Cogswell Interchange

[Keith P.]

One of the commentators in the Herald story on this today has what I thought was an excellent suggestion. Instead of demolishing everything, why not just keep it and build everything on top of it?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

True.



Okay, but the Cogswell is not a right, nor is it a driver's right to have their mode of transport privileged over others. (Although good point: most of us, at various times, are drivers, and at other times pedestrians, and at other times transit users, so "us vs. them" is a silly way to frame this discussion).

But it's inevitable that as the city grows and densifies, driving in the central part of town gets slower and less convenient (unless Halifax is somehow different from every other city in the world). So we have to compensate for that with other transportation options. Right now our infrastructure is largely a legacy of the past 50 years, in which the private automobile was considered the default mode of transport. That era is ending, and we're coming upon a time when the private car is on more equal footing with other means of getting around. That won't frustrate or deter business—it certainly hasn't made downtown Toronto or Vancouver or NYC or London less successful.

If we want to look at cities closer in size to Halifax, take the small and mid-sized U.S. cities whose downtowns are dominated by freeways and other traffic infrastructure, and compare them with the cities whose downtowns are full of tightly-gridded (even narrow) streets and attractive buildings, including a lot of refurbished historical ones. The latter are generally much more successful, even if traffic is worse.

It may be more frustrating to drive there, but at least there's something worth driving to.

So yes, we still need to accomodate private vehicles. But the Cogswell is 100% about private vehicular traffic, 0% about anything else. The balance needs to shift.

Firstly, I wasn't advocating that Cogswell be saved, I may not have been clear on that. Nor was I pushing that car drivers should have more 'rights' than other modes of transportation. That comment was aimed more at the attitude that car drivers should have no rights and should be forced to leave their cars at home when coming downtown.

Cogswell is a piece to an incomplete puzzle that might have worked had the whole plan gone through, with a cost to other aspects of the city. There's no debate there - it is what it is and we have to move forward with a cohesive plan that will be of benefit for the current and future inhabitants of the city.

The point of my post is that we can try to steer people into habits that follow our own beliefs of what the best scenario should be, but we need to be sensible in our expectations. Again, make it more attractive to use alternate forms of transporation (i.e. convenience, cost, efficiency, supporting infrastructure, etc.) and the people will use it. It's as simple as that. Try to force them to use transit when it is an unpleasant or inefficient experience and they will try their darnedest to use what is most convenient for them.

By the way, although I do see the value of comparing Halifax to other cities in general, when talking transportation it is of less value unless these other cities are also restricted by being on a peninsula. The fact that you can only get into and out of downtown from a couple of directions really changes the way things work. (Yep, I'm all for a bridge over the arm and a third harbour crossing - of course, including LRT)

Good discussion.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

By the way, although I do see the value of comparing Halifax to other cities in general, when talking transportation it is of less value unless these other cities are also restricted by being on a peninsula. The fact that you can only get into and out of downtown from a couple of directions really changes the way things work. (Yep, I'm all for a bridge over the arm and a third harbour crossing - of course, including LRT)

Good discussion.

Portland, Maine, and Vancouver might make good comparisons. Portland has a highway of sorts on the peninsula, but they tucked it away on the least developed side, as far from downtown as possible.

Vancouver has no freeway downtown, which is actually remarkable, given the population of the metro area, and the density of the peninsula (probably the highest in Canada). The Dunsmuir and Georgia viaducts link downtown and the east side, but they have less capacity than Cogswell. There are three southbound crossings to the mainland, two of which are pretty robust, but which quickly give way to a typical city street network. Then there's the Lion's Gate north-bound, which is almost identical to the MacDonald.

Having driven in Vancouver, I can offer this advice: don't. But it's downtown has the highest property values in Canada, so I don't think ease-of-driving = desirable business district.

The big difference with Vancouver, of course, is the Skytrain. And that's why I think one of the most important infrastructure items that should be on Halifax's radar is a really strong rail system around the city and nearby suburbs. It'll cost money, but I don't really want to imagine the city in a couple of decades without it. It'll be a huge boon in the long run.

