising-tide-lifts-all-boats school of thought on gentrification, but developments like this are part of managing gentrification. And gentrification/revitalization is desirable, if its negative aspects (displacement, mainly) can be mitigated and communities remain inclusive.

[planarchy]

What a surprise doing a thread search for planarchy shows the username complaining and fighting against developments in every post. Where do these trolls come from.

You just don't get it. I've got no issue with the buildings, but the process to approve this is seriously f'ed up. And everyone should be concerned about this. It's not just here. Bedford West approvals are a good example. Clayton is given 15+ storey's on Kearney Lake Road while everyone else has to beg for a building permit for as-of-right developments. It is ad-hoc planning at its worst and only serves to decrease the quality of development.

[planarchy]

That's true about the DA, but I kind of doubt a charitable organization like the Housing Trust is trying to sneak a market-rate development through.

I agree, they probably aren't. But Council shouldn't be approving contractual DAs based on the good intentions of the other party. This is how they get in so much trouble and are always being sued. It's just bad business.

[Drybrain]

I agree, they probably aren't. But Council shouldn't be approving contractual DAs based on the good intentions of the other party. This is how they get in so much trouble and are always being sued. It's just bad business.

Seems like a very legitimate concern--I would rather see the opposition focus on amending the agreement to better reflect the development's intention, though, rather than simply holding up the development (which on balance I feel will be positive for the are). But I know that in addition to the concern over the DA there's a perception that the building is too large fronting Gottingen. I think it's getting close to a limit for the streetwall in a not-quite-downtown area like this, but it's not too large.

[Drybrain]

On a tangentially related note, the rather left wing, socially progressive Pembina Institute is fingering NIMBYism and community opposition (http://m.thestar.com/#/article/business/2015/05/01/toronto-needs-more-mid-rise-condos-report-says.html) as a barrier to creating mid-rise developments on Toronto's main streets, exacerbating that city's affordable housing crunch. They point out the role of market-rate multi-unit developments in preserving urban affordability and preventing a city where you have pockets of high-rises filled mostly with young singles, and vast and mostly unchanging districts of extremely expensive single-family houses, occupied by middle-aged and older people, or the rich. Those two housing types pretty much sum up central Toronto, and are creating an urban environment in which young families have a brutally hard time living in the city's core. Market-rate mid-rises are identified as part of the solution.

[counterfactual]

On a tangentially related note, the rather left wing, socially progressive Pembina Institute is fingering NIMBYism and community opposition (http://m.thestar.com/#/article/business/2015/05/01/toronto-needs-more-mid-rise-condos-report-says.html) as a barrier to creating mid-rise developments on Toronto's main streets, exacerbating that city's affordable housing crunch. They point out the role of market-rate multi-unit developments in preserving urban affordability and preventing a city where you have pockets of high-rises filled mostly with young singles, and vast and mostly unchanging districts of extremely expensive single-family houses, occupied by middle-aged and older people, or the rich. Those two housing types pretty much sum up central Toronto, and are creating an urban environment in which young families have a brutally hard time living in the city's core. Market-rate mid-rises are identified as part of the solution.

Am I 100% in support of more family-focused midrise urban development. Something beyond density killing single-units and the sprawlburb model. Something to attract families to core areas; to get them to stop thinking that suburbs is the only way to raise a family.

NIMBYism is only going to get stronger, unfortunately, now as wealthy Boomers age and fight to hold onto their property, wealth, and the status quo.

[Keith P.]

Tenants in the Westwood-owned properties on SGR and Doyle St - the BMO, Tom's Little Havana, Rogue's Roost, and the former Second Cup among others - have been given notice to quit and are preparing to relocate by October 1. Presumably he is ready to begin doing something with the block, though no new renderings have appeared. I can imagine this will become a huge battle if the chooses to not preserve the existing BMO facade in some way.

[ILoveHalifax]

With any luck a dozer will go in some weekend before anybody knows what's happening

[Drybrain]

Totally attractive, functional, unique, well-scaled city block that has never had any problem finding tenants or contributing positively to the neighbourhood, and whose imposing, unmistakable massing has beautifully defined its immediate surroundings for decades.

Hey, let's tear it all down and throw up another pile of generically tacky, prefab-looking shit by Westwood Group.

There aren't enough jeers in the world to lob in Danny Chedrawe's general direction.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Its a shame.

If only there were are group with a mandate to protect the existing heritage of Halifax...

[Keith P.]

Totally attractive, functional, unique, well-scaled city block that has never had any problem finding tenants or contributing positively to the neighbourhood, and whose imposing, unmistakable massing has beautifully defined its immediate surroundings for decades.


Mismashed, cut-up, space-inefficient, rat-infested, maintenance-heavy, economically subpar city block that has festered in mediocrity for decades. Let's save it forever and never change a thing.

[someone123]

There aren't enough jeers in the world to lob in Danny Chedrawe's general direction.

Is it really his fault if something unappealing is built? He is following the rules that the city has created and is responding to the market, building developments that people will rent and buy. It doesn't make much sense to me to vilify developers who follow the rules, or to rely substantially on their largesse or sense of taste to make sure that the city's heritage is well-protected.

I have a feeling that if there were better rules and better communication between heritage advocates and developers, there would be a much better outcome. I doubt Danny Chedrawe is hostile to the idea of building something with wider appeal that garners goodwill in the community.

[Drybrain]

Mismashed, cut-up, space-inefficient, rat-infested, maintenance-heavy, economically subpar city block that has festered in mediocrity for decades. Let's save it forever and never change a thing.

The block had houses almost nothing but successful businesses, but, whatever you want to think.

[Keith P.]

The block had houses almost nothing but successful businesses, but, whatever you want to think.

Well, Second Cup shut down, perhaps due to competition from the HRM-subsidized cafe in the glass box across the street. The bar/pool hall above Rogues has been shut down for years. TD Bank left. The eateries on the corner of Brunswick have been in constant turmoil since Thackerays shut down. Success? Really? I'd hate to see failures.

[Drybrain]

Is it really his fault if something unappealing is built? He is following the rules that the city has created and is responding to the market, building developments that people will rent and buy. It doesn't make much sense to me to vilify developers who follow the rules, or to rely substantially on their largesse or sense of taste to make sure that the city's heritage is well-protected.

I have a feeling that if there were better rules and better communication between heritage advocates and developers, there would be a much better outcome. I doubt Danny Chedrawe is hostile to the idea of building something with wider appeal that garners goodwill in the community.

I don't think he's hostile to it either; and I've even agreed with his comments in the media that Halifax needs more mid-rise and fewer megaprojects. I think his vision for how to build up the city is largely good.

Unfortunately, his developments are not attractive, and taking the dozers to a block like this is a major back-track from the general trends in development locally and nationwide.

It comes down to a sense of taste, as you say, and I guess Danny and I aren't on the same page. Hence my response.

[Colin May]

Well, Second Cup shut down, perhaps due to competition from the HRM-subsidized cafe in the glass box across the street. The bar/pool hall above Rogues has been shut down for years. TD Bank left. The eateries on the corner of Brunswick have been in constant turmoil since Thackerays shut down. Success? Really? I'd hate to see failures.
TD moved one block and has the same landlord.
BMO will do the same.
The Fireside has not been in constant turmoil a longtime owner died of cancer and a new partner entered the business.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Well, Second Cup shut down, perhaps due to competition from the HRM-subsidized cafe in the glass box across the street. The bar/pool hall above Rogues has been shut down for years. TD Bank left. The eateries on the corner of Brunswick have been in constant turmoil since Thackerays shut down. Success? Really? I'd hate to see failures.

I agree with Colin's response above, plus in the broader scope restaurants come and go all the time. It is a risky business to be in as they can fall in and out of popularity at a whim. This is something that happens in all parts of the city (and abroad) and thus I don't think it's a valid argument to try to say that this location is "bad" because some restaurants/coffee shops, etc have closed (and typically reopened with a new owner/direction).

FWIW, remember that a Starbucks also opened up just across the street, which I'm sure contributed to the demise of this Second Cup location. The Nestle shop on the opposite corner, in a nice new shiny building also just shut down. So I guess by that evidence, new buildings on busy corners are not good candidates for food establishments but repurposed buildings like the Starbucks in the old bank are ideal...

IMHO, this building is a prime candidate for a repurposing, or in worst case, a façading. I think this building, with a good exterior cleaning and upgraded facilities on the inside (or even with a tower protruding from the center of it), would continue to be a great cornerstone for this intersection and would offer great contrast with the ultramodern library building (oops... I said the "L" word... :haha:).

