General Updates and News

[OldDartmouthMark]

This is Canada. We talk endlessly about how important the environment is and climate change is a critical concern for our federal government.

So... I'm guessing landfill. :)

I see your logic here... :haha:

[OldDartmouthMark]

I always liked it. It's a shame seeing it come down. Hopeful some of it is re-purposed.

While it wasn't my favourite building downtown, it is one of the rare examples (for Halifax) of mid 20th century architecture, and did have quality finishing materials (though admittedly with poor attachment hardware). I think it added a nice blend of architectural styles to the downtown which now seems to be disappearing somewhat.

Hopefully the new structure will make the loss worthwhile.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Interesting. New Horizons is kind of vague and new-agey; naming it after a Black Nova Scotian figure might have been more interesting. I'm sure the church had its reasons, though.

I imagine they wanted to choose a name which is bland and vague enough so as not to cause any sort of negative opinion from anybody. I suppose at least the new name is more imaginative than just naming it after the street it's on... :hmmm:

[Colin May]

I imagine they wanted to choose a name which is bland and vague enough so as not to cause any sort of negative opinion from anybody. I suppose at least the new name is more imaginative than just naming it after the street it's on... :hmmm:
My memory of living in Yorkshire for circa 9 years and elsewhere for many decades I note baptist churches were very rarely named after a saint or any person.
Here is a list of Baptist churches in each state in the USA and note the common thread : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Baptist_churches

The word 'First' appears 143 times !
The word 'New .....' for a church is not very common.

Obviously my hope for 'Richard Preston' was quite out of tune with the usual naming practice of Baptists.

HRM should have a memorial to Richard Preston in some prominent place , I could find only one supposed image of him : https://jmcgs.blogspot.com/2017/09/still-ways-to-go.html

[OldDartmouthMark]

My memory of living in Yorkshire for circa 9 years and elsewhere for many decades I note baptist churches were very rarely named after a saint or any person.
Here is a list of Baptist churches in each state in the USA and note the common thread : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Baptist_churches

The word 'First' appears 143 times !
The word 'New .....' for a church is not very common.

Obviously my hope for 'Richard Preston' was quite out of tune with the usual naming practice of Baptists.

HRM should have a memorial to Richard Preston in some prominent place , I could find only one supposed image of him : https://jmcgs.blogspot.com/2017/09/still-ways-to-go.html

Honestly, the naming practices of churches are quite far off my radar in terms of interest. I just recall, in light of all the anti-Cornwallis hype that has been in the news for years now, that this church wanted to distance itself from Cornwallis, and thus its name change doesn't surprise me. In terms of how particular religions choose to name their places of worship, it's something I had never intended to give a lot of thought to.

If they wanted to erect a statue to honour Richard Preston, there's a little park down by the Westin Nova Scotian that has space for a statue... but then again he was a religious figure so that aspect would probably offend somebody...

[Dmajackson]

The former fishing supply store building and some of its neighbours at 2858 Agricola Street have been demolished. The site is mid-block (no street corner) but it is across from a three storey mixed-use under construction.

[Querce]

According to the city's active development applications page (https://www.halifax.ca/business/planning-development/applications), Mic Mac has applied for Master Neighbourhood planning (since it is a Future Growth Node under the Centre Plan)

[pblaauw]

Does anyone know going on with the boarded up house at Bayers Rd and Romans Ave?

[Dmajackson]

Some randoms from around town the last few weeks.

The UP Side - Downtown Dartmouth


https://66.media.tumblr.com/5f3be051dd8ae492a444e7c365539dfd/7741a93f1af090a9-e5/s540x810/37f9b5bac47d3170d783797947b87547d81b3594.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (https://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

New Lion's Head Tavern (Robie & Demone)

https://66.media.tumblr.com/9301135eb2970907bba66391e3012493/bf6b85ff86d33e68-25/s540x810/611ad78dbca1af8f35adcd493f26a15251934a6d.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (https://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

Agricola & Bilby - Obsolete Records is open on the ground floor. No indication of what will be in the corner unit.

https://66.media.tumblr.com/bbd6de374b8ab226a1373a74631f8c8b/0c2a6ff12c747661-69/s540x810/c38311f19a449efe0472457afd62f69e62afd292.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (https://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

[MeEtc]

Does anyone know what happened to B&B Security on Gottingen? There's been a notice on the door since last year about non-payment of rent, no contact, no business licence, locks changed etc. Place seems abandoned. NS Joint stock shows ownership changed in May 2018.

[teddifax]

I think I remember seeing a redevelopment for this area....

[IanWatson]

Banc is the successful bidder for the old St. Pat's site on Quinpool, at just over $37 million. The AllNS story has some conflicting information on timelines. At one point Alex Halef is quoted as "start construction within 10-12 months", but it also says he doesn't want to rush into things, and their Wellington Street project and Robies Street Ultramar project will come first.

[mleblanc]

I think I remember seeing a redevelopment for this area....

Isn't that this one: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=219938?

No updates as of lately, wondering if this one is dead.

[MeEtc]

Isn't that this one: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=219938?

No updates as of lately, wondering if this one is dead.

According to https://www.halifax.ca/media/42691, schedule B site plan, That development and the one right beside it on the empty lot, leaves the locksmithing building untouched.

[Dmajackson]

Isn't that this one: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=219938?

No updates as of lately, wondering if this one is dead.

That development agreement and property was purchased by the adjacent landowner who has an approved development agreement they are seeking to change to include the commercial building. At one point they were asking for a L-shaped building the full length of Gottingen but apparently they have decided to stay with two separate projects.

Halifax Planning - Case 22523 Details (https://www.halifax.ca/business/planning-development/applications/case-22523-bilby-gottingen-macara-streets-halifax)

[Hali87]

Interesting new church under construction on the Northcliffe site just off Dunbrack/Lacewood:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49524444848_6286236fae_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2isiJ3L)
Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/2isiJ3L) by Hali87 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72021271@N05/), on Flickr

[Hali87]

Queen's Square reclad (in progress):

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49524958886_b431d33e4e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ismmRu)
Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/2ismmRu) by Hali87 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72021271@N05/), on Flickr

[Keith P.]

Queens Square really doesn't look much different.

That is a building that would need some major exterior changes to change its look.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Queens Square really doesn't look much different.

That is a building that would need some major exterior changes to change its look.

IMHO, a complete teardown would be the only solution that will improve its appearance. That building has looked terrible from day 1.

[teddifax]

Unfortunately, most of the early office towers and apartment buildings did not have good design but were just built to be built without any consideration to looking good... and of course, the view planes in downtown Halifax don't help in this matter. Buildings with distinctive Roofs would be fantastic, but height would have to be sacrificed.

[FuzzyWuz]

Unfortunately, most of the early office towers and apartment buildings did not have good design but were just built to be built without any consideration to looking good... and of course, the view planes in downtown Halifax don't help in this matter. Buildings with distinctive Roofs would be fantastic, but height would have to be sacrificed.

Something on the south side of the tower, whether taller or shorter as long as it has some style to it, would go a long way toward improving the look.

[Keith P.]

Looks almost Eastern European. Odd design.

[ScovaNotian]

It's big. I cannot see the neighbours liking it.

[IanWatson]

It's big. I cannot see the neighbours liking it.

It appears to be going through the Centre Plan site plan approval process... soooo they're not going to have a lot of say on it.

But yeah, this is the same block as the building that went up on the former Needs, and that one got a lot of neighbourhood hate.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I'm not really a fan of the design, nor would I be happy to see another nice Victorian be leveled, but as far as the neighbors' opinions go, I don't see where there would be much room for complaints as it is basically on Dal's campus and that neighborhood already has lots of student housing, offices, the Dal Arts Centre, Killam Library, etc. Plus two of the building being replaced are rather nondescript brick boxes (https://goo.gl/maps/czekgykxPbCcXJMq7), so I don't see how the new building would be a huge change over what is already there, and in the surrounding neighborhood.

