Halifax Population & Growth

[Keith P.]

This initiative would be laughable if it was not so pathetic. Halifax has never planned for growth of over 100,000 people, much less 1 million. Doing as the article says, accommodating them in existing serviced areas, simply will not work as those services are not sized appropriately. We went from a sleepy little city in the 1950s that, if a resident then magically reappeared to visit today, still looks virtually identical in terms of infrastructure. The same 2 lane North St, Windsor St, parts of Robie and Chebucto Rd, and the same bottlenecks DT. We have a lot more buses, but they get stuck at those same bottlenecks. The Macdonald bridge has a third reversing lane but bottlenecks at either end due to unchanged surface streets and intersections. Most of our signalized intersections are dumb and do not adjust to traffic volumes. We treat widening major routes as heresy. And it has always been that way. Currently we have an interest group trying to protect trees on Robie St to torpedo a bus lane.

I sort of think it would make more sense to build a new city-like annex somewhere out between Bedford and Timberlea with its own DT and high-rises there. Start from scratch instead of jamming all those people on the peninsula.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

This initiative would be laughable if it was not so pathetic. Halifax has never planned for growth of over 100,000 people, much less 1 million. Doing as the article says, accommodating them in existing serviced areas, simply will not work as those services are not sized appropriately...........

I sort of think it would make more sense to build a new city-like annex somewhere out between Bedford and Timberlea with its own DT and high-rises there. Start from scratch instead of jamming all those people on the peninsula.

Interestingly, this new area could be Dartmouth. All of Wyse Rd., most of Windmill Rd., cluster around the bridge. etc. Many small structures up for demolition. If you can demolish valued Victorian architecture on Robie St. then Wyse Rd. doesn't stand a chance.

[Drybrain]

Interesting data from this year's Halifax Index: population growth was last among 10 benchmark cities last year, but it was also the third-highest in the city's history. i.e., we grew slowly last year compared to other cities, but we grew like gangbusters compared to the recent past--which shows how crazy growth has gotten in general, nationwide.

Permanent immigration was actually higher than the previous year, so the slowdown is due to two factors, one minor, one major. The minor one is that both interprovincial and intraprovincial growth were slightly negative, which is a change from recent years. (The benchmark cities all have worse outmigration, though, so we're still "ahead" on that metric, though only by not doing as poorly). The real shift seems to be that Halifax experienced a sharp decline in non-permanent residents last year, before that change really hit other cities. My bet is that Halifax's 2025 growth rate is back to being more middle of the pack in Canada/benchmark cities, as that non-permanent reversal hits other CMAs.

More interesting than any of that is where the growth is going in Halifax. Basically: mostly by intensifying the urban core and inner suburbs, but also a pretty substantial amount of "inner rural" development around both Hammonds Plains and Enfield. The peninsula overall grew by 14.5 percent, from 75,000 people to nearly 86,000. Even with the recent growth slowdown, it seems plausible tthat he peninsula will pass 100,000 people by the end of the decade. It also crept up from about 16 percent of the HRM population to about 17 percent. Not a big change, but it is interesting that the region has become slightly more centralized, which I imagine is opposite to the trend in most cities.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The minor one is that both interprovincial and intraprovincial growth were slightly negative, which is a change from recent years. (The benchmark cities all have worse outmigration, though, so we're still "ahead" on that metric, though only by not doing as poorly).

They are showing HRM and not the Halifax CMA. I'm not sure where the intraprovincial data is but some portion of that can be migration of commuters to areas like Hants which are still in the metro. A lot of home buyers in areas like Elmsdale are probably just first-time Halifax-area home buyers. Toronto has a significant amount of outmigration that's really just suburban growth.

The peninsula overall grew by 14.5 percent, from 75,000 people to nearly 86,000. Even with the recent growth slowdown, it seems plausible that he peninsula will pass 100,000 people by the end of the decade. It also crept up from about 16 percent of the HRM population to about 17 percent. Not a big change, but it is interesting that the region has become slightly more centralized, which I imagine is opposite to the trend in most cities.

I'd put part of Fairview and Dartmouth in the urban core as well. The Macdonald bridge area in Dartmouth will clearly be in this camp in a few years.

I suspect this is one of the larger urban cores in the country, larger than or roughly on par with any city aside from Tor/Mtl/Van. Halifax could really use improved transit to cover these areas.

[someone123]

Waye Mason's urban core community council proposals roughly cover the areas I'd include:

https://wayemason.ca/2015/01/17/urban-core-community-council/

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Empire

Interestingly, this new area could be Dartmouth. All of Wyse Rd., most of Windmill Rd., cluster around the bridge. etc. Many small structures up for demolition. If you can demolish valued Victorian architecture on Robie St. then Wyse Rd. doesn't stand a chance.

