Cogswell Interchange

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

I think that having both urban-format walkable shopping options in the city center as well as primarily car-accessed big box stores in the suburbs are a fine complement to each other. And agreed with others on the matter of Bayer's Lake's dubious design. Perhaps more delineated parking lots with an access road running behind the stores along the highway corridor (feeder road style) would be an improvement.

Nonetheless, I think that the dense housing nearby, but not within, these areas could improve the long-term viability of having light rail train station options in the future so that these sorts of places are conveniently accessible by all transport modes.

This ties into my "we need more of everything" philosophy as pertains to infrastructure. Although I tend to lean urbanist (and no Keith, I'm not a "junior planner extremist", I'm a structural engineer who designs highways and bridges for a living and understands their utility as well as their limitations)

Great points.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

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!

Some people (especially social liberals) have no sense of humour.

I appreciate Keith for what he is - a classic iconoclast. No sacred cows whatsoever.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is from Halifax Water's site and also shows the planned heating/cooling infrastructure that is being brought in.

https://www.halifaxwater.ca/sites/de...TDES%20Map.jpg

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

You nailed it. Keith gets constantly dunked on, but he has his two or three frequent posters always here to defend him or attack the other person. It's really very immature for a group that I assume consists of people above the age of 60.

For people that seem to like cities so little, I feel sad that this is how they choose to spend so much of their free time. Like dudes, wouldn't you rather spend time doing things you enjoy rather than getting involved in petty arguments with a bunch of urbanists online about bike lanes and zoning changes? These guys aren't funny, they're just sad.

Thanks for proving my point.

Now that we’ve all aired our grievances, maybe it would be a good idea to get back on topic.

I agree with those who suggest that it would be great for Cogswell if there were some effort to try to recreate some of the standout historic structures that were demolished many years ago. I think it would really add some visual interest to the area and create a tie-in to past iterations of the city. Makes sense in a city that has existed for 275 years, no?

Question is, how do we make it happen? The city representatives don’t seem to have the imagination or ability to do anything but the basic (inadequate) status quo. As others here have expressed, I fear that Cogswell will be yet another lost opportunity to do something truly substantial and memorable right in the heart of the downtown.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I agree with those who suggest that it would be great for Cogswell if there were some effort to try to recreate some of the standout historic structures that were demolished many years ago. I think it would really add some visual interest to the area and create a tie-in to past iterations of the city. Makes sense in a city that has existed for 275 years, no?

There is a school of thought out there that since the Cogswell interchange is not bound by the rampart height limits, that it should be used for 40 storey towers. How does one accomplish recreation of historical buildings while at the same time promoting height?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

There is a school of thought out there that since the Cogswell interchange is not bound by the rampart height limits, that it should be used for 40 storey towers. How does one accomplish recreation of historical buildings while at the same time promoting height?

I have two lines of thought on that.

1) Have a few historical recreations mixed in with said towers. The contrast between old-appearing and new would create visual interest, plus provide spacing between the tall towers. We’re not talking about a lot of buildings here, maybe just 3 or 4 in strategic locations, and they would be completely modern, functional buildings, so there would be no loss in functionality, perhaps a small sacrifice in density for which there is no guarantee currently, anyhow.

2) Make the recreations mimic the original buildings, but build them to a much larger scale, appropriate in whatever the context would be.

I’m sure there are other ways in which this could be accomplished, also. Any ideas?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by 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

Very good article, thanks for posting it.

It was dated May 8. Have there been any statements from the City as to how they will proceed with this?

[Empire]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Very good article, thanks for posting it.

It was dated May 8. Have there been any statements from the City as to how they will proceed with this?

May 8, 2018. Apparently it has been ignored....

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Empire

May 8, 2018. Apparently it has been ignored....

lol… oops my bad!

Thought the way they addressed the centre plan seemed odd.

Missed opportunity…

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

A bit underwhelming so far.

Just as I expected, this grassy area is a typical HRM boondoggle. It is unkept and overgrown with weeds and coffee cups. It does pair well with the Spring Garden Rd. shabby landscaping though.

