General Updates and News

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It's this "sky is falling" mindset - that everybody aspires to this type of urban planner nirvana - that frustrates me. I understand the need for tall buildings and density in the core of the city, but damn, not everybody aspires to live in an apartment or condo. It's great for those that do, but when urban enthusiasts appear to suggest that there shouldn't be areas for people to live in a house with a back yard, or shouldn't be able to use a car to get to where they need to go... in Canada of all places, a country with large land areas and not the type of crowding that has become necessary in European countries with small land areas and large populations... I get turned off.

But hey, that's just my

I agree with TheNovaScotian’s goal of limiting suburban development. I also agree with your frustration about the sky is falling mindset. Good planning shouldn’t be about any specific approach to spatial ordering. I think individuals with different perceptions of urban space should have the right to collectively change the city, since in return our city defines who we are. A good planner should work to realize those citizen ideas within the confines of local realities.

Back to houses versus apartments... Even large Chinese cities have suburban single detached homes (albeit for the wealthy), so I don’t think anyone is advocating for their elimination. I do think they should be considered somewhat of a luxury, but I picture that occurring gradually over an extended period of time. I also agree with someone123 that towers don’t necessarily eliminate all the problems associated with servicing suburban homes. Many of the suburban towers in HFX have essentially reproduced the same car dependent urban form, and not even with that much density since they’re so spread out from each other. I don’t think the root of the walkable question is towers versus houses.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Many of the suburban towers in HFX have essentially reproduced the same car dependent urban form, and not even with that much density since they’re so spread out from each other. I don’t think the root of the walkable question is towers versus houses.

This is something that has really skewed the discourse on urban towers. Cries of "but the traffic!" seem to be based on the tower-on-a-garage model in Clayton Park West & Washmill Lake. When I lived in a tower downtown, the garage was maybe 3/4 full. Based off the .6-.7 spots per unit I've heard, that's a huge portion of the building that doesn't use a car at all.

It's less about the style of building and moreso how that building interacts with its neighbourhood and density of services. The Centre Plan is pretty mixed-use heavy and does open up the ability to have more shops and services in historically single-family-dominated neighbourhoods.

I will be curious to see how policy can allow suburbs become better served and more walkable.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I agree with TheNovaScotian’s goal of limiting suburban development. I also agree with your frustration about the sky is falling mindset. Good planning shouldn’t be about any specific approach to spatial ordering. I think individuals with different perceptions of urban space should have the right to collectively change the city, since in return our city defines who we are. A good planner should work to realize those citizen ideas within the confines of local realities.

Back to houses versus apartments... Even large Chinese cities have suburban single detached homes (albeit for the wealthy), so I don’t think anyone is advocating for their elimination. I do think they should be considered somewhat of a luxury, but I picture that occurring gradually over an extended period of time. I also agree with someone123 that towers don’t necessarily eliminate all the problems associated with servicing suburban homes. Many of the suburban towers in HFX have essentially reproduced the same car dependent urban form, and not even with that much density since they’re so spread out from each other. I don’t think the root of the walkable question is towers versus houses.

All good points, but your comment about cities with houses, but only for the rich, pinpoints the mindset that frustrates me. Is this really the direction that we want to take? IMHO, in Canada you should not have to be one of the privileged wealthy if you want to live in a house.

Not everybody wants to live in an apartment or condo, and cities should be planned well so that other options are available, and as someone123 says, it shouldn't take massive changes to improve the situation.

And yes, the sky won't fall if Halifax doesn't become a dense urban centre with bicycles and buses being the only way to get around. It's really a nice place to live now. Today. Even without any changes. I think that's why this forum has numerous participants who live elsewhere yet still maintain an affinity for the city. We all want it to be better, but there are as many versions of 'better' as there are people who think about it. Hopefully we get the version of 'better' that gives as many people the type of lifestyle that they desire as possible. That's all I was trying to say.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by atbw

This is something that has really skewed the discourse on urban towers. Cries of "but the traffic!" seem to be based on the tower-on-a-garage model in Clayton Park West & Washmill Lake. When I lived in a tower downtown, the garage was maybe 3/4 full. Based off the .6-.7 spots per unit I've heard, that's a huge portion of the building that doesn't use a car at all.

