General Updates and News

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by pblaauw

Here is some aerial footage of the ruins of Shannon Park.

Surprising how quickly it has gone to ruin. It really doesn't take long for nature to take over once maintenance is abandoned.

[Wishblade]

Jeez, the place doesn't look far off from Chernobyl :/

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by pblaauw

Here is some aerial footage of the ruins of Shannon Park.

Nice! Great place to film a Walking Dead spin-off.

[Jstaleness]

Whatever paint was used for the crosswalks needs to be brought back. It's been 10 years since that place was inhabited (by people at least). They are still very visible. I haven't biked in there for about 2 years. It was always such a waste to just have all that land going to waste.
I love the video. I love the soundtrack playing in the background. It's just so sad to see it this way.

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by Wishblade

Jeez, the place doesn't look far off from Chernobyl :/

That was my first thought as well. It really is becoming an eyesore and the sooner that something, anything is done there, the better.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by pblaauw

Here is some aerial footage of the ruins of Shannon Park.

Wow. That videos is spooky.

The sound effects, I think, make it seem worst than it looks.

But still awful. Are people still actually living there? What the hell is Shannon Park supposed to be?


Classic low-density, sprawl development, now a ghost town. Take a look at the future of the suburbs.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Wow. That videos is spooky.

The sound effects, I think, make it seem worst than it looks.

But still awful. Are people still actually living there? What the hell is Shannon Park supposed to be?


Classic low-density, sprawl development, now a ghost town. Take a look at the future of the suburbs.

The residential area has been MT for several decades.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Wow. That videos is spooky.

The sound effects, I think, make it seem worst than it looks.

But still awful. Are people still actually living there? What the hell is Shannon Park supposed to be?


Classic low-density, sprawl development, now a ghost town. Take a look at the future of the suburbs.

Don't be silly. It was built as a low-bid, govt-designed married quarters for forces members during the Cold War. It was miserable when new. No surprise it is miserable after being abandoned for 10 years. To suggest this is "the future of the suburbs" is simply a ridiculous comment.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Don't be silly. It was built as a low-bid, govt-designed married quarters for forces members during the Cold War. It was miserable when new. No surprise it is miserable after being abandoned for 10 years. To suggest this is "the future of the suburbs" is simply a ridiculous comment.

Nobody knows where 'the suburbs' are, some posters are unwilling/incapable of providing a definition. Fairview perhaps?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

But still awful. Are people still actually living there? What the hell is Shannon Park supposed to be?

As Keith said, it was typical low-cost military housing, the type of which there used to be many in the Maritimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Park,_Nova_Scotia

Many of them have been closed and either torn down or repurposed (such as CFB Chatham in the Miramichi, which has been turned into a retirement village, though it consists mainly of single and double detached dwellings http://www.retirenb.ca/) over the years as the threat of the cold war died off.

After it was closed down there was some talk of repurposing it as low-cost housing, though I think that would have been a bad idea. IIRC, the units were no longer fit to live in due to mold and other concerns. Still the best option for a stadium IMHO - with the potential for ferry service to the downtown as previously suggested by someone123.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Nobody knows where 'the suburbs' are, some posters are unwilling/incapable of providing a definition. Fairview perhaps?

The issue in Halifax is that practically everything outside of downtown/south end/some north and west end, could be considered "suburban", technically.

Look at Westmount, Fairview, eastern parts of Clayton Park etc... those were formally the outskirts of the city and the first suburbs.

But, realistically, in 2015, these are not the suburbs... nothing on the peninsula and in close proximity on the mainland are "suburbs", some of those areas are even an easy walk / bike ride to downtown.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Nobody knows where 'the suburbs' are, some posters are unwilling/incapable of providing a definition. Fairview perhaps?

I'd say the entire peninsula counts as urban. Even though some of it has a suburban feel, it's centrally located, grid-based, and has the strongest potential for intensification. I'd say the same about central Dartmouth--let's say everything within the area bounded by Highway 111. That's pretty generous, especially on the south side, but I'll apply the same logic as in Halifax: central, mostly grid-based, intensification potential. Feel free to carve Woodside out of that, however.

Everything else is suburban, IMO. Fairview, Clayton Park, etc, are what we'd called "inner suburbs"--same way you'd refer to Etobicoke or Scarborough.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I'd say the entire peninsula counts as urban. Even though some of it has a suburban feel, it's centrally located, grid-based, and has the strongest potential for intensification. I'd say the same about central Dartmouth--let's say everything within the area bounded by Highway 111. That's pretty generous, especially on the south side, but I'll apply the same logic as in Halifax: central, mostly grid-based, intensification potential. Feel free to carve Woodside out of that, however.

Everything else is suburban, IMO. Fairview, Clayton Park, etc, are what we'd called "inner suburbs"--same way you'd refer to Etobicoke or Scarborough.

Good points from you and worldlyhaligonian. Read this article about suburban development NW of London,UK http://www.theguardian.com/cities/20...ision-suburbia

A well argued point of view.
Two quotes worth considering :

"Laura Vaughan, professor of urban form and society at University College, London, thinks urbanists and intellectuals have underestimated the care taken by Metroland’s interwar building firms. “Although housebuilding happened at low density, there was coherence to the layout,” she says. “The perception of sprawl isn’t entirely fair, because [builders] worked well with road networks, with pre-existing village centres of shops and pubs, with a lot of commons and woodlands retained. There’s a reason the suburbs were popular.”

and " Yet suburbia’s ongoing appeal – space, greenery and privacy – remains a telling reminder of what people actually want, not what planners think they should want. It has become fashionable in recent years to wish away London’s housing shortage by talking about the availability of brownfield sites, to imagine an urban renaissance of “sustainable” and “compact” living. But blocks of tiny flats on brownfield sites cannot satisfy everyone, and won’t get anywhere near meeting pent-up demand across the capital. "

Many other relevant articles are available in The Guardian.

