General Updates and News

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Are there any plans to turf some of these ridiculous loud and dirty diesel buses for quieter electric buses anytime soon? And how about a few mixed rapid transit options in the city?

I guess you're new here, eh.

The short answer is no.

The long answer is maybe, but here are the circumstances:

- The closest things to rapid transit that are even remotely on the table are commuter rail, which most people would agree is not the same thing as rapid transit at all, and watered-down, mostly park-and-ride based BRT (with little-to-no exclusive ROW).

- HRM council has historically thought that commuter rail and LRT are the same thing, and I have little reason to believe that anything has changed.

- Any talk of a subway is moot, because it is too expensive. No study required, it just is, and everybody knows it (says staff and council).

- Any talk of an elevated LRT would be shot down because it would inevitably ruin the city's aesthetics.

- Any talk of building any new track would be shot down because it is also too expensive. Again, staff and council just KNOW these things, so why study them?

- What apparently IS useful to study again and again is implementing the commuter rail proposals from the 1970s. The plans haven't really changed (we're still looking at using old inter-city heavy rail dayliners rather than actual purpose-built vehicles) and really the only thing that's changed is that now HRM is on bad terms with CN (who own the tracks) and there is substantially less available track since CN has ripped a lot up since the original proposals.

- Streetcars and trolleybuses are never mentioned as an option except in Coast articles. Again, no studies.

- The fast ferry idea, which used to be a good idea, is now a bad idea. There are a few legitimate challenges that weren't originally anticipated (in particular, speed limits in the harbour) but mostly people have just lost interest and many (rightly?) point out that it would not be a very good investment for anyone other than those in Bedford.



For the record, I have to agree with your downtown circulator streetcar idea. I also think that two routes aligning roughly with Barrington and Robie streets would do wonders.

[Phalanx]

Painting the town: Quinpool Road wins big make-over prize
August 23, 2013 - 12:21pm By SELENA ROSS Staff Reporter

UPDATED at 1:25 p.m.

Part of Quinpool Road will be getting a top-to-bottom makeover.

Out of 12 local streets, Quinpool won a contest sponsored by Benjamin Moore paint company and worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to businesses on the street.

“We're looking at two blocks of facade improvements,” said Karla Nicholson, general manager of the Quinpool Road Mainstreet District Association.

Full article...

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I didn't mean that we should stop focusing efforts on downtown (which I suppose is largely what Poulton was saying), but rather that in addition to focusing efforts downtown, we should also focus at least some efforts into making Mainland Halifax/Dartmouth/Cole Harbour/Bedford/Sackville more than just bedroom communities. I guess the alternative is to just let them stay extremely auto-oriented and offering little in terms of employment forever but this really sucks for people who live there, particularly those who grow up there. It's easy to say "they should just move to the peninsula" but it's not always that simple. It would make more sense to put at least some effort into creating higher-density, mixed-use nodes off the peninsula; among many other things, this would help mitigate traffic issues on the peninsula.

I'm not saying "let's give up on downtown", I'm saying "we don't need to accept that off-peninsula neighbourhoods have to be dull, auto-dependent bedroom communities forever". Bear in mind that the regional plan assumes that 50% of the growth over the plan's lifespan will take place in suburban areas. Even if the numbers are retooled it seems unrealistic (and not really practical, and I know that some people will hate me for this, but not really desirable) to expect 100% of all growth to occur on the Peninsula and DT Dartmouth Should all of these new residents have to commute downtown?

Yeah, sorry, I was more railing against Poulton's "do nothing" article than what you had written; you were simply asking for balance; which, really, is what I've been advocating (and hoping) for a long time.

Agree 100% is unrealistic, but I think it's equally unrealistic that anything is going to change if we keep 25/50/25 targets. I think a 40/40/20 adjustment could work, and would be a realistic (and worthwhile) goal.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I guess you're new here, eh.

The short answer is no.

The long answer is maybe, but here are the circumstances:

- The closest things to rapid transit that are even remotely on the table are commuter rail, which most people would agree is not the same thing as rapid transit at all, and watered-down, mostly park-and-ride based BRT (with little-to-no exclusive ROW).

- HRM council has historically thought that commuter rail and LRT are the same thing, and I have little reason to believe that anything has changed.

- Any talk of a subway is moot, because it is too expensive. No study required, it just is, and everybody knows it (says staff and council).

- Any talk of an elevated LRT would be shot down because it would inevitably ruin the city's aesthetics.

- Any talk of building any new track would be shot down because it is also too expensive. Again, staff and council just KNOW these things, so why study them?

- What apparently IS useful to study again and again is implementing the commuter rail proposals from the 1970s. The plans haven't really changed (we're still looking at using old inter-city heavy rail dayliners rather than actual purpose-built vehicles) and really the only thing that's changed is that now HRM is on bad terms with CN (who own the tracks) and there is substantially less available track since CN has ripped a lot up since the original proposals.

- Streetcars and trolleybuses are never mentioned as an option except in Coast articles. Again, no studies.

