SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=223)
-   -   [Halifax] Queen's Marque | 30 m | 10 fl | U/C (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=145372)

Jonovision Mar 25, 2017 2:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziobrop (Post 7749128)
it probably goes down to bedrock. will be tie anchored back as they dig down. that area is all fill and seabed, so likely pretty unstable. Someone told me that the Queens Marque parking garage is watertight, and would actually float without the building on top holding it down.

typically they cut it off a few feet down and leave it there.

I heard a similar thing. And because of this it will take longer to build as they actually have to build two foundations. One that sits inside the other.

Jonovision Mar 31, 2017 10:10 PM

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2942/3...0bdc4722_h.jpg20170330_124246 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

fenwick16 Apr 17, 2017 5:50 PM

Some of the Queen's Marque construction can be seen on Nova Scotia webcams - https://www.novascotiawebcams.com/en...s/cable-wharf/

https://images.novascotiawebcams.com...sDoeIfKVfp.jpg

Jonovision Apr 17, 2017 8:48 PM

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2922/3...d28b44cf_h.jpg20170417_131419 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

MonctonDowntown Apr 25, 2017 3:50 PM

I'm sure many of you have seen these renderings but I had not so I thought I'd share...

http://queensmarque.com/form-and-place/gallery/

terrynorthend Apr 25, 2017 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonDowntown (Post 7784284)
I'm sure many of you have seen these renderings but I had not so I thought I'd share...

http://queensmarque.com/form-and-place/gallery/

I hadn't noticed this before, but I'm trying to make sense of the floorplates of the building in those (very detailed) renderings. From the North side, there appears to be only 7 floors above the base. From other elevations, there seems to be 9 floors above the base. The aerial view doesn't seem to indicate any floor discontinuity (eg. fewer taller commercial floors in one section, more shorter residential floors in another).

Thoughts?

fenwick16 Apr 26, 2017 2:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrynorthend (Post 7784955)
I hadn't noticed this before, but I'm trying to make sense of the floorplates of the building in those (very detailed) renderings. From the North side, there appears to be only 7 floors above the base. From other elevations, there seems to be 9 floors above the base. The aerial view doesn't seem to indicate any floor discontinuity (eg. fewer taller commercial floors in one section, more shorter residential floors in another).

Thoughts?


Good observation. It really is that way. On the north side is office space with higher floor heights as shown in the floor plans - http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/drc/...reet-8.2.1.pdf

terrynorthend Apr 27, 2017 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenwick16 (Post 7785259)
Good observation. It really is that way. On the north side is office space with higher floor heights as shown in the floor plans - http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/drc/...reet-8.2.1.pdf

Oh. Do the sections not connect through?

fenwick16 Apr 27, 2017 9:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrynorthend (Post 7787393)
Oh. Do the sections not connect through?

Looking at the floor plans, the north wing is physically connected but doesn't seem to provide access to the main (central) residential section, which is probably as planned (residential and office space separated).

someone123 May 4, 2017 4:32 PM

http://imageshack.com/a/img923/1074/0RcE9c.jpg

Source

terrynorthend May 7, 2017 11:38 AM

When does the floating bridge go in? A CBC article earlier in this thread referenced May 1, but there is no sign of a bridge down there yet!

IanWatson May 8, 2017 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrynorthend (Post 7797389)
When does the floating bridge go in? A CBC article earlier in this thread referenced May 1, but there is no sign of a bridge down there yet!

Yeah, I'm getting very impatient for that to go in. The fact that, as a pedestrian, I have to bounce back and forth between the different sides of Lower Water Street to get from Morris to the ferry is really starting to grind on me.

OldDartmouthMark May 8, 2017 2:06 PM

Hmmm... scheduling for the floating bridge construction seems somewhat vague.

From this March 9 article in the Chronicle Herald, construction on it should already have started:

Quote:

Two weeks ago, Waterfront Development awarded a $797,500 contract to Dartmouth-based Waterworks Construction to build a floating bridge between Cable Wharf and the Maritime Museum’s north wharf.

