General Updates and News

[Keith P.]

The car haters in urban planning circles (i.e. most of them) are falling all over themselves to agree with the Danish boors, and others with a more realistic perspective will point out that this isn't Denmark and if we wanted to be, we would probably all move there and look for a spot to park our bicycles. The letter was incredibly smug and superior-sounding and deserves the scorn it received - just as any doctrinaire philosophy shoved down people's throats deserves scorn. Show's over folks, nothing to see here, move along.

Use your heads, please.

[Drybrain]

Noticed some (I think?) new scaffolding at the rear of the Pacific Building today. It looked more like the old protect-the-passersby-from-crumbling-masonry scaffolding Halifax is so fond of (Dennis Building, Armoury, etc.) rather than anything portending facade repair, but though I'd see if anyone knows anything about it.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I agree that Canada has a car culture and Halifax does as well, to a point, but I'm not sure why you think that Halifax "in particular" has a car culture. Have you been many other places in Canada? Halifax is one of the least car-oriented cities in the country. More people walk and take transit here than in most of Canada. Do we have more of a car culture than St. John's, than NB's cities, than SW Ontario and the 905, than Northern Ontario, than the Prairies, including their cities, than the BC interior? Having spent time in all of these places, I sincerely doubt it. I'm not trying to be boosty, these places just ARE designed more for cars and less for pedestrians than Halifax is. Just like Halifax is designed more for cars and less for pedestrians than Copenhagen. Can you give an example to back up your claim that "Canada has a car culture, Halifax, particularly so"?

I've been to all the places you've mentioned, and lived in Ontario for a number of years.

But just to be clear-- and not to let this discussion regress into another argument over frames of reference-- I just don't think 905 suburban cities or small bean towns in NB, BC interior or northern Ontario are good comparators for Halifax. When you think to compare Halifax, do you honestly think of Thunder Bay? Brampton? Kamloops? Bathurst?

I don't, and I doubt you sincerely do either. As a capital city and major regional urban centre, my comparators to Halifax are other major city capitals and comparable cities across the country -- Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Quebec City, Hamilton, London, Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, etc.

If our aspirations in Halifax are to been less car-centric than, say, Kelowna BC or Mississauga, Ontario, while we forgo comparisons to Ottawa or Montreal, we've lost the battle before it's begun. As in, we need to aim higher.

Now, don't get me wrong, Halifax doesn't do too bad, in terms of the percentage of people who walk or bike to work. Also, we're good, by comparison to the rest of Canada, in terms of car pooling, which helps.

Now, some data:



So, Halifax is near the bottom of the pack. Slightly better than Victoria, Edmonton, Quebec, but worst than everyone else.

Now, here's a table from Stats Canada on average commuter times for 33 major cities across the country. Though imperfect, I think commute times provide one proxy means of measuring the extent of car culture....

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-012-x/2011003/tbl/tbl02-eng.cfm

Our average commute? 23.7 minutes.

That's ranks near the bottom-- it's worse than 23 other cities, out of 33.

That's worse than: Quebec City, St . John's, Moncton, Saint John, Hamilton, Peterborough, London, Kitchen, Brantford, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Winnipeg, and Victoria.

Now, people will snark, and say-- how many of those cities are based on peninsula? True, but then, wouldn't that lead more people to take public transit, naturally? Ferry across? Bike? Wouldn't that lead to more investment in mass transit? etc. If people are wedded to their cars, then they won't. They'll sit in traffic for longer commutes, as apparently, Haligonians do.

The cities we do better than are vastly larger than we-- Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, etc.

So yeah, beyond the mass of parking lots in the city centre and unnecessary biz parks sucking business and office space from downtown, I think that's at least *some* evidence of a noteworthy car culture.

I don't think suburban growth spiraled out of control, it just continued at more or less the same rate that it had been before the regional plan was implemented. In terms of the growth targets, it seems like a lot of people expected an immediate switch to 25% urban, 50% suburban etc. during the first five years of the regional plan. This isn't really fair or realistic to expect because many subdivisions under construction now were already approved or in the late planning stages when the regional plan was adopted. The flip side is that downtown/infill construction is still logistically difficult (despite HRMbD) and that it takes a while for the market and development/construction industry to adapt to the new paradigm. As development/construction companies get used to working within the constraints of the Peninsula (and Dartmouth) I think we will see an acceleration in the number of projects U/C... in fact this already seems to be happening. I think over the 25-year course of the plan growth will much better reflect (or exceed) the growth targets.