Actually, in looking at the building on Google Maps, a vast improvement in the building's appearance would occur if the old Second Cup add-on was removed and if the BMO blue was changed to another more complimentary colour (along with a good pressure-washing of the building itself).

http://i59.tinypic.com/wko9eh.jpg

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.643284,-63.575967,3a,75y,14.84h,89.31t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1s2PBWURy9NCn8gImcN6cZQA!2e0!5s20140801T000000!6m1!1e1

[Drybrain]

It's a perfectly scaled block that defines the corner and works extremely well and has major historic and architectural value.

That it could replaced with something like the renderings Westwood has put out in the past few years indicates a major failure somewhere in the city's planning process. I think once this is all built and we can look at a before-and-after picture, that'll be obvious.

[Keith P.]

FWIW, remember that a Starbucks also opened up just across the street, which I'm sure contributed to the demise of this Second Cup location. The Nestle shop on the opposite corner, in a nice new shiny building also just shut down. So I guess by that evidence, new buildings on busy corners are not good candidates for food establishments but repurposed buildings like the Starbucks in the old bank are ideal...

Don't be silly. I was merely pointing out that the businesses in this block were hardly the roaring successes that a poster who perpetually wears rose-colored glasses when looking at old rundown structures claims they were.

IMHO, this building is a prime candidate for a repurposing, or in worst case, a façading. I think this building, with a good exterior cleaning and upgraded facilities on the inside (or even with a tower protruding from the center of it), would continue to be a great cornerstone for this intersection and would offer great contrast with the ultramodern library building (oops... I said the "L" word... :haha:).

Actually, in looking at the building on Google Maps, a vast improvement in the building's appearance would occur if the old Second Cup add-on was removed and if the BMO blue was changed to another more complimentary colour (along with a good pressure-washing of the building itself).



Leaving us, save for the old Second Cup add-on, with a beauty of a result like this... :uhh::uhh:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/b76febb2-96cd-4a61-88af-f96b14d03524_zpsc4315ab0.jpg


In truth, I expect Westwood to come up something pretty good for this block.

[hokus83]

Is this just the BMO building now? I thought it was the whole block, I haven't seen any talk about the fireside and other places having to relocate or close. I feel a bit confused as to whats fully encompassed in this

[OldDartmouthMark]

Don't be silly. I was merely pointing out that the businesses in this block were hardly the roaring successes that a poster who perpetually wears rose-colored glasses when looking at old rundown structures claims they were.

Fair enough, but I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.


Leaving us, save for the old Second Cup add-on, with a beauty of a result like this... :uhh::uhh:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/b76febb2-96cd-4a61-88af-f96b14d03524_zpsc4315ab0.jpg


IMHO, that architect should be fired. I'm not in the profession, but can easily see ways that the elements of the original design can be integrated into an attractive final product. This one just looks like stuff is tacked onto it, analogous to the person who buys a bunch of accessories at Canadian Tire and proceeds to stick all of them on their car - not a pretty sight.

This mockery takes away most of what is attractive (IMHO) in that building. Hardly a well thought-out design. :2cents:

[JET]

"a poster who perpetually wears rose-colored glasses when looking at old rundown structures.." Keith, you might need to be a bit more specific; that could be a number of left leaning, view-saving, anarchists; me included.

[Drybrain]

Is this just the BMO building now? I thought it was the whole block, I haven't seen any talk about the fireside and other places having to relocate or close. I feel a bit confused as to whats fully encompassed in this

It's the whole block. Fireside's move was mentioned really briefly in that Metro story about it. Chapel Hill is recently closed, and the Ottoman Cafe is closing too. The Sleep Country is moving nearby. It's a block-bust really, a parcel of properties assembled and knocked down as a whole for a block-spanning development. Totally contrary to sound planning, unless the development happens to be really good. Which I really doubt.

[coolmillion]

Is that the design that is currently on the books for this development? If so, yuck. It looks like a Clayton Park special.
One issue with this block, like so many buildings downtown, is that deferred maintenance has resulted in it becoming shabby and somewhat unattractive over the years. Rumours of redevelopment first started bubbling probably 5 years ago (or more?) and that's a long time for a prominent building to be ignored by its owner. The outdoor space along Queen for example has so much potential but it has been completely wasted.
I too am curious as to whether the redevelopment will include the buildings further east or is it only the BMO building.
Danny Chedrawe was quite receptive to feedback when I wrote to him with concerns about the Drum building design. I think an issue with some developers is that the bottom line (profit), combined with inertia of existing agreements and relationships sometimes gets in the way of opportunities to be creative.

[OldDartmouthMark]

It's the whole block. Fireside's move was mentioned really briefly in that Metro story about it. Chapel Hill is recently closed, and the Ottoman Cafe is closing too. The Sleep Country is moving nearby. It's a block-bust really, a parcel of properties assembled and knocked down as a whole for a block-spanning development. Totally contrary to sound planning, unless the development happens to be really good. Which I really doubt.

The whole block?! Geez, it's sounding more hopeless all the time...

Is there a rendering for the actual project online somewhere?

[Keith P.]

"a poster who perpetually wears rose-colored glasses when looking at old rundown structures.." Keith, you might need to be a bit more specific; that could be a number of left leaning, view-saving, anarchists; me included.

Good point and quite true. The tint of the lenses in those glasses matches quite well with the tones of the political leanings of many of the usual suspects here. :lynchmob:

Seriously, this banter is all just a fun diversion. I know Chedrawe, and while he came from humble origins, he has a lot of sense and I truly believe he is always looking to do good in his projects. I think he will come up with something for this site that is at least worthy of serious consideration.

[Keith P.]

The whole block?! Geez, it's sounding more hopeless all the time...

Is there a rendering for the actual project online somewhere?

No project has officially been applied for as yet.

The last rendering from several years ago was this, viewed from the back side at the corner of Doyle & Queen, but I don't think this is in play now:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/bmowestwoodrear.jpg

[OldDartmouthMark]

No project has officially been applied for as yet.

The last rendering from several years ago was this, viewed from the back side at the corner of Doyle & Queen, but I don't think this is in play now:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/bmowestwoodrear.jpg

Thanks Keith. Not horrible, I guess, but not inspiring either.

I'll hold my thoughts until I see a real proposal, but will admit I am skeptical.

All said, I'd still rather see some of those buildings preserved and repurposed, with projects like this filling up some of those eyesore empty lots that have been a blight on the downtown for years (decades). Just my opinion, your mileage may vary... :)

[Drybrain]

I think that rendering is pretty plainly inferior to what's currently there in every way: architectural quality, street interaction, history (obviously), massing and scale.

I'm sure whatever is finally proposed will differ, but I'm still incredibly skeptical that it will compensate for what amounts to blockbusting a functioning historical streetscape (which is just an insanely retrograde thing to do nowadays, but whatever. Some will disagree.)

[hokus83]

No project has officially been applied for as yet.

The last rendering from several years ago was this, viewed from the back side at the corner of Doyle & Queen, but I don't think this is in play now:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/bmowestwoodrear.jpg

This would be better suited for the other side of Doyle street across from the BMO that is dead. tear that worthless strip down and build a tower

[someone123]

I think that rendering is pretty plainly inferior to what's currently there in every way: architectural quality, street interaction, history (obviously), massing and scale.

I'm sure whatever is finally proposed will differ, but I'm still incredibly skeptical that it will compensate for what amounts to blockbusting a functioning historical streetscape (which is just an insanely retrograde thing to do nowadays, but whatever. Some will disagree.)

I guess we will have to wait and see what the new plans are. I do think that there should be more expansive heritage protections and a better sense of different classes of heritage buildings. For example, maybe there could be a class requiring the preservation of facades that would cover more modest buildings that otherwise wouldn't be registered at all. There should be more appreciation of the fact that these buildings play a crucial role in establishing the character of the city.

I'd be cautious about judging the quality of future developments from outdated renderings. This is what the early TD renderings looked like:

http://www.news957.com/files/2010/01/823e28b34042bf7f07375fa621f5-500x337.jpeg
Source (http://www.news957.com)

[counterfactual]

I agree with Colin's response above, plus in the broader scope restaurants come and go all the time. It is a risky business to be in as they can fall in and out of popularity at a whim. This is something that happens in all parts of the city (and abroad) and thus I don't think it's a valid argument to try to say that this location is "bad" because some restaurants/coffee shops, etc have closed (and typically reopened with a new owner/direction).

FWIW, remember that a Starbucks also opened up just across the street, which I'm sure contributed to the demise of this Second Cup location. The Nestle shop on the opposite corner, in a nice new shiny building also just shut down. So I guess by that evidence, new buildings on busy corners are not good candidates for food establishments but repurposed buildings like the Starbucks in the old bank are ideal...

IMHO, this building is a prime candidate for a repurposing, or in worst case, a façading. I think this building, with a good exterior cleaning and upgraded facilities on the inside (or even with a tower protruding from the center of it), would continue to be a great cornerstone for this intersection and would offer great contrast with the ultramodern library building (oops... I said the "L" word... :haha:).