Waterworks Construction project manager Greg Kerr says a team of five people will undertake construction of the floating bridge’s 13 40-foot sections this month and work will begin on the site in April.

“The intention is to have it operational by the long weekend in May for pedestrian access,” he said in an interview Thursday.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/busines...g-train-bridge

However, Waterfront Development is being somewhat less committal in that they are saying "spring" in one document:

https://my-waterfront.ca/2017/04/28/...ax-waterfront/

...and "summer" on this map:

http://my-waterfront.ca/wp/wp-conten...2017_01_20.jpg

http://my-waterfront.ca/2016/12/14/q...on-mitigation/

Keith P. May 8, 2017 3:53 PM

If WDC is responsible for the floating bridge they will probably have it ready in about 10 years. They are not noted for their swift action.

terrynorthend May 8, 2017 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanWatson (Post 7798187)
Yeah, I'm getting very impatient for that to go in. The fact that, as a pedestrian, I have to bounce back and forth between the different sides of Lower Water Street to get from Morris to the ferry is really starting to grind on me.

Yes. The weather is getting nicer now, and I have a little waterfront loop I like to walk at lunch in the summer. It's so far been hampered.

OldDartmouthMark May 9, 2017 12:17 PM

For those who walk by there daily: has any construction started for the temporary bridge?

q12 May 9, 2017 12:28 PM

These two webcams will show the bridge which doesn't look like it has even started yet.

https://www.novascotiawebcams.com/en...s/cable-wharf/

https://www.novascotiawebcams.com/en...useum-wharves/

OldDartmouthMark May 9, 2017 1:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by q12 (Post 7799314)
These two webcams will show the bridge which doesn't look like it has even started yet.

https://www.novascotiawebcams.com/en...s/cable-wharf/

https://www.novascotiawebcams.com/en...useum-wharves/

Ah... great idea. I hadn't thought of consulting the webcams. :tup:

OldDartmouthMark May 16, 2017 2:09 PM

JET posted this in Halifax Photos --> Old Halifax.

I thought I'd add it here as it's pertinent for this thread as well:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...-queens-marque

Quote:

VIDEO: Remnants of old Halifax unearthed at Queen's Marque

The ground below the Queen’s Marque development has proven to be quite the time capsule of centuries-old Halifax.

The project along the Halifax waterfront has unearthed “a complex of buildings” including a guardhouse from the 1780’s, an old fish market and a twine shop.

“(The buildings) add flesh to historical record,” said Bruce Stewart, president of Cultural Resource Management Group, the archaeologists for the project, during an interview Friday.

“We’re looking for a strengthening of our understanding of what life was like for the guards in the guardhouse or people who were using the market.”

The site — along Lower Water Street beside the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic — covers almost five acres at the centre-point of the city, previously known as Queen’s Landing, an area with a rich military, marine and mercantile history.

“We have continued use, re-use, development and redevelopment of this property from 1749 right through until today,” said Stewart.


Bruce Stewart president and Kathryn Stewart, staff archaeologist for Cultural Resource Management group, observe the excavated area of a guard house from the construction site on the Queen’s Marque on Friday, May 12.

When complete, the Queen’s Marque will be mixed-use complex of homes and businesses, along with 75,000 square feet of public space and three new wharves.

Stewart says the discoveries will not jeopardize the 2019 expected completion date.

“We’re working very closely with the contractors and the Armour Group to try and get addressed as quickly as we can,” he said.

“The goal is to minimize any delays.”

The property began use in 1749 as an old British military battery when the first settlers arrived in Halifax. The CRM Group hasn’t found any artifacts from the battery as of yet.

“We’re all keeping a very sharp eye out for that,” said Stewart.

The archaeologists complied old photos, maps and paintings of the area, so what they’ve found thus far hasn’t been much of a surprise.

“One of the biggest surprises for me, is there are fewer artifacts than we expected,” said Stewart.

“It’s a lot cleaner in that sense.”

As far as artifacts go, the archaeologists have found a cannonball, an old boot and broken pottery.

