Halifax Population & Growth

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

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

I've visited Amsterdam.

Tour guides go out of their way to warn tourists about the cyclists in Amsterdam.

The second I got off the bus, I was almost run over by a cyclist who whisked by the open door of the bus with only a few cm to spare.

From what I saw, cyclists do think they have the right of way all the time, and that pedestrians have to get the hell out of the way.

That aside, Amsterdam was a delightful city. I thought it a city you could easily get lost in, but, I imagine a few weeks there would give you your bearings.

[gohaligo]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I've visited Amsterdam.

Tour guides go out of their way to warn tourists about the cyclists in Amsterdam.

The second I got off the bus, I was almost run over by a cyclist who whisked by the open door of the bus with only a few cm to spare.

From what I saw, cyclists do think they have the right of way all the time, and that pedestrians have to get the hell out of the way.

That aside, Amsterdam was a delightful city. I thought it a city you could easily get lost in, but, I imagine a few weeks there would give you your bearings.

My Experience too of Amsterdam. Lovely friendly city, especially for Canadians. BUT put them on a bike and wow watch out. Clouds of uncontrolled, disrespectful horn and bell ringing idiots.
Although its far less here. Bike people seem to be the same here.
I hate to paint all bike people the same worldwide (possible exception for Tokyo) But they are.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by gohaligo

My Experience too of Amsterdam. Lovely friendly city, especially for Canadians. BUT put them on a bike and wow watch out. Clouds of uncontrolled, disrespectful horn and bell ringing idiots.
Although its far less here. Bike people seem to be the same here.
I hate to paint all bike people the same worldwide (possible exception for Tokyo) But they are.

Bike people? Is it possible that you're allowing a handful of poor cyclists to tarnish your perception of an entire group of people?

I might as well complain about "car people" due to incidents like this.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by gohaligo

My Experience too of Amsterdam. Lovely friendly city, especially for Canadians. BUT put them on a bike and wow watch out. Clouds of uncontrolled, disrespectful horn and bell ringing idiots.
Although its far less here. Bike people seem to be the same here.
I hate to paint all bike people the same worldwide (possible exception for Tokyo) But they are.

I found Amsterdam better than some of the commuter cities surrounding The Hague. For example, when I visited Leiden, I witnessed three cyclists travelling together collide into a mother with her two children. Instead of showing any kind of contrition, the cyclists started screaming at the woman for being in the way.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Bike people? Is it possible that you're allowing a handful of poor cyclists to tarnish your perception of an entire group of people?

Originally Posted by GTG_78

I found Amsterdam better than some of the commuter cities surrounding The Hague. For example, when I visited Leiden, I witnessed three cyclists travelling together collide into a mother with her two children. Instead of showing any kind of contrition, the cyclists started screaming at the woman for being in the way.

There ya go.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

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.

Not really. I’m just reacting to your relabeling a cost difference as a subsidy. It’s an old argument, but in the end it doesn’t really have any substance to it. A city is a city in its entirety, and costs are distributed to where they are needed. If Halifax wanted to readopt its borders from, say, 1930, then we could dissolve HRM and go back to the old Halifax/Dartmouth/Bedford/Sackville/Halifax County configuration, and each entity pays for its own expenses. There would be pluses and minuses to that, but it would knock out your “subsidy” idea. I personally liked how the area functioned pre-amalgamation, however I understand that there are also counter arguments to this.

But no, HRM pays for HRM expenses, not subsidies. The small town/rural areas that became suburbs as the city grew are all expenses that a city incurs. And this will continue to evolve as long as population continues to increase. There may be a time in the somewhat distant future where Bedford, and later Sackville and Hammonds Plains become part of “urban” Halifax, and then, magically, folks like yourself will no longer say that they are being subsidized, because it will be in the form that you prefer.

This could continue on and on, but it’s just repeating the tired old argument centred around the idea that urbanists don’t want to understand how cities grow, and thus want to separate out the suburbs as some kind of “privileged” (popular term these days) place that either shouldn’t exist, or should only be lived in by citizens in the upper 5% (or whatever) of the income range.