I think this is a fair point, although I'm not sure people expected the city to turn on a dime and produce 25% urban growth right away. But I think they were expecting more than the 12% that was apparent half a decade into the life of the plan, which is not unreasonable, either. If you put a plan like that in place, with those sort of goals, you have to take some serious action / major steps to make it work. Not sit back and cross your fingers and do business as usual.

I agree that over the life of the plan, the 25% growth will look better/more feasible. But then there's the bigger argument-- grounded by the Stantec Report-- that 25% is an overly modest goal. And even though suburban growth may have retained the same level, I still think it's legitimate to say it's "spiraling out of control" if it will continue that way for another quarter century. Given our financial situation, the city can't afford more 65% suburban growth over the next 25 years. I actually don't think it can afford 50%.

Anecdotal, but I worked out of Cochrane, Alberta (a suburb of Calgary) for a couple weeks 2 summers ago. It's a sort of Bedford-esque suburb with no public transit. Most people who were younger than me seemed to be in great shape, or at least not overweight, while most people who were older than me seemed to be overweight or obese. My theory was that younger people without cars/licenses had to walk everywhere - and this means long distances - while those with cars never walked anywhere and quickly gained weight.

Interesting! And not surprising.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The car haters in urban planning circles (i.e. most of them) are falling all over themselves to agree with the Danish boors, and others with a more realistic perspective will point out that this isn't Denmark and if we wanted to be, we would probably all move there and look for a spot to park our bicycles. The letter was incredibly smug and superior-sounding and deserves the scorn it received - just as any doctrinaire philosophy shoved down people's throats deserves scorn. Show's over folks, nothing to see here, move along.

Use your heads, please.

You don't agree with their observation that we have too many parking lots in the city centre?

It's annoying that two smug European tourists have pointed it out, but it's indelibly true.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

As a capital city and major regional urban centre, my comparators to Halifax are other major city capitals and comparable cities across the country -- Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Quebec City, Hamilton, London, Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, etc.

I haven't been to QC or Hamilton, but London, Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg are absolutely more car-centric than Halifax, and Victoria is probably about the same. It's kind of apples to oranges to compare Halifax to Montreal and Toronto since they both have subway systems and commuter rail.

So, Halifax is near the bottom of the pack. Slightly better than Victoria, Edmonton, Quebec, but worst than everyone else.

But the fact that Halifax is near the bottom of the pack in terms of transit usage (out of a limited selection of cities) is offset by the number of people who walk, bike, carpool, etc. in that all of these things, not just transit, mean more vehicles off the road. Also, Halifax is basically on par with Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver once you take the subways/skytrains out of the equation, and it's notable that we're ahead of Edmonton even though they have an LRT system AND we almost certainly have a higher percentage of commuters who walk.

That's ranks near the bottom-- it's worse than 23 other cities, out of 33.

That's worse than: Quebec City, St . John's, Moncton, Saint John, Hamilton, Peterborough, London, Kitchen, Brantford, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Winnipeg, and Victoria.

Now, people will snark, and say-- how many of those cities are based on peninsula? True, but then, wouldn't that lead more people to take public transit, naturally? Ferry across? Bike? Wouldn't that lead to more investment in mass transit? etc. If people are wedded to their cars, then they won't. They'll sit in traffic for longer commutes, as apparently, Haligonians do.

The cities there that are smaller than Halifax are all also less dense than Halifax in addition to occupying a smaller area. People don't have to travel as far to get to work and they don't encounter as many other commuters along the way. That should make sense.

As for the rest, London and Winnipeg both have street networks centred along wide, straight arterial roads. Kitchener has a well-developed freeway network and multiple downtown cores, as does Thunder Bay on a smaller scale. Hamilton has 4+ lane one-way streets downtown. Basically all of these cities have much more arterial road capacity per area of built-up space than Halifax (I don't have data immediately available to back this up, but having driven in most of these places that's what I observed). Victoria is fairly similar to Halifax (and people there certainly complain about traffic) but its road network is spread out a bit more evenly due to fewer geographic constraints. I've never been to Quebec City and I don't really know what the infrastructure is like there. I think we actually get a lot more municipal investment in public transit than most of those cities as well. Kitchener's LRT system is largely being funded by the province. I seriously doubt that any of those cities, other than maybe Quebec City, get as much municipal investment in transit. MAYBE Winnipeg.

