General Updates and News

[Wolkenkratzerliebhab]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

That's great, but why did make your fellow there play the Clarinet? Is this sort of an ode to Saint John's musical future?

....

It's not a clarinet, he's looking through a telescope!

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

I am not seeing any tall buildings.
Thought we would see some 30, 40 50 stories.

At the risk of re-starting the eternal tall buildings debate, I think that A: There's only so much demand for new residential coming on the market at the same time, so a bunch of gigantic towers may be untenable, and B: This is about fixing the area's broken urbanism and, really, creating a whole new neighbourhood. A few towers would be great, but height is very far from being the major concern here. Look at what was done to Toronto's St. Lawrence neighbourhood in the 70s--a brilliant example of wholesale community-building, and no significant towers at all, just consistent density. Ditto for the current East Donlands development.

It would be really unfortunate to turn this into another pissing match over height.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Lots of roundabouts. Keith will be pleased

Exactly. This is beyond ridiculous. This is the downtown core, not some suburban greenspace. Two effing roundabouts taking up a ton of real estate - with one apparently on a sidehill by the entrance to the Dockyard! That ought to be a joy. Plus the usual wasted space on bike lanes, and parkland everywhere. Give me a break. This is a DOWNTOWN. The inmates again grabbed the keys to the asylum. I can only imagine how the container trailers will navigate thru this mess. Only a cursory mention of any kind of transit focus, and no mention at all of future rail links. Massive fail.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It would be really unfortunate to turn this into another pissing match over height.

The document rules out anything tall by default by saying that Halifax is a low-and-medium rise city. While there may indeed be questions of demand and capacity, these lots are the only ones in HRMxD that allow anything even approaching a high-rise. If this is accepted, I presume it takes that opportunity away.

[hokus83]

The worst of all this is 19 months of technical design work and 4 years of demolition work with 13 years of proposals pending approvals and construction on top of all of this so right of the bat we're looking at 20 year time frame this area of town to be redeveloped to fit right into the the old have some new development every 20 years. The time allotted for design work and demolition is a effing long time that could only come out of the stupidity of Halfiax. All the demolition work should be done and finished by next year and there should be tenders put out for proposals this year. All this redevelopment should be finished in 5 year not 20 years but I have a feeling it will stretch out to be 30 years or more of a ugly slow-paced construction zone.

[ILoveHalifax]

Probably decades longer once the downtown garden club, or restore the ancients slums, or nothing over 3 stories, or bicycles only, groups get into action.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by hokus83

The worst of all this is 19 months of technical design work and 4 years of demolition work with 13 years of proposals pending approvals and construction on top of all of this so right of the bat we're looking at 20 year time frame this area of town to be redeveloped to fit right into the the old have some new development every 20 years. The time allotted for design work and demolition is a effing long time that could only come out of the stupidity of Halfiax. All the demolition work should be done and finished by next year and there should be tenders put out for proposals this year. All this redevelopment should be finished in 5 year not 20 years but I have a feeling it will stretch out to be 30 years or more of a ugly slow-paced construction zone.

Did you read any of the reports ?
The issue of timing of development is not dreamed up by HRM, it is an analysis by people who have intimate knowledge of the real estate market.
Try this as a starter : http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/SCadmin/documents/CogswellReportAttachment1CogswellTransformed.pdf

