General Updates and News

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by yal

I had that gut feeling that they would be living around Schmidtville. My gut was right I guess

Which reinforces the point I was trying to make. Until Keith introduced the facts, your entire argument was based on speculation and some apparent bias you have against older people who are well-off. The point appears to have been lost or glossed over, not to mention the broader discussion regarding NIMBYism, etc. etc.

Oh well, no worries. I was hoping to have a better discussion about it, but it's all good. There were some good points brought to the table and I appreciate that.

[beyeas]

My point in all this has more to do with generalizations.

If this author makes their financial status, profession, or personal property part of their argument, then it is fair game to criticize if appropriate. If they raise it as an argument, then that argument should be open to criticism. However, generalizations that state that "those people" always think this way or that way are frankly useless and tired replacements for actual rationale debate. Enough with generalizations already. It adds nothing to the actual discussion, other than the fact that we as humans seem to be wired to want to blame those other people over there for problems (See Brexit, Trump, etc) rather than simply addressing the actual issues at hand. It is easier to generalize than it is to debate the facts.

Whether or not the author is correct or incorrect should therefore be debated based on nothing but the facts presented. What the author "might" think or be motivated by is nothing more the hearsay and doesn't add in any substantive way to the debate. Stick to the facts. Yes NIMBYs/BANANAs exist, but what matters far more is whether or not there is merit to some, all or none of the arguments actually presented. There is a good reason why generalizations and hearsay are legally inadmissible arguments!

This forum is at its best when all of us discuss the merits of varying views and bring interesting perspectives and viewpoints to arguments, and is at its worst when it descends into snarky finger pointing and generalizations.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by beyeas

My point in all this has more to do with generalizations.

If this author makes their financial status, profession, or personal property part of their argument, then it is fair game to criticize if appropriate. If they raise it as an argument, then that argument should be open to criticism. However, generalizations that state that "those people" always think this way or that way are frankly useless and tired replacements for actual rationale debate. Enough with generalizations already. It adds nothing to the actual discussion, other than the fact that we as humans seem to be wired to want to blame those other people over there for problems (See Brexit, Trump, etc) rather than simply addressing the actual issues at hand. It is easier to generalize than it is to debate the facts.

Whether or not the author is correct or incorrect should therefore be debated based on nothing but the facts presented. What the author "might" think or be motivated by is nothing more the hearsay and doesn't add in any substantive way to the debate. Stick to the facts. Yes NIMBYs/BANANAs exist, but what matters far more is whether or not there is merit to some, all or none of the arguments actually presented. There is a good reason why generalizations and hearsay are legally inadmissible arguments!

This forum is at its best when all of us discuss the merits of varying views and bring interesting perspectives and viewpoints to arguments, and is at its worst when it descends into snarky finger pointing and generalizations.

Stated much more eloquently than I could ever hope to. Thanks!

[Jonovision]

Renovations and an addition coming to the Cornwallis Street Baptist Church.
https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/regional-council/170815rc1451.pdf

Cornwallis 1 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

Cornwallis 2 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[Jonovision]

A lot of work happening on the interior for Bell Lofts over in downtown Dartmouth.

2017-08-21_08-04-22 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[Keith P.]

So, Bob Bjerke is out as head of HRM's Planning dept:

https://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/arc...m_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I predicted this when he was hired IIRC.

What this means for the much-ballyhooed Centre Plan remains to be seen.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Whether or not the author is correct or incorrect should therefore be debated based on nothing but the facts presented. What the author "might" think or be motivated by is nothing more the hearsay and doesn't add in any substantive way to the debate. Stick to the facts. Yes NIMBYs/BANANAs exist, but what matters far more is whether or not there is merit to some, all or none of the arguments actually presented.

I agree that ad hominem attacks are fallacious and don't add to the debate. However, there's something to be said for the social situation in Halifax and the fact that we see a group of wealthy homeowner NIMBYs who have a disproportionate voice in the media, while poorer people for the most part are rarely heard from, or tend not to formulate responses that are proportional to their needs and desires. The people who can't move to a city because they can't afford to aren't heard from at all.

