General Updates and News

[Keith P.]

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.


Well, plus the fact that they were some of most filthy, run-down, dangerous slum areas of the city.

[Ziobrop]

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/


And:




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...

The Idea of the group is not to Deitify Jane Jacobs. The name for the group was appropriated from AGBNY in Homage, but also because it better described what i wanted to accomplish then "Architectural Conservancy of Nova Scotia" or other such names.

so far i have a number of people who have given their names as being interested. To Incorporate, i require 5 directors - if you want to help found the group, please let me know.

also if you have ideas about how it should be organized, or work it should do, please let me know - Im attempting to form a true community group - Not a Peter Dictates organization - the more voices the better.

Until the group actually forms as an entity, im trying to keep it to interested parties. once iis established, then we can go out generally and gain members.

[Drybrain]

Well, plus the fact that they were some of most filthy, run-down, dangerous slum areas of the city.

You could say the same thing about the Falkland/Maynard area here, or SoHo in NYC, or Mile End in Montreal, to cite just a few examples.

That article also isn't saying Jacobs was wrong, but that cities have changed since her day. The basic principles of Jacobs-esque urbanism are sound, but the return to the city movement has wrought population and affordability pressures, which mean we need to be more flexible with regards to density than many of the Jacobs-era activists are used to.

[OldDartmouthMark]

The vote was close, but IMHO the right decision was made:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1363808-cornwallis-name-statue-survive-council-vote-in-halifax

[OldDartmouthMark]

More on the Steele Auto issue:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1363697-dispute-around-steele-auto-group-expansion-hits-halifax-council

[counterfactual]

The vote was close, but IMHO the right decision was made:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1363808-cornwallis-name-statue-survive-council-vote-in-halifax

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to help our reputation as a City "plagued by White Supremacy".

https://twitter.com/vicecanada/status/729732903786020865

VICE clickbait!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to help our reputation as a City "plagued by White Supremacy".

https://twitter.com/vicecanada/status/729732903786020865

VICE clickbait!

Is the Cornwallis issue a race issue? If that's the case, then the whole settlement of North America by the Europeans was an act of racism.

I don't know where to start in qualifying the actions done by several countries during acts of war and conquering of territories over 250 years ago...
Exploratory? maybe.
Greed? likely.
Racism? Hmmm... :???:

At what point do we just accept history as history, right or wrong, and look to creating a better future? There are a lot more things happening in the here and now that need our energy and compassion. Let's move on.

[counterfactual]

Is the Cornwallis issue a race issue? If that's the case, then the whole settlement of North America by the Europeans was an act of racism.

I don't know where to start in qualifying the actions done by several countries during acts of war and conquering of territories over 250 years ago...
Exploratory? maybe.
Greed? likely.
Racism? Hmmm... :???:

At what point do we just accept history as history, right or wrong, and look to creating a better future? There are a lot more things happening in the here and now that need our energy and compassion. Let's move on.

FWIW, I should say that I think that Vice tweet is ludicrous.

[OldDartmouthMark]

FWIW, I should say that I think that Vice tweet is ludicrous.

I figured that you did. But still... it's out there. ;)

[Drybrain]

Is the Cornwallis issue a race issue? If that's the case, then the whole settlement of North America by the Europeans was an act of racism.

I don't know where to start in qualifying the actions done by several countries during acts of war and conquering of territories over 250 years ago...
Exploratory? maybe.
Greed? likely.
Racism? Hmmm... :???:

At what point do we just accept history as history, right or wrong, and look to creating a better future? There are a lot more things happening in the here and now that need our energy and compassion. Let's move on.

But this is happening in the here and now, especially that statue. As a society, do we still want to elevate and honour, with public statuary, someone like Cornwallis? Or do we want to put his story in the history books and take down a statue that represents hate and violence to a lot of Haligonians?

[OldDartmouthMark]

But this is happening in the here and now, especially that statue. As a society, do we still want to elevate and honour, with public statuary, someone like Cornwallis? Or do we want to put his story in the history books and take down a statue that represents hate and violence to a lot of Haligonians?

But is that what we are actually doing? Are we elevating and honouring the man, or are we recognizing the founding of our city?

If it is felt that we are honouring the man, then as mentioned before, keep the statue there but insert a narrative of accurate historical information to keep it in perspective. Include a timeline of all attrocities done by all parties that led to Halifax being what it is today. That's not glorifying the man, it's telling the people that the city that they are enjoying today did not become this way easily. It was a nasty, difficult time, and one horrible act led to another - but we are past that now. We are a better society now than we were in the 1700s. We can all attempt to live in harmony and make the world a better place. But, we need to understand what got us here so future generations can realize how bad things can get if we don't -all- continue to work together to keep it this way.

If having the statue elevated bothers people, then take the stand out from under it. Keep it at eye level and flank it with placards offering the story to those who want to educate themselves.

It's our history, and sugar-coating it or erasing remnants of it so as to not offend anyone is not doing anybody any favours.

We cannot erase the fact that two foreign countries were at war back in the 1700s, trying to take control of a land that was already inhabited, and its people - it's real and it's ugly, but I don't think it means that changing the name of Cornwallis Street, or George's Island, or Halifax, or Nova Scotia or whatever... is the what needs to happen to improve things. Let's educate, not eradicate. :2cents:

[Keith P.]

But this is happening in the here and now, especially that statue. As a society, do we still want to elevate and honour, with public statuary, someone like Cornwallis? Or do we want to put his story in the history books and take down a statue that represents hate and violence to a lot of Haligonians?

Then those Haligonians are misinformed. He founded the city as a British colonialist, for all that means both good and bad. If he had not done what he was sent here to do there would be no Halifax as we know it. It is a very complex issue that cannot be condensed into a tweet or a TV news sound bite. There was much brutality on all sides. That's the way it was back then. Depending upon who is telling the tale there are a number of very different versions of the truth. Given that it happened 266 years ago there are no eyewitnesses and few reliable accounts. You can look up things like the Dartmouth Massacre to see the type of actions that led to his supposed crimes. It is not so much revisionist history as much as a dumbing down of it that currently afflicts us. Progressives and the left, perpetually plagued by white guilt, see such symbols of the past as threatening to their vision of utopia and so want them scrubbed. It is beyond ludicrous.

[lawsond]

Then those Haligonians are misinformed. He founded the city as a British colonialist, for all that means both good and bad. If he had not done what he was sent here to do there would be no Halifax as we know it. It is a very complex issue that cannot be condensed into a tweet or a TV news sound bite. There was much brutality on all sides. That's the way it was back then. Depending upon who is telling the tale there are a number of very different versions of the truth. Given that it happened 266 years ago there are no eyewitnesses and few reliable accounts. You can look up things like the Dartmouth Massacre to see the type of actions that led to his supposed crimes. It is not so much revisionist history as much as a dumbing down of it that currently afflicts us. Progressives and the left, perpetually plagued by white guilt, see such symbols of the past as threatening to their vision of utopia and so want them scrubbed. It is beyond ludicrous.

Please do not even remotely try to speak for me. I am a progressive and a left of centre person and I do not agree with the current fad of tearing down/erasing history. Or sanitizing it. This is not in the tradition of progressivism or the left at all but a recent phenomenon imposed for the most part by over zealous Genx/Millennials who want everything to be just-so in case it sets off some ridiculous trigger in them. History is messy and murderous and ripping down statues and renaming parks does absolutely nothing to mitigate anything. This bizarre social hysteria is happening all across North America with Student Councils and University kids. Cornwallis founded the city whether people like it or not. Get over it kiddies.

[lawsond]

Whoopsie. I see that this was not in fact, generated by some hormonally elevated Student Council Committee. But my point remains the same. I essentially agree with Keith P. on that point. But Mr. P. seriously, you have no idea what contributions the Mik'Maq have made? The entire province of Nova Scotia is their contribution. They were the custodians before Europeans arrived. And since we have no intention of giving it back, a statue here or there is not out of line........at the very, very least.

[Drybrain]

But is that what we are actually doing? Are we elevating and honouring the man, or are we recognizing the founding of our city?

