[Halifax] Nova Centre | 65-58-58 m | 16-15-14 fl | Completed

[OliverD]

I think the rise of big box stores has more to do with cost than anything else. Mall rents are expensive because the tenants are also paying for a significant area of common spaces. As the market became more competitive retailers were forced out of malls. This is why the trend in enclosed malls seems to be towards higher-margin luxury retailers who can afford those expensive rents.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OliverD

I think the rise of big box stores has more to do with cost than anything else. Mall rents are expensive because the tenants are also paying for a significant area of common spaces. As the market became more competitive retailers were forced out of malls. This is why the trend in enclosed malls seems to be towards higher-margin luxury retailers who can afford those expensive rents.

But then that begs the question of why the malls trend took hold to begin with? If enclosed malls are so much less efficient and cost effective, wouldn't that have been apparent from the beginning? People were obviously willing to pay any additional embedded costs for several decades, so either the shopping experience appealed to people or there was some other factor involved such as zoning. There wouldn't have been anything else that would made the big box development style infeasible. Or perhaps the notion of shops being embedded into urban streetscapes was so historically engrained into the cultural mindset that artificially simulating this was the only way to add legitimacy to suburban shopping.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Absolutely. Just because you happen to have a car doesn't mean you're forced to bring it with you everywhere you go. Personally, while I have a car that i use mostly for going out of town or to transport bulky items to/from locations outside downtown (mostly suburban) I don't consider it desirable or ethical to bring internal combustion vehicles with a single occupant to city centres and I refuse to do it. It's different for someone with young children or disabilities but for the majority I'd prefer to see parking at fringe areas like the HSC, Quinpool stripmall, etc where people can walk or take transit shuttles in. Best to think of the downtown as if it were a huge shopping mall and commercial/recreation complex. Obviously not something that you drive your car directly into, but that there are ways to help people get around due to the large area compared to a normal building.

I actually wonder if that's part of the reason we've seen a decline of the indoor shopping mall versus big box store and strip malls over the last 20 years. That people are just too lazy to do that much walking. A large shopping mall is similar in scale to the downtown of some small towns and cities and is a totally pedestrianized environment. Even though they were often set in suburban areas, surrounded by parking, had no history or character, and were totally climate controlled, they were still ultimately pedestrian zones. Therefore they were just not a big enough concession to the automobile which must have complete, unfettered access to every human territory.

IMHO, where the downtown is headed is just fine.

- Residential development for those who want/can afford it. Benefit is that it brings support to downtown-based retailers and restaurants - everybody benefits from that.
- Less surface parking, which means better use of land supplies for residential and business alike.
- More public parking located within new buildings - people who choose to bring their cars downtown can still park them, they just have to pay to do so.
- A few streets converted to pedestrian-centric, giving people a place to enjoy festivals, patios, etc. and not worry about getting run over by a car or bus.

Basically it is becoming everything for everybody. You can get there by transit if you wish, you can bike there if you wish, you can take your car for speed, convenience, shelter from bad weather, mobility issues, etc.

I've long tired of all the extremist values continually bickered about here. At this point Halifax is completely accessible by car if you wish, so the sky isn't falling in that regard. Halifax is not big enough (like London, UK, for example) where banning cars from the downtown makes any sense whatsoever, so why push for it other than a personal preference. Transit could use improvement, and I think we will get it. If we all stepped off our high horses and conceded that we can all share the downtown and try to get along we'd all be better off, IMHO.

As far as malls being more walking than big box parks - think again. Try driving to Bayers Lake on a Saturday and parking anywhere near one of the big box stores - then you still have to walk once you're in it because the stores are huge. Indoor malls allow you to hit a large number of stores with minimal walking, and if you are only going to one store there are usually enough entrances that you can park close enough to get to that store with little walking, if you wish. Therefore, I don't think there's much of an argument that box stores exist because car drivers are too lazy to walk around an indoor mall.

Big box stores exist because of cost advantages - large space allows for large inventories and selection at relatively low square footage costs. The ability to order items in large quantities brings down the per-unit cost. So really it's a business decision, not a car vs pedestrian decision.