From Section 6.5 page 102 : The Cogswell Lands Plan provides a feasible direction,
meeting the highest balance of municipal objectives set
by Council and the public for the Cogswell Interchange
Lands. Indications are that the redevelopment of these
public lands will have a positive impact on the region
while being financially feasible. A highly concentrated
mix of streets, public spaces, residential and commercial
activity will serve to knit the downtown, North End,
CFB Halifax Dockyard, and the waterfront together.
The addition of 2,500 persons in a desirable, compact,
and walkable new neighbourhood is one of several
initiatives contributing to Council’s goal of sustaining
and growing the regional centre. The release of six
acres of underutilized public lands to the market will
serve to attract more development to the downtown
and impact an additional six acres in the direct vicinity.
An anticipated 8-13 year build-out for redevelopment
reflects a realistic approach to market absorption and
market shifts.
Council has set the direction and a good number of
parameters for its demolition and redevelopment.
Therefore, it is not anticipated that MPS and LUB
changes will be dramatic if we choose to stick to the
direction Council has set.
There must be a public understanding that the
Municipality is embarking on a long term project to seek
long term benefits. This is not unlike other strategic
opportunities that are brought before Council. However,
like all development, the final details of cost and impact
will only be known at the end of the project. Therefore,
Council must make its decisions based on the best
information that it has available now and as the project
advances.
The Cogswell Transformed project is a city-scale urban
redevelopment initiative designed to change the focus
of the area from the car to people, trucks to transit
and active transportation, concrete to art, abandoned
patches of grass to beautiful open spaces, barriers to
connectivity, and ramps and overpasses to new places
to work and live. These new features better reflect our
community’s current priorities while anticipating our
priorities for future generations.

[hokus83]

I know its cost a bit but its not that time consuming to tare the thing down and pave some roads, you could probably have the whole tare down pave 100% competed over a 4 day long weekend. Just section off and close and redirect traffic for a weekend and bam done, maybe stretch some over final work for over a week, instead of dragging it out for 4 years. 4 years of demolition, 4 years, I can't get over how long and drawn out that timetable is. I thought this thing was coming down next year and now we have to wait for a 19 month technical date planning report, looking at this being 2017 when it starts to come down and 2021 when its completely torn down and 2023 when any proposals are finally approved, 2026 for the compilation of the first building

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by hokus83

I know its cost a bit but its not that time consuming to tare the thing down and pave some roads, you could probably have the whole tare down pave 100% competed over a 4 day long weekend. Just section off and close and redirect traffic for a weekend and bam done, maybe stretch some over final work for over a week, instead of dragging it out for 4 years. 4 years of demolition, 4 years, I can't get over how long and drawn out that timetable is. I thought this thing was coming down next year and now we have to wait for a 19 month technical date planning report, looking at this being 2017 when it starts to come down and 2021 when its completely torn down and 2023 when any proposals are finally approved, 2026 for the compilation of the first building

According to the experts the market demand is not there to support rapid development
I looked at residential property transfers in Halifax - former City boundaries- for the first 3 months of 2014 : January 129 February 127 March 128 Total 384 units and and 157 were not sales but transfers between relatives.
The 3 reports have a lot of detail and any criticism of the plan must be based on the details in the plan.

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by Colin May

According to the experts the market demand is not there to support rapid development
I looked at residential property transfers in Halifax - former City boundaries- for the first 3 months of 2014 : January 129 February 127 March 128 Total 384 units and and 157 were not sales but transfers between relatives.
The 3 reports have a lot of detail and any criticism of the plan must be based on the details in the plan.

its been established on here you know nothing about market demand and its kind of a null point to make anyways on transit infrastructure. You have one 21 story building already thats been approved that can't progress at all even if it wanted to until this Cogswell Interchange plan is done.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by hokus83

its been established on here you know nothing about market demand and its kind of a null point to make anyways on transit infrastructure. You have one 21 story building already thats been approved that can't progress at all even if it wanted to until this Cogswell Interchange plan is done.

But did you read any of the 3 reports ?
What is your expertise compared with the International consultants ?
Go ahead and and present a well reasoned critique of the reports and people will listen, otherwise...............

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

Don't have time to look at the report in detail but here's one of the renderings. Looks pretty good:

The "Cogswell Transformed" report talks a good game, and has a lot of interesting things in the report.

But after all that, this is the visualization they come up with? I don't like it. Really much at all.

It's an improvement over what's there. Yes. But what's there, is a concrete post-apocalyptic nightmare. I'd like to think we're setting our goals higher.

Like Drybrain said, too much like a boulevard, with massive setbacks. Why? Too low density. Why? I thought this area was supposed to be our "intense" residential density area? As in, we limit height everywhere because, well, once we get around to the Cogswell, this is where we're going to have some proper skyscrapers! Here we are, back at our typical 14-20 storeys. ZZZZzzz.

