General Updates and News

[Colin May]

Just a re-up that the EAC is hosting a meeting tonight at 5 about the Colonial Honda plan to rip down the Fern Lane area and build a parking lot. It's mainly a local neighbourhood thing, but it's open to anyone, especially North Enders generally.

The councillor has been reticent to go too aggressive on the issue since it's permitted by zoning, but I think she can be swayed to take a harder stance. Again, I think an email to her plus the mayor would go a long way to edging things towards a firmer anti-Colonial Honda stance.
Will the car wash on Fern be ripped down ?
I'm doubtful the area will be a long term parking lot. The residents should write to Rob Steele and ask for a private meeting on neutral territory.
We bought our car there and have all maintenance at Portland Street Honda. If I lived over there they'd need chains to keep me down.

[Drybrain]

Will the car wash on Fern be ripped down ?
I'm doubtful the area will be a long term parking lot. The residents should write to Rob Steele and ask for a private meeting on neutral territory.
We bought our car there and have all maintenance at Portland Street Honda. If I lived over there they'd need chains to keep me down.

I dunno. They haven't been at all forthcoming about the plans, except to say that it's going to be a parking facility.

One thing that came up at the meeting last night is that someone who works at Colonial said that the dealership was being pressured to expand from higher-ups, because a dealership with its sales, should be a certain size, etc. I don't know if that's true or just some baseless rumour, but it does make apparent another avenue of appeal: A. Honda Canada probably has no familiarity with the city, and may not realize the ramifications of stamping out this neighbourhood (I guarantee this wouldn't be happening in Toronto) and B. They may not wish to have the words "Honda" and "destroys neighbourhood" associated.

There is a plan to have a (polite) meeting with Steele, but the idea is to do it at the EAC. In any case, he's been ignoring meeting requests, so it may or may not happen.

[Drybrain]

The Spring Garden Road facade of the apartment building isn't that impressive but the Robie side would look great if it were cleaned up a bit (and ideally painted something other than "about-to-be-demolished blue"). Over a decade ago the wooden facade of the Garden Crest apartments was preserved and they were built into a nice mixed-use development with a highrise component. That should be possible here too. The fact that the developer is asking for input before the plans have come out is encouraging.

I think 5950 and 5954 SGR should be preserved as well. Something could be done to either preserve the facade of the townhouse/apartment building to the right of 5954, or at least the bay window style could be added to a portion of the new building as a nod to one of the city's best vernacular styles. Imagine how nice it would be if there were a kind of competent reinterpretation of that building into a 4 or 5 storey apartment building similar in scale to what you might see in Brooklyn.

Something on this scale but in a style more typical of Halifax: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6874361,-73.9656808,3a,75y,97.33h,105.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDqVFrqa4wxI7DNazOoVGTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

That would provide the transition to the heritage homes but then there would be modern elements and a highrise in behind.

The developer and architect genuinely seems open to input, so it can't hurt to send that idea along. Brent Toderian, former Vancouver planner, is consulting on the project and he's definitely pro-heritage. And there was a lot of talk about how to bring the building down to meet SGR at a pedestrian-centric scale, in order to, in Toderian's words, "meet or exceed what's there now."

Of course there's a publicity stunt angle to the consultations and neighbourhood meetings, but I'm trying to be un-cynical. If they go to all this time and effort and then don't incorporate feedback, that'd be a bigger PR blunder than just proceeding without all the consultation.

[teddifax]

I just read on FB that all Pets Unlimited stores are closing via Halifax ReTales

[pblaauw]

The 'For Sale' signs are gone from the property(ies?) surrounding the Eastlink store. The unsightly premises citation is still tacked to the Spring Garden side.

[teddifax]

Is there a site on here for 303 Washmill Lake?

[Dmajackson]

Is there a site on here for 303 Washmill Lake?

There's no thread for it but it is mentioned in the Suburban & Rural Developments Thread (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=165417&page=17), on Cushman Wakefield's website (http://cwatlantic.com/properties/303-washmill-lake-drive/), and some photos are available on Halifax Developments Blog (http://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/tagged/303WashmillLake).

[Jonovision]

The small building going up on Kaye St in the Hydrostone is now 2 floors up.

https://41.media.tumblr.com/467f6a45cf4087fe56050d46f6d4bd20/tumblr_o65m6cNPpq1sk8kjeo7_1280.jpg

[someone123]

A bit noisy but it shows the Maple, Roy, and Nova Centre:

https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e35/12965642_267609820246121_1398039775_n.jpg
Source (https://www.instagram.com/djweatherbeebrown/)

[portapetey]

A bit noisy but it shows the Maple, Roy, and Nova Centre:

https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e35/12965642_267609820246121_1398039775_n.jpg
Source (https://www.instagram.com/djweatherbeebrown/)


Great shot!

[Keith P.]

I thought the Joe Howe bldg (just past Province House in the pic) was being gutted and redeveloped? Looks pretty occupied.

[ILoveHalifax]

I would guess that the lights in Joe Howe are left on all nite so we can send lots of tax money to the poor folks at NSP

[Keith P.]

Will the car wash on Fern be ripped down ?
I'm doubtful the area will be a long term parking lot. The residents should write to Rob Steele and ask for a private meeting on neutral territory.
We bought our car there and have all maintenance at Portland Street Honda. If I lived over there they'd need chains to keep me down.


This just appeared online:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/colonial_zpsg4awptwm.jpg

(Image by Stephen Thomas, EAC)


Not sure how accurate it is given the somewhat self-interested source but interesting nevertheless.

[Drybrain]

Not sure how accurate it is given the somewhat self-interested source but interesting nevertheless.

If what Colin posted a few days ago is accurate, it's inaccurate, but only in that the actual number of properties to be demolished is slightly greater, including two more houses east on North Street.

A neighbourhood resident I know says that an employee at the dealership (I know, getting into the telephone game here) also said that Steele wants the north side of McCully, but isn't going to bother if there are any holdouts.

Honestly, looking at that map, the "it's as of right" argument is wildly insufficient. If this city can't go to bat to save a whole community from demolition for a parking lot (and the Fern Lane area does have a distinct mini-neighbourhood feel), what the hell does that say about the city?

[Dmajackson]

Starfish Properties is back at it! :tup:

1665 Barrington (http://www.starfishproperties.ca/#!starfishproperties1665/sugd1)

[bluenoser]

Starfish Properties is back at it! :tup:

1665 Barrington (http://www.starfishproperties.ca/#!starfishproperties1665/sugd1)

Amazing! The confidence that Starfish continues to show in downtown Halifax (specifically Barrington) is very encouraging. On top of that, this block seems to be quickly becoming a destination - very interesting and attractive developments with (imo) an ideal mix of old and new, along with excellent new retail / pubs / restaurants.

I think this development would fit perfectly, and provide a nice step up to the Roy tower. I can only hope that the other two smaller neighbouring buildings will be revitalized / redeveloped in a similar way.

[JET]

Starfish Properties is back at it! :tup:

1665 Barrington (http://www.starfishproperties.ca/#!starfishproperties1665/sugd1)

This looks quite fine. :tup: This is the "Higgins ad" building. Be nice to see it cleaned up on the outside, and restored windows. I really like the setback. Too bad Starfish couldn't have gotten ahold of the Doyle block.

[Keith P.]

This looks quite fine. :tup: This is the "Higgins ad" building. Be nice to see it cleaned up on the outside, and restored windows. I really like the setback. Too bad Starfish couldn't have gotten ahold of the Doyle block.

But then it would have been "under construction" for 5 years. And I suspect property values on SGR are considerably more than on Barrington, so there likely would be no economic case to support the reno costs.

[Drybrain]

But then it would have been "under construction" for 5 years. And I suspect property values on SGR are considerably more than on Barrington, so there likely would be no economic case to support the reno costs.

I don't think that's true. I've seen way more ambitious renovations of heritage buildings with no additional building footprint or height, in cities both poor (Saint John) and wealthy (Toronto).

The argument that there's insufficient economic case for restoration doesn't wash at all, to me. They just didn't want to do it.

[someone123]

I don't think that's true. I've seen way more ambitious renovations of heritage buildings with no additional building footprint or height, in cities both poor (Saint John) and wealthy (Toronto).

The argument that there's insufficient economic case for restoration doesn't wash at all, to me. They just didn't want to do it.