I dislike these articles because they are so negative and polarizing, and come from such a narrow perspective. Halifax could do a lot better when it comes to preserving its character while allowing for new development, but there is a trade-off that Mr. Haiven doesn't talk about at all, nor does he seem to have any appreciation for modern architecture. The article seems to suggest that just about any new development is bad. That's an opinion that only works for somebody who already has wealth and privilege. The rest get to visit as tourists I guess, if they can afford it.

Another problem is that there tends to be a balkanized group of poverty advocates who don't think in economic terms and see new market-rate development as being at odds with their idea of "affordable housing". They've become misguided allies of NIMBYs, and advocate for policies that aren't aligned well with their cause. Some others are just anti-capitalists and think that they will help poor people by trying to get in the way of anybody who's making money. I think this is also misguided.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

So, Bob Bjerke is out as head of HRM's Planning dept:

https://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/arc...m_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I predicted this when he was hired IIRC.

What this means for the much-ballyhooed Centre Plan remains to be seen.

I wonder even more what it means for the departmental reorg. It's been two years of pain as planners got shuffled and hired, with the promise that all the pieces will fall into place and things will be much better and more efficient. Things seemed like they were just starting to come together in the past couple of months... hopefully whoever fills Bjerke's shoes has the wisdom to see the reorg through to completion rather than try to blow it all up and put their own stamp on it.

[robotropolis]

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree that ad hominem attacks are fallacious and don't add to the debate. However, there's something to be said for the social situation in Halifax and the fact that we see a group of wealthy homeowner NIMBYs who have a disproportionate voice in the media, while poorer people for the most part are rarely heard from, or tend not to formulate responses that are proportional to their needs and desires. The people who can't move to a city because they can't afford to aren't heard from at all.

Agree completely. It's a lot easier to be a NIMBY when you got yours (detached house with a yard) and are living the sweet life taking up a disproportionate amount of space in downtown. I hated how hyperbolic this article was and how near-hysterically he listed every building height (EIGHT STORIES) as though we are all supposed to despise anything over two stories. If that's your flavour there are a million heritage-rich small towns to welcome you in this province.

Remember that survey that said that only TWO PERCENT of people disapproved of more development in their neighbourhood? Yet these 2 percenter yahoos get 98% of the media coverage. Part of the reason being that they've got a lot of social/cultural capital to throw around.
http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax/201...-halifax-residents-like-development.html

That said yes, I think preserving our heritage makes sense and I think the all-or-nothing attitude perpetuated by the trust/heritage groups is probably making things worse by encouraging either 100% preservation (IMO often unreasonably so) or knockdown.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by beyeas

My point in all this has more to do with generalizations.

If this author makes their financial status, profession, or personal property part of their argument, then it is fair game to criticize if appropriate. If they raise it as an argument, then that argument should be open to criticism. However, generalizations that state that "those people" always think this way or that way are frankly useless and tired replacements for actual rationale debate. Enough with generalizations already. It adds nothing to the actual discussion, other than the fact that we as humans seem to be wired to want to blame those other people over there for problems (See Brexit, Trump, etc) rather than simply addressing the actual issues at hand. It is easier to generalize than it is to debate the facts.

Whether or not the author is correct or incorrect should therefore be debated based on nothing but the facts presented. What the author "might" think or be motivated by is nothing more the hearsay and doesn't add in any substantive way to the debate. Stick to the facts. Yes NIMBYs/BANANAs exist, but what matters far more is whether or not there is merit to some, all or none of the arguments actually presented. There is a good reason why generalizations and hearsay are legally inadmissible arguments!

This forum is at its best when all of us discuss the merits of varying views and bring interesting perspectives and viewpoints to arguments, and is at its worst when it descends into snarky finger pointing and generalizations.