I do think it would be an overall improvement, actually.

Hmmm... maybe the design is based on some sort of misguided nostalgia for the old Dalhousie hockey arena (https://goo.gl/maps/EY5tqfALS5EKJn6bA)... :D

[Hali87]

Hmmm... maybe the design is based on some sort of misguided nostalgia for the old Dalhousie hockey arena (https://goo.gl/maps/EY5tqfALS5EKJn6bA)... :D

That did come to mind when I first saw this. The wood reminds me a bit of the old arena as well as the Cohn Auditorium. It does also look a bit "modern European" in a way that's a bit hard to place.

[mleblanc]

I actually really like the look of that. Very Scandinavian looking - it would fit well with the Capitol Suites at Seymour/Coburg being next door.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I actually really like the look of that. Very Scandinavian looking - it would fit well with the Capitol Suites at Seymour/Coburg being next door.

I suspect it's like Alexander Keith's beer... "those who like it like it a lot"... :D

[ScovaNotian]

The street side is one thing. The back of the building is a lot more bland though. It's six stories that go up almost to the property boundary. I guess ultimately the same may happen on LeMarchant and there will be two six-storey blocks with six meters of space between them.

I believe that Dal at one point designed buildings such that they are "tall" on University Avenue and then "gently slope down" towards the back in order to blend in with the neighbourhood. The way the neighbourhood is going they will need to reverse this.

[Jstaleness]

https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C5622AQFyadX4xjvcyA/feedshare-shrink_1280/0?e=1585180800&v=beta&t=lWiL9tp-ZBQ9w51IWXno8K5AueAXRTBgG6XUcl7kQqs

Credit- Marco Group LinkedIN

[OldDartmouthMark]

Don't know if this has been asked here before, but what's up with the stilts?

[Jstaleness]

Don't know if this has been asked here before, but what's up with the stilts?

Rising ocean levels.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Rising ocean levels.

Houston, we have a problem... :haha:

[Keith P.]

Don't know if this has been asked here before, but what's up with the stilts?

Aesthetically those are an eyesore everywhere they are used. Bare concrete with the sonotubes stripped off never looks good. The Gorsebrook Park development suffers from the same affliction. Surely it cannot be a budget-breaker to clad them with the same material as the building uses, even if you need to square them up.

[Querce]

Events for Centre Plan Package B consultation have been posted

https://www.shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/centre-plan/key_dates

Starts with a pop-up at Alderney and Woodside ferry terminals on March 2nd

[mleblanc]

Aesthetically those are an eyesore everywhere they are used. Bare concrete with the sonotubes stripped off never looks good. The Gorsebrook Park development suffers from the same affliction. Surely it cannot be a budget-breaker to clad them with the same material as the building uses, even if you need to square them up.

I don't mind them usually - or even in Gorsebrook Park they aren't as dramatic as this, but the Upside in general looks terrible in my opinion.

[Hali87]

I haven't had a chance to get a photo but the random ~10 storey building that's been going up near Armdale Yacht Club is turning out a bit better than I expected. Very "different" for that area but not necessarily in a bad way.

[Dmajackson]

I haven't had a chance to get a photo but the random ~10 storey building that's been going up near Armdale Yacht Club is turning out a bit better than I expected. Very "different" for that area but not necessarily in a bad way.

I believe you mean The Northwest (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=232921)

[Hali87]

That's the one!

[Colin May]

HRM sold the old St Pat High School site for $37.6 million on February 4

Take a look at apartment buildings sold on February 10 & 12 for almost $350 million :
Assessment is first followed by sale price

1920 BRUNSWICK ST HALIFAX $35,170,100 $59,148,359

5770 SPRING GARDEN RD HALIFAX $26,742,900 $52,306,930

1858 ALBEMARLE ST HALIFAX $24,627,200 $51,836,793

5885 CUNARD ST HALIFAX $21,916,500 $49,163,621

1888 ALBEMARLE ST HALIFAX $19,675,200 $41,195,196

6080 YOUNG ST HALIFAX $15,623,000 $26,700,000

1972 ALBEMARLE ST HALIFAX $15,134,000 $28,568,294

2065 BRUNSWICK ST HALIFAX $15,059,800 $38,926,243

[Keith P.]

So it appears that these buildings are assessed at 50% or less of their market value. So much for the residential property assessment cap causing inequities. Seems the assessment bunch is the bigger cause.

[Summerville]

HRM sold the old St Pat High School site for $37.6 million on February 4

Take a look at apartment buildings sold on February 10 & 12 for almost $350 million :
Assessment is first followed by sale price

1920 BRUNSWICK ST HALIFAX $35,170,100 $59,148,359

5770 SPRING GARDEN RD HALIFAX $26,742,900 $52,306,930

1858 ALBEMARLE ST HALIFAX $24,627,200 $51,836,793

5885 CUNARD ST HALIFAX $21,916,500 $49,163,621

1888 ALBEMARLE ST HALIFAX $19,675,200 $41,195,196

6080 YOUNG ST HALIFAX $15,623,000 $26,700,000

1972 ALBEMARLE ST HALIFAX $15,134,000 $28,568,294

2065 BRUNSWICK ST HALIFAX $15,059,800 $38,926,243


That's a lot of deed transfer tax. At 1.5% of the purchase price, the city made $5 million off of the transaction,...taking into account the St. Pat's sale, HRM made a lot of $ in February

[mleblanc]

HRM sold the old St Pat High School site for $37.6 million on February 4

Take a look at apartment buildings sold on February 10 & 12 for almost $350 million :
Assessment is first followed by sale price

1920 BRUNSWICK ST HALIFAX $35,170,100 $59,148,359

5770 SPRING GARDEN RD HALIFAX $26,742,900 $52,306,930

1858 ALBEMARLE ST HALIFAX $24,627,200 $51,836,793

5885 CUNARD ST HALIFAX $21,916,500 $49,163,621

1888 ALBEMARLE ST HALIFAX $19,675,200 $41,195,196

6080 YOUNG ST HALIFAX $15,623,000 $26,700,000

1972 ALBEMARLE ST HALIFAX $15,134,000 $28,568,294

2065 BRUNSWICK ST HALIFAX $15,059,800 $38,926,243

Most of those are older apartment blocks, aside from 1920 Brunswick St (Which is only 6 years old and has cockroaches). Would be nice to see some of these older buildings redeveloped.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Most of those are older apartment blocks, aside from 1920 Brunswick St (Which is only 6 years old and has cockroaches). Would be nice to see some of these older buildings redeveloped.

What? Really?

https://goo.gl/maps/7SLVPgDpaAbAoiXu8

[Colin May]

I went to the council meeting today and spoke about the school site sale and the apartments sales. I also spoke about the lack of housing and the future rent increases to pay for the cost of the purchases. Told them there was no reason to keep school site sale secret - as if they care, they just love the money rolling in but don't want taxpayers to know how much money they have.

2760 Robie, 2772 Robie and 6026 Almon were all sold to one buyer for $5,000,000 on January 31 for $5,000,000
Probably for expansion of the adjacent development by Chedrawe.

[Colin May]

What? Really?

https://goo.gl/maps/7SLVPgDpaAbAoiXu8
All the details are here :
https://renx.ca/acquisition-doubles-capreit-halifax-apartment-portfolio/

[Corker]

All the details are here :
https://renx.ca/acquisition-doubles-capreit-halifax-apartment-portfolio/


"Occupancy for the portfolio currently stands at 99.9 per cent, the CAPREIT says."

They bought 1503 apartments and all but one or two are occupied. Impressive.

