[Halifax] Young & Windsor | 24-18-5 fl | ? m | Proposed

[terrynorthend]

This is a great point. When the topic of a new highrise on Robie at the Willow tree first came up, one of the objections was of course the increased traffic on an already busy street.

I ask, when was the last time that you were held up by traffic entering/exiting the Welsford?

Traffic comes from the suburbs, not the core.

Originally Posted by someone123

Traffic flow and parking are often prime concerns brought up in public consultation sessions but when it comes to residential buildings on the peninsula the traffic studies usually reveal a lot less added traffic than people predict. Like, people will talk about how a new building will cause gridlock and the study will reveal that 5-7 cars an hour will come out of a parking garage entrance during rush hour. I remember this happening with the Fenwick redevelopment; people were doing back-of-the-envelope calculations assuming 1-2 cars per unit but the landlord pointed out that few people living in Fenwick own a car at all. Some of the new developments downtown, like 1488 Birmingham, have no car parking at all.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

The Young-Bayers corridor is a problem for traffic flow especially for vehicles turning left onto or off of it. AT will hopefully take most of the burden off.

I think that is highly unlikely. Most of that Bayers Rd traffic is from the burbs or even further out.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

This is a great point, and is one overlooked often when considering these sorts of developments.

As we move toward mixed-use residential, and move towards more walkable neighborhoods, traffic flows become less of a problem because people will walk.

In practice this is only sort of true, and not immediately. Traffic flows may not actually improve at all, depending on what's happening in other parts of the city (and when), but they will become less of a problem proportionately. The biggest immediate effects will be that there are an influx of new residents (who may or may not work in the neighbourhood), an influx of new businesses - usually slightly later (which may or may not draw people from outside the neighbourhood) and in doing both (especially in an area that already has some businesses and walkable residential streets) provides a new option for people to avoid having to deal with problematic traffic - provided they can accomplish most of their daily tasks within the neighbourhood. (For what it's worth, this is actually pretty feasible for many people already). I doubt traffic will "improve" at all with the first round of developments here (let's say the two currently under construction, plus the midrises throughout the North End); but a greater number of people won't be as constrained by traffic, or contributing to it as much (which may still result in a net increase). But if we see a similar number of units built over the next few years, or a major change in the Kempt corridor, it will also be much more feasible for new people moving in to be able to work in the neighbourhood (because there will be more jobs/more job variety) and accomplish day to day tasks (because there will be more services, which also contribute to the jobs).

I currently live near Inglis and Barrington and it's very easy to get around without a car - provided I don't have to leave the South End. But I rarely have to* because almost everything I would need on a given day is within easy walking distance, or is at worst a short bus or cab ride away. Within a few years that part of the North End is going to be pretty similar to this part of the South End in terms of the housing typology and the kinds of services that are easily available.

*except for work, unfortunately. this should be changing in a few weeks.

When given a choice, people will always walk-- walk their kids, walk with their spouse, walk to the grocery store, to shop, walk to restaurants, movies, whatever.

Always... except during winter, or when it's raining, or when they're really in a hurry.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by someone123

Traffic flow and parking are often prime concerns brought up in public consultation sessions but when it comes to residential buildings on the peninsula the traffic studies usually reveal a lot less added traffic than people predict. Like, people will talk about how a new building will cause gridlock and the study will reveal that 5-7 cars an hour will come out of a parking garage entrance during rush hour. I remember this happening with the Fenwick redevelopment; people were doing back-of-the-envelope calculations assuming 1-2 cars per unit but the landlord pointed out that few people living in Fenwick own a car at all. Some of the new developments downtown, like 1488 Birmingham, have no car parking at all.

I think this is one of those behaviours split by demographic; the sort of people who show up to the consultations are the sort who drive a lot. They think people who buy the condos will be the same but they are not. People often seem to do a bad job of understanding these situations, so this is one of those times when forward-thinking urban planning based on real data (HRM by Design or the Centre Plan) is likely to be a lot more effective than community consultation (maybe we should call that "anxiety-driven" rather than "data-driven" planning).

It's also a bit counter-intuitive in that most of the car traffic on the peninsula is generated by people who don't live there. Because of the bridge this part of the peninsula even gets through traffic not destined for the peninsula. The current situation isn't at all caused by having too much density on the peninsula, and pushing people farther out might make it worse, even setting aside the idea of improvements for transit or active transportation that become possible at higher densities.