It's less about the style of building and moreso how that building interacts with its neighbourhood and density of services. The Centre Plan is pretty mixed-use heavy and does open up the ability to have more shops and services in historically single-family-dominated neighbourhoods.

I will be curious to see how policy can allow suburbs become better served and more walkable.

I think this is what everybody wants in the long run. Hopefully it can be achieved.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

All good points, but your comment about cities with houses, but only for the rich, pinpoints the mindset that frustrates me. Is this really the direction that we want to take? IMHO, in Canada you should not have to be one of the privileged wealthy if you want to live in a house.

I realize in hindsight “somewhat of a luxury” is non-specific and tone deaf. I think if houses were only for the rich, you would end up with a segregated city. I know all forms housing are overpriced at this moment, but I think suburban developments have historically been underpriced (although that made sense at one point in time). I also think multi-unit buildings have never competed with single detached homes because we’ve built them under the assumption it’s a step down and their design reflects that.

My solution would entail higher fees on greenfield development, but subsidies for brownfield development. While new land would be more expensive to build on, the price of individual homes could be counteracted by smaller lot sizes.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

And yes, the sky won't fall if Halifax doesn't become a dense urban centre with bicycles and buses being the only way to get around. It's really a nice place to live now. Today. Even without any changes. I think that's why this forum has numerous participants who live elsewhere yet still maintain an affinity for the city. We all want it to be better, but there are as many versions of 'better' as there are people who think about it. Hopefully we get the version of 'better' that gives as many people the type of lifestyle that they desire as possible. That's all I was trying to say.

Agreed. Most Ontarian cities lack personality and are pretty monolithic compared to Halifax.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Agreed. Most Ontarian cities lack personality and are pretty monolithic compared to Halifax.

This is one of those "things you can't say" on SSP! The perspective in the Canada section tends to be heavily based around population numbers (or some other statistics of limited import like hotel nights sold or number of cruise ship passengers) but when comparing towns from different regions they are often qualitatively quite different even if they have a similar population. At a given population you might be talking about a regional centre and capital in one region versus a minor suburb or satellite factory town in another region. Western Canada also has some incredibly bland large-ish places, and there are some small cities and towns that are quite cool.

Around the world the gap is even bigger. Florence is around the same ballpark as Brampton but they are not similar from an urbanism or cultural and historical perspective.

NS has small-ish areas that are generic like Sackville or Cole Harbour but no 500,000 person areas because there just isn't enough development.

For what it's worth I tend to think of Halifax as a kind of mini Toronto or mini Vancouver (a full service city of regional importance with some history and local distinctiveness) rather than just being the "cousin" of whatever Canadian city happens to have a CMA population that is close.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

This is one of those "things you can't say" on SSP! The perspective in the Canada section tends to be heavily based around population numbers (or some other statistics of limited import like hotel nights sold or number of cruise ship passengers) but when comparing towns from different regions they are often qualitatively quite different even if they have a similar population. At a given population you might be talking about a regional centre and capital in one region versus a minor suburb or satellite factory town in another region. Western Canada also has some incredibly bland large-ish places, and there are some small cities and towns that are quite cool.

Around the world the gap is even bigger. Florence is around the same ballpark as Brampton but they are not similar from an urbanism or cultural and historical perspective.

NS has small-ish areas that are generic like Sackville or Cole Harbour but no 500,000 person areas because there just isn't enough development.

For what it's worth I tend to think of Halifax as a kind of mini Toronto or mini Vancouver (a full service city of regional importance with some history and local distinctiveness) rather than just being the "cousin" of whatever Canadian city happens to have a CMA population that is close.

I thought living there would give me a free pass. I could say the same thing in more generic and diplomatic terms no? Such as “Varied architecture, more neighbourhood types, diverse assembly of heritage buildings, scenic rural areas.” I do agree much of the perceived “blandness” owes itself to being either a bedroom community, or everything being built in the same era. I know there are many interesting cities and towns in Ontario as well.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I thought living there would give me a free pass. I could say the same thing in more generic and diplomatic terms no? Such as “Varied architecture, more neighbourhood types, diverse assembly of heritage buildings, scenic rural areas.” I do agree much of the perceived “blandness” owes itself to being either a bedroom community, or everything being built in the same era. I know there are many interesting cities and towns in Ontario as well.