If it is felt that we are honouring the man, then as mentioned before, keep the statue there but insert a narrative of accurate historical information to keep it in perspective. Include a timeline of all attrocities done by all parties that led to Halifax being what it is today. That's not glorifying the man, it's telling the people that the city that they are enjoying today did not become this way easily. It was a nasty, difficult time, and one horrible act led to another - but we are past that now. We are a better society now than we were in the 1700s. We can all attempt to live in harmony and make the world a better place. But, we need to understand what got us here so future generations can realize how bad things can get if we don't -all- continue to work together to keep it this way.

If having the statue elevated bothers people, then take the stand out from under it. Keep it at eye level and flank it with placards offering the story to those who want to educate themselves.

It's our history, and sugar-coating it or erasing remnants of it so as to not offend anyone is not doing anybody any favours.

We cannot erase the fact that two foreign countries were at war back in the 1700s, trying to take control of a land that was already inhabited, and its people - it's real and it's ugly, but I don't think it means that changing the name of Cornwallis Street, or George's Island, or Halifax, or Nova Scotia or whatever... is the what needs to happen to improve things. Let's educate, not eradicate. :2cents:

There's a statue of the guy elevated on a pedestal in the middle of a park named after him. Cripes, yes, it's an implicit honour. And the statue hasn't been there since Cornwallis' day, either, it was out there in 1931 because some CN Rail bigwigs thought it would be a good idea.

I agree that we should educate, not eradicate. But the motion before council this week was basically to do the former, and it was shut down because people were afraid it meant the latter.

[pblaauw]

Whoopsie. I see that this was not in fact, generated by some hormonally elevated Student Council Committee. But my point remains the same. I essentially agree with Keith P. on that point. But Mr. P. seriously, you have no idea what contributions the Mik'Maq have made? The entire province of Nova Scotia is their contribution. They were the custodians before Europeans arrived. And since we have no intention of giving it back, a statue here or there is not out of line........at the very, very least.

a) "Contributions" are usually/always given willingly.

b) They weren't custodians. They were inhabitants. Residents. It was there HOME.

[someone123]

There's a statue of the guy elevated on a pedestal in the middle of a park named after him. Cripes, yes, it's an implicit honour. And the statue hasn't been there since Cornwallis' day, either, it was out there in 1931 because some CN Rail bigwigs thought it would be a good idea.

Isn't that also interesting history though? It would be a positive change to put up some interpretive material explaining the history of the founding of the city and the construction of the park. Maybe some statues of Mi'kmaq and Acadian figures from the period could be added as well, and the park could tell the story of Father LeLoutre's War. The proposals around getting rid of the statue or removing the Cornwallis name all strike me as being very negative; I suspect a lot of the outraged people can't articulate a positive vision of how the history should be presented because they have at best a very limited understanding of it.

My take on this is that Cornwallis lived so long ago that it is a bit far-fetched to treat this as a raw social issue, and that like it or not he did orchestrate the successful founding of the city and is a key historical figure that's about as worthy of commemoration as anybody else. The notion of Cornwallis as a kind of mid-18th century Hitler figure really falls apart when you read the history and get a sense of what the period was like. The Mi'kmaq actually started the scalping and murdering and there were repeated peace talks that fell through; Cornwallis' root offence seems to be that he may have violated a 1726 treaty while under somebody else's orders.

As an aside, the Mi'kmaq played a role in settling and raiding Newfoundland, with the help of newly-introduced European technology (at least small sailing ships if not also firearms), killing and displacing the Beothuk who actually did go extinct (today you can find close Mi'kmaq descendants on the island but not Beothuk descendants). Are Mi'kmaq leaders from the 17th and 18th centuries guilty of participating in genocide? I don't think a question like that makes much sense; such judgements are so disconnected from their true historical contexts that they are meaningless.

[Keith P.]

Isn't that also interesting history though? It would be a positive change to put up some interpretive material explaining the history of the founding of the city and the construction of the park. Maybe some statues of Mi'kmaq and Acadian figures from the period could be added as well, and the park could tell the story of Father LeLoutre's War. The proposals around getting rid of the statue or removing the Cornwallis name all strike me as being very negative; I suspect a lot of the outraged people can't articulate a positive vision of how the history should be presented because they have at best a very limited understanding of it.

My take on this is that Cornwallis lived so long ago that it is a bit far-fetched to treat this as a raw social issue, and that like it or not he did orchestrate the successful founding of the city and is a key historical figure that's about as worthy of commemoration as anybody else. The notion of Cornwallis as a kind of mid-18th century Hitler figure really falls apart when you read the history and get a sense of what the period was like. The Mi'kmaq actually started the scalping and murdering and there were repeated peace talks that fell through; Cornwallis' root offence seems to be that he may have violated a 1726 treaty while under somebody else's orders.

As an aside, the Mi'kmaq played a role in settling and raiding Newfoundland, with the help of newly-introduced European technology (at least small sailing ships if not also firearms), killing and displacing the Beothuk who actually did go extinct (today you can find close Mi'kmaq descendants on the island but not Beothuk descendants). Are Mi'kmaq leaders from the 17th and 18th centuries guilty of participating in genocide? I don't think a question like that makes much sense; such judgements are so disconnected from their true historical contexts that they are meaningless.

I'm sorry, that is far too long for a Twitter post, so it will not be tolerated.

:worship:

Seriously, you have it exactly correct. Sadly, the SJW brigade does not want to hear it and the majority of people who support the true intent of the Mason motion (i.e. scrubbing) are not likely to want to bother understanding the history.

One suspects that if the motion came from someone other than MasonWatts that it would have had a much better chance of success.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Isn't that also interesting history though? It would be a positive change to put up some interpretive material explaining the history of the founding of the city and the construction of the park. Maybe some statues of Mi'kmaq and Acadian figures from the period could be added as well, and the park could tell the story of Father LeLoutre's War. The proposals around getting rid of the statue or removing the Cornwallis name all strike me as being very negative; I suspect a lot of the outraged people can't articulate a positive vision of how the history should be presented because they have at best a very limited understanding of it.

My take on this is that Cornwallis lived so long ago that it is a bit far-fetched to treat this as a raw social issue, and that like it or not he did orchestrate the successful founding of the city and is a key historical figure that's about as worthy of commemoration as anybody else. The notion of Cornwallis as a kind of mid-18th century Hitler figure really falls apart when you read the history and get a sense of what the period was like. The Mi'kmaq actually started the scalping and murdering and there were repeated peace talks that fell through; Cornwallis' root offence seems to be that he may have violated a 1726 treaty while under somebody else's orders.

As an aside, the Mi'kmaq played a role in settling and raiding Newfoundland, with the help of newly-introduced European technology (at least small sailing ships if not also firearms), killing and displacing the Beothuk who actually did go extinct (today you can find close Mi'kmaq descendants on the island but not Beothuk descendants). Are Mi'kmaq leaders from the 17th and 18th centuries guilty of participating in genocide? I don't think a question like that makes much sense; such judgements are so disconnected from their true historical contexts that they are meaningless.

Thank you. Very well stated.

[Nor'easter]

The news articles on the Cornwallis issue continuously insist that the bounty was issued on the scalps of Mi'kmaq men, women and children. Is there any evidence that the proclamation specifically included women and children, or that a bounty was indeed paid for the scalp of a woman or child?

From what I understand the following is the excerpt from the council meeting minutes:

“That, in their opinion, to declare war formally against the Micmac Indians would be a manner to own them a free and independent people, whereas they ought to be treated as so many Banditti Ruffians, or Rebels, to His Majesty's Government.

“That, in order to secure the Province from further attempts of the Indians, some effectual methods should be taken to pursue them to their haunts, and show them that because of such actions, they shall not be secure within the Province.

“That, a Company of Volunteers, not exceeding fifty men, be immediately raised in the Settlement to scour the wood all around the Town.

“That, a Company of one hundred men be raised in New England to join with Gorham's during the winter, and go over the whole Province....

