Is it reasonable for a business to require 'the bulk' of the city's residents as customers in order to prosper? I think not. And the local notion of what is 'downtown' and the barriers to walking to 'there' will hopefully continue to evolve with the passage of time. I realize that there is an obesity problem in NS and that there seems to be an entire generation who somehow lost the ability (or will) to walk, but really, people are starting to walk again. No doubt the benefits to our city will be many.

To improve the vitality and the streetscape of any downtown, it is important to remove most surface parking lots. I' m sure even Keith would agree with this. Surface parking is the bane of downtown Moncton, but at least the city here knows this and is taking all the steps necessary to try and remove this scourge (this will take decades unfortunately).

Downtown parking of course is still necessary so that the economy of the core is not suffocated. I agree with Keith here. It just has to be provided for in the most efficient way possible, and this means underground parking and multilevel parking structures. Properly constructed, these structures do not have to be ugly, and streetfront vitality can be maintained if there are leasable CRUs along the face of the structure adjacent to the sidewalk.

Just as importantly, all efforts should be taken to ensure that traffic access to the core should be maintained at least at current levels. To do otherwise risks asphyxiating the downtown. The core should exist for all citizens of the city (and surrounding areas), not just the downtown residents. To consider the core to be the playground only of the residents of the peninsula smacks of urban elitism.

While active transportation should be encouraged (where feasible), given Halifax's climate and geography, it is a fiction to believe that more than a small percentage of people can be coaxed into regular travelling into town via bicycle. Within the peninsula, bicycle paths should be relegated mostly to side streets, and dedicated bicycle lanes should only be constructed where the preexisting width of the street allows for it.

Again, while public transit usage should be encouraged, for a variety of reasons, it is not always convenient or practical for many people. The car will remain a mainstay for many people to gain access to the downtown area. Accommodations will have to be made, no matter how badly some urbanists hate the car.

C'mon guys, this is starting to sound like some Trump fake news conspiracy theory.

Let's get real here for a minute. Halifax is not an area with a huge traffic problem (see Toronto). It's no problem to get around in a car in Halifax, and our worst traffic backups on a normal (non-accident) day might take you a half hour to 45 minutes to get to/from the suburbs during rush hour. Even with recent additions of bicycle lanes and bus-only lanes, it's still not difficult to get around Halifax in a car.

Once you are downtown there are plenty of options for parking. Sure, everyone would like to have that ideal parking spot on the street, in front of their destination, and even better if it's free (evenings and weekends), but if you remove that requirement there are plenty of places to park and it will typically set you back less than 10 bucks (or about the price of an average glass of wine). But really, if anything, parking spaces are increasing downtown with the addition of new buildings and associated public parking spots. Sure, if you're cheap you won't want to pay for parking, but really it's just another one of the many associated costs of having the privilege of driving a car, and it's a small cost at that.

So, really much ado about nothing.

Just to remind everyone what set this derail off, here's someone123's post below where he actually states that Queen's Marque will result in an increase in parking spots in a prime downtown location:

@MonctonRad 's post is one I fully agree with. Also I ask my usual critics to note that nowhere in my posts did I ever mention the words "parking lot". I was referring to HRM's continual lunacy in reducing many streets to cycling paths and making it as difficult as possible for vehicles to circulate. Note the single-lane pathway that Lower Water has become. Note the various narrowings of intersections and lane reductions on major arteries, and the travel restrictions (with "Except Bicycles" signage) on many streets. If we were like most modern N.A. cities with very wide arteries these would perhaps be tolerable changes, but the concept has been dropped without much forethought onto Halifax's ancient and very narrow streets with consequences that seem obvious to most people except for those in our Planning Dept and Council. They have also removed loading zones and some on-street parking in those areas without allowing for any alternative.

It affects me very little as I avoid DT as much as possible now. But I suspect I am not alone in that sentiment. Alienating potential customers is not a formula for business success. It typifies an attitude of the bureaucrat, whose arrogance never includes any consideration to what the client actually desires when interacting with the agency.