I didn't mean that you are not allowed, I meant (somewhat jokingly) that depending on who reads it you might see a bunch of strident replies denying that you are talking about any real difference.

The dominant narrative of SSP Canada is something along the lines of there being "tiers" of cities that correspond to CMA population numbers. Tier 1 for some reason is Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver (even though Toronto is more than 2x Vancouver and more of a national hub). Then there's Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa. Then Quebec, Hamilton, and Winnipeg. And Halifax is in the "tier" of St. Catharine's, London, or K-W (but maybe it's a stretch to put it with London because the London CMA has around 100,000 more people).

K-W is an interesting one because while it is bland and could have easily grown as a completely generic suburban blob it's retained the feel of a separate metro and Waterloo has given it a bit of unique cachet. Plus it has the light rail now.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

I didn't mean that you are not allowed, I meant (somewhat jokingly) that depending on who reads it you might see a bunch of strident replies denying that you are talking about any real difference.

The dominant narrative of SSP Canada is something along the lines of there being "tiers" of cities that correspond to CMA population numbers. Tier 1 for some reason is Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver (even though Toronto is more than 2x Vancouver and more of a national hub). Then there's Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa. Then Quebec, Hamilton, and Winnipeg. And Halifax is in the "tier" of St. Catharine's, London, or K-W (but maybe it's a stretch to put it with London because the London CMA has around 100,000 more people).

K-W is an interesting one because while it is bland and could have easily grown as a completely generic suburban blob it's retained the feel of a separate metro and Waterloo has given it a bit of unique cachet. Plus it has the light rail now.

Ah... I understand now (had me scared for a second). I certainly feel safer singing odes to Halifax here than I would in the Canada section. I see how making such a statement about Ontario could invite a lot of flak.

I did not know the tier dynamic existed in the Canada section but it doesn’t supprise me. I think only relying on quantitative information is easier but overlooks historical or political importance. I think Halifax has a good combination of those two. Even when evaluating by economic importance, the sectors a city specializes in can give a unique feel. I know countries with actual city tiers don’t choose their rankings on population alone.

While bland overall the different parts of KW have some distinct traits from each other and the LRT is a big source of civic pride for region. Waterloo feels mostly like one big tech park with a skyline dominated by student housing, surrounded by a sea of 2000s-period suburban homes. “Uptown Waterloo” somewhat resembles a polished version of Portland street. Downtown Kitchener gives a similar vibe to downtown Moncton, but with some newer buildings. The conserved industrial era buildings give it a degree distinctiveness. Cambridge has the best heritage out of the three, but lacks any vibrancy. That’s my summary of where I live.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

This is one of those "things you can't say" on SSP! The perspective in the Canada section tends to be heavily based around population numbers (or some other statistics of limited import like hotel nights sold or number of cruise ship passengers) but when comparing towns from different regions they are often qualitatively quite different even if they have a similar population. At a given population you might be talking about a regional centre and capital in one region versus a minor suburb or satellite factory town in another region. Western Canada also has some incredibly bland large-ish places, and there are some small cities and towns that are quite cool.

Around the world the gap is even bigger. Florence is around the same ballpark as Brampton but they are not similar from an urbanism or cultural and historical perspective.

NS has small-ish areas that are generic like Sackville or Cole Harbour but no 500,000 person areas because there just isn't enough development.

For what it's worth I tend to think of Halifax as a kind of mini Toronto or mini Vancouver (a full service city of regional importance with some history and local distinctiveness) rather than just being the "cousin" of whatever Canadian city happens to have a CMA population that is close.

Excellent points. I hadn't thought of things quite in that perspective, but yeah, I have to agree.

LOL on the Canada section being somewhat Ontario-centric... don't even suggest in the Covid-19 thread that the Atlantic Provinces may have had a better response to the pandemic than Ontario even though the data suggests otherwise...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I realize in hindsight “somewhat of a luxury” is non-specific and tone deaf. I think if houses were only for the rich, you would end up with a segregated city. I know all forms housing are overpriced at this moment, but I think suburban developments have historically been underpriced (although that made sense at one point in time). I also think multi-unit buildings have never competed with single detached homes because we’ve built them under the assumption it’s a step down and their design reflects that.

