General Updates and News

[Drybrain]

A word about the hypothetical Robie Street expansion: there's literally not one building of architectural value between Almon and North on the west side of the street. And below St. Albans there's not even anything, at all, within ten or fifteen feet of the curb. It's all set way back with parking lots fronting Robie.

We can widen the road on that side (if we must) with far less disruption to residents, and far less loss of urban vitality.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by portapetey

I dislike the idea of it the same way I dislike the Shopper's just up the street. It's a prime corner on a very busy urban thoroughfare that ended up being a bland little box sitting at the back of a stale expanse of pavement, when there could have been an exciting development there instead. There are other examples - Gottingen Staples, Barrington Superstore, etc.

Car lots and surface parking at the sidewalk have their places, of course (in the suburbs and business parks) but I don't think those place are being very well chosen in some cases - from an aesthetic / urban design perspective at least. As someone pointed out above, the choices must make business sense, as much of a blight as they might be.

You may not realize that the Almon St Shoppers and the Gottingen Staples were both formerly car dealerships in their previous life, and the Superstore on Barrington was in part a car rental lot. So all of those are arguably an improvement over what they were before, and likely will evolve into something else in the future. Rome was not built in a day.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You may not realize that the Almon St Shoppers and the Gottingen Staples were both formerly car dealerships in their previous life, and the Superstore on Barrington was in part a car rental lot. So all of those are arguably an improvement over what they were before, and likely will evolve into something else in the future. Rome was not built in a day.

Now that you point it out, I think I did realize that. (Not sure I was ever aware of a rental lot at the site of the Barrington Superstore.)

Maybe in 20 years the Colonial Honda will move and will be replaced by a Dollar Store with a huge parking lot.

Gods that's depressing.

[teddifax]

Maybe a condition of allowing this will be to expand Robie St.

[Nor'easter]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

They are worshippers at the altar of Toderian, Keesmaat and Florida, where a cafe on every corner linked by a string of boutiques and galleries is seen as the "1000 virgins" ultimate reward for all neighborhoods.

Originally Posted by portapetey

I can only speak for myself, but I just hate to see nearly a block of land in a fast-developing area simply paved over for such a mundane use. I don't care about the existing homes, but about the opportunity lost of building something more useful and / or exciting there.

I don't think anybody (Rob Steele included) thinks a car lot is the optimal use of that land. For him, it fills a need for his newly acquired dealership and provides him quite an attractive real estate investment. For the citizens of Halifax, it presents a unique opportunity to work with Steele to increase the Robie St ROW.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

A word about the hypothetical Robie Street expansion: there's literally not one building of architectural value between Almon and North on the west side of the street. And below St. Albans there's not even anything, at all, within ten or fifteen feet of the curb. It's all set way back with parking lots fronting Robie.

We can widen the road on that side (if we must) with far less disruption to residents, and far less loss of urban vitality.

Although widening to the west would be ideal in terms of alignment at the Robie/Almon intersection, I think it's a stretch to say there would be far less disruption. As things stand now, about 50% of the frontage from Almon to North is occupied by Bloomfield/Colonial. Including the recently acquired buildings, looks like there will be about 4 other buildings and a parking lot along this almost half a kilometre stretch. 4 buildings! That is an amazing opportunity in a city this size and in this stage of development.

On the other hand, I count around 14 separate buildings, probably all owned by different people that would be affected either directly or indirectly by widening on the west side.

Bottom line is--this is such a no brainer that surely city/province/Steele have been discussing it for months and we'll hear something about it soon to mitigate some of the negative press from what is likely the vocal minority.

[gm_scott]

Originally Posted by teddifax

Maybe a condition of allowing this will be to expand Robie St.

It's already allowed.

[Keith P.]

Don't ever assume that the widening of Robie is a slam-dunk. You may not remember the last time a small stretch was widened, the little bit from the corner of Cunard up to O'Regans where the apartment building now is. It added less than a full-width lane, yet the local BANANA activists made it sound like the end of the world. It took forever before they were finally shut down, and as we now see, it had no effect at all on that community. And more recently we have the absurd example of the innocuous Chebucto Rd widening to remind us that nothing is ever easy in a city where the EAC and the CBC often call the tune to shape opinion.