All good. I have been coming to this forum for a long time, and none of these silly concepts are unexpected.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Not really. I’m just reacting to your relabeling a cost difference as a subsidy. It’s an old argument, but in the end it doesn’t really have any substance to it. A city is a city in its entirety, and costs are distributed to where they are needed. If Halifax wanted to readopt its borders from, say, 1930, then we could dissolve HRM and go back to the old Halifax/Dartmouth/Bedford/Sackville/Halifax County configuration, and each entity pays for its own expenses. There would be pluses and minuses to that, but it would knock out your “subsidy” idea. I personally liked how the area functioned pre-amalgamation, however I understand that there are also counter arguments to this.

But no, HRM pays for HRM expenses, not subsidies. The small town/rural areas that became suburbs as the city grew are all expenses that a city incurs. And this will continue to evolve as long as population continues to increase. There may be a time in the somewhat distant future where Bedford, and later Sackville and Hammonds Plains become part of “urban” Halifax, and then, magically, folks like yourself will no longer say that they are being subsidized, because it will be in the form that you prefer.

This could continue on and on, but it’s just repeating the tired old argument centred around the idea that urbanists don’t want to understand how cities grow, and thus want to separate out the suburbs as some kind of “privileged” (popular term these days) place that either shouldn’t exist, or should only be lived in by citizens in the upper 5% (or whatever) of the income range.

All good. I have been coming to this forum for a long time, and none of these silly concepts are unexpected.

It's not really an 'idea', you're just making up whatever you want to suit your thoughts on the matter.

Living in other places has taught me the realities of what is possible, so not agreeing with facts is up to you.

I pay taxes on peninsular Halifax. They are higher than other areas due to locational factors, even for bigger properties, so indeed it is that a subsidy is occurring because I don't go to other parts of the city on a regular basis (many of the far flung areas were all founded on a model of subsidy, ie requirements for roads and cars to reach them, especially big box retail).

I joined the forum in 2006. I don't really see your point. It seems like you're talking about hypothetical experiences versus the lived experience of several world cities.

Melbourne and Amsterdam have to be at the top. I'm not talking about the tourist experience (which should be good, anyway, due to their incredible public transit and other options).

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by GTG_78

I found Amsterdam better than some of the commuter cities surrounding The Hague. For example, when I visited Leiden, I witnessed three cyclists travelling together collide into a mother with her two children. Instead of showing any kind of contrition, the cyclists started screaming at the woman for being in the way.

The Hague is a fantastic city, but feels very small geographically.

I used the Amsterdam example for another reason: the newer areas of the city are all reachable by train: no car needed, thus no subsidy for all the roads that smaller percentage of people use to reach lower real estate value areas.

It would be wild for Halifax to have LRT from Bayers Lake to DC and from the South End to Bedford.

That sort of 2 line system would cover at least 80 percent of all residents.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

This could continue on and on, but it’s just repeating the tired old argument centred around the idea that urbanists don’t want to understand how cities grow, and thus want to separate out the suburbs as some kind of “privileged” (popular term these days) place that either shouldn’t exist, or should only be lived in by citizens in the upper 5% (or whatever) of the income range.

It's not all rich people in the city and poor in the suburbs. There are relatively low income renters in the urban core who are paying more per dollar cost of service provided to them than much wealthier homeowners with mansions in exurban areas.

We can debate what is or isn't a subsidy but one flaw in HRM tax rules seems to be that area rates are set by service level and not cost to provide a service. Some areas are much more expensive to service but don't pay more. Downtown pays a higher commercial rate rate than the business parks. And I don't just mean due to assessments; the rate for the same assessment is higher.

I think people start to lose the plot a little when they argue all suburban development would be unviable if it paid an accurate tax rate. It is on the order of a few thousand a year for an entire household, something an average household could pay. And I don't think the cutoff is so much urban vs. suburban as defined municipally. Low density areas in the South End are probably similar to Clayton Park subdivisions in terms of cost to provide services. The servicing cost cutoff is likely more between high density vs. compact detached housing vs. exurb. However, the areas closer in do have higher assessments so likely are paying more per dollar of service.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

It's not really an 'idea', you're just making up whatever you want to suit your thoughts on the matter.

One could say the same for you. It appears that you didn’t actually take time to consider any of the points I was attempting to make. Perhaps you already had your mind made up?

All good. Have a nice day.

