Spring Garden Streetscape

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Ah yes, everyone claiming to have absolutely seized the content of an issue while only arguing over (urban) forms. A classic of urban discussion. #Formalism #Hegel

Doesn't everybody love a good old "war on the car" vs "cars bad" 'debate'?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Summerville

Panhandling on SPR is a serious problem. But to suggest that the new redo will create a panhandling problem is a lazy exercise without really considering the underlying issues.

Panhandling on SPR has always existed. Unfortunately, I’ve noticed the same guy on the street for over 20 years. First noticed him in 1998ish and have watched his decline. The fact that panhandlers target SPR is perhaps an indication of the foot traffic on the street.

The city should really spend a little to work on the panhandling issue after they have spent to much on the construction project. But the solution will require creativity which I fear the city has no depth. Perhaps they should fund a non-profit with this experience.

I have to agree. The adding of seating areas as an incentive to panhandlers is a non-argument, IMHO. Most panhandlers I've seen either pick a busy corner to sit on or are on their feet actively approaching people.

Regardless, removing seating areas will not discourage panhandling as that is a symptom of a much deeper problem in our society. Unfortunately, it's also a problem that the city alone doesn't have the scope to 'cure', but I agree with you that there are probably some creative ways that they could help reduce it, or at least they should try.

Arresting people and locking them up would take them off the street temporarily, but it's demoralizing and unfair, plus it would only serve to perpetuate the problem in the long run. Maybe as you've suggested they could make some agreement to support a non-profit with experience with panhandlers/homeless if they don't already do that.

At the end of the day, however, our society would have to make some key core changes in order to help the people who currently get left out due to the numerous reasons that put them on the street.

Back on topic, I don't think the design of SGR is responsible for the panhandler situation, other than that it gets a lot of pedestrian traffic, and it's considered to be somewhat upscale, and thus a place where people would probably have more money to toss to the recipients.

Originally Posted by Summerville

I don’t see the argument that the reduction of car lanes will wreck the street. Perhaps it will make it a little more difficult for taxis and deliveries. But the sidewalk improvements could attract more pedestrians who will spend their money.

Another side issue the movement towards big name tenants on the street which has slowly eaten away at the attraction of SPR for local shops,…who have been pushed to the side streets. Aside from taking an active role in the economy which is dangerous,…I don’t know what can be done.

Agreed on the lane issues. The reason I'm split on the transit-only trial is that the city doesn't seem to have focus here. The made improvements to the pedestrian aspect of the street, and then they also decided to improve transit flow, off-the-cuff. It seems like they are trying to do two things at once, and as another poster mentioned, it might just end up being buses slowing down other buses, since there are no longer any lanes for buses to pull over to allow others to pass.

IMHO, if they wanted to trial a pedestrian experience, why not just block it off to all traffic at certain times, as is done on Argyle? Go all the way and give pedestrians the best experience without a bunch of smelly, noisy diesel buses clogging up the street all day.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Summerville

Panhandling on SPR has always existed.

No, not "always", unless you're 30 (maybe you are). Anyway, it really didn't become much of a thing until the 80s-90s.The Spring Garden of my childhood and college years was devoid of panhandlers.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

No, not "always", unless you're 30 (maybe you are). Anyway, it really didn't become much of a thing until the 80s-90s.The Spring Garden of my childhood and college years was devoid of panhandlers.

Ok,…let’s just say that it’s been happening for over a generation!!! 30-40 years ago is not yesterday. Sorry, for the ageism. Fwiw, I’m in my late 40’s and have memories of friends who talked about drinking with some of the homeless regulars behind the old library in the late 80’s.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Leave the panhandlers alone and fine the folks giving them the cash. Funnel the fine revenue into a fund that provides food and housing. Anecdotally, me and a co-worker who also worked downtown for more than 20 years, would have a chuckle sometimes seeing one panhandler in particular sitting in the Scotia Square food court busily scratching away his lunchtime take in hopes of a big win. I'd love to know whether he ever won any substantial amount.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Summerville

Panhandling on SPR is a serious problem. But to suggest that the new redo will create a panhandling problem is a lazy exercise without really considering the underlying issues.

