General Updates and News

[Jonovision]

A few more pictures of the rectory conversion at St Pats.

20160531_205341_HDR by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20160531_205216_HDR by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[JET]

4 storeys, 6 units, TOO TALL
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scoti...rewing-over-mahone-bay-project-1.3619349

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by JET

4 storeys, 6 units, TOO TALL
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scoti...rewing-over-mahone-bay-project-1.3619349

wtf?? that's perfectly in character for the neighborhood.
thats nimby sour grapes.

traffic?? from 6 units!! FFS.

[visualman57]

Originally Posted by JET

4 storeys, 6 units, TOO TALL
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scoti...rewing-over-mahone-bay-project-1.3619349

considering the decrease in traffic, both pedestrian and road, over the last few years and the increasing number of empty storefronts, I would think any development that will bring people to town would be welcomed. Mahone Bay seems to be losing it's tourist cachet, in favour of Lunenburg and other spots on the shore.

[counterfactual]

You'd think NIMBYs would actually come up with better arguments when you're talking about such a small development. Incredibly, they just rehash the same stupid arguments: traffic, wind, out of character with neighborhood, etc.

[curnhalio]

This guy doesn't want to lose his view of the water, that's all this is about.

[Jonovision]

The results from the final engagement session for Spring Garden West are now online. Full info and presentation: http://www.livewellonsgw.com/the-latest

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

The results from the final engagement session for Spring Garden West are now online. Full info and presentation

The streetscape aspects are interesting. Especially the comment in the presentation that it depends on the city playing ball and reducing the street width, given that they feel the street is wider than needed for the existing traffic.

Expect the usual hysteria about how people won't shop there because they are incapable of walking more than 6 feet from their car, followed by snide attacks on why are we giving priority to a bus stop for the poor and unclean when good taxpaying people must park their lexus around the corner, and why won't someone think of the children, yada yada yada. Probably throw in some solid attacks on SGR street people and this will inevitably be voted down by councillors from upper south southeastern Chezzabay.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by beyeas

The streetscape aspects are interesting. Especially the comment in the presentation that it depends on the city playing ball and reducing the street width, given that they feel the street is wider than needed for the existing traffic.

Expect the usual hysteria about how people won't shop there because they are incapable of walking more than 6 feet from their car, followed by snide attacks on why are we giving priority to a bus stop for the poor and unclean when good taxpaying people must park their lexus around the corner, and why won't someone think of the children, yada yada yada. Probably throw in some solid attacks on SGR street people and this will inevitably be voted down by councillors from upper south southeastern Chezzabay.

You left out the most important item:

"It's TOO TALL!!!"

[Drybrain]

I still wish they were retaining the Coburg Apartments building, but it looks pretty snazzy altogether. Definitely better than I expected.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Razing of homes near north-end Halifax car dealership begins

[someone123]

Interesting perspective on a few projects under construction. Unfortunately the United Gulf lot is still plainly visible though:


Source

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I still wish they were retaining the Coburg Apartments building, but it looks pretty snazzy altogether. Definitely better than I expected.

If you look closely on the Robie Street side, it appears that part of the building is still there. Or maybe I'm just imagining it. One of the bits of feedback listed on the website was about preserving the apartment building.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Razing of homes near north-end Halifax car dealership begins

Long overdue. Can't understand why they waited so long.

The funny thing is that the article makes it sound like people in the area support the teardown, unlike the narrative we have seen in the media to date. It is amazing the amount of coverage the media gives a few loud voices.

[mr.wheels]

more cars, more pollution, more car salesmen, more bullshit, more ugly...

[OldDartmouthMark]

From Saturday's CH:

Flash mob protest aims to halt Colonial Honda expansion



While I agree in principle that leveling a neighborhood to expand a car lot is a step in the wrong direction, I'm a little dismayed that the protest groups don't seem to understand what they are protesting. For example the photo I linked to above makes it appear that it is an "anti-car" protest. Same with the "Homes Not Hondas" slogan, which suggests that we either have a choice of a house or a car - which as we know isn't the case.