- The fast ferry idea, which used to be a good idea, is now a bad idea. There are a few legitimate challenges that weren't originally anticipated (in particular, speed limits in the harbour) but mostly people have just lost interest and many (rightly?) point out that it would not be a very good investment for anyone other than those in Bedford.



For the record, I have to agree with your downtown circulator streetcar idea. I also think that two routes aligning roughly with Barrington and Robie streets would do wonders.

Thanks for the informative post. So, it's a BIG maybe.

The other idea I've heard tossed around, would be paving over-- or along side-- the existing rail line around the harbour to create a dedicated/speedy commuter bus line. It would be like paving a new road around the harbour, but I think it could be a cheap way to achieve that the LRT/commuter rail line aims to do.

Imagine people getting on a rapid bus at the NSCC in Woodlawn and riding it around the basin, with quick stops at Alderney, the Bridge, Burnside, Hammonds Plains, Mt St Vincent, CFB on Barrington, where it rejoins Barrington St and finishes at a new/arger Duke St/Barrington Station.

[Hali87]

From what I understand, if the rail cut were to be paved over, the new road would be used primarily for truck traffic. This would definitely have its own merits, but I'm not sure how practical it would be to run both trucks and buses in the rail cut - eventually you'd run out of road space. I'm also not sure if there would be legal/policy problems with this idea since CN owns the ROW and I'm not sure if they'd allow/would be allowed to operate trains and non-train vehicles in the same railcut.

Ottawa has had a subway-like BRT system for decades that works basically the same way that running buses (only) in the rail cut would. They are converting part of it to LRT now but it's mostly the part that runs on normal surface streets and not busways. Eventually there were so many buses using the bus-only roads downtown that they caused traffic jams amongst themselves, and the system is very expensive due to the sheer number of drivers needed.

[Duff]

Still not sure what this building is, but it doesn't have a lot of windows. Corner of Robie and St. Albans

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Duff

Still not sure what this building is, but it doesn't have a lot of windows. Corner of Robie and St. Albans

Lovely... like a crypt.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Duff

Still not sure what this building is, but it doesn't have a lot of windows. Corner of Robie and St. Albans

It's just another garbage Halifax building flying under the radar.

We have no design review committee that looks at all buildings for merit so this is the result. Although style is hard to legislate you should be able to prevent this mess. Look at the roof detail. How long before water is pouring in this cheap fix to a fascia board. A good wind storm will address this issue.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Empire

It's just another garbage Halifax building flying under the radar.

We have no design review committee that looks at all buildings for merit so this is the result. Although style is hard to legislate you should be able to prevent this mess. Look at the roof detail. How long before water is pouring in this cheap fix to a fascia board. A good wind storm will address this issue.

Yep, that is a huge piece of crap.

If it makes you feel better, Halifax isn't alone in lacking an effective DRC--and it does seem as if this type of development, which was standard five years ago, is an outlier now, making for a better tier of project. (I hope?)

[Dmajackson]

Friday Project Updates.

Dresden Row Lofts (1581 Dresden Row, Halifax)

This project goes before the Design Review Committee for final approval on Thursday, September 12th, 2013.

Case 18707


Source

---

Connor Architects & Planners has a rendering on their website for One Park Avenue Concept. Presumably the name and presence of Purdys Wharf in the background means this is proposed for Alderney Dr & Park Avenue in Downtown Dartmouth.


Source

---

Connor Architects & Planners also has a rendering up for a proposal at Cunard St & North Park St across from The Armoury.


Source

---

And last but certainly not least there is an official proposal for 1034-1056 Wellington Street in South-End Halifax (near SMU and Inglis Street). Case 18565 is a proposal by Dino Capital and designed by Michael Napier Architects. The idea is for two towers of 12 & 10 floors including a common 3 floor shared podium. The initiation report goes before Regional Council on Tuesday, September 10th, 2013. Staff is not recommending approval citing too much lot coverage and the existing towers north of the site should not of been allowed.


Original Source (image hosted by Urban_Halifax on flickr.com)

[Wishblade]

^That first proposal looks so hip. It's the perfect type of infill for that location.

[Drybrain]

Love that first one. Dependent on finishing materials, but seems like pretty solid infill to me.

Second one is ungodly, as is the third, and, surprise, both by the same architect. Will the Commons every get a building that isn't kitschy faux historic junk? That Dartmouth one is just too awful to be allowed in such a central location. The parking lot there now is better.

Last one I like-ish. I'm glad the city is recognizes the dangers of excessive lot coverage, but I think the broken-up street facade mitigates that to some degree in this case. I certainly hope they'd ask for a design tweak, rather than reject the project. There are only three houses that would need to be demolished for it, and none are especially, well, special. It looks like a low-density suburban block got dropped into the South End, currently.

[haligonia]

Oh man that third one is horrible. I like the first one and the others are bad, but everything about the third one is disgusting. I'll go crazy if that piece of shit gets approved.

[Aya_Akai]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Friday Project Updates.

Dresden Row Lofts (1581 Dresden Row, Halifax)

This project goes before the Design Review Committee for final approval on Thursday, September 12th, 2013.