It has existed since the '80s, but back then it was far less of a problem. Just a couple of regulars, not the platoon of panhandlers on every corner and sitting spot. SGR has always had a lot of pedestrian traffic and so is a magnet for these folks. It got so bad at one point that the front of the Shoppers building had to be altered to remove convenient seating areas for panhandlers, though that only worked temporarily as they simply moved across the sidewalk to a conveniently-located HRM concrete planter. The situation was so bad by the late '90s that I knew of numerous friends and co-workers who would detour to avoid that section of the street.

There was a short period of time perhaps 20 years ago when the SGR Business Assoc. hired staff to get these people off the street by providing them with alternative resources, job opportunities, etc. It got some press at the time as working but who can say for sure. In any event it is gone now.

I don’t see the argument that the reduction of car lanes will wreck the street. Perhaps it will make it a little more difficult for taxis and deliveries. But the sidewalk improvements could attract more pedestrians who will spend their money.

It is not a reduction in car lanes that is the main problem. It is the closure of the street to all vehicles except for buses. There will be no "attraction" of more pedestrians. Where will they come from suddenly? Any pedestrians so inclined are already walking SGR. There is no barrier to their using it, and no incentive for others to commute in to walk it.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It is not a reduction in car lanes that is the main problem. It is the closure of the street to all vehicles except for buses. There will be no "attraction" of more pedestrians. Where will they come from suddenly? Any pedestrians so inclined are already walking SGR. There is no barrier to their using it, and no incentive for others to commute in to walk it.

Agreed. SGR will survive because of neighbouring residential areas, students, office workers and hotel guests out for the evening.

But, the exclusion of vehicular traffic aside from busses will be perceived by suburbanites and other Maritimes from outside the HRM as a blatant snub, and a sort of "we don't want your kind here" statement to the greater unwashed.

I lived in Halifax for a decade once, and thus am comfortable roaming the city and even have my favourite "secret" parking locations near SGR, so these changes will not affect me much, but many of my friends and family are scattered throughout all three Maritime provinces, and they visit Halifax only infrequently, and find the street grid, the traffic and the parking situation challenging enough as it is. Every time HRM does something new to complicate the situation, it makes it more likely that these folks will just say fuck it, and confine their Halifax visits to suburban hotels and shopping districts. This is where the big box stores are located anyway............

Perceptions matter..............

[OliverD]

Whenever I visit Halifax I park my car at whatever hotel or Airbnb I'm staying at and walk everywhere anyways. I think most visitors to the city fall in two camps:
1. Stay downtown to enjoy the attractions there
2. Stay in the burbs for shopping and dining at chains

Downtowns don't necessarily need to try to cater to the latter. Those people have perceptions of downtown that are not going to change no matter what compromises we make in order to make it easier to drive and park downtown, mostly to the detriment of the actual residents of the city (interesting piece about this here: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017...stake-building-for-tourism-vs-livability).

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

But, the exclusion of vehicular traffic aside from busses will be perceived by suburbanites and other Maritimes from outside the HRM as a blatant snub, and a sort of "we don't want your kind here" statement to the greater unwashed.

I would strongly suggest that Halifax can't make its planning decisions based on what visitors from Minto and Cavendish would find most convenient. SGR doesn't need to appeal to 2 million+ Maritimers. It needs to work for its neighbourhood, for the larger city centre of Halifax, and then to a degree as metropolitan destination. And it doesn't need to draw in every single person in HRM, for that matter, but instead function as a destination for those who want the kind of experience it offers. It's not possible to offer both a special and robust urban experience AND a drive-in experience equivalent in automotive convenience to Bayer's Lake or Dartmouth Crossing. The goals are incompatible, and there's no point trying to accomplish both. SGR doesn't need to be all things to all Maritimers.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I would strongly suggest that Halifax can't make its planning decisions based on what visitors from Minto and Cavendish would find most convenient. SGR doesn't need to appeal to 2 million+ Maritimers. It needs to work for its neighbourhood, for the larger city centre of Halifax, and then to a degree as metropolitan destination. And it doesn't need to draw in every single person in HRM, for that matter, but instead function as a destination for those who want the kind of experience it offers. It's not possible to offer both a special and robust urban experience AND a drive-in experience equivalent in automotive convenience to Bayer's Lake or Dartmouth Crossing. The goals are incompatible, and there's no point trying to accomplish both. SGR doesn't need to be all things to all Maritimers.