If you start from the POV that all vehicle traffic is bad and that nobody should get around the city unless they are on a bike or a bus, this is the kind of result you are going to get.

[OliverD]

What exactly do these road widenings accomplish?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by OliverD

What exactly do these road widenings accomplish?

In the case of Robie, it would eliminate a bottleneck which is the only 2-lane section from Massachusetts Ave to the south end.



It would make sense to try to improve the functionality of this street by removing the last impediment to traffic flow in the area.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Nor'easter

Although widening to the west would be ideal in terms of alignment at the Robie/Almon intersection, I think it's a stretch to say there would be far less disruption. As things stand now, about 50% of the frontage from Almon to North is occupied by Bloomfield/Colonial. Including the recently acquired buildings, looks like there will be about 4 other buildings and a parking lot along this almost half a kilometre stretch. 4 buildings! That is an amazing opportunity in a city this size and in this stage of development.

Demolishing the whole city would be an amazing redevelopment "opportunity" too, if you look at it that way.

Originally Posted by Nor'easter

Bottom line is--this is such a no brainer that surely city/province/Steele have been discussing it for months and we'll hear something about it soon to mitigate some of the negative press from what is likely the vocal minority.

I've spoken with a number of people at the city about it, and all have been taken by surprise. Unless Steele is in closed-door meetings with the mayor or something, there's no evidence of what you're suggesting.

As for a vocal "minority," basically the entire neighbourhood has been aligning against this. The online petition against it has had 1,400 supporters in only four days, which in a city of this size, for such a localized issue, is huge. This isn't the Heritage Trust or "Friends of..." whatever. It's not a vocal minority; the neighbourhood and a lot of people outside of the neighbourhood have strongly aligned against the plan.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

As for a vocal "minority," basically the entire neighbourhood has been aligning against this. The online petition against it has had 1,400 supporters in only four days, which in a city of this size, for such a localized issue, is huge. This isn't the Heritage Trust or "Friends of..." whatever. It's not a vocal minority; the neighbourhood and a lot of people outside of the neighbourhood have strongly aligned against the plan.

That is not what I hear. Let's vet those names and see where they live. I suspect most are residing nowhere near this area. A lot is likely just the usual knee-jerk response whever anything is proposed to change in this burg. It is simply meaningless noise from the usual suspects that one is best to ignore. Let's hurry up and knock them all down.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That is not what I hear. Let's vet those names and see where they live. I suspect most are residing nowhere near this area. A lot is likely just the usual knee-jerk response whever anything is proposed to change in this burg. It is simply meaningless noise from the usual suspects that one is best to ignore. Let's hurry up and knock them all down.

First of all, I've been to the meetings at the EAC, and the majority of the neighbourhood's homeowners and a number of renters have been coming out. They're all strongly opposed.

Secondly, does it matter if people don't live right there? I live in the Hydrostone, but this is an issue that will affect the whole North End. It doesn't matter if someone lives on an affected block, they can still be concerned about what's going on in their general vicinity.

Framing this as the usual "anti-change" stuff couldn't possibly be more wrong. This is a fundamentally different issue. 1,500 people in four days signed a petition against it. You don't see Peggy Cameron et. al. getting that kind of support for her various NIMBY campaigns.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

First of all, I've been to the meetings at the EAC, and the majority of the neighbourhood's homeowners and a number of renters have been coming out. They're all strongly opposed.

Secondly, does it matter if people don't live right there? I live in the Hydrostone, but this is an issue that will affect the whole North End. It doesn't matter if someone lives on an affected block, they can still be concerned about what's going on in their general vicinity.

Framing this as the usual "anti-change" stuff couldn't possibly be more wrong. This is a fundamentally different issue. 1,500 people in four days signed a petition against it. You don't see Peggy Cameron et. al. getting that kind of support for her various NIMBY campaigns.