No, you didn't use the words "parking lot", but you used a post where parking was mentioned to touch off on another 'war against the car' rant.

The funny thing is, I agree that the motorized personal vehicle is becoming less in favour in popular planning practices, and definitely losing favour with younger generations, and thus change is occurring (as change tends to do).

However, I'm starting to find the continual repetition of this thought pattern to be sounding more and more like a lame conspiracy theory. Things are changing out there due to public opinion and realities like environmental problems caused by our reliance on fossil fuels. Change has occurred in the past, continually, so we should not be surprised that things are continuing to change. The world today is much different than it was 50 years ago, and will be much different than it is now in another 50 years. Situation normal.

However, as I stated, none of it is earth shattering. If anything we are maintaining the status quo much more than handing over our roads to cyclists. I maintain that it is still no problem to take a car downtown, and much easier in Halifax than in many other cities that I have visited. The sky is not falling, as much as it appears we would like to believe.

Well, it will be earth-shattering for the owners of those businesses who go broke downtown, and for the landlords who invested in buildings to support a customer base that has now been driven elsewhere. As for your eulogy to motorized vehicles, think again. Even the avid cyclists are touting the advantages of "motorized bicycles" (sounds like a motorcycle to me but you cannot say those words since it brings the spectre of pesky things like registration and insurance down upon them) if they are to be used as a serious way of getting around instead of just recreation. Once those younger people get out of school and start raising families the appeal of living in a 1-bedroom apartment downtown will be replaced and so will their bicycles. With the advent of electrical propulsion either by battery or fuel cell power the arguments against fossil fuels will go away except among the hair-shirt extreme enviro types.

Excuse me for my rant but I just witnessed the latest example of cyclist misbehavior in DT Dartmouth. I was waiting at a red light on Windmill Rd prior to turning left up Thistle St. I noticed in my mirrors a cyclist blasting towards me from behind in the right lane. He blew through the red light, cut across the bow of a Transit bus *in the intersection* turning left onto Windmill, then when reaching the opposite corner veered right onto the sidewalk, then escaped somewhere into the Dartmouth Common. Yes, by all means let's encourage such behavior.

I'm sorry but you got cut off in traffic and came to the Skysraper forum for a multi-post, multi-thread rant? Perhaps we can get a separate thread for "Keith's war on HRM's war on the car and the inevitable death of all things downtown" so we can keep these all together and on topic.

On a more serious note, "Police encourage anyone who sees someone driving dangerously to report it." I hope that was the first place you expressed your concern about what you witnessed.
https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/19-year-...outh-1.5084409

It is rather pointless to try reporting dangerous cycling. No registration, no way to ID the miscreant, fuggetaboutit.

No one is encouraging such behaviour. People love to complain about cyclists breaking laws – and they do – but motorists are just as bad if not worse, and are objectively much more dangerous to those around them.

We can't argue against cycling based on people who break the law because by that logic cars should basically be outlawed.

Exactly. Motorists are out there speeding along city streets; revving modified engines at obscene volumes; parking willy-willy in bike lanes, on sidewalks, and in no-stopping zones (try Gottingen for that); and engaging in all kinds of aggressive driving that is far more dangerous than some cyclist who runs a red light. (And honestly, while that does happen, it's the exception. And further normalizing cycling as part of our everyday traffic will continue to reduce it.)

No one is making excused for bad cyclists. But bad driving is a much, much more significant problem, yet dangerous drivers rarely see serious consequences for their actions. You practically have to commit vehicular manslaughter to lose your license.

I dunno about that. Cycling is pretty damn normalized in Amsterdam, but they are an absolute menace to pedestrians over there. Dutch cyclists operate with impunity and are pretty self entitled.

And cyclists don't even have a license to lose! They can be as reckless as they want, and might even get a fine for their behavior, but they will be back on their bike the next day.