Actually, in looking at the building on Google Maps, a vast improvement in the building's appearance would occur if the old Second Cup add-on was removed and if the BMO blue was changed to another more complimentary colour (along with a good pressure-washing of the building itself).

http://i59.tinypic.com/wko9eh.jpg

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.643284,-63.575967,3a,75y,14.84h,89.31t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1s2PBWURy9NCn8gImcN6cZQA!2e0!5s20140801T000000!6m1!1e1

I agree. I actually think this building, via facadist design, could be a pedestal for a significant high rise development. It would be great for this sport, to lend more significance to this intersection and area. A significant development to pair with the beautiful library across the street.

I would retain all of this facade. It's great. Again, it could be a pedestal for a high rise.

[counterfactual]

Well, Second Cup shut down, perhaps due to competition from the HRM-subsidized cafe in the glass box across the street. The bar/pool hall above Rogues has been shut down for years. TD Bank left. The eateries on the corner of Brunswick have been in constant turmoil since Thackerays shut down. Success? Really? I'd hate to see failures.

Second Cup was gone long before the library.

The Ottoman's Cafe was awesome, but was basically killed by this current idiotic nanny state Liberal Government-- they essentially passed laws that banned water pipes (hookah pipes) in Nova Scotia, treating them like e-cigarettes and tobacco, which they're not.

There is no tobacco in hookah. There isn't.

http://unews.ca/hookah-bars-threatened-by-smoking-legislation/

In that story, there's a know-it-all bureaucrat, who is probably responsible for getting these small business banned (and costing countless jobs), ignorantly saying otherwise.

I really, really, hate this. You can find hookah/shisha bars in all great cities like London, New York, and great cities in Canada -- Montreal, Toronto. It's a cultural thing that a lot of new Canadians and international students enjoy.

Ottoman Cafe was having a lot of success, but were forced to shut down after the regulations were passed. Same with 1001 Nights:

In Quebec, hookah bars simply have to abide by certain regulations. Not in Nova Scotia. We ban anything new and different.

This clueless, moronic, Liberal Government, which is fine throwing money at dying rural ferries and polluting pulp mills or killing local film biz via tax changes, distract everyone from their idiocy by passing dumb regulations that force successful business, run by new Canadians who migrated here and are creating jobs, to close.

What this was, again, was probably some know-it-all bureaucrats in the NS Government that didn't like the CFAs running these places. So, let's pretend hookah is like e-cigarettes and ban them. More reason why we can't have new and different things in this province.

[counterfactual]

Don't be silly. I was merely pointing out that the businesses in this block were hardly the roaring successes that a poster who perpetually wears rose-colored glasses when looking at old rundown structures claims they were.




Leaving us, save for the old Second Cup add-on, with a beauty of a result like this... :uhh::uhh:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/b76febb2-96cd-4a61-88af-f96b14d03524_zpsc4315ab0.jpg


In truth, I expect Westwood to come up something pretty good for this block.

That's a horrid design. Fine for a highway mall out in Bedford, but not on the corner of what is turning out to be one of the most important intersections downtown, with our legit national and world-class designed library across the street.

Could Westwood show some sense and class for once, and hire a high level architect? Enough with the suburban mall massing.

[Keith P.]

The Ottoman's Cafe was awesome, but was basically killed by this current idiotic nanny state Liberal Government-- they essentially passed laws that banned water pipes (hookah pipes) in Nova Scotia, treating them like e-cigarettes and tobacco, which they're not.

There is no tobacco in hookah. There isn't.

http://unews.ca/hookah-bars-threatened-by-smoking-legislation/

In that story, there's a know-it-all bureaucrat, who is probably responsible for getting these small business banned (and costing countless jobs), ignorantly saying otherwise.

I really, really, hate this. You can find hookah/shisha bars in all great cities like London, New York, and great cities in Canada -- Montreal, Toronto. It's a cultural thing that a lot of new Canadians and international students enjoy.

Ottoman Cafe was having a lot of success, but were forced to shut down after the regulations were passed. Same with 1001 Nights:

In Quebec, hookah bars simply have to abide by certain regulations. Not in Nova Scotia. We ban anything new and different.

This clueless, moronic, Liberal Government, which is fine throwing money at dying rural ferries and polluting pulp mills or killing local film biz via tax changes, distract everyone from their idiocy by passing dumb regulations that force successful business, run by new Canadians who migrated here and are creating jobs, to close.

What this was, again, was probably some know-it-all bureaucrats in the NS Government that didn't like the CFAs running these places. So, let's pretend hookah is like e-cigarettes and ban them. More reason why we can't have new and different things in this province.

You are quite correct in your conclusions but wrong in your statement that there is no tobacco in the product. While Ottoman may have claimed they used a "herbal" product, hookah generally uses tobacco unless illegal drugs are being consumed.

The reason the provincial nannies had to ban it was because they are banning all public venues from allowing any tobacco consumption and in certain cases, smoking of non-tobacco derivatives as well. It is ridiculous but none of the sheep we elected to the Legislature were prepared to be smeared as stooges of "Big Tobacco" by the health crazies if they spoke against it. It would be difficult for them to defend putting cigar bars out of business if they allowed this. Ottoman was collateral damage in the war to protect us from ourselves.

[Hali87]

What this was, again, was probably some know-it-all bureaucrats in the NS Government that didn't like the CFAs running these places. So, let's pretend hookah is like e-cigarettes and ban them. More reason why we can't have new and different things in this province.

Wow, cynical much? I don't think it's a case of xenophobia or the (insert negative adjective here) Liberals actively trying to rid the province of innovation. It's probably just the logical extension of our tobacco laws - maybe "hookah" doesn't contain tobacco but every time I've used a hookah we were smoking shisha which absolutely does contain tobacco. Maybe the Ottoman was using tobacco-free shisha but most people would assume that there is tobacco in it. I agree that these laws could be better nuanced but if the intent of the law is "one should not be able to run a business based around letting people smoke indoors (ostensibly for health reasons)" then I can see why banning or restricting this kind of thing would make sense. I don't necessarily agree though, and I wonder what the effect (if any) will be on places like High Life.

[beyeas]

You are quite correct in your conclusions but wrong in your statement that there is no tobacco in the product. While Ottoman may have claimed they used a "herbal" product, hookah generally uses tobacco unless illegal drugs are being consumed.

The reason the provincial nannies had to ban it was because they are banning all public venues from allowing any tobacco consumption and in certain cases, smoking of non-tobacco derivatives as well. It is ridiculous but none of the sheep we elected to the Legislature were prepared to be smeared as stooges of "Big Tobacco" by the health crazies if they spoke against it. It would be difficult for them to defend putting cigar bars out of business if they allowed this. Ottoman was collateral damage in the war to protect us from ourselves.

I just want to be clear on your stance before I respond... are you saying that the regulation of tobacco is an issue only for "health crazies"? Or are you only referring to the fact that Ottoman may in fact not have been using tobacco and this was collateral?

[Keith P.]

I firmly believe that government has no business regulating what type of smoking of legal products goes on in a private business. If you want to go somewhere and smoke your lungs out, that is your choice. Nobody is forcing you to attend at that establishment. Public places are a different story onviously.

[JET]

I firmly believe that government has no business regulating what type of smoking of legal products goes on in a private business. If you want to go somewhere and smoke your lungs out, that is your choice. Nobody is forcing you to attend at that establishment. Public places are a different story onviously.

As a 'health crazy', who works in health care, I firmly oppose your firm beliefs about smoking. I support banning the sale of smoking products. I think that it would in a short time save you, a taxpayer, a lot of money in reduced health care costs.
•Tobacco use is the number one preventable cause of death in Nova Scotia.
•One out of every 5 deaths in the province is caused by tobacco use (over 1,700 deaths per year).
•Tobacco use kills 50 per cent of long-term users.
•Treating diseases caused by tobacco use was calculated in 2007 to cost the province over $170 million a year.
•The smoking rate in Nova Scotia has stayed at about 20 per cent for the past 5 years while the average smoking rate in Canada has been declining and now sits at 17 per cent.
(Doctors Nova Scotia) Ban it today, I say. JET

[beyeas]

As a 'health crazy', who works in health care, I firmly oppose your firm beliefs about smoking. I support banning the sale of smoking products. I think that it would in a short time save you, a taxpayer, a lot of money in reduced health care costs.
•Tobacco use is the number one preventable cause of death in Nova Scotia.
•One out of every 5 deaths in the province is caused by tobacco use (over 1,700 deaths per year).
•Tobacco use kills 50 per cent of long-term users.
•Treating diseases caused by tobacco use was calculated in 2007 to cost the province over $170 million a year.
•The smoking rate in Nova Scotia has stayed at about 20 per cent for the past 5 years while the average smoking rate in Canada has been declining and now sits at 17 per cent.
(Doctors Nova Scotia) Ban it today, I say. JET

Agreed. To be honest, I am surprised as Keith has spoken out before of being against the use of other addictive drugs. Nicotine is, factually, an addictive drug with known significant health risks, and associated massive impact on healthcare spending. How about we call a spade a spade... looking at nicotine as anything other than a highly addictive drug is purposefully putting on rose coloured glasses to justify a position. I can think of many things I would rather this province do with the $170 million it spends on treating the effect of smoking... paying down our debt is one example. The only reason governments don't ban it, when from a pure healthcare perspective it is clear we should, is they also love the tax revenue they can get from taxing a bad habit. Whether it is video gambling or tobacco, governments know they can make tax revenue off of health negative addictions.

