General Updates and News

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Fair enough, but I guess my use of "Boomer" isn't meant to be offensive; I just use it as shorthand to refer to the generation of people born after WWII, a large population boom, and the core demographic challenge for us between now and 2035.

When we say "Boomers", everyone knows what we're talking about, in the same way we also know who Generation X and Millennials, etc, are referring to (the latter are essentially the Echo Boomers, or children of Boomers).

I don't really like any of those terms because it generalizes people based on when they were born.

Think of it in these terms: if you substituted slang commonly used to describe race or sexual orientation, it would be deemed unacceptable and likely result in the poster becoming banned. In my view, "boomer", "generation X", etc. are not all that far off in concept and thus tend to dilute the discussion with derision and assigned blame. I realize that in some cases, particularly those that are related to history, there are fair uses for the terms, but I wouldn't be disappointed if I never heard any of them again.

That's just my 2¢ on the matter.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Opinion piece on the Doyle Block:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/132...character-with-city-block’s-demolition

Counterpoint published:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters/132...-halifax-block-deserves-to-be-demolished

The argument seems pretty lame to me, actually. He seems to base most of his "article" on some idea that tearing down old buildings will keep young people from moving away.

Regardless, I'm sure whatever makes the most financial sense for the developer is what will happen. I'm calling this one done - to be torn down and replaced with an underwhelming block of boredom....

[Drybrain]

I can be expected to say so, but that counterpoint is a bunch of fallacy-riddled nonsense.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thanks for the well-thought out post, and sorry to hear of your employment situation. I feel that it is really becoming tough out there for young university grads to find work in their chosen fields. It is really challenging to find something that you have a passion for that also has jobs available. I actually know a few people who had graduated with university degrees and never really worked in their chosen fields, and that has been for many years now. It sounds like that hasn't improved at all since then.

I wish you the best of luck!

I'm actually optimistic; it's a growing field here and it's really just a matter of waiting for a job to open, or having enough unemployed friends in related fields that we can start our own firm or something. There are also plenty of jobs elsewhere in Canada, I'd just prefer to stay here, if I can.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Counterpoint published:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters/132...-halifax-block-deserves-to-be-demolished

The argument seems pretty lame to me, actually. He seems to base most of his "article" on some idea that tearing down old buildings will keep young people from moving away.

Regardless, I'm sure whatever makes the most financial sense for the developer is what will happen. I'm calling this one done - to be torn down and replaced with an underwhelming block of boredom....

Just to clarify:

counterpoint

Not to be confused with

counterfactual

I have no affiliation with the author(s) of said letter.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't really like any of those terms because it generalizes people based on when they were born.

Think of it in these terms: if you substituted slang commonly used to describe race or sexual orientation, it would be deemed unacceptable and likely result in the poster becoming banned. In my view, "boomer", "generation X", etc. are not all that far off in concept and thus tend to dilute the discussion with derision and assigned blame. I realize that in some cases, particularly those that are related to history, there are fair uses for the terms, but I wouldn't be disappointed if I never heard any of them again.

That's just my 2¢ on the matter.

All fair points, Mark.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Just to clarify:

counterpoint

Not to be confused with

counterfactual

I have no affiliation with the author(s) of said letter.

I hadn't thought of that angle!

I was being lazy and should have typed:
"The Counterpoint that was published in The Chronicle Herald:"

Let it be known that any perceived connection to the poster Counterfactual is purely coincidental.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I'm actually optimistic; it's a growing field here and it's really just a matter of waiting for a job to open, or having enough unemployed friends in related fields that we can start our own firm or something. There are also plenty of jobs elsewhere in Canada, I'd just prefer to stay here, if I can.

You have a great attitude. Keep digging and it will work out for you. That's how you get it done in this world.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I can be expected to say so, but that counterpoint is a bunch of fallacy-riddled nonsense.

I'll back you up on this one. It was pretty much bunk written by someone who doesn't (isn't around?) to see all of the progressive development that is happening in Halifax.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I'll back you up on this one. It was pretty much bunk written by someone who doesn't (isn't around?) to see all of the progressive development that is happening in Halifax.

But it was the original Drybrain article that was anti the development in question. The counterpoint was in favor of it.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't really like any of those terms because it generalizes people based on when they were born.

Think of it in these terms: if you substituted slang commonly used to describe race or sexual orientation, it would be deemed unacceptable and likely result in the poster becoming banned. In my view, "boomer", "generation X", etc. are not all that far off in concept and thus tend to dilute the discussion with derision and assigned blame. I realize that in some cases, particularly those that are related to history, there are fair uses for the terms, but I wouldn't be disappointed if I never heard any of them again.

That's just my 2¢ on the matter.

While I don't disagree, slang terms are used on this forum all the time with explicit effect of diluting the discussion through derision and with a specific goal of belittling a perspective, and 99.9% go by without comment.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by beyeas

While I don't disagree, slang terms are used on this forum all the time with explicit effect of diluting the discussion through derision and with a specific goal of belittling a perspective, and 99.9% go by without comment.