One of the bigger discoveries is of two large granite property markers with the initials “W.D.” engraved on them. Stewart says this stands for “War Department,” which is the British military stamp.

The markers will be incorporated into the final project for public viewing.

“Those are really excellent pieces,” said Stewart. “They’re in beautiful condition.”

The land markers are about two metres tall and similar ones can be found around town, including in Point Pleasant Park
.
The granite property markers he is talking about are explained well in Stephen Archibald's "Noticed In Nova Scotia" blog:

http://halifaxbloggers.ca/noticedinn...ur-boundaries/

beyeas May 16, 2017 3:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark (Post 7806613)
JET posted this in Halifax Photos --> Old Halifax.

I thought I'd add it here as it's pertinent for this thread as well:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...-queens-marque



The granite property markers he is talking about are explained well in Stephen Archibald's "Noticed In Nova Scotia" blog:

http://halifaxbloggers.ca/noticedinn...ur-boundaries/

There is a granite marker on camp hill right be the Veteran's Memorial Building as well. Cool that they keep finding them around the city.

fenwick16 May 16, 2017 7:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark (Post 7806613)
JET posted this in Halifax Photos --> Old Halifax.

I thought I'd add it here as it's pertinent for this thread as well:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...-queens-marque



The granite property markers he is talking about are explained well in Stephen Archibald's "Noticed In Nova Scotia" blog:

http://halifaxbloggers.ca/noticedinn...ur-boundaries/


It is great that the markers will be incorporated into the final project. Hopefully they will also have pictures of the excavated foundations and display that. This will be a whole lot better than lighthouses (as in the Trillium) :)

someone123 May 16, 2017 11:00 PM

They have a few pictures of the marker and other artifacts here: https://twitter.com/QueensMarque/media

Colin May May 17, 2017 3:33 AM

A floating bridge = an undulating 'bridge'
I think the Coast Guard will have concerns about any structure that is 'floating'
There is a floating walkway on the north side of Murphy's, so now picture that in an open and unprotected space.
Would you like grandma walking along it with a 3 year old or an 9 year old ?

OldDartmouthMark May 17, 2017 4:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 7807178)
They have a few pictures of the marker and other artifacts here: https://twitter.com/QueensMarque/media

That's very cool! Thanks for posting that.

I agree that the best outcome will be to incorporate the markers in the final project. :tup:

counterfactual May 17, 2017 8:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark (Post 7806613)
JET posted this in Halifax Photos --> Old Halifax.

I thought I'd add it here as it's pertinent for this thread as well:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...-queens-marque



The granite property markers he is talking about are explained well in Stephen Archibald's "Noticed In Nova Scotia" blog:

http://halifaxbloggers.ca/noticedinn...ur-boundaries/

Thanks for posting, Mark. Very much enjoyed this. Apparently they found a medallion just the other day. Also on Twitter.

OldDartmouthMark May 18, 2017 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterfactual (Post 7808119)
Thanks for posting, Mark. Very much enjoyed this. Apparently they found a medallion just the other day. Also on Twitter.

Glad you enjoyed it. I am fascinated with stuff like this - artifacts that haven't seen the light of day in a century - there's no history that's more 'real' than this.

Really gives one a sense of the many 'lives' of an area - how over the years the waterfront has meant so many things - and has provided so many different experiences - to so many people.

...And it's about to enter a new chapter with the Queen's Marque project. Very cool.

Keith P. May 18, 2017 1:29 PM

I always felt those kind of finds were evidence of just how little our forebears cared about sanitation or the value of those items.

OldDartmouthMark May 18, 2017 3:00 PM

That is likely the truth, Keith. Practicality and financial sense has always been at the top of the list for any redevelopment, and perhaps rightly so as without a business case it's not getting done.

Additionally, 'recent history' has little value when work has to be done, and items such as those stone markers would not have been regarded as significant once they outlived their usefulness as actual markers. Besides, they would have been heavy to remove and they would make great fill.