[JET]

"..nicotine is as addictive as heroin, cocaine, or alcohol." Centers for Disease Control.

[worldlyhaligonian]

As a 'health crazy', who works in health care, I firmly oppose your firm beliefs about smoking. I support banning the sale of smoking products. I think that it would in a short time save you, a taxpayer, a lot of money in reduced health care costs.
•Tobacco use is the number one preventable cause of death in Nova Scotia.
•One out of every 5 deaths in the province is caused by tobacco use (over 1,700 deaths per year).
•Tobacco use kills 50 per cent of long-term users.
•Treating diseases caused by tobacco use was calculated in 2007 to cost the province over $170 million a year.
•The smoking rate in Nova Scotia has stayed at about 20 per cent for the past 5 years while the average smoking rate in Canada has been declining and now sits at 17 per cent.
(Doctors Nova Scotia) Ban it today, I say. JET

I agree.

Also - Didn't you once say you worked in trade in arguing against the Nova Centre? Explain how you work in both trade and healthcare.

[JET]

I agree.

Also - Didn't you once say you worked in trade in arguing against the Nova Centre? Explain how you work in both trade and healthcare.

Not sure where you get the trade work from, can you recall when you thought I said that, or what I was referring to? :shrug:

[Dmajackson]

New proposal! :)

https://41.media.tumblr.com/3e27a8ccae444ca0fd87581fc0c056f2/tumblr_no1lxavpOW1tvjdq8o1_1280.png
Halifax Planning Case 19857 (rendering by Breakhouse Architecture) (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/documents/19857BuildingDrawings.pdf)

Breakhouse Architecture is seeking approval of a 4-storey mixed-use building at 3077-3085 Oxford Street (Young-Bayers block). The ground floor would include 3'000 sq ft of commercial space facing Oxford and a residential lobby facing Young Street. 29 residential units would be placed above with a mix of 1 to 3 bedrooms. The building would be broken up to have a 3-storey brick facade at the corner of Oxford & Young, and a townhouse appearance along Oxford. There is a 20' setback from residential uses along Young Street.

For context this is located on the east side of Oxford Street between Young and Bayers. It will remove all the buildings along Oxford except for the restaurant at Bayers Road. There is an approved five-storey mixed-use building across Oxford from this with similar scale and density.

To proceed this project will be seeking a rezoning from R-2 to C2-A and a Schedule "L" amendment. Assuming those are approved it will seek a development agreement from H&WCC.

Case 19857 Details (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/Case19857Details.php)

[Keith P.]

As a 'health crazy', who works in health care, I firmly oppose your firm beliefs about smoking. I support banning the sale of smoking products. I think that it would in a short time save you, a taxpayer, a lot of money in reduced health care costs.
•Tobacco use is the number one preventable cause of death in Nova Scotia.
•One out of every 5 deaths in the province is caused by tobacco use (over 1,700 deaths per year).
•Tobacco use kills 50 per cent of long-term users.
•Treating diseases caused by tobacco use was calculated in 2007 to cost the province over $170 million a year.
•The smoking rate in Nova Scotia has stayed at about 20 per cent for the past 5 years while the average smoking rate in Canada has been declining and now sits at 17 per cent.
(Doctors Nova Scotia) Ban it today, I say. JET

You have fallen victim to the health crazies fallacy that any nannying action reduces health care cost. NOTHING reduces health care costs, as everyone dies in the end. The most expensive health care is end of life care. The granola-crunching long-distance-running, fitness freak who lives to 100 with Alzheimers for the last 20 years is by far the biggest cost burden on the public purse. A smoker not only offsets part of the cost of their health care via the sin taxes they pay on the product, but they die sooner, reducing the cost of care. If you want to actually reduce health care costs, the govt should make smoking mandatory for everyone reaching a certain age.

[Keith P.]

Agreed. To be honest, I am surprised as Keith has spoken out before of being against the use of other addictive drugs.

I have spoken out against the use of illegal drugs. Tobacco is legal.

Nicotine is, factually, an addictive drug with known significant health risks, and associated massive impact on healthcare spending. How about we call a spade a spade... looking at nicotine as anything other than a highly addictive drug is purposefully putting on rose coloured glasses to justify a position. I can think of many things I would rather this province do with the $170 million it spends on treating the effect of smoking... paying down our debt is one example. The only reason governments don't ban it, when from a pure healthcare perspective it is clear we should, is they also love the tax revenue they can get from taxing a bad habit. Whether it is video gambling or tobacco, governments know they can make tax revenue off of health negative addictions.

Nicotine itself is a relatively benign drug. While it is addictive, it has relatively few serious effects on the human body. It is the inhalation of the products of combustion that is the dangerous part.

There are many ways to save $170 million in NS govt spending, but eliminating smoking is not one of them. There are no savings to be had in health care from such measures as everyone will eventually need treatment for something that will kill them. One of the quickest and cheapest ways to die is from smoking-related causes.

[hokus83]

New proposal! :)

https://41.media.tumblr.com/3e27a8ccae444ca0fd87581fc0c056f2/tumblr_no1lxavpOW1tvjdq8o1_1280.png
Halifax Planning Case 19857 (rendering by Breakhouse Architecture) (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/documents/19857BuildingDrawings.pdf)

Breakhouse Architecture is seeking approval of a 4-storey mixed-use building at 3077-3085 Oxford Street (Young-Bayers block). The ground floor would include 3'000 sq ft of commercial space facing Oxford and a residential lobby facing Young Street. 29 residential units would be placed above with a mix of 1 to 3 bedrooms. The building would be broken up to have a 3-storey brick facade at the corner of Oxford & Young, and a townhouse appearance along Oxford. There is a 20' setback from residential uses along Young Street.

For context this is located on the east side of Oxford Street between Young and Bayers. It will remove all the buildings along Oxford except for the restaurant at Bayers Road. There is an approved five-storey mixed-use building across Oxford from this with similar scale and density.

To proceed this project will be seeking a rezoning from R-2 to C2-A and a Schedule "L" amendment. Assuming those are approved it will seek a development agreement from H&WCC.

Case 19857 Details (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/Case19857Details.php)

Would like to see something better looking than this, beting on everything along Oxford north of quinpool being turned into mixed use in a simular way Agricola is

[MonctonRad]

You have fallen victim to the health crazies fallacy that any nannying action reduces health care cost. NOTHING reduces health care costs, as everyone dies in the end. The most expensive health care is end of life care. The granola-crunching long-distance-running, fitness freak who lives to 100 with Alzheimers for the last 20 years is by far the biggest cost burden on the public purse. A smoker not only offsets part of the cost of their health care via the sin taxes they pay on the product, but they die sooner, reducing the cost of care. If you want to actually reduce health care costs, the govt should make smoking mandatory for everyone reaching a certain age.

I am by no means a pro smoking advocate, and I find the habit foul and disgusting. If your goal in life is to live as long as possible, then you should stay as far away from smoking (and smokers) as possible.

As a physician however, I agree with Keith in as much that the greatest cost to health care exists in the last few months of life and in long term care. The health zealot who treats his body as a temple but develops Alzheimer's anyway, and ends up spending 20 years in a nursing home will end up costing the system far far more money that an overweight smoker who has a stroke and dies within the week.

The economic arguments are indeed mostly falacious, but everyone should still strive to maximize their own personal health and try and stay healthy as long as possible. An active lifestyle is also good for your brain and hopefully you can stay healthy and a contributing member of society well into your seventies. Drink modestly, don't smoke, watch your weight and have a varied diet. If you do this you will be fine (genetic factors aside).

If you really want to have a debate about cutting health care costs, then you should really be talking about how far the health care system should go if a terminal diagnosis has been issued in patients of a certain age. For example, what sort of care should you be offering someone who is 80 years old with newly diagnosed lung cancer metastatic to the brain. Do you just offer palliative care, or do you give the patient the full meal deal. Lots of money could be saved here, but the ethical questions are profound.......

[Keith P.]

I am by no means a pro smoking advocate, and I find the habit foul and disgusting. If your goal in life is to live as long as possible, then you should stay as far away from smoking (and smokers) as possible.