[OldDartmouthMark]

All the details are here :
https://renx.ca/acquisition-doubles-capreit-halifax-apartment-portfolio/

Yes, but they don't mention the cockroaches in there... ;)

[mleblanc]

Yes, but they don't mention the cockroaches in there... ;)

That's from my own personal experience of living there for 4 years :(

[Colin May]

Another downtown Halifax real estate deal,closed February 25
1741 Brunswick sold for $13,980,000 ....assessed at $8,519,000

[DigitalNinja]

This is the HFX sports bar right? If so this would be a great spot for a nice development.

[OldDartmouthMark]

That's from my own personal experience of living there for 4 years :(

Oh! That's awful! :eek:

[Colin May]

This is the HFX sports bar right? If so this would be a great spot for a nice development.
No, the sports bar is next door to the south.

[OldDartmouthMark]

No, the sports bar is next door to the south.

This one: 1741 Brunswick on Google Maps (https://goo.gl/maps/ZSduhtGirPecwQW3A)

[Patrick Matthews]

This one: 1741 Brunswick on Google Maps (https://goo.gl/maps/ZSduhtGirPecwQW3A)
Homburg's old stomping grounds?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Homburg's old stomping grounds?

Yes.

https://goo.gl/maps/hwK8ccze2oe8SZs46

[bluenoser]

Iconic Mills Brothers building to be razed for mixed-use development on Spring Garden Road

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/media/photologue/photos/cache/image1_NNjHVpg_large.jpg
Mills Brothers department store in Halifax in 1984. - Chronicle Herald file


8 storey mixed-use
As-of-right
Pedestrian arcade between Queen and Birmingham
Underground parking (160 spaces)
40,000 ft2 commercial space
Duggar's moving across to the Doyle Building
Partnership between MacDonald Brothers and Westwood Developments
Spring/Summer demo
Fall construction start, completed target 2023


https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/business/local-business/iconic-mills-brothers-building-to-be-razed-for-mixed-use-development-on-spring-garden-road-418415/

[alps]

The article says the site is 47,000 square feet, which implies that the project will cover the entire city block (with the exception of the Mary Ann). Meaning demolition of the building housing Telus (formerly Starbucks/American Apparel) among others.

I am concerned that such large-footprint redevelopments will make the street lose some of its texture and variety. I liked the modest size of the other two Westwood developments at the corner of Birmingham and SGR (TD and BMO).

That said, it will be good to see more people living on Spring Garden, and we could get something really interesting here. The mid-block pedestrian arcade sounds promising.

Side note, I seriously wish Dalhousie would do something with that third "Sister Site" they bought.

[Hali87]

Side note, I seriously wish Dalhousie would do something with that third "Sister Site" they bought.

They probably will soon. They seem to have recently finished some renovations/expansions on Sexton campus and I'm guessing that the Sister Site will be the next phase. There aren't many places left for them to build.

[Keith P.]

The article says the site is 47,000 square feet, which implies that the project will cover the entire city block (with the exception of the Mary Ann). Meaning demolition of the building housing Telus (formerly Starbucks/American Apparel) among others.

Yes, I read in another article somewhere that the former RBC building is included in this.

I am concerned that such large-footprint redevelopments will make the street lose some of its texture and variety. I liked the modest size of the other two Westwood developments at the corner of Birmingham and SGR (TD and BMO).

That said, it will be good to see more people living on Spring Garden, and we could get something really interesting here. The mid-block pedestrian arcade sounds promising.



Ever since Mills Bros cratered and moved out this building has been struggling to find tenants. Lululemon moved across the street and Duggers is planning to do the same. It is not a great building and while the facade may be iconic it is just that, and is time to move on IMO. A new modern building may well attract new and different tenants. I can see an Apple store there for instance. Or a Tesla sales office.

Having said that I cannot imagine living on that section of SGR. The street noise would not be pleasant.

[Drybrain]

I am concerned that such large-footprint redevelopments will make the street lose some of its texture and variety. I liked the modest size of the other two Westwood developments at the corner of Birmingham and SGR (TD and BMO).


Good odds it will mean that. Birmingham Street as well has several attractive houses converted to a mix of commercial uses, with facade variety and lots of storefronts.That’ll probably just become one long wall or pane of glass. Chedrawe has proven that he has no ability to consider context or history when developing anything; his MO is to raze and rebuild whole blocks. That’s not how good development happens in a 250-year-old city core, but that seems to be all he knows.

MacDonald made a comment to the Herald along the lines that since all these buildings have been renovated over the years and are all knitted together in a mosh-mad, there’s “no history” here. What he doesn’t get is that kind of ad-hoc repurposing, that layering of eras and uses and styles, is what enlivens neighbourhoods. Whatever “iconic” monolith they have planned for this site will almost certainly be worse from an urban perspective, just as the Doyle is. If we had better developers, able to work without context while adding density, SGR would be a lot better off. But Chedrawe and MacDonald are small-time, small-town, unsophisticated developers. They wouldn’t last a second in most larger cities pulling this shit.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Good odds it will mean that. Birmingham Street as well has several attractive houses converted to a mix of commercial uses, with facade variety and lots of storefronts.That’ll probably just become one long wall or pane of glass. Chedrawe has proven that he has no ability to consider context or history when developing anything; his MO is to raze and rebuild whole blocks. That’s not how good development happens in a 250-year-old city core, but that seems to be all he knows.

MacDonald made a comment to the Herald along the lines that since all these buildings have been renovated over the years and are all knitted together in a mosh-mad, there’s “no history” here. What he doesn’t get is that kind of ad-hoc repurposing, that layering of eras and uses and styles, is what enlivens neighbourhoods. Whatever “iconic” monolith they have planned for this site will almost certainly be worse from an urban perspective, just as the Doyle is. If we had better developers, able to work without context while adding density, SGR would be a lot better off. But Chedrawe and MacDonald are small-time, small-town, unsophisticated developers. They wouldn’t last a second in most larger cities pulling this shit.

I agree with everything in this post. Sadly, recent history has shown that there is no point in hoping for better development in this case, so we may as well get used to sub-par development because there is no expectation (or incentive) for it to improve.

Luckily, a bad development here will be more than balanced out by some good developments that have happened in other parts of the downtown (that's the optimist in me speaking out), so I think overall development has been a net positive. It's too bad, however, that Spring Garden Road has become the target for these blockbusters lately, as IMHO it is one of those streets that would benefit from more fine-grained development rather than single buildings taking up an entire block, with little visual interest.

[Keith P.]

MacDonald made a comment to the Herald along the lines that since all these buildings have been renovated over the years and are all knitted together in a mosh-mad, there’s “no history” here. What he doesn’t get is that kind of ad-hoc repurposing, that layering of eras and uses and styles, is what enlivens neighbourhoods. Whatever “iconic” monolith they have planned for this site will almost certainly be worse from an urban perspective, just as the Doyle is. If we had better developers, able to work without context while adding density, SGR would be a lot better off. But Chedrawe and MacDonald are small-time, small-town, unsophisticated developers. They wouldn’t last a second in most larger cities pulling this shit.

The buildings as-is are largely unrentable for the reasons MacDonald stated. He could have had them under long-term lease agreements otherwise - I know, because I am aware of several big retailers that looked into them and found them functionally deficient. This is prime real estate on the #1 shopping street in the region. The kind of tenants who are willing to pay top dollar to be on that street want modern, usable space. What he has is suitable mostly for small boutiquey-type operations that may not last a year. Once again, what is published in planning textbooks often is at odds with economic reality.

[OldDartmouthMark]

The buildings as-is are largely unrentable for the reasons MacDonald stated. He could have had them under long-term lease agreements otherwise - I know, because I am aware of several big retailers that looked into them and found them functionally deficient. This is prime real estate on the #1 shopping street in the region. The kind of tenants who are willing to pay top dollar to be on that street want modern, usable space. What he has is suitable mostly for small boutiquey-type operations that may not last a year. Once again, what is published in planning textbooks often is at odds with economic reality.