HRM takes traffic counts in the summer, when schools and universities are shut down and people are on vacation. The data is useless.
Access and egress is an issue at the intersection, allow right turn access & egress only and the risk of an accident will be reduced.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I think that is highly unlikely. Most of that Bayers Rd traffic is from the burbs or even further out.

I didn't state what I meant clearly, sorry.

I meant since left turns onto and off of Bayers/Young is a problem and will likely not be fixable at this site it is hopeful that site generated trips will use AT and transit more often to avoid these issues.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Just anecdotally, I've never observed a constant stream of traffic coming out of any condo/apartment building to the extent that it would cause a traffic jam or overwhelm the amount of traffic that already exists in the area. In fact even the Superstore, with it's constant flow of traffic in and out of the parking lot doesn't appear to contribute to the traffic issues in that area. The overwhelming volume of vehicles are headed to/from the 102 and the Windsor St. exchange.

I actually think the opposite is true in that the greater problem will be for residents of that building, who will probably have a hard time getting out into the stream of traffic already existent.

I think the traffic argument is a red herring. The actual problem is more NIMBY-ish than otherwise, IMHO.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Just anecdotally, I've never observed a constant stream of traffic coming out of any condo/apartment building to the extent that it would cause a traffic jam or overwhelm the amount of traffic that already exists in the area. In fact even the Superstore, with it's constant flow of traffic in and out of the parking lot doesn't appear to contribute to the traffic issues in that area. The overwhelming volume of vehicles are headed to/from the 102 and the Windsor St. exchange.

I actually think the opposite is true in that the greater problem will be for residents of that building, who will probably have a hard time getting out into the stream of traffic already existent.

I think the traffic argument is a red herring. The actual problem is more NIMBY-ish than otherwise, IMHO.

I agree. From what I can tell (I live in the area) most traffic is through traffic... I'd expect more difficulty entering the traffic stream than increasing existing difficulties.

Hard to say for sure, though. Because traffic is dictated to some extent by the routes (and modes of transportation) people choose, there is some amount of perception/emotion that pushes some traffic patterns.

[kph06]

HRM Planning has updated renderings:

Rendering 1
Rendering 2
Rendering 3
Rendering 4

[q12]

Originally Posted by kph06

HRM Planning has updated renderings:

Rendering 1
Rendering 2
Rendering 3
Rendering 4

This looks fantastic!

I just put them altogether in one image:



Source:
Rendering 1
Rendering 2
Rendering 3
Rendering 4

[Drybrain]

Ooh. Nice.

New proposals are getting better and better looking, and I'm starting to hope that the current development boom has enough wind left in its sails to see them through.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by q12

This looks fantastic!

I just put them altogether in one image:



Source:
Rendering 1
Rendering 2
Rendering 3
Rendering 4

Outstanding! Thanks kph06 for posting links and q12 for pasting in the images.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I like this.

[portapetey]

Ohhhh! I love Tetris!

(The overall proposal looks greats.)

[someone123]

I like how they follow the curve of the road rather than just building a box with a setback. This part of town has a ton of development potential.

[fenwick16]

It is an interesting design. I hope that it will be toned down a bit though.

[alps]

Originally Posted by someone123

I like how they follow the curve of the road rather than just building a box with a setback. This part of town has a ton of development potential.

Me too. The surface parking is not ideal but this arrangement - "hiding" the parking and building up to the street - is much better than how Monaghan Square is laid out. Should make the area feel much more people-friendly and less like an ocean of cars.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ There must be underground parking as well though because the surface parking doesn't look nearly as large as one would expect for such a development. Must just be parking for the retail component.

[kph06]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ There must be underground parking as well though because the surface parking doesn't look nearly as large as one would expect for such a development. Must just be parking for the retail component.

2 levels of underground under the whole site.

[curnhalio]

*sob* my little North End is growing up so fast! This area will look significantly different in about five years.

[halifaxboyns]

The architectural community in HRM is certainly upping the game on this one. I love it. I know tetris has been mentioned a few times - I seem to recall people catching the tetris blocks in office windows along Barrington Street a few years ago that people did out of post it notes? Does anyone remember that?