As a physician however, I agree with Keith in as much that the greatest cost to health care exists in the last few months of life and in long term care. The health zealot who treats his body as a temple but develops Alzheimer's anyway, and ends up spending 20 years in a nursing home will end up costing the system far far more money that an overweight smoker who has a stroke and dies within the week.

Thank you for your candor and for speaking the truth. I too find smoking vile and disgusting but that is a personal/moral issue, not a health issue. Unfortunately public health officials have sold govts a bill of goods using false information and bogus studies to greatly overstate the harms caused by tobacco smoking. As an example, most of the initial alarm regarding the evils of secondhand smoke have been proven to be false and greatly overstated.

[counterfactual]

Wow, cynical much? I don't think it's a case of xenophobia or the (insert negative adjective here) Liberals actively trying to rid the province of innovation. It's probably just the logical extension of our tobacco laws - maybe "hookah" doesn't contain tobacco but every time I've used a hookah we were smoking shisha which absolutely does contain tobacco. Maybe the Ottoman was using tobacco-free shisha but most people would assume that there is tobacco in it. I agree that these laws could be better nuanced but if the intent of the law is "one should not be able to run a business based around letting people smoke indoors (ostensibly for health reasons)" then I can see why banning or restricting this kind of thing would make sense. I don't necessarily agree though, and I wonder what the effect (if any) will be on places like High Life.

Highly, highly, cynical with respect to Nova Scotian Governments. I'm an equal opportunity critic, because I've found pretty much every NS Government in the last decade has been clown show -- Rodney MacDonald, Dexter, and now McNeil and his clueless band of Liberals. And I think that opinion is well founded, and why our province is on the brink-- per the Ivany Report-- and yet, it's just more of the same in this clown-run province. The Film Tax credit debacle is a fairly perfect example of the idiocy and incompetence of our political "leaders".

Or, more simply, you can just call me an "independent". :)

One reason to maintain the cynicism here, is that the regulations specifically target the water pipes:

http://novascotia.ca/dhw/healthy-communities/tobacco-act-background.asp

Waterpipe Background
A waterpipe, commonly known as a hookah, is a stemmed instrument for vaporizing and smoking flavored tobacco and/or herb mixtures called shisha (Non-smokers Rights Association, 2012).
Shisha is heated to create smoke which passes through a water basin before inhalation through a tube (Non-smokers Rights Association, 2012).
Ingredients listed on containers of shisha often do not match the contents. They often contain tobacco. (Non-smokers Rights Association, 2012).
Health risks include lung cancer, respiratory illness, low birth weight, and periodontal disease (Akl et al, 2010).
Waterpipe smoking is originally a cultural practice among men in the Middle East and South Asia (Rastam et al, 2004). It is growing in popularity among young people in North America (Reid, Hammond, Rynard, Burkhalter, 2014), many with no ties to its cultural origins.
7% of Nova Scotia youth ages 15-19 tried waterpipe smoking in 2012 (Reid, Hammond, Rynard, Burkhalter, 2014).

You see, they knew exactly who they were targeting. And guess what? They didn't consult a single hookah bar operator about the changes before bringing in the legislation.

And to be clear, yes, shisha/hookah often contains tobacco, but Ottoman was explicitly not doing so. They would have to be insane to do so, given the indoor smoking ban. How would they have ever opened, if they had tobacco smoking via pipes indoors?

This entire aspect of the legislation is based on an insinuation -- that these hookah joints are being dishonest about the contents of hookah. Go back and re-read the article. The Provincial Health bureaucrat was basically arguing with the Ottoman owner over what was in the pipes-- tobacco or non-tobacco shisha. If they want to maintain the tobacco ban, then maintain it. And if you think Ottoman had tobacco, then do inspections. Don't ban the water pipes, and put them out of business, because you're too lazy or cheap to put resources into inspections. If you think its underage youth in the bars, then inspect and enforce existing anti-smoking laws. If you think there's tobacco, then inspect. No, they just ban it. That's the Nova Scotia way. When in doubt, ban it.

This is effectively the equivalent of banning pint glasses or beer barrel taps, because you're afraid young people are drinking in pubs underage. It's prohibition era thinking. Not surprising that 2015 NS, our government is using 1920s ideas.

The province will pretend that this is about tobacco, but that's not what the hookah places were using. This is an expansion of Provincial prohibitions, now to include water pipes. Why? Were they causing some massive health threat? The "Water-pipe" backgrounder reads to me like a xenophobic bull. Note the part about how hookah was "originally" popular among "men in the Middle East and South Asia" and is now growing "growing in popularity among young people in North America".

Translation: So it was fine for the brown boys, but OMG young white Canadians are in there now-- they may end up smoking herbal shisha in the Ottoman's cafe and that is a "gateway" to harsher drugs and who knows what else!?! Maybe even engaging with new cultural traditions like those of "Middle East and South Asia" communities!

Quebec provides another model -- they explicitly allow, in regulations, hookah joints to run (despite indoor smoking bans) because Quebec officials actually recognize that there are some great bars out there, and a deep cultural tradition for tobacco hookah in various diverse Canadian communities, and these places cater to those communities.

[MonctonRad]

I too find smoking vile and disgusting but that is a personal/moral issue, not a health issue. Unfortunately public health officials have sold govts a bill of goods using false information and bogus studies to greatly overstate the harms caused by tobacco smoking. As an example, most of the initial alarm regarding the evils of secondhand smoke have been proven to be false and greatly overstated.

I wouldn't go this far. My support for your arguments mostly were related to health care economics, and the costs of acute care vs long term care. Smoking is pretty much the major cause of both morbidity and mortality in our country and the world. Although banning it would be difficult, it should be discouraged by all means possible, including heavy taxation and proactive health advocacy. The studies on the evils of smoking are not bogus, and the effects of second hand smoke are real. Smoking should be outlawed in public places and should be strongly discouraged otherwise.

Having said all this, the major costs of health care in the future will be because of long term care and management of chronic illnesses in our rapidly aging population, not because of smoking. This is an important issue that needs to be discussed. We need to establish parameters beyond which the public system will not pay for the management of chronic or long term care in the extreme elderly.

[Colin May]

My support for your arguments mostly were related to health care economics, and the costs of acute care vs long term care.
Having said all this, the major costs of health care in the future will be because of long term care and management of chronic illnesses in our rapidly aging population, not because of smoking. This is an important issue that needs to be discussed. We need to establish parameters beyond which the public system will not pay for the management of chronic or long term care in the extreme elderly.
Back in the 80s a study in a Canadian public policy journal explained how smokers were net contributors to society because they tend to pay more taxes, collect OAS and CPP for a shorter period and die early. They don't linger in long term care. My great aunt, a midwife who used a bicycle to travel to the homes of women, and 3 of my grandparents smoked and lived well into their 70s and 80s but they were born in the 19th century, lived through two world wars, walked everywhere or took a bus.
When Britain introduced the Old Age Pension the Labour Prime Minister set the age at 65 for men in the expectation that few would live to that age and those who did reach 65 would die before age 70. The pension was payable to women at age 60 and women in the UK continue to receive the pension at a younger age than men.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Unfortunately public health officials have sold govts a bill of goods using false information and bogus studies to greatly overstate the harms caused by tobacco smoking. As an example, most of the initial alarm regarding the evils of secondhand smoke have been proven to be false and greatly overstated.

Disagree strongly there, Keith.

Whichever studies you choose to believe, there should be no doubt to any intelligent person that smoking is responsible for many health issues, most notably lung cancer, which in itself can lead to struggles lasting many years with the victim being in and out of hospitals many times before finally suffering one of the worst, most drawn out deaths that one can imagine. Unfortunately I have personal experience with this involving a close family member, and I firmly believe if most smokers were able to see through their own denial and witness what this does to you first hand, they would walk away from the crap forever and pocket a good sum of money to boot.

-However- one factor which you are sorely missing out on are the chronic respiratory illnesses which are exacerbated by being in the vicinity of cigarette smoke. Illnesses such as asthma are commonplace now and for that reason alone it should never be acceptable for smoking to occur in public areas, including private businesses that cater to the general public, such as stores and restaurants. So, while to you it may appear that the government is just being a nanny state by preventing people from causing harm to themselves from smoking, they are actually preventing people from causing harm to others through their smoking. There is no debate there, it is fact. Period. End of argument.

That said, I think that it wouldn't be unreasonable for an exception to be made for places where the main function is smoking, where the only purpose of entering the establishment is to smoke and that's the only activity that occurs there. Therefore the only patrons entering the establishment are ones who wish to breathe smoke (unfortunately this is a choice that would be more difficult for paid employees). Make a self-contained ventilation system a requirement and tax the hell out of it...