[JET]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I fully realize. I was responding just as much to NDPer4life's tone in his/her post as much as anything else. He/she comes across as a pretty sanctimonious and holier-than-thou left wing ideologue.

A downtown lifestyle is something that everyone should be able to aspire to if they so wish. Sacrifices will have to be made however (downsizing, maybe only one car if any car at all, etc). Halifax suffers from the problems of geographic constraint upon it's core, very much like Vancouver. I can foresee in the future this driving an exponential increase in housing costs in peninsular Halifax which may drive many people out of the market, especially people with families. Developers might take advantage of this by building more microcondo suites than anything else. City council should be cognizant of this and make sure that in the future, residential developments in the core should have a suitable number of two or even three bedroom units available, perhaps with a relatively reduced rental cost per square foot, so that young families aren't forced out into the exurban cultural wilderness........

As for parking, Bus transit isn't necessarily convenient or practical for all people for a variety of reasons. People will still need to have the ability to drive into the downtown if they so wish. There will need to be an appropriate amount of parking options, and a certain number of streets will have to be maintained as traditional thoroughfares so that people can get around. Side streets can be made into shared spaces (like Argyle), but streets like Hollis or Barrington need to maintain their current character. There is a middle ground here.

I find that most of your posts are quite reasonable, but calling another poster "a pretty sanctimonious and holier-than-thou left wing ideologue." is quite unreasonable. Having a bad day at the hospital?

[FuzzyWuz]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Only until access problems drive most of the businesses under.

We need to make a project where plaques go up near well designed successful pedestrian friendly parts of the city and the plaques have pessimistic quotes about the situation from Keith P., our resident wrong person.

[FuzzyWuz]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yet in virtually every case where a "pedestrian mall" has been tried in Canada it has been a total failure.

Sparks street?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by FuzzyWuz

Sparks street?

Failure.

Granville Mall?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by FuzzyWuz

We need to make a project where plaques go up near well designed successful pedestrian friendly parts of the city and the plaques have pessimistic quotes about the situation from Keith P., our resident wrong person.

Time for me to short all my bronze and monument-maker stocks.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

I find that most of your posts are quite reasonable, but calling another poster "a pretty sanctimonious and holier-than-thou left wing ideologue." is quite unreasonable. Having a bad day at the hospital?

Consider the subject of the comment, then decide.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But then that begs the question of why the malls trend took hold to begin with? If enclosed malls are so much less efficient and cost effective, wouldn't that have been apparent from the beginning? People were obviously willing to pay any additional embedded costs for several decades, so either the shopping experience appealed to people or there was some other factor involved such as zoning. There wouldn't have been anything else that would made the big box development style infeasible. Or perhaps the notion of shops being embedded into urban streetscapes was so historically engrained into the cultural mindset that artificially simulating this was the only way to add legitimacy to suburban shopping.

Don't confuse enclosed malls with big-box stores. That latter are a far more recent development. The attraction of malls when they first started to appear in the 1950s and 60s was quite logical. A wide range of stores conveniently located next to each other, typically either with weather protection or completely indoors, with ample, convenient, free parking. No more schlepping up and down hills in foul weather, no more waiting for the bus or looking for on-street parking, just pack yourself up, make your purchases, put them in the car and go. People just generally liked it better than downtowns pretty much all over North America.

Big-box was almost always based simply on lower pricing and broader assortment than the traditional department/hardware store. That may no longer be the case in some instances but that was how it began. The sheer size of the buildings meant they were located in suburbia.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I've long tired of all the extremist values continually bickered about here. At this point Halifax is completely accessible by car if you wish, so the sky isn't falling in that regard. Halifax is not big enough (like London, UK, for example) where banning cars from the downtown makes any sense whatsoever, so why push for it other than a personal preference. Transit could use improvement, and I think we will get it. If we all stepped off our high horses and conceded that we can all share the downtown and try to get along we'd all be better off, IMHO.