“That, a reward of ten Guineas be granted for every Indian Micmac taken, or killed."


And the following was proclaimed by Cornwallis the next day:

"Whereas, notwithstanding the gracious offers of friendship and protection made in His Majesty's Names by us to the Indians inhabiting this Province, The Micmacs have of late in a most treacherous manner taken 20 of His Majesty's Subjects prisoners at Canso, and carried off a sloop belonging to Boston, and a boat from this Settlement and at Chinecto basely and under pretence of friendship and commerce. Attempted to seize two English Sloops and murder their crews and actually killed severals, and on Saturday the 30th of September, a body of these savages fell upon some men cutting wood and without arms near the saw mill and barbarously killed four and carried one away.

"For, those cause we by and with the advice and consent of His Majesty's Council, do hereby authorize and command all Officers Civil and Military, and all His Majesty's Subjects or others to annoy, distress, take or destroy the Savage commonly called Micmac, wherever they are found, and all as such as aiding and assisting them, give further by and with the consent and advice of His Majesty's Council, do promise a reward of ten Guineas for every Indian Micmac taken or killed, to be paid upon producing such Savage taken or his scalp if killed to the Officer Commanding."

I see no mention of women or children specifically. It would seem that proponents of this plan to expunge our city of anything "Cornwallis" are writing their own narrative of history to suit their agenda, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

[Drybrain]

I suspect a lot of the outraged people can't articulate a positive vision of how the history should be presented because they have at best a very limited understanding of it.


I suspect that's true, but I also suspect that most of the pro-statue proponents also have a very limited understanding of history themselves, that doesn't extend much beyond high school history and popular conceptions (and misconceptions). The majority of the pro-statue arguments boil down to the simplistic idea that to do remove it would be to "scrub away" history.

As for it not being raw because it was 300 years ago, well, the ramifications of 300 years ago are still being felt today in Indigenous communities. Higher mortality, suicide rates, drug abuse, violence, poverty, etc, all directly linked, through the generations, back to colonization.

I don't understand how people can make the "it was 300 years ago" argument. In many ways, it's right now.



The notion of Cornwallis as a kind of mid-18th century Hitler figure really falls apart when you read the history and get a sense of what the period was like. The Mi'kmaq actually started the scalping and murdering and there were repeated peace talks that fell through; Cornwallis' root offence seems to be that he may have violated a 1726 treaty while under somebody else's orders.
I think it's very important to remember the atrocities and wrongdoing on both sides of the conflicts from which Canada was born.



I think this understates Cornwallis' crimes, but fundamentally it's true: shit was complicated. So why do we want to shut down a public discussion over it in favour of the very simplistic status quo situation?

Yes, it's important to understand the atrocities on both sides of Canada's originating conflicts. But there's no getting around the fact that the society we live in today was predominantly created by the invading force in that conflict, and the descendants of the subjugated peoples are still living with that, in what remains for them a colonial state, in which virtually every single yardstick of quality of life is worse for them. I don't know why this is so difficult for Canadians to deal with. It's not about "white guilt" (I don't feel guilty, because I'm not culpable). It's about an honest accounting of history.

Again, all of these arguments for or against Mason's motion seem to fixate on whether we should rename everything or not, and that's not the motion was about. It was about just talking about this shit, and we rejected it.

[Keith P.]

As for it not being raw because it was 300 years ago, well, the ramifications of 300 years ago are still being felt today in Indigenous communities. Higher mortality, suicide rates, drug abuse, violence, poverty, etc, all directly linked, through the generations, back to colonization.

You surely are not blaming Cornwallis for that? Those problems, real as they are, in many instances are self-inflicted thanks to a desire to live in a way that no longer exists. Again, nothing to do with the issue at hand.


Yes, it's important to understand the atrocities on both sides of Canada's originating conflicts. But there's no getting around the fact that the society we live in today was predominantly created by the invading force in that conflict, and the descendants of the subjugated peoples are still living with that, in what remains for them a colonial state, in which virtually every single yardstick of quality of life is worse for them. I don't know why this is so difficult for Canadians to deal with. It's not about "white guilt" (I don't feel guilty, because I'm not culpable). It's about an honest accounting of history.

See above. Us colonial descendants spend many billions a year to support the system that the native people claim they want to maintain, yet the deplorable conditions still exist. Something is fundamentally wrong with the system. I make no claim to understand what would fix it. But when I see that much public money going to seemingly no good end I have to question why.

Again, all of these arguments for or against Mason's motion seem to fixate on whether we should rename everything or not, and that's not the motion was about. It was about just talking about this shit, and we rejected it.

I suspect much of the reason was due to it coming from Mason. He has made it clear that he wants the name and all other references removed. That is his only objective. To try to put up a smokescreen by saying all he wanted was a discussion was a facade that many other council members saw through. Keep in mind that there has been a pretty consistent anti-MasonWatts bloc on Council for a while now. If the motion had come from someone else who truthfully actually just wanted to have a discussion and did not have a hidden agenda it might have stood a chance.

[OldDartmouthMark]

So why do we want to shut down a public discussion over it in favour of the very simplistic status quo situation?

Is it not those who want to remove all traces of this man that want to shut down public discussion? Has public discussion actually been shut down?

Yes, it's important to understand the atrocities on both sides of Canada's originating conflicts. But there's no getting around the fact that the society we live in today was predominantly created by the invading force in that conflict, and the descendants of the subjugated peoples are still living with that, in what remains for them a colonial state, in which virtually every single yardstick of quality of life is worse for them. I don't know why this is so difficult for Canadians to deal with. It's not about "white guilt" (I don't feel guilty, because I'm not culpable). It's about an honest accounting of history.

Again, all of these arguments for or against Mason's motion seem to fixate on whether we should rename everything or not, and that's not the motion was about. It was about just talking about this shit, and we rejected it.

Again, has the discussion stopped? I don't believe so. The fact that we are having this online discussion right now is evidence that the discussion is very much alive. I suspect that it will continue for a long time.

The larger issue you're talking about confounds me a little. There's no debating that the "subjugated peoples" were certainly negatively affected by colonialism. One doesn't have to look very far to find evidence and stories on how First Nations people have been mistreated and abused throughout our history (one doesn't even need 'high school history' to understand this). That's not up for debate, it's fact.

However, today, in 2016, everybody should have the opportunity to strive forward and be vital in today's society. In fact, a large percentage of Canada's population do not have descendants that lived in Canada in the 1700s. Many of them emigrated to Canada with nothing, yet many have overcome severe strife in their home country, cultural and racial prejudice, language barriers, etc. (in their new country), to become successful and vital in our current Canadian society. They don't ask for anything but an opportunity to have a good life and to be able to support their families.

I can't help but wonder if we (the government and citizens of Canada) should now be doing more than just apologizing for the misdeeds of the founders of our country, and find a way to help the First Nations people escape all the negativity of their current and past situations, to help them work into today's society more fluidly. Reservation life does not seem to be treating their people very well, and they deserve to have the same quality of life that all other Canadians are able to work hard and strive for.

Yet, the best we can offer is to remove statues and change names...

[Drybrain]

Is it not those who want to remove all traces of this man that want to shut down public discussion? Has public discussion actually been shut down?


Again, the motion was not about removing all traces of the man. It was about engaging the public in a discussion, after which would follow some action, regarding how to commemorate Cornwallis. The discussion hasn't stopped, but it's back to being informal now, hashed out in internet forums and the like. The motion would have formalized it and had us taken some action.

My thinking is that if such a substantial number of Indigenous Canadians are saying this is an issue for them, who are we to tell them "no, it's old news, don't worry about it." Why do we have a right to dictate what is and is not a matter of concern?

Sheesh.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Again, the motion was not about removing all traces of the man. It was about engaging the public in a discussion, after which would follow some action, regarding how to commemorate Cornwallis. The discussion hasn't stopped, but it's back to being informal now, hashed out in internet forums and the like. The motion would have formalized it and had us taken some action.

My thinking is that if such a substantial number of Indigenous Canadians are saying this is an issue for them, who are we to tell them "no, it's old news, don't worry about it." Why do we have a right to dictate what is and is not a matter of concern?