Well, the only historic building I can think of on Wyse Rd was the first Tim Horton's in NS, and that's been demo'ed long ago, so nothing to worry about there. Demo of buildings on Wyse can only be an improvement. The issue with growth there is that it will all be dependent upon the two existing bridges to a very great extent, which is a big mistake. Transit, such as it is, is dependent upon them and their bottlenecks. The ferry is not a practical option given the lack of service between the two areas. Big changes are needed if the area is going to be useful.

[MonctonRad]

I lived in Halifax (south end and central peninsula) from 1979-89. At the time, the population of metro Halifax was about 320,000, Halifax was (at the time) a vibrant and perfectly functional city. I enjoyed living in Halifax. I was sad when I had to leave.

Halifax now has about 550,000 people, an increase of 70-75%, Halifax remains a vibrant and interesting city, but, I would argue it is much less functional. The peninsula is becoming increasingly inaccessible to suburbanites and visitors to the city.

It is hard to imagine what a Halifax of 1,000,000 people would be like. Unless things change, there will be absolute chaos.

The downtown peninsula is geographically constrained with only a few choke points for vehicular access. This is not going to change. It is just the way it is.

Halifax has two choices.

1) - The city can decide to move much of the economic activity off-peninsula, establishing secondary nodes in Dartmouth, Bedford-Sackville and along the Highways 101 and 102 corridors. The peninsula can live on as a governmental centre, the home to the region's universities and, the largest hospitals, as well as the centre of the tourism industry. Existing peninsular neighbourhoods can serve the tourism, governmental and institutional sectors. Meanwhile, the off-peninsular commercial districts can be interconnected by multiple expressways. Such a set-up might not be ideal, but, it would be functional. Think of Quebec City as an example.

Or

2) - Halifax can bite the bullet big time and go whole hog on mass transit options onto the peninsula. This can not be by expanding the highway access to the peninsula. The peninsula is just too geographically constrained. A third bridge could be considered, but, the problem remains of what happens to all the bridge traffic once it gets dumped on the peninsula. There would still be gridlock. The answer lies in commuter rail and a subway system, perhaps supplemented by LRT to inner suburbs. This is the only way to get tens (perhaps a hundred) thousand new commuters onto the peninsula every day.

This mass transit option will be horrendously expensive, and, given projections that Halifax may be at 1M souls by 2050, should already be under construction rather than not yet in the planning stages. This is rapidly becoming an emergency situation.

It is time for HRM council and the provincial government to shit or get off the pot. There has been procrastination and delay for a quarter century. All this has done is create a crisis. We are now in a situation where massive mobilization is necessary.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

This initiative would be laughable if it was not so pathetic. Halifax has never planned for growth of over 100,000 people, much less 1 million. Doing as the article says, accommodating them in existing serviced areas, simply will not work as those services are not sized appropriately. We went from a sleepy little city in the 1950s that, if a resident then magically reappeared to visit today, still looks virtually identical in terms of infrastructure. The same 2 lane North St, Windsor St, parts of Robie and Chebucto Rd, and the same bottlenecks DT. We have a lot more buses, but they get stuck at those same bottlenecks. The Macdonald bridge has a third reversing lane but bottlenecks at either end due to unchanged surface streets and intersections. Most of our signalized intersections are dumb and do not adjust to traffic volumes. We treat widening major routes as heresy. And it has always been that way. Currently we have an interest group trying to protect trees on Robie St to torpedo a bus lane.

There's nothing pathetic about planning for 1 million, only for expecting it to function well with the type of auto-centric mindset that's existed up till now. Of course, Halifax could function with 1 million but it would necessitate the build out of an extensive underground LRT/subway system leaving the majority of the surface given over to pedestrians and cycling infrastructure.

In other words, you need a very small % of commuters using cars and those almost all PT trips done below grade. Isn't this precisely what planning means? You plan how a city must be designed/re-designed based on constraints that exist. I will agree on one point. Planners are likely not up to the task ahead of them. This is a city that allowed an absurd development like Dartmouth Crossing to be built. They're still stuck in the 1960s and think about commuting in terms of cars first and surface PT.

Dartmouth Crossing was actually one of the big red flags that cemented my decision NOT to move back to Halifax.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by isaidso

There's nothing pathetic about planning for 1 million, only for expecting it to function well with the type of auto-centric mindset that's existed up till now. Of course, Halifax could function with 1 million but it would necessitate the build out of an extensive underground LRT/subway system leaving the majority of the surface given over to pedestrians and cycling infrastructure.

In other words, you need a very small % of commuters using cars and those almost all PT trips done below grade. Isn't this precisely what planning means? You plan how a city must be designed/re-designed based on constraints that exist. I will agree on one point. Planners are likely not up to the task ahead of them. This is a city that allowed an absurd development like Dartmouth Crossing to be built. They're still stuck in the 1960s and think about commuting in terms of cars first and surface PT.

