This is for the folks who paid attention to the public hearing - I remember that there was an issue with this development because of its proximity to the railway line. Did anything come of that discussion?

I ask because a number of planning friends in various cities are dealing with discussions regarding development near rail lines in light of the Lac Megantic disaster and some of the discussions happening (in terms of limiting development) and the scenarios are quite scary in terms of limiting development.

I believe it was a noise concern.

In this case it was a noise concern. The rezoning does require that a noise barrier be installed along the rear property line. I think it will be 6' - 10' tall so it will help a bit on the ground.

Crane was completed Monday, photos by me:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7640/...73776ee0_b.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7610/...a68d7727_b.jpg[

One from Tuesday.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8738/...c6cf7bfd_b.jpg

http://41.media.tumblr.com/4d92b2c96...dq8o1_1280.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

The problem with the store is not just the undesirable "look" (although it is one of the ugliest and most blatant surface lots downtown due to it prominent location near the bus/train station) but also the wasteful use of land that could support much more density.

Having a sprawly look isn't just an issue of aesthetics though; it's also a functional issue since it affects pedestrian experience and how it fits into and interacts with the urban landscape. Based on my experience with the store there are easily as many if not more people arriving there on foot and bike than in car, and it's not pleasant to have to walk through a large parking lot to get into a local business when you're supposed to be living in a city.

The main entrance should be at the corner where the gas bar now is, and there should also be a staircare portal to a lower parking level. There should be a residential highrise wrapping around the back similar to the Quinpool set up (obviously with a more attractive building), and the vehicle access for the parking level would be off Barrington where the current loading bays are. The gas bar would be under an overhang portion of the highrise toward the back. The front of the building it wouldn't be built right to the street, but rather behind a loading lane and a few accessible parking spaces similar to the Westin and the train station.

The window wall has gone up on the back half of the building.

https://40.media.tumblr.com/3dbc7c70...kjeo4_1280.jpg

https://41.media.tumblr.com/781980f2...kjeo3_1280.jpg

https://41.media.tumblr.com/b35ebbc0...kjeo2_1280.jpg

https://41.media.tumblr.com/d1d97f65...kjeo1_1280.jpg

There's a sidewalk though. The parking lot is really easy to go around. I live a few blocks from there and buy groceries there every other day.

I agree that the site definitely has a lot more potential than its current use, but I do see this mostly as a case of missed potential, not actual inconvenience to pedestrians, at least in my experience.

I am impressed with both the look and speed of this development!

The reason I mention aesthetics is that it constantly comes up as a main point every time surface parking is mentioned. I understand the land use issues, but I have to address the aesthetic issue because it is always mentioned.

As Hali mentioned, you never have to walk through the parking lot if you are traveling on foot or by bike. Take a look at it on the Google maps link below and you will see the entrance to the store is directly linked to the sidewalk by a wide walkway. There is also a crosswalk located at about the mid-point of the building to get you to the residential areas.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.63837...7i13312!8i6656

The other side of the store/parking lot only leads to the park or hotel/train station, so I don't see where that would be an issue for pedestrians. I've shopped there many times and have yet to see an empty parking lot, so therefore I believe they need to provide parking for their customers.

So while I agree that perhaps the store could be laid out better from an urban perspective, its current layout is not beautiful but is functional.

As an aside, thinking of an urban-layout grocery store, how would a 2+ storey grocery store work, with everybody pushing carts around? Seems like you would need an abundance of elevators to move people from level to level with their carts. I'm sure they exist but can't recall shopping in one, so I'm wondering how practical this type of layout could be.

There are cart escalators (Target at MicMac had one. There are a couple of urban format Canadian Tires in Toronto in Ottawa that use them as well) or conveyor ramps (The WalMart at Square One in Mississauga is the only one I've seen in person - the Target there used the escalator system), so there are definitely options out there.

I had forgotten the one at Target. Would be interested to see how the conveyor ramps work.

Thanks!

The Whole Foods that is right on Union Square in NYC actually is multi-story, and has these really cool cart conveyors that you drop off and then meet up with again at the bottom.

Image of it can be found here:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Y9LbshoBnS.../s1600/503.JPG

It's really just a very long moving walkway with a (relatively - still quite manageable with a cart since you just have to hold it in place) steep incline to make it a ramp. The Walmart at Square One is quite large, so has the floor space to pull it off. Otherwise the cart escalators are a more compact system.

Yeah, that's what Target and the CTs I mentioned used. It seems to be the common option for large urban format stores.

I don't think a multi-story store layout is necessarily what is needed to fix that site. It just needs to be something built up to the front of the lot. Ideally it would also be mixed-use, have underground parking, and not have a completely generic design.

Not disagreeing, just musing on how that land could be used to increase density, as nouvellecosse was alluding to. Is underground parking practical in this area that is so close to sea level (for ground water concerns)? Presumably Southport will have it, so it should be OK. I'm guessing it is fairly close to where the original shoreline would have been before the Ocean Terminals were built, but can't say for certain.

From the Old Halifax thread in the Halifax Photos section:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/l...psysxmhvoj.jpg

From Keith P's photobucket:
http://s289.photobucket.com/user/kei...mhvoj.jpg.html

1878 map:
http://novascotia.ca/archives/virtua...ives.asp?ID=31

How about a multi-level store with a smaller footprint, the aforementioned underground garage, and the rest of the land all residential?

Bishop's Landing has underground parking that is below sea level.

They could also do structured parking in behind or above the store.

It didn't occur to me that Bishop's was done this way. I wonder if they had to do anything special to seal it off. Structured behind the store would work with a penalty to land use.

That said, I wonder if Loblaw's would be willing to spend that kind of money on such a project, as it would surely be more expensive than what is currently there.

Interesting (to me anyways) mental exercise...

Anytime I've went there I've always been coming down Barrington, so i'd either have to take the long way to avoid the parking lot and gas station, or take the most direct route by going through it. which is what I do. And that's what i was getting at. Inconveniencing pedestrians for the sake of catering to automobiles. It isn't a matter of whether one has to walk thru the parking lot or be forced to walk an extended walk way, but rather having people diverted and forced to walk extra distance to get to an entrance that should have been built at the street, like on Quinpool.

Just because there's a need (or perhaps desire is a better term than need) to provide parking, it doesn't mean the parking has to be front and centre and be the focus of the development. And some would also argue that the concept of demand inducement applies here. If you invite people to do things a certain way, make it the most visible/obvious way and make it easy for them to do it, then chances are many will do it. From what i can tell, Pete's Frootique doesn't have any parking at all, but I'm 100% certain that if it did, the lot wouldn't sit empty either. So, that would be proof that it was needed?

Besides, things that are built in an auto centric manner are often to some degree functional; my criticism is of how they function. If it didn't function at all then the store would go out of business and we'd have no need for discussion.

The shoppers on SGR is two levels as well and they also have the choice of baskets which seem most popular or carts and an elevator with cart capacity (and many people even in grocery stores use baskets nowdays). But I don't think the main shopping concourse would really need to be on more than one level. They could always put axillary functions upstairs, like the NSLC, healthfood section, washrooms, Joe Fresh, canteen/sitting area etc.