Cogswell Interchange

[Empire]

Excellent advice from Jennifer Keesmaat in 2018 in the below link.

HRM needs to take the leading role to protect the historic fabric of this city. Existing heritage needs to be protected and new construction should reflect the quality that is so common in our historic structures. Cogswell is an open slate!

Source - The Star Halifax
https://www.thestar.com/halifax/form...343bd1829.html

[Keith P.]

Yet HRM Council unanimously approved zoning changes that could irreversibly change longstanding, stable and pleasant neighborhoods in favor of box apartments that could be built anywhere.

[Empire]

Unfortunately, the down side of allowing 8 units to be built in R1 zones is the promotion of plain additions that don't match the original architecture, the elimination of green space backyards, rooftop additions that destroy the character of the structure, elimination of existing parking behind houses and additional cars with no where to park and sadly the possibility of demolishing a perfectly good Victorian home and replacing it with an 8 unit plastic box. All this for a mere $79 million in fed $$. None of this will address the affordable housing crisis and may cause it to escalate as small apartments in the above mentioned homes could be renovicted into bigger units that are incorporated into an addition.

There is an out of site, out of mind mind aspect as with this addition to the Gerard Hotel on Barrington in the early 2000's.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.64063...8192?entry=ttu

[LikesBikes]

That can happen regardless of zoning changes/types of densities permitted. You see this in Toronto where old SFHs are getting replaced with McMansions. I have a friend who grew up on one of these streets and the character is totally different than it used to be but it has nothing to do with density, just different architecture trends. If we’re going to go through that process, we should not be replacing SFHs with SFHs, but with higher density housing. Either way though, change is inevitable.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Either way though, change is inevitable.

Yes, it is. But the type of change was totally in our control and could have gone in any of several directions. Unfortunately our craven Mayor and Council chose the worst one and sold us down the river for 30 pieces of JT silver.

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yes, it is. But the type of change was totally in our control and could have gone in any of several directions. Unfortunately our craven Mayor and Council chose the worst one and sold us down the river for 30 pieces of JT silver.

I see it the opposite. Cities across Canada were ill suited for anything beyond tepid growth, due to restrictions that catered to outdated notions. We have had to expect reduced services and higher taxes to subsidize wasteful development patterns for too long. Our cities are too brittle and the slightest spike in population starts to very quickly degrade the quality of life for its residents. We've become so complacent, that growing tent communities are seen as acceptable as long as it's not in my backyard. It's frankly quite disgusting to watch while we claim some moral high ground and look down our noses at the worst off in our communities. As if it's their fault they can't afford the $2000 rent and not the cities fault for letting it get this bad. Like you said the type of change was totally in our control the whole time, we just let it get this bad.

Maybe a generation of xenophobic decision makers elected by people who wanted a demographic cliff to follow them, shouldn't have kicked so many issues down the road for others to deal with. Things like this are an incremental step in the right direction to fix the legacy of poor decisions many cities enshrined into bylaws to placate a selfish and greedy electorate. Instead of proper retirement planning, they relied on captured regulatory bodies to do the work, at the cost of future generations ability to own a home.

[ArchAficionado]

I for one absolutely welcome this change. It's not like we're going to just instantly bulldoze the older sfh neighborhoods and put up towers (see: 1960s planning ethos). More so, it'll be the older, rougher shape buildings that perhaps get torn down and replaced with some 4-plex style units very gradually over decades.

It's absolutely encouraging to see a piece of legislation that finally tilts the needle towards a glimmer of hope for those of us 35 and below and not yet well established financially or in the housing market. It's disheartening, to say the least, to hear such paltry qualms as ruining the "feel" of a neighborhood be tantamount to any sort of legitimate reason to furlough desperately needed development. My generation's ability to have a place to call home, to raise a family, and to build their little corner of the world trumps NIMBY's desire to have their neighborhood "feel" the same as it did in the '80s and '90s.

Probably the most glaring omission from all of this discussion is the underutilization of land / speculation with vacation property for tax purposes. What's worse than tearing down an older victorian SFH to build a 4plex is to tear it down to build nothing at all (look at those lots along Robie). This is something easily combatted with a steep vacant lot tax within "urban" city limits, or penalties for not re-building established residential to at least the same density within, say, 2 years from the demolition date. Let's lower temperatures on this old/have vs. young/have not debate and put the crosshairs back on guys like that scoundrel Tsimikilis.

[Empire]

Sadly, I think in a way we could have it all, but we are not recognizing it. Take $30 million of the accelerator fund and build affordable subsided housing where it already exists. Mulgrave Park and Uniacke Sq. could accommodate a few high-rise buildings as well as similar areas in the province.

Protect heritage buildings and provide incentives to refurbish, restore and rebuild. Allow high density in the form of towers at numerous locations on the peninsula and beyond that doesn’t involve demolition of significant architecture. Cogswell is an open slate!