It seemed like there were more restoration projects in Halifax around the late 90's-early 2000's than there are today, even though the city's economy and the downtown area in particular are doing better now. A few examples I can remember are the Johnston Building, the white terracotta one on the corner of Granville and Duke, 1717 Barrington, and the "Renaissance" and Attica buildings on Barrington. Those used to be similar in shape to average not-recently-restored buildings along Barrington.

I suspect the demolition problems are related mostly to high property values and the lack of good heritage regulation. Without the regulation, heritage buildings get priced for demolition and redevelopment into a highrise. This wasn't so bad 15 years ago when interest rates were higher and demand for new development was lower, but it affects a huge number of properties today. If there were stronger rules preventing demolition prices would fall and the buildings could be profitably rented out to tenants. The Green Lantern as one example was sold for something like $5M+ and the (presumably) only way to make that work (as an investment with reasonable returns) was to add a bunch of extra floors and build it at the same time as the new tower next door. In an alternate universe maybe that building would have been $2M and a landlord could have just bought it, fixed it up, and rented it out. I don't think the Green Lantern outcome is bad but it's a good example of the dynamic at play.

Another problem that has been covered before is that for the most part Halifax's planning department seems to operate, and is treated by council, as, say, the driver's license office, a place where bureaucrats verify forms and hand out permits to whoever checked the right box. I don't really know the internal workings, but there doesn't much of a creative mandate to make the city as great as it could be (and if the city is in a situation like that then it will be hard to get out of it because the most talented and creative employees will go elsewhere). We saw a bit of direction when Andy Fillmore was around and HbD was developed.

My overall impression is that the city is making a lot of forward progress but that, with relatively few exceptions, this is in spite of rather than because of the layers of government and bureaucracy. I wouldn't get too discouraged because I think the city is broadly headed in the right direction, and will be a much more interesting place in the coming years, but there will be more disappointment to come along with the victories because of the city's mediocre urban planning and poor public sector coordination.

[Ziobrop]

I thought the Joe Howe bldg (just past Province House in the pic) was being gutted and redeveloped? Looks pretty occupied.

It was. DOJ is in there

[Keith P.]

The argument that there's insufficient economic case for restoration doesn't wash at all, to me. They just didn't want to do it.

Well, there's not anything wrong with that.

The buildings were not registered heritage properties. As we have seen on here, there is hardly unanimous opinion that they should have been saved. At some point most buildings get torn down and new things get built. Halifax seems to have a larger than normal group of people who do not want anything to ever change.

[someone123]

The buildings were not registered heritage properties. As we have seen on here, there is hardly unanimous opinion that they should have been saved. At some point most buildings get torn down and new things get built. Halifax seems to have a larger than normal group of people who do not want anything to ever change.

The current heritage regulations are out of step with the modern pace of development in the city. They worked okay when there wasn't much development pressure but today buildings are being torn down so quickly that the 1940's and 50's stuff won't even survive long enough to be registered unless something changes. Most of it is already gone or seriously compromised.

Good preservation would be very different from trying to ensure that nothing ever changes. There are lots of plain buildings and empty lots that could go without any loss of significant character, and there's lots of room for adaptive reuse of the old buildings. If the regulations were better the city would have the best of both worlds, with more development potential (through height/density bonuses) and more character preservation.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Halifax seems to have a larger than normal group of people who do not want anything to ever change.

That very statement indicates that you have no understanding of heritage preservation whatsoever.

This is not breaking news, I realize, but sometimes the obvious must be stated. :2cents:

[pchipman]

some news coverage on the possible Steele expansion:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/north-end-halifax-honda-steele-auto-group-expansion-1.3558767

[Keith P.]

That very statement indicates that you have no understanding of heritage preservation whatsoever.

This is not breaking news, I realize, but sometimes the obvious must be stated. :2cents:


What is not "breaking news" is that these are in no way, shape, or form, "heritage properties". The day they were built they were not anything special. They are currently one short circuit away from being a smouldering pile of rubble. A slum would be a term closer to correct than "heritage property".

[OldDartmouthMark]

What is not "breaking news" is that these are in no way, shape, or form, "heritage properties". The day they were built they were not anything special. They are currently one short circuit away from being a smouldering pile of rubble. A slum would be a term closer to correct than "heritage property".

Whether I agree or disagree with you, I always enjoy the wit in your responses. :)

[Drybrain]

What is not "breaking news" is that these are in no way, shape, or form, "heritage properties". The day they were built they were not anything special. They are currently one short circuit away from being a smouldering pile of rubble. A slum would be a term closer to correct than "heritage property".

Regardless, heritage isn't really the issue here; it's whether the proposed use post-demolition is an improvement, which it decidedly is not.

[Nor'easter]

Playing devil's advocate here but if we can get a widening of Robie and possibly even North, and it all gets sold to a developer in 10 years anyway, is it really such a big deal?

I'm a big fan of Halifax, I like where things are heading and am looking forward to the future of the city. I wish that land was worthy of something more than a parking lot, but if it was, it's pretty safe to say the free market would have spoken differently. If our city continues to grow, eventually the scale will tip the other way and I'm sure Steele will be happy to sell for a handsome profit and move his dealership elsewhere.

[someone123]

Rising land prices probably would increase the pressure to build more than a parking lot on this land but the "free market" model fails to account for the fact that some land uses depress the value of other land nearby. It could be worse but a car dealership is not a great neighbour, and houses backing onto it with small yards probably won't be that desirable. Car-oriented development quickly kills pedestrian friendliness and pedestrian friendliness is one of the factors that drives up land values. It's also something that only exists in a tiny part of the city and it should be encouraged and protected.

The free market is also a bit of a misnomer here because there are all kinds of other factors at play. For example in this area it's much easier to create a parking lot than it is to develop buildings over four floors.

At the end of the day the city simply needs better urban planning if it's to reach its potential. An expanded car dealership just isn't an appropriate use for the fine-grained, pedestrian-oriented area around North and Robie. A laissez-faire faux free market approach based on leaving 1970's planning rules in place may sort of work in the long run but it would be much worse than many alternatives available.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Regardless, heritage isn't really the issue here; it's whether the proposed use post-demolition is an improvement, which it decidedly is not.

Yeah, it's all just a pointless argument over semantics, really.

Whether something is deemed "heritage" or not isn't the point. If the building has significance to the community, whether it be for historical, aesthetic, or other reasons, it should be worth saving, even if it's just a facade. Whether it has a faulty electrical system (or whatever) is not really the issue, but it makes great messageboard fodder - a lazy argument that's much easier than actually addressing the issue.

However in a city like Halifax where there are no rules to keep this in check, it always just comes down to a simple, soulless business case. It is at the total discretion of the developer, and what kind of mark he/she wants to leave as a legacy. In most cases this legacy is a poor quality building and a healthy bank account - and it's sad that so many seem to be OK with their 'contribution' to the world.

[Keith P.]

Whether something is deemed "heritage" or not isn't the point. If the building has significance to the community, whether it be for historical, aesthetic, or other reasons, it should be worth saving, even if it's just a facade. Whether it has a faulty electrical system (or whatever) is not really the issue, but it makes great messageboard fodder - a lazy argument that's much easier than actually addressing the issue.

Oh, come ON.

That is EXACTLY the kind of mindset that keeps NS stuck in the mud. "Don't ever change ANYTHING, because it is of some degree of importance to someone somewhere". No bloody wonder we have such a mishmash of old crummpy buildings and cartpath streets.

However in a city like Halifax where there are no rules to keep this in check, it always just comes down to a simple, soulless business case. It is at the total discretion of the developer, and what kind of mark he/she wants to leave as a legacy. In most cases this legacy is a poor quality building and a healthy bank account - and it's sad that so many seem to be OK with their 'contribution' to the world.

It is hilarious to see you using an argument of a newly built "poor quality building" to somehow try to defend keeping these old falling-down places on May St. Have you ever heard the expression "I have eyes, but they cannot see..."? :???:

[Keith P.]

Car-oriented development quickly kills pedestrian friendliness and pedestrian friendliness is one of the factors that drives up land values.


A car dealership in the middle of a dense part of the city is not exactly "car-oriented development". Maybe if they build a cafe inside the showroom it will suddenly be considered compliant with the Toderian Code. :rolleyes:

[Keith P.]

Playing devil's advocate here but if we can get a widening of Robie and possibly even North, and it all gets sold to a developer in 10 years anyway, is it really such a big deal?