Come on. Wake up and smell the coffee. Neither I nor anyone else have ever seen a motor vehicle do what this idiot did yesterday. First, because it could only do the first half of his stunt. The second half of veering onto the sidewalk and then blowing through an open gate into a park would be physically impossible. So stuff the "motorists are just as bad" part. They may do other things but not anti-social dangerous things like this in urban areas reserved for pedestrians. The incident by the Lance Armstrong wannabe yesterday makes a NYC bike courier look like a senior citizen by comparison. And I would suggest to you that the percentage of cyclists who ignore traffic rules is far greater than that of motorists. It is a regular occurrence, encouraged by cycling activists. The city is encouraging the growth in the number of cyclists and thus encouraging the growth of this sort of behavior. It is not hard to connect the dots.

Sure, we haven't specifically seen that. But I've seen plenty of motorists going the wrong way in roundabouts, down one way streets, and on highway off ramps. I've seen them run red lights, stop for no reason, etc. All maneuvers that are much more dangerous to other people than what a typical cyclist does.

You don't hear of many cyclists killing pedestrians, but vehicle-pedestrian collisions are practically a pandemic and is only getting worse.

And yesterday I was driving on the TCH westbound in Moncton, exiting onto Gorge Road, and there were two 10-12 year old girls cycling along the fucking shoulder of the TCH attempting to cross the Gorge Road exit lane to continue on down the freeway. Traffic was heavy (rush hour) and there were transport trailers both in the passing lane next to me, and behind me.

About three cars ahead of me had to brake aggressively to avoid this one girl who attempted to cross the exit lane on her bicycle, despite all the exiting traffic, and I was forced to do the same, all the time wondering how good the brakes were on the 18 wheeler bearing down behind me. :hell:

Luckily, all the drivers were alert enough to avoid a catastrophe, but the actions of these cyclists could have resulted in a multivehicle pile-up with multiple fatalities, so don't tell me that cyclists are always virtuous innocent victims in any motor vehicle accident! :hell: :hell: :hell:

There's a large body of research showing that requiring licenses for cycling substantially decreases cycling rates, does little or nothing to improve safety, and increases administrative burden and costs to government. I understand why people think it's such a no-brainer, but there are good reasons why almost no jurisdiction anywhere actually requires it.

Well it's a good thing I never said any of that.

Welcome to the internet, where facts don't matter and anecdotal evidence is all you need. Also your facts are made up and biased.

Anyway, Queens Marque - anybody know when the boardwalk is scheduled to open? Just wondering because this thread makes me want to slowly walk into the harbour.

No idea but I also wonder about the Muntz metal screens, if they are happening, and when. There are apparently clips for the panels up on the building facade.

All done or sponsored by cycling advocacy groups no doubt. But by all means, let's let people of any age with no accountability for their actions, no training, nor any understanding of rules of the road loose on highways with 20-ton trucks whizzing past or in traffic with lots of cars that can squash them like a bug.

Why should the health, safety, and comfort of peninsula residents be systematically compromised because so many people choose to live in large suburban homes and commute by car? That sounds more like suburban elitism to me.

A very significant proportion of peninsula residents already get around by walking and cycling. Hardly a "fiction" when we already have as many as 35,000 peninsula residents walking and cycling on a daily basis. It has also been established that many more would be interested in commuting by active transportation if the infrastructure was in place.

The real fiction is the recurring allegation on this forum that cycling is only possible in Halifax a few months out of the year.

The vast majority of roads and streets in Halifax are built for cars. And that will still be the case once the AAA cycleway network is in place!

