General Updates and News

[Musicman Halifax]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Not to mention all the people who don't bike because it isn't safe. If our streets were safer there'd be a lot more people on bikes.



That's why we need off-road facilities to lessen the number of opportunities for vehicle-on-cyclist collisions.

Exactly what we need. More incompetent cyclists….. The funny thing is I’ve whitnessed or have been a part of 4 accidents in the last 10 or so years in Halifax. Every one was caused by cyclist ineptitude. I’ve also had a pedestrian walk into the side of a 26’ yellow box truck and knock herself out cold….

So please save the “us innocent cyclist crap”.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

^They have cladding up on the northside. The dark colour will be the bulk of the upper floors of both buildings.


HalifaxDevelopments.ca (Photo by David Jackson)

I was hoping this was only the cladding on that side next to the parking structure (which really should have building built on it).

Looks low quality... this form in red brick would have been perfectly suited to this area. This stuff looks almost as bad as vinyl siding.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I was hoping this was only the cladding on that side next to the parking structure (which really should have building built on it).

Looks low quality... this form in red brick would have been perfectly suited to this area. This stuff looks almost as bad as vinyl siding.

Welcome to HRM and a planning department that has no capacity to ensure quality developments. Frustrating...

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Empire

Welcome to HRM and a planning department that has no capacity to ensure quality developments. Frustrating...

It would be great if height could be relegated to the last possible criteria, with materials and quality coming first.

Of course, we are where we are at due to the obsession with certain locals about height (end goal is to make sure Halifax never grows up).

Anti-development people have a bad case of the Peter Pan syndrome...

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Musicman Halifax

So please save the “us innocent cyclist crap”.

If you don't want to see people biking then maybe a city/city forum isn't a good place for you to spend your time.

[Musicman Halifax]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

If you don't want to see people biking then maybe a city/city forum isn't a good place for you to spend your time.

Don’t mind people cycling at all. Matter of fact I do a fair bit myself. However my comment holds true. We don’t need more inept cyclists. If cyclists are to use infrastructure they should first off know what the rules of the roads are and secondly be paying a portion of said infrastructure. Not to mention stop complaining incessantly that cars are out to get them.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Musicman Halifax

If cyclists are to use infrastructure they should first off know what the rules of the roads are and secondly be paying a portion of said infrastructure.

Drivers don't "pay" for roads in the city. Municipal streets are paid for out of municipal funds (i.e., property taxes).

Not to mention that most cyclists are also drivers.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Drivers don't "pay" for roads in the city. Municipal streets are paid for out of municipal funds (i.e., property taxes).

Not to mention that most cyclists are also drivers.

I agree with this statement. Although I do hate when some cyclists give us a bad name.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

Tibs is a distraction, and a block away the meat pies at the lighted crosswalk.

Mmmm... Humble Pie Kitchen!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

If you don't want to see people biking then maybe a city/city forum isn't a good place for you to spend your time.

It's a skyscraper forum, not a cycling forum.

Additionally, given the recent "conversations", maybe it's not a good look to be suggesting that people leave the forum. We should welcome conversations from all perspectives.

Half Axed to appear in 3... 2... 1...

[ButterNutPecan]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It's a skyscraper forum, not a cycling forum.

One would think that the skyscraper forums would support good urbanism, but it seems it's more akin to diving into facebook comments.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Mmmm... Humble Pie Kitchen!

I know this is likely an unpopular opinion, but I’ve tried several of the items on their menu and find all of them rather “meh”. Not very memorable and lacking in flavour. Maybe I’m spoiled by my late mom’s beef and veg pie…

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ButterNutPecan

One would think that the skyscraper forums would support good urbanism, but it seems it's more akin to diving into facebook comments.

Clearly some younger folk believe urbanism is something akin to a religion. To some others it seems as though it is more like a cult. Those of us with some age on us tend to embrace a more inclusive mix of all types of planning regimens. It should not be a "You're with us or agin' us" type of thinking.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Summerville

I agree with this statement. Although I do hate when some cyclists give us a bad name.

