Cogswell Interchange

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

A family putting their children in the middle of city traffic raises its own questions rather than being a rationale for more unnecessary infrastructure spending.

Putting their children in a car also puts them in the middle of city traffic which is not without risk. Simply crossing the street also puts them in the middle of city traffic.

If city traffic poses such a grave risk to people using protected cycling infrastructure the solution should be to make that situation safer for all involved rather than to remove the users of that infrastructure from the equation.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I thought the Commons pool was closed for repairs?

Depending on the ages of the children, I'm not sure of the wisdom of placing them in the midst of traffic.

Repairs are done (the floating floor panels are fixed).

And is it more dangerous for me to bike with my kids on quiet streets and protected bike lanes, or to move to some rural or exurban area where we have to drive at highway speed every day to do anything, and my kids will get their own licenses at 16 and start bombing around at 100 km/hr as teens? Honestly not sure. Both have risks. I know few people blink at the latter.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

It's a bit of both, tbh. Things like transit, traffic management, utilities, etc., really needs to be quantified before pursuing should/shouldn't. However, things like libraries, recreational facilities, landscaping, and so on are important but are more qualitative for bean counters.

This is true but in the current culture even the more numbers-friendly areas like transit are often over-quantified.

Everyone seems to love and prefer streetcars, trains, and ferries, but operationally buses are cheaper and easier so they tend to win out. In a downtown area it is much nicer to have a train come every 5 minutes than have a main street constantly clogged with buses, with many having loud diesel engines, running on a huge variety of routes that are hard to figure out.

Truck traffic and noise in downtown is another one that is hard to quantify. On paper there is no clear immediate financial payoff from solving that issue and the solution costs millions.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

This afternoon I used relatively new protected cycling infrastructure (a big money pit, some say, including on this forum) to bring my kids to the Commons Pool, a not cheap ($18 million cost) facility.

The safe, open-air bike ride--courtesy of HRM taxpayers--was infinitely more enjoyable than cramming into a car and wrangling parking. The pool is a fantastic newish facility, provided at no cost to users. While there we stumbled across friends we otherwise would not have, and ended up spending the afternoon together, and one of them remarked on the ideal size of Halifax for these happenstance encounters, and how this kind of recreational infrastructure enables it.

Indeed, these kinds of things are hard to quantify. They're also what make living in a community worthwhile, and encourage people to care about a place, and take joy in it. If we're not spending money on these things, what is even the point of living in a city?

If we have to an economic justification to it: I wouldn't live in a city without these things. Neither would many people. A city deprived of this kind of "frill" would be a worse place to live, and would suffer economically and demographically due to being simply undesirable, and it wouldn't matter how fast commutes or how low property taxes were.

This discussion is reminding me of a book I read a while ago that gathered together some studies that tried to quantify impacts of happiness... with the goal of demonstrating that happy people are healthier etc (and not happier from alcohol or other drugs). I'll have to re-read it again: Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design. The author is Canadian, I think.

[terrynorthend]

I can't wait until there are bids and proposals for these lots, so this discussion thread becomes more interesting than splash pads and fog fountains ������

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

I can't wait until there are bids and proposals for these lots, so this discussion thread becomes more interesting than splash pads and fog fountains ������

Indeed... I miss the old content that used to be more of the focus on this skyscraper page forum.

We could have had this:

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Indeed... I miss the old content that used to be more of the focus on this skyscraper page forum.

We could have had this:

Some miss the days of proposals like Doorstop Towers and the "it's too TALL!!!" outrage.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Indeed... I miss the old content that used to be more of the focus on this skyscraper page forum.

We could have had this:

I’m sure that discussion will happen when there is actually action there.

Sigh… the good old days…

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Some miss the days of proposals like Doorstop Towers and the "it's too TALL!!!" outrage.

What? TOO TALL is a thing of the past? After you just posted those very words in the Monaghan Square thread? I would suggest that it’s alive and well mon ami!

I agree that your side is winning, though - the too tall crowd doesn’t stand a chance with the level of enthusiasm displayed here (not that they ever did).