From what I've read, it has only been in the last 40 years or so that any kind of urban archaeology has been done in Halifax when an old site was redeveloped. There were many developments done before the 1980s where old buildings were torn down, a hole was dug, and any artifacts that might have been contained in the removed material were hauled off and dumped unceremoniously at another location, whether as fill or otherwise.

Over the passage of time, however, we (a generalization) have realized the value of researching our own history, and thus have decided to put rules in place such that historical sites like this require some archaeology before construction can begin. So, what was once probably considered excellent fill material will now be displayed as a link to the site's military past.

But, yes, I think in general our forebears were simply concerned with survival and getting things done, and didn't take great pains to try to preserve such things. :2cents:

Dmajackson May 19, 2017 4:49 PM

http://68.media.tumblr.com/ac5c596d7...dq8o3_1280.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

Colin May May 19, 2017 11:54 PM

Spoke with a person who knows what is happening with the 'floating walkway'.
Coast Guard does have concerns and no definite date for the walkway. Policing the walkway 24/7 will be a problem.

fenwick16 May 20, 2017 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin May (Post 7810433)
Spoke with a person who knows what is happening with the 'floating walkway'.
Coast Guard does have concerns and no definite date for the walkway. Policing the walkway 24/7 will be a problem.

That makes sense. Thanks for the information.

I sometimes wonder about the boardwalk and I am somewhat amazed that more people have fallen into the harbour, since it doesn't have a safety railing. The boardwalk bridge over the water would have been even more hazardous.

musicman May 20, 2017 7:40 PM

From what i understand the bridge is basically complete right now and just needs to be floated into place from a dartmouth side location.... The person i was talking to said it would be installed very quickly with the parts on each end taking the longest due to the tie in with the existing wharfs.

The coast guard does have concerns but they have concerns about everything that happens on the water or near it. They are about safety period thus that is basically all they think about..

Colin May May 21, 2017 1:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by musicman (Post 7810902)
From what i understand the bridge is basically complete right now and just needs to be floated into place from a dartmouth side location.... The person i was talking to said it would be installed very quickly with the parts on each end taking the longest due to the tie in with the existing wharfs.

The coast guard does have concerns but they have concerns about everything that happens on the water or near it. They are about safety period thus that is basically all they think about..

Coast Guard will be concerned about the movement of the walkway, the hours of operation,the number of people using the walkway, the supervision of the walkway, the safety devices, the provision of a boat patrol, emergency procedures, training of personnel, use by those with disabilities and they will set standards for the conditions when the walkway will be closed. All of the details which are examined when there is an accident. The question will be : Who pays ?

Keith P. May 21, 2017 1:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin May (Post 7811026)
Coast Guard will be concerned about the movement of the walkway, the hours of operation,the number of people using the walkway, the supervision of the walkway, the safety devices, the provision of a boat patrol, emergency procedures, training of personnel, use by those with disabilities and they will set standards for the conditions when the walkway will be closed. All of the details which are examined when there is an accident. The question will be : Who pays ?

Yet all of those items excepting the first and last would be no different from issues regarding the previous land-based walkway that had no railing whatsoever on the water side. It sounds like a good example of a bureaucracy raising objections simply because they can.

terrynorthend May 21, 2017 1:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 7811198)
Yet all of those items excepting the first and last would be no different from issues regarding the previous land-based walkway that had no railing whatsoever on the water side. It sounds like a good example of a bureaucracy raising objections simply because they can.

And of course ALL of those items already apply to the floating docks along the berths. If it is indeed a problem, then processes should already be in place to handle them. If the Coast Guard is raising objections, then I absolutely agree Keith.

Colin May May 21, 2017 2:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 7811198)
Yet all of those items excepting the first and last would be no different from issues regarding the previous land-based walkway that had no railing whatsoever on the water side. It sounds like a good example of a bureaucracy raising objections simply because they can.

You cannot compare the present walkways with the proposed 560 foot walkway because they are not on the water surface, do not move with the water and are much wider than the 3m wide floaters. It is not bureaucracy, it is an example of planning for the worst possible outcome.
The floating docks alongside berths are almost exclusively used by people with boats or people boarding a tour boat.

