General Updates and News

[Musicman Halifax]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Does anyone know what is going on at 1549 Lower Water Street? A blasting permit was just submitted for a new residential building. This is currently home to Waterfront Warehouse which is still operating!

There has been rumours for years about the parking lot being redeveloped. This could finally be happening.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Summerville

One if the first big affordable housing projects,…puts it into perspective of how long it will be before we will be able to effectively deal with the housing crisis.

I guess the other way is to add lots of supply but there is no guarantee that landlords of older stock will ever be under pressure to charge lesser rent.

I really like this one with its funky shape on a funky lot. Hopefully they go with a cool exterior to give it some character

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Cladding can make or break a building. I'm hopeful they don't ruin what appears to be a pretty nicely designed structure.

[HfxGuy]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Does anyone know what is going on at 1549 Lower Water Street? A blasting permit was just submitted for a new residential building. This is currently home to Waterfront Warehouse which is still operating!

I believe that’s for the ralston building redevelopment across the street. Not sure why it would have the address for waterfront warehouse.

[Dmajackson]

^They have cladding up on the northside. The dark colour will be the bulk of the upper floors of both buildings.


HalifaxDevelopments.ca (Photo by David Jackson)

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It cannot be made safer if the incident rate is already zero.

The HRM traffic planners in general and Austin in particular always raise the twin boogeymen of speed and traffic as the rationale for their incessant tinkering and spending on measures to make life worse on the roads of HRM. But in the majority of cases, not only are those not a problem, they can't even be bothered to collect stats on them before narrowing intersections and installing speed bumps and curb extensions. It is seldom a statistically-driven exercise. Instead it is just the mindset that they need to do whatever they can to make getting around more difficult. It needs to stop.

Talk about hyperbole and half truths.

Much to your chagrin, planning is in fact a sophisticated profession one of the objectives of which is to decrease the number of people who are KILLED each year by reckless or inept drivers. Speedbumps make it difficult to speed. Speed limit signs do not. Perish the though of trying to prevent children from getting deleted by adding a few speedbumps and curb bump outs on residential streets not designed for through traffic anyway.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

Talk about hyperbole and half truths.

Much to your chagrin, planning is in fact a sophisticated profession one of the objectives of which is to decrease the number of people who are KILLED each year by reckless or inept drivers. Speedbumps make it difficult to speed. Speed limit signs do not. Perish the though of trying to prevent children from getting deleted by adding a few speedbumps and curb bump outs on residential streets not designed for through traffic anyway.

This is exactly the issue with HRM planning. Resources should be directed where the need is most acute. There has not been a single vehicle-pedestrian incident in the area where I live - I’m not talking deaths, I’m talking everything, major or minor - in literally decades, maybe never. The speed tables as installed do not actually slow most vehicles down since most are not driving anything close to 50 km/h. There is virtually no through traffic either. But good job implying that children are getting killed willy-nilly by bloodthirsty drivers on streets lacking them. Sam Austin would be proud of you.

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

This is exactly the issue with HRM planning. Resources should be directed where the need is most acute. There has not been a single vehicle-pedestrian incident in the area where I live - I’m not talking deaths, I’m talking everything, major or minor - in literally decades, maybe never. The speed tables as installed do not actually slow most vehicles down since most are not driving anything close to 50 km/h. There is virtually no through traffic either. But good job implying that children are getting killed willy-nilly by bloodthirsty drivers on streets lacking them. Sam Austin would be proud of you.

I agree, the need for change ought to be aligned with where the risk is currently highest, but I stand by my point. Auto fatalities are one of the leading causes of death for children and younger adults, and it doesn't need to be this way. I admit this is an issue for which I may revert inappropriately to emotion given the number of times I (as a cyclist) have almost been flattened by drivers when I was following the rules and they were not.

Notwithstanding, the design of vehicles may have as much or more to do with the risk to non-drivers as the design of the roads themselves (see recent full size pickups with a front face height exceeding 4 feet with stock suspension). While I understand we cant all go around wearing bubble wrap and driving at 10km/h, the number of auto fatalities is far higher than it could, and should, be, and that is primarily a failure of design.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

Auto fatalities are one of the leading causes of death for children and younger adults, and it doesn't need to be this way. I admit this is an issue for which I may revert inappropriately to emotion given the number of times I (as a cyclist) have almost been flattened by drivers when I was following the rules and they were not.