I'm a big fan of Halifax, I like where things are heading and am looking forward to the future of the city. I wish that land was worthy of something more than a parking lot, but if it was, it's pretty safe to say the free market would have spoken differently. If our city continues to grow, eventually the scale will tip the other way and I'm sure Steele will be happy to sell for a handsome profit and move his dealership elsewhere.


Exactly. This is all such a ridiculous kerfuffle that it could only happen in Hali-hipsterville.

[Jonovision]

A slightly more robust awning is being installed to replace the scaffolding on the Chives building.

http://40.media.tumblr.com/c1b74ae39f7d1c6e4dd1cac2749eb583/tumblr_o6hxmsNkNV1sk8kjeo3_1280.jpg

http://41.media.tumblr.com/5b7fa24006e1bfc0a9332303fa015355/tumblr_o6hxmsNkNV1sk8kjeo2_1280.jpg

http://36.media.tumblr.com/15a7cce308fba79c79b338d0252d10e3/tumblr_o6hxmsNkNV1sk8kjeo1_1280.jpg

[Drybrain]

Exactly. This is all such a ridiculous kerfuffle that it could only happen in Hali-hipsterville.

You don't really think that ONLY Haligonians would have a problem with two dozen inner-city houses for a parking lot, do you?

[Keith P.]

You don't really think that ONLY Haligonians would have a problem with two dozen inner-city houses for a parking lot, do you?

It's not a parking lot, it is a car dealership/serivce center. A very profitable and successful business that employs probably 50 or more people, in a location many customers find extremely convenient. It's not like they are tearing down old architecturally-designed mansions on Young Ave.

[pblaauw]

The 'For Sale' signs are gone from the property(ies?) surrounding the Eastlink store. The unsightly premises citation is still tacked to the Spring Garden side.

When I went by on the bus today, there was a CAT excavator on the South Park side of the lot.

[Metalsales]

It's not a parking lot, it is a car dealership/serivce center. A very profitable and successful business that employs probably 50 or more people, in a location many customers find extremely convenient. It's not like they are tearing down old architecturally-designed mansions on Young Ave.

I 100% agree. I see no issue with this. This is a business in a very central location, trying to expand.

I hear a lot of people on here making negative comments when a business chooses a location in a business park or outside the core, but now a business wants to be there and expand, and it is all negative feedback. This location is very convenient, especially for those who work in the core

Yes they are tearing down some houses, but honestly, nothing of any significance to Halifax. There are many more of these all over Halifax. They are being paid well for their properties and it is the owners choice to sell or not

[OliverD]

I 100% agree. I see no issue with this. This is a business in a very central location, trying to expand.

I hear a lot of people on here making negative comments when a business chooses a location in a business park or outside the core, but now a business wants to be there and expand, and it is all negative feedback. This location is very convenient, especially for those who work in the core

Yes they are tearing down some houses, but honestly, nothing of any significance to Halifax. There are many more of these all over Halifax. They are being paid well for their properties and it is the owners choice to sell or not

I can see both sides of the argument here.

The location is definitely convenient for people who live on the peninsula. It's also not entirely out of place, as that area seems to be directly adjacent to that commercial corridor that stretches between Robie/Massachusetts and Windsor.

On the other hand, a car dealership is not a particularly attractive business and it certainly doesn't enhance a neighborhood from a pedestrian's POV.

Are we sure what Steele's intent is for the land? The Honda dealership is definitely on the small side but it looks like they would triple the footprint. Perhaps they want to have two dealerships on the site? The cost of acquiring all of this land and tearing down buildings also seems quite high for a single dealership.

It's also worth pointing out that in some city cores car dealerships blend in better. They store cars both underground and on their roof (the new Audi dealer has indoor storage for example), they have minimal setbacks from the road, etc. I don't think it would be unreasonable for Halifax to want car dealers in this neighborhood to not resemble the typical dealerships that are on Kempt Road.

Another article about this was just posted this morning: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/steele-auto-group-colonial-hondo-halifax-north-end-development-1.3559876

The article mentions that the typical cluster of dealerships is convenient for customers but that's really only when buying. In terms of servicing it isn't necessarily true, especially if the cluster is located on the outskirts of a town.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Oh, come ON.

That is EXACTLY the kind of mindset that keeps NS stuck in the mud. "Don't ever change ANYTHING, because it is of some degree of importance to someone somewhere". No bloody wonder we have such a mishmash of old crummpy buildings and cartpath streets.



It is hilarious to see you using an argument of a newly built "poor quality building" to somehow try to defend keeping these old falling-down places on May St. Have you ever heard the expression "I have eyes, but they cannot see..."? :???:

Oh Keith, you truly like to be dramatic. :rolleyes:

Firstly, this isn't the "Steele Auto Group" thread. My commentary was referring to heritage issues in general, mostly from considering the posts by Drybrain and someone123 on Apr. 29. However, since you think that's what I was talking about, I'll try to clear it up a little - The May Street situation is about maintaining the fibre of the neighborhood, and not specifically the structures involved, although there are some decent older homes in the area. IMHO, rather than being about specific buildings, the issue is more about maintaining the direction of the neighborhood - specifically the revitalization of the north end as a desirable place to live. However, that's an argument that has been covered well by others, and not what I was talking about in the post that you quoted.

Secondly, even though you keep insisting that the desire to preserve a significant portion of Halifax's remaining heritage properties equates to "don't ever change anything", that's actually not true. Part of the problem is that in the past, everybody had your mindset: it's old and needs work, so let's tear it down and build something new, because new must be better than old.

The result of that thinking over that past five or so decades is that Halifax was stripped of a lot of really nicely designed and built structures that would be real assets to the city had they been maintained. Now we are left with a situation where we are still tearing down some pretty cool structures that offered variety and history to our streetscapes, and replacing them (in many cases) with some very uninspiring structures. We already have a very limited supply of good old buildings built in the "Halifax style" of the past two centuries, and in that light it almost seems preposterous to most of us that we so casually knock down such structures with the same nonchalance that 'we' had in the 1950s. Meanwhile, most of the more progressive cities in North America had learned so long ago that this is a mistake.

As has been pointed out here many times in the past, Halifax has very weak heritage property protection laws which have really large loopholes through which a developer can basically tear down whatever they like to build whatever they like, as long as it falls within the zoning regulations.

If there were a process whereby structures could be determined to be an asset to the streetscape using a set criteria before permission was given to tear them down, this would result in the preservation of good old structures (or at least facades), while less significant buildings could be taken down. The point is that there are no rules, basically, and there should be.

This is not the same as "don't ever change anything" - which actually more aptly defines your mindset: don't ever change the way we've been doing it all along.

Just my :2cents:. Feel free to twist it in whatever way that suits you.

[Keith P.]

The result of that thinking over that past five or so decades is that Halifax was stripped of a lot of really nicely designed and built structures that would be real assets to the city had they been maintained. Now we are left with a situation where we are still tearing down some pretty cool structures that offered variety and history to our streetscapes, and replacing them (in many cases) with some very uninspiring structures.


When I think of Halifax and the "Halifax style" (WTF is that anyway?) I think of things like the three eyesores on Barrington, especially the NFB facade that has been a wart on that streetscape for nearly 3 decades. The rubble should have been hauled away the day after it burned down. But Halifax foolishly paid to prop it up and be a blight on that block all this time, holding back the revitalization of the entire street. That, my friend, is what I find typical of this town. We want to hold on to old junk and crap forever because somebody, somewhere, once liked it. Or something. Now some developer thinks he can turn it into residential. Good luck with that.

[Nor'easter]

I would go as far as to say that, as things stand now, the houses on Fern/May/McCully are more out of place than Colonial Honda. The block of land bounded by Robie, Almon, Agricola and North is generally a commercial area (zoned commercial, go figure eh?).

If we really want to talk about out of place car dealerships we have to look no further than O'Regans Chev/Buick/GMC/Etc just down the street. This monstrosity and the adjacent Irving are ENTIRELY surrounded by residential developments:

http://i.imgur.com/hYQjjEE.png

No outrage there?

I think we should be more concerned about improving one of our main north-south thoroughfares through redevelopment than retaining a few out-of-place houses. I'd gladly trade those houses for a temporary parking lot and a widened Robie St. Maybe we can even get a bike lane or transit priority out of it ! :rolleyes:

Think big folks, once in a generation opportunity to incorporate the improvement of a major artery with the redevelopment of Bloomfield/Colonial.

