Halifax North Common Improvements

[worldlyhaligonian]

entertaining to read, although i have never really felt unsafe on the commons.

i think they should update aspects of the commons, but i think its generally pretty good.

[Dmajackson]

Good to see the city is against Watts idea of making the Commons useless land again;

North Common Improvement

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ

Good to see the city is against Watts idea of making the Commons useless land again;

North Common Improvement

Useless land again? I don't understand this comment? !

If anything is useless, I have to say that it is this plan. I don't know what they spent on it, but it is beyond basic and it seems that very little thought went into it. Improvements? I don't see any. This part of the commons is bursting with potential, but it needs more in-depth analysis to see how it is used. A good example are the paths. I don't know for sure, but I would assume there is a need for a path that leads directly from the Willow Tree corner. This seems like an obvious path and one needed even more as areas around Gottingen and Agricola are developed. Just an example, but I'm sure there are others.

My problem is that they just seemed to take what exists, and what has existed for more than a century, took a big fat black marker, traced the paths and said "there, that is much better!". WTF?? The role and place of a large open space like this has changed, as has its position in the city, as the city has grown around it. It is time we really think about what the common is and what it can be for halifax.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by planarchy

Useless land again? I don't understand this comment? !

I probably should of stated that differently.

Basically if Watts had her way the Commons would be empty land not used by the public for anything. If she really is the HT's and "Friends of ..." go-to person on Regional Council then true 19th century use of the land would involve removing a lot of manure. In todays standards for public space this would be very useless hence it would become useless again.

One thing that I find odd about Watts way of thinking is tomorrow she has a councillor motion asking to move all future concerts to the Garrison Grounds (foot of Citadel Hill) which itself is common land. All this really does is downsize the number of people able to attend the concerts rather than protect common land from being harmed.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ

I probably should of stated that differently.

Basically if Watts had her way the Commons would be empty land not used by the public for anything. If she really is the HT's and "Friends of ..." go-to person on Regional Council then true 19th century use of the land would involve removing a lot of manure. In todays standards for public space this would be very useless hence it would become useless again.

One thing that I find odd about Watts way of thinking is tomorrow she has a councillor motion asking to move all future concerts to the Garrison Grounds (foot of Citadel Hill) which itself is common land. All this really does is downsize the number of people able to attend the concerts rather than protect common land from being harmed.

Thanks for the clarification. Your right, this notion that we need to preserve the common is ridiculous. It doesn't have to be developed or made into a giant square, but it role certainly needs to be redefined.

That being said, I do agree with her that Garrison Grounds are a far more appropriate venue for concerts. Also, in general, we should be more focused on pulling off great outdoor concerts for 20,000 - 30,000 people rather than thinking it is practical to regularly stage shows for 100,000. And for this, the Garrison Grounds have worked well in the past.

[Barrington south]

[QUOTE=planarchy;4771467] rather than thinking it is practical to regularly stage shows for 100,000. QUOTE]

you need to check your numbers on that one



also ......some people prefer McCartney and the stones to Keith's fest......Let them be man

[planarchy]

[QUOTE=Barrington south;4771484]

Originally Posted by planarchy

rather than thinking it is practical to regularly stage shows for 100,000. QUOTE]

you need to check your numbers on that one

ok then - 50,000 - 60,000. Whatever. You get the point.

[Keith P.]

[QUOTE=planarchy;4771693]

Originally Posted by Barrington south

ok then - 50,000 - 60,000. Whatever. You get the point.

The point I get is that you want to limit us to lower-tier acts. McCartney or the Stones would never have come if all we could offer was the Garrison Grounds. That is not a good trade-off IMO.

[-Harlington-]

these concerts are great for the city and i hope they have them every summer, at least it give music fans something to get exited about in this city.
And even if you aren't a fan of the certain act its still a fun experience for everyone and the commons was set out to be land used for everyone and that includes concert go-ers.
so if councilor watts had her way we wouldn't have damage to the commons but we would have damage on citadel hill which doesn't hold as much people and will be much more cramped.