Not to mention all the people who don't bike because it isn't safe. If our streets were safer there'd be a lot more people on bikes.

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

Notwithstanding, the design of vehicles may have as much or more to do with the risk to non-drivers as the design of the roads themselves (see recent full size pickups with a front face height exceeding 4 feet with stock suspension). While I understand we cant all go around wearing bubble wrap and driving at 10km/h, the number of auto fatalities is far higher than it could, and should, be, and that is primarily a failure of design.

That's why we need off-road facilities to lessen the number of opportunities for vehicle-on-cyclist collisions.

[Musicman Halifax]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Not to mention all the people who don't bike because it isn't safe. If our streets were safer there'd be a lot more people on bikes.



That's why we need off-road facilities to lessen the number of opportunities for vehicle-on-cyclist collisions.

Exactly what we need. More incompetent cyclists….. The funny thing is I’ve whitnessed or have been a part of 4 accidents in the last 10 or so years in Halifax. Every one was caused by cyclist ineptitude. I’ve also had a pedestrian walk into the side of a 26’ yellow box truck and knock herself out cold….

So please save the “us innocent cyclist crap”.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

^They have cladding up on the northside. The dark colour will be the bulk of the upper floors of both buildings.


HalifaxDevelopments.ca (Photo by David Jackson)

I was hoping this was only the cladding on that side next to the parking structure (which really should have building built on it).

Looks low quality... this form in red brick would have been perfectly suited to this area. This stuff looks almost as bad as vinyl siding.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I was hoping this was only the cladding on that side next to the parking structure (which really should have building built on it).

Looks low quality... this form in red brick would have been perfectly suited to this area. This stuff looks almost as bad as vinyl siding.

Welcome to HRM and a planning department that has no capacity to ensure quality developments. Frustrating...

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Empire

Welcome to HRM and a planning department that has no capacity to ensure quality developments. Frustrating...

It would be great if height could be relegated to the last possible criteria, with materials and quality coming first.

Of course, we are where we are at due to the obsession with certain locals about height (end goal is to make sure Halifax never grows up).

Anti-development people have a bad case of the Peter Pan syndrome...

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Musicman Halifax

So please save the “us innocent cyclist crap”.

If you don't want to see people biking then maybe a city/city forum isn't a good place for you to spend your time.

[Musicman Halifax]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

If you don't want to see people biking then maybe a city/city forum isn't a good place for you to spend your time.

Don’t mind people cycling at all. Matter of fact I do a fair bit myself. However my comment holds true. We don’t need more inept cyclists. If cyclists are to use infrastructure they should first off know what the rules of the roads are and secondly be paying a portion of said infrastructure. Not to mention stop complaining incessantly that cars are out to get them.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Musicman Halifax

If cyclists are to use infrastructure they should first off know what the rules of the roads are and secondly be paying a portion of said infrastructure.

Drivers don't "pay" for roads in the city. Municipal streets are paid for out of municipal funds (i.e., property taxes).

Not to mention that most cyclists are also drivers.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Drivers don't "pay" for roads in the city. Municipal streets are paid for out of municipal funds (i.e., property taxes).

Not to mention that most cyclists are also drivers.

I agree with this statement. Although I do hate when some cyclists give us a bad name.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

Tibs is a distraction, and a block away the meat pies at the lighted crosswalk.

Mmmm... Humble Pie Kitchen!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

If you don't want to see people biking then maybe a city/city forum isn't a good place for you to spend your time.

It's a skyscraper forum, not a cycling forum.

Additionally, given the recent "conversations", maybe it's not a good look to be suggesting that people leave the forum. We should welcome conversations from all perspectives.

Half Axed to appear in 3... 2... 1...

[ButterNutPecan]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It's a skyscraper forum, not a cycling forum.

One would think that the skyscraper forums would support good urbanism, but it seems it's more akin to diving into facebook comments.