Bringing the population to 1 million

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

If you repeatedly call a group of ideas dogma over the course of a decade, is that not dogmatic in itself?

Where does anyone advocate for “grey reinforced concrete commie blocks”?

I knew it was only a matter of time before talk of future transportation infrastructure devolved into a “street fight” using cold war era rhetoric.

The worst part is everyone calling an authoritative government a communist government. A true communist government has never existed.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The worst part is everyone calling an authoritative government a communist government. A true communist government has never existed.

I’ll say this plainly: I don’t think this conversation should be taken there.

Sorry.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I’ll say this plainly: I don’t think this conversation should be taken there.

Sorry.

You shouldn't apologize.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I'll toss this one into the discussion. I think most people on this forum have seen this at one time or another, but in case you haven't there's some insight into how the leaders in Halifax were thinking ahead in 1945. Some of the ideas in this plan have been discussed in this thread, actually.

There is a lot of info to digest, but it's an interesting read if you have the time and the ambition to dive into it.

Halifax Master Plan of 1945

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

And you also have a little spot of land you can call your own, and a place where you can plant a garden, and where your children can play in safety. The suburbs are not a den of iniquity!

Suburbs however should be thoughtfully planned, complete with a street grid (but respecting streams and other natural features), stressing bicycle trails, walking paths, and well placed playgrounds and parks. Suburbs should not be monolithic and should include neighbourhood retail clusters (corner stores, pharmacies, pubs, bookshops and services like hairdressers and doctor's offices - not never-ending strip malls on collector roads) as well as neighbourhood recreational facilities. A suburb should be preplanned with (future) transit in mind up to and including undeveloped corridors for BRT or commuter rail down the road. In the meantime, these corridors could be used for recreation (making it crystal clear to residents that this is only temporary).

My own neighbourhood in Moncton isn't perfect. It is too monolithic, and I have to drive everywhere to do any errands. The street grid is not perfect and bus routes are too circuitous. On the other hand, the schools are well placed in my neighbourhood, there is a new neighbourhood YMCA I can walk to, the potential of a new satellite municipal library next to the YMCA, and a network of walking and bicycling trails that are completely separate from the road network. The city has respected existing brooks and streams, and they remain in their virgin state. There is also an abundance of neighbourhood playgrounds. I would give the Kingswood/Evergreen area a score of "B-" in terms of neighbourhood planning.

I think one of the reasons our suburbs were built to be monolithic (and therefore so crappy in terms of complete living environments) is American influence. American planners were long obsessed with the segregation of uses and functions, and the "residential only" aspect of suburban areas was a strong selling point in terms of keeping so-called undesirables out. That's probably why so many suburban residential areas in the US and Canada don't even have corner stores or even transit. Corner stores offer places for undesirables to loiter, and without transit undesirables (not assumed to have cars, I guess) can't easily get to your pastoral suburban street.

There are even lots of places where the "neighbourhood" elementary school isn't in the middle of the neighbourhood, but has been deliberately placed on a suburban arterial road on the outskirts of it.

Thankfully we've been getting away from this type of development, but the roots of it are quite evident all over the continent.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Define demand? Most things are built with the idea that there will be a demand. One thing that makes a livable city is active transportation. That is things like sidewalks, bike paths and bike lanes. Maybe instead of bike lanes we simply make the law that a bike gets the entire lane. The reason for bike lanes on major streets are to prevent cyclists getting hit. So, the only other option is to have that lane blocked by a cyclist. I am certain you'd agree loosing some space to a bike lane is better.

But there are not enough cyclists to make that any sort of a real risk, and hoping there will be at some future point is hardly a reason to construct these things now at a cost of restricting movement for the 99% of existing traffic downtown. We might just as easily argue for protected horse-and-buggy lanes to protect thise noble steeds from the noise and scary image of vehicles passing them.

I only rented in Halifax. Are you saying that is not done? As a current home owner elsewhere, I know that is not the case here.

No. Property taxes are based on the assessed value of a property. Attempts at property tax reform over the years have always been scuttled by those whose ox is likely to be gored.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

If you repeatedly call a group of ideas dogma over the course of a decade, is that not dogmatic in itself?

