HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth


    Cunard in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Halifax Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2013, 5:17 PM
scooby074 scooby074 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by macgregor View Post
Not sure if you're kidding or not - but no, the current Cunard Block parking is still $3 per hour. I think it is cheaper at the rear of the Westin, and the parking by Pier 21 I think is free on evenings on weekend.
Yes, I was kidding.. hence the smiley

I have no problem paying a reasonable amount for parking. WH seems to think that its free or something.

Buying a parking pass is not in the cards, even if I could find a spot to lease and cough up the outrageous fees. Im just not in downtown Hali enough to justify it. Same goes for all the tourists who use Cunard et al. What about what they give back in $$$? Take all the reasonably available parking away and they take their dollars with them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2013, 12:53 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooby074 View Post
Yes, I was kidding.. hence the smiley

I have no problem paying a reasonable amount for parking. WH seems to think that its free or something.

Buying a parking pass is not in the cards, even if I could find a spot to lease and cough up the outrageous fees. Im just not in downtown Hali enough to justify it. Same goes for all the tourists who use Cunard et al. What about what they give back in $$$? Take all the reasonably available parking away and they take their dollars with them.
I don't think its free, but I think owning a car is a choice that requires money. Why is everybody responsible for certain people's choices (and paying for it).

I'm a car guy, but I think that the problem is that not enough people are living downtown, hence the need for all of these spots. So, I'll give you credit on the fact that its harder to come in from outside, but we should have a decent enough public transport system and enough places to live downtown... blame the HT for the second point.

Tourists typically stay in hotels that have underground parking... they should be able to walk anywhere in downtown Halifax to just be hassle free.

I can't buy into the arguments because every development increases the number of spots, regardless of paying for them... that burden should be borne by those who drive the cars, just like paying for the gas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2013, 5:19 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
One of the big problems in Halifax seems to be that land use decisions are fairly detached from transit decisions. Transit is most powerful when it's used not just to serve what's already there but to direct how and where new development happens. It's possible to provide transit service much more efficiently and to have much higher riderships if new development is oriented toward transit that already exists (TOD). This is the opposite of the current approach where developers build to maximize lot values and satisfy outdated planning requirements and then (inefficient, poor quality) bus service is added after the fact.

Public consultations sound nice in theory and it is fine to say that Metro Transit is open to suggestions, but I am not sure that a really great transit plan can come from the public. People know what they want (sort of -- humans are notoriously bad at predicting how they would behave in a hypothetical situation) but they do not necessarily know how to get there. This again seems very closely related to problems with HRM planning since they keep considering the same ageing transit technology over and over again without much regard for the full range of options available to the city.

I agree somewhat about maintaining some public parking but residential development also serves a similar purpose, and you get a lot more out of a lot when it's converted from 1 level of surface parking to 20 levels of apartments.
I 100% agree and this is one of the big issues I had with the Regional Plan. While the Regional Plan is good (I would give it a 7 out of 10) - it failed to have a really good transit/transportation plan with it. Which begs the question - how can you invest in transportation and transit and then maximize the return, when you are doing your land use decisions separate?

That said; what could happen with this engagement is the with the RP+10 (the next RP update); they could amend the plan to include far more land use/transit decisions together. So I don't think the engagement idea is bad and it could have a helpful impact down the road...we will have to see how it goes...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2013, 12:56 AM
scooby074 scooby074 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
I don't think its free, but I think owning a car is a choice that requires money. Why is everybody responsible for certain people's choices (and paying for it).

I'm a car guy, but I think that the problem is that not enough people are living downtown, hence the need for all of these spots. So, I'll give you credit on the fact that its harder to come in from outside, but we should have a decent enough public transport system and enough places to live downtown... blame the HT for the second point.

Tourists typically stay in hotels that have underground parking... they should be able to walk anywhere in downtown Halifax to just be hassle free.

I can't buy into the arguments because every development increases the number of spots, regardless of paying for them... that burden should be borne by those who drive the cars, just like paying for the gas.
Nobody's asking for, nor expecting free gasoline or parking spaces. All Im saying is that if there were 100 public spaces in Cunard before development, there should be 100 public spaces on top of the buildings requirements after. It is public land after all.

These spaces wont be free. The developer will pay to put them in, but they will also make money for years by renting them out by the hour. Its a winning situation all around.