[someone123]

Halifax's more challenging geography and older core actually strengthen the case for something like LRT considerably. There just aren't many easy road projects that will handle an extra 50,000 or 100,000 cars.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Those houses in Bedford and Fall River and Hammonds Plains are not suddenly going to be empty.

This is true but future development in Halifax is still an open question. If future development just amounts to adding more and more Hammonds Plains type areas, the model of having people commute to downtown jobs in cars simply won't work for that many people. More and more businesses will have to move out to industrial parks and the city will spend more money on road infrastructure and services in the suburbs. It probably won't make sense to try to shoehorn in more road capacity downtown.

What I'd like to see is a future where a bunch of people in Bedford get commuter rail and where new development is focused in the parts of the city where it is easiest to add new transit capacity. These would be areas like the North End or neighbourhoods near train stations.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

What I'd like to see is a future where a bunch of people in Bedford get commuter rail and where new development is focused in the parts of the city where it is easiest to add new transit capacity. These would be areas like the North End or neighbourhoods near train stations.

Make this area a commuter hub with lots of parking so people from outlying areas who want to go downtown without their cars can do so conveniently and easily.

Put it right in this area of Bedford where right next to the rail cut, where there is already significant infrastructure for the motorist to easily commute from Bedford, Sackville, the Valley and the 102 and will be the location of access to the future expressway to Burnside.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=bedford...gl=ca&t=h&z=16

Available land, ready-made infrastructure, rail access, retail/industrial area - it has all the makings of a perfect project.

A simple solution that makes sense and will work.

[halifaxboyns]

I see Cogswell as a piece, in a very large puzzle; which everyone has talked about some of the other various pieces (LRT, ferry routes, regional rail, Port truck traffic, 3rd harbour crossing and NW Arm Crossing).

For me - success of Cogswell isn't going to happen on the first go. I don't think that staff is going to come up with something that will solve everything at first go - that's not very realistic. It will likely be incremental - it will improve a bit at first, then as other pieces of the puzzle get dealt with; Cogswell improves more and more.

As to Keith's comment from the herald posting - I frankly don't like the idea of building over the interchange. Not that I have anything against height, far from it. But part of the reason to get rid of the interchange is that it's vastly overbuilt for the demand placed on it. Why continue to pay a high maintenance bill for something that isn't really needed for the volume of traffic that goes through it?

I'm also cautious about LRT in this area; because I go back to Alan Ruffman's comment at the CBC forum about using the old rail line along the docklands. My concern with that is two fold: First - I'm concerned that the right-of-way has already been compromised to the point it may not be fully useable in some places like below the MacDonald Bridge (because of the on ramps and road configuration) - that would have to be examined. But if it's not; then that's good. The second concern is more on the broader idea of public transit and the effects it has. While the primary goal is to build transit to move people, we also use is as a means to reinvest and improve areas (transit oriented development). Now looking at the old right of way, I can't see a lot of opportunity sites adjacent to Barrington which could easily go up in density except perhaps the old public housing projects and a few spots near the Bridge. I will admit, that I do have some bias towards using the train station versus the harbour rail line because I think the train station is a wonderfully under used building that deserves better use.

All that said; I'm encouraged by the debate we're having. This really goes back to Mayor Savage's comment that whatever the decision is, it's not going to please everyone. The varied opinions just in this forum proves that.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I see Cogswell as a piece, in a very large puzzle; which everyone has talked about some of the other various pieces (LRT, ferry routes, regional rail, Port truck traffic, 3rd harbour crossing and NW Arm Crossing).

For me - success of Cogswell isn't going to happen on the first go. I don't think that staff is going to come up with something that will solve everything at first go - that's not very realistic. It will likely be incremental - it will improve a bit at first, then as other pieces of the puzzle get dealt with; Cogswell improves more and more.

As to Keith's comment from the herald posting - I frankly don't like the idea of building over the interchange. Not that I have anything against height, far from it. But part of the reason to get rid of the interchange is that it's vastly overbuilt for the demand placed on it. Why continue to pay a high maintenance bill for something that isn't really needed for the volume of traffic that goes through it?