So yeah, beyond the mass of parking lots in the city centre

which are pretty much a universal phenomenon across Canada

and unnecessary biz parks sucking business and office space from downtown

which is pretty much a universal phenomenon across North America

I think that's at least *some* evidence of a noteworthy car culture.

I don't really think it's noteworthy.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

You don't agree with their observation that we have too many parking lots in the city centre?

Since they are mostly full every day and it is difficult at times to find parking downtown, I fail to see how they are unnecessary.

It's annoying that two smug European tourists have pointed it out, but it's indelibly true.

As OldDartmouthMark pointed out, the lots are transitional, and all have plans for development. What will they say then? They will remain critical because we don't have elevated bike lanes, bike t-bars for the uphill stretches, and windmills at the mouth of the harbor. They are jerks. The letter demonstrates that fact.

[Ziobrop]

ugh.
We came to Canada and discovered its not like Denmark.

yep. Honestly, if i went to Denmark and discovered it was like Canada I'd wish I went somewhere else.

Say what you will about 18 lanes of 401 traffic - but you have to admit, its impressive to look at, due to its shear volume and quantity of infrastructure. and that's something you can only see in North America.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I haven't been to QC or Hamilton, but London, Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg are absolutely more car-centric than Halifax, and Victoria is probably about the same. It's kind of apples to oranges to compare Halifax to Montreal and Toronto since they both have subway systems and commuter rail.

...

But the fact that Halifax is near the bottom of the pack in terms of transit usage (out of a limited selection of cities) is offset by the number of people who walk, bike, carpool, etc.

Statscan has active transportation data comparing cities that shows this to be true-ish. Halifax does only okay with cycling: 1.1% of us cycle to work (I'm a bit shocked that we have fewer bike commuters than Calgary.)

But Halifax blows almost everyone away when it comes to people commuting on foot: 8.5%. Which I assume is due to the compact nature of the peninsula/Dartmouth. A much larger proportion of our population lives within walking distance to the downtown employment district than the same proportion in Calgary or Toronto or Montreal, etc. The only city with a greater percentage of pedestrian commuters is Victoria (which also has by far the most bike commuters). That squares with my experience—I lived in a downtown-ish area in Toronto and still commuted by subway, because it was a 90-minute walk to my office. Now I commute by foot because I live a half-hour walk from the office.

ALSO:

As usual, I think Halifax's uniquely stupid jurisdictional boundaries make our numbers look worse than other cities. These Statscan figures include the far-flung parts of HRM. where pretty much nobody commutes by foot or bike, thereby driving down our stats. I bet if our urban boundaries were scaled to national norms (no other city has an equivalent to our ludicrously distant District 1, for example) our numbers would improve even further—and they're already great for pedestrians, decent for cycling. It'd probably boost transit numbers a bit too.

[mcmcclassic]

I think if they travelled to other countries outside North America, they will find many similar things to here. From my experience living in New Zealand, they had many of the same problems we have: car-centric cities, poor public transit overall, and lots of fat people (proportionally more than Canada btw). Not even the $2.20 a litre we paid for gas stopped anyone!

Empty lots in city centres isn't that rare where I lived (Dunedin). This is one block from the city centre (note Countdown is their version of Superstore):https://maps.google.com/?ll=-45.873121,1...UZ8AUjV9ukfCWzGkE5H7g&cbp=12,171.36,,0,0

Their version of the 401: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Auckland,..._q2RPLVtj-aNTxyg7LRig&cbp=12,102.42,,0,0

And for those who like the Lord of the Rings, here's one from Hobbiton:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Hobbiton,...f6Xl9856OG34yNNk8kAAqg&cbp=12,83.01,,0,0

At the end of the day, Halifax (and most other places in Canada) are getting better at being more transit and pedestrian oriented.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

ugh.
We came to Canada and discovered its not like Denmark.

yep. Honestly, if i went to Denmark and discovered it was like Canada I'd wish I went somewhere else.

Say what you will about 18 lanes of 401 traffic - but you have to admit, its impressive to look at, due to its shear volume and quantity of infrastructure. and that's something you can only see in North America.

some large highways, including a video of the Circumfrential.