True enough, and I'm not trying to tell people what to post or not to post. Just giving my on the matter.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But it was the original Drybrain article that was anti the development in question. The counterpoint was in favor of it.

My reading of Dry's article (which was excellent ) was not that he was antidevelopment, it was that he was anti tearing down historic features as part of planned development. The counter point article was written by a pompous arse; I mean really, the block is between Doyle and Brunswick. I bet he's a private school graduate with his head up his butt; no offense intended, of course.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But it was the original Drybrain article that was anti the development in question. The counterpoint was in favor of it.

Exactly. The guy's point was that Halifax cannot afford to be getting in the way of development... which completely ignores the fact that Halifax has all sorts of great development going on. We can afford to be somewhat choosy where it matters.

[IanWatson]

On a related note. Demo seems to have begun, or at least preparation for demo. When I walked by the other day the east side of the Rogue's Roost solarium had been ripped our.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Exactly. The guy's point was that Halifax cannot afford to be getting in the way of development... which completely ignores the fact that Halifax has all sorts of great development going on. We can afford to be somewhat choosy where it matters.

If a lack of suitable development sites is really a problem, we should be more concerned with freeing up publicly-owned and underutilized land in the core. The province, city, and universities collectively own a huge share of the underused land in Halifax's urban core.

Behind the library is a massive empty site that's been like that for about 10 years.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Behind the library is a massive empty site that's been like that for about 10 years.

Blame Dalhousie. They have been sitting on it all that time. Though I'm not sure we should be encouraging Dal to erect more monuments to their empire.

[LongDono]

The $7 million addition to Scotia Square is slowly continuing, today they added temporary stairs (so that the old ones that no one will miss on the right can be removed). Cut out a hole and add some doors and you'll enter through the old Tim Horton's location... eventually there will be escalators when everything is done.




I don't know if anyone's discussed it before but I found their master plan document interesting.

http://www.halifaxdevelopments.com/images/ss-expansion-portfolio.pdf

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Counterpoint published:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters/132...-halifax-block-deserves-to-be-demolished

The argument seems pretty lame to me, actually. He seems to base most of his "article" on some idea that tearing down old buildings will keep young people from moving away.

Regardless, I'm sure whatever makes the most financial sense for the developer is what will happen. I'm calling this one done - to be torn down and replaced with an underwhelming block of boredom....

My main issue with both articles is that it avoids the actual issue of what buildings are heritage value and who should determine that. Frankly; the only people who should be making the determination of whether a building should have historic value/meaning or be on any list should be council - just as they are decision makers at a public hearing. They have the legislative power/authority under the HRM Charter - so let them make the decision.

One of the things we have out here in Calgary which I found really interesting is different levels of heritage preservation. There is still the Provincial and Municipal Historic Designations but then we have an inventory of historic resources list. That is a list that Administration makes recommendations on (additions, removals, updates) to Council on.

So for example: Let's say Halifax wanted to establish the list - administration would create criteria which they could bring to Council for adoption of what makes the list (age, style, etc.). This would allow administration to flag certain buildings (based on the approved criteria) to be monitored so that when an application comes in; heritage would be involved in the process. It wouldn't be protected; but it would be flagged as the City having an interest to preserve it. Then; if things like tax credits for preservation were established (or heaven forbid heritage density transfers) - the City could be in a position to say to the developer: We want you to preserve the building and restore it in exchange we will transfer the density from the site to site X. Then the City could even provide tax incentives to help defer the cost of heritage restoration.

This wouldn't always ensure that historic buildings on the list wouldn't be demolished - each would be on a case by case basis. But at least it would give City staff the leverage to be able to do start discussing things rather than taking a wild guess on whether the building has heritage value or not. Then, if it could not be saved/restored, the heritage group could then provide direction on how the building should be commemorated. I dealt with such an application here in Calgary and the building had no heritage value left when the application came in (it had been gutted and altered way too much). We were able to preserve the sign from a business in the building and when the new building is built there will be plaques commemorating the building. The community wasn't terribly upset the building got torn down - they felt the commemoration was fine.

That to me is a way forward that allows the HT to feel involved (they can help contribute to the criteria for establishing any lists of buildings to monitor and buildings on the list); heritage gets some priority and everyone has the ability to work together to try to retain older buildings of heritage value.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by LongDono

I don't know if anyone's discussed it before but I found their master plan document interesting.

http://www.halifaxdevelopments.com/images/ss-expansion-portfolio.pdf

Well, that's interesting, in that it not only shows the long-proposed International Place, but a new/renewed replacement for the old Trade Mart, a new tower next to that and a couple of new low-rise buildings. But all of that is assuming the existing Cogswell interchange continues and that is not supposed to be the case. I wonder how realistic this is.