General Updates and News

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Hali87

^ I would be curious to see some of their proposed "options". The article makes it sound like the main alternatives to the current pace/nature of development are "less development" and "no development".

" while violent crime rates have gone down relative to the national average. "

HRM is the most violent place east of Thunder Bay and has been for many years. We should not compare Halifax with the national average, we should compare Halifax with other urban areas. I have produced many graphs comparing rates with other cities since 1998. HRP has never published data and the provincial Justice Department does not publish the data but the Statistics section of the provincial Finance department has published data for recent years including a graph; see here and scroll down to the second last graph. The national average includes very violent places such as Yukon,NWT,and Nunavut. See here :
https://www.novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/archive_news.asp?id=17005&dg=&df=&dto=0&dti=12
or....
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/...020&referencePeriods=19980101%2C20200101
Hard to believe we are more violent than Montreal and Toronto. In recent years Brampton has become more violent with Indo-Canadian gangs fighting for supremacy.
We all know the fuss about street check data but what was missing in the report is as important as what was in the report. The report did not compare street check data with the days following a violent crime. I have the annual data and compared it with the number of homicides in other jurisdictions
And lastly, our solvency rate for violent crime is poor - for obvious reasons.
The Mayor never talks about crime and its roots and has never attended a Board of Police Commissioners meeting.

[atbw]

I think they resonate with folks who see these vacant lots and wonder "what's going on here?" But ultimately these are private properties owned by developers who are either tied up in other projects or are not in a financial position to develop these lots. There's no incentive to, and even if there was, are there any construction crews available?

What I've heard is that local developers are able to get some work done, and can chain projects together, retaining crews from one job to the next. With such a limited supply of labour, it's pretty hard to advance anything else beyond the current pace.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Colin May

HRM is the most violent place east of Thunder Bay and has been for many years. We should not compare Halifax with the national average, we should compare Halifax with other urban areas. I have produced many graphs comparing rates with other cities since 1998. HRP has never published data and the provincial Justice Department does not publish the data but the Statistics section of the provincial Finance department has published data for recent years including a graph; see here and scroll down to the second last graph. The national average includes very violent places such as Yukon,NWT,and Nunavut. See here :
https://www.novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/archive_news.asp?id=17005&dg=&df=&dto=0&dti=12
or....
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/...020&referencePeriods=19980101%2C20200101
Hard to believe we are more violent than Montreal and Toronto. In recent years Brampton has become more violent with Indo-Canadian gangs fighting for supremacy.
We all know the fuss about street check data but what was missing in the report is as important as what was in the report. The report did not compare street check data with the days following a violent crime. I have the annual data and compared it with the number of homicides in other jurisdictions
And lastly, our solvency rate for violent crime is poor - for obvious reasons.
The Mayor never talks about crime and its roots and has never attended a Board of Police Commissioners meeting.

On this point, I wonder what context the actual area of HRM plays. More poor and rural areas seem to score higher on violent crime, like SK and NL. With so much of the actual HRM being rural, would that skew our crime stats whatsoever?

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by atbw

On this point, I wonder what context the actual area of HRM plays. More poor and rural areas seem to score higher on violent crime, like SK and NL. With so much of the actual HRM being rural, would that skew our crime stats whatsoever?

To answer the question NO. HRM has had a collection of the usual suspects from long standing communities for decades. I had long suspected that HRP knows what goes on but lets the usual suspects clean up their own business unless a civilian gets in the cross fire. That suspicion was confirmed while chatting with a local RCMP member of the combined RCMP/HRP Major crimes task force. The Feds contribute Ottawa paid for assets to the local knowledge of HRP to try to solve crime. My RCMP friend mentioned that the greatest challenge is HRP did not always share their intimate knowledge of the spider web of local crime activities and connections and they had a tendency to hold back when the paybacks started. Those violent paybacks bubble up about every 7-10 years.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by atbw

On this point, I wonder what context the actual area of HRM plays. More poor and rural areas seem to score higher on violent crime, like SK and NL. With so much of the actual HRM being rural, would that skew our crime stats whatsoever?