[Phalanx]

I would go as far as to say that, as things stand now, the houses on Fern/May/McCully are more out of place than Colonial Honda. The block of land bounded by Robie, Almon, Agricola and North is generally a commercial area (zoned commercial, go figure eh?).

If we really want to talk about out of place car dealerships we have to look no further than O'Regans Chev/Buick/GMC/Etc just down the street. This monstrosity and the adjacent Irving are ENTIRELY surrounded by residential developments:

...

No outrage there?

I think we should be more concerned about improving one of our main north-south thoroughfares through redevelopment than retaining a few out-of-place houses. I'd gladly trade those houses for a temporary parking lot and a widened Robie St. Maybe we can even get a bike lane or transit priority out of it ! :rolleyes:

Think big folks, once in a generation opportunity to incorporate the improvement of a major artery with the redevelopment of Bloomfield/Colonial.

So, by your logic, if something detrimental to the fabric of a neighbourhood happens once, it's permissible (if not outright encouraged) to happen again? That makes no sense.

If the lot consolidation happens, then we lose density, and are stuck with more empty space downtown for decades. Your one step forward really sounds like two steps back.

There are many other solutions for Colonial Honda to make better use of its lot than it currently is. There are plenty of examples of multy-story urban car lots. Hell, the former CBC building that was just torn down was a former urban car lot that was built 80 years ago that's more progressive, forward thinking and better for urban development than this.

[OldDartmouthMark]

When I think of Halifax and the "Halifax style" (WTF is that anyway?) I think of things like the three eyesores on Barrington, especially the NFB facade that has been a wart on that streetscape for nearly 3 decades. The rubble should have been hauled away the day after it burned down. But Halifax foolishly paid to prop it up and be a blight on that block all this time, holding back the revitalization of the entire street. That, my friend, is what I find typical of this town. We want to hold on to old junk and crap forever because somebody, somewhere, once liked it. Or something. Now some developer thinks he can turn it into residential. Good luck with that.

IMHO, "Halifax style" is an acknowledgement that the age/mix of buildings in Halifax, while not necessarily unique to Halifax, is specific to our region and thus a significant part of our city's style, or built heritage, or whatever you want to call it. I thought you could figure that out.

Your feelings regarding the NFB facade and the scary Khyber building are well-known and I'm thankful that others have had the vision to see beyond what is in front of their face.

Have a nice day, Keith. :)

[Drybrain]

I would go as far as to say that, as things stand now, the houses on Fern/May/McCully are more out of place than Colonial Honda. The block of land bounded by Robie, Almon, Agricola and North is generally a commercial area (zoned commercial, go figure eh?).

If we really want to talk about out of place car dealerships we have to look no further than O'Regans Chev/Buick/GMC/Etc just down the street. This monstrosity and the adjacent Irving are ENTIRELY surrounded by residential developments:

http://i.imgur.com/hYQjjEE.png

No outrage there?

.

Why would people be getting outraged now about something that happened decades ago?

In fact, this is exactly why the Colonial plan should be opposed--it keeps the neighbourhood moving in that same direction, with the fine-grained urbanity mowed over for body shops and dealerships and gas stations.

And I second very word of DarmouthMark's post.

[Nor'easter]

So, by your logic, if something detrimental to the fabric of a neighbourhood happens once, it's permissible (if not outright encouraged) to happen again? That makes no sense.

If the lot consolidation happens, then we lose density, and are stuck with more empty space downtown for decades. Your one step forward really sounds like two steps back.

There are many other solutions for Colonial Honda to make better use of its lot than it currently is. There are plenty of examples of multy-story urban car lots. Hell, the former CBC building that was just torn down was a former urban car lot that was built 80 years ago that's more progressive, forward thinking and better for urban development than this.

I believe that the benefit of redeveloping Robie St. outweights the detriment of losing these houses for a parking lot, yes. I'm not saying I want a parking lot, I'm saying I want to seize this rare opportunity to fix our transportation infrastructure, even if it means razing houses for temporary parking. I say temporary because the free market still prevails--this assembled plot will be quite valuable to a developer in the future when and if land values increase to a point where it can be taken advantage of.

So, two steps forward, one step back. Not ideal, but progress nonetheless.

Another thing that needs to be kept in mind is that Colonial Honda service shop was basically fully replaced within the last couple years. Perhaps in 10 years once the value of these renovations have been realized, Steele will consider replacing the dealership with something a bit more urban and possibly freeing up some of the land for another type of development altogether. Maybe he will move it entirely.

In the mean time Steele needs to compete with Portland Street Honda. It's highly inconvenient having to store your cars in a remote lot. He had a problem, and he is solving it and investing his piles of cash in peninsula real estate at the same time. I assume once the structures are razed, assessment will go down and he'll be getting a good deal on property tax as well.

[Phalanx]

I believe that the benefit of redeveloping Robie St. outweights the detriment of losing these houses for a parking lot, yes. I'm not saying I want a parking lot, I'm saying I want to seize this rare opportunity to fix our transportation infrastructure, even if it means razing houses for temporary parking. I say temporary because the free market still prevails--this assembled plot will be quite valuable to a developer in the future when and if land values increase to a point where it can be taken advantage of.

So, two steps forward, one step back. Not ideal, but progress nonetheless.

Another thing that needs to be kept in mind is that Colonial Honda service shop was basically fully replaced within the last couple years. Perhaps in 10 years once the value of these renovations have been realized, Steele will consider replacing the dealership with something a bit more urban and possibly freeing up some of the land for another type of development altogether. Maybe he will move it entirely.

In the mean time Steele needs to compete with Portland Street Honda. It's highly inconvenient having to store your cars in a remote lot. He had a problem, and he is solving it and investing his piles of cash in peninsula real estate at the same time. I assume once the structures are razed, assessment will go down and he'll be getting a good deal on property tax as well.

I don't see how preventing the loss of the houses/expansion of the lot will negatively impact development along Robie.

Furthermore, with the investment made in purchasing and demolishing the houses, in addition to the probably decrease in land value, it's unlikely that the dealership is going anywhere any time soon. Like I said, this is a choice we'll be stuck with for decades to come.

[Keith P.]

IMHO, "Halifax style" is an acknowledgement that the age/mix of buildings in Halifax, while not necessarily unique to Halifax, is specific to our region and thus a significant part of our city's style, or built heritage, or whatever you want to call it. I thought you could figure that out.


So in other words, "Halifax style" is exactly what I described - the "don't change anything ever because something might have happened here once."

The same to you, sir. :sly:

[Nor'easter]

Why would people be getting outraged now about something that happened decades ago?

It does seem like there is (or should be) a bit of outrage over the city not rezoning those areas residential decades ago if something like this was such a big deal.

Anyhow, I was hoping for some insight as to whether or not there was as much outrage when that neighbourhood was razed. Also, I'm a bit surprised that I haven't seen it come up in these discussions (lessons learned, impact on community) since it seems like a pretty good case study.

[Keith P.]

I would go as far as to say that, as things stand now, the houses on Fern/May/McCully are more out of place than Colonial Honda. The block of land bounded by Robie, Almon, Agricola and North is generally a commercial area (zoned commercial, go figure eh?).

Precisely.

If we really want to talk about out of place car dealerships we have to look no further than O'Regans Chev/Buick/GMC/Etc just down the street. This monstrosity and the adjacent Irving are ENTIRELY surrounded by residential developments

I suspect, but do not know, that the Irving station has been there in some form or another for many years. Some old photos of the area would be interesting.

The original building that housed what is now O'Regans was erected in the 1960s as Trainor GMC, a truck dealer. The market for selling exclusively trucks in the middle of the city apparently was not what it was thought to be, as that became the new home of Scotia Chevrolet in the late 1960s or early 1970s, when they moved out of their longtime location in the just-demolished CBC building on South Park and Sackville. The O'Regans purchased them some time later. The site that is now largely a parking lot on the corner of West St and Robie was, for a great many years, an industrial plant - Canadian Linen Supply did cleaning there in a large white-painted concrete building from, I believe, early in the 20th century. Hardly a residential use.

I think we should be more concerned about improving one of our main north-south thoroughfares through redevelopment than retaining a few out-of-place houses. I'd gladly trade those houses for a temporary parking lot and a widened Robie St. Maybe we can even get a bike lane or transit priority out of it ! :rolleyes:

Think big folks, once in a generation opportunity to incorporate the improvement of a major artery with the redevelopment of Bloomfield/Colonial.