[IanWatson]

Those of you who were paying attention to Halifax planning issues at the time might recall that in 2013 Stantec did a big study (here) that crunched all the numbers on different growth scenarios. It eventually informed the growth allocation targets of the Regional Plan. It's a big long report, but if you have to boil it down to one simple axoim it's that basically you want as little road frontage per person as possible. The nuances of cost are obviously way more complicated than that (e.g. once you go rural your costs to the city drop off a bit because you're on on-site services), but it's a pretty good "rule of thumb."

I think we need to be really careful about insinuating that a person wanting a specific lifestyle is some sort of moral failing. However, there do need to be honest discussions about the problems of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. By all means, desire a 1 hectare lot in Tantallon. But recognize that it comes with tradeoffs. You don't get to have that house and also demend free-flow traffic from your door to your office on Hollis Street - it's simply not physically and economically viable.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I think we need to be really careful about insinuating that a person wanting a specific lifestyle is some sort of moral failing. However, there do need to be honest discussions about the problems of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. By all means, desire a 1 hectare lot in Tantallon. But recognize that it comes with tradeoffs. You don't get to have that house and also demend free-flow traffic from your door to your office on Hollis Street - it's simply not physically and economically viable.

Personally, I don't view it as a moral issue, I just think the tax bills should fit the service costs. If somebody wants a more expensive servicing arrangement so they pay $1k more a year in taxes that's okay. I think there was a bit of bait-and-switch with HRM where rural areas were incorporated and people acted as though the exurban homes in Tantallon are the same as poor old grannies in fishing villages. The truly rural primary economy is very small part of HRM and if people do get subsidies they should be means tested, not vibes based as they say (tax break because you put an old lobster trap on the football field sized lawn in front of your mansion).

We have seen more and more moralizing around lifestyle with the rise of the environmentalist movement and climate politics. It has some truth to it but for some I think it must scratch an itch similar to the old religious right politics where you'd try to ban satanic movies or whatever.

[Antigonish]

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.

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.

There is an area in Hammonds Plains west of the boundaries of the Blue Mountain - Birch Cove Lakes Wilderness Area that could, and should, be used as a planned development area for about 50,000 or more people. The old rail ROW (currently covered to biking/walking trail) should be converted back to a LRT/Metro ROW to service any commuters heading downtown. The rest of that area should be developed to be self-sustaining on its own - including a new high school and a regional hospital on the southern edge near Highway 103 north of Hubley.

I saw a plan that showed a proposed highway spur that cuts all the way across and connected to the 102 along the bend of the highway near where C.P. Allen high school is but to me that seems incredibly stupid. There should be an outer bypass heading north from the 103 out and around towards the 101 south of Pockwock where Lewis Lake is. Then continues around Beaverbank to that Wellington connector they've already been building.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Not really. I’m just reacting to your relabeling a cost difference as a subsidy. It’s an old argument, but in the end it doesn’t really have any substance to it. A city is a city in its entirety, and costs are distributed to where they are needed. If Halifax wanted to readopt its borders from, say, 1930, then we could dissolve HRM and go back to the old Halifax/Dartmouth/Bedford/Sackville/Halifax County configuration, and each entity pays for its own expenses. There would be pluses and minuses to that, but it would knock out your “subsidy” idea. I personally liked how the area functioned pre-amalgamation, however I understand that there are also counter arguments to this.

But no, HRM pays for HRM expenses, not subsidies. The small town/rural areas that became suburbs as the city grew are all expenses that a city incurs. And this will continue to evolve as long as population continues to increase. There may be a time in the somewhat distant future where Bedford, and later Sackville and Hammonds Plains become part of “urban” Halifax, and then, magically, folks like yourself will no longer say that they are being subsidized, because it will be in the form that you prefer.

This could continue on and on, but it’s just repeating the tired old argument centred around the idea that urbanists don’t want to understand how cities grow, and thus want to separate out the suburbs as some kind of “privileged” (popular term these days) place that either shouldn’t exist, or should only be lived in by citizens in the upper 5% (or whatever) of the income range.

All good. I have been coming to this forum for a long time, and none of these silly concepts are unexpected.