Sheesh.

The item for council:

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/160510ca171.pdf

The wording seems a little wishy-washy and definitely leaves some room for interpretation, but there's no doubt that the underlying theme is a movement to remove and rename. But... whatever.

I get where you're coming from in general, but hesitate a little on the point that if an issue is found offensive to any group that does not recognize the entire story and related context, that the wishes of the group must be adhered to regardless. That doesn't seem very fair either.

Again, the discussion hasn't ended. The vote was close, and I'm sure that the issue will be raised again. There will be an election resulting in some change in council and the opportunity to revisit it will come.

In the meantime, I'm sure if the majority of the citizens of Halifax want change, they will pressure their council members to revisit the issue and affect change. That's how it's supposed to work, as I understand.

My encouragement for you is to keep it alive - have the discussions among your friends, family, coworkers. Write an 'Opinion' piece for the Herald. There have been a number of them done already, one more couldn't hurt (I found this (http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1283948-speaking-of-historical-names-maybe-we-should-slam-dunk-halifax) one particularly interesting). Get the word out there and organize like-minded individuals to come together for the cause - educate the public above their high-school level of historical knowledge. How about taking it to the provincial or federal level? The discussions don't have to die because of one council vote.

FWIW, it wouldn't pain me greatly if the statue were to be removed. The physical statue isn't the issue for me - I can't tell you when was the last time I've actually walked up to see it in person. What has my attention is the way that history is being treated.

Let the discussion continue, but let it be an open discussion that doesn't start with an agenda. If the final result of the open discussion is that the statue is removed, then so be it. If it means that we change Halifax's name to Kjipuktuk, then so be it, as long as it is what the majority of citizens agree that it is the right thing to do. But let the discussion include the broader issues of our First Nations people - it's a huge issue that isn't going to be solved easily, and it certainly won't be solved by a group of city councilors voting on a statue... errrr... voting on whether to have a discussion about a statue. :2cents:

[eastcoastal]

Isn't that also interesting history though? It would be a positive change to put up some interpretive material explaining the history of the founding of the city and the construction of the park. Maybe some statues of Mi'kmaq and Acadian figures from the period could be added as well, and the park could tell the story of Father LeLoutre's War. The proposals around getting rid of the statue or removing the Cornwallis name all strike me as being very negative; I suspect a lot of the outraged people can't articulate a positive vision of how the history should be presented because they have at best a very limited understanding of it.

My take on this is that Cornwallis lived so long ago that it is a bit far-fetched to treat this as a raw social issue, and that like it or not he did orchestrate the successful founding of the city and is a key historical figure that's about as worthy of commemoration as anybody else. The notion of Cornwallis as a kind of mid-18th century Hitler figure really falls apart when you read the history and get a sense of what the period was like. The Mi'kmaq actually started the scalping and murdering and there were repeated peace talks that fell through; Cornwallis' root offence seems to be that he may have violated a 1726 treaty while under somebody else's orders.

As an aside, the Mi'kmaq played a role in settling and raiding Newfoundland, with the help of newly-introduced European technology (at least small sailing ships if not also firearms), killing and displacing the Beothuk who actually did go extinct (today you can find close Mi'kmaq descendants on the island but not Beothuk descendants). Are Mi'kmaq leaders from the 17th and 18th centuries guilty of participating in genocide? I don't think a question like that makes much sense; such judgements are so disconnected from their true historical contexts that they are meaningless.

well articulated

[someone123]

Again, the motion was not about removing all traces of the man. It was about engaging the public in a discussion, after which would follow some action, regarding how to commemorate Cornwallis.

I have a hard time buying this based on the way Waye Mason and media have been running with the issue, the way the issue has been framed, and the classic internet-style outrage that has grown up around it. Why do all of the Cornwallis references specifically need to be dealt with right now? How is an abstract debate around the merits of Cornwallis as a person going to produce good results as far as parks and monuments around the city are concerned?

Cornwallis Park is being updated soon. I think it would be reasonable to evaluate the statue and come up with ideas for what people want in the park. That's a practical debate aimed at improving part of the city. The debate around Cornwallis as a figure on the other hand is abstract and political, and once it's open it will probably just result in empty pandering that scores political points but does not improve the reality on the ground in any way.

In the same way there have been lots of discussions around aboriginal rights across Canada. Part of Shannon Park is getting returned to Millbrook for example and there has been talk of setting up a new Mi'kmaq assembly building in Halifax. For that matter there was a settlement over the residential school issue (which tangibly affected people who are still alive today). How does the Cornwallis statue stack up to these as a factor in the quality of life of Mi'kmaq people alive today? Realistically, it has no material impact.

[Ziobrop]

Lots of people cite Cornwallis as a racist. I don't think he was. He was pretty despicable to all those who opposed him. In 1745 he was sent to put down the Jacobian Risingin the Scottish Highlands. Cornwallis's campaign was later described as one of unrestrained violence. Cornwallis ordered his men to chase off livestock, destroy crops and food stores. Cornwallis's soldiers used rape and mass murder to intimidate Jacobites from further rebellion.

he then came and founded Halifax in 1749. He negotiated a treaty with the Wabanaki Confederacy, however they did not include the Mi'kmaq in Nova scotia who opposed the settlement, and attacked attempting to force the british out. This Was the origins of Cornwallis' Scalping Proclamation - where he put a bounty on the Mi'kmaq. This appears to have been largely unsuccessful, as he was forced to raise the bounty in 1751, and even then, only one scalp was turned in in the 4 months following. The french also paied the Mi'kmaq for british scalps.

anyone who claims Cornwallis wasn't a bad person is ignorant and wrong. He most definitely was.

Im fine with the statue, and things named after the founder of Halifax. I would not be against a second statue commemorating the other side of the conflict.

[OldDartmouthMark]

The discussion continues:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/edward-cornwallis-naming-mi-kmaq-poet-laureate-1.3578604

[Keith P.]

The discussion continues:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/edward-cornwallis-naming-mi-kmaq-poet-laureate-1.3578604

I don't know if there is a job description for the poet laureate position (and I really don't know why we even have one) but it seems all who have held the position have been constant critics of the city and its citizens. Very odd.

[Hali87]

Is there any evidence that the proclamation specifically included women and children, or that a bounty was indeed paid for the scalp of a woman or child?

Records of the scalpings at the hands of paid militia members “are quite sickening,” Paul said.

“Some of the first victims were a group of pregnant Mi’kmaq women who they disemboweled and, of course, killed the children.”
Source (http://www.localxpress.ca/news/2016/5/11/0pm8kjs08qlc16sr8088k8pub7dh77)

It's not clear if women and children were "meant" to be targeted specifically as per proclamation, but the evidence is that they were. Whether this can be blamed directly on Cornwallis, or whether it was overzealous militia is not really clear to me. Ultimately I do think it's a conversation worth having and I agree that adding more information/monuments to tell a fuller story would be more beneficial than removing the statue. Cornwallis (and other figures from that era) can be commemorated without being seen as role-models.

Then again I'm not of Mi'kmaq, Acadian, or English-colonial descent, so in many ways this isn't really my battle.

[lawsond]

a) "Contributions" are usually/always given willingly.

b) They weren't custodians. They were inhabitants. Residents. It was there HOME.

Yeah I get that. There was a question of what the the original inhabitants had or have contributed to the province. I was pointing out the "the province" was theirs so that is a pretty huge "contribution" notwithstanding anything else they may have given/ given up. Of course it was and is still their home. So I am agreeing with you.

[Nor'easter]

Source (http://www.localxpress.ca/news/2016/5/11/0pm8kjs08qlc16sr8088k8pub7dh77)

It's not clear if women and children were "meant" to be targeted specifically as per proclamation, but the evidence is that they were. Whether this can be blamed directly on Cornwallis, or whether it was overzealous militia is not really clear to me. Ultimately I do think it's a conversation worth having and I agree that adding more information/monuments to tell a fuller story would be more beneficial than removing the statue. Cornwallis (and other figures from that era) can be commemorated without being seen as role-models.

