Cogswell Interchange - Page 3

someone123 · #41 Posted **Apr 18, 2011, 6:08 AM**

Dockside Green looks okay but it is sort of "urban light" -- not very suited to the Cogswell area, which is also not along the waterfront. I think the similarity is supposed to be in terms of environmental friendliness. I don't think they are planning for tons of green space.

I think a good plan would have some immediate residential and commercial with plans that allow for future office development if the need arises. It's not hard to have a Park Lane or City Centre Atlantic type of setup with a tower pad that can be developed in the future.

I'm looking forward to this but not holding my breath.

Jonovision · #42 Posted **Apr 18, 2011, 1:16 PM**

Definitely some good news. It sounds as though the demolition itself is still a few years down the road. But it would be very nice to have a true timeline for it. I like your idea someone of building the pads that would allow the towers at a later date. The way things are right now downtown I can't see much being built here if it was to all come on the market at once. But I do think it could support some smaller stuff, especially residential with the aim to make buildings bigger when the demand is there.

someone123 · #43 Posted **Apr 18, 2011, 5:27 PM**

My guess is that apartments and some condos could be successful in that area, particulary if the city adds some nice public space and ties the new development in with Granville Mall and the historic properties, both of which have a lot of appeal.

If they go high density they could also have a more self-sustaining neighbourhood with amenities like a grocery store, drug store, etc., and living down there would be pretty convenient. A small faux heritage development with 500 residents total would not be able to support that and would probably be less attractive.

It reminds me a lot of the context of the new Woodwards condo tower in Gastown in Vancouver, which seems to have been successful despite being in a somewhat tough area to develop.

worldlyhaligonian · #44 Posted **Apr 18, 2011, 6:13 PM**

I wonder if this process will take International Place into account?

Somebody wrote that a company (maybe ECL) owns one of the ramps of the interchange?

Jonovision · #45 Posted **Apr 19, 2011, 1:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I wonder if this process will take International Place into account?

Somebody wrote that a company (maybe ECL) owns one of the ramps of the interchange?

I would assume they would work out the grade for the entire site to make it the most appealing and then the base of International Place would be redesigned to fit in the its new context.

someone123 · #46 Posted **Apr 19, 2011, 5:36 PM**

My guess is they'll have plenty of time for the redesign...

sdm · #47 Posted **Apr 19, 2011, 7:41 PM**

these plans are in the making, it will be years before anything ever happens. Its to create a master plan.

With so much of the CBD undeveloped it would be fiscally wrong of the city to open more land for development. We need the holes reasonably filled before we embark on creating more empty lots.

someone123 · #48 Posted **Apr 19, 2011, 8:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm

With so much of the CBD undeveloped it would be fiscally wrong of the city to open more land for development. We need the holes reasonably filled before we embark on creating more empty lots.

In the worst case the city does not need to proceed immediately with selling off the lots.

Because this is such a long process I think it makes sense for them to begin planning immediately and then launch into demolition and site prep. Then the sites will be ready when they are needed.

If the city does not follow this approach it will never get done. Council will hum and haw over whether or not it's the right time. Even if they decide it is the right time then it will be finished 5-10 years later (if it is finished), at which point it probably won't be the right time anymore... That style of over-planning and delay is a recipe for failure. It is what has caused the current state of downtown Halifax.

And to be honest I even question the land supply issue. There are lots of empty sites, sure, but they are generally owned by the government being held up for one bureaucratic reason or another. These are not sites that can be built on tomorrow.

sdm · #49 Posted **Apr 19, 2011, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

In the worst case the city does not need to proceed immediately with selling off the lots.

Because this is such a long process I think it makes sense for them to begin planning immediately and then launch into demolition and site prep. Then the sites will be ready when they are needed.

If the city does not follow this approach it will never get done. Council will hum and haw over whether or not it's the right time. Even if they decide it is the right time then it will be finished 5-10 years later (if it is finished), at which point it probably won't be the right time anymore... That style of over-planning and delay is a recipe for failure. It is what has caused the current state of downtown Halifax.

And to be honest I even question the land supply issue. There are lots of empty sites, sure, but they are generally owned by the government being held up for one bureaucratic reason or another. These are not sites that can be built on tomorrow.

Well there is other projects that are approved that could "start" but haven't. Opening up more land may slow some of those lots. Nonetheless the risk they take to a degree with not getting on with things in a timely manner.

I am concern the distruption this will cause getting into and out of the core. The project may actually force more out of the CBD due to the time this will take to complete and the fact the infastructure coming in and out of the core in other areas is not able to keep up with the capacity.

FuzzyWuz · #50 Posted **Apr 19, 2011, 10:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

-- starting from scratch, they created an absolute nightmare and have done nothing to make it better. I think it is proper to have serious concerns about what will be done with traffic when the interchange falls down.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Bayers Lake supposed to be an industrial park like Burnside? I remember back in the eighties/nineties when ?Michael Watson? maneuvered the change into a retail model. There was lots of talk at the time about the transformation. Clearly we can now see the problems.

fenwick16 · #51 Posted **Apr 19, 2011, 10:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm

Well there is other projects that are approved that could "start" but haven't. Opening up more land may slow some of those lots. Nonetheless the risk they take to a degree with not getting on with things in a timely manner.

I am concern the distruption this will cause getting into and out of the core. The project may actually force more out of the CBD due to the time this will take to complete and the fact the infastructure coming in and out of the core in other areas is not able to keep up with the capacity.