Personally, I would like to see each new build eclipse the last in height. Cogswell and Robie/Young are the perfect areas for it. Cogswell is the proper downtown area and a blank slate that won’t come along again in our lifetimes - time to ditch the viewplanes and get the most out of this opportunity. For Robie/Young, it’s perfect, as the stuff that’s getting replaced was never particularly attractive or significant, and land use in the area was poor at best.

[Nouvellecosse]

Personally I don't mind the height limit downtown if there's an option for taller in places like the Young/Almon/Robie node and Dartmouth. Well, as long as there's good density and quality downtown to make up for the lack of height.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Personally I don't mind the height limit downtown if there's an option for taller in places like the Young/Almon/Robie node and Dartmouth. Well, as long as there's good density and quality downtown to make up for the lack of height.

I could be okay with it if there was some guarantee of quality finishes and interesting architecture, but in the absence of that, I think a concentrated area of height would be a great substitute with an added bonus of a somewhat spectacular skyline.

Full disclosure: I don’t expect either to happen.

[Keith P.]

I’m waiting for our version of The Shard to be proposed downtown.

https://www.the-shard.com/

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I’m waiting for our version of The Shard to be proposed downtown.

https://www.the-shard.com/

To be honest, something 'shard-esque' could actually work on the cogswell lands. The issue with the tabletop is that we could really only anchor it with something spectacular there.

As long as we end up with the shard, and not 'The Shart'.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Personally I don't mind the height limit downtown if there's an option for taller in places like the Young/Almon/Robie node and Dartmouth. Well, as long as there's good density and quality downtown to make up for the lack of height.

That is certainly the hope/has been a stated plan for awhile. Alas, when something decent at 52 stories on what amounts to empty former industrial lots that would integrate Young/Robie/Almon well is proposed... it is considered out of character.

I know I sound like a broken record, but where is appropriate or is this a ploy to constantly move the spot around until there is none?

I'd say Kempt Road would be fair? It's got all the street infrastructure and isn't near anything?

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I’m waiting for our version of The Shard to be proposed downtown.

Better The Shard than The Gherkin, I say.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

To be honest, something 'shard-esque' could actually work on the cogswell lands. The issue with the tabletop is that we could really only anchor it with something spectacular there.

As long as we end up with the shard, and not 'The Shart'.

It's Halifax, so instead of The Shard it would be The Sliver. Not a Twisted Sliver though, because there is no way that gets approved.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I would say that the Kempt semi-industrial/car lot area would be the next logical spot for some height/density. Now would be the time for the City to plan some infrastructure, like planned transit ROWs and efficient access to commuting routes to facilitate what should be a project being worked on by the planning department. Whether it is or not remains a mystery.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by beyeas

It's Halifax, so instead of The Shard it would be The Sliver. Not a Twisted Sliver though, because there is no way that gets approved.

Good one! Maybe it would get approved as a square box, 30+ years later.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Personally I don't mind the height limit downtown if there's an option for taller in places like the Young/Almon/Robie node and Dartmouth. Well, as long as there's good density and quality downtown to make up for the lack of height.

I think it looks somewhat unattractive and it'll just get worse and worse as the developable envelope is filled in more. It was created with a couple of simple goals in mind relating to Citadel views without any consideration for the aesthetics of downtown itself, in an era when nobody had a clue about 2020s development potential and architecture, and bare concrete buildings like Cogswell Tower or the Maritime Centre weighed heavily in the public consciousness.

If those rules are going to stay they could at least allow minor height variations as far as decorative elements go or allow for the reconstruction of destroyed heritage buildings that today would encroach the viewplanes or ramparts, like NFB. This would look better than a mathematically defined hard edge capping everything off.

For Cogswell specifically it's a huge own goal for council as they're implementing a pointless limitation on the value of their own properties they want to sell off. You can already see 70s concrete buildings from the ramparts in this area.

Again, council got cold feet about spending $1.5M extra on a public amenity there but they're willing to saw 10 storeys or more off multiple blocks they are trying to market.