Yet many of those in the planning community see the car as the enemy and make no bones about it. Projects like Argyle are just the start of the latest war on the car, no doubt. I feel certain we will soon hear calls for more street closures. Those kind of extreme positions elicit extreme reactions in response. DT Halifax is not exactly full of expressways, and traffic is managed poorly at best. But HRM continues to make it worse and harder for motorists to get around. At some point all those DT businesses are going to run out of pedestrians willing to be their customers while those of us who live outside of walking distance will gladly take our business where we feel welcomed.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

IMHO, where the downtown is headed is just fine.

- Residential development for those who want/can afford it. Benefit is that it brings support to downtown-based retailers and restaurants - everybody benefits from that.
- Less surface parking, which means better use of land supplies for residential and business alike.
- More public parking located within new buildings - people who choose to bring their cars downtown can still park them, they just have to pay to do so.
- A few streets converted to pedestrian-centric, giving people a place to enjoy festivals, patios, etc. and not worry about getting run over by a car or bus.

Basically it is becoming everything for everybody. You can get there by transit if you wish, you can bike there if you wish, you can take your car for speed, convenience, shelter from bad weather, mobility issues, etc.

There are vast amounts of the metro area for which being a pedestrian or cyclist are unfriendly as fuck. Burnside, Bayers Lake, and Dartmouth Crossing are all larger than downtown. If cars have vast expanses tailored specifically for them and downtown is supposed to be shared equally by everyone, then were are the large areas tailored specifically to walking and cycling?

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I've long tired of all the extremist values continually bickered about here. At this point Halifax is completely accessible by car if you wish, so the sky isn't falling in that regard. Halifax is not big enough (like London, UK, for example) where banning cars from the downtown makes any sense whatsoever, so why push for it other than a personal preference. Transit could use improvement, and I think we will get it. If we all stepped off our high horses and conceded that we can all share the downtown and try to get along we'd all be better off, IMHO.

To be clear, I'm not really in favour of a totally auto-free downtown and would prefer an auto-calmed as there are differently-abled people and special circumstances where exceptions would be reasonable. But of we were to discuss auto-free zones, being small is no more a "con" against it than it is a "pro' for it. While not having as much public transit may be a "con", being small means there's also less area to cover on foot compared to a huge metropolis, and in Halifax's case, limited space due to constraints imposed by the harbour, Citadel Hill, narrow streets, and historic buildings most of us wish to preserve. And while I definitely prefer garage parking over surface parking, that doesn't do much to address major issues like traffic congestion and safety associated with large number of automobiles being present downtown. And remember, if downtown were auto free, transit could be faster and more efficient and have higher patronage.

I've long tired of all the mushy middle grounding and pandering. People who claim to believe in progressive solutions but wring their hands about pushing for them because they're afraid of potential opposition. When you identify major problems and challenges, take a firm stance and advocate for decisive change. If mushy half measures is what you genuinely feel are the best solutions in terms of efficiency and functionality, then fine - advocate for them on their actual merits. But if it's just an attempt to appease or find middle ground with nay-sayers, that's not an actual reason. You don't need to advocate for them as they can advocate for themselves and they won't return the favour. Every idea or position will have those who oppose it, but that's ok since we live in a democracy and not a consensus.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Failure.

Granville Mall?

Granville Mall would be a failure even if it wasn't a pedestrian street. Its a dead-end zone with very poor access on one side. No through traffic hardly at all.

And its a deadend because of the Cogswell interchange.

[Keith P.]

And, like clockwork, the latest salvo in HRM's war on motorists:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scoti...riving-on-some-halifax-streets-1.4393795

The headline says it all:


Municipal planners want to discourage driving on some Halifax streets
Open houses held to present options aimed at reducing car traffic, encouraging cyclists

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

There are vast amounts of the metro area for which being a pedestrian or cyclist are unfriendly as fuck. Burnside, Bayers Lake, and Dartmouth Crossing are all larger than downtown.

I agree that Burnside is bad for lack of sidewalks. I imagine that was a cost issue, and that lots of people would be up in arms if the city spent a bunch of money on adding sidewalks to Burnside (which I think should be done). I can imagine there would be tons of opposition here to the effect of "why are they spending all that money in Burnside? Should be spent on the downtown...".