Nobody is going to prevent you from driving. Some of us don't want to drive, or can't afford to. That means fewer cars on the road, which I would think would please motorists rather than eliciting rants against anything that benefits non-car owners. :shrug:

I agree that city centres should be for the access and use of all residents across the entire metro area, but that access definitely has to be done in an efficient, respectful way that doesn't degrade its livability and attractiveness. There needs to be a balance, and currently the balance is in favour of those coming in from the outside. There are many people living in urban Halifax such as those attending university who are not wealthy or elite and for whom active transportation would be a great option if things were improved. Halifax is not gentrified nearly to the point where the central urban areas can be plausibly presented as a bastion of wealthy elites.

Also, the idea of cycle lanes being built to coax people to drive into town via bike is false as the majority of active transport occurs within the urban area itself across distances that are manageable for many people rather than from suburban to urban. I don't know if that talking point is an honest misunderstanding or an intentional strawman, but it needs to end.

But that is what is going on. Bike lanes on the Bedford Highway and Bay Road, the trail on the former rail line that ends at Ashburn, and of course the megabucks bike flyover lane off the Macdonald bridge. If you are saying those initiatives need to be cancelled then I am in full agreement.

It is interesting that the usual suspects on Council (Mason, Cleary and Austin) derailed the move yesterday to appoint a new traffic authority in HRM because they were not getting the decisions they wanted. Clearly was complaining in the press today that the authority made it impossible for Councillors to get traffic lights, directional signage and other street changes put in place as they wanted. I sure as heck hope so! The last thing anyone should want is having those jackwagons tinkering with things like that. It's bad enough that they have co-opted much of the planning dept in HRM to do their evil bidding.

I had a medical appt today that forced me onto SGR for the first time in months. There I saw the latest HRM Planning lunacy, the "slow streets" initiative as applied to the retail district part of SGR. Metal crown control barriers lined either side of the street several feet out from the curbs. Not only did that take away any on-street parking and loading areas but also bus stops were in the middle of the street. I am unsure but I think the cab stand is gone also. But the space is fairly useless for pedestrians and others to use as the legs of those barriers are perpendicular to the fences and thus jut into the space, leaving only a very narrow corridor. What is the cost of all this foolishness? Did HRM not get the memo that COVID requires financial prudence going forward? When their commercial tax revenue tanks next year as a result of business failures hopefully there can be a much-needed downsizing of the bureaucracy.

Speaking of cabals and conspiracy,...I understand that someone got on a plane and noticed a bunch of city planners dressed in black on their way to Halifax...to create trouble for cars and build bike lanes.

But in terms of Queens Marque, I believe that most of the exterior work has been completed around the perimeter of the building. I was there on the weekend. It looks great. Very tasteful.

They are currently in the process of laying the pavers within the interior courtyards. They had the same vacuum/machine that was used on Argyle to move the paver blocks into place.

The urban parts of Dartmouth are part of the urban core and certainly part of the areas that are geographically accessible by active transport which the bridge is a key part of. Few of the people using the flyover are going to be coming from outer areas like Cole Harbour or Eastern Passage or even Westphal. It's one of - if not the - busiest cycle routes in town so it isn't related to such criticisms. In terms of the Bedford hwy, I'd have to see the actual data but I'd suspect most people biking on that stretch would be making shorter, more local trips rather than biking from Bedford to central hfx as the BH acts as the main street for a fairly large area. It would definitely be necessary to see the actual data before any higher level investments could be justified beyond something like a bit of line paint. Such investments are limited and should be spent where they have the greatest potential for benefit.

SGR is a great place if you want a coffee. If you want to make a retail purchase head over the Halifax Shopping Centre - SGR has seen a steady decline in retail activity for more than a decade and the streetscape has become a visual mess.

Part of it is that there is painted lines right now, on both sides, and no sidewalks for many parts of the road. Accessing bus stops, businesses, or cycling for commute or for fun are all reserved for the brave. The suggested plan is a multi-use path, similar to the one along Barrington St. to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists more safely and remove them from the flow of traffic.

