General Updates and News

[worldlyhaligonian]

We need it all!

That means arts facilities, sports stadiums, towers, whatever!

Arts people shouldn't meddle in the construction or allocation of dollars for sports, business, etc. and the other people shouldn't shut own arts funding.

Simple. Everybody do their own thing and we'll all be mutually prosperous.

The comments that both sides are making are too extreme. That being said, I only see appeals/interventions by heritage supporters. I don't see the business community "shutting down" arts funding... in fact, there may even be subsidies coming from them.

[Colin May]

Stravinsky was once considered ' out there'.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by beyeas

They absolutely do. The Empire State, Chrysler Building etc are iconic symbols of NYC that people love to see. Ever seen the lineups to take the elevator to the viewing deck at the Empire State Building? Gotten a reservation for dinner at Top of The Rock? One of my favourite things to do in NYC is to look at the amazing stone detail work on NYC's amazing collection of Art Deco office towers (of which I think they have the best collection in the world, even when compared to Chicago etc).

Again your use on "absolutes" is the issue, and the world is much less black and white than you make it to be. Yes, one of the things people go to NYC for is to see Central Park and go to the theatres, but they ALSO go to see the iconic skyscrapers that define its skyline. Overly absolute statements (e.g. "they don't go") are rarely true and usually amount to pounding on the table when you can't pound on the facts.

Do people go to London to look at tall buildings and when did tourists start doing so ?
Ditto Paris.
Ditto Tokyo.
Ditto Rome, Milan
Ditto Berlin.
Ditto Barcelona.
I'll admit to spending time looking at tall buildings in Egypt, the Cairo Museum was just as impressive as the Pyramids.
When in Rouen make sure to admire the magnificent tall building, the organ is just one of the amazing attributes of the awe inspiring building.

[Drybrain]

This isn't about tall buildings or no tall buildings. It's about the value (or lack of it, to some) of the Khyber Arts Society, and whether the building is worth public money to restore. (The city has certainly decided it is, having purchased it with the intent to preserve back in '88.)

The building is not going to be torn down in any case. Worst case it's declared surplus and doesn't find a private buyer willing to reno it, so it falls into further disrepair and becomes a vacant blight on the street for who knows how long. Then maybe after years of neglect is torn down. That seems entirely possible or even likely if the city decides not to restore it. But it's not going to be dozed for a highrise, whatever a handful of people on here would like.

[visualman57]

and on a different note: Bell Aliant announced today that they are consolidating their downtown operations in Scotia Square as their lease is ending at the Maritime Centre. 500 people will be involved, with another 300, including IT and HR relocating to the old RIM location in Bedford. Good for downtown in general, although the loss of that many people on the Spring Garden section of Barrington may have an impact. Could also lead to an interesting renovation and update of the Maritime Centre.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is funny because the debate is often framed as highrises (and the destruction of views) vs. heritage preservation, but there are lots of historic highrises around the world and a few in Halifax. The Dominion Public Building and Dingle are two good local examples.

I've never heard anybody complain about the presence of the Dingle or claim that it ruins sight lines. On the contrary, I think it's an attractive part of the view of the Northwest Arm and people can climb the tower and look off the observation deck.

Really the problem isn't with highrise buildings or new development, it's demolition and unattractive development. People don't like Scotia Square or the Maritime Centre as much. But no developers are proposing to construct copies of 1960's and 70's buildings. Most anti-highrise sentiment is based on straw men.

Bad traffic is another one that gets unfairly pinned on urban highrises. Halifax's roads are largely clogged by cars driven by suburbanites who live in low density neighbourhoods. Urban development improves congestion compared to the alternative. People need places to live and work. If they live and work in the urban core they will drive less. It's pretty simple.

So true.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

When we think about world class cities, they have recognized that it's about providing services for what the changing demographics want. Younger folks are looking for cities where cars aren't the priority and have significant cultural aspects. Jeff boiled it down like this (and I thought it was a great metaphor): do you want a 1 star city (like a Macdonald's) or do you want a 3 star city (moxie's or something like that) or do you want a 5 star city?

The world class cities build bike lanes and encourage investments in transit and culture, because that's what the younger demographics who are moving to them want. They don't want to own a car, they want the excitement of downtown cultural areas. So I guess the debate we're having about this is about what kind of city we want.