Also, as others said, too much useless green space in between roads. Who ever uses narrow green spaces bordered by major road arteries? Who is ever going to spend time near a fountain on a rotary island? Yes, yes, let me walk my kids in the useless Cogswell green spaces, dodging traffic, and breathing exhaust fumes. We don't need a G-d forsaken garden in Cogswell. Give me a break.

So much potential for this land. I don't see it here. Not with this vision.

Looks not so different from what is already there along Barrington towards the bridge; large setbacks, low density useless wasteland where no one spends any time. Disappointed.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

There is very little green space on the HRM properties and most of it is surrounds the sewage treatment plant. HRM owns 9 of the 14 properties and the green space to the south of the sewage plan is an NSP sub station.

Oh yeah, I remember that. Peter Kelly, the Mayor from Bedford, deciding that downtown Halifax would be the best place for a sewage treatment plant.

He was keeping his suburban voters happy. Put it downtown. Who cares, right?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

But did you read any of the 3 reports ?
What is your expertise compared with the International consultants ?
Go ahead and and present a well reasoned critique of the reports and people will listen, otherwise...............

I've read the Cogswell Reports. But a few things on these types of market assessments: I'm highly skeptical, particularly for Halifax.

First, the numbers can easily lie. The models easily jigged. As such, they have often been used and abused by the usual suspects as a means of opposing development or faster development. Whenever something over two storeys was proposed downtown, someone from Heritage or STV or whatever would appear with a new "market assessment" study, which, surprise, surprise, always seemed to suggest the market could not support whatever new residential units were being proposed. "It will suck up demand for 20 years!". I'm not casting aspersions on these reports, but there is good reason for skepticism.

Second, these assessments have gotten Halifax wrong more than once. A great example is the King's Wharf development. Consensus, including among consultants/local economists was those units would never sell, there is just no demand. Well, that turned out to be wrong laughably wrong. Frances Fares is selling out buildings before shovels are even in the ground.

In other words, these market assessment are highly speculative for major multi-year projects and their conclusions usually significantly qualified, simply because they are based on conditions and assumptions that can easily change, quickly too. So, when honestly done, these reports include conclusions that will be tentative at best.

This leads us back to the Cogswell Reports. They don't contain the detailed market assessment, so I cannot comment on the numbers.

But the reports do include a summary of the findings. The summer portion of the reports on market absorption rates and the market assessment are highly, highly, tentative and conditional. In fact, they basically admit their assessment of demand and absorption is just not predictable:

Market Absorption

Given the significance of the municipal infrastructure program and multi-year construction schedule it is difficult to precisely predict the lot sale and development program that follows. The market conditions will need to be continuously monitored and assumptions and revenue forecasts adjusted as required.

page: 102, Cogswell Transformed Report.

So, why not get it built faster?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

At the risk of re-starting the eternal tall buildings debate, I think that A: There's only so much demand for new residential coming on the market at the same time, so a bunch of gigantic towers may be untenable, and B: This is about fixing the area's broken urbanism and, really, creating a whole new neighbourhood. A few towers would be great, but height is very far from being the major concern here. Look at what was done to Toronto's St. Lawrence neighbourhood in the 70s--a brilliant example of wholesale community-building, and no significant towers at all, just consistent density. Ditto for the current East Donlands development.

It would be really unfortunate to turn this into another pissing match over height.

I think *some* more significant height is warranted for this area, because we just don't have zoning for it anywhere else on the peninsula. This is it. This is all we have.

I'm not saying we need to plaster this with a bunch of condo towers-- it can be a mix-- but a bunch of midrise developments? Blah. Blah. Blah.

BTW, I'm all for consistent density and community building. I don't see it in this vision...

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Oh yeah, I remember that. Peter Kelly, the Mayor from Bedford, deciding that downtown Halifax would be the best place for a sewage treatment plant.

I'd call him an idiot again, but I don't think it had anything to do with his stupidity. He was just keeping his suburban voters happy. Put it downtown. Who cares, right?