I'm sorry but I think you're missing the point entirely. Let me quote someone123, who puts it far better than I could:

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree that ad hominem attacks are fallacious and don't add to the debate. However, there's something to be said for the social situation in Halifax and the fact that we see a group of wealthy homeowner NIMBYs who have a disproportionate voice in the media, while poorer people for the most part are rarely heard from, or tend not to formulate responses that are proportional to their needs and desires. The people who can't move to a city because they can't afford to aren't heard from at all.

I dislike these articles because they are so negative and polarizing, and come from such a narrow perspective. Halifax could do a lot better when it comes to preserving its character while allowing for new development, but there is a trade-off that Mr. Haiven doesn't talk about at all, nor does he seem to have any appreciation for modern architecture. The article seems to suggest that just about any new development is bad. That's an opinion that only works for somebody who already has wealth and privilege. The rest get to visit as tourists I guess, if they can afford it.

Another problem is that there tends to be a balkanized group of poverty advocates who don't think in economic terms and see new market-rate development as being at odds with their idea of "affordable housing". They've become misguided allies of NIMBYs, and advocate for policies that aren't aligned well with their cause. Some others are just anti-capitalists and think that they will help poor people by trying to get in the way of anybody who's making money. I think this is also misguided.

Precisely.

Pointing out Haivan's privileged status had nothing to do with ad hominem attacks; it had everything to do to point to the broader social, political, and economic context in which his exaggerated, polarizing, and quite frankly, ludicrous claims were being made.

It may not be central to the debate, and the claims Haivan makes, but it's certainly a valid point to raise in the discussion.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Hey thanks for the good words. It is possible to disagree and yet keep the discussion fact-based and non-personal, and I appreciate that. It's something that's a little extraordinary in that even the current US president doesn't seem to be capable of it ().

As mentioned, I agree that many of the author's claims are baseless and definitely take away from his argument, and I've stated the aspects that I agree with, so we're all good there.

Not to beat a dead horse, but my comments regarding NIMBYism in this case were based on what I felt was the accepted definition of NIMBY. A couple of examples from a quick internet search:



Source

and



Source


Given that he was concerned about buildings being built throughout the city, and not just in 'his' neighborhood (wherever that is), I felt that the judgement of NIMBY wasn't appropriate. It is speculated that he lives in Schmidtville (I haven't seen any proof, other than being involved in the Schmidtville movement), so perhaps NIMBY applies to the Schmidtville case, but IMHO still not applicable to the other cases.

As somebody mentioned, BANANA may be more appropriate, but he doesn't seem to object to every development, just ones that he doesn't like.

It's interesting that NIMBY has taken on such a negative connotation - as in some cases it is not necessarily a bad thing - and is quite subjective based on the personal tastes/interests of an individual. For example, there have been many cases where a significant historical structure has been lost to replace it with mediocre architecture - local residents who oppose it may be considered NIMBY, but that viewpoint can change over the years once the majority realizes it as a loss, and perhaps understands that the building which replaced it didn't live up to expectations or somehow had a negative effect on the neighborhood.

That's all I feel I need to say about that topic.

This is fair, Mark, I sometimes use NIMBY in a broader more colloquial sense-- that is people who are simply opposing development in the city for personal/subjective reasons detached from the overall good of the city and people living here. The "backyard" here is, literally, the entire city.

Maybe BANANA is more technically accurate, but I think Haivan fits my above noted broader definition fine.

Regarding the other issue I had, with relation to his income and/or placement in the 'pecking order' of our society, I agree that this can play into similar situations whereby the person uses their 'influence' to make things go to their particular preference, but again I think it is unfair to make that assumption. I don't mean to make too fine a point about it, but in some ways it seems to shadow the resentment between generations that I've seen way too many times on the internet (i.e. "Millennials" deriding the 'privileged' "Boomers" and vice versa). Maybe that's not the circumstance, but in any case I think we're bigger than that here.