Case 18707


Source

That is right next to Suzuki! I love that place, that will be a perfect fit in that area, construction next to it could provide an interesting experience seeing as Suzuki's doorway is in that alleyway between the buildings.. lol

[someone123]

#2 is very old. I don't think it's an active proposal. #3 was for the Armoury Villa lot.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Last one I like-ish. I'm glad the city is recognizes the dangers of excessive lot coverage, but I think the broken-up street facade mitigates that to some degree in this case. I certainly hope they'd ask for a design tweak, rather than reject the project. There are only three houses that would need to be demolished for it, and none are especially, well, special. It looks like a low-density suburban block got dropped into the South End, currently.

I don't really understand what's theoretically wrong with "too much lot coverage" in this case. Most of the other buildings on this street do not have very much space between them, and there is a large open park (Gorsebrook Field) adjacent to the site. What further benefit would a token patch of grass and maybe a couple of trees provide? Would the project be better if it were set back or if the sides of the lot were left open? Why?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I don't really understand what's theoretically wrong with "too much lot coverage" in this case. Most of the other buildings on this street do not have very much space between them, and there is a large open park (Gorsebrook Field) adjacent to the site. What further benefit would a token patch of grass and maybe a couple of trees provide? Would the project be better if it were set back or if the sides of the lot were left open? Why?

Completely agree.

Once again, City Government is FAILING badly in promoting urban density and growth, by rejecting any kind of reasonable infill.

If they wonder why we cannot muster a pathetic 25% urban growth in a decade, it's idiotic recommendations like this.

Again, I hate to blame bureaucrats, but HRM planning staff are a big problem, beyond the ignorance of the prior mayor and many members of HRM Council. The latter wouldn't be such a big deal, if staff weren't so utterly conservative in promoting any kind of proper planning in this city.

Just wait. HRM staff reject something like this due to "lot coverage" and then tomorrow, do a staff report recommending spending $5 billion to widen some highway to some industrial park, which requires smashing 60 homes and acres of forests.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Completely agree.

Once again, HRM staff are FAILING badly in promoting urban density and growth, by rejecting any kind of reasonable infill.

If these clowns want to know why they cannot muster a pathetic 25% urban growth in a decade, it's idiotic recommendations like this.

Again, I hate to blame bureaucrats, but HRM planning staff are a big problem, beyond the ignorance of the prior mayor and many members of HRM Council. The latter wouldn't be such a big deal, if staff weren't so utterly conservative in promoting any kind of proper planning in this city.

Just wait. HRM staff reject something like this due to "lot coverage" and then tomorrow, do a staff report recommending spending $5 billion to widen some highway to some industrial park, which requires smashing 60 homes and acres of forests.

I think to be fair to staff and council, a list of what does get approved would be far, far, far longer than a list of what doesn't. (I don't think it costs $5 billion to widen highways either!)

In this case, I agree, the lot coverage doesn't seem like an issue. Generally, however, the idea of one streetwall occupying an entire block is anti-urban--a block should have many entrances and exits, whether residential, commercial, or both, to facilitate greater on-street interaction and uses. A townhouse podium would be the obvious solution here. But one big wall followed by another big wall creates a deadening, blank effect. (The entire Scotia Square area, for example.)

But yeah--this building doesn't bother me at all from that perspective.

[someone123]

It is not really the fault of staff. It's their job to do a first pass at interpreting the MPS and it is not a very good document. It was first put in place in 1978 (an era when the city encouraged low-density, suburban development), has a lot of vague language and incoherent ideas like "compatibility", and doesn't do a very good job of balancing the desires of homeowners with wider regional requirements for things like urban infill to prevent sprawl.

In these cases I think it's actually good that development proposals go to regional council. An HRM by Design type system would be better but it would need more concrete and reasonable density limits that allow for a useful amount of infill.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think to be fair to staff and council, a list of what does get approved would be far, far, far longer than a list of what doesn't. (I don't think it costs $5 billion to widen highways either!)

In this case, I agree, the lot coverage doesn't seem like an issue. Generally, however, the idea of one streetwall occupying an entire block is anti-urban--a block should have many entrances and exits, whether residential, commercial, or both, to facilitate greater on-street interaction and uses. A townhouse podium would be the obvious solution here. But one big wall followed by another big wall creates a deadening, blank effect. (The entire Scotia Square area, for example.)

But yeah--this building doesn't bother me at all from that perspective.

I'm tired of being fair to staff and council. They've been dropping the ball for 20+ years. And they're still doing it-- 7 years of 17% urban growth, with no plan or change in sight. Whatever approvals they have been doing, recommendations like this remain a problem. There is enough discretion in the MPS to recommend approval on something like this, with minor variations in design.

As for the billions required for road widening, well, the Bayers/102 road widening will cost $1billion dollars.

And the City has already been buying up houses (19) for the project.

http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2013/08/14/city-buys-another-house-on-bayers-road

http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2013/08/14/city-buys-another-house-on-bayers-road

So I exaggerated, but really,it's not much of an exaggeration.