Then again I'm not of Mi'kmaq, Acadian, or English-colonial descent, so in many ways this isn't really my battle.

Interesting, although anything from Dan Paul is hardly impartial. I wonder where he got that information from.

Besides the whole "women and children" thing, the fact that "scalping" in general falls into every anti-Cornwallis narrative is a bit sensationalist, attempting to evoke a sense of terror in the listener. They make it sound like Cornwallis asked his people to run around and rip the scalps off living children, when in fact you would be paid your 10 guineas just the same for delivering a live captive.

I suspect the truth is more mundane: a small scale "war" that couldn't be called a war, so an army couldn't be assembled and paid, so instead to raise men for his cause he issued a bounty. A means to prove kills was required, and scalps are the natural choice. Since the Mi'kmaq were also accepting bounties from the French at the time for English kills, this whole episode seems quite routine for the day. I am sure events of a similar scale in the last 500 years have not even been recorded, let alone condemned a few centuries later.

And that's what bothers me most about this: if it's not clear, then why do people like Dan Paul and what seems like most CBC reports describe these events with the conviction of eye witnesses?

If we do indeed provide more historical information at the site and the words "scalps of women and children" find themselves onto the plaques and panels (without substantiation) I will be pretty disappointed.

[JET]

"Then again I'm not of Mi'kmaq, Acadian, or English-colonial descent, so in many ways this isn't really my battle.[/QUOTE]

------------------------------

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

The age old position has often been to stand by, because it is not our battle;
sadly so

[JET]

I don't know if there is a job description for the poet laureate position (and I really don't know why we even have one) but it seems all who have held the position have been constant critics of the city and its citizens. Very odd.

That's a gross overgeneralization; is it mostly the recent appointees that you have issue with? Do you think that they should only provide positive poetry, rather than reflect the reality of our city?

http://www.halifax.ca/culture/PublicArt/PoetLaureate.php

[OldDartmouthMark]

That's a gross overgeneralization; is it mostly the recent appointees that you have issue with? Do you think that they should only provide positive poetry, rather than reflect the reality of our city?

http://www.halifax.ca/culture/PublicArt/PoetLaureate.php

From the link:

What is a Poet Laureate?

The Halifax Regional Municipality defines the Poet Laureate as a resident poet or spoken word artist who has achieved excellence amongst their peers and whose work is of relevance to the citizens of the region. The Poet Laureate is an advocate for literary arts and reflects the life of the municipality through their work. As an advocate for poetry, language and the arts, the Poet Laureate attends events across the region to promote and attract people to the literary world.

From that, my opinion is that this work "is of relevance to the citizens of the region". :2cents:

[FuzzyWuz]

We don't have to erase Cornwallis to fix things IMO. Just update things like Cornwallis park to add context. Rename it something like Foundation Park and place lots of information about the history of the place before, during, and since the founding of Halifax. That way we can acknowledge the fact that he founded the garrison but also include the horrible stuff he and his superiors did to anyone who got in their way.

[Keith P.]

Interesting, although anything from Dan Paul is hardly impartial. I wonder where he got that information from.

Besides the whole "women and children" thing, the fact that "scalping" in general falls into every anti-Cornwallis narrative is a bit sensationalist, attempting to evoke a sense of terror in the listener. They make it sound like Cornwallis asked his people to run around and rip the scalps off living children, when in fact you would be paid your 10 guineas just the same for delivering a live captive.

I suspect the truth is more mundane: a small scale "war" that couldn't be called a war, so an army couldn't be assembled and paid, so instead to raise men for his cause he issued a bounty. A means to prove kills was required, and scalps are the natural choice. Since the Mi'kmaq were also accepting bounties from the French at the time for English kills, this whole episode seems quite routine for the day. I am sure events of a similar scale in the last 500 years have not even been recorded, let alone condemned a few centuries later.

And that's what bothers me most about this: if it's not clear, then why do people like Dan Paul and what seems like most CBC reports describe these events with the conviction of eye witnesses?

If we do indeed provide more historical information at the site and the words "scalps of women and children" find themselves onto the plaques and panels (without substantiation) I will be pretty disappointed.


Outstanding post! :multibow:

[Keith P.]

From the link:
What is a Poet Laureate?

The Halifax Regional Municipality defines the Poet Laureate as a resident poet or spoken word artist who has achieved excellence amongst their peers and whose work is of relevance to the citizens of the region. The Poet Laureate is an advocate for literary arts and reflects the life of the municipality through their work. As an advocate for poetry, language and the arts, the Poet Laureate attends events across the region to promote and attract people to the literary world.


From that, my opinion is that this work "is of relevance to the citizens of the region". :2cents:


I see "an advocate for poetry, language and the arts", not for every social justice cause that comes along. I think they need to have their role explained to them. A succession of El Jones wannabes will do nothing except to discredit the position.

[cormiermax]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/edward-cornwallis-statue-vandalized-halifax-red-paint-1.3580675

[Hali87]

The age old position has often been to stand by, because it is not our battle;
sadly so

Who are "they" "coming for" in this case though? All I meant is that it's not my ancestors who were under threat of being scalped (on either side) in this case, so I'm maybe not as sensitive to the topic as those whose families would have been directly affected. :shrug: Me saying "it's no big deal if the statue is removed/not removed" is not exactly the same as someone whose ancestors lived that experience saying that.

[mleblanc]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/edward-cornwallis-statue-vandalized-halifax-red-paint-1.3580675

Ah, the good ol' "We didn't get our way so now we'll kick, scream, and vandalize wasting everyones time and money" approach.

[stevencourchene]

soon to open!!!




The Canvas Room will be opening on may 25th and will be located at
5521 Cornwallis St.
Halifax, NS

visit their Facebook page at
https://www.facebook.com/thecanvasroomcafe/?fref=ts

The Canvas room is locally own and operated.

cant wait to test my inner artist:)

[eastcoastal]

I don't know if there is a job description for the poet laureate position (and I really don't know why we even have one) but it seems all who have held the position have been constant critics of the city and its citizens. Very odd.

I think it is frequently the role of artists to critique the status quo.

[Keith P.]

I think it is frequently the role of artists to critique the status quo.

Until they seek out these same folks to fund their activity.

[beyeas]

Until they seek out these same folks to fund their activity.

There is a fundamental conflict of interest inherent to that statement, in which those who funded someone are then to be immune to criticism. I vehemently disagree with that.

Should public money only be provided by a government agency to fund someone who will not be critical? This very much resembles the arguments from the past decade that federally funded scientists should not be critical of government policies. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about artists or scientists, linking availability of public money to an inability to criticize those who funded you is a dangerous game. Personally I think that in a healthy society people should be free to debate and criticize public policy as much as they want, on all sides of the political spectrum, rather than be subject to veiled threats that they shouldn't be critical of those who fund them.

[eastcoastal]

Until they seek out these same folks to fund their activity.

Depends on how civilized the funders are.

[Keith P.]

There is a fundamental conflict of interest inherent to that statement, in which those who funded someone are then to be immune to criticism. I vehemently disagree with that.

Should public money only be provided by a government agency to fund someone who will not be critical? This very much resembles the arguments from the past decade that federally funded scientists should not be critical of government policies. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about artists or scientists, linking availability of public money to an inability to criticize those who funded you is a dangerous game. Personally I think that in a healthy society people should be free to debate and criticize public policy as much as they want, on all sides of the political spectrum, rather than be subject to veiled threats that they shouldn't be critical of those who fund them.


Government funds should not be used to fund advocacy groups whose purpose it is to criticize public policy. I see artists criticizing public policy as little different if they are also receiving public money.

[portapetey]

So government shouldn't provide any support to individuals or organizations that provide feedback or represent community reaction to government policy, and in turn anyone who receives public funding must toe the party line? Only yesmen need apply?

Sounds like a good setup for a dictatorship. I know one ex-PM who would be proud.

[beyeas]

Government funds should not be used to fund advocacy groups whose purpose it is to criticize public policy. I see artists criticizing public policy as little different if they are also receiving public money.