Some visitors stay in the downtown hotels yes, but many are daytrippers, or people staying at cheaper hotels outside the core, or some who are just in the city for a short while before moving on. What about their contribution to the financial well being of the waterfront businesses?

Do you expect them to park the Family Truckster at some distant park and ride and shuffle the kiddies on an unfamiliar bus system, just so they can drop some coin on the waterfront? Not happening. They'll take one drive through, see no spots and that'll be it. Money down the drain.

And thats just waterfront visitors. I havent even touched on people going down for concerts, hockey games (ever try to find parking by the MC?) or a nite out on the town.

People seem to be in a "transit bubble" on this site. They think its the answer for all problems ( I partially agree, transit is important and needs to be improved), but they cant look past their own bias and see that there are other visitors to the city who need to use public parking for their automobiles. People from away. People with kids, for example.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2013, 3:48 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
I 100% agree and this is one of the big issues I had with the Regional Plan. While the Regional Plan is good (I would give it a 7 out of 10) - it failed to have a really good transit/transportation plan with it. Which begs the question - how can you invest in transportation and transit and then maximize the return, when you are doing your land use decisions separate?

That said; what could happen with this engagement is the with the RP+10 (the next RP update); they could amend the plan to include far more land use/transit decisions together. So I don't think the engagement idea is bad and it could have a helpful impact down the road...we will have to see how it goes...
Are you kidding? The RP+5 initial draft is a piece of garbage.

It's the same old crap from the 2006 RP, which has gotten us, 7 years later, with 17% growth urban compared to 60% in the suburbs, thus more and more costly and wasteful sprawl, more needless shitty business/retail parks in the middle of nowhere (Bedford Commons / Dartmouth Crossing) & designed so badly that you literally cannot walk from one store to another without walking across an unsafe highway-like road; no imaginative transit changes, more NIMBY power to kill modest density infill (Spirit Place), more car culture, more highways, more widened roads, more congestion, more "collector" routes, etc, etc, etc.

Same old 25/50/25 growth targets (that led to actual 17/59.5/23.5 % growth) with no new policy ideas or "teeth" to actually achieve those targets (the new Q&A on the PlanHRM site talks about "teeth", but nothing they list is set out in the RP in a concrete way nor is it explicitly required or mandated)

And even the green belt strategy in the RP+5 is shambolic.

In fact, it's Orwellian. A Green Belt land use strategy is universally understood in land planning as wrapping an urban area with a large green space where development is prohibited, which has many planning and environmental benefits.

But rather than adopt a Green Belt strategy-- which would help HRM but would actually require some real work-- they've instead adopted a strategy that they call "greenbelting", which sounds like Green Belt but isn't at all.

Here's the "facts" on the HRM "Greenbelting" strategy
http://www.halifax.ca/planhrm/docume...ngMay30.13.pdf

And here is what a REAL Green Belt looks like (Toronto/GTA):

http://greenbelt.ca/sites/default/fi...png?1289319124

See any difference? Oh yes, in the GTA Green Belt, you have a massive green belt of land enveloping the entire urban area. That's why it's called a "Belt".

In the HRM "Greenbelting", rather than create a Green Belt to force better land use and prevent sprawl, HRM's just creating tiny patches and narrow slits of green land inside a growing mass of sprawl that is HRM.

The HRM "greenbelting" sounds like a Green Belt, but it's fake.

I mean, that is just shameful. It's like Stephen Colbert's concept of "truthiness" (as opposed to truth).

If PlanHRM planners think a Green Belt wouldn't help HRM or think it would take too much work to implement or it would be too hard, then say so. Don't offer something else, and try to pass it off as "Greenbelting". Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Last edited by counterfactual; Sep 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2013, 4:17 AM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,114
Counterfactual, I agree with everything you wrote, but re: the Golden Horseshoe greenbelt--if you look really close at it, you'll see a healthy ring of vacant land around every suburban municipality to accommodate growth of what is already a hellscape of sprawl.

Ontario's Places to Grow Act actually stipulates that 40 percent of future growth in the Toronto CMA (outside of the city proper) should occur in built-up areas—meaning 60 percent of growth can be not only suburban but greenfield in coming decades. Which is awful. Mississauga and Brampton basically have enough room to double in size.

