[Halifax] The Cunard (1475 Lower Water) | 57 m | 19 fl | U/C

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Of course, in 100 years the drought-stricken western settlements may have mastered the art of cost-effective desalination of sea water and will be causing the sea level to drop.

Sarah Palin said that the solution to California's drought/water problems, was to build more reservoirs; sounds like a win/win all the way round.

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by JET

Yeah Mark, it's just science, not REAL science; glad he cleared that up for me. Sheesh!

The "science" isn't that complex. I'm sorry you can't understand it yourself, maybe someone should go back and do grade 11 math if they can't see errors in it them self.

[Hali87]

(Or grade 11 English)

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by hokus83

that's not scientifically accurate, it's done with bull shit Pseudoscience mathematics, yes global warming is a real thing but it's not remotely possible for the sea levels to rise 1.3 meters in 50 years even if the ice was melting at 10 times the rate. The sea levels are rising by [2.8 to 3.6] mm per year and thats the peek numbers, it's been between 0.8 mm 1.8 mm/yr for the past 10 years. Do the math yourself how long that takes to equal a mater and how asinine it is to say it can jump to 1.3 meters in 50 years. Sea leave rise would have to start jumping at 20 mm a year 10 years ago to meat that projection

the real projected sea level rise by 2100 is (30–120 cm).

And some land massive aren't going to experience much of a sea level rise because the the ice caps are weighing down the tectonic plates and as they melt that pressure is being relieved and the landmass is going to rise, places like Ice land wont see a sea level rise ever.
about

Try this : http://www.theguardian.com/environme...climate-change

" The big outstanding question — and the one that’s most relevant to people living along the coasts — is just how long it could take sea levels to rise to such great heights. The process isn’t linear. It’s currently accelerating and that trend is expected to continue. Dutton said her group is working on new techniques to better define the rates of rise, but other efforts have shown tipping points could cause sudden, rapid rises faster than previous estimates. "
Not much ice in Iceland and Greenland isn't very green. Flown over both of them and had a nice 17 day holiday in Iceland.

And read this one : http://www.theguardian.com/environme...land-ice-sheet

and watch the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

Sea level rise will be considered by developers in the core but areas from Woodside to the south are at risk sooner than other places. The shoreline outside the core should be barred from development in the areas identified by BIO.
Blanche in 1975 was memorable, waves washing over the Imperial Oil docks and an oil rig breaking loose at the shipyard before grounding at Shannon Park. And that was a mild storm.

[pblaauw]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yeah, because WE can do that. Right.

We could, if federal politicians would get off their collective asses, and oil companies were barred from spending millions/billions on lobbying.

But greed is king.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hali87

(Or grade 11 English)

[Nouvellecosse]

The waterfront is such a hideous mess that it'll be nice to see at least some progress. Any news in this one?

[Hali87]

Hideous mess?

[Nouvellecosse]

Walking down Lower Water street from the Seaport to historic properties there is just parking lot after huge parking lot on and on, over and over. Absolutely dismal.

[Hali87]

Try the boardwalk instead..

[Nouvellecosse]

You can see it from the boardwalk obviously.

It doesn't bother you that a larger and highly visible part of the city is a mess?

[someone123]

I agree that Lower Water Street is pretty dull and it could be much better. There are bigger gaps, but I think the worst hole is between NS Crystal and the Maritime Museum, from George to Prince. That could be a really great spot if developed with some fine-grained buildings that fit in with the old wharves. There were some conceptual designs just like this for the Cable Wharf area but I don't think anything ever came of them.

The Alexander and Salter will improve the other end. There will be a contiguous stretch of buildings and the area will probably be quite vibrant. There will still be a dead zone to the south though. The huge waterfront parking lots combined with government-owned lots around the Ralston building make this an unappealing part of town.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It doesn't bother you that a larger and highly visible part of the city is a mess?

Not really, because I don't think of it as a mess. There are a couple surface parking lots left. This doesn't ruin it for me - it's still an exceptionally nice area IMO even on a national scale. It's an exceptionally vibrant and "alive" part of the city, even with a couple gaps.

[Nouvellecosse]

You make it sound like a few small gaps in a relatively dense and built up area, when in reality the buildings represent a few small islands in an otherwise continuous sea of parking.

Hmm, I wonder if that was an intentional design decision on behalf of city planners. To have the "sea" of parking being a form of symbolism to represent where the city transitions into the ocean.

[Hali87]

It depends what part of the boardwalk you're talking about I guess. The northern part (Casino-George Street) is completely built up.

Even the areas with large parking lots (ie around the Waterfront Warehouse and Maritime Museum) are activated with kiosks, pubic art, beer garden, bike/kayak/segway rentals, etc. There are constantly people fishing and boats coming and going. The parking lots also allow for things like the carnival that has been part of the buskers festival for the last few years, several large concerts/food festivals etc. (although I agree they're a net negative)

[Nouvellecosse]

Oh I'm mainly referring to the more southern areas between the Seaport and Maritime Museum. And I do agree about having a large event space. I just think it needs to be groomed and presented as such, perhaps as a public square or something, rather than looking like a wasteland.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You can see it from the boardwalk obviously.

It doesn't bother you that a larger and highly visible part of the city is a mess?

It bothers me. Thankfully, there are some key developments that should help spruce it up, including the Cunard block! (finally!).

[counterfactual]

Also, whatever happened to the Queen's Landing development on the other end?

http://www.armourgroup.com/building_...building_id=10

Waterfront project still at sea <-- from 3 years ago
http://thechronicleherald.ca/busines...t-still-at-sea

[Nouvellecosse]

Now that would have been cool! And would have occupied a big chunk of empty space in a single swoop.

[hokus83]

I think this ones been scrapped