General Updates and News

[Jstaleness]

Keith, you're spot on. I actually forgot they were painted.

[Empire]

It is unfortunate that the money wasted on curb bump-outs wasn’t thoughtfully invested in crosswalk safety and street signage instead. (a typical bump-out required rerouting the storm sewer catchbasin & piping). I say wasted because curb bump-outs create a definite hazard for cyclists as well as motorists not anticipating their presence that far outweigh any conceived benefit. Testament to this hazard is the fact that some bump-outs have a hazard sign placed in them. Odd that you would purposely create a hazard! The lack of crosswalk and lane markings in HRM is not only a hazard but an embarrassment and a black eye for the city.

Not maintaining paint markings because the environmentally friendly paint wears off sooner is as lame-duck as you can get. Crosswalks in general have either worn markings or no markings. Crosswalks with no markings promote J-walking and give motorists no advanced warning of the crossing.

In terms of lane markings, there are numerous streets with lanes that have no directional arrow or have only one that usually gets hidden by a car.

I wonder what a tourist or outside business investor would think driving in HRM and being surprised by a pedestrian jumping out in front of them where there were no crosswalk markings, then be confused by no directional arrows in the lanes on the street and to top it off, no posted street name at the intersection because I guess ‘everyone knows where they are going anyway’??

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Empire

Crosswalks with no markings promote J-walking and give motorists no advanced warning of the crossing.

That raises two points: first, with respect to "advanced warning of the crosswalk", there is, by law, a crosswalk at every intersection, marked or not. Pedestrians have the right of way there and drivers are obliged to yield to them. Motorists need to be aware of that. It's in the Motor Vehicle Act, it's in the government handbook given to all learners, and it's taught in every driving course, yet many drivers still seem unaware of it.

Second, in NS, jaywalking (crossing anywhere other than at a crosswalk) is perfectly legal so long as the pedestrian does not obstruct traffic. In other words, you cannot cross legally - and are subject to ticketing - if there's approaching vehicle traffic which would have to slow or stop in order for you to cross. Otherwise, you're good to go.

I wonder what a tourist or outside business investor would think driving in HRM and being surprised by a pedestrian jumping out in front of them where there were no crosswalk markings, then be confused by no directional arrows in the lanes on the street and to top it off, no posted street name at the intersection because I guess ‘everyone knows where they are going anyway’??

Agreed. We do a terrible job with roadway markings and signage, and it's not only embarrassing but outright dangerous.

[Empire]

[QUOTE=Saul Goode;9931794]That raises two points: first, with respect to "advanced warning of the crosswalk", there is, by law, a crosswalk at every intersection, marked or not. Pedestrians have the right of way there and drivers are obliged to yield to them. Motorists need to be aware of that. It's in the Motor Vehicle Act, it's in the government handbook given to all learners, and it's taught in every driving course, yet many drivers still seem unaware of it.

The point is, that drivers are unaware of the bylaw and will remain unaware of the bylaw. Also, drivers from outside the province would certainly be unaware. There are some intersections where two of the four crosswalks are painted so this would lead the driver to believe the unpainted crosswalks are not to be used. It really seems like a way to avoid painting crosswalks.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Empire

It is unfortunate that the money wasted on curb bump-outs wasn’t thoughtfully invested in crosswalk safety and street signage instead. (a typical bump-out required rerouting the storm sewer catchbasin & piping). I say wasted because curb bump-outs create a definite hazard for cyclists as well as motorists not anticipating their presence that far outweigh any conceived benefit. Testament to this hazard is the fact that some bump-outs have a hazard sign placed in them. Odd that you would purposely create a hazard!

This farcical state of affairs may fairly be laid at the feet of our oh-so-earnest do-gooder planning fetishist Sam Austin. Few have so blissfully blown as much of our money "fixing" problems that exist only in his over-fertile imagination. I curse him every time I have to drive over one of his pointless damned Samerrhoids™, and add a second curse for the further money wasted on the faded arrows painted on them.

I can't wait to see him lose an election and be rid of his smarmy sanctimonious smirk.

[Saul Goode]

[QUOTE=Empire;9931854]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

That raises two points: first, with respect to "advanced warning of the crosswalk", there is, by law, a crosswalk at every intersection, marked or not. Pedestrians have the right of way there and drivers are obliged to yield to them. Motorists need to be aware of that. It's in the Motor Vehicle Act, it's in the government handbook given to all learners, and it's taught in every driving course, yet many drivers still seem unaware of it.

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

The point is, that drivers are unaware of the bylaw and will remain unaware of the bylaw. Also, drivers from outside the province would certainly be unaware. There are some intersections where two of the four crosswalks are painted so this would lead the driver to believe the unpainted crosswalks are not to be used. It really seems like a way to avoid painting crosswalks.