Kelly didn't make the decision. There are several sewage plants around the harbour and they have to be adjacent to the water. It was an engineering and cost decision. The land was, and is, owned by the city Where else could they put it ?
The Cogswell plan is estimated to bring 2,500 people downtown.
I don't doubt there will be criticism of the plan and if you feel strongly about it send your thoughts and suggestions to mayor Savage and write to your councillor.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

The "Cogswell Transformed" report talks a good game, and has a lot of interesting things in the report.

But after all that, this is the visualization they come up with? I don't like it. Really much at all.

It's an improvement over what's there. Yes. But what's there, is a concrete post-apocalyptic nightmare. I'd like to think we're setting our goals higher.

Like Drybrain said, too much like a boulevard, with massive setbacks. Why? Too low density. Why? I thought this area was supposed to be our "intense" residential density area? As in, we limit height everywhuere because, well, once we get around to the Cogswell, this is where we're going to have some proper skyscrapers! Here we are, back at our typical 14-20 storeys. ZZZZzzz.

Also, as others said, too much useless green space in between roads. Who ever uses narrow green spaces bordered by major road arteries? Who is ever going to spend time near a fountain on a rotary island? Yes, yes, let me walk my kids in the useless Cogswell green spaces, dodging traffic, and breathing exhaust fumes. We don't need a G-d forsaken garden in Cogswell. Give me a break.

So much potential for this land. I don't see it here. Not with this vision.

Looks not so different from what is already there along Barrington towards the bridge; large setbacks, low density useless wasteland where no one spends any time. Disappointed.

I may backtrack ever so slightly on the 'no green space' stuff. The report mentions a square at the triangle lands north of Granville as an entryway into the pedestrian mall, and given the street's grandeur, some large visual terminus might be good there, especially if it creates a view corridor into Granville from higher elevations further north--could be a really, robustly urban perspective into downtown.

I also like that the report talks about restoring the typical, unusually short ' halifax Block', which it indicates is part of what makes downtown so walkable.

And I'm not too worried about the rendering--Ekistics seems to use the same models and renders for all its studies, from this to the corner of Spring Garden and Grafton to the Sydney waterfront. Even that thing in the Emirates or wherever. All depicted some of the same buildings.

Anyway, yeah, setbacks = bad idea. I earlier used Toronto's St. Lawrence neighbourhood as an example of how to build a great neighbourhood from scratch. The corollary (how NOT to build a neighbourhood from scratch) would be what's happening now along Queens Quay in Toronto. A big wide road with mostly crappy mid rises and big streetwall setbacks. Bremner Boulevard through CityPlace is similar, only with crappy skyscrapers. In both cases, building height is irrelevant to the area's success--it's crummy design in other areas.

Anyway, the report seems to support building to ramparts max as long as there's market demand, and as long the buildings scale down somewhat approaching the north end, so as not to create big weird wall between the two areas.

Personally, I'd like a great, consistent string of high-quality mid rises, bookended by tall point towers at the street corners.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Kelly didn't make the decision. There are several sewage plants around the harbour and they have to be adjacent to the water. It was an engineering and cost decision. The land was, and is, owned by the city Where else could they put it ?
The Cogswell plan is estimated to bring 2,500 people downtown.
I don't doubt there will be criticism of the plan and if you feel strongly about it send your thoughts and suggestions to mayor Savage and write to your councillor.

Does it make sense-- from a cost perspective-- to put a sewage plant smack in the middle of an area that will eventually be *prime* development real estate in 10-20 years? That's a cost effective decision? That seems to me, from a development perspective, highly stupid. You're handicapping land value that could, in the future, constitute a rich revenue and tax base.

We don't often make decisions in Halifax based on economic development. We don't often make hard choices that now that would lead to better returns tomorrow. We make cheap, easy, path of least resistance decisions that keep current voter bases happy. And that, to me, is what went on with this decision. It may have been cost effective for 2001 or 2002, but not for 2014 and beyond. Is it so difficult to think ahead 10 years?

I don't know all the details, but you mean to tell me there was no other comparable site for the sewage plant anywhere along the harbour with comparable costing? Even if it would be more expensive elsewhere in the near term, I think that makes more sense than this decision.