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

I for one absolutely welcome this change. It's not like we're going to just instantly bulldoze the older sfh neighborhoods and put up towers (see: 1960s planning ethos).

Not immediately no. But this is absolutely what will happen over the next 25 years. Single-family lots will virtually disappear once developers can borrow at better rates, especially if we continue to have population growth outpacing the rest of the developed world. If I own a house on the peninsula and I can sell for 3-4 times the assessed value because someone can build an eight-unit complex, then I am selling.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by GTG_78

Not immediately no. But this is absolutely what will happen over the next 25 years. Single-family lots will virtually disappear once developers can borrow at better rates, especially if we continue to have population growth outpacing the rest of the developed world. If I own a house on the peninsula and I can sell for 3-4 times the assessed value because someone can build an eight-unit complex, then I am selling.

Exactly. In different circumstances in different times for different reasons, they called it “blockbusting” in NYC and other US cities. But the result was the same.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

That can happen regardless of zoning changes/types of densities permitted. You see this in Toronto where old SFHs are getting replaced with McMansions. I have a friend who grew up on one of these streets and the character is totally different than it used to be but it has nothing to do with density, just different architecture trends. If we’re going to go through that process, we should not be replacing SFHs with SFHs, but with higher density housing. Either way though, change is inevitable.

This is my feeling as well. We're at the point where the city is attractive enough that the small single unit homes are disappearing regardless. Go take a drive in the deep North End. Every street has one or two construction sites where a 1.5-story post-war has been torn down and is being replaced with a giant single unit home. The change to the fabric of the city is happening; we might as well get more units out of it.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Empire

Protect heritage buildings and provide incentives to refurbish, restore and rebuild. Allow high density in the form of towers at numerous locations on the peninsula and beyond that doesn’t involve demolition of significant architecture. Cogswell is an open slate!

That's already happening to a degree; the HAF changes include a bunch of new and expanded heritage areas.

I think the idea that enabling 4-8 units per lot is going to destroy the city is beyond catastrophizing. Single-family homes will turn over so slowly it will take generations for them to disappear, if ever, and many of the small multiplexes that are built will be in existing historic houses, renovated and/or with rear additions that take advantage of Halifax's often very deep backyards and low lot coverage. Yes, to Empire's point, that will mean some reduction in backyard green space, etc., but this is an evolving and urbanizing city. Huge lots that are mostly occupied with yards are simply not the way of the future in the urban core.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

That's already happening to a degree; the HAF changes include a bunch of new and expanded heritage areas.

I think the idea that enabling 4-8 units per lot is going to destroy the city is beyond catastrophizing. Single-family homes will turn over so slowly it will take generations for them to disappear, if ever, and many of the small multiplexes that are built will be in existing historic houses, renovated and/or with rear additions that take advantage of Halifax's often very deep backyards and low lot coverage. Yes, to Empire's point, that will mean some reduction in backyard green space, etc., but this is an evolving and urbanizing city. Huge lots that are mostly occupied with yards are simply not the way of the future in the urban core.

The changes that have been enabled by HAF still don't even give us the freedom that we used to have back in the 70s and 60s in terms of what we can do with land. My block on the peninsula is filled with 30+ unit apartment buildings and SHFs but the changes from the HAF still only permit 8-unit developments per lot. I get variances are still a thing, but if we have larger apartment buildings already on my street, why is it necessary to still limit development to only 8 units?

[HarbingerDe]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yet HRM Council unanimously approved zoning changes that could irreversibly change longstanding, stable and pleasant neighborhoods in favor of box apartments that could be built anywhere.

By anywhere you mean not anywhere around you, and not anywhere that a person would want to live, especially those without cars.

The entitlement of homeowners in North America is really something else.

You've already won the game in every conceivable sense, and you can't just call it? Do you have to actively work towards sabotaging the future of homeownership for every generation to follow yours?

The fact that you own a home or like the way a neighborhood looks should not give you the right to dictate how other people live their lives or what they do with their property... It has for way to long in this country, and I'm glad to see a least a bit of change away from this.

First decent thing council has done in a long time.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Interesting that you mention the Canadian Tire on Quinpool. I often fix things for my Brother in the neighbourhood as lets just say his talents lie in other area's. The Quinpool Cdn Tire did not have what I needed for a recent fix and I wound up going to the Halifax HD. Thus puncturing the 1950's go back to policies that some Urbanists pine for.It all works especially in these times of little time and the get r dun list of things we all need.

The products at most retail location have little to nothing to do with the type of street its located on or how much parking it's surrounded by. Well, beyond the type of demand that exists within the catchment area. When stores are smaller, there are just more different types of stores with some being more specialized. That said, the only thing that anecdote punctures is the idea that totally different store chains all carry the same products. To the extent that anyone believed that to begin with. Within the same chain, I don't recall encountering any time when say, the Quinpool CT didn't carry something that other CT locations had. That would have been a much more relevant anecdote. I'm sure there are some given the size difference, but it seems to be mainly that the larger stores have more of each item and more bulky items like sheds, boats, hot tubs, etc. that most people don't buy very often.