[terrynorthend]

I agree that the Commons should be improved and still used for large scale concerts, whatever that improvement may ultimately be. And the Garrison grounds are great for more "intimate" outdoor concerts.

I'd actually like to see the GG's solidified in this role. I'd love to see it developed like the Hollywood Bowl, as an open air permanent ampitheatre. Put terraced concrete seating on the hill, following the natural curve from the top to the bottom. On the flat area they could still have a grassy section, and some sort of pad for easily building a serviced stage, in different configurations. They could even have a small building on-site for storage of staging equipment, washroom facilities, etc. It would be nice to see all sorts of concerts there throughout the summer months, from Rock to Country to Symphony Pops.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The point I get is that you want to limit us to lower-tier acts. McCartney or the Stones would never have come if all we could offer was the Garrison Grounds. That is not a good trade-off IMO.

At this point in their careers, McCartney and the Stones are arguably "lower-tier acts" They certainly aren't the type of bands playing the top festivals around the world. But this is another debate.

The Garrison Grounds have not been used to their full potential recently, but have certainly hosted some big concerts in the past - not just sort of Keith's Fest events as someone mentioned. I think they've had up to 35,000 people on the hill if memory serves me correctly.

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

I'd actually like to see the GG's solidified in this role. I'd love to see it developed like the Hollywood Bowl, as an open air permanent ampitheatre. Put terraced concrete seating on the hill, following the natural curve from the top to the bottom. On the flat area they could still have a grassy section, and some sort of pad for easily building a serviced stage, in different configurations. They could even have a small building on-site for storage of staging equipment, washroom facilities, etc. It would be nice to see all sorts of concerts there throughout the summer months, from Rock to Country to Symphony Pops.

I agree that this should be the focus for outdoor events in Halifax and where investment in infrastructure should be made. I don't think we necessarily need the heavy and very permanent concrete seating like that of the Hollywood Bowl - or at least not completely covering the site - but some permanent infrastructure with some sort of flexible seating would work. And why we are at it, lets dig into the drumlin and build a hidden multi-level parking structure to keep all those complaining about lack of parking in Halifax happy.

[Jonovision]

I do like the idea of having a more permanent venue of types on the Garrrison grounds. I would love to be able to go see the symphony there on summer evenings.

[halifaxboyns]

Sorry to ask what is probably a dumb question - but the Garrison Grounds is the field area just by the CBC building at the base of Citadell Hill correct?

It's been a while since I've talked about it - so I've completely forgotten where it is!

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Sorry to ask what is probably a dumb question - but the Garrison Grounds is the field area just by the CBC building at the base of Citadell Hill correct?

It's been a while since I've talked about it - so I've completely forgotten where it is!

That's the spot. Where the traditional "Concert on the Hill" is always held. It really is a lovely spot, except its a damn (and literal) pain in the arse to sit on the hill for an extended period of time, hence my suggestion for permanent seating. The seating could be sectioned horizontally with 4 or five flat grassy terraces and vertically with stairs and safety railings to enable people to access the site more easily and safely. (Heck Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II could even attend a show there )

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

That's the spot. Where the traditional "Concert on the Hill" is always held. It really is a lovely spot, except its a damn (and literal) pain in the arse to sit on the hill for an extended period of time, hence my suggestion for permanent seating. The seating could be sectioned horizontally with 4 or five flat grassy terraces and vertically with stairs and safety railings to enable people to access the site more easily and safely. (Heck Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II could even attend a show there )

That's what I thought. Re-terracing the hill portion could work; but I'd be worried it would require a lot of retaining walls - which would really ruin that spot as a sliding hill in the winter.