That's really well said.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

SGR doesn't need to be all things to all Maritimers.

Understood, and this is a valid point of view, but I imagine some SGR retailers might take strong umbrage to this.

I do get this BTW. The 10 years I was in Halifax, I lived downtown (one year even on "pizza corner" in a divey apartment!) and walked everywhere. I understand the appeal of this. My roots however are from outside Halifax, and I can see both points of view.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I would strongly suggest that Halifax can't make its planning decisions based on what visitors from Minto and Cavendish would find most convenient. SGR doesn't need to appeal to 2 million+ Maritimers. It needs to work for its neighbourhood, for the larger city centre of Halifax, and then to a degree as metropolitan destination. And it doesn't need to draw in every single person in HRM, for that matter, but instead function as a destination for those who want the kind of experience it offers. It's not possible to offer both a special and robust urban experience AND a drive-in experience equivalent in automotive convenience to Bayer's Lake or Dartmouth Crossing. The goals are incompatible, and there's no point trying to accomplish both. SGR doesn't need to be all things to all Maritimers.

That's really pretty nonsensical. Most cities can have the two realities coexist quite reasonably. I know of no urban DT of any size that offers a suburban shopping park experience. And I know of nobody asking for one. You need a better straw man.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I would strongly suggest that Halifax can't make its planning decisions based on what visitors from Minto and Cavendish would find most convenient. SGR doesn't need to appeal to 2 million+ Maritimers. It needs to work for its neighbourhood, for the larger city centre of Halifax, and then to a degree as metropolitan destination. And it doesn't need to draw in every single person in HRM, for that matter, but instead function as a destination for those who want the kind of experience it offers. It's not possible to offer both a special and robust urban experience AND a drive-in experience equivalent in automotive convenience to Bayer's Lake or Dartmouth Crossing. The goals are incompatible, and there's no point trying to accomplish both. SGR doesn't need to be all things to all Maritimers.

I'd point out as well that making downtown Halifax busy and urbane easily could appeal more to people from those places, whereas if it were to become just another ho-hum car-centric area there would be less reason to visit. If you look at say Medieval quarters of European cities you will see a much more extreme example of a similar thing. Or downtown Toronto to some degree. Downtown Vancouver makes Halifax roadways and parking look very easy and cheap.

At one time I lived in the car-dependent suburbs and it was exciting to go somewhere that wasn't like where I lived (whereas the suburbia car lovers hated downtown). That's a big part of what tourism is about, and not everybody is interested in it. And Atlantic Canada doesn't have any other comparable cities with the same level of development, businesses, foot traffic, etc. (no offense Saint John).

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Summerville

Ok,…let’s just say that it’s been happening for over a generation!!! 30-40 years ago is not yesterday. Sorry, for the ageism.

"Ageism" didn't even enter my mind. I just wanted folks to be aware that there absolutely was a time (in fact, most of its existence) when SGR was panhandler-free.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

"Ageism" didn't even enter my mind. I just wanted folks to be aware that there absolutely was a time (in fact, most of its existence) when SGR was panhandler-free.

This strays into wider political questions but I think it's obvious that (1) there was a time when there were fewer problems like this even though there was no utopia, and (2) there are a lot of policies in place meant to deal with social issues that haven't actually improved them even after many decades (of course we always hear "but it would have been even worse without them").

I'm of the opinion that the good solutions are humane and help out those less fortunate yet also have to create an incentive structure that encourages social behaviour. Giving people $$$ for begging is the opposite of that; it induces more begging.