Dartmouth Crossing was actually one of the big red flags that cemented my decision NOT to move back to Halifax.

Dartmouth Crossing? Really? That has ruined the city how?

It’s outside the city core, right next to a business park and alongside major transportation routes, and probably would have remained an undeveloped inactive quarry for many years, but instead it has shops, restaurants, hotels, and a theatre for those choosing to go there. If you don’t like that type of development, you can support the type that you do. It’s beautiful to have those kind of choices, and IIRC, DC is a great option for those who live outside the city to shop, and avoid clogging up the cherished downtown streets with extra out of town traffic (which works both ways).

I agree on the LRT rant, though I suspect it would have to be suspended above existing as opposed to tunneling underground, but I don’t understand all the ire and energy directed towards a shopping area located next to an existing industrial and business area. FWIW, they are also building apartment buildings next do DC. So… density!! We could even look at this as a win for those who might want to live near their work, with shopping right next door.

[someone123]

I think the city should do a mix of road work, transit, and active transportation. I don't think 1 million people would have to be a catastrophe. A lot of new development is infill and presumably a higher proportion of people are walking, biking, or finding other non-car-non-transit ways of completing many of their trips.

There's a happy medium for road and highway work which includes the peninsula. The 102 should be connected up with the 111 via an elevated portion and the MacKay replaced/expanded. Highway 113 should be built (the Burnside Connector was also needed but is done now). There should also be a small, attractive bridge over the arm, maybe transit/pedestrian/AT only, extending from South Street. Some reversing lanes should be added around the city similar to how the Macdonald works today.

There should be a streetcar-like system for the peninsula and Dartmouth (following the BRT plan corridors more or less; Robie would be widened as planned, for transit) with a more LRT-like line going out to Lacewood and serving the mainland suburbs. Tunnels and elevated portions can be used to get around bottlenecks. This would be complemented by an expanded ferry system and possibly commuter rail. A short branch line could be built to serve the airport. There would be hourly airport/Hants/Truro trains, multiple trains a day to NB, and daily to Montreal.

[LikesBikes]

We have the space for a million people, but not a million cars. We need to incentivize development in places people can get by without cars (looking at you, South End) and make it comfortable to live without a car in more places. This means more bike lanes, but more importantly, more buses and dedicated transit infrastructure. IMO just copy + paste some combination of MTL's REM or the Skytrain and make it work. Yes, it's trick I'm sure, but if there's a will there's a way.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, the only historic building I can think of on Wyse Rd was the first Tim Horton's in NS, and that's been demo'ed long ago, so nothing to worry about there. Demo of buildings on Wyse can only be an improvement. The issue with growth there is that it will all be dependent upon the two existing bridges to a very great extent, which is a big mistake. Transit, such as it is, is dependent upon them and their bottlenecks. The ferry is not a practical option given the lack of service between the two areas. Big changes are needed if the area is going to be useful.

Probably the most historic building on Wyse Rd was the old ropeworks building, and that was demolished just a few years ago. Everything else there is somewhat unremarkable, IMHO.

As far as it not being a great place to build, I think that’s based upon the old idea that everyone had to work in downtown Halifax, which only has resulted in commuter headaches. IMHO, there are a lot of people who work on the Dartmouth side that might want to avoid the cost and congestion of Halifax. Decentralizing business centres (combined with WFH) could allow viable residential areas that are outside the traditional urbanist viewpoint.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

We have the space for a million people, but not a million cars. We need to incentivize development in places people can get by without cars (looking at you, South End) and make it comfortable to live without a car in more places. This means more bike lanes, but more importantly, more buses and dedicated transit infrastructure. IMO just copy + paste some combination of MTL's REM or the Skytrain and make it work. Yes, it's trick I'm sure, but if there's a will there's a way.

I like a combination of this, and Monctonrad’s option 1. IMHO, there is not just one simple philosophy that gets us there. We have to consider best use of the land that we have, and consider that plenty of people would like to have the option of travelling without a car, while many others would choose a car (especially those who live outside the city centre and can’t afford to live downtown, or don’t want to live in a congested, densely populated area).

There’s a solution out there, but it will require creativity, and consideration for others who may have different preferences than us.

[terrynorthend]

💯
But thinking back 25 years, the city hasn't changed much in terms of infrastructure. Sure it's grown out into new suburbs, but the only substantial change to existing roads that I can think of is the Burnside Connector. Transit hasn't increased, probably become worse.
We need to get moving on projects ASAP!

Originally Posted by someone123

I think the city should do a mix of road work, transit, and active transportation. I don't think 1 million people would have to be a catastrophe. A lot of new development is infill and presumably a higher proportion of people are walking, biking, or finding other non-car-non-transit ways of completing many of their trips.