[beyeas]

I am torn on this... on one hand I do love the idea of a true outdoor concert venue like that. But selfishly I also like that is used so much right now for sledding in the winter, people suntanning or throwing frisbees in the summer. The reality is that I actually see more people using that public space than I do the commons themselves (beer league softball aside). It is actually a fairly well used space. But... it is also a kickass natural concert site.

Another place that I would LOVE to see turned into a performance venue (but it will never happen) is the armory. I have seen other armories used for public performance and it has worked really well.

[fenwick16]

Halifax really should consider an economical stadium. A 25,000 - 30,000 seat stadium could have a capacity of 40,000 - 45,000 for concerts since 15,000 could be on the field. Then all the washrooms are permanent instead of the crude portable toilets that are used on the commons. If the DND site becomes available in the future, it is actually within walking distance of where the concerts are held on the commons and it has better highway access than the commons.

The HRM could set up a stadium building fund to raise capital. There are so many people who seem to want a stadium

[-Harlington-]

Concerts on Halifax Common to continue
Last Updated: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 | 6:06 AM ET Comments14Recommend9CBC News
Promoters say 50,000 fans saw Paul McCartney perform last summer. (CBC)
The bands will play on at the Halifax Common after Halifax regional council overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to ban major concerts from the park after this year.

Coun. Jennifer Watts's motion was defeated 19-2 in a vote Tuesday. There was no debate.

"We were willing to give it a try," said Watts. "We didn't want to be naysayers, but after the experience of the past couple of years, we feel this is not an appropriate use."

Thousands of people have descended on the park in recent years to see the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, Kiss and other performers. A country music festival is scheduled for August, and an announcement is expected next week about a rock concert this summer.

Watts feels large concerts are too disruptive to people who live around the Common. They also damage the fields and interrupt the schedules for softball and baseball leagues, she said.

Watts, who represents Connaught-Quinpool, said the Garrison Grounds on Citadel Hill is a more suitable site.

Improvements approved
Her fellow councillors made it clear Tuesday they don't share her opinions.

Immediately after voting down Watts's proposal, council voted in favour of a $3.5-million plan to enhance the Common, including the addition of a permanent power supply that staff say will save the municipality $50,000 on generators every time a big concert is staged.

The park will also have more trees and benches, better lighting and wider walking paths. There will also be a permanent bandshell or rotunda to serve as a venue for smaller concerts.

Under this plan, large concert stages will sit along the corner of North Park and Cogswell streets, which promoters like because it means no more free seats on Citadel Hill.

Coun. Dawn Sloane, who voted for Watts's motion, said it's important to make the park more user-friendly and safe at night.

"I'm hoping that we do find a better place some day [for concerts]," Sloane said earlier Tuesday. "It would be great to have a stadium where we could have all the events we could ever think of. But I don't think we can afford that right now


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2010/03...#ixzz0jlRh3tpI

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by -Harlington-

"I'm hoping that we do find a better place some day [for concerts]," Sloane said earlier Tuesday. "It would be great to have a stadium where we could have all the events we could ever think of. But I don't think we can afford that right now

I have heard these sorts of comments for 30 years. Moncton is going to end up with the CFL team that should be in Halifax. Almost all of the councillors co-operated and found a way to finance a new library so why can't they do the same with a stadium. I am willing to bet that the announcement of a new stadium in Halifax will generate a lot more interest than the announcement of the library. Even though I am all for a new library; it is almost half funded by the municipality and the rest by the provincial and federal governments. When it comes to a stadium the HRM council won't even set up a building fund that individuals can contribute to. This is sad state of affairs, in my opinion.

When city officials say that "we can't afford that right now", they should be stating what amount cannot be afforded - in other words at least decide what type of stadium cannot be afforded (probably none, otherwise they could say $30 million can't be afforded or $50 million can't be afforded.

PS (added April 1 2010): I found an answer to my question in another thread: Mayor Kelly mentioned a figure of $65 million dollars as the total cost of an outdoor stadium in January 2009 since it was on a wishlist for stimulus money (source: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=163634 )