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1085911&page=2

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I haven't been to QC or Hamilton, but London, Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg are absolutely more car-centric than Halifax, and Victoria is probably about the same. It's kind of apples to oranges to compare Halifax to Montreal and Toronto since they both have subway systems and commuter rail.

No more apples to oranges than comparing Halifax to, say, Winnipeg or London, neither of which have a compact land form like we do on the peninsula, which may lead to more walking over cars, as Dry points out.

Also, I think the absence of subways or commuter rails doesn't obviate comparisons; I think this is also suggestive of a stronger car culture.

We've talked for years about commuter rail in Halifax, usually hand wringing about the costs, and it never happens. Meanwhile, we earmark about many times more the estimated cost of an LRT for massive road projects like Bayers Road widening.

You may not find that noteworthy, but I think you're wrong.

And just to pre-empt the expected reply that Halifax is too "small" to support commuter rail, there are a number of much smaller urban centres in North America with commuter rails, or have systems being built:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail_in_North_America

Originally Posted by Hali87

But the fact that Halifax is near the bottom of the pack in terms of transit usage (out of a limited selection of cities) is offset by the number of people who walk, bike, carpool, etc. in that all of these things, not just transit, mean more vehicles off the road. Also, Halifax is basically on par with Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver once you take the subways/skytrains out of the equation, and it's notable that we're ahead of Edmonton even though they have an LRT system AND we almost certainly have a higher percentage of commuters who walk.

Taking subways/sky trains out of the equation is not a valid way to crunch the numbers. As I said above, lack of investment in mass transit is arguably an indication of car culture. If you don't build it, you don't get the windfall it offers in terms of reducing car culture and commute times. Spend the money and you do. Removing significant non-automobile based transit from an equation meant to measure car culture turns this exercise on its head.

Originally Posted by Hali87

The cities there that are smaller than Halifax are all also less dense than Halifax in addition to occupying a smaller area. People don't have to travel as far to get to work and they don't encounter as many other commuters along the way. That should make sense.

Not really. It can explain some of the cities, but not all that beat Halifax on commute times. Moreover, all of these explanations equally apply to cities who we *best* on commute times, which are far bigger than us. So, perhaps, when we take those considerations into account, we may not fair better than even bigger cities.

Originally Posted by Hali87

As for the rest, London and Winnipeg both have street networks centred along wide, straight arterial roads. Kitchener has a well-developed freeway network and multiple downtown cores, as does Thunder Bay on a smaller scale. Hamilton has 4+ lane one-way streets downtown. Basically all of these cities have much more arterial road capacity per area of built-up space than Halifax (I don't have data immediately available to back this up, but having driven in most of these places that's what I observed). Victoria is fairly similar to Halifax (and people there certainly complain about traffic) but its road network is spread out a bit more evenly due to fewer geographic constraints. I've never been to Quebec City and I don't really know what the infrastructure is like there. I think we actually get a lot more municipal investment in public transit than most of those cities as well. Kitchener's LRT system is largely being funded by the province. I seriously doubt that any of those cities, other than maybe Quebec City, get as much municipal investment in transit. MAYBE Winnipeg.

This is all very speculative, and I'm skeptical, but I don't have any data to back up my skepticism, either. So, I'll leave it.

Except to say: Quebec City is a nice comparator to Halifax, in that it has a very compact and historic downtown ("Old Quebec") with very tight road grids but then, a large mass of sprawl building out from that. Downtown is also on a peninsula, with the Riviere Saint-Charles and the Saint Lawrence, bordering it on two sides. Quebec also doesn't have city transit.

So with comparable land forms and 530,000 in the city of Quebec, and 700,000+ metro, we should be easily beat them on commute times, based on sheer smaller population numbers alone.

We don't. Why? Because we looooooove our cars, Hali. (See Figure 1).

FIGURE 1: MORE EVIDENCE - TYPICAL HRM DRIVER BEFORE HEADING INTO MORNING COMMUTE

[Empire]

Here is a building I would like to see resurrected as part of the Cogswell rebuild. The pedway from Purdy's would have to be relocated or have it go down through the basement. I would like to see 20% of the Cogswell lands dedicated to rebuilding buildings that have been demolished. The customs house would qualify as well although I would like to see it rebuilt where it stood, on the corner of Bedford Row and George.