Given the many urban planning students and young planning grads who post here, it is important to remind them that many of the things they were taught in school as incontrovertible facts are not based on data nor objective analysis. It is simply the result of positions taken by past opinion leaders in that sector which are now presented as The Only True Way Forward. The lack of understanding many of them seem to have of things like history, business, markets, the taxation system and the economy would also contribute to the reinforcement of these dogmatic positions as otherwise they would not be supportable. Some critical thinking is necessary to make these groups think independently and not just follow the herd.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'll toss this one into the discussion. I think most people on this forum have seen this at one time or another, but in case you haven't there's some insight into how the leaders in Halifax were thinking ahead in 1945. Some of the ideas in this plan have been discussed in this thread, actually.

There is a lot of info to digest, but it's an interesting read if you have the time and the ambition to dive into it.

Halifax Master Plan of 1945

It is a lot to digest, but it looks like it was a plan for the old city of Halifax, not the region that now makes up the city of Halifax. Wen it comes to cities, one must plan not just within the borders, but the area as a whole.

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think one of the reasons our suburbs were built to be monolithic (and therefore so crappy in terms of complete living environments) is American influence. American planners were long obsessed with the segregation of uses and functions, and the "residential only" aspect of suburban areas was a strong selling point in terms of keeping so-called undesirables out. That's probably why so many suburban residential areas in the US and Canada don't even have corner stores or even transit. Corner stores offer places for undesirables to loiter, and without transit undesirables (not assumed to have cars, I guess) can't easily get to your pastoral suburban street.

There are even lots of places where the "neighbourhood" elementary school isn't in the middle of the neighbourhood, but has been deliberately placed on a suburban arterial road on the outskirts of it.

Thankfully we've been getting away from this type of development, but the roots of it are quite evident all over the continent.

Yes, many of the things "wrong" in Canada was modeled after the USA. Part of that is that during the Cold War, not doing that would have been a reason for the USA to question our loyalty. Just imagine us following what was done in older parts of Europe or parts of the Eastern Bloc? We now seem to look everywhere for inspiration. That seems to be starting to make the difference..

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But there are not enough cyclists to make that any sort of a real risk, and hoping there will be at some future point is hardly a reason to construct these things now at a cost of restricting movement for the 99% of existing traffic downtown. We might just as easily argue for protected horse-and-buggy lanes to protect thise noble steeds from the noise and scary image of vehicles passing them.

I used to bike to work almost year round. I would nearly get hit about once a month because someone wasn't paying attention and tried to squeeze by me. I have been hit once in the shoulder by someone's mirror. Smashed theirs, but due to my winter jacket, I was unhurt.

I drive. I ride a motorcycle. I am a cyclist as well. Get out of your car and feel what it is like to be around idiot drivers. You know, the ones even you curse at.

I am not sure how a bike lane restricts 99% of the traffic, when taking the entire lane, which actually is the law, would do even worse to the traffic.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

No. Property taxes are based on the assessed value of a property. Attempts at property tax reform over the years have always been scuttled by those whose ox is likely to be gored.

So, someone in the sticks, on septic and a well are paying the same as you do if your properties are worth the same?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is a lot to digest, but it looks like it was a plan for the old city of Halifax, not the region that now makes up the city of Halifax. Wen it comes to cities, one must plan not just within the borders, but the area as a whole.

I posted it for two main reasons:

1) It's a very interesting document that gives you insight as to the ideas and mindset of Halifax's leadership 75 years ago.

2) To show that some ideas that are being kicked around in this thread were being discussed 3/4 of a century ago. It's interesting how ideas that seemed viable then are still considered useful by the well-versed members of this forum today, in 2020.

It was not meant to be a blueprint for all areas encompassed by "Halifax" today.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I posted it for two main reasons:

1) It's a very interesting document that gives you insight as to the ideas and mindset of Halifax's leadership 75 years ago.