My solution would entail higher fees on greenfield development, but subsidies for brownfield development. While new land would be more expensive to build on, the price of individual homes could be counteracted by smaller lot sizes.

Makes sense.

I recognize that it's a complex situation, and everybody has their personal preferences. My expectation would be to pay a little more for a house than a condo/apartment, with the tradeoff of having a less convenient location.

I've noticed in Halifax that new construction tends to be either multi-unit buildings or McMansion-type houses (anecdotally), and the taller, narrower houses on smaller lots seem to have fallen by the wayside. I'm not sure what that says, or if it says anything, but it seems like we may be heading in the direction of houses being targeted to high-income people, and multi-unit for the rest. Of course the current inventory of smaller houses will still exist, but their prices will likely be driven up due to competition in the average middle-income segment.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

LOL on the Canada section being somewhat Ontario-centric... don't even suggest in the Covid-19 thread that the Atlantic Provinces may have had a better response to the pandemic than Ontario even though the data suggests otherwise...

Covid has really brought out the stereotypes and prejudiced thinking. There are so many known and unknown variables that determine what places have done better or worse, but it is easy to project one's own biases onto the case numbers. There also seems to be a big bias toward believing (wanting to believe) that humans are always in control and there is someone to blame when things don't go well. I think people will be writing books about this pandemic for years, and the typical perspective a few years out will be completely different from what it is today. I also think people are getting a little crazy and agitated from limited in-person contact and lots of internet communication. At least on SSP the posts are not surfaced or hidden by algorithms in order to agitate people to increase engagement. We agitate ourselves without any help.

[someone123]

I thought this view was interesting. It is one of the worst angles downtown for showing empty lots and not-so-great buildings like MetroPark, but the empty lots are all development sites. Skye, Ralston, and AGNS.


Source

[alps]

(source)

Originally Posted by someone123

I thought this view was interesting. It is one of the worst angles downtown for showing empty lots and not-so-great buildings like MetroPark, but the empty lots are all development sites. Skye, Ralston, and AGNS.

Nice shot. This area will feel so different once all the lots are developed.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by alps

(source)



Nice shot. This area will feel so different once all the lots are developed.

Neat, I wonder how dramatic the changes would be in certain districts. Something I’m sure we’ll be looking out for in the next census.

[Dmajackson]

That graph definitely shows that Halifax has a major military presence. The growth from WWI and WWII are clearly visible. From 1911-1921 roughly 12'000 new residents despite the explosion wiping out a large chunk of the peninsula and roughly 2'000 lives.

[teddifax]

I wonder if MetroPark can itself be redesigned, and maybe built up on, any way to make it look less like a parkade. Was it designed so that maybe something could be built on top? If it was expanded and redesigned, maybe it could provide parking for the Texpark redevelopment...It just seems as wasted space to be used only for a parkade.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by teddifax

I wonder if MetroPark can itself be redesigned, and maybe built up on, any way to make it look less like a parkade. Was it designed so that maybe something could be built on top? If it was expanded and redesigned, maybe it could provide parking for the Texpark redevelopment...It just seems as wasted space to be used only for a parkade.

I believe it is under a view plane unfortunately (the George's Island one, which is worthwhile). I wonder if the shift to residential and trend toward building underground parking will eventually reduce the need for the parkade.

I remember when it was built and at that time there was still a notion that downtown competed partly based on ease of parking. If Barrington were to be successful, you would need to be able to easily find a parking spot. Maybe Eaton's would come back and people would drive down to buy vacuums or something. It seems dated now.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

That graph definitely shows that Halifax has a major military presence. The growth from WWI and WWII are clearly visible. From 1911-1921 roughly 12'000 new residents despite the explosion wiping out a large chunk of the peninsula and roughly 2'000 lives.

The graph also shows however that Halifax missed the roaring Twenties. While the rest on N/A was booming, especially after the great War ,Halifax went into a post War and Explosion influenced decline. Keep in mind that 2000 were killed instantly with another 9,000 or so with permanent life altering injuries. The graph shows that folks obviously left Halifax in the Twenties.

I think another obvious observation is the decline of Peninsula population after the Macdonald bridge was built in the late Fifties.