If any one goes to look, beware of the proliferation of potholes everywhere downtown as some are 4" deep.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by DBaz

I was there. It had nothing to do with the “palatial” bike lane. It was another form of entitlement by her, through and through.

Her statement, to pedestrians, to get off the sidewalk, pretty much says it all.

By the way, I’ve used that bike lane many times, and it is the only part of Caldwell that is actually safe. Cars are so used to not staying in their lane farther down (and on Lawrencetown, the number of times I’ve had people in my lane driving my car there is scary) that they are surprised when there is actually a bike in the bike lane (horror of horrors).

Thanks Baz as you have just made the point that folks like myself and Keith have about the biking community. Entitlement. The Scooter driver obviously felt that silly pedestrians had no right to "her" sidewalk. I have felt the same tone from the Bike community in most of the comments and assertions. It is truly a wonder how an infinitesimally small community has so much claim to public space and funds. My end of Caldwell apparently receives the BIKE treatment next year. Its already a two minute wait to get onto Caldwell from my cross street. Tis the price of living in an ever more vibrant and busy place. A City if you will.

BTW if you are the same BAZ that used to serve at Shearwater. Thankyou for your Service. The SeaKing was a beast.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Empire

Just as I expected, this grassy area is a typical HRM boondoggle. It is unkept and overgrown with weeds and coffee cups. It does pair well with the Spring Garden Rd. shabby landscaping though.

If any one goes to look, beware of the proliferation of potholes everywhere downtown as some are 4" deep.

Thats a bit of an exaggeration.

[Empire]

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
I agree with those who suggest that it would be great for Cogswell if there were some effort to try to recreate some of the standout historic structures that were demolished many years ago. I think it would really add some visual interest to the area and create a tie-in to past iterations of the city. Makes sense in a city that has existed for 275 years, no?

Question is, how do we make it happen? The city representatives don’t seem to have the imagination or ability to do anything but the basic (inadequate) status quo. As others here have expressed, I fear that Cogswell will be yet another lost opportunity to do something truly substantial and memorable right in the heart of the downtown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
I have two lines of thought on that.

1) Have a few historical recreations mixed in with said towers. The contrast between old-appearing and new would create visual interest, plus provide spacing between the tall towers. We’re not talking about a lot of buildings here, maybe just 3 or 4 in strategic locations, and they would be completely modern, functional buildings, so there would be no loss in functionality, perhaps a small sacrifice in density for which there is no guarantee currently, anyhow.

2) Make the recreations mimic the original buildings, but build them to a much larger scale, appropriate in whatever the context would be.

I’m sure there are other ways in which this could be accomplished, also. Any ideas?

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Ok, we've gotten out a few frustrations, discovered that sarcasm = misinformation, and further widened the generation gap.

Anybody want to discuss Cogswell? Any discussion regarding the points I raised in the above posts? Any other Cogswell-related discussion? All ages are welcome! I won't be insulted if you disagree.

I think it is an excellent plan to recreate some of the architecture lost in the Cogswell district. I am surprised that there never is a mention of the historical significance of this site in terms of the overall plan. There is an opportunity now to correct fifty years of unusable space and not do so would be such a loss.

I agree that perhaps four buildings could be the focus. I think the city needs to take the lead and offer some incentives to make this happen. Perhaps it is in the form of tax breaks for certain lots and they would be designated heritage sites. The design would be required to reflect some of the buildings that were demolished and the flatiron building would be one of them. Also, the city could provide the external design as an incentive and the developer would finish the interior design and structural component. Some of the public space could use more thought and maybe have a public square as part of lot "C"

Cogswell District:
https://www.halifaxwater.ca/sites/de...TDES%20Map.jpg[/QUOTE]

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Ok, we've gotten out a few frustrations, discovered that sarcasm = misinformation, and further widened the generation gap.