Home Depot actually has some urban format stores btw.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The products at most retail location have little to nothing to do with the type of street its located on or how much parking it's surrounded by. Well, beyond the type of demand that exists within the catchment area. When stores are smaller, there are just more different types of stores with some being more specialized. That said, the only thing that anecdote punctures is the idea that totally different store chains all carry the same products. To the extent that anyone believed that to begin with. Within the same chain, I don't recall encountering any time when say, the Quinpool CT didn't carry something that other CT locations had. That would have been a much more relevant anecdote. I'm sure there are some given the size difference, but it seems to be mainly that the larger stores have more of each item and more bulky items like sheds, boats, hot tubs, etc. that most people don't buy very often.

Home Depot actually has some urban format stores btw.

Thanks NS, I am in the Retail rep business and yes I do know that there are Urban format stores as in the Rona store on Almon and the Payzants on Wright avenue. Both of which btw act as mainly order pickup locations and have the largest sale per Square foot among their respective brands.
Canadian Tires are all independently owned and as such can buy, or not, whatever the Canadian Tire buyers in Toronto have negotiated for . NS also has the distinction of having two of the top ten Stores in the entire 187 Store HD chain as well as the Second smallest store at New Minas.

One of my work challenges is negotiating space for my present company as its a constant juggle with a base selection and then many, many promo programs that constantly rotate. We will see a third Large format Costco, HD and Kent in Metro Halifax before we see the small format and multistory Vancouver offering.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Thanks NS, I am in the Retail rep business and yes I do know that there are Urban format stores as in the Rona store on Almon and the Payzants on Wright avenue. Both of which btw act as mainly order pickup locations and have the largest sale per Square foot among their respective brands.
Canadian Tires are all independently owned and as such can buy, or not, whatever the Canadian Tire buyers in Toronto have negotiated for . NS also has the distinction of having two of the top ten Stores in the entire 187 Store HD chain as well as the Second smallest store at New Minas.

One of my work challenges is negotiating space for my present company as its a constant juggle with a base selection and then many, many promo programs that constantly rotate. We will see a third Large format Costco, HD and Kent in Metro Halifax before we see the small format and multistory Vancouver offering.

Yes many urban format stores have a lot of order pickup which seems to be a great solution. More space efficient than stocking every product on site, but still more products on site than an online-only Amazon model.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that stores selling stuff like construction materials are necessarily well suited to an urban setting. Stuff like that is fine on the periphery unlike regular retail that typical consumers would be frequenting. But those type of places also don't require DC, BL type commercial districts that have a lot of conventional retail that should be better integrated into the urban and suburban setting. In the retail format spectrum, there's a huge gap between everything being small stores from the 1950s vs big-box districts like DC and BL. Whether or not one likes large stores, large stores don't need DC and BL type places to exist which was my original point.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by HarbingerDe

By anywhere you mean not anywhere around you, and not anywhere that a person would want to live, especially those without cars.

The entitlement of homeowners in North America is really something else.

You've already won the game in every conceivable sense, and you can't just call it? Do you have to actively work towards sabotaging the future of homeownership for every generation to follow yours?

The fact that you own a home or like the way a neighborhood looks should not give you the right to dictate how other people live their lives or what they do with their property... It has for way to long in this country, and I'm glad to see a least a bit of change away from this.

First decent thing council has done in a long time.

It is not a game or a matter of winning and losing. I have worked hard all my life and saved for years to get what I have. You are not entitled to it. It is mine. I could have taken a different direction earlier in life and either become rich or significantly poorer. That is irrelevant and is not our esteemed Council's issue. What is their issue is how they took a long-established system of zoning and regulation about what could and could not be built in various areas - exactly what you are decrying about what they could and could not do to your property - and thrown it out the window in return for a bag of JT gold. They will pay for that abdication this fall.

I hope you are successful in finding a property of your own. I hope you don't complain on here when a sewage treatment facility goes in across the street or a rendering plant is built upwind from you. After all, people should be able to build whatever they want wherever they want, right? Enjoy your win.

[Dmajackson]

I went down to Brunswick Street today and noticed they are installing the curbs for the new Cogswell Street intersection. The intersection will include bike signals connecting future two-way bikeways on Cogswell Street (northside) and Brunswick Street (westside). The Brunswick Street bikeway is proposed to head south all the way to Spring Garden Road.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

Bayers Lake is nightmare! I avoid it if I can, especially on a Saturday.

lol…. It’s amazing what people consider to be a nightmare these days. I went to Bayers Lake this past Saturday to pick up something at Best Buy, and I survived! In fact I was in and out of there in 10 minutes. Amazing!

Originally Posted by Waverley902

Keith has been a royal pain for years....

Getting a kick out of seeing Keith doing Keith things. You guys take every difference in opinion as a personal insult, and then Keith plays you like a fine instrument. Keep it up, this is great!