My apologies. I was under the impression we lived in a democracy, where dissenting voices were not only permitted but encouraged. One where public funding of organizations through both direct funding and charitable tax status was used as a way of ensuring all voices were heard from all ends of the political spectrum, not just those supporting the current political leadership. Apparently I was wrong, Comrade.

Your view on funding for the arts is well documented, but I can only assume then that you would also support it if the current government revoked the charitable tax status of the Fraser Institute?

[Keith P.]

They can provide as much criticism, feedback and lobbying as they want. Just don't expect the taxpayer to foot the bill. That is not a dictatorship; that is fiscal responsibility. Otherwise you have a self-perpetuating system of using the taxpayer to pay for lobbyists.

[beyeas]

And so you support not giving a tax break to the Fraser Institute then? Same logic would apply.

[Keith P.]

And so you support not giving a tax break to the Fraser Institute then? Same logic would apply.

For a bunch of fellas who are supposed to be smart you guys sure post some dumb things. We are talking public funding, not charitable status. The tax definition of a charity which receives private money is very different from govt writing a cheque to the like of David Suzuki or Maude Barlow.

[beyeas]

For a bunch of fellas who are supposed to be smart you guys sure post some dumb things. We are talking public funding, not charitable status. The tax definition of a charity which receives private money is very different from govt writing a cheque to the like of David Suzuki or Maude Barlow.

Handing out $1000 and never collecting $1000 in taxes has the exact same net effect on the treasury from my perspective as a tax payer.

Similar, for example, to not collecting full market value for a municipal building and instead selling it to an arts group for less than market. The government never handed out money in that case either, and yet you speak out against it.

And let's be clear, there is a massive difference between a typical "charity" (like Feed NS for example) and a right-wing advocacy group that largely supports private interests. You calling the Fraser Institute a charity is laughable. The ONLY difference is whether it is in support of your world view.

[portapetey]

Remember kids, this is only about one thing:

Libz is evilz

Nothing else. Fiscal responsibility is just a red herring.

[beyeas]

I think there is tremendous value in a system where public funds are available to promote the discussion, evaluation and criticism of information and decisions in the public realm. And that crosses all political borders. There are valuable ideas and criticisms that come from the left, the right, and everything in between.

Furthermore, I have no issue with public funds going to groups that can transparently add to that discourse, in particular when without those funds it would be difficult for a specific group to have such a voice because of a lack of deep pockets. Again, I would support that for groups whether they represented a liberal or conservative perspective. I can judge the merits of their argument in light of any potential bias in either direction that they may have, because it is transparent as to who the group represents, and I can have access to points-of-view from all sides of the spectrum.

Deciding to fund or not fund a specific group based upon whether they will be critical of the government is EXACTLY the opposite of what should happen, given the conflict of interest that the government of the day is in when they make such decisions. The other option of course is to fund no advocacy groups, whether through money or tax breaks. However, this runs into the issue of ceding the field to only those with deep enough pockets to self fund, thereby skewing the discourse.

[Hali87]

A dramatic break from the established aesthetic in Highfield Park:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7303/27080448315_3a3f601b16_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Hg1nPi)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/Hg1nPi) by Hali87 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72021271@N05/), on Flickr

[Keith P.]

Handing out $1000 and never collecting $1000 in taxes has the exact same net effect on the treasury from my perspective as a tax payer.

Similar, for example, to not collecting full market value for a municipal building and instead selling it to an arts group for less than market. The government never handed out money in that case either, and yet you speak out against it.

And let's be clear, there is a massive difference between a typical "charity" (like Feed NS for example) and a right-wing advocacy group that largely supports private interests. You calling the Fraser Institute a charity is laughable. The ONLY difference is whether it is in support of your world view.

Handing out $1000 to a group costs the govt $1000. Giving a tax break to a donor on a $1000 donation costs govt +/-$170. I am willing to live with that, but not the $1000.

Govt selling for less than market or giving away a building to a group almost always results in a later request to govt from the same groups, cap in hand, for operating funding.

I never called the Fraser Institute anything, you did. It is the flip side of the Council of Canadians, Center for Policy Alternatives, EAC, or other left-wing groups. Govt should fund none of those regardless of political stripe. If people want to get a tax deduction for giving them THEIR money, I'm OK with that. It costs govt much less.

[Hali87]

A problem with this though is that it is much easier for the very wealthy/big business to fund lobby groups/think tanks than it is for the very poor or marginalized to do so. And since the right-wing groups are rarely advocating for the concerns of the very poor, and the left-wing groups are rarely advocating for the concerns of the very wealthy...

[beyeas]

Handing out $1000 to a group costs the govt $1000. Giving a tax break to a donor on a $1000 donation costs govt +/-$170. I am willing to live with that, but not the $1000.

Govt selling for less than market or giving away a building to a group almost always results in a later request to govt from the same groups, cap in hand, for operating funding.

I never called the Fraser Institute anything, you did. It is the flip side of the Council of Canadians, Center for Policy Alternatives, EAC, or other left-wing groups. Govt should fund none of those regardless of political stripe. If people want to get a tax deduction for giving them THEIR money, I'm OK with that. It costs govt much less.

Well we shall decidedly agree to disagree. And back to focusing on development! :)

[Jonovision]

I was not able to attend the second engagement session for Spring Garden West but the presentations and updates have been posted:

http://www.livewellonsgw.com/the-latest/public-spaces-session-2

The design has evolved and has taken inspiration from the star shape of the Citadel.

http://67.media.tumblr.com/4733ba7ab14784b679f73385fd40271e/tumblr_o7g2z81C7c1sk8kjeo1_1280.jpg

http://67.media.tumblr.com/439787277df4bea1daef103a3a5af34b/tumblr_o7fz9iYTy91sk8kjeo2_1280.jpg

http://66.media.tumblr.com/554b2276f02e8885d92518e7ad0e2751/tumblr_o7fz9iYTy91sk8kjeo3_1280.jpg

http://67.media.tumblr.com/1f95fdeb4ea221e711aa30b9ced32132/tumblr_o7fz9iYTy91sk8kjeo4_1280.jpg

http://67.media.tumblr.com/b88d9115e7e4fedcbdb7161161548e58/tumblr_o7fz9iYTy91sk8kjeo5_1280.jpg

http://66.media.tumblr.com/e796534214f44aa02223016413c0490d/tumblr_o7fz9iYTy91sk8kjeo6_1280.jpg

[counterfactual]

A dramatic break from the established aesthetic in Highfield Park:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7303/27080448315_3a3f601b16_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Hg1nPi)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/Hg1nPi) by Hali87 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72021271@N05/), on Flickr

What the hell is that?

Even the "modernist" strip malls in the business parks / big box are ugly as sin.

[Keith P.]

What the hell is that?

Even the "modernist" strip malls in the business parks / big box are ugly as sin.

I stumbled onto that yesterday. It is quite jarring to see in that location.

It appears to be a strip mall with office space upstairs.

[counterfactual]

I stumbled onto that yesterday. It is quite jarring to see in that location.

It appears to be a strip mall with office space upstairs.

Terrible.

[stevencourchene]

I love everything that is planed so far for the SGW Project!!!!

I cant wait and hope to see this and many more come to life!

my only question is why have we not seen many vacant lots and such be used around are city fist before tearing down peoples businesses and home that are already standing.

I know it has to happen and I think its to better our city but when we have this vacant land lets use that and build up and not out as much and to the advantage the height we have and build higher density.

every day I drive past the lot by superstore on young street and Windsor and think "what an eye sore" and theses so many other places we could and should be filling in.

other then that all the :tup: on this project for SGW from me.

[IanWatson]

Terrible.

It's actually quite nice in person (except the typical suburban sea of parking).

[curnhalio]

I was not able to attend the second engagement session for Spring Garden West but the presentations and updates have been posted:

http://www.livewellonsgw.com/the-latest/public-spaces-session-2

The design has evolved and has taken inspiration from the star shape of the Citadel.