No. I studied the HFX CMA data
Plenty of shootings in Dartmouth and on the peninsula over the years. I have extensively studied the issue and my file is over 12 inches thick.
HRP has a crime map but does not show homicides.
Here is a link from February 2012 public meeting of the Police Commission : https://legacycontent.halifax.ca/boardscom/bpc/documents/120213bopc631.pdf .... not much has changed. The visual would be much the same today.
And then a February 26 2018 presentation from an RCMP officer re Trafficking of young girls and women : https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/fil...committees-commissions/180226bopc911.pdf
Mayor Savage shows no interest in the violent crime problem and does not want to talk about it and shows no leadership on addressing the matter in conjunction with the provincial and federal governments. The issue can be explained by poverty, families with no father present, poor educational outcomes and racism.
The trafficking of girls and women is well known in certain social agencies and has not changed (according to a recent conversation with a person involved in the issue)
The next Statscan release will be circa July 21. The data is also released with explanations and easy to follow graphs. Last year release of 2020n data here : https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2021001/article/00013-eng.htm

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Colin May

HRM is the most violent place east of Thunder Bay and has been for many years. We should not compare Halifax with the national average, we should compare Halifax with other urban areas.

This is from a couple years ago: https://www.macleans.ca/canadas-most-dangerous-places-2020/. There were other cities east of Thunder Bay that were considered more violent that year, including Toronto and all 3 of the main NB cities. I haven't seen the 2021 stats but maybe they were radically different.

For context, there have been years in recent decades where Halifax was #1 on that list, and it was near the top for quite a while (though I'm sure you know this).

That's what I mean by "going down relative to the national average", not that it's a crime-free place by Canadian standards. It doesn't really have the reputation of being one of Canada's most dangerous cities anymore. Most of the cities that do are, as you say, in the west.

[LikesBikes]

Having no dog in this fight I've always heard Halifax is a very safe city and that's my on-the-ground impression also. Having lived across the country and in the US there are usually a couple of neighbourhoods I would not go to for safety reasons, and many places where my girlfriend would not be able to walk alone at night. So far I have yet to see anywhere like that here.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by teddifax

She is part of a new group against development... quelle surprise!!! https://halifax.citynews.ca/local-news/c...mail&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Email
I hope this is clickable... if not it was under the Halifax City News.... I don't know how credible they are.

One of the principals named in the article is a member of this forum.

[IanWatson]

Development Options Halifax has been around for a little while. I believe they formed in response to the twin proposals at SGR and Robbie.

Peggy Cameron is not necessarily wrong about the environmental impact of development—we really should be talking about how much concrete we use and its CO2 impact—but she’s looking at it from too narrow of a viewpoint. Saying no to big buildings doesn’t mean they don’t happens, it means they happen out in far-flung areas where you cause even more CO2 for transportation purposes.

I like to think of development and planning like a pressure vessel. You can bleed the pressure off and direct it to do useful things; what you can’t do is close all the valves and turn your back on it while the pressure continues to build.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Having no dog in this fight I've always heard Halifax is a very safe city and that's my on-the-ground impression also. Having lived across the country and in the US there are usually a couple of neighbourhoods I would not go to for safety reasons, and many places where my girlfriend would not be able to walk alone at night. So far I have yet to see anywhere like that here.

Violent crime doesn't impact everyone the same way. I generally feel safe (there have been a few instances where that feeling was proven to be false), but my understanding is that violent crime in Halifax tends to be targeted and the victims and perpetrators know one another. This doesn't mean it's *not* a problem but means that because I (and possibly you) don't know many perps or victims, we aren't likely to experience the *type* of violent crime that is most common in HRM.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Violent crime doesn't impact everyone the same way. I generally feel safe (there have been a few instances where that feeling was proven to be false), but my understanding is that violent crime in Halifax tends to be targeted and the victims and perpetrators know one another. This doesn't mean it's *not* a problem but means that because I (and possibly you) don't know many perps or victims, we aren't likely to experience the *type* of violent crime that is most common in HRM.

Exactly.

e.g., Statcan data shows that Halifax has higher crime severity than Toronto, but lower rates of gun crime.

So what kinds of violent crime are we experiencing? Domestic violence? 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 assault? Do we have more bar brawls?

It seems like in any city, your likelihood of experiencing violence has less to do with the city you live in and more to do with your specific life situation, economic circumstances, etc. Which isn’t to say we should ignore the fact that Halifax has a relatively higher violent-crime rate--that also allows those of us fortunate enough not to experience that violence to disregard the problem. But it’s not like people are being randomly attacked in the streets with regularity or anything.