I think the salient point is what kind of development they will put in the place of these buildings. While removing the existing buildings will change the character of the street, you want a net improvement rather than just something new. A monolithic blockbuster will fulfill the 'new' requirement, but would change the character of the street in a negative way if not done properly (IMHO). Following the example of the Doyle doesn't seem like a net improvement (again IMHO) over current in terms of street character and how it meets pedestrian level.

Of course opinions are like bellybuttons, so let's see what they are proposing. Hopefully it will be better than the Doyle or the MaryAnne, or whatever it's called.

[Keith P.]

Following the example of the Doyle doesn't seem like a net improvement (again IMHO) over current in terms of street character and how it meets pedestrian level.

Of course opinions are like bellybuttons, so let's see what they are proposing. Hopefully it will be better than the Doyle or the MaryAnne, or whatever it's called.

The Doyle seems to be a whipping boy for a lot of people on here and frankly I don't understand why considering it is not even fully opened yet. I get that people liked the look of the old BMO building but as space it was pretty awful and the tenants hated being in there. Plus the upper floors were inaccessible for the disabled and could not easily be altered to allow that. Several of the other buildings were only accessible from street level via a flight of stairs so they had the same problem. And the Doyle St side was virtually completely blank and not street-friendly at all except for the old Tom's cubbyhole. Nostalgia is fine but let's not get carried away.

As for the MaryAnn, that was dreamed up and designed by an army of the best minds in the planning profession locally, and look what we ended up with. :yuck:

[OldDartmouthMark]

The Doyle seems to be a whipping boy for a lot of people on here and frankly I don't understand why considering it is not even fully opened yet. I get that people liked the look of the old BMO building but as space it was pretty awful and the tenants hated being in there. Plus the upper floors were inaccessible for the disabled and could not easily be altered to allow that. Several of the other buildings were only accessible from street level via a flight of stairs so they had the same problem. And the Doyle St side was virtually completely blank and not street-friendly at all except for the old Tom's cubbyhole. Nostalgia is fine but let's not get carried away.

As for the MaryAnn, that was dreamed up and designed by an army of the best minds in the planning profession locally, and look what we ended up with. :yuck:

I can't speak for others, but the reason I used the Doyle is that I personally think it's a bad design. My opinion of it has nothing to do with nostalgia - it is that it takes up an entire block and is somewhat unattractive to the eye. I would not be enthused with an entire street full of those.

The building that was removed for it was a loss, for sure, and something could have been done to preserve its character while making it functional and accessible, but that's not the point. Likewise for the masonry Victorians that were removed at the other corner. As I mentioned in the post you are responding to, it's all about what you replace it with. I think someone123 said it best a while back, that people wouldn't be as bothered by old architecture being removed if it were being replaced with better architecture - the Doyle is not 'better architecture' IMHO, but of course I realize my opinion will not be shared by everybody.

As with the MaryAnn, I agree with you, but I don't care who planned it or what methods were used, just that the end result is the same - a bland, unattractive building that takes up a good part of the block and offers little interest to passers-by aside from a few shops.

But, at least it adds density, I suppose, so it does have its positive points. Can't completely shoot it down because it is a functional improvement over what was there (a surface parking lot).

[Drybrain]

The buildings as-is are largely unrentable for the reasons MacDonald stated. He could have had them under long-term lease agreements otherwise - I know, because I am aware of several big retailers that looked into them and found them functionally deficient. This is prime real estate on the #1 shopping street in the region. The kind of tenants who are willing to pay top dollar to be on that street want modern, usable space. What he has is suitable mostly for small boutiquey-type operations that may not last a year. Once again, what is published in planning textbooks often is at odds with economic reality.

I would suspect that they're not rentable for what MacDonald is charging, not "not rentable." In any case, the SGR and Birmingham sides have been consistently 100 percent occupied for years.

The Doyle Block was the same thing. The previous version contributed an awful lot more to the neighbourhood in its eclecticism and the well-loved businesses it houses than the extremely bland new-build does, or ever will in all likelihood.

Anyway, I'm not against redevelopment of this site. What I would like to see is a development that utilizes the large interior portion of the block while maintaining some of the unique architectural features of the facades and the history of the Mills site (which MacDonald already vandalized a few years ago with his horrible renovation).

Most importantly, I'd like to see anything new pay close attention to street interaction, replicating with varying materials, facades, etc. the liveliness of the existing streetscape. I think the chances of that are fairly low. (Probably whatever is built now is at least likely to be much better than if this had happened 10 or 20 years ago, though.)

[someone123]

Most importantly, I'd like to see anything new pay close attention to street interaction, replicating with varying materials, facades, etc. the liveliness of the existing streetscape. I think the chances of that are fairly low. (Probably whatever is built now is at least likely to be much better than if this had happened 10 or 20 years ago, though.)

I think the biggest issue is that most buildings still have way too little pedestrian-oriented detailing or it's just too cheap.

It's important to separate out concerns about the city's character from the profit-maximizing incentives of landlords. The Town Clock is a 100% loss on paper. It would be very profitable to replace it with a condo building. But it is kept because it is a part of the city's cultural fabric and has public value. A lot of privately owned buildings have public value too and that should factor into planning decisions. Private property ownership rights aren't absolute and there's a lot that can be done to constructively balance all of the interests involved.

I don't hate the Doyle but imagine how much better that area would be if the old buildings were preserved and the Doyle were built behind the library or next to St. Mary's Basilica or on any one of the dozens of dreary underused sites to be found around the downtown area.

[Drybrain]

I think the biggest issue is that most buildings still have way too little pedestrian-oriented detailing or it's just too cheap.


Yes, this.

[Keith P.]

Already there are people on social media calling for HRM to protect the Mills Bros building(s) as a "heritage property" and prevent the redevelopment of the site. Criminy.

[someone123]

Yes, this.

Another problem I see is that there are a lot of bad streetscapes from the 1960's-90's that the city doesn't seem to be doing anything about.

It would be possible to convert the ground floor of say Park Vic or the half block with Smitty's to create something as good as or better than the Mills block. If that process were happening Mills wouldn't seem like such a loss, and maybe there would even be some opportunity to reuse old facades and the like.

In the North End things seem to be going a little better because of the prevalence of smaller lots and because some blocks were so far gone that almost anything is an improvement. Gottingen and Agricola are improving and expanding over time.

The Inglis and southern Barrington area seems like a bit of a disaster too. Lots of strange developments but not much improvement to the streetscape. It should have a nice commercial village feel and be the main street for that part of the South End.

Maybe the Centre Plan will help?

[Querce]

2050 Gottingen has been issued a development permit for a 40 unit, 6 story building

[Keith P.]

Another problem I see is that there are a lot of bad streetscapes from the 1960's-90's that the city doesn't seem to be doing anything about.

It would be possible to convert the ground floor of say Park Vic or the half block with Smitty's to create something as good as or better than the Mills block. If that process were happening Mills wouldn't seem like such a loss, and maybe there would even be some opportunity to reuse old facades and the like.

In the North End things seem to be going a little better because of the prevalence of smaller lots and because some blocks were so far gone that almost anything is an improvement. Gottingen and Agricola are improving and expanding over time.

The Inglis and southern Barrington area seems like a bit of a disaster too. Lots of strange developments but not much improvement to the streetscape. It should have a nice commercial village feel and be the main street for that part of the South End.

Maybe the Centre Plan will help?

I don't understand what you are talking about. Park Vic is set back well from the street with a landscaped lawn meeting the sidewalk. Smitty's is a restaurant next to the entrance to an apartment block. What would you see these doing to be improved, particularly since they are private property? Neither is located on a particularly commercial street.

Gottingen remains largely a disaster. Agricola is hipster central but we'll see how long that lasts. Unless you live near there most of those businesses are not particular draws.