This is exactly correct. Robie is the main N-S thoroughfare in the city yet it bottlenecks in these few blocks. Widen it as you get the opportunity. No bike lanes though. Put them on residential streets away from all that traffic. Otherwise I could not agree more.

[Nor'easter]

I don't see how preventing the loss of the houses/expansion of the lot will negatively impact development along Robie.

Furthermore, with the investment made in purchasing and demolishing the houses, in addition to the probably decrease in land value, it's unlikely that the dealership is going anywhere any time soon. Like I said, this is a choice we'll be stuck with for decades to come.

I believe that Steele's cooperation in the development of Robie St would be essential. If the city attempted to interfere with his expansion plans, I doubt he'd be willing to play ball. The city also has a valuable asset to Steele in the McCully ROW. I'm sure something could be worked out there.

The demolishing of existing structures and consolidating of properties increases the land value to developers. The only investment value Steele loses is cost of paving, which would be depreciated by the time he sells anyway.

[OliverD]

It's highly inconvenient having to store your cars in a remote lot.

Sure, but it's fairly typical to do that in urban centres.

[OldDartmouthMark]

The same to you, sir. :sly:

Thank you! :haha:

[Keith P.]

A story on the Colonial Honda plans from the Herald, with a different narrative than the one we've been hearing:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1361348-honda-demolition-plans-have-foes%E2%80%94and-fans

There’s a Facebook page, an online petition and a planned protest against it.

But at least one neighbour of Colonial Honda in Halifax, which has bought up homes around its Robie Street location and plans to knock them down, says he’ll be glad to see derelict homes destroyed, even if it is to make way for a car dealership parking lot.

Greg Hayes, who has operated Hayes Antiques on McCully Street for decades and owns an apartment building next door, says he regrets seeing some families displaced from their homes in the North and Robie streets area to allow Steele Auto Group’s Colonial Honda to expand.

Still, Hayes sees this as a necessary move to get rid of rotting, run-down homes that diminish other property values.

“It’s going to be great,” said Hayes Sunday at his store. “We’ve got a bunch of dilapidated crack houses around here that do nothing for the neighbourhood. A month ago a womanthrew a chair through a window, for God’s sake.

“I’ll be glad to see them go.”

---

Many of the properties have been for sale for five years, including 11 residential and one commercial property, for a combined total of $5 million. There was an opportunity for many area properties to be bought and fixed up but there were no takers, said Hayes.

“Now they’re a mess.”

He also noted that his property is adjacent to Colonial Honda’s existing parking area, which once contained homes. The company has been good to its neighbours, he added, shoveling snow and cutting grass on adjacent lots and keeping noise to a minimum.

Hayes refused an offer to buy his two properties on McCully Street, as he said he wanted to stay where he has been for decades, a good location with high visibility. Because all owners on that side of the street would have to agree to sell, none will be demolished.

One building across McCully Street from the Hayes store already sits empty, the tenants having been offered a free month’s rent plus moving expenses to go quickly, said Hayes.


Cue the perpetually outraged to call Mr. Hayes all sorts of nasty names.

[Ziobrop]

It's not a parking lot, it is a car dealership/serivce center. A very profitable and successful business that employs probably 50 or more people, in a location many customers find extremely convenient. It's not like they are tearing down old architecturally-designed mansions on Young Ave.

it employs fewer now that steele owns it.
he trimmed support staff after he bought it.

Anyway, im fine with flatening the block, there is nothing historic or remarkable about the area - its pretty run down - but yah, not a car lot.

[Nor'easter]

No bike lanes though. Put them on residential streets away from all that traffic.

Just pandering...

Sure, but it's fairly typical to do that in urban centres.

Only because the urban lots are cost-prohibitive. In this case, clearly not an issue.

Cue the perpetually outraged to call Mr. Hayes all sorts of nasty names.

Ironically, he will be one of the few occupants left to enjoy this "soon-to-be-destroyed" part of town. And it sounds like he couldn't be happier.

If not the residents of this area, who exactly are the opponents of this development trying to protect? Themselves, for those fleeting moments they pass by and see it? Will they somehow sleep better at night knowing that there are more human beings than automobiles in the vicinity of 44°39'18.4"N 63°35'41.7"W on planet Earth? It's not like expanding car dealerships are a widespread issue plaguing our city.

[Keith P.]

it employs fewer now that steele owns it.
he trimmed support staff after he bought it.


Makes sense. He would have back-office functions centralized for all his operations.

BTW, I was wrong in terms of employment. Apparently it is more like 100 people.

[Keith P.]

If not the residents of this area, who exactly are the opponents of this development trying to protect? Themselves, for those fleeting moments they pass by and see it? Will they somehow sleep better at night knowing that there are more human beings than automobiles in the vicinity of 44°39'18.4"N 63°35'41.7"W on planet Earth? It's not like expanding car dealerships are a widespread issue plaguing our city.


They are worshippers at the altar of Toderian, Keesmaat and Florida, where a cafe on every corner linked by a string of boutiques and galleries is seen as the "1000 virgins" ultimate reward for all neighborhoods. :rolleyes:

[portapetey]

If not the residents of this area, who exactly are the opponents of this development trying to protect? Themselves, for those fleeting moments they pass by and see it? Will they somehow sleep better at night knowing that there are more human beings than automobiles in the vicinity of 44°39'18.4"N 63°35'41.7"W on planet Earth? It's not like expanding car dealerships are a widespread issue plaguing our city.

I can only speak for myself, but I just hate to see nearly a block of land in a fast-developing area simply paved over for such a mundane use. I don't care about the existing homes, but about the opportunity lost of building something more useful and / or exciting there.

I dislike the idea of it the same way I dislike the Shopper's just up the street. It's a prime corner on a very busy urban thoroughfare that ended up being a bland little box sitting at the back of a stale expanse of pavement, when there could have been an exciting development there instead. There are other examples - Gottingen Staples, Barrington Superstore, etc.

Car lots and surface parking at the sidewalk have their places, of course (in the suburbs and business parks) but I don't think those place are being very well chosen in some cases - from an aesthetic / urban design perspective at least. As someone pointed out above, the choices must make business sense, as much of a blight as they might be.

[Drybrain]

A word about the hypothetical Robie Street expansion: there's literally not one building of architectural value between Almon and North on the west side of the street. And below St. Albans there's not even anything, at all, within ten or fifteen feet of the curb. It's all set way back with parking lots fronting Robie.

We can widen the road on that side (if we must) with far less disruption to residents, and far less loss of urban vitality.

[Keith P.]

I dislike the idea of it the same way I dislike the Shopper's just up the street. It's a prime corner on a very busy urban thoroughfare that ended up being a bland little box sitting at the back of a stale expanse of pavement, when there could have been an exciting development there instead. There are other examples - Gottingen Staples, Barrington Superstore, etc.

Car lots and surface parking at the sidewalk have their places, of course (in the suburbs and business parks) but I don't think those place are being very well chosen in some cases - from an aesthetic / urban design perspective at least. As someone pointed out above, the choices must make business sense, as much of a blight as they might be.

You may not realize that the Almon St Shoppers and the Gottingen Staples were both formerly car dealerships in their previous life, and the Superstore on Barrington was in part a car rental lot. So all of those are arguably an improvement over what they were before, and likely will evolve into something else in the future. Rome was not built in a day.

[portapetey]

You may not realize that the Almon St Shoppers and the Gottingen Staples were both formerly car dealerships in their previous life, and the Superstore on Barrington was in part a car rental lot. So all of those are arguably an improvement over what they were before, and likely will evolve into something else in the future. Rome was not built in a day.

Now that you point it out, I think I did realize that. (Not sure I was ever aware of a rental lot at the site of the Barrington Superstore.)

Maybe in 20 years the Colonial Honda will move and will be replaced by a Dollar Store with a huge parking lot.

Gods that's depressing.

[teddifax]

Maybe a condition of allowing this will be to expand Robie St.

[Nor'easter]

They are worshippers at the altar of Toderian, Keesmaat and Florida, where a cafe on every corner linked by a string of boutiques and galleries is seen as the "1000 virgins" ultimate reward for all neighborhoods. :rolleyes:

:worship:

I can only speak for myself, but I just hate to see nearly a block of land in a fast-developing area simply paved over for such a mundane use. I don't care about the existing homes, but about the opportunity lost of building something more useful and / or exciting there.