2) To show that some ideas that are being kicked around in this thread were being discussed 3/4 of a century ago. It's interesting how ideas that seemed viable then are still considered useful by the well-versed members of this forum today, in 2020.

It was not meant to be a blueprint for all areas encompassed by "Halifax" today.

Many ideas everywhere are from their master plans from the past. For example, REM West and East in Montreal are a rehash of some old ideas for Metro lines. The issue is that decades ago, making other areas hubs for businesses and housing wasn't in the plan.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'll toss this one into the discussion. I think most people on this forum have seen this at one time or another, but in case you haven't there's some insight into how the leaders in Halifax were thinking ahead in 1945. Some of the ideas in this plan have been discussed in this thread, actually.

There is a lot of info to digest, but it's an interesting read if you have the time and the ambition to dive into it.

Halifax Master Plan of 1945

I had seen some of the images posted before, but I took the time to read the full document today - very informative.

While many end goals of planning have changed, it’s interesting how some of the rationales stayed the same. Brings back the age-old line “The more things change, the more things stay the same”.

I think the concern of overcrowding and the start of a baby boom made low density residential areas an attractive ideal. It’s interesting to note that even in this era, it was suggested that on-street parking should be cleared for transit and that residents should be within walking distance to grocery stores. They even recognize some advantages of heritage conservation.

The entry of the Macdonald bridge and the North street boulevard look much cleaner in concept compared to today. I think boulevards could have offered a much cleaner streetscape than highway interchanges. It’s interesting how they suggested reserving space for a rail crossing too. I wonder what scuttled the planned redevelopment of the North end; Was it Rockhead Prison lingering around or the new Mackay? Comparing to today’s map, it looks like Memorial + Basinview drive followed the original plan. The rentable space underneath roads is an interesting concept, but I don’t know where it was actually applied in the world.

It’s funny how that portion of the south end along the rail cut is fairly prestigious today, but that the pollution from old locomotives once made the area less desirable. Goes to show how technology can improve the city. It was also fascinating to learn about how Deal st. and Greenbank were once considered slums like Africville, and I suppose that could explain their irregular street layouts. I can count two buildings on Deal whose irregular architecture could mean they date to that era: thoughts on 3591 Deal?

Some of the points aged less well... such as suggesting delinquents be sent to logging camps. But hey, it’s a piece of history I guess.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Given the many urban planning students and young planning grads who post here, it is important to remind them that many of the things they were taught in school as incontrovertible facts are not based on data nor objective analysis. It is simply the result of positions taken by past opinion leaders in that sector which are now presented as The Only True Way Forward. The lack of understanding many of them seem to have of things like history, business, markets, the taxation system and the economy would also contribute to the reinforcement of these dogmatic positions as otherwise they would not be supportable. Some critical thinking is necessary to make these groups think independently and not just follow the herd.

Any good teacher and student from any subject knows that even data-based facts warrant critical thinking. While I may agree with the outcomes many in this forum propose, we may have some differences on how to get there.

Some in this forum may have a solid understanding of economics, others have deep historical knowledge. Both know they can’t be a guru at everything, and I think a willingness to learn and exchange information is most important, as it allows the forum to thrive while its members try to paint an accurate picture of the situation.

While being cynical can be good, cynicism for the sake of cynicism is as bad as rehashing a planning professor’s opinion.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is a lot to digest, but it looks like it was a plan for the old city of Halifax, not the region that now makes up the city of Halifax. Wen it comes to cities, one must plan not just within the borders, but the area as a whole.

That is because beyond the end of Chebucto Rd, what is the current HRM was mostly trees, scrub land and raccoons. Why would those paying for a master plan for what was then Halifax include such areas, or the town of Dartmouth for that matter, or the unincorporated area that is now Bedford? They might as well have included Amherst as well by that logic.

I used to bike to work almost year round. I would nearly get hit about once a month because someone wasn't paying attention and tried to squeeze by me. I have been hit once in the shoulder by someone's mirror. Smashed theirs, but due to my winter jacket, I was unhurt.

That was unfortunate.

So, someone in the sticks, on septic and a well are paying the same as you do if your properties are worth the same?