[Dmajackson]

2050 Gottingen has been issued a development permit for a 40 unit, 6 story building

I'll be keeping a close eye on this project;

https://66.media.tumblr.com/eafe0ce2d669d4ca216ea7dfb52051a0/90421f218f4afea1-1e/s540x810/bb41fbbc2200ae2bd775880440505f2dd79c88bc.jpg

And other nearby projects like 2165 Gottingen and 2172 Gottingen.

https://66.media.tumblr.com/a728c9be6112ed71a1905bc7b04497e3/c04c3d1f128e2fed-e7/s540x810/5504b56dc922f00c2796cc6ff56c49a1dce3a0e2.jpg https://66.media.tumblr.com/5142f2f905a9a86b50690977a126c24f/0db0fd1eca66f95c-50/s540x810/6613fa2cf820c50144b30a352aa845993c75c1f9.jpg

All photos are my own and taken this week. See my signature for the blog :tup:

[ns_kid]

From the now you see it, now you don't department...

Late last week a sign appeared on the northeast corner of Montebello Avenue and Waverley Road in Dartmouth touting what looked to be a new townhouse development. I believe it identified 20 units and the sign featured a rendering of the property. It was located on the site of the former Bench Automotive garage (originally an Irving service station IIRC), now vacant. It's across the street from the proposed development at 246 Waverley Road/2-4 Montebello (https://www.halifax.ca/business/planning-development/applications/case-20756-southeast-corner-waverley-road-montebello) and the rendering did not seem to be consistent with that project which is, I believe, still with planning staff.

Anyway, the sign was there as late as 10:30 last (Sunday) night but by 8 this morning it had disappeared without a trace. A case of premature disclosure or mistaken location? With an online search I didn't find any pending development that seemed to fit but maybe this means something to someone else.

[KnoxfordGuy]

Has construction on the Margaretta stalled?

[someone123]

I don't understand what you are talking about. Park Vic is set back well from the street with a landscaped lawn meeting the sidewalk. Smitty's is a restaurant next to the entrance to an apartment block. What would you see these doing to be improved, particularly since they are private property? Neither is located on a particularly commercial street.

As the city grows the pedestrian-oriented commercial areas should expand, but it's easy for pedestrian-unfriendly buildings to frustrate this process along entire blocks. There are lots of these developments that date back to the 70's and 80's, and the municipality should be pushing for them to be rehabilitated. 5770 Spring Garden Road is a prime example. Yes, they are privately owned, but there is still a lot the city could do through zoning and incentives. This has happened in other cities. The solution is to build small 2-4 storey podiums out to the street and to make sure they have a decent amount of architectural interest and variety along with a mix of different sizes of storefront spaces.

New development ties in with this as well. Fine-grained commercial areas are valuable. If new ones aren't being built it hurts more for the old ones to be torn down and replaced with larger scale new development. A lot of people enjoy "urban village" type streetscapes. Spring Garden Road had this sort of feel around 2000 and earlier but it's disappearing. A new Spring Garden Road analogue could emerge along Queen Street or Inglis or South Park. And one is emerging along Agricola, while Gottingen is coming back to life. But I'm not sure that Halifax has seen a net increase in these streetscapes over the past 10 years even though the metropolitan area has grown significantly.

[someone123]

All photos are my own and taken this week. See my signature for the blog :tup:

Thanks for the updates.

The smaller projects along Gottingen may add up to create a pretty vibrant and varied fine-grained streetscape that can't happen with "block-busting" style development with longer street frontages.

I had a look at a satellite photo of this area from Google Earth (taken this past summer):

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49645549257_68e594b6d3_h.jpg

One interesting little feature you can see here is how packed in the Glubes Lofts and townhouses are. That end of that block achieves a decent FAR without having very tall buildings. But about half of the block across the street is devoted to parking. FAR of probably 1 or so.

Velo 1/2 and the projects near Cogswell and Brunswick are bound to have a significant impact on the total number of people living in the area.

Too bad the Housing Trust of NS developments have been stalled.

[Drybrain]

Thanks for the updates.

The smaller projects along Gottingen may add up to create a pretty vibrant and varied fine-grained streetscape that can't happen with "block-busting" style development with longer street frontages.


Gottingen is a pretty big mess right now with a lot of construction projects happening all at once, but it's true that all of them manage to densify the street, typically up to six-eight storeys, while maintaining the fine-grained pedestrian experience. I have no complaints about the development happening there so far. It's sort of the opposite of the slow bland-fication I fear maybe happening in and around SGR. (Which may be somewhat arrested if council pushes through the heritage designations in the area it's debating as I post this. Of course, almost all the property owners are opposed.)

EDIT: Yeah, led by Whitman and a few others, council chose not to designate a single building or streetscape, including a lot of complete no-brainers. A surprisingly disappointing and thick-headed discussion about it too.

[someone123]

It's sort of the opposite of the slow bland-fication I fear maybe happening in and around SGR. (Which may be somewhat arrested if council pushes through the heritage designations in the area it's debating as I post this. Of course, almost all the property owners are opposed.)

Over the years I've heard stories about property owners contemplating demolition of just about every major non-registered commercial building in the city. The Lord Nelson was almost demolished at one point and there was a story about a possible redevelopment of the Sovereign Building. Those two are good examples of character buildings that aren't that old but deserve to be preserved. Collectively the maintenance of these character buildings doesn't represent a significant burden on the city. Again this cavalier attitude toward demolishing character blocks is something that I see more in Halifax than in other cities, including much less historic cities. Halifax is in a pretty unique spot in terms of having a lot of heritage and not caring about it much.

I've mentioned it before but I think there's another process happening. Halifax is becoming bigger, wealthier, and more urban, and this means that there's more demand for bland high-end areas of the urban core that didn't exist back in the 1990's when peak urban commercial activity was aging mid-range chains and mom and pops. In 2020's Halifax I think the hipstery stuff will mostly be in the North End while downtown becomes more mainstream commercial (exemplified by stores like Lululemon and restaurants like Moxie's). This is not necessarily a bad thing; I think there will be a lot more variety in the urban core as a whole.

[someone123]

Has construction on the Margaretta stalled?

Just happened to see this picture that includes the Margaretta:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49653878286_c058bfd1e8_b.jpg
Source (https://www.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/fhb7wd/somethings_up_here_fellas/)

Not sure if it is stalled or not but it is a bit farther along than the last picture from November.

[Colin May]

Renaissance South at Barrington & Morris sold on March 5 for $14,650,000 - property assessed at $7,797,700

[Nouvellecosse]

As the city grows the pedestrian-oriented commercial areas should expand, but it's easy for pedestrian-unfriendly buildings to frustrate this process along entire blocks. There are lots of these developments that date back to the 70's and 80's, and the municipality should be pushing for them to be rehabilitated. 5770 Spring Garden Road is a prime example. Yes, they are privately owned, but there is still a lot the city could do through zoning and incentives. This has happened in other cities. The solution is to build small 2-4 storey podiums out to the street and to make sure they have a decent amount of architectural interest and variety along with a mix of different sizes of storefront spaces.

New development ties in with this as well. Fine-grained commercial areas are valuable. If new ones aren't being built it hurts more for the old ones to be torn down and replaced with larger scale new development. A lot of people enjoy "urban village" type streetscapes. Spring Garden Road had this sort of feel around 2000 and earlier but it's disappearing. A new Spring Garden Road analogue could emerge along Queen Street or Inglis or South Park. And one is emerging along Agricola, while Gottingen is coming back to life. But I'm not sure that Halifax has seen a net increase in these streetscapes over the past 10 years even though the metropolitan area has grown significantly.