I don't think anybody (Rob Steele included) thinks a car lot is the optimal use of that land. For him, it fills a need for his newly acquired dealership and provides him quite an attractive real estate investment. For the citizens of Halifax, it presents a unique opportunity to work with Steele to increase the Robie St ROW.

A word about the hypothetical Robie Street expansion: there's literally not one building of architectural value between Almon and North on the west side of the street. And below St. Albans there's not even anything, at all, within ten or fifteen feet of the curb. It's all set way back with parking lots fronting Robie.

We can widen the road on that side (if we must) with far less disruption to residents, and far less loss of urban vitality.

Although widening to the west would be ideal in terms of alignment at the Robie/Almon intersection, I think it's a stretch to say there would be far less disruption. As things stand now, about 50% of the frontage from Almon to North is occupied by Bloomfield/Colonial. Including the recently acquired buildings, looks like there will be about 4 other buildings and a parking lot along this almost half a kilometre stretch. 4 buildings! That is an amazing opportunity in a city this size and in this stage of development.

On the other hand, I count around 14 separate buildings, probably all owned by different people that would be affected either directly or indirectly by widening on the west side.

Bottom line is--this is such a no brainer that surely city/province/Steele have been discussing it for months and we'll hear something about it soon to mitigate some of the negative press from what is likely the vocal minority.

[gm_scott]

Maybe a condition of allowing this will be to expand Robie St.

It's already allowed.

[Keith P.]

Don't ever assume that the widening of Robie is a slam-dunk. You may not remember the last time a small stretch was widened, the little bit from the corner of Cunard up to O'Regans where the apartment building now is. It added less than a full-width lane, yet the local BANANA activists made it sound like the end of the world. It took forever before they were finally shut down, and as we now see, it had no effect at all on that community. And more recently we have the absurd example of the innocuous Chebucto Rd widening to remind us that nothing is ever easy in a city where the EAC and the CBC often call the tune to shape opinion.

If you start from the POV that all vehicle traffic is bad and that nobody should get around the city unless they are on a bike or a bus, this is the kind of result you are going to get.

[OliverD]

What exactly do these road widenings accomplish?

[OldDartmouthMark]

What exactly do these road widenings accomplish?

In the case of Robie, it would eliminate a bottleneck which is the only 2-lane section from Massachusetts Ave to the south end.

http://i.imgur.com/82k4Is4.jpg

It would make sense to try to improve the functionality of this street by removing the last impediment to traffic flow in the area.

[Drybrain]

Although widening to the west would be ideal in terms of alignment at the Robie/Almon intersection, I think it's a stretch to say there would be far less disruption. As things stand now, about 50% of the frontage from Almon to North is occupied by Bloomfield/Colonial. Including the recently acquired buildings, looks like there will be about 4 other buildings and a parking lot along this almost half a kilometre stretch. 4 buildings! That is an amazing opportunity in a city this size and in this stage of development.

Demolishing the whole city would be an amazing redevelopment "opportunity" too, if you look at it that way.




Bottom line is--this is such a no brainer that surely city/province/Steele have been discussing it for months and we'll hear something about it soon to mitigate some of the negative press from what is likely the vocal minority.

I've spoken with a number of people at the city about it, and all have been taken by surprise. Unless Steele is in closed-door meetings with the mayor or something, there's no evidence of what you're suggesting.

As for a vocal "minority," basically the entire neighbourhood has been aligning against this. The online petition against it has had 1,400 supporters in only four days, which in a city of this size, for such a localized issue, is huge. This isn't the Heritage Trust or "Friends of..." whatever. It's not a vocal minority; the neighbourhood and a lot of people outside of the neighbourhood have strongly aligned against the plan.

[Keith P.]

As for a vocal "minority," basically the entire neighbourhood has been aligning against this. The online petition against it has had 1,400 supporters in only four days, which in a city of this size, for such a localized issue, is huge. This isn't the Heritage Trust or "Friends of..." whatever. It's not a vocal minority; the neighbourhood and a lot of people outside of the neighbourhood have strongly aligned against the plan.

That is not what I hear. Let's vet those names and see where they live. I suspect most are residing nowhere near this area. A lot is likely just the usual knee-jerk response whever anything is proposed to change in this burg. It is simply meaningless noise from the usual suspects that one is best to ignore. Let's hurry up and knock them all down.

[Drybrain]

That is not what I hear. Let's vet those names and see where they live. I suspect most are residing nowhere near this area. A lot is likely just the usual knee-jerk response whever anything is proposed to change in this burg. It is simply meaningless noise from the usual suspects that one is best to ignore. Let's hurry up and knock them all down.

First of all, I've been to the meetings at the EAC, and the majority of the neighbourhood's homeowners and a number of renters have been coming out. They're all strongly opposed.

Secondly, does it matter if people don't live right there? I live in the Hydrostone, but this is an issue that will affect the whole North End. It doesn't matter if someone lives on an affected block, they can still be concerned about what's going on in their general vicinity.

Framing this as the usual "anti-change" stuff couldn't possibly be more wrong. This is a fundamentally different issue. 1,500 people in four days signed a petition against it. You don't see Peggy Cameron et. al. getting that kind of support for her various NIMBY campaigns.

[portapetey]

First of all, I've been to the meetings at the EAC, and the majority of the neighbourhood's homeowners and a number of renters have been coming out. They're all strongly opposed.

Secondly, does it matter if people don't live right there? I live in the Hydrostone, but this is an issue that will affect the whole North End. It doesn't matter if someone lives on an affected block, they can still be concerned about what's going on in their general vicinity.

Framing this as the usual "anti-change" stuff couldn't possibly be more wrong. This is a fundamentally different issue. 1,500 people in four days signed a petition against it. You don't see Peggy Cameron et. al. getting that kind of support for her various NIMBY campaigns.



I agree 100% that this is not the usual / expected NIMBY / BANANA / whatever. This isn't "it's too tall", it's too shiny, it's too new, it's not from the 19th century, it's in the way of a view, etc.

This is a very valid outcry about bulldozing an urban neighbourhood to replace it with nothing at all but an ugly gaping hole of pavement.

It's not anti-development, anti-progress, anti-anything of the usual variety because there is no "development" or progress to protest.

In this case, people are protesting a big step backwards.

[eastcoastal]

I don't have a problem with the housing stock going - I DO have a problem with it being replaced by a parking lot. It's just not a healthy land use pattern for a neighbourhood on the peninsula, I don't care how much landscaping Rob Steele says he'll install to mitigate the damage.

I can't pretend that I think new stretches of asphalt are evidence of good city building.

I once lived on Fern Lane - I don't recall ever feeling unsafe, and since I've moved away, there have been small, incremental, improvements to individual houses on the two blocks that make up the street - I don't buy that parking more merchandise closer to the front door of the dealership has anything to do with cleaning up crack houses.

[terrynorthend]

In the case of Robie, it would eliminate a bottleneck which is the only 2-lane section from Massachusetts Ave to the south end.

http://i.imgur.com/82k4Is4.jpg



You've still got to get that bit just south of North Street -> O'Reagans. It's 3 lanes, but really narrow, and a constant bottleneck. There is a lot of close to the road development that doesn't look like it's going anywhere soon.

[Keith P.]

You've still got to get that bit just south of North Street -> O'Reagans. It's 3 lanes, but really narrow, and a constant bottleneck. There is a lot of close to the road development that doesn't look like it's going anywhere soon.

That section would ideally be widened on the west side of Robie considering the curve of the street and the poor visibility there. There are 4 really kind of scuzzy properties on the west side of Robie there, rentals I presume, that would need to go. There is a similar challenge in the next block. After that it would be clear sailing. It is remarkable it has been tolerated for so long, but considering this is Halifax, not really surprising.

[counterfactual]

First of all, I've been to the meetings at the EAC, and the majority of the neighbourhood's homeowners and a number of renters have been coming out. They're all strongly opposed.

Secondly, does it matter if people don't live right there? I live in the Hydrostone, but this is an issue that will affect the whole North End. It doesn't matter if someone lives on an affected block, they can still be concerned about what's going on in their general vicinity.