There's a happy medium for road and highway work which includes the peninsula. The 102 should be connected up with the 111 via an elevated portion and the MacKay replaced/expanded. Highway 113 should be built (the Burnside Connector was also needed but is done now). There should also be a small, attractive bridge over the arm, maybe transit/pedestrian/AT only, extending from South Street. Some reversing lanes should be added around the city similar to how the Macdonald works today.

There should be a streetcar-like system for the peninsula and Dartmouth (following the BRT plan corridors more or less; Robie would be widened as planned, for transit) with a more LRT-like line going out to Lacewood and serving the mainland suburbs. Tunnels and elevated portions can be used to get around bottlenecks. This would be complemented by an expanded ferry system and possibly commuter rail. A short branch line could be built to serve the airport. There would be hourly airport/Hants/Truro trains, multiple trains a day to NB, and daily to Montreal.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Dartmouth Crossing was actually one of the big red flags that cemented my decision NOT to move back to Halifax.

It's interesting - I would have agreed with you, but now I view DC as somewhat of a success... especially with housing going in nearby. It's actually quite 'village style' and genuinely more walkable than BL.

It's actually a suprisingly good development that should be better connected with transit, but does well to exist within the environs (give it a bit more time to integrate).

Where do you live now? I can respectfully say that DC does better than some areas of my favourite European cities.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I like a combination of this, and Monctonrad’s option 1. IMHO, there is not just one simple philosophy that gets us there. We have to consider best use of the land that we have, and consider that plenty of people would like to have the option of travelling without a car, while many others would choose a car (especially those who live outside the city centre and can’t afford to live downtown, or don’t want to live in a congested, densely populated area).

There’s a solution out there, but it will require creativity, and consideration for others who may have different preferences than us.

But, it isn't about preferences. There are better models.

We should be looking to Amsterdam and Melbourne, point blank.

Can't afford to live downtown usually = subsidy borne by people who live on the peninusla for the roads needed to 'get downtown'. Food for thought.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

But, it isn't about preferences. There are better models.

We should be looking to Amsterdam and Melbourne, point blank.

Can't afford to live downtown usually = subsidy borne by people who live on the peninusla for the roads needed to 'get downtown'. Food for thought.

It should be about preferences, though. It’s one of the things that makes Canada a great country in which to live. A variety of living situations that are attractive to a variety of people. It’s one of the reasons that people like to move here.

I find the subsidy argument to be getting kind of tired, though. A city, especially in a spacious country like Canada, will always have various kinds of neighborhoods with various costs attached to them. Everyone pays for everything in the city, even the attractive downtown features that are mostly enjoyed by people who live there. The high cost of living downtown is an effect of supply and demand, but it’s always a fun go-to to treat the suburbs and beyond as some type of privileged living arrangement that the poor suffering people who are forced to live downtown have to pay for.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

We should be looking to Amsterdam and Melbourne, point blank.

From what I've seen of Amsterdam it would be a terrible model to emulate. Those who decry vehicle dependency and traffic here need to spend time there. It is like a giant spaceship full of bikes crashed into the place and left them everywhere. Not only do they totally dominate the city landscape by being piled up absolutely everywhere and regularly needing to be fished out of the canals, but the cyclists there are like cyclists here, acting like the rules do not apply to them and flying through groups of pedestrians and going anywhere they want despite being where they are not supposed to go. Just a different type of hellhole.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

From what I've seen of Amsterdam it would be a terrible model to emulate. Those who decry vehicle dependency and traffic here need to spend time there. It is like a giant spaceship full of bikes crashed into the place and left them everywhere. Not only do they totally dominate the city landscape by being piled up absolutely everywhere and regularly needing to be fished out of the canals, but the cyclists there are like cyclists here, acting like the rules do not apply to them and flying through groups of pedestrians and going anywhere they want despite being where they are not supposed to go. Just a different type of hellhole.

What have you seen? I've lived there... probably the best city in the world.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It should be about preferences, though. It’s one of the things that makes Canada a great country in which to live. A variety of living situations that are attractive to a variety of people. It’s one of the reasons that people like to move here.

I find the subsidy argument to be getting kind of tired, though. A city, especially in a spacious country like Canada, will always have various kinds of neighborhoods with various costs attached to them. Everyone pays for everything in the city, even the attractive downtown features that are mostly enjoyed by people who live there. The high cost of living downtown is an effect of supply and demand, but it’s always a fun go-to to treat the suburbs and beyond as some type of privileged living arrangement that the poor suffering people who are forced to live downtown have to pay for.

It's the economics of it. The real estate values are higher on average, so it does amount to a subsidy per KM of roadway for people that temporarily come into the city and create the very congestion they decry. So, you're basically arguing against yourself because choices aren't independent.