[Halifax] Parkland at the Common (6009 Quinpool) | 78 m | 25 fl | Completed

[Colin May]

A 'low end neighbourhood' today could well be an upscale area within 30 years.
In 1983 we were warned not to buy the home we have because 'welfare people live down there' and 'there are too many apartments' and 'poor kids go the the elementary school' and all sorts of other racist and demeaning comments.
Now we are one of the most desirable neighbourhoods in HRM; and we still have a 5 unit and a 3 unit residential across from us. And the next block has duplexes owned by a non-profit housing group.
Every condo and every apartment development should be required to provide 10% of space for affordable housing - the 'renegades' to the south have such policies so why are we much more reluctant to invest in providing decent housing for the less well off ?
Diversity is much more than skin colour and tokenism.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Every condo and every apartment development should be required to provide 10% of space for affordable housing - the 'renegades' to the south have such policies so why are we much more reluctant to invest in providing decent housing for the less well off ?
Diversity is much more than skin colour and tokenism.

I'm not sure why a property owner (which a condo developer is) should be forced by govt to sell to a certain group of people. Affordable housing on, say, Young Ave or Emscote Drive makes little sense.

The "progressives" just will not stop their endless social engineering unless someone has the backbone to say "No, that's just silly and we aren't going to do that". There are other ways to achieve the affordable housing that is bein sought without such blanket requirements.

[pblaauw]

Market-value apartments and condos are as much "social engineering" as making sure "the average person" can afford an apartment, or a condo for that matter.

One just pushes the poor away, while the other invites them in.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by pblaauw

Market-value apartments and condos are as much "social engineering" as making sure "the average person" can afford an apartment, or a condo for that matter.

One just pushes the poor away, while the other invites them in.

No. Market value is the natural way things work in our system. Social engineering is the heavy hand of govt trying to alter that to accommodate some "progressive" agenda. Rather than perpetuating poverty, such resources would be better used to encourage the poor to better their lot in life with education, skills, etc.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

No. Market value is the natural way things work in our system. Social engineering is the heavy hand of govt trying to alter that to accommodate some "progressive" agenda. Rather than perpetuating poverty, such resources would be better used to encourage the poor to better their lot in life with education, skills, etc.

“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ns_kid

I can recall the original sign on the building was for Gulf predecessor B/A. It would be fun to try to track down a photo of that. I expect that sign wasn't around long since the building opened in 1969, not long before B/A became Gulf Canada.

Found two shots of the site posted today on FB in the group Vintage Postcards/Photos of Halifax & Nova Scotia by user Tara Smith, which were taken by her husband's grandfather in 1969 or thereabouts.

I see a B/A sign on the garage but not on the tower.

[pblaauw]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

No. Market value is the natural way things work in our system. Social engineering is the heavy hand of govt trying to alter that to accommodate some "progressive" agenda. Rather than perpetuating poverty, such resources would be better used to encourage the poor to better their lot in life with education, skills, etc.

I don't see anything progressive about the social engineering going on in the States, or in the cancelling/re-engineering of the Film Tax Credit here in NS. Progressive things don't lead to refugee crises or population exoduses (for the most part.)

[ns_kid]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Found two shots of the site posted today on FB in the group Vintage Postcards/Photos of Halifax & Nova Scotia by user Tara Smith, which were taken by her husband's grandfather in 1969 or thereabouts.

I see a B/A sign on the garage but not on the tower.

Very interesting images from when the building was new. Great find. Thanks for sharing.

[JET]

Originally Posted by beyeas

“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Affordable housing on, say, Young Ave or Emscote Drive makes little sense.

To me it sounds like a capital idea.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

To me it sounds like a capital idea.

Proving my point then!!

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Proving my point then!!

A win-win situation.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Found two shots of the site posted today on FB in the group Vintage Postcards/Photos of Halifax & Nova Scotia by user Tara Smith, which were taken by her husband's grandfather in 1969 or thereabouts.

I see a B/A sign on the garage but not on the tower.

Thanks for sharing, Keith, those are great shots.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Followup on the B/A signage, it also appears on this video I found on youtube that is labelled as being from 1970. The quality isn't that great, but the video is interesting for other shots of Halifax as well. The B/A parking garage shows up at 31 seconds in.

Halifax 1970

[Dmajackson]

Now that the MPS/LUB amendments are approved the developer has submitted its development agreement application;

Halifax Planning Case #22029


From link above

[ILoveHalifax]

The first renditions of this proposal were impressive and I really liked the willow pattern on the glass; now this is looking way too bulky and seems the willow pattern is gone. I don't see anything interesting about this image - how sad that such a beautiful proposal has been turned into this.

[Drybrain]

Yikes. That's an eyesore. Whatever gets built here will likely be a local landmark for decades to come; this isn't good enough.

[OldDartmouthMark]

It will go well with the "beauty" planned for the other end of the block, at Robie and Cunard.

I argued that there should be some way to demand better architecture in prominent, visible areas such as these, but I guess the general idea is that as long as density is added it's all good.

Besides, I don't know how you would create a specification for "good architecture", as everybody would have a different idea of what it is, and it would be difficult to quantify. And to be honest, from what I've seen lately, I don't think there are many architects who know how to design an attractive building (just my opinion).

I agree in that I liked the earlier renderings better, but they are just renderings... often the final product doesn't look like the renderings anyhow.

So, this will be a "meh" for me, but at least it will look better than what is there now...

[mleblanc]

I find the picture posted above to be one of the worse ones on the list. The other renderings in the plans look a little better.

[ns_kid]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

The first renditions of this proposal were impressive and I really liked the willow pattern on the glass; now this is looking way too bulky and seems the willow pattern is gone. I don't see anything interesting about this image - how sad that such a beautiful proposal has been turned into this.

As mleblanc points out, there are more and better renderings in the "Planning Rationale" document. The willow pattern remains on the wall facing Robie Street, although it is perforated metal, not glass.