Maybe I'm being "oversensitive"... It's OK, I can dial back the sensitivity, but then I get to be insensitive in my responses too...

I don't want to make the point about generational conflict, because there are plenty of younger NIMBYs/BANANAs in the city for sure. The NIMBY is strong across generations and age groups in Halifax.

I think it just happens that retirees get more media attention, and thus our attention, as they simply have more time on their hands to write polarizing screeds to The Coast or to bring frivolous lawsuits against developments.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

This is fair, Mark, I sometimes use NIMBY in a broader more colloquial sense-- that is people who are simply opposing development in the city for personal/subjective reasons detached from the overall good of the city and people living here. The "backyard" here is, literally, the entire city.

Maybe BANANA is more technically accurate, but I think Haivan fits my above noted broader definition fine.



I don't want to make the point about generational conflict, because there are plenty of younger NIMBYs/BANANAs in the city for sure. The NIMBY is strong across generations and age groups in Halifax.

I think it just happens that retirees get more media attention, and thus our attention, as they simply have more time on their hands to write polarizing screeds to The Coast or to bring frivolous lawsuits against developments.

Well stated, and understood.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

Not to curtail this great discussion but I have a few updates to share.

*snip*

The same developer who was working on the St Pats Rectory seen below has restored the Jesuits Centre a few doors down.

20170818_105936 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20170818_110044 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20170818_110026 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

Thanks for posting this. I've seen it in person and it looks great! I think they do nice work.

[Jonovision]

Topped out on Dresden Rowe.

20170826_160639 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[Jonovision]

Was taking a stroll in the North End the other day.

New public art at the commons.

20170826_154913 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

The office building that was once home to the Q Lofts sales centre has been reclad.

20170826_154514 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20170826_154433 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

Lots of great upgrades coming to Fort Needham Park.

20170826_141057 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[Jstaleness]

^ Now they just need to get a permit to blow a hole through the Irving Shipyard expansion that blocks the view of the harbour.

[Keith P.]

Odd that the newish office (?) building on Agricola and West would be reclad so soon after being built.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Odd that the newish office (?) building on Agricola and West would be reclad so soon after being built.

Yeah, someone (a law firm, I believe) is spending a lot of money for aesthetics. I'm happy they're doing it though; the old cladding was way "business park" and not at all "Agricola". Good on them, I suppose.

[robotropolis]

According to Halifax Retales (on facebook) the Oxford theatre building has been sold to developers and Oxford will be coming down.

https://www.facebook.com/HalifaxReTales/posts/1869114039781786

Agree the change to the building on Agricola looks SO much better (built by B. D. Stevens Limited). Did they build that brown concrete building on Willow and Agricola? It could use a makeover IMO.

https://goo.gl/maps/S2Lm9VD3XmC2

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by robotropolis

According to Halifax Retales (on facebook) the Oxford theatre building has been sold to developers and Oxford will be coming down.

https://www.facebook.com/HalifaxReTales/posts/1869114039781786

Agree the change to the building on Agricola looks SO much better (built by B. D. Stevens Limited). Did they build that brown concrete building on Willow and Agricola? It could use a makeover IMO.

https://goo.gl/maps/S2Lm9VD3XmC2

Doesn't say for sure that it'll be torn down. Who knows, the Nahas family is involved in restaurants and other stuff, not just development. There's a Herald article that suggest they're looking at multiple uses for the space, and doesn't mention demolition. So that sounds positive, though I'm not sure how you turn a building that basically consists of one big room into offices or residential. Maybe a big retail space of some kind.

But yes, it seems very possible that demolition could be in the cards. Which would suck; this is the last single-screen cinema in the city, and it's not like it's some obsolete business model. Neighbourhood cinemas survive and thrive in cities all over the country. In fact, if the building is torn down, Halifax will be the only Canadian city of eight that I've lived in that doesn't have a neighbourhood theatre.