Things such as the Queen/Fenwick Sobeys, Barrington Supertore, (and related developments such as SS gas bar) really retard the expansion of such areas imo. The huge surface parking completely cancels any sort of urban vibe or aesthetic which makes me really angry because these stores could themselves be the source of a lot of vibrancy and pedestrian activity. I mean, they already are to an extent but the format is a major issue.

Robie between Almon and Cunard also has a huge amount of potential in this regard, but those stupid car dealerships and gas stations...

[Keith P.]

Things such as the Queen/Fenwick Sobeys, Barrington Supertore, (and related developments such as SS gas bar) really retard the expansion of such areas imo. The huge surface parking completely cancels any sort of urban vibe or aesthetic which makes me really angry because these stores could themselves be the source of a lot of vibrancy and pedestrian activity. I mean, they already are to an extent but the format is a major issue.

Robie between Almon and Cunard also has a huge amount of potential in this regard, but those stupid car dealerships and gas stations...

What you are really saying is that things like supermarkets, gas stations and car dealerships should not be on the peninsula. Which is clearly ridiculous. Not every block or section of town can be filled with street-level cafes and boutiques as described in the urban planners textbooks. I think this is an example of the kind of indoctrination that has caused the planning profession overall, and the bloated HRM planning dept in particular, to be brought into question by citizens.

[Hali87]

I tend to agree with both of you to some degree. It absolutely makes sense to have supermarkets and gas stations on the peninsula. Car dealerships I'm fairly ambivalent towards (I don't think it makes sense to ban them from the peninsula but I also don't see what the problem would be if they were somewhere else instead).

On the other hand we'll probably see a move towards more urban formats. In theory there's no reason the Superstores and Sobeys of the peninsula couldn't be redeveloped into something resembling the Pete's on Dresden (ie urban format, no/limited surface parking, other uses above). Apparently Sobeys has vague plans for this already. Many cities also have small urban-format car dealerships like this as well - we just don't yet. We're also probably at (or past) the peak number of gas stations on the Peninsula - over time they'll gradually be offset by charging stations.

I can see opportunities for improvement but the "regular" grocery stores on the peninsula don't really bother me as much as they do some people.

[Nouvellecosse]

Obviously there's no reason we have to have undesirable land uses in central urban neighbouhoods (one of the earliest acts undertaken by urban planners was to push things such as air and noise pollution-generating industries of residential and commercial nabes. The segregation of land uses has gone too far in the wrong direction in some ways where desirable things such as retail and services being prohibited making these things less accessible to residents. But the opposite is true in terms of other things with the support apparatus of automobiles being a major example.

That being said, even if things like surface parking does exist, it obviously doesn't need to front the street. The Quinpool SS Cantire format is far superior without being a Pete's style urban format store.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Either way, it just sounds like we are talking about an aesthetic here... a preference. And perhaps a dislike of cars.

The fact remains that in our society we still need grocery stores and we still rely on transportation to get us there and to get the groceries home. Sometimes function has to reign over form, regardless of our aesthetic preferences.

[Nouvellecosse]

Actually, walk-ability, density, and pedestrian friendly design is as much or more a functional issue than an aesthetic one. And no, it isn't simply about preference. There are some design principles that lead to specific empirical outcomes such as healthier inhabitants, lower energy usage, etc. regardless of how anyone happens to feel about them. That being said, I also don't accept that the aesthetics of a city - particularly the central city - should be ignored to accommodate cars. People have been living and acquiring their daily necessities for thousands of years without their communities being designed around automobiles. The idea that grocery stores need to be auto-centric is simply untrue. Not sure how else to say it.

[someone123]

The fact remains that in our society we still need grocery stores and we still rely on transportation to get us there and to get the groceries home. Sometimes function has to reign over form, regardless of our aesthetic preferences.

But Pete's still has parking. It's just in a parkade instead of a surface lot. This is normally how it works at newer urban format grocery stores. I expect one day at the Queen Street Sobeys this will be built on the parking lot and there will be underground parking and then residential above the store. That arrangement would use the land much more efficiently and would probably even be nicer for drivers since underground parking is generally nice than surface parking.

Urban form is more than about just aesthetics. If you have a lot of parking and curb cuts, everything is pushed farther apart and is less friendly for pedestrians. Halifax does not have the road infrastructure and does not want to build enough road infrastructure for everybody to be able to drive and park everywhere, so there is a big benefit to making it possible for more people to walk and cycle around.

[Keith P.]

But Pete's still has parking. It's just in a parkade instead of a surface lot. This is normally how it works at newer urban format grocery stores. I expect one day at the Queen Street Sobeys this will be built on the parking lot and there will be underground parking and then residential above the store. That arrangement would use the land much more efficiently and would probably even be nicer for drivers since underground parking is generally nice than surface parking.

Urban form is more than about just aesthetics. If you have a lot of parking and curb cuts, everything is pushed farther apart and is less friendly for pedestrians. Halifax does not have the road infrastructure and does not want to build enough road infrastructure for everybody to be able to drive and park everywhere, so there is a big benefit to making it possible for more people to walk and cycle around.


The only reason Pete's has a parkade is because it is built underneath a large residential development built on some of the most expensive commercial property in Halifax... and in a space that was originally intended to be the boutique/cafe sort of thing that is so beloved by some, and which totally failed. On its own a grocery store would have a difficult time justifying that.

When I lived DT I often walked to Queen St Sobeys but that involved buying groceries every day or two since I was limited by what I could carry. Even at that if I needed something heavy or needed larger quantities I would not be able to get it on foot and so I used my car to shop there or elsewhere. I never cease to be amazed by the numbers and types of people among us who have no hesitation in telling others how to live their lives in the absence of any consideration for their particular needs and situations.

[someone123]

I never cease to be amazed by the numbers and types of people among us who have no hesitation in telling others how to live their lives in the absence of any consideration for their particular needs and situations.

But it's Sobeys that's considering a redevelopment of their site. Pete's is a private business too, and actually there's another urban format grocery store going in at the Maple. It's just a normal business, not some HRM planning initiative. Some people will choose to drive to these businesses and some people will walk; both options are supported while at most metro Halifax grocery stores walking is not really an option.

Most of the parking lots in the downtown Halifax area exist due to government involvement, not the private sector. This was the case for Clyde Street. They were a postwar planning initiative designed to ensure a supply of parking for Spring Garden Road. Had this been left to the free market they might have been replaced by commercial developments in the 80's or earlier in the 2000's.

The largest parking lots in the Spring Garden Road area now are owned by Dalhousie and the province. Likewise downtown most lots now belong to the province or Develop NS. I believe Gottingen Street has a public parking lot still as well. I think it should be sold off to the highest bidder.

MetroPark is another pro-parking public project.

It's not the case that private land owners want surface parking downtown while HRM is trying to force them to abandon it. If anything it's the other way around; HRM, the province, and other institutional landowners tend to keep surface lots around long after all of the nearby publicly owned land is developed.

[OldDartmouthMark]

One statement that seems less logical to me is the idea that the Queen Street Sobeys is not walkable because it has a surface parking lot. It is absolutely walkable, as is the downtown Superstore and pretty much every business with surface parking in the city. It's just that a large piece of land is reserved for car parking, that people are complaining about.

As Keith mentioned there are some cases, such as people with families and busy schedules, where buying grocery orders too large to carry home by hand (or on a bicycle) necessitates another option, such as taking their car to the store. The bicycle or walking situation is fine for single people or couples without kids, or people without mobility issues, but it kinda drives me nuts when folks try to shove their lifestyle choices down others' throats, rather than wanting to give options for people in circumstances different than their own.

I think urban format stores are fine. The example of Pete's is that they moved into an existing space that already had parking available, and getting from the store to the parkade is a bit of a journey. Not sure whether it's possible to wheel a cart full of groceries into elevators and into the parkade, or what you are supposed to do with the cart after you're done with it (you should bring it back to the store, but most people don't want to bother or take the time to do it). I've shopped there but have never purchased large quantities that can't be carried by hand, so I can't really comment based on personal experience.