No, the decision was not taken by Kelly alone. It was voted by an HRM Council, but without guidance or leadership from the (then) new Mayor. And they're complicit in supporting the decision.

And now from the Harbour Solutions Report, concerning selection of location for the different Sewage Treatment Plants.

"The STPs will be designed to restrict odour and noise. They will also be designed and landscaped to be compatible with surrounding land uses."

Report, page 11 https://www.halifax.ca/harboursol/documents/ea_federal_screening_001.pdf

Doesn't sound like a costing decision to me?

And then later, in the "Summary of Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements", this:

"Selection of location for outfalls and diffusers within areas with sufficient depth and currents to promote dispersion as well as to avoid sensitive areas (e.g. Narrows / Bedford Basin, Northwest Arm)."

Report, page 42: https://www.halifax.ca/harboursol/documents/ea_federal_screening_001.pdf

Bingo. So, it was one part engineering, one part being "sensitive" to certain areas. Gee, I wonder why Bedford Basin (which constitutes the entire inner portion of the harbour) was designated a "sensitive" area. Hmm?

Of course, these are the reports for Council. We can be excused for lacking knowledge of true details of decisions made on this count, given that decisions on all of these counts were taken, as usual, in secretive "IN CAMERA" sessions, as per usual, during Peter Kelly's Secretive Non-Transparent Regime:

http://www.halifax.ca/harboursol/HSCouncilDecisions2003.html

I should add one thing -- the report indicates that HRM did not own all the lands upon which the STPs were constructed. The report indicates, at that time, they were in the process of "acquiring" some. So, it's no excuse to say that HRM had no choice but to put the STPs in these locations because they owned the land. Again, that would make it more costly, but my point, is that this is a shortsighted way to doing the numbers.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

And I'm not too worried about the rendering--Ekistics seems to use the same models and renders for all its studies, from this to the corner of Spring Garden and Grafton to the Sydney waterfront.

Yes, these are conceptual renderings meant to show how lots might be divided up and what sort of massing the buildings could have. They're not detailed renderings of the building designs. That should be left to the developers to decide based on their needs at the time. The important thing right now is just to come up with a good framework for the street network and transit, public spaces, and decide what the hard constraints on things like building heights will be (I think they should be ramparts max in a good percentage of this land).

There are some "Granville Square" site plans shown in one of the reports. They look great.

I agree that the downtown sewage treatment plant was a poor decision that lacked vision. A lot of people thought the same thing back when it was proposed. It may have cost less in terms of dollars up front but it was not the best option in terms of opportunity cost because it destroyed a disproportionate amount of land value and development potential. It's not the end of the world and it can probably be improved as the neighbourhood is built up but it could have been a lot better.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

The "Cogswell Transformed" report talks a good game, and has a lot of interesting things in the report.

But after all that, this is the visualization they come up with? I don't like it. Really much at all.

It's an improvement over what's there. Yes. But what's there, is a concrete post-apocalyptic nightmare. I'd like to think we're setting our goals higher.

Like Drybrain said, too much like a boulevard, with massive setbacks. Why? Too low density. Why? I thought this area was supposed to be our "intense" residential density area? As in, we limit height everywhere because, well, once we get around to the Cogswell, this is where we're going to have some proper skyscrapers! Here we are, back at our typical 14-20 storeys. ZZZZzzz.

Also, as others said, too much useless green space in between roads. Who ever uses narrow green spaces bordered by major road arteries? Who is ever going to spend time near a fountain on a rotary island? Yes, yes, let me walk my kids in the useless Cogswell green spaces, dodging traffic, and breathing exhaust fumes. We don't need a G-d forsaken garden in Cogswell. Give me a break.

So much potential for this land. I don't see it here. Not with this vision.

Looks not so different from what is already there along Barrington towards the bridge; large setbacks, low density useless wasteland where no one spends any time. Disappointed.

I agree. The first bit looks ok to the left... but then it just looks like they gave up... there is no urbanity and quite frankly does not look like an area that would be nice to walk on.

This doesn't even take into account the lack of density!