Holy tangents, Batman!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Having said all this, the major costs of health care in the future will be because of long term care and management of chronic illnesses in our rapidly aging population, not because of smoking. This is an important issue that needs to be discussed. We need to establish parameters beyond which the public system will not pay for the management of chronic or long term care in the extreme elderly.

I think your statement is a little too generalized to be honest. I don't believe it is correct to imply that smoking and chronic illnesses are mutually exclusive.

Also, I am continually dismayed at the attitude within the health care profession towards the elderly.

I can say from my experience of advocating for elderly family members that once you hit your mid seventies you are treated like a second-class citizen in the health care system. It appears that many who are in "the prime of their lives" tend to forget that they will likely reach the realm of the elderly someday and that it will then be their reality. I'm sure that most will be dismayed at the lack of care and respect that they will receive at that point in their lives. Now that their personal health is breaking down, they are being deemed "too expensive" by the very health care system (including the salaries of those who work for it) they have worked to support their entire adult lives.

To be honest, while we are blessed with government sponsored health care in this country, I find the whole discussion of the economics of treatment to be somewhat tasteless and inane. Why our healthcare system continues to run itself into the ground purely treating illnesses reactively while those in power do very little to proactively prevent such illnesses is beyond me. There is so much bad going on in our food supply, the air we breathe, our habits and life choices with no momentum to change it, that we will be mired in reactive healthcare for generations to come. We need investment in proactivity now to lessen our costs later.

Again, off on a tangent so I'll end there.

[fenwick16]

New proposal! :)

https://41.media.tumblr.com/3e27a8ccae444ca0fd87581fc0c056f2/tumblr_no1lxavpOW1tvjdq8o1_1280.png
Halifax Planning Case 19857 (rendering by Breakhouse Architecture) (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/documents/19857BuildingDrawings.pdf)

Breakhouse Architecture is seeking approval of a 4-storey mixed-use building at 3077-3085 Oxford Street (Young-Bayers block). The ground floor would include 3'000 sq ft of commercial space facing Oxford and a residential lobby facing Young Street. 29 residential units would be placed above with a mix of 1 to 3 bedrooms. The building would be broken up to have a 3-storey brick facade at the corner of Oxford & Young, and a townhouse appearance along Oxford. There is a 20' setback from residential uses along Young Street.

For context this is located on the east side of Oxford Street between Young and Bayers. It will remove all the buildings along Oxford except for the restaurant at Bayers Road. There is an approved five-storey mixed-use building across Oxford from this with similar scale and density.

To proceed this project will be seeking a rezoning from R-2 to C2-A and a Schedule "L" amendment. Assuming those are approved it will seek a development agreement from H&WCC.

Case 19857 Details (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/Case19857Details.php)




This would be a decent looking building if they would replace the corrugated metal with a more acceptable cladding. I think corrugated metal should be banned from the Halifax/Dartmouth urban area.

Hopefully some people will voice their objections to corrugated metal and force the developer to use a better cladding. Corrugated metal is a relic of 100 year old industrial buildings, in my opinion.

[Keith P.]

This would be a decent looking building if they would replace the corrugated metal with a more acceptable cladding. I think corrugated metal should be banned from the Halifax/Dartmouth urban area.

Hopefully some people will voice their objections to corrugated metal and force the developer to use a better cladding. Corrugated metal is a relic of 100 year old industrial buildings, in my opinion.


I don't know about a ban, but certainly it is being badly overused. As an example, yesterday I drove by the completed Audi Halifax dealership on Kempt Road for the first time. I was astounded.

You may recall the original structure was a (now-undersized) circular pagoda facing Kempt that was originally built in the '70s as a Toyota dealer. There was no doubt it was obsolete and needed to be changed. The owners (Steele) acquired the land in back of the dealership a number of years ago so they owned the entire lot from Kempt to Massachusetts Ave.

The new dealership has turned its back on Kempt Rd and the showroom/display lot now faces Massachusetts Ave. While this may get more eyeballs given the traffic there, it is also fairly speedy traffic and not particularly suited for drive-by browsing. I think the choice is questionable at best.

More remarkable is what they did on the Kempt side, where due to the significant slope from there up to the upper side of the building, there is a high near-blank wall, a massive one 3 floors high, interrupted by only a few small windows, and service bay doors on the ground level. It is clad entirely in corrugated metal and looks positively horrible. I honestly have no idea what the architects and owners were thinking.

While Kempt is hardly a pedestrian street, totally ignoring it in the design seems incredibly shortsighted.

[Keith P.]

Whichever studies you choose to believe, there should be no doubt to any intelligent person that smoking is responsible for many health issues, most notably lung cancer, which in itself can lead to struggles lasting many years with the victim being in and out of hospitals many times before finally suffering one of the worst, most drawn out deaths that one can imagine. Unfortunately I have personal experience with this involving a close family member, and I firmly believe if most smokers were able to see through their own denial and witness what this does to you first hand, they would walk away from the crap forever and pocket a good sum of money to boot.

Please show me where I said active smoking is harmless.

[-However- one factor which you are sorely missing out on are the chronic respiratory illnesses which are exacerbated by being in the vicinity of cigarette smoke. Illnesses such as asthma are commonplace now and for that reason alone it should never be acceptable for smoking to occur in public areas, including private businesses that cater to the general public, such as stores and restaurants. So, while to you it may appear that the government is just being a nanny state by preventing people from causing harm to themselves from smoking, they are actually preventing people from causing harm to others through their smoking. There is no debate there, it is fact. Period. End of argument.

Complete and utter nonsense. I am amazed at such a statement from you as you are typically fairly sensible. Why are all these asthma sufferers you speak of being forced to march into these smoke-filled establishments at gunpoint? What evil power is drawing them there? Perhaps the heavy hand of govt ought to be brought to bear on those forces rather than the business owners who wish to cater to the segment that still smokes.

[hoser111]

This would be a decent looking building if they would replace the corrugated metal with a more acceptable cladding. I think corrugated metal should be banned from the Halifax/Dartmouth urban area.

Hopefully some people will voice their objections to corrugated metal and force the developer to use a better cladding. Corrugated metal is a relic of 100 year old industrial buildings, in my opinion.

Oh shushh!! How dare you talk about construction!! :runaway:

[OldDartmouthMark]

Please show me where I said active smoking is harmless.

I interpreted: "bogus studies to greatly overstate the harms caused by tobacco smoking" and "the evils of secondhand smoke have been proven to be false and greatly overstated" to be such a statement.


Complete and utter nonsense. I am amazed at such a statement from you as you are typically fairly sensible. Why are all these asthma sufferers you speak of being forced to march into these smoke-filled establishments at gunpoint? What evil power is drawing them there? Perhaps the heavy hand of govt ought to be brought to bear on those forces rather than the business owners who wish to cater to the segment that still smokes.

To which establishments are you referring? I was referring to public spaces such as stores, malls and restaurants. So you must believe that anybody with asthma should not be able to go into such establishments? If you think that I was referring to Hooka bars or whatever, please re-read the last paragraph of my post.

Regardless, as hoser rightfully pointed out, this thread should be about construction and we have gone way off topic yet again. Not entirely non-productive, I believe, but I want to respect the purpose of this forum and those reading it. That's all from me on the topic.

[someone123]

I agree about the metal cladding. It's unfortunate, and it seems to be popping up in a lot of places. Better than vinyl I guess? I have seen metal siding that looks okay in small doses, but I don't think I've ever seen one of those giant brown metal siding walls that has come out well.

[someone123]

I interpreted: "bogus studies to greatly overstate the harms caused by tobacco smoking" and "the evils of secondhand smoke have been proven to be false and greatly overstated" to be such a statement.

Like MonctonRad pointed out, there are two separate arguments. One's about health care trade-offs and the other is about having a healthy population with a high life expectancy. Cigarettes are not necessarily bad for the health care trade-off but they are still bad for the health of a population.

I'm not sure what the right answer is here. Maybe issuing limited licenses, like we do with liquor establishments, makes sense for smoking. People should be able to make their own choices, but they can't really do that if everybody else is smoking everywhere.

It's worth noting that all of our drug policy is seriously flawed and arbitrary. We only treat marijuana and cigarettes differently for historical reasons, really, and the policies surrounding more serious drugs like heroin is generally bad and produces negative rather than positive results (except for government employees, which is why they persist). Many people turn to these substances to cope with stress in their life. When we harass them, we make the root cause worse, and induce them to rely on the drugs even more.

I wonder how much this is true of smoking. I read an article a few weeks back about a smoker who works two jobs for minimum wage while raising kids in the US (probably also no health insurance). She commented that she knows smoking is bad, but it's one of the few sources of pleasure and stress relief she can fit into her difficult life. Would she be a smoker if she had a reasonable income and stress level? Another story is small towns in Indiana; in one of them, 1 in 30 people are now HIV positive. This happened because the economy collapsed, people turned to drugs, and the state government adopted a policy of trying to ban drug paraphernalia, leading people to share needles. Finger wagging and harassment are not going to improve that situation; they caused it in the first place.