The odd trend of amalgamation in the 1990s really screwed this province from every direction. I remember they tried to do the same in Antigonish (Town & County) in 2001 but both governments and ratepayers shot that down thank god. It was too late for HRM, CBRM, and Queens Regional Municipality though. Same thing with school boards and the subsequent school closures followed by that brief period of PPP school building circa 1998-2002 that constructed those Soviet-esque prefab concrete block schools that were/are complete garbage and all named "Education Centre" because nothing inspires young students more than commie block schools that self-reference as bland indoctrination prisons at the expense of community/neighbourhood schools that were the lifeblood of their communities before that.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by someone123

Personally, I don't view it as a moral issue, I just think the tax bills should fit the service costs. If somebody wants a more expensive servicing arrangement so they pay $1k more a year in taxes that's okay. I think there was a bit of bait-and-switch with HRM where rural areas were incorporated and people acted as though the exurban homes in Tantallon are the same as poor old grannies in fishing villages. The truly rural primary economy is very small part of HRM and if people do get subsidies they should be means tested, not vibes based as they say (tax break because you put an old lobster trap on the football field sized lawn in front of your mansion).

We have seen more and more moralizing around lifestyle with the rise of the environmentalist movement and climate politics. It has some truth to it but for some I think it must scratch an itch similar to the old religious right politics where you'd try to ban satanic movies or whatever.

Ultimately our political system holds back communities. Municipalities should have greater autonomy to collect revenue while also having the autonomy to invest in their own community corps that meet the needs of municipal issues. All they can do now is essentially charge property taxes and that's about it. They use property values as a means to set rates which is incredibly regressive. If you bought a house (affordably) 20 years ago but now the government deems it 2x-3x more valuable for the land with no changes in servicing they are creating a time bomb that punishes individuals/families - artificially creating value that shouldn't be there and forcing these people out of their neighbourhoods so the land can be sold to private developers to rent-seek of the population.

I'd rather see taxation reflect servicing costs, I don't care if it's an expensive high rise condo for upper-middle class people, they shouldn't be paying more if their costs of services are proportionately cheaper than middle class suburbanites living on an acreage.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

Ultimately our political system holds back communities. Municipalities should have greater autonomy to collect revenue while also having the autonomy to invest in their own community corps that meet the needs of municipal issues. All they can do now is essentially charge property taxes and that's about it. They use property values as a means to set rates which is incredibly regressive. If you bought a house (affordably) 20 years ago but now the government deems it 2x-3x more valuable for the land with no changes in servicing they are creating a time bomb that punishes individuals/families - artificially creating value that shouldn't be there and forcing these people out of their neighbourhoods so the land can be sold to private developers to rent-seek of the population.

I'd rather see taxation reflect servicing costs, I don't care if it's an expensive high rise condo for upper-middle class people, they shouldn't be paying more if their costs of services are proportionately cheaper than middle class suburbanites living on an acreage.

Whenever I see a line like "Municipalities should have greater autonomy to collect revenue while also having the autonomy to invest in their own community corps" I get very nervous because municipal councils are notoriously irresponsible, reckless, and very wasteful in how they spend money. I think the actual problem is the property taxation model that equates an estimate of market value as equivalent to the ability to pay. It is not any sort of an equitable measure when you look at the municipal costs of servicing, which equates more to road frontage, number of residents in structures (which equates to number of bathrooms typically), number of parking spaces and so on. I would even welcome a discussion of whether the number of school-age children living in the property should be a consideration. There seems great reluctance to touch that third rail but if it was ever done the costs of providing services would be far better reflected in tax bills than the existing system.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Whenever I see a line like "Municipalities should have greater autonomy to collect revenue while also having the autonomy to invest in their own community corps" I get very nervous because municipal councils are notoriously irresponsible, reckless, and very wasteful in how they spend money. I think the actual problem is the property taxation model that equates an estimate of market value as equivalent to the ability to pay. It is not any sort of an equitable measure when you look at the municipal costs of servicing, which equates more to road frontage, number of residents in structures (which equates to number of bathrooms typically), number of parking spaces and so on. I would even welcome a discussion of whether the number of school-age children living in the property should be a consideration. There seems great reluctance to touch that third rail but if it was ever done the costs of providing services would be far better reflected in tax bills than the existing system.

So you want to disincentivize having children in an environment where births are already outnumbered by deaths?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Is it cheaper to live in Halifax or Toronto? This data says the relative costs are comparable

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Is it cheaper to live in Halifax or Toronto? This data says the relative costs are comparable

Those damn bike lanes.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Summerville

Those damn bike lanes.

That must be it!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Summerville

Those damn bike lanes.

It’s all that subsidizing of the suburbs!