Frankly, that's horseshit. The "younger folks" mentioned generally aren't property owners and do not pay municipal taxes. The minute they marry and have kids, they move to suburbia and become the hated commuter class.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Frankly, that's horseshit. The "younger folks" mentioned generally aren't property owners and do not pay municipal taxes.

We* do, through rent. And some are buying condos and some are buying houses. Some own businesses and pay commercial taxes as well.

Most of the international students and people I know who have moved here from abroad don't complain about the traffic, or the state of the roads, they complain about the unreliable transit and the appallingly disjointed bike network (and this winter, the snow). Things they tend to like are the cultural stuff like all the live music and Nocturne and the new library, and the historic sites and the proximity to nature.

Road conditions and rush-hour traffic congestion are bad almost everywhere in Canada, and probably in almost every urbanized part of the world. We're never going to attract people here by being the best at that.


*Young, single, childless non-property-owners who like art and bike lanes and stuff

The minute they marry and have kids, they move to suburbia and become the hated commuter class.

Most have kids before they get married. This really changes that dynamic but those who do stay together/get married (in my experience) tend to stick as close as they can to the core. Most of my friends who have bought property and/or had kids live in modest houses or apartments in places like Fairview, Spryfield and Dartmouth. Two of my friends have bought property along the 103 corridor but one works in Tantallon (so his commute is actually shorter now) and the other is a real estate agent who (I think) mostly works from home.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Frankly, that's horseshit. The "younger folks" mentioned generally aren't property owners and do not pay municipal taxes. The minute they marry and have kids, they move to suburbia and become the hated commuter class.

I think that your're wrong about that. I was in Gus's ysterday for an Ace burger and there were lots of young families. There are many that own/live in that area, and pay taxes like you and I. They also get a say, thank God.

[JET]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

We need it all!

That means arts facilities, sports stadiums, towers, whatever!

Arts people shouldn't meddle in the construction or allocation of dollars for sports, business, etc. and the other people shouldn't shut own arts funding.

Simple. Everybody do their own thing and we'll all be mutually prosperous.

The comments that both sides are making are too extreme. That being said, I only see appeals/interventions by heritage supporters. I don't see the business community "shutting down" arts funding... in fact, there may even be subsidies coming from them.

"Arts people shouldn't meddle.." Wow, one dimensional people, they must be the ones that I see on the rear windows of vehicles. I guess if I like the arts, or heritage that's the lot that I can choose from, I have no say in anthing else? Thanks for letting me know.

[hoser111]

Shouldn't this discussion move to "Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues" or some such? This hardly has anything to do with "news" anymore.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Frankly, that's horseshit. The "younger folks" mentioned generally aren't property owners and do not pay municipal taxes. The minute they marry and have kids, they move to suburbia and become the hated commuter class.

First of all, renters pay rent, which goes to taxes. Obviously. This is a ridiculous claim.

Second, that's not remotely true that everyone who has kids marries off and heads to suburbia. Suburban areas still have the greatest proportion of families with kids, but that's changing super-fast. Go to this handy census reference map Global News put together based on 2011 census data. The largest number of children are still off-peninsula. BUT, look at the category "Change in the absolute numbers of population aged 0-9." That's rapidly changing. The biggest increases in children are in the urban core and peninsula, while the biggest decreases are in traditional suburbs. Young, child-bearing families ARE living on the peninsula in increasing numbers, and a lot of them DO value all this stuff.

If you look at the "Change in median age" category, and zoom out to a regional level, it's pretty apparent where young people are choosing to live. And it's in proximity to all that urban-y, artsy stuff made possible by institutions like the Khyber.

I think Halifaxboy is right, in that a lot of this is a values clash between what various people value in a city.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

First of all, renters pay rent, which goes to taxes. Obviously. This is a ridiculous claim.

Second, that's not remotely true that everyone who has kids marries off and heads to suburbia. Suburban areas still have the greatest proportion of families with kids, but that's changing super-fast. Go to this handy census reference map Global News put together based on 2011 census data. The largest number of children are still off-peninsula. BUT, look at the category "Change in the absolute numbers of population aged 0-9." That's rapidly changing. The biggest increases in children are in the urban core and peninsula, while the biggest decreases are in traditional suburbs. Young, child-bearing families ARE living on the peninsula in increasing numbers, and a lot of them DO value all this stuff.