I don't remember suggesting that sarcasm equals misinformation. Misinformation is any false statement which one intends for others to accept as true. It can be a lie which the speaker doesn't themself believe, or can be something the speakers believes but ought to reasonably know is false through basic due diligence. And that's the case regardless of the format. If such statements are presented in a sarcastic way (unless it's clear it isn't meant to be believed), then sarcasm can be misinformation. If they're sung or rapped as a song, then music can be misinformation. If its written in the form of a book, then literature can be misinformation. And so forth. It has nothing to do with the format.

I apologize for any misunderstandings!

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Empire

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
I agree with those who suggest that it would be great for Cogswell if there were some effort to try to recreate some of the standout historic structures that were demolished many years ago. I think it would really add some visual interest to the area and create a tie-in to past iterations of the city. Makes sense in a city that has existed for 275 years, no?

Question is, how do we make it happen? The city representatives don’t seem to have the imagination or ability to do anything but the basic (inadequate) status quo. As others here have expressed, I fear that Cogswell will be yet another lost opportunity to do something truly substantial and memorable right in the heart of the downtown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
I have two lines of thought on that.

1) Have a few historical recreations mixed in with said towers. The contrast between old-appearing and new would create visual interest, plus provide spacing between the tall towers. We’re not talking about a lot of buildings here, maybe just 3 or 4 in strategic locations, and they would be completely modern, functional buildings, so there would be no loss in functionality, perhaps a small sacrifice in density for which there is no guarantee currently, anyhow.

2) Make the recreations mimic the original buildings, but build them to a much larger scale, appropriate in whatever the context would be.

I’m sure there are other ways in which this could be accomplished, also. Any ideas?



I think it is an excellent plan to recreate some of the architecture lost in the Cogswell district. I am surprised that there never is a mention of the historical significance of this site in terms of the overall plan. There is an opportunity now to correct fifty years of unusable space and not do so would be such a loss.

I agree that perhaps four buildings could be the focus. I think the city needs to take the lead and offer some incentives to make this happen. Perhaps it is in the form of tax breaks for certain lots and they would be designated heritage sites. The design would be required to reflect some of the buildings that were demolished and the flatiron building would be one of them. Also, the city could provide the external design as an incentive and the developer would finish the interior design and structural component. Some of the public space could use more thought and maybe have a public square as part of lot "C"

Cogswell District:
https://www.halifaxwater.ca/sites/default/files/Cogswell%20ATDES%20Map.jpghttps://www.halifaxwater.ca/sites/de...TDES%20Map.jpg

For one of those lots, perhaps the one labeled C in the PDF, it would be nice to have a modern flatiron building like the the one on the Esplanade in Toronto.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/tTNNjtabB11VkWjr8

Not sure I'd call it a historical re-creation but rather just in a traditional style. Or in this case what seems to be inspired by different historical styles.

[DBaz]

I think use is important as form. Just making something look like a park or square doesn’t make it so. It takes people to make it come alive and not become an urban wasteland.

In my view, the city needs to plan it as an urban village, not a collection of boxes to house people. What that means is the ground floor retail isn’t focused on boutique things and high end coffee shops to bring other’s in, like the waterfront, but on what the residents need and connects them. A vibrant street scape does much to hide the building backdrops.

Having said that, if there are ways to incentivize the buildings being an historical fit for such a space, even better.

[DBaz]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I respect your Balanced opinion, a different and relevant perspective.

I put two and two together with your handle. I suspected you are the same BAZ on Army.ca . I have learned a huge amount about Maritime Helicopter operations and challenges from your posts. Once again Thanks for your service . My Dad used to run the Air Movements unit at Shearwater MANY moons ago during another Trudeau's time.

Thanks! I guess MH would be my true passion.

[JET]

The Cogswell skijump has been flattened, curbs are in for the turn up Cogswell, and looks like they are ready to do some paving.

[Empire]

I was hoping for public space at Cogswell to look like the great pocket park in the below link. Missing opportunity with building design and green space design so far....

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.64215...5409&entry=ttu

[JET]

Paving has started at the north end of the construction area, coming off Barrington.