[fenwick16]

Oh shushh!! How dare you talk about construction!! :runaway:


I think I might have posted my construction related post in the wrong thread. I just realized that this is the General N.E.W.S. (Never Ending Wonderful Story) thread. :)

[someone123]

I think I might have posted my construction related post in the wrong thread. I just realized that this is the General N.E.W.S. (Never Ending Wonderful Story) thread. :)

I have thought a bit about off-topic discussion here. I don't believe it is a problem as long as it remains interesting to participants and considerate of everybody.

If anybody has construction updates to post here I encourage them to do so. The discussion naturally drifts a bit when there are fewer updates, and then shifts back when updates are posted.

[planarchy]

I agree about the metal cladding. It's unfortunate, and it seems to be popping up in a lot of places. Better than vinyl I guess? I have seen metal siding that looks okay in small doses, but I don't think I've ever seen one of those giant brown metal siding walls that has come out well.

The drawing shows metal panels, not corrugated metal. Big difference. The Vic has metal panels on the upper floors and look great. Breakhouse did exterior design of that building as well. They are good with materials and I have no doubt whatever they are proposing will look good.

[fenwick16]

The drawing shows metal panels, not corrugated metal. Big difference. The Vic has metal panels on the upper floors and look great. Breakhouse did exterior design of that building as well. They are good with materials and I have no doubt whatever they are proposing will look good.


The Vic looks great but the development agreement indicates aluminum cladding - http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/090915ca91i.pdf - which is usually aluminum composite panel, a good looking material. However, the description for the Oxford Street Apartments is Charcoal Metal Siding - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/documents/19857BuildingDrawings.pdf. So it is a step up from corrugated metal but it is certainly not the same cladding as used on the Vic.

[Keith P.]

I had mentioned the new Audi dealership on Kempt Rd earlier and I got some pics of it and the cladding today. They used 3 different types of metal cladding. The new address of the dealership is Columbus St and here is a perspective from that angle:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/audi1_zpshk0qsbqj.jpg

They used typical aluminum-look corrugated metal siding on the back, sides and rear of the building, but used solid aluminum-look panels and a perforated corrugated siding for the front-facing areas:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/audi2_zps5g3pyth0.jpg

Here is a close-up of the perforated material. I have not seen this used previously:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/audi3_zpsya58jq8j.jpg

This is the unfortunate backside of the building from the Kempt Rd perspective. Oddly, there is not even a sign on this side indicating what is located here. This used to be the front of the dealership:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/audi5_zps8oy2kn3x.jpg

[fenwick16]

I had mentioned the new Audi dealership on Kempt Rd earlier and I got some pics of it and the cladding today. They used 3 different types of metal cladding. The new address of the dealership is Columbus St and here is a perspective from that angle:


They used typical aluminum-look corrugated metal siding on the back, sides and rear of the building, but used solid aluminum-look panels and a perforated corrugated siding for the front-facing areas:

The perforated metal and solid aluminum cladding (which is probably aluminum composite panel, plastic sandwiched between aluminum sheets) looks good.

It is somewhat harder to make out the cladding on the back side without a close-up.

The slope in terrain that you mentioned previously, appears to have created a challenge for the architect.

[Keith P.]

It is somewhat harder to make out the cladding on the back side without a close-up.


This is the best I can show, contrasted against the perforated material:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/audi6_zps4c76syvx.jpg

[Colin May]

The perforated metal and solid aluminum cladding (which is probably aluminum composite panel, plastic sandwiched between aluminum sheets) looks good.

It is somewhat harder to make out the cladding on the back side without a close-up.

The slope in terrain that you mentioned previously, appears to have created a challenge for the architect.
I doubt the dealer has any say in the appearance of the premises, see here :
http://www.auto123.com/en/auto-parts/progress-in-design-audi-redefines-dealership-architecture?artid=107336

Branding etc.
Dealers are really a franchise and they do as they are told, I'm not sure if they own the premises.

[fenwick16]

This is the best I can show, contrasted against the perforated material:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/audi6_zps4c76syvx.jpg


The metal siding in back could have been worse. The perforated material is interesting.

[Colin May]

The metal siding in back could have been worse. The perforated material is interesting.
The building follows the design code as laid out by Audi.
Every Audi dealer will have the same design in order to convey the Audi message.
If people walked or drove around with their eyes open they would recognise how pervasive branding is in our daily life. Wolfville has decided that corporate branding of outlets may not be allowed if the facade does not meet their own heritage/design standards as laid out in planning documents.

[Metalsales]

The building follows the design code as laid out by Audi.
Every Audi dealer will have the same design in order to convey the Audi message.
If people walked or drove around with their eyes open they would recognise how pervasive branding is in our daily life. Wolfville has decided that corporate branding of outlets may not be allowed if the facade does not meet their own heritage/design standards as laid out in planning documents.

You are correct in that Audi has a design that they MUST follow.

Actually Audi has two designs based on how big the dealership will be.

I can also tell you that this design is not a cheap one. Some of those glass panels are 8' x 10' and is not something you can get locally. I believe a few of those glass panels carry a price tag of almost $10k each. Not cheap when you need to replace

[Drybrain]

Would like to see something better looking than this, beting on everything along Oxford north of quinpool being turned into mixed use in a simular way Agricola is

A friend of mine remarked the other day that the city seems to getting a lot of new buildings, and renovations of old buildings, with this kind of metal cladding.

I actually kind of like the corrugated metal look when it's deployed by good architects. Almost has a rustic Scandinavian/Icelandic aspect. Better than vinyl, or those fake stone panels everyone is putting up on everything.

The renderings of the building at this link (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/documents/19857BuildingDrawings.pdf) are better-looking, especially the balcony railings and the grey brick along the strorefronts. (I wouldn't necessarily disagree if someone suggested using darker brick up top instead of the metal siding, but I don't think the latter is too bad.)

[Ziobrop]

https://torontosavvy.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/bmw1.jpg
I hate the branding. The cladding on audi, i love, but the whole building is kinda Blah. Above is BMW Toronto by Quadrangle Architects. The Stacked Display window on the upper floors highlights the cars like they are die-casts on a store shelf.

[Keith P.]

I doubt the dealer has any say in the appearance of the premises, see here :
http://www.auto123.com/en/auto-parts/progress-in-design-audi-redefines-dealership-architecture?artid=107336

Branding etc.
Dealers are really a franchise and they do as they are told, I'm not sure if they own the premises.

Most auto manufacturers now have a corporate design for dealerships. It is not a coincidence that VW, Audi, Chrysler, Kia, etc all have their own themes for each of their respective dealership building designs.

Dealer premises are almost always owned by the dealer principal or group, but the manufacturer provides the designs and often specifies the sources of materials, fittings and finishes. In some cases the manufacturer provides incentives for the dealers to replace or upgrade their facilities.

[someone123]

I thought this was a neat picture:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEvrVscWMAAbj2M.jpg:large
Source (https://twitter.com/zachjulian17/media)

[JET]

It looks like Phil Pacey got his tour of the Dennis. Pacey doesn't have much cred around here, I know, but he took along a local architect, David Garrett, who's done loads of local heritage-restoration work, include the Freemason's Hall, Espace, and currently the NFB site.

Basically, Garrett said that the building appears quite solid--one of the first steel-reinforced concrete buildings in the province, it was definitely built to last. The ceilings (after drop ceiling are removed) are nearly 11 feet high, and he's encouraging the province not to make any rushed decisions--which also implies that he believes the facade is not unfixable.

Frankly, I find a heritage architect's considered opinion more meaningful than the province's "it's beyond saving" rhetoric.

"NS cabinet min Labi Kousoulis says almost every developer in Halifax is interested in the Dennis building site." CBC tweet from this afternoon.

Not sure if that's different from being interested in the building

[JET]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-s-historic-dennis-building-could-be-redeveloped-1.3074575
Trying to save the facade, sounds optimistic.

[OldDartmouthMark]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-s-historic-dennis-building-could-be-redeveloped-1.3074575
Trying to save the facade, sounds optimistic.

The province is especially interested in parking for provincial politicians and staff at Province House across from the Dennis Building.

Seems like a lot of expense to go through to provide parking for politicians when Metro Park is located just one block away. Let them walk and use that land for something more productive. The fresh air would do them good.

A boutique hotel would be an excellent use for the Dennis Bldg. :tup:

[Keith P.]

Seems like a lot of expense to go through to provide parking for politicians when Metro Park is located just one block away. Let them walk and use that land for something more productive. The fresh air would do them good.

A boutique hotel would be an excellent use for the Dennis Bldg. :tup:

Metro Park is closer to 3 blocks away. Not a pleasant walk many days here in spring and fall when the Leg sits.