I'm also cautious about LRT in this area; because I go back to Alan Ruffman's comment at the CBC forum about using the old rail line along the docklands. My concern with that is two fold: First - I'm concerned that the right-of-way has already been compromised to the point it may not be fully useable in some places like below the MacDonald Bridge (because of the on ramps and road configuration) - that would have to be examined. But if it's not; then that's good. The second concern is more on the broader idea of public transit and the effects it has. While the primary goal is to build transit to move people, we also use is as a means to reinvest and improve areas (transit oriented development). Now looking at the old right of way, I can't see a lot of opportunity sites adjacent to Barrington which could easily go up in density except perhaps the old public housing projects and a few spots near the Bridge. I will admit, that I do have some bias towards using the train station versus the harbour rail line because I think the train station is a wonderfully under used building that deserves better use.

All that said; I'm encouraged by the debate we're having. This really goes back to Mayor Savage's comment that whatever the decision is, it's not going to please everyone. The varied opinions just in this forum proves that.

I agree with your opinion. I think that it is important for Haligonians to consider future plans so that the Cogswell Interchange potential can be maximized. However, a basic plan will have to be chosen and then through public consultations it can be improved upon, as was the case with the Central Library and Nova Centre.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I realize that many don't seem to understand the whole idea of 'downsizing roads' and that it will lead to traffic anarchy - but it's actually been proven to be actually quite the opposite. This gets back to the age old saying that you can't build yourself out of traffic congestion - build more lanes, they fill up. Well the opposite has actually been found to apply as well.

A great example was Seoul prior to the olympics. A major traffic artery through through the city was an elevated roadway; which had all but destroyed an old stream (or at least covered it up and severely cut back it's flow). Overtime, several people suggested removing the road and restoring the stream. As time passed, that call got louder and louder and eventually they did just that - removed the road and restored the stream. The people against the project felt that traffic would be pure gridlock - but after the work was done, traffic wasn't bad it was in fact normal, little to no change. People found alternate routes - life did not end.

We can't plan for a point that there are no cars - but we can plan for the day that the use of the car is not the primary mode. Let's face it, much of the use of the car is discretionary. When I drive - do I really need to? The answer (for me) is frankly - no. I could easily have walked or taken the train, but I chose to drive because my car is great on gas (gold old TDI - 1100km/tank) and the price of gas here is quite low. But when the day comes that oil hits 200$/barrel (or more) - will people be driving like that? Will people just jump into the car? I'd say no, when they have access to reliable high frequency public transit, or better yet - we have planned where they lived to be walkable, with all the services they need in an easy walk.

I think you might have hit the nail on the head there: a lot of people don't think of "$200/barrel oil" being a possibility, but given enough time, >$200/barrel is a near certainty. A lot of people still seem to assume that the price of gas will eventually just "go back to normal".

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I think you might have hit the nail on the head there: a lot of people don't think of "$200/barrel oil" being a possibility, but given enough time, >$200/barrel is a near certainty. A lot of people still seem to assume that the price of gas will eventually just "go back to normal".

As I mentioned in a previous post, I think that the expectation that people will stop driving their cars if the price of gas doubles is not something that planners should count on. The automakers are researching many new technologies now, from all-electric "plug in" cars (see Tesla and Nissan Leaf, for example), to plug-in/gas hybrids (see Chevrolet Volt), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are still not out of the picture, and then there are other fuels like natural gas, ethanol, etc etc. Guaranteed, you will see more of these types of vehicles on the roads in the future.

This is not to mention technologies that they are working on but not disclosing to the public yet. The writing is on the wall regarding dependence on oil and overall environmental concerns - that is the future of industry in general and specifically of the auto industry.

Also, Corporate Average Fuel Economy in the US will increase drastically for 2016 (more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora...e_Fuel_Economy), which means that all vehicles sold in the US (and Canada by default) will have to be much more fuel efficient - the offshoot of which means that the average motorists' habits will be less affected by the cost of oil. If the price of fuel doubled in the near future, I think people will typically drive the same amount, but will make more fuel-efficient choices when purchasing a vehicle (i.e. less "monster trucks" on the road and more smaller sedans and hatchbacks). In Europe, this is already the case, as the typical vehicle of choice is smaller and more fuel efficient (and often diesel) as their fuel costs are already much higher than ours.