[coastalkid]

I feel that the discussion surrounding the SGR district becoming inaccessible to motorists is a bit overstated. I work on one of the SGR side streets and I drive to work every day. While street parking can sometimes be difficult to find (typically the Schmidtville streets are the best bet), there are several large parkade options that I’ve never had any difficulty finding a spot in (including Spring Garden Place and Park Lane). SGR has always been much more of a pedestrian street (by far the busiest in the city, and I believe in Atlantic Canada) than a driving street, and so the streetscaping project made sense to me. Prior to the project, the sidewalks were much narrower, and with the volume of foot traffic at peak hours it was often difficult to navigate as a pedestrian (stuck behind groups, slow walkers, etc.). Because I work in the area, I shop, bank, eat, and run other daily errands on the street. I think the wider sidewalks, new lighting, and underground electrical offer a much better pedestrian experience, while keeping the 2 lanes of vehicular traffic that were always present. I did have reservations about eliminating private vehicular traffic on SGR in favour of transit-only (and I still have some), but upon further thought, I realized that I was able to get to work by car with barely any added time for the past 6 months while SGR was closed. For these reasons, I can’t find many negatives (except for the fact that construction was a nightmare for the past 6 months).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by coastalkid

I did have reservations about eliminating private vehicular traffic on SGR in favour of transit-only (and I still have some), but upon further thought, I realized that I was able to get to work by car with barely any added time for the past 6 months while SGR was closed. For these reasons, I can’t find many negatives (except for the fact that construction was a nightmare for the past 6 months).

Did HRM ever publish traffic counts for SGR before the work was done? My guess would be that it carried low levels of car traffic compared to its foot or bus traffic, or the car traffic carried by other arteries. Even though (because) it was congested.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It's not possible to offer both a special and robust urban experience AND a drive-in experience equivalent in automotive convenience to Bayer's Lake or Dartmouth Crossing. The goals are incompatible, and there's no point trying to accomplish both. SGR doesn't need to be all things to all Maritimers.

Not possible? Incompatible? Pointless? Are you serious?

They are very much compatible. They're complementary. There's no earthly reason at all why they can't co-exist.

Your argument seems to be premised on the idea of de-centralized big-box centers competing with vibrant downtowns to offer the same things, but they actually don't, and shouldn't try to. They offer very different experiences. Downtown Halifax (or any downtown) can't possibly compete as a retail mass-merchandising center, but so what? That's completely beside the point. Neither can Dartmouth Crossing compete with SGR as an urban destination. People simply don't go to both places for the same reasons.

I have to say, your post totally mystifies me.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Your argument seems to be premised on the idea of de-centralized big-box centers competing with vibrant downtowns to offer the same things, but they actually don't, and shouldn't try to. They offer very different experiences. Downtown Halifax (or any downtown) can't possibly compete as a retail mass-merchandising center, but so what? That's completely beside the point. Neither can Dartmouth Crossing compete with SGR as an urban destination. People simply don't go to both places for the same reasons.

While reading through the comments, this was one thing I was going to say, but now don't have to, thanks to your efforts.

I don't understand the characterization that Bayers Lake would compete with SGR on any level whatsoever. Different configurations for different purposes, both with completely different (almost polar opposite) experiences.

For people from other parts of the Maritimes, they are either going to want to go to box stores, or seek out the urban experience that they don't have in their small towns or cities. Or both... probably usually both, with a sports or concert event thrown in as the impetus for coming in the first place.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'd point out as well that making downtown Halifax busy and urbane easily could appeal more to people from those places, whereas if it were to become just another ho-hum car-centric area there would be less reason to visit. If you look at say Medieval quarters of European cities you will see a much more extreme example of a similar thing. Or downtown Toronto to some degree. Downtown Vancouver makes Halifax roadways and parking look very easy and cheap.

At one time I lived in the car-dependent suburbs and it was exciting to go somewhere that wasn't like where I lived (whereas the suburbia car lovers hated downtown). That's a big part of what tourism is about, and not everybody is interested in it. And Atlantic Canada doesn't have any other comparable cities with the same level of development, businesses, foot traffic, etc. (no offense Saint John).

This was the other thing I was thinking as reading through the posts (without the uncharacteristically silly "suburbia car lovers" comment).

Experiencing an environment that is unlike where you live is motivation for a lot of travel (I would opine "most travel"), so sure, why not drive to Halifax from the Miramichi, park the car and spend a few days walking around, sitting in a sidewalk cafe, having a few drinks, have a nice meal, take in the atmosphere.

On that note I would say that upgrading SGR to a better pedestrian experience would probably help to draw more people here as an added attraction (it's unclear to me if buses improve this, however).