Aya_Akai May 22, 2017 6:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin May (Post 7811225)
The floating docks alongside berths are almost exclusively used by people with boats or people boarding a tour boat.

...Which are all completely open to the public, just.. nobody ever thinks to use them. When the oppourtunity presents itself, I enjoy walking on them.

I think Keith is indeed talking about the floating docks which are all already quite present and accessible along our waterfront.

Colin May May 22, 2017 3:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaliStreaks (Post 7811686)
...Which are all completely open to the public, just.. nobody ever thinks to use them. When the oppourtunity presents itself, I enjoy walking on them.

I think Keith is indeed talking about the floating docks which are all already quite present and accessible along our waterfront.

Keith is talking about ' the previous land-based walkway'.
The floating walkway will not be installed until mid June : http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...bour-1.4125073

MamaSanchez May 22, 2017 8:11 PM

Ay ay ay my chicas, Mama does not the like this floating walkway business.

What if Mama fall?? Mama cannot swim!

Mama thinks Coasts Guard should have all the concerns, you know. Mama need the flotation devices to cross this sinking walkway from the devil.

Much love for my chicas!

Beso

Mama

Keith P. May 22, 2017 9:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin May (Post 7811225)
You cannot compare the present walkways with the proposed 560 foot walkway because they are not on the water surface, do not move with the water and are much wider than the 3m wide floaters. It is not bureaucracy, it is an example of planning for the worst possible outcome.
The floating docks alongside berths are almost exclusively used by people with boats or people boarding a tour boat.

Meanwhile in the State of Washington they use floating bridges to carry multiple lanes of vehicular traffic over vast distances. Clearly this is impossible and hence would be prohibited in Nova Scotia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergr...g_Bridge_(2016)

Colin May May 23, 2017 3:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 7812054)
Meanwhile in the State of Washington they use floating bridges to carry multiple lanes of vehicular traffic over vast distances. Clearly this is impossible and hence would be prohibited in Nova Scotia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergr...g_Bridge_(2016)

The US$4.5 billion apples and the $800,000 peanuts.
The expensive apples does not float on the water and is attached to 77 concrete pontoons.
" The new bridge was designed to be more stable in stronger winds and raised the bridge deck much higher above the surface of the lake than the old bridge.
The floating bridge is laid atop 77 concrete pontoons that float above the water and are secured by 58 anchors to the lake bottom.[32] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergr...g_Bridge_(2016)

Clearly the comparison is risible.
Try harder next time Keith.

eastcoastal May 23, 2017 3:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MamaSanchez (Post 7812010)
Ay ay ay my chicas, Mama does not the like this floating walkway business.

What if Mama fall?? Mama cannot swim!

Mama thinks Coasts Guard should have all the concerns, you know. Mama need the flotation devices to cross this sinking walkway from the devil.

Much love for my chicas!

Beso

Mama

Mama might be safest to enjoy the waterfront from afar. She'll get the benefit of seeing all the action without the annoyance of slow-moving strollers impeding her path.

I daresay Mama could enjoy a beverage at Stubborn Goat or an ice cream without putting herself in mortal peril.

OldDartmouthMark May 23, 2017 9:30 PM

I am curious about how well the walkway will or will not work.

My thoughts:
- They have spent substantial coin on it so far - therefore it would take a convincing case against for it to not happen at this point.

- I am wondering how they will deal with the rise and fall of the tides in terms of the changing grades at entrance and exit of the walkway relative to existing.

- My experience during a busy summer weekend at the old 'bottleneck' was that it became pretty crowded and slow - to the point that I would usually walk around through the parking lot to avoid the congestion, an option that will no longer be available. Also, the wharf at Murphy's isn't all that wide and has no rail. I'm wondering how they will deal with these high-traffic conditions.

- As mentioned, more severe wind/wave conditions will provide additional challenges.