The purpose of all this gobbledegook is to caution planners that the automobile is not on the way out, it's only changing. That being said, I still stand by my statement that if an efficient, convenient and attractive transit system is used, people will choose to use it over their automobile because it makes more sense and is convenient for them, plus more economical as well.

Now back to topic, as the above post is much more general than the Cogswell topic. I don't think removing the Cogswell interchange will have any great negative effect on traffic flow downtown, as long as the new design doesn't create a bottleneck that doesn't exist already. There are already other bottlenecks in place which have been the limiting factor in the past.

[halifaxboyns]

Well this came up in a day long conference I organized out here in Calgary and we had the Chair of the TTC (Karen Stintz) and Christopher Hume out here speaking on Cities. One of the thing that both talked about was road taxes and how to pay for transit and Karen asked a very critical question: how much of the driving that we do everyday is un-necessary? If it's a lot - how much could you do on public transit or using other means of transportation (walking, biking).

That's where the Regional Centre Plan for the corridors will really bare fruit because the low density residential in these areas will become hugely valuable - people will realize as oil goes up, walking and biking will become even more heavily used (along with public transit).

[worldlyhaligonian]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/spacing...al/4116146119/
(Credit: Spacing Montreal on Flickr)

I think this view illustrates the impact of International Place (if built). I think it would be good to have some other flatiron inspired building and plazas. Transit hub, but pedestrian friendly.

Too much variation in the traffic flows anyway, the interchange has to go.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

http://www.flickr.com/photos/spacing...al/4116146119/
(Credit: Spacing Montreal on Flickr)

I think this view illustrates the impact of International Place (if built). I think it would be good to have some other flatiron inspired building and plazas. Transit hub, but pedestrian friendly.

Too much variation in the traffic flows anyway, the interchange has to go.

I wonder if the property owners have considered giving up on International Place as an office tower and making it residential. Given our office vacancy rate, it'll probably be quite a while before another office building of this size goes up--but a condo tower would be perfect, and it might finally give Granville Mall a shot in the arm. Some daytime/non-touristy uses on the street might provide a bit of variation. I'd live there in a heartbeat.

[hoser111]

Geez, who knows. There really hasn't been anything on this one since in was announced in 2008. I wouldn't foresee anything happening at all for quite awhile what with all the Cogswell Interchange noise. How could they plan & design anything at ground level without knowing what the street alignment and grade is going to look like.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Given our office vacancy rate, it'll probably be quite a while before another office building of this size goes up--but a condo tower would be perfect, and it might finally give Granville Mall a shot in the arm. Some daytime/non-touristy uses on the street might provide a bit of variation. I'd live there in a heartbeat.

Really it's the absorption rate that matters more than the vacancy rate. The downtown office market is not exactly strong in Halifax but some of the rising vacancy was from positive developments like the move to the new NSP building (which is not leasable space and therefore doesn't count in the office space statistics). It will be interesting to see how things evolve over the next few years. I think it will be highly dependent on whether or not council actually follows through with transit improvements and a bunch of other things, but some of the new building stock and other development might have a positive impact on its own. It would be very good for the downtown to get a new round of high-end office buildings for major tenants like the banks and then for there to be a decent supply of older space free that can be backfilled by smaller tenants like startups.

I also think it would be great if International Place were redone as a residential project. It could even be a candidate for mixed a mixed upscale hotel and residential units. This mixed-use aspect is an important piece that is missing from the Scotia Square area.

[halifaxboyns]

I watched a presentation from the head of Urban Design for the City of Melbourne recently on youtube and he talked about the evolution of the downtown core there. He made some really interesting points about the evolution of residential development in the core (his point that you could fire a gun on a city street after 7pm and have trouble hitting someone made me laugh). He said that as new office buildings developed and the older ones emptied, they encouraged those buildings to convert to residential, which offered up a lot of new residential downtown and it lead to a big surge in population. So maybe that's part of the evolution of the downtown here? Instead of the RBC building renovating to become office space (but renewed with more modern finishes) maybe it becomes a residential development? Same with the BMO building?

