General Updates and News

[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."

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

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.

No, but the anti-city/anti-urban planning attitudes on here are baffling for a forum that's supposedly about cities and urban planning. It's like if I joined a hunting forum just to complain about hunting and insult hunters. It'd be a waste of mine and everybody else's time. We're at the point now where we can't bring up biking or pedestrian infrastructure without having the same frequent posters launching into the same tired rants for the nth time based on no evidence but just vibes. It's annoying for us who would like to talk about the city and new things going on, not bikes bad cars good argument we keep going back to.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by DBaz

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

That is a common term used to describe ivory tower bureaucrats who never did an honest day's work in their lives but instead impose their ideas upon those who do. I certainly did not invent it.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That is a common term used to describe ivory tower bureaucrats who never did an honest day's work in their lives but instead impose their ideas upon those who do. I certainly did not invent it.

Use big boy words Keith. Why do you have to write like you're a junior high school bully?

[hoser111]

Does anyone have any actual construction news? The bickering going on in this forum lately is getting a bit tedious. Can we park it???

[Five Four]

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.

What does that mean? Were you not the person who said Halifax needs another Robert Moses? Robert Moses tore up communities, mostly poor / coloured neighbourhoods.

You say we need a "more inclusive mix of all planning regimens", yet you get upset when a bus or bike lane gets proposed.

[Five Four]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

No, but the anti-city/anti-urban planning attitudes on here are baffling for a forum that's supposedly about cities and urban planning. It's like if I joined a hunting forum just to complain about hunting and insult hunters. It'd be a waste of mine and everybody else's time. We're at the point now where we can't bring up biking or pedestrian infrastructure without having the same frequent posters launching into the same tired rants for the nth time based on no evidence but just vibes. It's annoying for us who would like to talk about the city and new things going on, not bikes bad cars good argument we keep going back to.

Yeah, it's pretty strange how much car centricity is on this forum, considering it's an urban planning forum. As you said, it's annoying that people get upset at the mention of bike lanes and improving transit.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by hoser111

Does anyone have any actual construction news? The bickering going on in this forum lately is getting a bit tedious. Can we park it???

Amen.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by HarbingerDe

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."

To keep it real, the tram lines were torn up after the transition to electric trolleybuses in 1949. The Harbour Drive (expressway) project dates to 1963. The ‘boomers’ stopped it before what is now known as Historic Properties was torn down (1969, I think).

Those bad planning regimes were following what was considered best practices of the day, yet it’s only retrospectively that we recognize them as being “bad”. Over the decades, mistakes made have led us to what we consider to be best practices “now”, but the reality is that we will likely identify mistakes and further evolve our planning practices as we go.

IMHO, Halifax missed the opportunity a couple of decades ago to go hard on transit planning, and now are trying to take up the slack with more buses when we should now have rail (including elevated and underground) that doesn’t interact with vehicle traffic in any way so that we could have reliable, efficient transit to take you anywhere on the peninsula, with feeders from the suburbs. Our planning habits from just a couple of decades ago have let us down.

Again IMHO, cycling lanes are necessary to protect the safety of cyclists, and absolutely need to be built (they should have started 40 years ago). However, IMHO the idea that they will displace a large chunk of vehicle traffic doesn’t jibe with the fact that people’s schedules are tighter than ever, and not everybody has the luxury of taking extra time to reach their destinations by bicycle, especially in bad weather. We need something better, but unfortunately Halifax’s poor planning practices of the recent past (and current times for that matter), have put us in the position of playing catch up and we’re still not doing enough.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by CryingAutumn

What does that mean? Were you not the person who said Halifax needs another Robert Moses? Robert Moses tore up communities, mostly poor / coloured neighbourhoods.

You say we need a "more inclusive mix of all planning regimens", yet you get upset when a bus or bike lane gets proposed.

Robert Moses built more infrastructure in a decade than a succession of Jacobs’ admirers and sycophants have done in the past 50 years. Moses also understood the need to scale cities to populations. He also built far more public housing.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

No, but the anti-city/anti-urban planning attitudes on here are baffling for a forum that's supposedly about cities and urban planning. It's like if I joined a hunting forum just to complain about hunting and insult hunters. It'd be a waste of mine and everybody else's time. We're at the point now where we can't bring up biking or pedestrian infrastructure without having the same frequent posters launching into the same tired rants for the nth time based on no evidence but just vibes. It's annoying for us who would like to talk about the city and new things going on, not bikes bad cars good argument we keep going back to.

Whether you believe this or not, I empathize. Way back on that other thread I was trying to hint in a roundabout way that the best practice is to attempt to ignore the folks that are trying to get under your skin (if that includes me, then so be it), and focus on the discussions that you want to have. That was before your buddy came on to be the hero and it went downhill from there.

Anyhow, enough said.

[Five Four]

Originally Posted by GTG_78

Robert Moses built more infrastructure in a decade than a succession of Jacobs’ admirers and sycophants have done in the past 50 years. Moses also understood the need to scale cities to populations. He also built far more public housing.

Sure, while Robert Moses led many large infrastructure projects, most of them involved the demolition of neighbourhoods, most of which were racially motivated. I believe building an expressway through Manhattan would've made traffic worse. Even if it may have helped some with traffic, it wouldn't have been worth what we would've lost, both historically and financially.

While The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs isn't perfect, it was written for an audience in the early 1960's. Jane Jacobs couldn't have predicted that historic and dense city centres would be worth a lot and be unaffordable for the average person 50+ years later. Also, Jane Jacobs was an author and activist. You can't really complain that she didn't build as much public housing as Robert Moses considering that wasn't even her job.