If you look at the "Change in median age" category, and zoom out to a regional level, it's pretty apparent where young people are choosing to live. And it's in proximity to all that urban-y, artsy stuff made possible by institutions like the Khyber.

I think Halifaxboy is right, in that a lot of this is a values clash between what various people value in a city.

There is definitely a major generational shift in values that older people don't tend to appreciate. In the 80's and 90's it was true that young people would have their time in the city and then move out to the suburbs, but that is less common now. Unfortunately, I think problems like low voter turnout and political participation in low age brackets further fuels the disconnect.

We are seeing a similar issue in Vancouver because there's a plebiscite on transit funding now and support is skewed heavily toward younger demographics, but there's a fear that they won't participate as much and will be under-represented.

Beyond just the population numbers, I also suspect that the wealthiest and most educated young people have a disproportionally large tendency to have fewer kids and remain in urban areas. Cities that fail to appeal to that demographic probably don't have a very bright future, on the whole. I know a lot of people in their 20's and 30's with graduate degrees in STEM fields and many are starting or participating in early-stage businesses. As a whole they're pretty averse to buying McMansions and commuting by car and tend to value the things they perceive as factors in a good quality of life, like good food, exercise (i.e. active transportation), cultural amenities, etc. They tend to have few children (mostly no children) and those who do, surprisingly, often choose live in apartments. As the Baby Boomers and generation age and retire I think there's going to be a pretty big shift in what working-age people want, and we may find that we are oversupplied in terms of highways and suburbia.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Frankly, that's horseshit. The "younger folks" mentioned generally aren't property owners and do not pay municipal taxes. The minute they marry and have kids, they move to suburbia and become the hated commuter class.

That's certainly not what the stats in Calgary are showing. And actually everyone pays property tax either directly or indirectly. I rent, I don't pay property tax directly. My landlord does - so part of my rent goes to property tax. So to say I don't pay property tax (to use your words) is horse sh*t.

That said - it gets into the bigger question of why should I pay for roads for you, when I don't use them? I don't plan to get into that debate because it gives me a headache.

[ILoveHalifax]

Everybody uses roads either directly or indirectly. The goods in the store that an urban dweller might buy get there on transport trucks

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Everybody uses roads either directly or indirectly. The goods in the store that an urban dweller might buy get there on transport trucks

That's arguable when we're talking about distant cul-de-sacs and the like, but yes, by and large, you're right.

Just as we all benefit, directly or indirectly, from the creation of a more attractive metropolis with a diverse economy, including a healthy cultural sector. Institutions like the KAS provide incubators and support to a culturally influential demographic, which spins off into real estate, development, commerce, etc.

At worst, it creates a positive impression of the city as a forward-thinking, arts-oriented place. At best, it's part of creating an overall urban climate that draws people (and employers) to a place. This isn't wishful thinking; institutions like the Khyber have a demonstrated and major positive on impact urban economies. You can disagree, but the data shows it.

I'm reluctant to link to anything written by the rather glib Richard Florida, but check this out. Florida is just describing other people's research here, so it's a lot more credible than his own overly simple deductions.

Basically, cities that have healthy arts sectors and generous public-sector support ALSO tend to have very healthy economies, and are in high demand by employers and new residents. Arts funding also tends to generate economic activity that offsets the initial investment, and generates additional money. It's literally an investment, not a liability. Summary quote: "Ultimately, the study notes that while arts are not a silver bullet for cities, their role in urban economic development is, in the authors’ words,'“highly underestimated.'”

And that's not just funding for safe stuff like symphonies and large theatre companies and the like--small galleries, individual grants, and artist-run spaces (i.e., the Khyber) are all part of that. And if you talk to any Canadian artist with experience of the Khyber, they'll tell you that it's one of the best such institutions in the country, and part of the reason for that is the centrality of its location and the building itself.


I find it depressing that we always have to frame the debate for arts funding in economic terms, rather than accepting that maybe great civilizations just SHOULD put some money to arts. But that's the frame we're working with, I guess.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I find it depressing that we always have to frame the debate for arts funding in economic terms, rather than accepting that maybe great civilizations just SHOULD put some money to arts. But that's the frame we're working with, I guess.