Something to think about...

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I watched a presentation from the head of Urban Design for the City of Melbourne recently on youtube and he talked about the evolution of the downtown core there. He made some really interesting points about the evolution of residential development in the core (his point that you could fire a gun on a city street after 7pm and have trouble hitting someone made me laugh). He said that as new office buildings developed and the older ones emptied, they encouraged those buildings to convert to residential, which offered up a lot of new residential downtown and it lead to a big surge in population. So maybe that's part of the evolution of the downtown here? Instead of the RBC building renovating to become office space (but renewed with more modern finishes) maybe it becomes a residential development? Same with the BMO building?

Something to think about...

I think its a great suggestion! One of the Scotia Square towers as residential would be amazing. I would love to live in an apartment there if all converted and an larger-end urban format grocery store in the mall. I think it would revitalize that whole part of downtown.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I think its a great suggestion! One of the Scotia Square towers as residential would be amazing. I would love to live in an apartment there if all converted and an larger-end urban format grocery store in the mall. I think it would revitalize that whole part of downtown.

I posted a link to this video from Rob Adams (Director of Urban Design in Melbourne), but I'm going to post this link direct to his comment about what they achieved when they encouraged old office buildings to convert in Downtown Melbourne. It's stunning to watch...

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I watched a presentation from the head of Urban Design for the City of Melbourne recently on youtube and he talked about the evolution of the downtown core there. He made some really interesting points about the evolution of residential development in the core (his point that you could fire a gun on a city street after 7pm and have trouble hitting someone made me laugh). He said that as new office buildings developed and the older ones emptied, they encouraged those buildings to convert to residential, which offered up a lot of new residential downtown and it lead to a big surge in population. So maybe that's part of the evolution of the downtown here? Instead of the RBC building renovating to become office space (but renewed with more modern finishes) maybe it becomes a residential development? Same with the BMO building?

Something to think about...

I think it would be good for some of the "less essential" office buildings downtown to eventually convert to residential, but too much of this will make office space unaffordable for many businesses (essentially we would end up with a surplus of Class A space and very little else). Then again, if the bank towers are all being redeveloped either way, we'd still get saturated with Class A space (since in addition to new buildings like Waterside Centre the RBC/TD/BMO redo's would all also be considered Class A... along with Purdy's Wharf, 1801, Nova Centre, etc.) This is also why I'm skeptical that redeveloping one of the Scotia Square towers as residential would be prudent. I guess the other option would be to create a lot of Class B office space somewhere like Downtown Dartmouth or the North End, but I never really hear about "new Class B" buildings.

[Drybrain]

I'm sort of skeptical whether these other bank renos will actually happen. And, of course, the RBC expansion as currently planned would require yet more demolition + facadism, of the Prenor Trust and Champlain buildings, and I think also Merril-Lynch Building (which is amazing inside, if you've never been in.) All of which are registered heritage. (And fat lot of good that did the Macara-Barnstead building, the original frame of which looks like it's down to two beams of timber and a wheelbarrow's worth of bricks. God, if you add up all the potential demolitions in the city right now, it's really a hell of a lot.)

Champlain also provides class-B/C (not sure which) office space, which too often gets lost in the rush to redevelop, but a well-balanced economy needs cheap and ritzy office space.

Anyway, more more on point: A 1960s office building on St. Clair Avenue on Toronto was turned into residences as well. Gutting RBC or BMO and doing something similar would be a pretty exciting project.

[Keith P.]

There is some precedent for this here. The old Canada Permanent building on Barrington - the International-style structure on that street, the one with Starbucks on the Barrington side and Durty Nellys on the Argyle side - is apartments now. I have been in there and it is OK but there are some compromises. It is pretty uninspiring space inside. That may have been due to poor design choices during the reno though, I'm not sure.