Framing this as the usual "anti-change" stuff couldn't possibly be more wrong. This is a fundamentally different issue. 1,500 people in four days signed a petition against it. You don't see Peggy Cameron et. al. getting that kind of support for her various NIMBY campaigns.

I agree 100% that this is not the usual / expected NIMBY / BANANA / whatever. This isn't "it's too tall", it's too shiny, it's too new, it's not from the 19th century, it's in the way of a view, etc.

This is a very valid outcry about bulldozing an urban neighbourhood to replace it with nothing at all but an ugly gaping hole of pavement.

It's not anti-development, anti-progress, anti-anything of the usual variety because there is no "development" or progress to protest.

In this case, people are protesting a big step backwards.

I certainly oppose it and I'm certainly NOT on the NIMBY, anti height/dev, STV clueless train.

[OldDartmouthMark]

You've still got to get that bit just south of North Street -> O'Reagans. It's 3 lanes, but really narrow, and a constant bottleneck. There is a lot of close to the road development that doesn't look like it's going anywhere soon.

Oops! Right... I forgot about that.

[Drybrain]

Steele Auto Group put up some hilariously awful "architect" renderings of their plans (http://www.steeleauto.com/colonial/). I guess they thought they could allay community concern about paving over the neighbourhood for a parking lot by showing exactly that.

I'm very discouraged by the readiness with which planners and councillors are encouraging residents to give the battle up and put their energy into centre plan consultations. Council seems unwilling even to take a symbolic stance against this, despite widespread outrage and their own (somewhat shrugging) disapproval.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Cornwallis Park:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1362344-halifax-to-vote-on-scrubbing-out-name-of-founder-who-put-bounty-on-aboriginals

I know it's a sensitive issue, but I wonder how much it will cost if it goes through? Also, will it set up a precedent whereby other name changes will have to occur based on deeds that were done in the 1700s by the founders of Halifax/Nova Scotia/Canada?

[Keith P.]

Cornwallis Park:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1362344-halifax-to-vote-on-scrubbing-out-name-of-founder-who-put-bounty-on-aboriginals

I know it's a sensitive issue, but I wonder how much it will cost if it goes through? Also, will it set up a precedent whereby other name changes will have to occur based on deeds that were done in the 1700s by the founders of Halifax/Nova Scotia/Canada?


Rewriting history in the name of political correctness is a ridiculous endeavor. I find the proposed action hugely offensive.

[eastcoastal]

Rewriting history in the name of political correctness is a ridiculous endeavor. I find the proposed action hugely offensive.

Interesting passage in the article though, describing how having statues and named places without being explicit about the bad is itself a form of rewriting history.

I wonder how many circular arguments one gets to have before you just get too dizzy to continue?

[mleblanc]

Why try to rewrite history? A quick google of Edward Cornwallis says that the Mi'kmaq paid the French for British scalps in retaliation of the founding of Halifax :shrug: He is an important person in our history

[Drybrain]

Rewriting history in the name of political correctness is a ridiculous endeavor. I find the proposed action hugely offensive.

Some people find a monument to genocide in a public park offensive. So it goes.

No one wants to rewrite history; the idea is to tell it more fully. I don't think we should run around scrubbing Cornwallis' name off of everything, simply because we should preserve that in our history which we find abhorrent. To scrub clean our history is dangerous.

But in this case, the dude is literally on a pedestal, in the middle of a downtown park named for him.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Here's an opinion piece from the CBC by the author who was quoted in the Herald article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/edward-cornwallis-statue-debate-1.3368733

It's an interesting conversation that raises some questions:
- Is removing a statue of him and changing names that honoured him the same as rewriting history?
- Would Haligonians be better off learning the complete story of their city's history rather than simply removing some reminders of it?
- Is it even being respectful to the Mi’kmaq people to not keep the story alive on how their ancestors were treated when Halifax was founded.

It's difficult for me to get my head around it, looking at it from the point of view of today's society. Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Canada were established on what would today be considered an act of war. Even worse, two warring European nations (England and France) both invaded the Mi’kmaq's land and used the Mi’kmaq people as pawns while battling each other to see who would be the one to control and inhabit the Mi’kmaq's territory.

Pretty screwed up by today's standards, but it was the environment in which Halifax/NS/Canada were "founded". There were other acts which put it in perspective as more of a war situation, such as the raids in Dartmouth from 1749 - 1751.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Dartmouth_%281749%29

So yes, it's all very ugly, but I don't think that sanitizing previously sanitized history is the right way to go about it. We all should know what really happened, to the best of our knowledge (historians will acknowledge that historical records in themselves can often be one-sided and inaccurate), rather than to hide it and pretend it didn't.

Whether they remove the statue and rename everything or not, I think it's important to keep the story alive. I firmly believe that those who refuse to learn history are the ones most likely to repeat it.

:2cents:

[Ziobrop]

There has been much talk of the need for a new heritage group in Halifax.

http://agbans.ca/

[Nor'easter]

I think it is safe to say the principal reason that Cornwallis (and his council) made the decision to place a bounty on the Mi'kmaq was to ensure the survival of the recently established town of Halifax, as was his charge.

Regardless of whether or not the methods used were acceptable, and whether or not they are judged by today's standards or the standards of yore, it cannot be denied that they produced success--Halifax continues to exist.

I feel that to condemn Cornwallis for his bounty and not condemn the British Empire for ordering Cornwallis to establish the town of Halifax in Mi'kmaq territory should be considered a hypocrisy. They knew full well the consequences and agreed that, if measures of peace were not effective that force should be used.

But then, would not the condemnation the British Empire for establishing the town of Halifax in Mi'kmaq territory while one is living in Halifax and enjoying the rewards of this condemnable action also be a hypocrisy in and of itself?

Perhaps we should replace the statue with an ivory tower...

[Ziobrop]

I think it is safe to say the principal reason that Cornwallis (and his council) made the decision to place a bounty on the Mi'kmaq was to ensure the survival of the recently established town of Halifax, as was his charge.

Regardless of whether or not the methods used were acceptable, and whether or not they are judged by today's standards or the standards of yore, it cannot be denied that they produced success--Halifax continues to exist.

I feel that to condemn Cornwallis for his bounty and not condemn the British Empire for ordering Cornwallis to establish the town of Halifax in Mi'kmaq territory should be considered a hypocrisy. They knew full well the consequences and agreed that, if measures of peace were not effective that force should be used.

But then, would not the condemnation the British Empire for establishing the town of Halifax in Mi'kmaq territory while one is living in Halifax and enjoying the rewards of this condemnable action also be a hypocrisy in and of itself?

Perhaps we should replace the statue with an ivory tower...

Cornwallis was considered to be a particularly nasty fellow even in his day. that said, he is 1. the founder of our city. 2. previous generations felt he was worthy of a statue in a park (both constructed as part of the Train station hotel complex) 3. if we remove one aspect of british colonialism, should we also not remove the parker welsford monument (to those who fought for the empire in crimea) or the Boar war monument on the north grounds of province house...

the better approcjh might be to move cornwallis from the center of the path, to the side, and insert a Mi'kmaq monument opposite, suggesting both cultures are now more equal

[Drybrain]

But then, would not the condemnation the British Empire for establishing the town of Halifax in Mi'kmaq territory while one is living in Halifax and enjoying the rewards of this condemnable action also be a hypocrisy in and of itself?



No, I don't think so. There's nowhere you can go in the world, probably, which was not established by some kind of war or violence.

We can condemn the means by which this society was created (colonialism, violence, war) without condemning the present-day incarnation of the society.

But that means the present-day society should seek to fully understand its complicated past. We should remember, but not glorify, men like Cornwallis.

[JET]

There has been much talk of the need for a new heritage group in Halifax.

http://agbans.ca/

I will await the arrival of new deities :worship:

[Keith P.]

No, I don't think so. There's nowhere you can go in the world, probably, which was not established by some kind of war or violence.

We can condemn the means by which this society was created (colonialism, violence, war) without condemning the present-day incarnation of the society.

But that means the present-day society should seek to fully understand its complicated past. We should remember, but not glorify, men like Cornwallis.


"Men like Cornwallis" were also found on the other side of this battle, yet some want to build monuments to them now. I fail to understand why.

[counterfactual]

There has been much talk of the need for a new heritage group in Halifax.

http://agbans.ca/

Great, so long as any clowns involved with Heritage/STV leadership are banned from leadership positions. This can't be another vessel for NIMBYs to oppose every single development in the city.