Sorry--I spent years in the GTA, and while there is alot to lie about it, I just loathe the sheer magnitude of the sprawl, and the Greenbelt is so far a real half measure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2013, 5:06 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
I'm familiar with a few different cities that have implemented greenbelts and none of them seem to have turned out very well. It is basically a band-aid solution since it attempts to fix a symptom without necessarily addressing the root causes (like NIMBYism) that force development out to the urban fringe. Often it just results in leap-frog spawl that's worse than what would have otherwise been built.

On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to pick specific natural areas to preserve. Even there though it seems that "specific areas" usually end up being undeveloped areas behind the backyards of whoever is able to pull strings at City Hall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2013, 12:06 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooby074 View Post
Nobody's asking for, nor expecting free gasoline or parking spaces. All Im saying is that if there were 100 public spaces in Cunard before development, there should be 100 public spaces on top of the buildings requirements after. It is public land after all.

These spaces wont be free. The developer will pay to put them in, but they will also make money for years by renting them out by the hour. Its a winning situation all around.

Some visitors stay in the downtown hotels yes, but many are daytrippers, or people staying at cheaper hotels outside the core, or some who are just in the city for a short while before moving on. What about their contribution to the financial well being of the waterfront businesses?

Do you expect them to park the Family Truckster at some distant park and ride and shuffle the kiddies on an unfamiliar bus system, just so they can drop some coin on the waterfront? Not happening. They'll take one drive through, see no spots and that'll be it. Money down the drain.

And thats just waterfront visitors. I havent even touched on people going down for concerts, hockey games (ever try to find parking by the MC?) or a nite out on the town.

People seem to be in a "transit bubble" on this site. They think its the answer for all problems ( I partially agree, transit is important and needs to be improved), but they cant look past their own bias and see that there are other visitors to the city who need to use public parking for their automobiles. People from away. People with kids, for example.
But there are plenty of pay to park places? I don't get the need to make it so public? I live in a european city smaller than Halifax and the transit IS the solution.

You seem to have a bias that public transit isn't for kids? They use it all the time here and all buses accomodate strollers. The problem is maybe in our part of the world people need a cultural shift.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2013, 12:39 PM
scooby074 scooby074 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
But there are plenty of pay to park places? I don't get the need to make it so public? I live in a european city smaller than Halifax and the transit IS the solution.

You seem to have a bias that public transit isn't for kids? They use it all the time here and all buses accomodate strollers. The problem is maybe in our part of the world people need a cultural shift.
There's nothing "So public" about it other than it is public land. Public parking that is being lost so a developer can, well, develop!

Part of that development should be that spaces lost to the public should be replaced. Seem reasonable, doesnt it? And its not like the developer won't be profiting for the next 25 years from these spaces.

Im not saying kids can't or don't use transit, don't be ridiculous, what I am saying is that VISITORS won't want to use an unfamiliar and somewhat poorly designed transit system when they come to town particularly if they have kids in tow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2013, 3:24 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooby074 View Post
There's nothing "So public" about it other than it is public land. Public parking that is being lost so a developer can, well, develop!

Part of that development should be that spaces lost to the public should be replaced. Seem reasonable, doesnt it? And its not like the developer won't be profiting for the next 25 years from these spaces.

Im not saying kids can't or don't use transit, don't be ridiculous, what I am saying is that VISITORS won't want to use an unfamiliar and somewhat poorly designed transit system when they come to town particularly if they have kids in tow.
Typically most projects when they develop a major parking lot (like these) are expected to replace the parking on a ratio basis - so somewhere between 25 to 100% (depending on the municipality). I'm currently dealing with a project in Calgary in one of the Transit Oriented Development Areas that involves two sites: one a Calgary Authority Parking lot and one with a building. The sites will be consolidated and a new building built, but the land use requires the entire Calgary Parking Authority parking lot supply be replaced. So the building has 3 levels of underground parking - the first being solely dedicated to Calgary Parking Authority. But, because this has commercial in it; we are not approving parking for the commercial and instead creating a shared parking arrangement with Calgary Parking Authority.

So each Municipality may see it differently. Personally, if we had an LRT system or streetcar system, I'd be inclined to request as little of the parking be replaced as possible to support Transit Oriented Development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2013, 3:32 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
In response to conterfactual's comments - I have to agree with some of what you are saying, but not all. I think someone123 points out that greenbelts, are not always the be all and end on in reducing sprawl. In fact, what I was trying to point out in my post is that fundanmentally, the major flaw of the RP is the lack of cohesion between land use decisions and transportation/public transit investment.