Wow! That is quite the striking proposal. I sure hope this one goes forward!

[dtown]

I really like that SGW proposal. That Spring Garden, Robie, Summer Sreets area always kind of reminded me of Halifax's way way miniature version of the Bloor-Young area of Toronto. Right on the outskirts of downtown, but where a lot of people live that work downtown. It would be nice to see some more developments like this one in this area.

[someone123]

I like it too. There are also a couple of other changes coming for that area. The Garden Crest street frontage along Spring Garden Road is going to get renovated, adding more space and reducing the setback, and there is a ~20 storey tower proposed across from SGW.

There is also a development rumoured for the little red brick building next to Summer Gardens that houses Domus Realty, next to Just Us.

Two big strikes against the area are the tower-in-the-park design of Summer Gardens (concrete tower on the corner of Summer Street, built circa 1990) and the tower-behind-a-parking-lot configuration of 5770 Spring Garden Road. I think 5770 is rental and it doesn't seem far-fetched to imagine a medium-sized building to replace the parking out front. I doubt anything can be done about the grounds around Summer Gardens, but then again they are not nearly as bad as a parking lot.

[Hali87]

New awning tacked on rather gracelessly to the Pacific Building:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7200/26531106423_6958e15a87_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GqsRBn)
Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/GqsRBn) by Hali87 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72021271@N05/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7277/27101823356_86a9a6d499_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/HhTVSu)
Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/HhTVSu) by Hali87 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72021271@N05/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7712/27135361985_f0854981ba_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/HkRPJH)
Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/HkRPJH) by Hali87 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72021271@N05/), on Flickr


It doesn't look like it's 100% complete so maybe it will look fine once it is.... not holding my breath though. It looks pretty awful at this point, IMO.

[Hali87]

Also the small building that shares a parking lot with the Queen Street Sobeys has been completely vacated and looks like it might be coming down:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7047/27135377295_093b726be0_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/HkRUhF)
Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/HkRUhF) by Hali87 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72021271@N05/), on Flickr

[Metalsales]

That is the location of the new NSLC store

[hokus83]

New awning tacked on rather gracelessly to the Pacific Building:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7200/26531106423_6958e15a87_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GqsRBn)
Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/GqsRBn) by Hali87 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72021271@N05/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7277/27101823356_86a9a6d499_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/HhTVSu)
Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/HhTVSu) by Hali87 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72021271@N05/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7712/27135361985_f0854981ba_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/HkRPJH)
Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/HkRPJH) by Hali87 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72021271@N05/), on Flickr


It doesn't look like it's 100% complete so maybe it will look fine once it is.... not holding my breath though. It looks pretty awful at this point, IMO.

You have to be shitting me. That is going to be atrocious looking

[OldDartmouthMark]

It's cheaper to build an (ugly) awning to keep falling bits from hitting somebody than it is to actually fix the problems. Way to go DongDu International... :hell:

I hope they don't own it for long.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/dongdu-investments-pacific-building-loop-chives-barrington-1.3537802

[Drybrain]

I'm not even sure why DongDu would be allowed to build their awning. Would they have needed some sort of city permission?

It's clearly a way to avoid fixing the problem, and it looks awful. Such an embarrassment for a purported heritage district.

[someone123]

I'm not even sure why DongDu would be allowed to build their awning. Would they have needed some sort of city permission?

It's clearly a way to avoid fixing the problem, and it looks awful. Such an embarrassment for a purported heritage district.

I'll reserve final judgement until work on the awning is complete but the lack of information around this is pretty worrisome. At one point, the Pacific Building was one the list of properties that were given heritage tax rebates. Do they have any intention at all of restoring the facade? How come there was so little public information around a change like this awning that has so much of a visual impact on a heritage district? So far the appearance of the awning doesn't seem compatible with the heritage design rules around signage, fenestration, etc. that were proposed for the district way back when.

The city needs to take an active role in making sure that property owners coordinate to make districts like this as good as they can be. The laissez-faire attitude isn't going to work if the city is to have decent heritage or commercial districts on par with comparable cities.

[Drybrain]

I'll reserve final judgement until work on the awning is complete but the lack of information around this is pretty worrisome. At one point, the Pacific Building was one the list of properties that were given heritage tax rebates. Do they have any intention at all of restoring the facade? How come there was so little public information around a change like this awning that has so much of a visual impact on a heritage district? So far the appearance of the awning doesn't seem compatible with the heritage design rules around signage, fenestration, etc. that were proposed for the district way back when.

The city needs to take an active role in making sure that property owners coordinate to make districts like this as good as they can be. The laissez-faire attitude isn't going to work if the city is to have decent heritage or commercial districts on par with comparable cities.

Given their track record elsewhere, and the fact that the company apparently won't even fix leaky pipes, I doubt if they're going to put in the considerable dollars required to fix the facade. It also makes me worry about other building systems. (Like an electrical fire taking out the whole block or something. That kind of thing isn't unheard of...it's probably what started the Queen West fire in Toronto in '07.)

It's pretty obvious,I think, that DDI's global real estate investments amount to a kind of shell game, and they probably have very little if any interest in fixing this building. Did they even pay for the awning, or did the city pay for it as a public-safety measure?

It's all a bit pathetic.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I'll reserve final judgement until work on the awning is complete but the lack of information around this is pretty worrisome. At one point, the Pacific Building was one the list of properties that were given heritage tax rebates. Do they have any intention at all of restoring the facade? How come there was so little public information around a change like this awning that has so much of a visual impact on a heritage district? So far the appearance of the awning doesn't seem compatible with the heritage design rules around signage, fenestration, etc. that were proposed for the district way back when.

The city needs to take an active role in making sure that property owners coordinate to make districts like this as good as they can be. The laissez-faire attitude isn't going to work if the city is to have decent heritage or commercial districts on par with comparable cities.

In the case of the David Stott building in Detroit, DDI insisted all along that they were going to restore the building and convert it into residential. In the end they let the building deteriorate and eventually sold it for a profit. I don't know what their intentions are for the Pacific Bldg, but from their track record I'd say it doesn't look good. In my opinion, from the surface it appears that their intentions all along were to simply flip it, meanwhile creating a smoke screen of, well, lies - to keep everybody at bay while they waited for values to increase.

http://www.freep.com/story/money/2015/05/03/chinese-ddi-uralli-feud-detroit-buildings/26195987/

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20150722/BLOG016/150729976/gilbert-pays-18-million-for-david-stott-clark-lofts-buildings

Regarding the Pacific Building, Halifax's incentive program for the BSHCD indicated the following scope of work to be completed:

15-02
1537 Barrington St. Pacific Building
Storefront restoration including the reinstatement of original configuration of main entrance and shop fronts, and the full restoration/replacement of badly deteriorated terra cotta at the upper building levels.

https://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/150721ca1141.PDF

If one is to take the above description of the work required at its face value, the end result should have a similar appearance to this 1941 photo from the archives or from some other point in its early history:

https://novascotia.ca/archives/images/EastCoastPort/200902429.jpg

https://novascotia.ca/archives/EastCoastPort/archives.asp?ID=2074

Obviously, this awning looks nothing like anything that has ever been on this building before - it's a typical Halifax 'falling masonry protection system'. I would expect that this is due diligence in avoiding lawsuits and the city likely agreed in order to prevent issues from potential injuries that could result (purely conjecture on my part).

The hopeful part of me is wanting to believe that this is the first step to restoration - an awning to allow businesses to continue operating while restoration work continues above. However, it looks a little too permanent for that, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

What I can't understand is that with a potential $260,000 available to them in grants and tax incentives -free- from the government, it almost doesn't make sense for DDI to not do the restoration work - one would think that this would raise the value above whatever amount they might have to invest in the project.

I'm left scratching my head on this one... :shrug:

[counterfactual]

Geez, perhaps we can cross our fingers and hope Starfish come in with a strong offer to buy it from them for profit?

Ugly awning and treating excellent tenants badly.