Bayers Lake and Dartmouth Crossing are actually not bad to walk around, but they are, by nature, big. So lots of walking. Cycling shouldn't be all that bad in DC, but again by nature, Burnside has a lot of large truck traffic (industrial park) so you are taking your life in your hands being on a bike. Would it make sense to reconfigure Burnside to favour bicycles? Not in my opinion - it needs to function as an industrial park and thus trucks need to have priority. Would be nice if they could make some bike-only paths that cut through the park though - but again: money.

Bayers Lake is just poorly designed for everybody - it's hazardous to drive a car through there, so it would have to be moreso for a bike.

If cars have vast expanses tailored specifically for them and downtown is supposed to be shared equally by everyone, then were are the large areas tailored specifically to walking and cycling?

I think this is about functionality more than anything. While it appears to be the opinion of cyclists that some kind of favour is being done to car drivers that everything is being designed for them, I can't help but think while bicycling is great for exercise and low pollution, it isn't all that practical in Canada (a vast country that is cold and slippery half the year) as a main source of transportation. I don't need to go into all the reasons I say this, as you stated that you own a car so obviously you wouldn't go to the expense and trouble if you didn't have a need for one. However, a few of the obvious/main ones are: weather, traveling long distances, moving goods, transporting multiple people especially children and elderly, speed and efficiency to get from place to place, etc. etc.

So I don't just see it as one group being favoured over another, I see it more as a functionality issue.

To be clear, I'm not really in favour of a totally auto-free downtown and would prefer an auto-calmed as there are differently-abled people and special circumstances where exceptions would be reasonable.

That seems reasonable to me as well.

But of we were to discuss auto-free zones, being small is no more a "con" against it than it is a "pro' for it. While not having as much public transit may be a "con", being small means there's also less area to cover on foot compared to a huge metropolis, and in Halifax's case, limited space due to constraints imposed by the harbour, Citadel Hill, narrow streets, and historic buildings most of us wish to preserve. And while I definitely prefer garage parking over surface parking, that doesn't do much to address major issues like traffic congestion and safety associated with large number of automobiles being present downtown. And remember, if downtown were auto free, transit could be faster and more efficient and have higher patronage.

First of all, downtown Halifax is an excellent place to walk right now (construction zones aside). In fact I regularly make a point of going there (after parking the car in an underground lot) and just walking around. It's great! So I can't see an argument that it is bad for pedestrians.

I don't cycle anymore, but I cycled lots back in the 1980s and 90s when the street environment was much less hospitable to cyclists than it is now. We didn't have the one-metre rule, or designated bike lanes, and people were certainly much less aware of cyclists' needs than they are now. Guess what? No problems. I was always aware of my surroundings, did regular shoulder checks to see what was coming up on me, watched parked cars to see if somebody was about to open a door in front of me, watched for pedestrians about to step out in front of me, etc. etc. Also, when choosing routes I always chose the ones I knew would be less busy, to minimize potential issues. Through all that I never thought that downtown was a bad place to cycle.

Regarding traffic congestion: is it really all that bad in the downtown (with the exception of "rush hours" which are bad everywhere)? I mean, go to Toronto and experience traffic there - when I come back I'm always amazed at how good traffic is here - there's always room for improvement, though. But again I don't see the necessity of going to the extreme and making it "car-free" other than it being some kind of victory for the cycling community.

If I may rant a little: My impression is that many cyclists today seem to want the world to pander to them. While I applaud the efforts of the city to make it a more hospitable place to cycle, it seems like the cyclists don't want to do their part in sharing the roads and keeping themselves safe - they want the government to do this for them. To be honest, the cycling community sometimes comes across as a bunch of whiny spoiled brats who yell everytime something isn't done to prioritize everything for them. I'm sure that's not how they view themselves, but every time I hear something coming from them in the media, it always seems like they think the rest of the world is wrong, and their view is the only right one.