I have posted previously that the govt could use the Dennis for accommodations for out of town MLAs instead of having them rent apts all over town.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Metro Park is closer to 3 blocks away. Not a pleasant walk many days here in spring and fall when the Leg sits.

I have posted previously that the govt could use the Dennis for accommodations for out of town MLAs instead of having them rent apts all over town.

Oops, my mistake. Should have checked google maps before posting... :rolleyes:

I think that's a good idea that you had there. Turn the Dennis into a hotel, incorporate a parking garage into the building on the adjacent lots with Granville-level entrance. Include street-level retail on the Barrington side of the new building, etc. Work out an agreement for discounted rates for out of town MLAs and everybody's happy.

Don't know how it would work practically, but looks good at a glance.

[ILoveHalifax]

Is there some reason why MLAs cannot walk a few blocks like everybody else does. We pay them far too much for too little work so they certainly have the time to walk, unlike Joe public who has much less time because they are so busy trying to make a living, to pay their taxes so these guys can live high on the hog.

[halifaxboyns]

Keith makes an interesting point if the building is used as a hotel.
This site would be an interesting opportunity to think outside of the box in terms of the land use/development and be able to provide parking for the public (and the folks at Province House), retain the facade and perhaps turn the building into a great hotel/residential building.

I wonder if they could take the building facade apart like they did the old York Hotel when building the Bow office tower here in Calgary. They literally took the York down brick by brick, labelled each one and it's in storage. Could they not do the same thing here?

Then once the building was removed the site could be excavated to build a level (possibly two) of public parking. Then build the parking structure so it's completely below grade and put the building back. I don't mind some of the surface parking being retained behind the building as well, but that would likely end up being the service area for waste/recycling and parkade access. If it could be improved (maybe some nice landscaping?) even better.

The site is painted by Viewplanes 4 & 5 but if there is no change to the building height and the height meets the viewplane then that shouldn't be an issue? Plus - dare I say it - wouldn't we want to make an exception for an older building? You can't see it from the hill view location so I can't imagine this would be an issue.

Plus if you retained the building as a heritage site or even just kept the facade and added on to the bulk but kept the same height - I'd say it would be worth it to give funding through the Barrington Heritage Conservation program because you get to keep the facade. The parking could then be turned over to HRM to run as it does the parking garage by Maritime Centre.

[counterfactual]

Metro Park is closer to 3 blocks away. Not a pleasant walk many days here in spring and fall when the Leg sits.

I have posted previously that the govt could use the Dennis for accommodations for out of town MLAs instead of having them rent apts all over town.

I say screw MLAs. The only reason why we have a big hole in the middle of a key part of downtown is because of these lazy idiots have basically wanted to retain private parking lot.

Turn it over to a developer to make a new residential development, possibly retaining the facade.

If MLAs want to rent an apartment in the new building or buy a condo, they're welcome to get in line with the rest of us.

[counterfactual]

Is there some reason why MLAs cannot walk a few blocks like everybody else does. We pay them far too much for too little work so they certainly have the time to walk, unlike Joe public who has much less time because they are so busy trying to make a living, to pay their taxes so these guys can live high on the hog.

Exactly. Screw the MLAs. They can pay for parking (and parking tickets) like the rest of us.

If they don't like having to drive and find parking elsewhere, they should be encouraged to live downtown and walk to work. Lead by example. Lazy incompetents.

[counterfactual]

Keith makes an interesting point if the building is used as a hotel.
This site would be an interesting opportunity to think outside of the box in terms of the land use/development and be able to provide parking for the public (and the folks at Province House), retain the facade and perhaps turn the building into a great hotel/residential building.

I wonder if they could take the building facade apart like they did the old York Hotel when building the Bow office tower here in Calgary. They literally took the York down brick by brick, labelled each one and it's in storage. Could they not do the same thing here?

Then once the building was removed the site could be excavated to build a level (possibly two) of public parking. Then build the parking structure so it's completely below grade and put the building back. I don't mind some of the surface parking being retained behind the building as well, but that would likely end up being the service area for waste/recycling and parkade access. If it could be improved (maybe some nice landscaping?) even better.

The site is painted by Viewplanes 4 & 5 but if there is no change to the building height and the height meets the viewplane then that shouldn't be an issue? Plus - dare I say it - wouldn't we want to make an exception for an older building? You can't see it from the hill view location so I can't imagine this would be an issue.

Plus if you retained the building as a heritage site or even just kept the facade and added on to the bulk but kept the same height - I'd say it would be worth it to give funding through the Barrington Heritage Conservation program because you get to keep the facade. The parking could then be turned over to HRM to run as it does the parking garage by Maritime Centre.

I would prefer a residential development; again, it's great to bring more density and more people to this area. Will really help the revival of Barrington and the long term viability of small biz in the area -- more people around to spend.

We already have plenty of hotels, especially with Nova soon coming online.

The only way a hotel makes sense, is if they retain the facade and really try to guy high end, with a design that incorporates heritage, with modern elements. Something that can rival Lord Nelson for classy/classical design.

[beyeas]

I could almost see something like a Kimpton hotel fitting there (they love funky old buildings) but I am not sure if they have sites in Canada

[hokus83]

How many new hotels do we need? nova center hotel, rumored spring garden hotel, queens landing hotel, some other hotel rumored for downtown or is there 2 more and this dennis building on, seems like a bit of over kill but we can never have enough residential

[Keith P.]

Exactly. Screw the MLAs. They can pay for parking (and parking tickets) like the rest of us.

If they don't like having to drive and find parking elsewhere, they should be encouraged to live downtown and walk to work. Lead by example. Lazy incompetents.

Whatever MLAs pay, WE pay. It is all coming out of our pockets as part of their expenses. Why not keep that in-house and stop supporting landlords?

[ILoveHalifax]

Good point Keith but we can set limits restricting payment to bus fare. Politicians seem to think it is good enough for the rest of us so why not them.
Their work is not near as important as most of the rest of us, who actually contribute to society rather than drain from society.

[ILoveHalifax]

Good point Keith but we can set limits restricting payment to bus fare. Politicians seem to think it is good enough for the rest of us so why not them.
Their work is not near as important as most of the rest of us, who actually contribute to society rather than drain from society.

[JET]

MLAs get free transportation and parking, right where they work; while bus passes are being taken away from disabled people; it's the gang that coudn't shoot straight.

[Drybrain]

Keith makes an interesting point if the building is used as a hotel.

I wonder if they could take the building facade apart like they did the old York Hotel when building the Bow office tower here in Calgary. They literally took the York down brick by brick, labelled each one and it's in storage. Could they not do the same thing here?



The thing is it could end up the same as the York--has their been any progress on getting that re-assembled? Seems to be in indefinite storage.

[spaustin]

Yep. Allowing parking on the grounds at Province House is silly. There was (is?) a plan to redo the Grounds, including moving the parking out and openingit up, but there doesn't seem to be any urgency. MLAs should just park at Metro Park or Purdy's or Scotia Square or the waterfront or at any of the many, many spaces available Downtown. Having to walk 2 or 3 blocks isn't unreasonable. The whole thing makes me think of how councillors use to park in Grand Parade. Took quite a bit of public attention to end that too. Maybe one day the grounds at Province House will be a great public space instead of a fortified parking lot.

[pblaauw]

MLAs get free transportation and parking, right where they work; while bus passes are being taken away from disabled people; it's the gang that coudn't shoot straight.

:yeahthat:

[ns_kid]

I wonder if they could take the building facade apart like they did the old York Hotel when building the Bow office tower here in Calgary. They literally took the York down brick by brick, labelled each one and it's in storage. Could they not do the same thing here?

The same thing was done, successfully, when the Delta Barrington was built in the late 70s. The facades of the buildings on Granville Street were dismantled, coded, and stored. They were reassembled around the frame of the hotel, which opened in 1980.

[OldDartmouthMark]

MLAs should just park at Metro Park or Purdy's or Scotia Square or the waterfront or at any of the many, many spaces available Downtown. Having to walk 2 or 3 blocks isn't unreasonable. The whole thing makes me think of how councillors use to park in Grand Parade. Took quite a bit of public attention to end that too. Maybe one day the grounds at Province House will be a great public space instead of a fortified parking lot.

Precisely my thinking when I originally posted it. I made a mistake saying it was 1 block instead of 3 without checking it on a map, but in actuality anytime I've done that very walk myself it didn't seem very far... never bothered counting the blocks... hence my saying one block.

Regardless... how many people who work in the downtown core get to park right outside their place of work? Why should it be any better for politicians, who, in fact, are supposed to be public servants - i.e. have the best interest of the public as their raison d'être?

I stand by my original statement that they should park at Metro Park and let the grounds go back to being landscaped.