A small point about parkades is that they are more expensive to build, maintain and operate than surface parking lots, and there is often cost passed on to the shopper in order to park their car there (though, IIRC, Pete's used to provide a parking voucher for people who made purchases in the store). I think another option that could be considered is rooftop parking where it is practical, such as that offered at Sunnyside Mall in Bedford. Roofs are typically wasted space anyhow, but of course there is increased cost in strengthening the structure, paving, etc. This isn't a practical considerations for buildings of more than a few storeys, however.

The idea I am providing resistance against is that apparently some feel that all stores that currently have surface lots (as they have for decades) are suddenly unpalatable and thus should be forced to convert to an urban format, with or without parking access (because, like, people should be forced to not use their cars). This should happen organically, when there's a business case for it (as, from someone123's post, it sounds like is the case for the Queen Street Sobeys). But to force the idea that these facilities are not walkable or that they are some kind of blight on the city seems a little disingenuous, as if to force one's lifestyle or aesthetic choices on others who have different ideas.

Mind you, this is expected on the skyscraper forum, so it's not surprising, just fodder for discussion.

[Keith P.]

One statement that seems less logical to me is the idea that the Queen Street Sobeys is not walkable because it has a surface parking lot. It is absolutely walkable, as is the downtown Superstore and pretty much every business with surface parking in the city. It's just that a large piece of land is reserved for car parking, that people are complaining about.

As Keith mentioned there are some cases, such as people with families and busy schedules, where buying grocery orders too large to carry home by hand (or on a bicycle) necessitates another option, such as taking their car to the store. The bicycle or walking situation is fine for single people or couples without kids, or people without mobility issues, but it kinda drives me nuts when folks try to shove their lifestyle choices down others' throats, rather than wanting to give options for people in circumstances different than their own.

I think urban format stores are fine. The example of Pete's is that they moved into an existing space that already had parking available, and getting from the store to the parkade is a bit of a journey. Not sure whether it's possible to wheel a cart full of groceries into elevators and into the parkade, or what you are supposed to do with the cart after you're done with it (you should bring it back to the store, but most people don't want to bother or take the time to do it). I've shopped there but have never purchased large quantities that can't be carried by hand, so I can't really comment based on personal experience.


Thank you for you comments, I agree with all of it.

On the SGR Pete's: I haven't been there for a few years since I adopted the Bedford store as my own, but I seem to recall taking one of their small-format carts down to the parkade in the elevator. Not the easiest thing if there are a few people waiting for the lift but doable. I also seem to remember the parkade had a place for you to return your cart to without having to take it back up in the elevator. But it's been a while.

[someone123]

On the SGR Pete's: I haven't been there for a few years since I adopted the Bedford store as my own, but I seem to recall taking one of their small-format carts down to the parkade in the elevator. Not the easiest thing if there are a few people waiting for the lift but doable. I also seem to remember the parkade had a place for you to return your cart to without having to take it back up in the elevator. But it's been a while.

Many of the grocery stores here have movators. The carts lock into them so they don't roll down. They work great.

[Nouvellecosse]

One statement that seems less logical to me is the idea that the Queen Street Sobeys is not walkable because it has a surface parking lot. It is absolutely walkable, as is the downtown Superstore and pretty much every business with surface parking in the city. It's just that a large piece of land is reserved for car parking, that people are complaining about.

As Keith mentioned there are some cases, such as people with families and busy schedules, where buying grocery orders too large to carry home by hand (or on a bicycle) necessitates another option, such as taking their car to the store. The bicycle or walking situation is fine for single people or couples without kids, or people without mobility issues, but it kinda drives me nuts when folks try to shove their lifestyle choices down others' throats, rather than wanting to give options for people in circumstances different than their own.

I think urban format stores are fine. The example of Pete's is that they moved into an existing space that already had parking available, and getting from the store to the parkade is a bit of a journey. Not sure whether it's possible to wheel a cart full of groceries into elevators and into the parkade, or what you are supposed to do with the cart after you're done with it (you should bring it back to the store, but most people don't want to bother or take the time to do it). I've shopped there but have never purchased large quantities that can't be carried by hand, so I can't really comment based on personal experience.

A small point about parkades is that they are more expensive to build, maintain and operate than surface parking lots, and there is often cost passed on to the shopper in order to park their car there (though, IIRC, Pete's used to provide a parking voucher for people who made purchases in the store). I think another option that could be considered is rooftop parking where it is practical, such as that offered at Sunnyside Mall in Bedford. Roofs are typically wasted space anyhow, but of course there is increased cost in strengthening the structure, paving, etc. This isn't a practical considerations for buildings of more than a few storeys, however.

The idea I am providing resistance against is that apparently some feel that all stores that currently have surface lots (as they have for decades) are suddenly unpalatable and thus should be forced to convert to an urban format, with or without parking access (because, like, people should be forced to not use their cars). This should happen organically, when there's a business case for it (as, from someone123's post, it sounds like is the case for the Queen Street Sobeys). But to force the idea that these facilities are not walkable or that they are some kind of blight on the city seems a little disingenuous, as if to force one's lifestyle or aesthetic choices on others who have different ideas.

Mind you, this is expected on the skyscraper forum, so it's not surprising, just fodder for discussion.

It also drives me nuts when people try to shove their lifestyle choices down other people's throats. That's why I take issues with posts like yours. One of the major reasons that it's important to have better designed neighbourhoods is so that people can more easily choose alternatives rather than being coerced into auto-centrism. The idea that designing around cars is the practical option that's most people friendly is completely out of touch.

Take my elderly mother for instance. She is able to walk but is limited to very short distances due to ailments including severe arthritis. She used to bike and walk since she recognises the importance of being active from a health perspective but is much more limited now. She likes the freedom of using transit rather than having to reply on people to drive her places (isn't able to drive) and whenever she goes shopping she always tries to find stores that aren't stuck far back from the street. She once told me that people who are young and able-bodied just never consider how much walking is involved in getting to/from a bus stop and dragging across these huge parking lots. By the time she gets to the store she just wants to sit down and barely has the energy to do any shopping. As a result, I generally have to drive her around whenever she visits so i can drop her off at the door even though neither she nor I actually want this. Designing things to cater primarily to one mode does both encourage that mode and physically prevent some people from using alternatives. To ignore that fact is what's actually "disingenuous". I normally prefer to avoid such attacks on people's character or motives, but I'm only human and I have emotions.

it's the same thing in the other thread when you suggested that bike infrastructure was for the comfort of current cyclists and doesn't help anyone not able-bodied. The reality is the exact opposite. There are many people such as the elderly who would love to keep active and regain their independence, but simply don't feel safe. Suggesting automobiles as a solution for the mobility challenged is a view from incredible privilege seeing as not only are cars not affordable for many working people; they're even less affordable for many seniors. And many seniors have limitations such as insufficient vision or the need for medications that would prevent them from driving but would still permit them to use active transportation that doesn't require the same level of reflexes. There are many short and medium length trips that are inconvenient for transit unless a person's origin and destination are both on the same frequent route but that would suitable for active transport if we took the time to ensure such options were safe and convenient.

I remember a reading I was assigned for one of my university classes which made a point I found rather astonishing.

But, as with any other religion, what counts is the ritual and not the result. Otherwise, this one would have already broken down because of this simple observation: the average motorized city-dweller’s speed is approximately twice a pedestrian’s. However, if the social time required to produce the means of transport is added to the traveling time, the average global traveling speed ends up being inferior to that of people of the Paleolithic age. Such an objectively laughable result would legitimately disturb the user and planner if objectivity constituted a criterion of judgment in this society. No such luck! And what might only provoke a smile becomes a cruel joke when one realizes that reaching this point necessitated upsetting the rural and urban landscape from top to bottom.
https://www.fifthestate.org/archive/325-spring-1987/aberration-the-automobile/

Cars are an incredible privilege that is either out of reach or an unreasonable burden for countless many and it's outrageous that people with such privilege feel so entitled to suggest that communities should be structured to pander to them while the needs of everyone else should be subjugated. This isn't just an issue for seniors or other people with mobility issues. It's an issue for thousands of low income people in general. People who get completely lost when preposterous ideas of how cars are the most egalitarian option arise.