This is a simply a choice of whether the land is used as a place for people to reside, or is used for a place of business (though not 100% true, as some of the buildings were already being used as businesses). This business just happened to be an auto dealership, but could just as easily have been an office building, a store, or a small factory (I know it's likely not zoned for this, but just an example for the sake of argument). Would there have been equal opposition if this were anything but an expansion of a paved lot on which to store cars?

What if the buildings were being torn down to make way for urban farming? The land would still be uninhabitable, but the product would be food instead of automobiles? Would that make a difference?

A couple of quotes from the article:

“I live in the neighbourhood and I don’t want to see the houses come down,” said local resident Bobbi Dunham. “We just don’t need a car lot.”

- Seems to indicate that this person would only be happy if they eliminated the existing car lot, which has been in that location for 40 years. I thought the protest was about tearing down houses, not whether a car lot is needed in the area. This doesn't appear to be the case.

She said that it was “inappropriate,” to have a car lot in a neighbourhood like hers, which she described as a friendly residential area that is home to local families.

- Again, the car lot has been there for 40 years - probably longer than her family has lived there. How is that "inappropriate"? Did they not know that there was a car dealership there before they moved in? If the dealership has been such a problem, why is this the first time they've protested about it?

To be honest, I'm in favour of the people who want to retain what's left of the residential neighborhood, I understand the impact on the feelings of the neighbors of razing a block to pave it over.

However, based on what I'm reading, I'm not sure that this is what all the movement is actually about - and this is affecting my opinion of the group's work in general. I don't know why they can't seem to focus on the actual issue, but it is taking some of the sting out of their argument.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

To be honest, I'm in favour of the people who want to retain what's left of the residential neighborhood, I understand the impact on the feelings of the neighbors of razing a block to pave it over.

However, based on what I'm reading, I'm not sure that this is what all the movement is actually about - and this is affecting my opinion of the group's work in general. I don't know why they can't seem to focus on the actual issue, but it is taking some of the sting out of their argument.

Honestly, the reason for that is that there hundreds of people working against it in the North End, and a few dozen who have been very active in organizing protests and other campaigning. They all bring their particular ideas to the table, and unfortunately, since it's a grassroots protest-y thing, there's no disciplined message.

The overall idea is that paving houses to expand a parking lot is bad. Beyond that you have your anti-development types, and people who seem to believe this has something to do with gentrification, and people who think it's equivalent to the demolition of Africville, and people who don't care at all about the houses but think a parking lot is terrible, and on and on.

Because the coalition is so loose, the message is scattershot. I don't think that undermines the central premise (houses are better than a parking lot) but there's not really a group, per se. It's a bunch of barely organized individuals with different ideas of what they're opposing.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Honestly, the reason for that is that there hundreds of people working against it in the North End, and a few dozen who have been very active in organizing protests and other campaigning. They all bring their particular ideas to the table, and unfortunately, since it's a grassroots protest-y thing, there's no disciplined message.

The overall idea is that paving houses to expand a parking lot is bad. Beyond that you have your anti-development types, and people who seem to believe this has something to do with gentrification, and people who think it's equivalent to the demolition of Africville, and people who don't care at all about the houses but think a parking lot is terrible, and on and on.

Because the coalition is so loose, the message is scattershot. I don't think that undermines the central premise (houses are better than a parking lot) but there's not really a group, per se. It's a bunch of barely organized individuals with different ideas of what they're opposing.

Thanks for the perspective. That explains a lot.

I guess I've been paying too much attention to the various media stories, which generally give the feeling that it's a concerted effort from one organized group. Then I see the pics and read comments by participants and ask "wtf?"...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

If you look closely on the Robie Street side, it appears that part of the building is still there. Or maybe I'm just imagining it. One of the bits of feedback listed on the website was about preserving the apartment building.

I'm not seeing it:



Source

Robie and Spring Garden on Google Maps

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thanks for the perspective. That explains a lot.

I guess I've been paying too much attention to the various media stories, which generally give the feeling that it's a concerted effort from one organized group. Then I see the pics and read comments by participants and ask "wtf?"...

This interaction seems to indicate that even the EAC isnt against development, or the dealer being there - just leveling the neighborhood to build a car lot.


yah - the message is confusing, and i think activists of all sorts are coming out to bring their own related but off point message.