I agree 100% that this is not the usual / expected NIMBY / BANANA / whatever. This isn't "it's too tall", it's too shiny, it's too new, it's not from the 19th century, it's in the way of a view, etc.

This is a very valid outcry about bulldozing an urban neighbourhood to replace it with nothing at all but an ugly gaping hole of pavement.

It's not anti-development, anti-progress, anti-anything of the usual variety because there is no "development" or progress to protest.

In this case, people are protesting a big step backwards.

[eastcoastal]

I don't have a problem with the housing stock going - I DO have a problem with it being replaced by a parking lot. It's just not a healthy land use pattern for a neighbourhood on the peninsula, I don't care how much landscaping Rob Steele says he'll install to mitigate the damage.

I can't pretend that I think new stretches of asphalt are evidence of good city building.

I once lived on Fern Lane - I don't recall ever feeling unsafe, and since I've moved away, there have been small, incremental, improvements to individual houses on the two blocks that make up the street - I don't buy that parking more merchandise closer to the front door of the dealership has anything to do with cleaning up crack houses.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

In the case of Robie, it would eliminate a bottleneck which is the only 2-lane section from Massachusetts Ave to the south end.

You've still got to get that bit just south of North Street -> O'Reagans. It's 3 lanes, but really narrow, and a constant bottleneck. There is a lot of close to the road development that doesn't look like it's going anywhere soon.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

You've still got to get that bit just south of North Street -> O'Reagans. It's 3 lanes, but really narrow, and a constant bottleneck. There is a lot of close to the road development that doesn't look like it's going anywhere soon.

That section would ideally be widened on the west side of Robie considering the curve of the street and the poor visibility there. There are 4 really kind of scuzzy properties on the west side of Robie there, rentals I presume, that would need to go. There is a similar challenge in the next block. After that it would be clear sailing. It is remarkable it has been tolerated for so long, but considering this is Halifax, not really surprising.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

First of all, I've been to the meetings at the EAC, and the majority of the neighbourhood's homeowners and a number of renters have been coming out. They're all strongly opposed.

Secondly, does it matter if people don't live right there? I live in the Hydrostone, but this is an issue that will affect the whole North End. It doesn't matter if someone lives on an affected block, they can still be concerned about what's going on in their general vicinity.

Framing this as the usual "anti-change" stuff couldn't possibly be more wrong. This is a fundamentally different issue. 1,500 people in four days signed a petition against it. You don't see Peggy Cameron et. al. getting that kind of support for her various NIMBY campaigns.

Originally Posted by portapetey

I agree 100% that this is not the usual / expected NIMBY / BANANA / whatever. This isn't "it's too tall", it's too shiny, it's too new, it's not from the 19th century, it's in the way of a view, etc.

This is a very valid outcry about bulldozing an urban neighbourhood to replace it with nothing at all but an ugly gaping hole of pavement.

It's not anti-development, anti-progress, anti-anything of the usual variety because there is no "development" or progress to protest.

In this case, people are protesting a big step backwards.

I certainly oppose it and I'm certainly NOT on the NIMBY, anti height/dev, STV clueless train.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

You've still got to get that bit just south of North Street -> O'Reagans. It's 3 lanes, but really narrow, and a constant bottleneck. There is a lot of close to the road development that doesn't look like it's going anywhere soon.

Oops! Right... I forgot about that.

[Drybrain]

Steele Auto Group put up some hilariously awful "architect" renderings of their plans. I guess they thought they could allay community concern about paving over the neighbourhood for a parking lot by showing exactly that.

I'm very discouraged by the readiness with which planners and councillors are encouraging residents to give the battle up and put their energy into centre plan consultations. Council seems unwilling even to take a symbolic stance against this, despite widespread outrage and their own (somewhat shrugging) disapproval.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Cornwallis Park:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1362...of-founder-who-put-bounty-on-aboriginals

I know it's a sensitive issue, but I wonder how much it will cost if it goes through? Also, will it set up a precedent whereby other name changes will have to occur based on deeds that were done in the 1700s by the founders of Halifax/Nova Scotia/Canada?