The most ridiculous thing, is that we're discussing a geographically small portion of the metro area. Downtown and the central neighbourhoods absolutely do not need to be designed to pander to those who prefer automobiles when these areas are already surrounded by other places that are. If people can go drive to Dartmouth Crossing to shop at Ikea or Best Buy, there's absolutely no reason for anyone using a car to complain about driving to the HSC to go to a Sobeys with surface parking.

PS in terms of the cost of parkades, in central areas with high land prices the cost of devoting land unnecessarily to vehicle storage must also be considered, as does the costs involved in lower density which include longer travel distances and for infrastructure to stretch further. A community is a system of many interconnected elements and it's impossible to get an accurate understanding by looking at any one aspect in isolation.

[someone123]

There is a "tragedy of the commons" aspect of this that requires some planning intervention. Just one or two big, poorly-designed car-oriented sites can have a big negative impact on the pedestrian friendliness of an area. Queen Street is like this. Spring Garden Road could be ruined by a couple of bad developments. Imagine if the replacement for Mills had a parking lot fronting SGR with two large curb cuts taking up half the block. The pedestrian experience would be significantly harmed. There is a reason for municipal planning departments to pay attention to that.

The point about only a small part of the metro area possibly not being designed overwhelmingly for cars is a good one. If you want to drive everywhere you have a plethora of options for living and working in HRM or around the region. If you prefer walking or cycling your options are limited. The least car-friendly scenario on the table is still a very mild one where only maybe 25% of the metro area is geared toward pedestrians and cyclists.

[OldDartmouthMark]

It also drives me nuts when people try to shove their lifestyle choices down other people's throats. That's why I take issues with posts like yours. One of the major reasons that it's important to have better designed neighbourhoods is so that people can more easily choose alternatives rather than being coerced into auto-centrism. The idea that designing around cars is the practical option that's most people friendly is completely out of touch.

Take my elderly mother for instance. She is able to walk but is limited to very short distances due to ailments including severe arthritis. She used to bike and walk since she recognises the importance of being active from a health perspective but is much more limited now. She likes the freedom of using transit rather than having to reply on people to drive her places (isn't able to drive) and whenever she goes shopping she always tries to find stores that aren't stuck far back from the street. She once told me that people who are young and able-bodied just never consider how much walking is involved in getting to/from a bus stop and dragging across these huge parking lots. By the time she gets to the store she just wants to sit down and barely has the energy to do any shopping. As a result, I generally have to drive her around whenever she visits so i can drop her off at the door even though neither she nor I actually want this. Designing things to cater primarily to one mode does both encourage that mode and physically prevent some people from using alternatives. To ignore that fact is what's actually "disingenuous". I normally prefer to avoid such attacks on people's character or motives, but I'm only human and I have emotions.

it's the same thing in the other thread when you suggested that bike infrastructure was for the comfort of current cyclists and doesn't help anyone not able-bodied. The reality is the exact opposite. There are many people such as the elderly who would love to keep active and regain their independence, but simply don't feel safe. Suggesting automobiles as a solution for the mobility challenged is a view from incredible privilege seeing as not only are cars not affordable for many working people; they're even less affordable for many seniors. And many seniors have limitations such as insufficient vision or the need for medications that would prevent them from driving but would still permit them to use active transportation that doesn't require the same level of reflexes. There are many short and medium length trips that are inconvenient for transit unless a person's origin and destination are both on the same frequent route but that would suitable for active transport if we took the time to ensure such options were safe and convenient.

I remember a reading I was assigned for one of my university classes which made a point I found rather astonishing.


https://www.fifthestate.org/archive/325-spring-1987/aberration-the-automobile/

Cars are an incredible privilege that is either out of reach or an unreasonable burden for countless many and it's outrageous that people with such privilege feel so entitled to suggest that communities should be structured to pander to them while the needs of everyone else should be subjugated. This isn't just an issue for seniors or other people with mobility issues. It's an issue for thousands of low income people in general. People who get completely lost when preposterous ideas of how cars are the most egalitarian option arise.

The most ridiculous thing, is that we're discussing a geographically small portion of the metro area. Downtown and the central neighbourhoods absolutely do not need to be designed to pander to those who prefer automobiles when these areas are already surrounded by other places that are. If people can go drive to Dartmouth Crossing to shop at Ikea or Best Buy, there's absolutely no reason for anyone using a car to complain about driving to the HSC to go to a Sobeys with surface parking.

PS in terms of the cost of parkades, in central areas with high land prices the cost of devoting land unnecessarily to vehicle storage must also be considered, as does the costs involved in lower density which include longer travel distances and for infrastructure to stretch further. A community is a system of many interconnected elements and it's impossible to get an accurate understanding by looking at any one aspect in isolation.

Sorry, but with the impacts of other, higher priority situations that I am dealing with now, I have neither the time nor energy to respond to your long, emotional post.

Let's just say we will agree to disagree. We have conversed many times on this forum, and by now you know that we don't always agree but on the other hand we often do. As is the case with this exchange. I don't disagree with many of your points, and I'm thinking you may have misinterpreted some of my statements, but not all. I just don't have it in me to parse it all out.

It's been an extremely long day for me, so that's all I'm going to say. Be well and stay healthy. These are unprecedented and trying times. :cheers:

[Nouvellecosse]

I hope things are ok. For what it's worth, I am sorry i lost my temper. I do usually try to respond dispassionately and not reciprocate accusations or attacks but there are certain things that tend trigger a more animated response. I plan to do better in the future.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I hope things are ok. For what it's worth, I am sorry i lost my temper. I do usually try to respond dispassionately and not reciprocate accusations or attacks but there are certain things that tend trigger a more animated response. I plan to do better in the future.

No worries and no need to apologize, I admire your passion actually! :tup: And I’ll acknowledge that I had a part in it too.

The enormity of the COVID-19 situation was quite overwhelming yesterday as we had to completely reimagine our workplace to remain functional while associates self isolate. As well a coworker is dealing with a potential exposure to one of the confirmed cases in the area.

I won’t go into details, but all are okay at the moment. After about 15 hours of it, I was quite exhausted to say the least.

On top of that, it’s hard to ignore the situations that other countries are now dealing with. It’s overwhelming at minimum.

While we often have spirited conversations on these boards it’s important to remember that we are all in this together as part of humanity and at the end of the day, that’s all that matters. Take care. :)

[Keith P.]

If there is any comfort to be taken in this, it is that Public Health almost always overstates the risk involved in these sorts of things, which is then amplified by the news media and sites like FB and Twitter to make it sound even worse. Not to say there is not risk here or that this is not serious, but if you think back to H1N1 they set up massive public immunization programs for citizens but in the end the result proved not much different than the regular seasonal flu. This does appear to be more easily transmitted than many flus and as of now there is not a useful vaccine, which makes this riskier for sure. But it won't be until it is all over that we will be able to assess whether the disruption of life and tanking the world economy was necessary. None of which makes any difference to those who were afflicted and those close to them of course.

But keep in mind that this is the same group of Public Health officials who waged a false war against vaping last fall, convinced the NS govt to pass ill-advised legislation, and got the Feds to run alarmist TV ads stating it is a huge problem and health risk for youth which is absurd. Meanwhile we are seeing virtually no messaging from them or our govt on weed or hard drug use by those same young people. Go figure.