So what that means is that we don't have both groups, working together at the same time so that if transit builds a specific Bus Rapid Transit System (like the link buses we have now), the planners would come in and rezone areas along the route to encourage more people. Well - did that happen with the link routes? No. Do we see any signs of a visioning exercise for the Portland Transit Corridor? Only a small bit - Penhorn and that's it. So part of the solution to the percentage growth issues you pointed out, is getting both of these decisions (land use and transportation) working in tandem. This way, when transit is thinking of a new route or new infrastructure - planning can look at the land use and build up the density to help support that transit. I call it 'stacking the deck'.

So as these corridors develop (and I suspect Fairview/Clayton Park would be the next one after Portland) - you can then build up the density along other routes. This creates the ability to develop a map of logical LRT/streetcar corridors and once you have that map in the RP; you can then begin to densify the areas around the routes in preparation for the transit (or do the reverse, nothing until the transit is announced and then rezone things). I think that's one of the key flaws of the RP that needs to be fixed and I don't get that sense it's there yet...particularly given the RP map will be removing the 'future highspeed ferries'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2013, 11:20 PM
FuzzyWuz FuzzyWuz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooby074 View Post
Nobody's asking for, nor expecting free gasoline or parking spaces. All Im saying is that if there were 100 public spaces in Cunard before development, there should be 100 public spaces on top of the buildings requirements after. It is public land after all.
I don't agree. For every parking space you replace with a living unit you have replaced a hoped-for consumer with a built-in one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by scooby074 View Post
Some visitors stay in the downtown hotels yes, but many are daytrippers, or people staying at cheaper hotels outside the core, or some who are just in the city for a short while before moving on.
Exactly. Everyone in the Cunard Block or the BOC development or the Discovery Ctr. development etc. will be a user of the facilities and businesses downtown on a regular dependable basis.

I won't write off the tourist dollars. I'd be a fool if I did. But I think the basis of the downtown economy should be the people living there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scooby074 View Post
Do you expect them to park the Family Truckster at some distant park and ride and shuffle the kiddies on an unfamiliar bus system, just so they can drop some coin on the waterfront? Not happening. They'll take one drive through, see no spots and that'll be it. Money down the drain.
I guess I see it as a "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" situation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2013, 1:28 AM
scooby074 scooby074 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
Typically most projects when they develop a major parking lot (like these) are expected to replace the parking on a ratio basis - so somewhere between 25 to 100% (depending on the municipality). I'm currently dealing with a project in Calgary in one of the Transit Oriented Development Areas that involves two sites: one a Calgary Authority Parking lot and one with a building. The sites will be consolidated and a new building built, but the land use requires the entire Calgary Parking Authority parking lot supply be replaced. So the building has 3 levels of underground parking - the first being solely dedicated to Calgary Parking Authority. But, because this has commercial in it; we are not approving parking for the commercial and instead creating a shared parking arrangement with Calgary Parking Authority.

So each Municipality may see it differently. Personally, if we had an LRT system or streetcar system, I'd be inclined to request as little of the parking be replaced as possible to support Transit Oriented Development.
Replacing that parking is a reasonable request.

As we know Halifax has no streetcar, lrt etc. I agree, if there was transit on a regular, well advertised downtown loop, like the #8, but streetcar, going from distant lots to the downtown core, my opinion would change too, and like yours, go from 100% replacement to 45% maybe?, maybe less?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2013, 1:31 AM
scooby074 scooby074 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyWuz View Post
I don't agree. For every parking space you replace with a living unit you have replaced a hoped-for consumer with a built-in one.

This is true.

However do we want a downtown solely for the people who live there with everybody else excluded because of lack of parking or questionable transit?

Seems a bit greedy doesnt it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2013, 2:01 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
It's much better than 1:1. Looks like there's on the order of 100 spots at the Cunard lot, but the development will have 250 units and maybe 400+ residents, plus commercial and public space. If some public spaces (say 50) are included in the underground parking, the net benefit to replacing the lot becomes huge. And of course the MetroPark has a much larger capacity, apparently tends to have some empty spaces, and is only a couple of blocks away.

The surface lots don't make any sense downtown, and certainly not along prime waterfront land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2013, 3:33 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooby074 View Post
Replacing that parking is a reasonable request.