I understood your point exactly. My post was more a lament/rant about Nova Scotia driver ignorance than anything.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

This farcical state of affairs may fairly be laid at the feet of our oh-so-earnest do-gooder planning fetishist Sam Austin. Few have so blissfully blown as much of our money "fixing" problems that exist only in his over-fertile imagination. I curse him every time I have to drive over one of his pointless damned Samerrhoids™, and add a second curse for the further money wasted on the faded arrows painted on them.

I can't wait to see him lose an election and be rid of his smarmy sanctimonious smirk.

Indeed.

Today, for reasons that remain a mystery to me, traffic in Dartmouth was extremely heavy, especially around the end of the Macdonald and on routes leading there. I could not understand why it was stop-and-crawl on much of Victoria Rd south of Albro Lake in either direction, with the same being true for Wyse. It was utterly bizarre. I assumed there must have been a crash, or a lane closure on the bridge, but no.

I never did get to the root of the problem but I did get to see a cause. It looked a lot like Sam Austin and his back-of-the-envelope traffic redesign last year. At Wyse and Boland, traffic was backed up in both directions. Wyse Rd traffic could not get through the intersection in any volume because most of it wanted to turn onto Boland and was prohibited by Sam's traffic signal programming and signage from doing so. Coming down Nantucket the signals are no longer synchronized at Wyse with the one at the DSC entry, so very few cars get through heading onto the bridge. His erasure of the right turn slip lane prevented that traffic from flowing as well. Because of the heavy volume (for whatever reason), Nantucket was backed up onto Victoria all the way back almost to Albro Lake Rd. You never used to see that even at morning rush unless there was a crash on the bridge. The good folk of HHB had just one Halifax-bound lane available, but it was moving at least.

We need a bylaw preventing elected officials from designing intersections, signals, and rules of the road.

[bartekci]

Actually, there were pylons blocking an entire lane on the McKay and the Windsor Street Exchange was partially shut down (could not enter from McKay and had to go through Barrington). I'd know because I got stuck in that mess after returning from Porter's Lake.

[Dmajackson]

^I got stuck in that as well.

I browsed the weekly building permits and the only one that could be of interest is a demolition permit for 1762 ROBIE STREET. This is just north of Cedar Street next to the corner lot that has been demolished since Google Streetview last went by in 2019.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

^I got stuck in that as well.

I browsed the weekly building permits and the only one that could be of interest is a demolition permit for 1762 ROBIE STREET. This is just north of Cedar Street next to the corner lot that has been demolished since Google Streetview last went by in 2019.

This is exactly the type of building for which every attempt should be made to preserve.

1762 Robie - Google Streetview:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/1762+R...!4d-63.5893489!10e5!16s%2Fg%2F11c2ckb6sl

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

^I got stuck in that as well.

I browsed the weekly building permits and the only one that could be of interest is a demolition permit for 1762 ROBIE STREET. This is just north of Cedar Street next to the corner lot that has been demolished since Google Streetview last went by in 2019.

Assuming this is Tsimiklis again, with his bizarre piecemeal approach to demolishing Robie Street. Driving up the street has become infuriating. Pockmarked with vacant lots where houses used to be, no redevelopment plan. Derelict city-centre properties in the midst of a housing crisis. Something ought to be done to stop this guy, but nothing will.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Assuming this is Tsimiklis again, with his bizarre piecemeal approach to demolishing Robie Street. Driving up the street has become infuriating. Pockmarked with vacant lots where houses used to be, no redevelopment plan. Derelict city-centre properties in the midst of a housing crisis. Something ought to be done to stop this guy, but nothing will.

As far as I can tell the demolition permit issuing process is unusually laissez-faire in Halifax and NS. Is it still just a few years' pause even to demolish a registered heritage property? I think it used to be a 1 year delay.

There has been some work to register more properties and create heritage districts but it's been slow and I wonder if on balance it led to more demolition as property owners have been given a huge lead time to preemptively demolish. A bunch of Barrington development applications went in before that heritage district was created. The Roy demolition really had a negative impact on the historic feel of that area. Not just the demolition of the old Roy Building but the demolition of the Sackville Street buildings and land assembly.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

As far as I can tell the demolition permit issuing process is unusually laissez-faire in Halifax and NS. Is it still just a few years' pause even to demolish a registered heritage property? I think it used to be a 1 year delay.

There has been some work to register more properties and create heritage districts but it's been slow and I wonder if on balance it led to more demolition as property owners have been given a huge lead time to preemptively demolish. A bunch of Barrington development applications went in before that heritage district was created. The Roy demolition really had a negative impact on the historic feel of that area. Not just the demolition of the old Roy Building but the demolition of the Sackville Street buildings and land assembly.

Three years, but in heritage districts there's no three-year waiting period, it's no demolition at all (without a council vote, I believe).

The big problem with Robie isn't just the heritage aspect, but the fact that demolition permits can be issued in such a prominent location, with no development plan and no timeline to rebuilding. You might think, "Who would pay to rip down a bunch of income-generating properties and then pay taxes on vacant land for an indefinite period of time?" but, well, there it is. This guy.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The big problem with Robie isn't just the heritage aspect, but the fact that demolition permits can be issued in such a prominent location, with no development plan and no timeline to rebuilding. You might think, "Who would pay to rip down a bunch of income-generating properties and then pay taxes on vacant land for an indefinite period of time?" but, well, there it is. This guy.