Toronto saw a long period of little office development in the downtown core. During that time several condominium towers sprung up in downtown Toronto. Over the past few years, office towers have started to be built again.

Although there might not be strong demand for office space in the downtown core, I believe residential development could succeed. Having several thousand people living in downtown Halifax would do wonders for the vitality of the downtown core.

I don't think that people should give up on development in downtown Halifax. Halifax can still encourage residential projects in areas such as the Cogswell Interchange.

worldlyhaligonian · #52 Posted **Apr 19, 2011, 11:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Toronto saw a long period of little office development in the downtown core. During that time several condominium towers sprung up in downtown Toronto. Over the past few years, office towers have started to be built again.

Although there might not be strong demand for office space in the downtown core, I believe residential development could succeed. Having several thousand people living in downtown Halifax would do wonders for the vitality of the downtown core.

I don't think that people should give up on development in downtown Halifax. Halifax can still encourage residential projects in areas such as the Cogswell Interchange.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Trillium, YMCA, library, Shannex, The Alexander, Hollis and Morris, are all built.

I think downtown will naturally pull itself out of its current situation, but the Nova Centre would boost that revitalization.

sdm · #53 Posted **Apr 19, 2011, 11:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Toronto saw a long period of little office development in the downtown core. During that time several condominium towers sprung up in downtown Toronto. Over the past few years, office towers have started to be built again.

Although there might not be strong demand for office space in the downtown core, I believe residential development could succeed. Having several thousand people living in downtown Halifax would do wonders for the vitality of the downtown core.

I don't think that people should give up on development in downtown Halifax. Halifax can still encourage residential projects in areas such as the Cogswell Interchange.

I believe we are on the same page fenwick. I much rather see people living within or nearby the core. That is what should be concentrated on for developments right now. But as previously stated, residential rental is really the only projects that can go without waiting for the market to either pre lease or pre buy the amount to fund a construction start.

That said, there is plenty of opportunities to do such with the existing inventory of land. WDCL can only be rental due to provincal rules passed after bishops landing was built.

Office development will be very slow in the CBD as there isn't an industry that is growing that is looking for space. Back in 1997-1998 the CBD experienced 220,000 sqft of positive absorption for two years straight in all classes of buildings. This was mostly directed at the oil and gas industry taking space. We need another boost like them.

q12 · #54 Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 12:50 PM**

Quote:

Repairs for Cogswell Interchange before demolition

CBC News Posted: Aug 5, 2011 8:20 AM AT Last Updated: Aug 5, 2011 8:20 AM

The Halifax Regional Municipality is spending nearly $300,000 to fix the notorious Cogswell Interchange even as it prepares to demolish it.

Coun. Dawn Sloane said a request for proposals to dismantle the overpass and realign the roads will go out in September.

Read more here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...l-repairs.html

someone123 · #55 Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 6:05 PM**

Council needs to settle on a plan for a new road network in that area and commit money to demolition. Redevelopment can come later and at minimum will be a few years off.

Studies and council debates are just not progress at this phase. The cycle of debate, impasse, and neglect can continue for many decades.

halifaxboyns · #56 Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 9:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Council needs to settle on a plan for a new road network in that area and commit money to demolition. Redevelopment can come later and at minimum will be a few years off.

Studies and council debates are just not progress at this phase. The cycle of debate, impasse, and neglect can continue for many decades.

Agreed - it's all HRM's land, so in the mean time they can put in a park that could be easily removed once they sell off the parcels. They won't really know how much of the 8 acre site they'll have left over until the new roadway alignment is determined.

I suspect it's going to be quite an interesting challenge, given the grade change from Brunswick Street all the way down to Lower Water street.

Keith P. · #57 Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 9:50 PM**

Maybe they can put in a side-slope roundabout!!

Niel.bd · #58 Posted **Sep 14, 2012, 5:27 PM**

So, I know that it's going to be a while before the Cogswell Interchange comes down, and that this thread is a bit stale, but here's an idea of how I would realign the Cogswell Interchange and a few other routes in the downtown's north end:

1. Reunify Barrington Street.

2. Merge Hollis and Lower Water to form Upper Water, and realign it to line up with an extended Cunard St.

3. Extend Cunard to Barrington, bisecting the St Patrick's Alexandra site just north of the St Patrick's building. This route will require the relocation of a few heritage buildings on Brunswick and the demolition of a few buildings on Gottingen.

4. Extend Cogswell past Barrington to terminate at Upper Water.

5. Introduce 2 new local roads each north and south of Cogswell linking Barrington and Upper Water.

6. Link Rainnie Dr to Trollope a block south of the Cogswell & North Park/Ahern intersection to eliminate the 6 point intersection.

Just a few ideas that I feel could improve traffic flow and create some new development and/or park land. Perhaps a bit far-fetched, but why not shoot for the stars?!

Nilan8888 · #59 Posted **Sep 14, 2012, 7:23 PM**

I hope the will and money to get rid of this thing comes soon.

I'm not saying any single plot of land is responsible for how things have played out in Halifax in the past decades or anything, but I'd say Cogswell is probably the single biggest developing debacle that ever happened to the city.

(Africville is not included in that statement -- I consider that a moral debacle, not a development issue)

Just kill that thing. Kill it with fire!

Oh wait... concrete, right...

Niel.bd · #60 Posted **Sep 14, 2012, 7:35 PM**

Not sure why - but the map didn't show up... but if you click on the little box above the numbered list, it'll link you to it in Image Shack. Here's the link:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...ewstreets.png/