[Keith P.]

I have not bothered to research this at all, but I remember a couple of points from growing up in the late 1950s/early '60s.

1. I seem to recall that the original City of Halifax was only the peninsula, with everything westward beyond what is now Joesph Howe Drive being part of the county.

2. I am less clear on Dartmouth's city boundary but I believe it was approximately in the vicinity of the current Forest Hills drive/Main St intersection. Everything eastward beyond that was again part of Halifax County. Heading north I believe the boundary was just beyond the intersection of Akerley Blvd/Windmill Rd. I have no knowledge of where the southern boundary fell.

Halifax annexed parts of the county in the late '60s/early '70s to add the Fairview/Rockingham/Armdale areas to the city.

While many of those areas on the edges would be considered suburbs, overall the two areas, if taken together, would have made for a reasonably manageable city. Unfortunately the Savage govt forced amalgamation with the remainder of Halifax County and created a cumbersome municipality.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Everything else is suburban, IMO. Fairview, Clayton Park, etc, are what we'd called "inner suburbs"--same way you'd refer to Etobicoke or Scarborough.

That's a fair description... just look at the eastern part of Clayton Park... its entirely 70's suburbia (although better in terms of walking traffic than the far flung McMansion areas of the 2000s).

Westmount is sort of the wartime suburb, but definitely in the city and more urban than suburban (although more apartment towers in this area would be good for on-peninsula density).

Would the hydrostone be considered an early suburb? Its definitely one of the nicest non-South End areas in the city.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

2. I am less clear on Dartmouth's city boundary but I believe it was approximately in the vicinity of the current Forest Hills drive/Main St intersection. Everything eastward beyond that was again part of Halifax County. Heading north I believe the boundary was just beyond the intersection of Akerley Blvd/Windmill Rd. I have no knowledge of where the southern boundary fell.

This is purely going by memory from looking at old Dartmouth maps from the engineering dept. many years ago, but I believe the original southern boundary actually fell on Boundary Street (hence the name). If I come across any concise info I'll post it.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Bou...9352c504d7f5e3

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Would the hydrostone be considered an early suburb? Its definitely one of the nicest non-South End areas in the city.

I think of it as akin to Toronto's Parkdale or Vancouver's Kitsilano--a former streetcar suburb that became, as the city grew outward, an inner-city neighbourhood.

I don't really have a sense of how "central" it felt when it was built, however.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

This is purely going by memory from looking at old Dartmouth maps from the engineering dept. many years ago, but I believe the original southern boundary actually fell on Boundary Street (hence the name). If I come across any concise info I'll post it.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Bou...9352c504d7f5e3

The Dartmouth census districts today are the same census districts as the former City of Dartmouth.
Same answer for Halifax.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Colin May

The Dartmouth census districts today are the same census districts as the former City of Dartmouth.
Same answer for Halifax.

Depends on how far back you want to go...

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Would the hydrostone be considered an early suburb? Its definitely one of the nicest non-South End areas in the city.

The short answer is yes, but it's kind of complicated.

The original Town of Halifax was basically just where downtown is today, and everything outside of this was originally considered "suburbs". What's now thought of as the "old" or "inner" North/South Ends (south of North and north of South, and west of Brunswick/Barrington) were originally called the North and South Suburbs (because they were outside of the officially designated townsite). Some of this area was actually farmland in the city's early history. By the time of the explosion, these areas would have been considered part of the city (I'm not sure if people would have still referred to them as the North or South Suburbs by then). Richmond itself was a true industrial suburb in many ways, and was basically the equivalent of what Burnside is now (but with more housing). Africville and Dutch Village were also probably considered suburbs, and were more residential.

The Hydrostone was designed on Garden City principles (the modern equivalent would be "complete communities" and for the most part, New Urbanism). Garden City advocated carefully laid-out, low-to-mid density developments that tended to be mostly residential but also included retail, day-to-day services and light industry. The idea was that some of the residents would work in the neighbourhood while others would commute to nearby areas. So while the design principles would have been considered suburban at the time, I think the Hydrostone was always planned with the expectation that it would be a core neighbourhood surrounded by "more city" on all sides (true Garden Cities would have been separated by greenbelts).

Westmount was similar but was based more on the Radburn style. This focused less on mixed uses and more on schools and civic spaces and pedestrian walkways - the idea was to keep a safe distance between pedestrian spaces and car traffic. In both cases the designers experimented with transportation networks, with back lanes and a switchback in the Hydrostone and the interesting little trail network through Westmount.

Suburbs can be kind of hard to define in context here because of the way the region's developed. A lot of areas commonly thought of as suburbs started as independent communities with their own economies, institutions, culture, etc (I'm thinking areas like Dartmouth and Spryfield). The growth of the Halifax region has been both a process of a couple large centres expanding outwards as well as a network of smaller towns with some de facto degree of independence growing towards each other and eventually merging into a coherent urban area. The "newest parts" don't necessarily align with the furthest from the city centre as they do in the Prairie cities, for example.