[Drybrain]

The hopeful part of me is wanting to believe that this is the first step to restoration - an awning to allow businesses to continue operating while restoration work continues above. However, it looks a little too permanent for that, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

What I can't understand is that with a potential $260,000 available to them in grants and tax incentives -free- from the government, it almost doesn't make sense for DDI to not do the restoration work - one would think that this would raise the value above whatever amount they might have to invest in the project.

I'm left scratching my head on this one... :shrug:

I was discussing this with Waye on Twitter, and he said that the restoration of the facade could cost up to $1.5 million and may even involve taking it down brick by brick before putting it back up.

The awning is the first part of this, apparently, to prep for more restoration work.

But I agree, DDI's track record, and apparent negligence with regards to basic repairs so far, lead me to think nothing will ever really be done with this as long as they own it. And the city has no power to conduct the repairs necessary and basically the send the bill to the property owner, as is the case in many other cities in emergency situations.

[Duff]

Not sure if this has been posted yet...Renderings for 2710 Agricola St.

Source -http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Applications/documents/ProposalApplication_Redacted.pdf

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7462/27113273571_8947c1662e_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7327/27148544876_29f1654481_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7259/27113273471_6aeb8996ca_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7686/27148544686_82547ec54c_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7615/27181676605_3b7c181047_b.jpg

[someone123]

Is this scaffolding up on the Idealbikes building? This building was on the heritage district funding list.

That block keeps looking better and better.

https://scontent-sjc2-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e35/13269499_1074004862638560_108520210_n.jpg
Source (https://www.instagram.com/kylieers/)

[someone123]

Not sure if this has been posted yet...Renderings for 2710 Agricola St.

Here's the thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=223012

[Drybrain]

Is this scaffolding up on the Idealbikes building? This building was on the heritage district funding list.

That block keeps looking better and better.


Yeah, it's been up for a couple of weeks. Don't know what it's for but, being multi-levelled, it doesn't appear to be the usual collapsing-facade protection. Maybe something is happening here...

[Ziobrop]

They redid the woodwork at the ground level. I Clive they are doing something about the paint job and possibly restoring windows. It should be an improvement.

[someone123]

The plans may have changed but it was mentioned in a report: https://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/150721ca1141.PDF

1678 Barrington St.
Phinney Building
Storefront restorations, and upper façade restoration including the
reinstatement of four ‘lost’ windows at the 2nd floor, and replacement of
3 inappropriate windows at the 4th floor.

Also of interest:

15-02 1537 Barrington St.
Pacific Building
Storefront restoration including the reinstatement of original
configuration of main entrance and shop fronts, and the full
restoration/replacement of badly deteriorated terra cotta at the upper
building levels.

The Pacific Building qualified for a possible $100,000 in grants and $160,000 in tax breaks.

[OldDartmouthMark]

From today's CH:

Halifax council asks for reports on Steele Auto Group development plan (http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1367029-halifax-council-asks-for-reports-on-steele-auto-group-development-plan)

[OldDartmouthMark]

I was discussing this with Waye on Twitter, and he said that the restoration of the facade could cost up to $1.5 million and may even involve taking it down brick by brick before putting it back up.

The awning is the first part of this, apparently, to prep for more restoration work.

But I agree, DDI's track record, and apparent negligence with regards to basic repairs so far, lead me to think nothing will ever really be done with this as long as they own it. And the city has no power to conduct the repairs necessary and basically the send the bill to the property owner, as is the case in many other cities in emergency situations.

This sounds encouraging. I hope this is a first step towards an actual restoration.

Keep in mind, too, that there is also other work that needs to happen to keep the building habitable. Again, I'll try to keep a positive outlook despite their track record.

[Keith P.]

From today's CH:

Halifax council asks for reports on Steele Auto Group development plan (http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1367029-halifax-council-asks-for-reports-on-steele-auto-group-development-plan)

Why the heck Steele just doesn't hop to it and knock these places down ASAP absolutely baffles me.

[Drybrain]

Why the heck Steele just doesn't hop to it and knock these places down ASAP absolutely baffles me.

Environmental assessments for hazardous materials, and people are still living in a lot of the rental properties that are directly connected to vacant buildings.

[counterfactual]

I was discussing this with Waye on Twitter, and he said that the restoration of the facade could cost up to $1.5 million and may even involve taking it down brick by brick before putting it back up.

The awning is the first part of this, apparently, to prep for more restoration work.

But I agree, DDI's track record, and apparent negligence with regards to basic repairs so far, lead me to think nothing will ever really be done with this as long as they own it. And the city has no power to conduct the repairs necessary and basically the send the bill to the property owner, as is the case in many other cities in emergency situations.

This sounds encouraging. I hope this is a first step towards an actual restoration.

Keep in mind, too, that there is also other work that needs to happen to keep the building habitable. Again, I'll try to keep a positive outlook despite their track record.

Perhaps in fairness to DDI, we should wait and see-- they seem to be following through. I'm no expert, but the awning looks like the right kind of construct to protect for restoration work above.

Given that Detroit is a special case where the City and all property values in it basically fell off of a cliff, I don't necessarily blame them for not investing money to improve on property there for the time being.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Perhaps in fairness to DDI, we should wait and see-- they seem to be following through. I'm no expert, but the awning looks like the right kind of construct to protect for restoration work above.

Given that Detroit is a special case where the City and all property values in it basically fell off of a cliff, I don't necessarily blame them for not investing money to improve on property there for the time being.

I've got my fingers crossed...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Steele Auto Group says no to demolition delay (http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1367597-steele-auto-group-says-no-to-demolition-delay)

Interesting...
Mayor Mike Savage, who the news release said “condemned the plan” in a meeting with residents and Steele Auto last week, denied it.

“I vote on plans but I don’t condemn them. That’s inaccurate,” he said in a phone interview Thursday. “I wanted to see if there was common ground but it’s up to Steele to decide what they want to do.”

While the Centre Plan development road map that’s expected by year’s end likely wouldn’t allow such an expansion, Savage said he isn’t suggesting a delay in this project.

“We have to follow the rules that are in play and Steele is following those rules.”

[Drybrain]

Steele Auto Group says no to demolition delay (http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1367597-steele-auto-group-says-no-to-demolition-delay)

Interesting...

In a private meeting between neighbourhood members and Steele reps, he said, verbatim, "this isn't what we want to see here," and that if he could go back to change the zoning and prevent it, he would.

Too bad it's not on tape, but he condemned it. He didn't come down raining blows all over Steele, and he was definitely there in a "let's find a compromise" spirit, but he unequivocally expressed personal disapproval.

[Keith P.]

In a private meeting between neighbourhood members and Steele reps, he said, verbatim, "this isn't what we want to see here," and that if he could go back to change the zoning and prevent it, he would.

Too bad it's not on tape, but he condemned it. He didn't come down raining blows all over Steele, and he was definitely there in a "let's find a compromise" spirit, but he unequivocally expressed personal disapproval.

He was pandering, as he is wont to do.

It is sad that we have a mayor who actively opposes the growth of a successful local business. Hopefully a strong challenger will emerge in the election this fall.

[Drybrain]

He was pandering, as he is wont to do.

It is sad that we have a mayor who actively opposes the growth of a successful local business. Hopefully a strong challenger will emerge in the election this fall.

Yep, old no-growth Mike and his business-hating ways!

[counterfactual]

Yep, old no-growth Mike and his business-hating ways!

That sounds like a Trump style attack!

Low energy Jeb. Lyin' Ted. Little Marco. No Growth Mike.

[Hali87]

A short video about the pre-proposal engagement process for Spring Garden West (not sure if there's a separate thread for that yet)

zSS4l19BWHw

[Hali87]

Also, Jan Gehl is giving a public lecture at Dalhousie's Medjuck Building (Arch/Plan, next to the Central Library). It's on Tuesday from 12:30-1:50 in room HA19 (I think that's the auditorium in the basement, but not sure)

[Dmajackson]

Saint Patrick's Rectory on Brunswick Street

http://67.media.tumblr.com/3b6008e657ea1b23c2fcc42416fb433b/tumblr_o7wqaip7VW1tvjdq8o1_1280.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (http://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)