Cogswell Interchange

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

Well that's a dumb plan ... Why don't they close off some of the not important streets to traffic altogether (ie. Bell Lane)

Bell Lane doesn't even exist right now, so there's nothing to close off. And it looks like they'll be using it as part of the transit hub.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The wisdom of "placemaking" (urban planner cliche #483) by constructing parks and commemorative spaces in the midst of a busy downtown next to the only exit route from a large container port is dubious at best. As for it being a destination, planners cannot create one. That is left to the property owners and what they choose to develop.

Oh... I don't think parks are where it's at.

Planners CAN help shape how property owners develop their properties - there are forms, and spatial relationships that encourage human interaction and the use of space by clarifying hierarchy (public, semi-public, shared private and private... or whatever the lingo is).

[Ottawaresident]

Well that's also a good idea. I should keep my mouth shut about places I don't visit often.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

Well that's also a good idea. I should keep my mouth shut about places I don't visit often.

No harm, no foul... All input is welcome, just visit more often!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

Well that's also a good idea. I should keep my mouth shut about places I don't visit often.

No, you had it right the first time.

[Ottawaresident]

By first time ... What do you mean?

[someone123]

Here are renderings of some of the park space that will be created. They also show heritage-inspired architecture for some of the new buildings, though I guess that might not actually be nailed down in the 90% plan. I think it would be nice to try to recreate the feel of some of the old buildings that were torn down, but that's tricky (or expensive).

Hopefully there will be some discussion about the giant pedway. It makes little sense. Some kind of sheltered walkway could be built through or under the park, or if a private pedway had to be built it could go around the park through the new buildings.

[pblaauw]

I think the "giant pedway" already exists? It's the one from Purdy's Landing to the Barrington Hotel.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by pblaauw

I think the "giant pedway" already exists? It's the one from Purdy's Landing to the Barrington Hotel.

Yep. It is already there. But it exists in its current state because of the interchange, and there will never be a better time to reassess it than when this area is already getting torn up.

There are a bunch of alternatives:

- Build connections to the pedway system through lots "A" and "B" then have a much shorter crossing of Lower Water Street. Or maybe just connect Purdy's to "B" via "S" and Scotia Square.
- Build some underground paths. These could also be useful to partly or fully connect the ferry terminal up with the new transit hub.
- Build some kind of protected route through the park (probably not hermetically sealed but covered and with wind mitigation).
- Just demolish the pedway and forget about it since it will now be much easier for pedestrians to get around this area.

[OldDartmouthMark]

IMHO it makes sense to keep the pedway because it is part of a system of existing pedways/tunnels and its main advantage is to allow one to traverse out of the weather from the Casino/Purdy's Wharf/Marriott Harbourfront all the way up to Scotia Square and the Trade Centre (new arts centre), and currently the Scotiabank Centre.

Aside from keeping you out of the weather it also provides a route that is more amenable to somebody with mobility issues as there are elevators/escalators to deal with the grade changes. Not to mention all of the ice that has plagued the sidewalks this winter.

I think removing it would be a mistake.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

By first time ... What do you mean?

When you say it is a dumb plan, which it is.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

IMHO it makes sense to keep the pedway because it is part of a system of existing pedways/tunnels and its main advantage is to allow one to traverse out of the weather from the Casino/Purdy's Wharf/Marriott Harbourfront all the way up to Scotia Square and the Trade Centre (new arts centre), and currently the Scotiabank Centre.

Aside from keeping you out of the weather it also provides a route that is more amenable to somebody with mobility issues as there are elevators/escalators to deal with the grade changes. Not to mention all of the ice that has plagued the sidewalks this winter.

I think removing it would be a mistake.

I guess the thinking is that since they are already removing the infrastructure that allows vehicles to move efficiently and conveniently, let's do the same for pedestrians and people with mobility issues too.

Removing it would be a huge mistake. And since I believe it is privately owned, it really is not within HRM's power to do so in any event.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And since I believe it is privately owned, it really is not within HRM's power to do so in any event.

That's an interesting point. Who DOES own the pedway? Is it one owner along its whole length, or do different building owners own different parts? How do easements and the like work for this kind of thing?

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

That's an interesting point. Who DOES own the pedway? Is it one owner along its whole length, or do different building owners own different parts? How do easements and the like work for this kind of thing?

I think its owned by the owners of Purdys Wharf and I seem to recall hearing that they have at least 10 years if not more left on their land lease for the pedway. So it is unlikely to go anywhere for a while.

[Franco401]

Pedways are the way of the past. They made sense 50 years ago when businesses were leaving downtowns left and right and needed incentive to stay in CBDs, and a lot of cities saved the shopping in their downtowns because of them, but today they suck pedestrian activity from the streets which hurts fine-grained retail at street-level, reinforces car-dependency and funnels foot traffic into stuffy corridors lacking natural light.

The status quo is the best option for all the reasons mentioned in above posts, but in the long run, removing parts of the pedways is something that should be seriously examined.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Franco401

Pedways are the way of the past. They made sense 50 years ago when businesses were leaving downtowns left and right and needed incentive to stay in CBDs, and a lot of cities saved the shopping in their downtowns because of them, but today they suck pedestrian activity from the streets which hurts fine-grained retail at street-level, reinforces car-dependency and funnels foot traffic into stuffy corridors lacking natural light.

The status quo is the best option for all the reasons mentioned in above posts, but in the long run, removing parts of the pedways is something that should be seriously examined.

I don't think the effect is so severe. On nice days most people will opt to walk outdoors and enjoy the weather, whereas they tend to choose the pedways during bad weather. In some cases pedways could actually increase pedestrian traffic for people who might just stay home in bad weather because they don't want to suffer the ice-cold wind, the snow and the icy sidewalks that Halifax is famous for.

And, as mentioned, it's a good option for people with mobility issues in hilly Halifax.

[Keith P.]

Watch out Mark, that urban planning dogma might bite you!

[pblaauw]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

IMHO it makes sense to keep the pedway because it is part of a system of existing pedways/tunnels and its main advantage is to allow one to traverse out of the weather from the Casino/Purdy's Wharf/Marriott Harbourfront all the way up to Scotia Square and the Trade Centre (new arts centre), and currently the Scotiabank Centre.

Aside from keeping you out of the weather it also provides a route that is more amenable to somebody with mobility issues as there are elevators/escalators to deal with the grade changes. Not to mention all of the ice that has plagued the sidewalks this winter.

I think removing it would be a mistake.

I went through it from the Prince George to Scotia Square in my wheelchair, on a crummy day in January, and it was fantastic to have that option. I only wish the PG wasn't so hard to get to in a wheelchair.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Watch out Mark, that urban planning dogma might bite you!

I get bitten every time, but still haven't learned to not stick my hand out...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by pblaauw

I went through it from the Prince George to Scotia Square in my wheelchair, on a crummy day in January, and it was fantastic to have that option. I only wish the PG wasn't so hard to get to in a wheelchair.

Exactly my point. It's a great option for everybody on those cold blustery winter nights when the wind chill is -25 and the sidewalks are a glare of ice.

I can especially appreciate how much difference it makes if you are in a chair.