Water and sewer are not included in the tax rate as those are now part of the water bill. However even if you are not connected to that system you now get a bill from Halifax Water for the so-called "ditch tax", which is supposedly a fee for them to maintain the ditches and culverts in such far-flung parts of HRM. That always used to be paid out of the HRM general tax rate but some sleight of hand was successful a few years ago in moving that responsibility to HW with no visible impact on reducing the HRM tax rate.

There are a few extra charges for those living in the core that those in the rural areas do not see, such as tax rates for transit. However those tend to be small sums.

The amalgamation of Halifax City, Dartmouth and Halifax County in 1996 was far too ambitious and has now proven to be a mistake for the more remote rural areas. Those residents are not well-served by HRM with its urban focus and should be carved off and made part of the bordering rural municipal govts.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The amalgamation of Halifax City, Dartmouth and Halifax County in 1996 was far too ambitious and has now proven to be a mistake for the more remote rural areas. Those residents are not well-served by HRM with its urban focus and should be carved off and made part of the bordering rural municipal govts.

There is one definite benefit that Rural Halifax county received by amalgamation and that was the replacement of truly decrepit Fire Fighting equipment. A good friend of mine served the City as a fire Captain for a 27 year career and because he had a County/City experience he was part of the assessment team for post amalgamation Capital investment. New Fire Trucks .
Community's such as Sheet Harbour Ecum Secum and Jeddore tried to maintain trucks that were on average 45 Years old. You know, like SeaKing Helicopters. The average service life of those community's trucks is now considerably younger. You can tell the year the trucks were purchased by the first two numbers of the serial on the side of the vehicle. HRM maintains a fleet of over 400 Fire Department vehicles.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That is because beyond the end of Chebucto Rd, what is the current HRM was mostly trees, scrub land and raccoons. Why would those paying for a master plan for what was then Halifax include such areas, or the town of Dartmouth for that matter, or the unincorporated area that is now Bedford? They might as well have included Amherst as well by that logic.

Just like how at that time North of Steeles in the GTA wasn't much more than farmland for as far as you could see. Even in the 80s, Canada's Wonderland was built in the farmland. Now look at it.

A good master plan should look beyond the current limits and plan for the future of expansion. With 1 million, it isn't inconceivable that the area inside of the ring made up of Highways 14/224/357 will fill in. Having the existing plans that have laid out parkland, it will help prevent the city to look like one big expansive mess of subdivisions.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That was unfortunate.

Unfortunate is an understatement. Lucky to be alive. Speed limit on the road where it happened was 80km/hr.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Water and sewer are not included in the tax rate as those are now part of the water bill. However even if you are not connected to that system you now get a bill from Halifax Water for the so-called "ditch tax", which is supposedly a fee for them to maintain the ditches and culverts in such far-flung parts of HRM. That always used to be paid out of the HRM general tax rate but some sleight of hand was successful a few years ago in moving that responsibility to HW with no visible impact on reducing the HRM tax rate.

There are a few extra charges for those living in the core that those in the rural areas do not see, such as tax rates for transit. However those tend to be small sums.

The amalgamation of Halifax City, Dartmouth and Halifax County in 1996 was far too ambitious and has now proven to be a mistake for the more remote rural areas. Those residents are not well-served by HRM with its urban focus and should be carved off and made part of the bordering rural municipal govts.

Water and sewer here are part of a separate bill. The fact you have it does play into the tax rate. It also takes in things like fire hydrants, fire departments, paved roads, sidewalks, garbage collection, etc. Take one of these away, and your tax rate changes.

[swimmer_spe]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...plan-1.5840516

Reading this, it speaks to more of what the initial post was hoping to get at.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...plan-1.5840516

Reading this, it speaks to more of what the initial post was hoping to get at.

Yeah, I think many felt a lot of the proposals were too prescriptive, as in “we need XYZ” for 1 million. I do think that was meant to spark more ideas, not be the end-all solution. Besides that initial debate, we did see some interesting ideas for the future and insights on current conditions, and hopefully many more.