The problem with current bike infrastructure is its still piecemeal. The Barrington Greenway dumps you out at the South End onto a 4-lane road. At the North End, there's a light you have to wait 5 minutes for if you want to continue up Devonshire. Similar on Lower Water, the Queen's Marque lane dumps you into an intersection that narrows to a 1-maybe-2 lane road, and then into the Cogswell Interchange.

There's stretches that do work well, but the bits in between are still largely reserved for the brave.

...not if you REALLY try. O you accidentally step on the gas. :haha:

Dec 27, 2020

https://i.postimg.cc/y8bXTSRH/7-CAA8...-E7617-E35.jpg

Does anyone else find this a hideously ugly building, monolithically forbidding streetside and a blight on the waterfront? To me it's about as inviting as a root canal.

What a disappointment. What a waste.

It is not finished yet so I think it is a bit early to pass judgement. It seems to have a lot of nicer than average finishes already and integrates well with the Lower Water Street side. Hard to say what the water side will be like when that area is full of construction material, half built, and not yet open to the public.

Mason, Cleary and Austin would love Pyongyang North Korea because there is no car traffic on the road.

Mason, Cleary and Austin seem to believe that if we block the roads to traffic with metal barriers and call it "Slow Streets," then it will be a utopian fantasy where people will be dancing in the streets wearing top hats and drinking tea.

I still have a few issues with the busy-ness of the facade in some respects, but overall I'm more impressed every time I see it.

Contrary to the "ugly and out-of-scale" commentary from some folks, it's clearly been designed with a lot of care for its location. The materials reflect the stone used on other nearby monumental buildings (AGNS and Dominion, mainly), its roofline reflects a graceful descent to the water from the those structures, and it seems to address the water beautifully (full judgement reserved until I experience it).

The Water Street side of things is also vastly improved. The new laneway between the MMA and the Marque is a nice pedestrian thoroughfare, and Water Street itself feels much more inviting with the broader sidewalk and bike path. Every time I was down there this autumn the space was active and busy despite being incomplete.

And while it IS imposing, the attention to street-level detail in the facade makes up for that, some of which is detailed here.

I think in five years, or less, everyone but the diehards will have embraced it as just part of the city.

I sure hope so.

I don't count myself among the diehards. I've been wanting to give this complex a chance since it was a hole on the ground (and the water) but it hasn't grown on me in the least as it's progressed.

Maybe it'll be more appealing from the water on a July day...

There's a bit of a bias in these skyline-style shots (which I like, to be clear). When you're walking around in person you don't get a view 50 m up in the air floating over the water. You see the ground-level details first and foremost and then the upper floors have a noticeable but smaller impact.

The public aspect of Queen's Marque will be experienced mostly by people on foot in these different sub-areas like on that observation platform, on Lower Water Street, or walking along the boardwalk and through the passageways. One potential good aspect of the development is how, even though it's large, it has many distinct fine-grained public spaces. I think that is part of why it looks so busy from afar, but the fine-grained aspect is likely to outweigh the building's overall sculptural elegance.

On top of this of course there's the private interior space and the fact that this land is going to generate vastly more value than what was there before.

I spent quite a few days on the waterfront this summer and was always impressed by the development.
At least on waterfront level - the details are very nice, and will only improve once retail fills in and the boardwalk opens. The water street side is mixed for me - it feels fairly looming but the ground floor is well lit and the lobbies are mixed in design which breaks up the structure a bit.

One thing you don't hear much about downtown Halifax is how there are functionally different areas packed into a small space. A lot of people do talk about needing to make everything friendly which is sort of good but a low resolution way of thinking about this. Another variant monoculturist view is the idea that more green space everywhere is always better, as if the ideal is to live in the woods and the city is always a kind of compromise.

My impression is that for the Province House and Hollis/George area, looming masonry buildings are part of the appeal. And I think the Lower Water side of Queen's Marque is a part of that. The water side is something different.

On Manhattan you've got say Greenwich Village and then Lower Manhattan. Two dramatically different feels, both with their own appeal. Something would be lost of the whole island were Greenwich-Village-ified or Lower-Manhattan-ified.