Pentagon Building - flickr


Source[/QUOTE]

Customs- the stone building - Vintage Halifax Photos

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Empire

Here is a building I would like to see resurrected as part of the Cogswell rebuild. I would like to see 20% of the Cogswell lands dedicated to rebuilding buildings that have been demolished. The customs house would qualify as well although I would like to see it rebuilt where it stood, on the corner of Bedford Row and George.


Pentagon Building - flickr


Source

[/QUOTE]

I'd love to see that too—a few of the more significant demolished buildings rebuilt amid an otherwise very contemporary district. More than a few and we'd run the risk of Disneyfication, but doing a handful could set an extraordinary example for other North American cities trying to repair the civic wounds inflicted by the 20th century.

And there are precedents of cities doing exactly this after wars and fires. Why not after foolish, over-eager demolitions?

But, given that we're having a hard enough time retaining important old structures we already have (Infants Home, Dennis Building, probably the BMO block on SGR) and keeping others in a state of good repair (most notably a host of Barrington buildings in various states of lingering decay, from the Green Lantern to the Pacific and now maybe the Khyber), I wouldn't hold out much hope. I'm just hoping the contemporary development we get, when it happens, is of high, high, high quality.

[Keith P.]

Don't we have enough stubby faux-Victorian replica buildings already?

Having said that, I always liked the Pentagon but if anyone was to aspire to build something as a homage, make it 20 floors tall with Pentagon inspiration in the shape and detailing.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

some large highways, including a video of the Circumfrential.


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1085911&page=2

But this is more typical of today's Nova Scotia roads and traffic. I hear a roundabout is going in soon at the intersections shown to back things up even more.

• Video Link

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Don't we have enough stubby faux-Victorian replica buildings already?

Well, I think the difference is that it wouldn't be faux—it'd be something to build with real brick and stone, not precast concrete and foam detailing and the like.

I get the concern about being fake-y though. There's a good argument not to rebuild demolished buildings. I fall on the pro-reconstruction side, but only when used sparingly. Otherwise the city becomes a sort of fake-y landscape and you don't know what's original and what's a replica. And of course I want to see modern buildings too.

I think it's a pretty academic discussion in Halifax though, having never heard of any suggestions in this regard beyond this board.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Well, I think the difference is that it wouldn't be faux—it'd be something to build with real brick and stone, not precast concrete and foam detailing and the like.

I get the concern about being fake-y though. There's a good argument not to rebuild demolished buildings. I fall on the pro-reconstruction side, but only when used sparingly. Otherwise the city becomes a sort of fake-y landscape and you don't know what's original and what's a replica. And of course I want to see modern buildings too.

I think it's a pretty academic discussion in Halifax though, having never heard of any suggestions in this regard beyond this board.

The discussion should reach beyond this forum. What a great make work project. Nova Scotia granite, NS sandstone etc. Maybe the feds would like to help restore some history. I think the Pentagon could be stretched to 15 -20fl. and still have a very authentic appeal.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Empire

The discussion should reach beyond this forum. What a great make work project. Nova Scotia granite, NS sandstone etc. Maybe the feds would like to help restore some history. I think the Pentagon could be stretched to 15 -20fl. and still have a very authentic appeal.

Yes a 17ish story flat-iron style building might be cool, if thoughtfully designed.

[kph06]

Originally Posted by musicman

Hate to get away from this captivating conversation but has anybody see a bunch of brand new red tower crane sections around the city? Was on my way to NB last thursday evening and saw probably 25 or so trucks drive by with this nice shinny new red tower crane. Had what looked like a very light grey or white cab.

I drove by the Lead Formwork yard in Goodwood and there is a new to Halifax red and white Potain flat top tower crane in pieces in the yard just like the third crane at the Nova Centre. This is the fourth new or nearly new crane for them in about a year and a half.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Empire

The discussion should reach beyond this forum. What a great make work project. Nova Scotia granite, NS sandstone etc. Maybe the feds would like to help restore some history. I think the Pentagon could be stretched to 15 -20fl. and still have a very authentic appeal.

I think that would be very cool. Make it absolutely 100% (well... 95%) authentic on the outside, but modern and useful on the inside.

That said, won't happen in this day and age because (a) it would take too long to build with much handwork involved, and most importantly (b) it would be too expensive.

Nice idea though.