[MastClimberPro]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Development Options Halifax has been around for a little while. I believe they formed in response to the twin proposals at SGR and Robbie.

Peggy Cameron is not necessarily wrong about the environmental impact of development—we really should be talking about how much concrete we use and its CO2 impact—but she’s looking at it from too narrow of a viewpoint. Saying no to big buildings doesn’t mean they don’t happens, it means they happen out in far-flung areas where you cause even more CO2 for transportation purposes.

I like to think of development and planning like a pressure vessel. You can bleed the pressure off and direct it to do useful things; what you can’t do is close all the valves and turn your back on it while the pressure continues to build.

Older building stock also has its own environmental costs - many are not energy efficient or oil burning, etc. On a per person basis I would have to imagine the residents of a large apartment block are consuming less energy than a couple in a single family dwelling (happy to be fact checked there). Not saying old houses have more environmental impact than apartment buildings, just saying that they aren't old stock forests or wetlands either. Unless you look at the city broadly it is difficult to grasp the true environmental cost/benefit.

I'm also struck by the personal narratives that are used by opposition to development. The story of walking around the city ("I'm just a simple low tech citizen") and being surprised by the disappearance/appearance of a building ("those developers are sooo sneaky") seems really loaded and irrelevant to me. Are we supposed to prioritize the imposition of variance on someone's daily stroll over the housing/business desires of hundreds of others? I seems so privileged to me. IMO

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MastClimberPro

I'm also struck by the personal narratives that are used by opposition to development. The story of walking around the city ("I'm just a simple low tech citizen") and being surprised by the disappearance/appearance of a building ("those developers are sooo sneaky") seems really loaded and irrelevant to me. Are we supposed to prioritize the imposition of variance on someone's daily stroll over the housing/business desires of hundreds of others? I seems so privileged to me. IMO

It is motivated reasoning. You start by getting upset by something (e.g. SGR highrise proposal) then come up with reasons why it's bad (affordable housing, environment, heritage; take whatever people seem to be worrying about these days). The reasons aren't necessarily wrong but there are trade-offs in life -- as you say heating, transportation, etc. -- as well as agency and preferences of others. Maybe residents value modern units more highly than some of the older stock.

It's telling that you don't hear this group praising development of empty brownfield sites much or talking about how to thoughtfully increase density on underused sites like the SGR block. In the past they mostly wanted lowrise everywhere. I think this makes some of the issues they worry about worse as the development pressure moves elsewhere and more sites are developed. As IanWatson says, the pressure is directed, it doesn't just disappear if you ban construction on one block or in one neighbourhood.

I tend to think the city would be better off allowing finer grained small footprint development and making that more financially viable with taller height limits. In exchange there would be more preservation of existing stock. Think of the Press Block site for example where HRM demanded a square 9/10 storey building. The developer could have fit the same amount of space in a narrow tower along Barrington while fully preserving both heritage buildings but that was not permitted. Then we have the Cogswell area which will just be empty lots and the city is capping the heights and densities. Again, trade-offs. HRM decides that height limits come first, partly apparently because that has been seen as a prime lever for public input, and everything else follows.

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by MastClimberPro

Older building stock also has its own environmental costs - many are not energy efficient or oil burning, etc. On a per person basis I would have to imagine the residents of a large apartment block are consuming less energy than a couple in a single family dwelling (happy to be fact checked there). Not saying old houses have more environmental impact than apartment buildings, just saying that they aren't old stock forests or wetlands either. Unless you look at the city broadly it is difficult to grasp the true environmental cost/benefit.

I'm also struck by the personal narratives that are used by opposition to development. The story of walking around the city ("I'm just a simple low tech citizen") and being surprised by the disappearance/appearance of a building ("those developers are sooo sneaky") seems really loaded and irrelevant to me. Are we supposed to prioritize the imposition of variance on someone's daily stroll over the housing/business desires of hundreds of others? I seems so privileged to me. IMO

Agreed on all points. I find the issues they bring up interesting - it's definitely not something I think of when discussing development. I noticed Hadrian Laing mentioned in that article being a part of it, and he's in this forum, would be interesting to hear your perspective if you notice this!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Meh. Every group has a right to express their views, and it's always good to have a number of perspectives on any particular topic. All and all, though, stuff still gets built, and is being built (ref: cranes currently in the city), so I'm not sure that anti-development groups in Halifax are all that successful. It's been said on this forum that there aren't enough tradespeople to get everything done here anyhow, and the evidence is that there are lots of projects in the queue that have been empty lots for a long time, while demolitions are still continually occurring (probably the motivation for this group).