Have any details been made available to the public?

fenwick16 May 23, 2017 9:58 PM

I can think of a couple situations when the floating boardwalk should be closed such as during rough waters, and at night when few people are around to help someone who might fall into the water (I am sure there are other reasons). However, there will only be two entrances so it seems like it should be easy to put up warning signs and physical barriers to close it as required.

someone123 May 23, 2017 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenwick16 (Post 7813114)
I can think of a couple situations when the floating boardwalk should be closed such as during rough waters, and at night when few people are around to help someone who might fall into the water (I am sure there are other reasons). However, there will only be two entrances so it seems like it should be easy to put up warning signs and physical barriers to close it as required.

If there's a hurricane or something they'll close it down. Seems like a non-issue, and it should offer a nice view. If I'm in town when it's set up I'll report back if I survive. I survived the library stairs somehow. Luck must be on my side. ;)

OldDartmouthMark May 23, 2017 11:47 PM

I'm actually quite looking forward to it. I think issues such as grade changes should be easily dealt with using a longer ramp. It won't be busy during inclement weather anyhow and would be closed during severe weather, just like anything else. As mentioned I find problem-solving to be an interesting process and would like to know the details involved.

The pedestrian traffic during busy times is the only real negative that I can forsee, but remember it is only temporary until Queen's Marque is finished. :2cents:

Colin May May 24, 2017 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark (Post 7813225)
I'm actually quite looking forward to it. I think issues such as grade changes should be easily dealt with using a longer ramp. It won't be busy during inclement weather anyhow and would be closed during severe weather, just like anything else. As mentioned I find problem-solving to be an interesting process and would like to know the details involved.

The pedestrian traffic during busy times is the only real negative that I can forsee, but remember it is only temporary until Queen's Marque is finished. :2cents:

The Coast Guard is the regulating authority and I am sure they have already covered off all the issues I mentioned. One or two people have to sign off on the structure and they will make sure it is as risk-free as possible, nobody wants an accident investigation.
Plan for the worst and hope for the best. It is a long time since I read the transcript of a marine investigation, an accident that resulted in loss of life and ruined the lives of several people who were at fault. Didn't help that two people decided to lie under examination and then were torn to shreds when their evidence was thoroughly demolished by inquiry counsel.

OldDartmouthMark May 24, 2017 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin May (Post 7813273)
The Coast Guard is the regulating authority and I am sure they have already covered off all the issues I mentioned. One or two people have to sign off on the structure and they will make sure it is as risk-free as possible, nobody wants an accident investigation.
Plan for the worst and hope for the best. It is a long time since I read the transcript of a marine investigation, an accident that resulted in loss of life and ruined the lives of several people who were at fault. Didn't help that two people decided to lie under examination and then were torn to shreds when their evidence was thoroughly demolished by inquiry counsel.

One would think that the design proposal would have been signed off by all regulating authorities before $800,000 was allowed to be spent on it.

At this point the main risks would be a design flaw (engineer's responsibility), an improper installation (inspector's/contractor's responsibility), improper management during severe conditions (city's responsibility), or unforeseen circumstances - which would depend on the nature of the circumstances and how they are reacted to.

I'm thinking that an alternate route should be provided, even if that route only includes temporary sidewalk access protected by concrete barriers or a couple of priority crosswalks on Lower Water that provide access to the sidewalk by the Dominion Public Bldg - it would make a mess of traffic, but so be it - that's the price of construction. Right now it's a mess for pedestrians having to basically detour to Bedford Row.

The road train will help, but I don't think it will have the capacity to really make a difference volume-wise. It should be a good thing for those with mobility challenges, though.

fenwick16 May 24, 2017 12:40 PM

I think it would be terrible if someone fell into the water, but it would be especially bad if a hurricane came up and someone123 fell in. :haha:

Keith P. May 24, 2017 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenwick16 (Post 7813580)
I think it would be terrible if someone fell into the water, but it would be especially bad if a hurricane came up and someone123 fell in. :haha:

Perhaps HRM Council can hold a meeting on it during a hurricane, which could turn a negative into a positive. :drowning:


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.