My impression in many cities is that there has to be some kind of development approval and plan in place, and a demolished property is considered "unsightly" (which it is).

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

My impression in many cities is that there has to be some kind of development approval and plan in place, and a demolished property is considered "unsightly" (which it is).

The city bylaw says that poor exterior maintenance of a building constitutes an unsightly property, so I guess having no building skirts that issue.

[aga10]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Assuming this is Tsimiklis again, with his bizarre piecemeal approach to demolishing Robie Street. Driving up the street has become infuriating. Pockmarked with vacant lots where houses used to be, no redevelopment plan. Derelict city-centre properties in the midst of a housing crisis. Something ought to be done to stop this guy, but nothing will.

I am not sure if this has been mentioned yet but Tsimiklis has sold most of his development sites along Robie St, Coburg Rd and Tower Rd to the brothers behind J2K. PVSC states the purchase price as $58.3m for the 10 sites. So this latest demo permit at 1762 Robie would have been issued by J2K - and I have heard the motive behind all of the quick demolition in the first place was to avoid heritage registration for any of the properties. The good news is that J2K is a very capable builder, these sites likely won't sit vacant for too long now that they are out of Tsimiklis' hands.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by aga10

I am not sure if this has been mentioned yet but Tsimiklis has sold most of his development sites along Robie St, Coburg Rd and Tower Rd to the brothers behind J2K. PVSC states the purchase price as $58.3m for the 10 sites. So this latest demo permit at 1762 Robie would have been issued by J2K - and I have heard the motive behind all of the quick demolition in the first place was to avoid heritage registration for any of the properties. The good news is that J2K is a very capable builder, these sites likely won't sit vacant for too long now that they are out of Tsimiklis' hands.

Hopefully that also means Tsimiklis' buying/demolishing spree is over, though if he suddenly has $60 million to play with, maybe not? And nearly $6 million per vacant site? On lots constrained by low-density zoning? Still seems incredibly weird.

Not very familiar with J2K. Their portfolio looks pretty plain, though Coburg House looks okay. Maximizing these lots' potential with some nice modern mid-rises would be great. Throwing up some quickie suburban-quality low-rises would be bad.

[someone123]

Maybe the ship has sailed but I don't think the city has comprehensive plans for which heritage areas should or shouldn't be preserved or enhanced as growth happens. There are some small heritage districts but often there are demolitions or poorly maintained buildings inside or adjacent to them and a lot of historic architecture has no protections at all. Young Street was severely mangled a few years ago, there was some complaining, then the same thing happened on Robie.

I was looking at Tower Road around Victoria Road. It has some great old buildings and a plaque with information about the historic streetscape. But then again a lot of Victorians around there aren't registered and some prominent ones are mangled or seem to be deteriorating. It could be a great streetscape but it's just mediocre as it is. Inglis is similar. I'd say Schmidtville is the only district that really feels like a heritage district in Halifax and it still has its vinyl-clad wonders, ugly modern renos, and inappropriate setbacks.

[aga10]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Hopefully that also means Tsimiklis' buying/demolishing spree is over, though if he suddenly has $60 million to play with, maybe not? And nearly $6 million per vacant site? On lots constrained by low-density zoning? Still seems incredibly weird.

Not very familiar with J2K. Their portfolio looks pretty plain, though Coburg House looks okay. Maximizing these lots' potential with some nice modern mid-rises would be great. Throwing up some quickie suburban-quality low-rises would be bad.

Price is certainly on the higher side. J2K seems to be making a move to more urban developments - purchasing Wyse Road Shopping Centre in partnership with Cresco, which can support several high rises. However, I agree that suburban quality (and style) buildings don't belong in these locations. Seems to be what we are getting anyways, all looking the same.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

l
I was looking at Tower Road around Victoria Road. It has some great old buildings and a plaque with information about the historic streetscape. But then again a lot of Victorians around there aren't registered and some prominent ones are mangled or seem to be deteriorating. It could be a great streetscape but it's just mediocre as it is. Inglis is similar.

I’m not too pessimistic about those two; there are about two dozen individual heritage registrations on Inglis, which create a sort of defacto heritage district. Tower Road has a real mix, but the Centre Plan zoning rather torturously weaves around all the historically valuable buildings, keeping them under low-rise zoning. A bunch are also registered. There’s no coherent plan as to how to develop the district, but it doesn’t feel like it’s in particularly worse shape than it used to be.

I actually took a long walk tonight and happened to stroll by the site of Cobourg House—it’s not an architectural marvel, but the massing, materials and overall feel are actually pretty good. The gaps on Robie and Cobourg now are unfortunate, but if some are filled with builds of (at least) that quality, it might be be a net positive.