I'm actually surprised that there isn't a group lobbying to council to increase height limits and build more tall buildings to increase density and tackle the housing shortage thusly. There would be good arguments available to present (many of which have been presented already in this forum), and opportunities to get some media time to get the idea out there. Somebody should form a "friends of urban density" group, perhaps.

Complain all you want about Peggy Cameron... everybody is aware of her views, whether you agree with them or not. I say good for her to have the gumption to get her ideas out there and fight for what she believes in.

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'm actually surprised that there isn't a group lobbying to council to increase height limits and build more tall buildings to increase density and tackle the housing shortage thusly. There would be good arguments available to present (many of which have been presented already in this forum), and opportunities to get some media time to get the idea out there. Somebody should form a "friends of urban density" group, perhaps.

Complain all you want about Peggy Cameron... everybody is aware of her views, whether you agree with them or not. I say good for her to have the gumption to get her ideas out there and fight for what she believes in.

Most people work all day and pay taxes. We expect the people paid to plan an affordable and attractive city to do so undeterred by reactionaries.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

Most people work all day and pay taxes. We expect the people paid to plan an affordable and attractive city to do so undeterred by reactionaries.

I expect this too, and am not overly disappointed in how things are going for Halifax in reference to the rest of the country.

However some aren't happy and have the time to complain about groups who get their voice out there while they remain silent. Having a job and paying taxes is not an excuse, IMHO.

Life is hard. It's a fact. But you have to fight for what you believe in or be content in your silence.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Meh. Every group has a right to express their views, and it's always good to have a number of perspectives on any particular topic. All and all, though, stuff still gets built, and is being built (ref: cranes currently in the city), so I'm not sure that anti-development groups in Halifax are all that successful. It's been said on this forum that there aren't enough tradespeople to get everything done here anyhow, and the evidence is that there are lots of projects in the queue that have been empty lots for a long time, while demolitions are still continually occurring (probably the motivation for this group).

I'm actually surprised that there isn't a group lobbying to council to increase height limits and build more tall buildings to increase density and tackle the housing shortage thusly. There would be good arguments available to present (many of which have been presented already in this forum), and opportunities to get some media time to get the idea out there. Somebody should form a "friends of urban density" group, perhaps.

Complain all you want about Peggy Cameron... everybody is aware of her views, whether you agree with them or not. I say good for her to have the gumption to get her ideas out there and fight for what she believes in.

I think it has a really good ring! "The Friends of the Towers".

Build higher and reduce demolition and carbon footprint. Maximize a very small and restricted landmass by building a 35 storey building as opposed to an 8 storey building just to appease certain groups who want no development whatsoever. Restore architectural significant buildings and build much higher on vacant sites including the Cogswell lands & Shannon Park.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Every group has a right to express their views, and it's always good to have a number of perspectives on any particular topic.

This is true although I think the media presentation is often warped with journalists putting developers on the "pro" side and then hunting for citizens who are on the "anti" side, with some usual suspects being lined up to fill that role. The local media are weak when it comes to getting to the bottom of questions like housing affordability, really sketching out the trade-offs, or wider public opinion beyond the sound bites. In fact they don't do much analysis at all. And I think people are right to be skeptical when figures who have provided anti-development soundbites in the local media outlets for years promote material through these groups.

There is nothing wrong with the ideas being out there but once they're out they're open to respectful responses and critiques. Unfortunately I think the public debate is often really bad with some terrible tropes in municipal politics, one being the "housing affordability through banning expensive housing" plan, and another being vague environmentalist claims that only look at part of the picture.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Empire

I think it has a really good ring! "The Friends of the Towers".

Build higher and reduce demolition and carbon footprint. Maximize a very small and restricted landmass by building a 35 storey building as opposed to an 8 storey building just to appease certain groups who want no development whatsoever. Restore architectural significant buildings and build much higher on vacant sites including the Cogswell lands & Shannon Park.

That's what I'm talking about!