I'd even add that when I use my bike to get around town, I'm using a vehicle that puts exponentially less wear and tear on the roads than my car. But I still pay the same taxes to the city. Maybe cyclists should actually get a tax rebate for being so gentle on the infrastructure! (I don't actually believe this, but it makes at least as much logical sense as "cyclists alone should pay for bike lanes.")

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Clearly some younger folk believe urbanism is something akin to a religion. To some others it seems as though it is more like a cult. Those of us with some age on us tend to embrace a more inclusive mix of all types of planning regimens. It should not be a "You're with us or agin' us" type of thinking.

Funny how the guy complaining about ageism is again complaining about the youth. Given how many years you claim to have under your belt, I’d think you’d be better at handling some disagreement.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ButterNutPecan

One would think that the skyscraper forums would support good urbanism, but it seems it's more akin to diving into facebook comments.

Okay, I didn’t know that “good urbanism” was not debatable. IMHO, this is mainly about buildings, with stuff like transit, cycling, etc. being side topics. Great topics to discuss but you shouldn’t go into the penalty box just because you don’t agree.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I know this is likely an unpopular opinion, but I’ve tried several of the items on their menu and find all of them rather “meh”. Not very memorable and lacking in flavour. Maybe I’m spoiled by my late mom’s beef and veg pie…

Yeah, I like ‘em, but not everyone shares my tastes. It’s great that we don’t all have to like the same things.

[DBaz]

Originally Posted by Musicman Halifax

Don’t mind people cycling at all. Matter of fact I do a fair bit myself. However my comment holds true. We don’t need more inept cyclists. If cyclists are to use infrastructure they should first off know what the rules of the roads are and secondly be paying a portion of said infrastructure. Not to mention stop complaining incessantly that cars are out to get them.

Given that the majority of bicycle infrastructure comes from property taxes, and everyone (except the homeless) contributes to that, can we put away that old trope please.

Do you know the parts of the city that get the most benefit from their taxes compared to what they put in (ie the biggest tax drains) are? Glen Arbour followed by Porter's Lake. Those long stretches of rural suburban road don't pay for themselves.

.. and lest you think I'm a bicycle activist (I'm not), and since my post explaining my position was deleted (yet not all of the posts in that thread were, contrary to what was said at the time), I just recently moved to Lawrencetown and drive into town pretty much every day. But as I said in that thread, I understand my lifestyle is subdidized.

Which is why I support people living in the core deciding how they want their taxes spent and communities to develop, which they have repeatedly indicated isn't to make my life convenient so I can drive there.

[DBaz]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Clearly some younger folk believe urbanism is something akin to a religion. To some others it seems as though it is more like a cult. Those of us with some age on us tend to embrace a more inclusive mix of all types of planning regimens. It should not be a "You're with us or agin' us" type of thinking.

So how does calling people "pencil neck geeks" embrace what you are describing.

It feels that some of you "with age on" are subscribing to the Fox News definition of "fair and balanced" for "a more inclusive mix."

I'm definitely not "younger folk," but I support bike lanes and better transit (taking car lanes on the peninsula if required), and urban arterials and access highways where appropriate (for instance, the Cherrybrook bypass, but not twinning the 107 past Preston yet).

[HarbingerDe]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Clearly some younger folk believe urbanism is something akin to a religion. To some others it seems as though it is more like a cult. Those of us with some age on us tend to embrace a more inclusive mix of all types of planning regimens. It should not be a "You're with us or agin' us" type of thinking.

Lmao, where is this inclusive mix you speak of?

This city's rotting car-centric infrastructure is BAD even in comparison to the average North American city's rotting car-centric infrastructure.

People of "your age" tore up the tram lines (you're probably not THAT old but still). You tried to build a freeway around the perimeter of the peninsula (thankfully never occurred). You built anti-pedestrian / anti-cyclist nightmare intersection after nightmare intersection.

Now the HRM builds a few bus lanes / cycling lanes, and you lose your mind. I really am curious where the this inclusive mix that you think exists is hiding itself.

Can you name one of these "planning regimens" you subscribe to. As far as I can tell it's just, "Roads good. Cars good. Me angry when minorly inconvenienced behind the wheel."