That was the point of quoting our City Manager out here. It's a value argument more than anything.
To me - I like the fact that in Calgary 1% of any capitol project is dedicated to public art. Public Art creates an interesting city. I don't necessarily like it all - the blue ring we ended up with in Calgary by the airport, I don't like or get. But it's meant to invoke discussion and interest which the blue ring certainly did.

I don't wish to belabour this discussion any further, other than to say I'd be fine paying tax dollars into funding the Khyber and restoring it. I'd hate to see it go and I think it should be a last resort. That's my opinion, obviously others have different ones. But if the focus is on making the city a 1 star inexpensive 'Macdonald's' city; I think you will find people will eventually find it boring. That was one of the reasons I left - nothing was happening.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

That's certainly not what the stats in Calgary are showing. And actually everyone pays property tax either directly or indirectly. I rent, I don't pay property tax directly. My landlord does - so part of my rent goes to property tax. So to say I don't pay property tax (to use your words) is horse sh*t.

That said - it gets into the bigger question of why should I pay for roads for you, when I don't use them? I don't plan to get into that debate because it gives me a headache.

You do not pay property tax directly and I would argue that if you don't see it, you don't have it top of mind when things like this come along. "Damn landlord put my rent up $200 a month!" is different from "Damn property taxes went up $2000!!".

As for the rest of it, all I know is that the suburbs of HRM have exploded in the last decade or two, and I don't see a lot of little kids living with their families on those new condos downtown. Maybe all those families in the suburbs are foreign national terrorist agents integrating themselves into our society to eventually take us over? I'm not sure how else to explain it. Because the argument here from the planners is that they aren't important citizens and taxpayers. I find that absolutely astounding, that people employed by govts in the various public services would deem one group of individuals undesirable and their need for services unnecessary because of where they choose to live.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

But if the focus is on making the city a 1 star inexpensive 'Macdonald's' city; I think you will find people will eventually find it boring. That was one of the reasons I left - nothing was happening.

That's funny; "nothing happening" was one of the reasons I left Calgary in 2006. (I mean, stuff was happening, but the place felt culturally stagnant.)

Both Calgary and Halifax have changed quite a bit in a very short time. Calgary's population influx has been far more dramatic, but Halifax is having what feels to me like the early to middle stages of an urban renaissance. Exciting times for both.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Just as we all benefit, directly or indirectly, from the creation of a more attractive metropolis with a diverse economy, including a healthy cultural sector. Institutions like the KAS provide incubators and support to a culturally influential demographic, which spins off into real estate, development, commerce, etc.

At worst, it creates a positive impression of the city as a forward-thinking, arts-oriented place. At best, it's part of creating an overall urban climate that draws people (and employers) to a place. This isn't wishful thinking; institutions like the Khyber have a demonstrated and major positive on impact urban economies. You can disagree, but the data shows it.

Spend money on anything, and there is an economic impact. The issue is where is that money coming from? In the case of the KAS, it is tax money collected from citizens that is given to them. It is not money that the people earning it choose to spend on something. So it is a rather artificial economic effect. If citizens had that in their pockets they would spend it on the things they choose. Those receiving it would benefit and grow, while those they did not choose may fail. In this case that choice does not exist.

Basically, cities that have healthy arts sectors and generous public-sector support ALSO tend to have very healthy economies, and are in high demand by employers and new residents. Arts funding also tends to generate economic activity that offsets the initial investment, and generates additional money. It's literally an investment, not a liability. Summary quote: "Ultimately, the study notes that while arts are not a silver bullet for cities, their role in urban economic development is, in the authors’ words,'“highly underestimated.'”

And that's not just funding for safe stuff like symphonies and large theatre companies and the like--small galleries, individual grants, and artist-run spaces (i.e., the Khyber) are all part of that. And if you talk to any Canadian artist with experience of the Khyber, they'll tell you that it's one of the best such institutions in the country, and part of the reason for that is the centrality of its location and the building itself.

I find it depressing that we always have to frame the debate for arts funding in economic terms, rather than accepting that maybe great civilizations just SHOULD put some money to arts. But that's the frame we're working with, I guess.

You have the cart before the horse. Cities with great economies tend to attract the arts because they follow the money. People who make big bucks tend to be patrons of the arts. You don't succeed as an economy by subsidizing arts groups with govt money when your city is falling apart. Fringe groups like KAS are always going to have their hand out because they do not appeal very much to the monied class. I have a problem with giving them $4 million.