Also should emphasize working with developers, not opposing them.

[counterfactual]

Cornwallis was considered to be a particularly nasty fellow even in his day. that said, he is 1. the founder of our city. 2. previous generations felt he was worthy of a statue in a park (both constructed as part of the Train station hotel complex) 3. if we remove one aspect of british colonialism, should we also not remove the parker welsford monument (to those who fought for the empire in crimea) or the Boar war monument on the north grounds of province house...

the better approcjh might be to move cornwallis from the center of the path, to the side, and insert a Mi'kmaq monument opposite, suggesting both cultures are now more equal


I like this solution. The point isn't to forget history, but to promote understanding and reconciliation. Put the statute to the side and give it some context. And erect a proper statute to the Mi'kmaq and their essential contributions to the Province and its culture.

[Keith P.]

I like this solution. The point isn't to forget history, but to promote understanding and reconciliation. Put the statute to the side and give it some context. And erect a proper statute to the Mi'kmaq and their essential contributions to the Province and its culture.

Forgive me for asking, but what might those contributions be? I am sincerely curious.

[counterfactual]

Forgive me for asking, but what might those contributions be? I am sincerely curious.

Putting aside some of the colonial conflicts, early trade between settlers and Mi'kmaq people helped sustain early European settlements through out the Province.

While that trade influenced Mi'kmaq social/political/economic perspective, European traders were likewise influence by Mi'kmaq practices and the practices of Metis, who embodied this cultural interaction.

They've also positively influenced our laws -- see aboriginal rights recognized in our Charter of Rights, a key provision that makes us a model for reconciliation within a diverse population and country. Gabriel Sylliboy, the first Mi'kmaq elected as Grand Chief in 1919, fought for treaty recognition in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

More recently, the Donald Marshall case, and the injustices therein, led to Nova Scotia to be a leader on important aboriginal and criminal justice policy reforms.

Moreover, over 150 Mi'kmaq fought in WWI, 250+ in WWII, and 60+ in the Korean War.

There's more, but that's a start.

[Drybrain]

Great, so long as any clowns involved with Heritage/STV leadership are banned from leadership positions. This can't be another vessel for NIMBYs to oppose every single development in the city.

Also should emphasize working with developers, not opposing them.

My understanding is that the idea is to create a heritage (and overall architectural excellence) advocacy group that isn't encumbered with all that NIMBY baggage.

[someone123]

Here's an opinion piece from the CBC by the author who was quoted in the Herald article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/edward-cornwallis-statue-debate-1.3368733


It would be interesting if more interpretive material were added to Cornwallis Park to explain the backstory, good and bad, much like the deportation statues that were installed around the region. The park could tell the general story of the city's founding. The Cornwallis statue should stay. Like it or not, it's an important part of the city's history. It's bizarre that the author pointed out that the Cornwallis statue "dominates", erm, Cornwallis Park, and that it should go somewhere that "makes sense". If we didn't have people making a big deal out of it a lot of people in the city and province would barely know that Cornwallis Park exists. His suggestion to relocate the statue to the Citadel would probably result in more attention, not less.

I'm guessing most people here understand this but the Hitler comparisons and focus on the bounty on natives are based on a selective reading of history stripped of all inconvenient context. North America in the mid-18th century was an unstable and violent place. Cornwallis was a product of his time and there are similar native and French figures. There's a darker side to virtually any public figure.

[Keith P.]

It would be interesting if more interpretive material were added to Cornwallis Park to explain the backstory, good and bad, much like the deportation statues that were installed around the region. The park could tell the general story of the city's founding. The Cornwallis statue should stay. Like it or not, it's an important part of the city's history. It's bizarre that the author pointed out that the Cornwallis statue "dominates", erm, Cornwallis Park, and that it should go somewhere that "makes sense". If we didn't have people making a big deal out of it a lot of people in the city and province would barely know that Cornwallis Park exists. His suggestion to relocate the statue to the Citadel would probably result in more attention, not less.



Tattrie is one of the worst revisionists around and has been beating the drum on this issue for a while. Because he works for the CBC as a reporter he gets air time to help advance his slanted point of view as fact. This is just yet another example of how CBC is allowed to get away with pushing a biased agenda with use of our tax dollars as fuel. The guy should never be allowed to comment on the issue while wearing his CBC hat. He should not be employed by CBC, period.

[counterfactual]

There has been much talk of the need for a new heritage group in Halifax.

http://agbans.ca/

I will await the arrival of new deities :worship:

My understanding is that the idea is to create a heritage (and overall architectural excellence) advocacy group that isn't encumbered with all that NIMBY baggage.

The description of the new group sounds good.

Although, I'm not sure Jane Jacobs needs to be deified -- she brought some very good urban design ideas, but she also has damaged things too. Part of her philosophical legacy is found in urban NIMBYism. She opposed height and density and arguably has some responsibility for present versions of it, including sprawl and skyrocketing property values and housing costs in most urban centers.

City building guru Jane Jacobs' legacy is high house prices and sprawl, says former Vancouver Mayor
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/vancouver-recovers-from-jane-jacobs-women-on-banknotes-and-the-politics-of-climate-change-and-wildfires-1.3570513/city-building-guru-jane-jacobs-legacy-is-high-house-prices-and-sprawl-says-former-vancouver-mayor-1.3570609

Sounds like Halifax and Vancouver suffered similar fates from the 1970s onward. Except, we codified this philosophy in the Ramparts and Viewplane laws, which remain untouchable decades on. Thankfully, HRMxD has ameliorated this to some extent, but with The Doyle, we still see the problem. A skyscraper could have saved Maritime Life. Jacobs' would have opposed such a compromise.

And then there's the environmental factor:

Opinion Jane Jacobs got it wrong on density, says Harvard economist
http://citycaucus.com/2010/05/jane-jacobs-got-it-wrong-on-density-says-harvard-economist/

What Glaeser points out is that the resistance to higher density development – a trend that caught on like a virus in the 1970s – led to housing scarcity and therefore significantly higher prices. Jacobs’ ideas heavily influenced the mandates of City governments beginning in the 1970s. It’s said (and a senior City engineer confirmed this to me) that there wasn’t a single residential highrise built within Vancouver city limits between the early ’70s to the end of the following decade!

It’s no wonder we saw an explosion in the cost of real estate after Expo 86 – there simply wasn’t enough of it to meet demand from baby boomers moving into the market. If you need a symptom of sprawl and high housing costs in Vancouver today, ask yourself what more housing choice could have done to mitigate this over the past 25 years.

And:

Jacobs feared high densities because she thought that they would lead to too little diversity, but there are good reasons to think that she get things backward. Restricting new construction and keeping buildings artificially low means that housing supply cannot satisfy demand. The result is high prices and cities that are increasingly affordable only to the prosperous.

In almost every metropolitan area, we found the central city residents emitted less carbon than the suburban counterparts. In New York and San Francisco, the average urban family emits more than two tons less carbon annually because it drives less. In Nashville, the city-suburb carbon gap due to driving is more than three tons. After all, density is the defining characteristic of cities. All that closeness means that people need to travel shorter distances, and that shows up clearly in the data…

The policy prescription that follows from this is that environmentalists should be championing the growth of more and taller skyscrapers. Every new crane in New York City means less low-density development. The environmental ideal should be an apartment in downtown San Francisco, not a ranch in Marin County.

A lot of this is heretical to contemporary planning thought. Jacobs is still deified and it is "widely accepted" that medium-density is the ideal and skyscrapers should be avoided for good planning. And yet, the housing costs continue to skyrocket...

[someone123]

She opposed height and density and arguably has some responsibility for present versions of it, including sprawl and skyrocketing property values and housing costs in most urban centers.

Well, I think a lot of her writing was really a response to the large-scale slum clearing, road building, and housing projects of the 50's and 60's, and most people today would agree that those didn't turn out very well. A lot of her points are easily misapplied in a modern context.

Jane Jacobs was not anti-density; she advocated for much higher density than city planners of her day did. Greenwich Village, her example of a good neighbourhood, has 30,000 people per square kilometre. One of her major arguments was that city planners of the day made the mistake of conflating high density and overcrowding; overcrowding is bad but it depends on infrastructure. A neighbourhood is not necessarily bad just because it is high density, but that is what a lot of planners were arguing in the 50's and 60's. That was the point of view behind the 1950's clearances in Halifax.