As we know Halifax has no streetcar, lrt etc. I agree, if there was transit on a regular, well advertised downtown loop, like the #8, but streetcar, going from distant lots to the downtown core, my opinion would change too, and like yours, go from 100% replacement to 45% maybe?, maybe less?
Ultimately, there should be no surface lots in downtown - they should all have buildings on them (I think we all agree with that idea). I see HRM making incremental shifts forward in understanding the relationship of transportation and land use - but it's not going to happen over night. The 4th ferry will be a huge shift, particularly for the Portland Street Corridor and Eastern Passage Area, I'm waiting to see how the service schedule will change because I think you will see Woodside turn into quite the transit node. That alone, to me, would warrant a reduced replacement rate.

Ultimately, cities didn't get to this level of understanding with transit and land use in a day - it took time and HRM is getting there slowly. What is likely to happen as that understanding grows is that reductions will get put into land use regulations for Transit Oriented Development and so you will see the required number of stalls for the units, commercial and any parking get reduced depending on things like distance to a transit station, stop, etc. Calgary has that now - 10% (which isn't much)...but we've been known to give more if a transportation impact assessment shows that a larger reduction isn't going to be a problem. Also, using Transportation Demand Management techniques (such as condo boards helping to fund transit passes for example) also helps support such reductions.

I want to quickly go back to counterfactual's comments again for one second - something dawned on me when I re-read his comment. Yes, HRM isn't hitting the growth target numbers yet. But keep in mind with the RP - those numbers are intended to be the end goal when the plan expires in 2031. So as years go by, those numbers will be fluid and will change and it's good we're getting a sense of where we are not (not a good start). But keep in mind that with the Regional Centre Plan; I suspect development in that area will get a lot easier once the rules are in place. So the fact that we aren't hitting the target for the RC yet - stay tuned because when the plan gets approved, I suspect it will take off.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2013, 8:21 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooby074 View Post
This is true.

However do we want a downtown solely for the people who live there with everybody else excluded because of lack of parking or questionable transit?

Seems a bit greedy doesnt it?
The people who live downton... IF they keep their cars... are likely to store their vehicles in their own buildings, leaving even more on-street parking space for the Bridge-and-Tunnel crowd to park their SUVs downtown.

I don't think the Cunard lot is a huge resource for downtown anyway - it's not very convenient... the nearest concentration of retail is at Bishop's Landing, and I suspect most vehicular visitors there park in the courtyard rather than the Cunard lot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2013, 2:00 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
It's much better than 1:1. Looks like there's on the order of 100 spots at the Cunard lot, but the development will have 250 units and maybe 400+ residents, plus commercial and public space. If some public spaces (say 50) are included in the underground parking, the net benefit to replacing the lot becomes huge. And of course the MetroPark has a much larger capacity, apparently tends to have some empty spaces, and is only a couple of blocks away.

The surface lots don't make any sense downtown, and certainly not along prime waterfront land.
This. 300%.

One of the things I noticed about Toronto is that whenever I drove a car, I was never a loss for finding a parking spot just because every fricking apartment building had like three levels of parking spots below it. There would always be something.

People complaining about loss of parking spots due to building higher density developments on flat surface parking lots simply don't get it. We need MORE of these kinds of developments downtown; it'll make parking easier and a lot more convenient. Around every corner, there could be underground parking under some new development. it wouldn't be free, but people would stop complaining about lack of parking and also because spots would be so convenient and easy to find. Plus parking costs would go down by virtue of more spaces.

win, win, win,

Last edited by counterfactual; Jun 21, 2014 at 9:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2013, 2:01 PM
Antigonish Antigonish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home sweet home
Posts: 758
We looked into building a 3-level parking garage downtown when I did my planning internship this spring/summer. It turns out it costs roughly $26,000 a parking space building one of these multi-level concrete parking lots. Construction costs are through the roof since the recession, so I doubt parking would be cheap at all for the public if a developer had to front all the cost and share a number of spaces for non tenants.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2013, 4:34 PM
NS Power NS Power is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6
Hi All,

I thought some may be interested to know Waterfront Development Corp is hosting a Public Session on the Cunard Block in our office building (1223 Lower Water St) tomorrow evening, from 6-9.

Here's the link with details: https://my-waterfront.ca/events/shapemywaterfront/.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.