I've long tired of all the mushy middle grounding and pandering. People who claim to believe in progressive solutions but wring their hands about pushing for them because they're afraid of potential opposition. When you identify major problems and challenges, take a firm stance and advocate for decisive change. If mushy half measures is what you genuinely feel are the best solutions in terms of efficiency and functionality, then fine - advocate for them on their actual merits. But if it's just an attempt to appease or find middle ground with nay-sayers, that's not an actual reason. You don't need to advocate for them as they can advocate for themselves and they won't return the favour. Every idea or position will have those who oppose it, but that's ok since we live in a democracy and not a consensus.

Where do I start with this one?

I think I'll simplify my answer and just say that a city has many varied citizens with many varied needs. Taking a hard "take-no-prisoners" stance is basically saying that your needs are more important than others' needs, which is essentially selfish. So while you may view something as being "mushy middle grounding", it is probably more like let's consider everybody's needs, and not just the cycling community.

Take it for what it's worth, they are just my views and my intention is just to have healthy, involved conversation, not to offend anybody. So please take no offense as it's not intended as such.

[Halifax]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And, like clockwork, the latest salvo in HRM's war on motorists:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scoti...riving-on-some-halifax-streets-1.4393795

The headline says it all:


Municipal planners want to discourage driving on some Halifax streets
Open houses held to present options aimed at reducing car traffic, encouraging cyclists

I think this is ridiculous. I wonder what the stats are on how many people actually use a bicycle. I think it is even more ridiculous considering the climate here - this isn't Vancouver.

[MonctonRad]

@OldDartmouthMark - very well said!!

The downtown in Halifax has to be shared by everyone. The solution lies in the "mushy middle". If nobody is satisfied with the solution, this usually means an appropriate compromise solution has been obtained.

Here in Moncton, we have been quite lucky with our bicycle solutions. The city has been constructing an extensive trail system for the last 10 years using old railway ROWs, power ROWs and natural features like linear parks centered around streams. These trails intersect in places and happily converge on the downtown area. It is entirely possible for me to walk (or cycle) about 80% of the way from my house to the downtown area (a distance of over 8 km) on paths completely separate from roadways. Our mayor (Dawn Arnold) famously cycles to work at city hall almost every day that the weather allows, and she lives in my neighbourhood. It's too bad that Halifax doesn't have the flexibility for something similar.

Since your roadways (in Halifax) have to be shared however, compromise solutions are necessary. Right now the cyclists down there seem to have the upper hand with the city planning department. Let's hope that Halifax keeps a sense of balance on this issue........

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I agree that Burnside is bad for lack of sidewalks. I imagine that was a cost issue, and that lots of people would be up in arms if the city spent a bunch of money on adding sidewalks to Burnside (which I think should be done). I can imagine there would be tons of opposition here to the effect of "why are they spending all that money in Burnside? Should be spent on the downtown...".

(...)

Would it make sense to reconfigure Burnside to favour bicycles?

The city has actually been putting a ton of sidewalks in Burnside lately, plus they recently built that AT connector (bike + walking path) from the new highway bridge, along Burnside Drive, to Commodore Drive. I wouldn't be surprised if Burnside was the leading "neighbourhood" in terms of overall length of retrofit sidewalk added in the last couple of years.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And, like clockwork, the latest salvo in HRM's war on motorists:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scoti...riving-on-some-halifax-streets-1.4393795

The headline says it all:


Municipal planners want to discourage driving on some Halifax streets
Open houses held to present options aimed at reducing car traffic, encouraging cyclists

Love it! Those streets (Allan/Oak/Harvard and Vernon) need a traffic haircut! I'm all for making these unpalatable for through traffic. Disclosure: this is my neighbourhood.

[alps]

I'm excited too. These streets are not that important to motorists (Robie is a quicker alternative to Vernon, for example), but they are critical links for cyclists.

It's great that they're looking at sorting out the dog-leg intersection at Vernon/Coburg/Seymour, which feels relatively dangerous on a bike.

Originally Posted by Halifax

I think this is ridiculous. I wonder what the stats are on how many people actually use a bicycle. I think it is even more ridiculous considering the climate here - this isn't Vancouver.

Winter is not a big hindrance, most of the time the roads are not covered in ice. Cycling in winter in Halifax is totally do-able.