In Halifax I get the impression this has shifted a bit with more tolerance now for more urban and modern stuff while the small town stuff has dropped off a bit. In the 90's there were more people who conceived of say Spring Garden Road as a kind of pseudo small town main street where you'd drive up and park in behind on those Clyde lots. That's pretty much gone now. I hope appreciation of bona fide urban development, as part of an overall mix, not necessarily what you want everywhere, is increasing.

I think there’s a misunderstanding as to why green space is added to urban areas. Whenever new green space is added to an ongoing development, you see it denounced as bad judgement on the part of a landscape architect or as part of some greenie plot.

Really, the reasons are much more practical. The newly planted sedges along South Park st. strike me as more of a storm water management project than anything. Trees are more about shielding pedestrians from the urban heat island effect than air quality. In fact, if the forested canopy of a street is too dense it actually worsens local air quality because it prevents emissions from dissipating.

Simply describing green space as “eco-friendly” or “beautiful” excludes a lot from the picture, but those reasons are probably used because they’re more popular with the public. I’m sure the housing market could speak to that as well, since properties in “greener” urban areas tend to be worth more.

I don't feel that strongly about it, but I feel a big opportunity was missed by making it so monolithic along the street. I would much prefer to see a large "gate" at the centre of the street-side section - maybe 3 or 4 stories tall and wide enough to give a nice line of sight to the street and beyond from many angles on the waterfront side.

Haven't been there in awhile, but I mostly like it. I like the fact that high quality materials are used as cladding and that its design is somewhat unified, unlike a lot of new buildings lately.

I actually like the way it creates a bit of a canyon effect on Lower Water with the Dominion Public Building as well.

Mostly, however, I will appreciate how it interacts with the waterfront boardwalk, which will be a vast improvement over what was (and wasn't) there before.

Still reserving final opinions until it's finished, this covid crap is over with, and everybody can experience the space as it's meant to be. :2cents:

I’m waiting to see how the light beam turns out. The rendering makes it look like the unfinished framework of a building, but I’m hoping it will turn out nicer in person.

Drove past today and a sheet of the decorative metal cladding was being installed.

I know I'm in the minority on this site with this opinion, but this complex still hasn't grown on me one iota, from any angle.

To my eye, it just seems totally out of place in its surroundings, as if it was unknowingly dropped onto the waterfront in error. I keep hoping it'll be discovered missing and someone will come back to pick it up.

I agree with you! Mind you, I haven’t been around to the harbour side but in general it looks like a monolith that was dropped in the wrong spot or maybe the wrong city.

MUIR, an Autograph Collection hotel from Marriott currently set to open in July:

https://muirhotel.com/

Peace by Chocolate opened up in Queen's Marque too:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Evucp2dX...jpg&name=large
Source

Looks like Mayor Mike bellying up to the chocolate bar.

Shots of the Muntz metal detail:

https://i.imgur.com/VFRhCaX.jpg
Source

https://i.imgur.com/N7coKiy.jpg
Source

I am with you in that camp. It just feels out of place, and out of scale. I took a little jaunt around it when last in the city, and it just felt like it would have fit better next to Alderney landing. But that would mean the Dartmouth waterfront would get something new and cultural, and Halifax can't have that.

I have not seen this in person but one aspect of new developments I find interesting is how quickly and frequently they get introduced into photography. Queen's Marque was immediately popular. This can't be said for all new developments. I think it will be explored and photographed a lot more when fully open.

I think the QM will fit much more into place when some of the emptier sites downtown are filled. It'll likely match the scale of the new art gallery and then anchor the various redevelopments/builds planned for George Street. Once completed and pedestrian traffic can move through the middle on the boardwalk I'm sure it'll feel more fitting.

I am curious to know how those muntz metal details will impact the lighting on the interior office spaces, though I'm sure it'll certainly mitigate the greenhouse effect.