HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2017, 11:25 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Report on future of downtown Halifax from 2008 or so

I thought this was interesting:
https://www.turnerdrake.com/newsrese...ng-halifax.pdf

It is a report on the health of downtown Halifax, and a prediction of its future health and development, created in 2008 or so.

There are a few main themes and suggestions, paraphrased from the perspective of the day:

- There isn't much development pressure downtown.
- There is ample space to build without tearing down historic buildings.
- There is tension between preserving the wider public benefit of heritage buildings and the desire of developers to maximize the returns on their property:

The gulf between the property owner’s pressing need to maximise the value of their site, and broader community goal of preserving those buildings to secure the longer term economic and social value of Downtown Halifax, will not be resolved by the present debate; HRMbyDesign will not solve the problem.

- A lot of valuable land is owned by the government and is not being developed in a timely fashion. There is consequently a negative impact on downtown.
- Halifax city council used to take an active role as facilitator, ensuring that plans that were good for the city were developed and implemented. Today, HRM council acts as a passive mediator between developers, heritage groups, and others.

How did the predictions pan out? Are they still relevant? What changed? I think some of these are still applicable, while others are not very accurate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2017, 8:40 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Interesting read.

I agree with many of the points, especially how the city has not taken the leadership to ensure that heritage structures and new construction can coexist. I realize it's a complex topic, but it continues to irk me that heritage structures are still being targeted for demolition while many empty lots exist that have been undeveloped for decades.

A few quotes that I found interesting:
Quote:
For the past twenty five years Downtown Halifax has declined as a business centre and we project that this process will continue.
The Downtown is turning into a place to “stay and play”: hotel and residential (rental and condominium) development increasingly dominate activity in the area.
I think this has proven to be true, given the recent emphasis on residential development downtown.


Quote:
Public ownership, especially by the Province of Nova Scotia either directly, or through the Waterfront Development Corporation, has been a major impediment to the growth of Downtown Halifax. Prime land is utilised only for parking and has been released for development in a leisurely fashion, or not at all.
This has changed little since 2008.


Quote:
A key driver of demand for all types of space in Downtown Halifax is its unique character ... which in turn is defined in large part by the heritage buildings and their relationship with the harbour. The environment thus created is Downtown Halifax’s major competitive advantage which, once destroyed will never be reincarnated. However it is an economic reality that most heritage buildings are not the highest and best use for their site. The gulf between the property owner’s pressing need to maximise the value of their site, and broader community goal of preserving those buildings to secure the longer term economic and social value of Downtown Halifax, will not be resolved by the present debate
This still hasn't been resolved, IMHO.


Quote:
Few now will question the wisdom of abandoning Harbour Drive and of saving Historic Properties. The latter and the waterfront, are defining features of the City. Yet in 1970, the few voices at first raised in protest were dismissed as the cries of cranks, individuals whose views were so circumscribed by the past they could not focus on the future. How many of us today would subscribe to that view? Yet that same tired argument is raised each time objections are raised to developments that threaten the next “Historic Properties”. It is ironic that the survival of Historic Properties would never have been possible without the efforts of the two parties who are usually cast in the role of protagonists: the heritage groups and the developers... and a third party, City Council, who today assumes that its role should be one of referee, rather than facilitator; Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
I think this statement is still pertinent.


I read another article written around the same time in The Coast about Barrington Street. It's interesting to look at the future through yesterday's eyes and see how things have gone compared to how they thought it would go...
http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/barri...ent?oid=962707
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2017, 1:09 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
I would submit that Historic Properties has always been and remains a failure. Harbour Drive would have allowed a far more user-friendly waterfront to be created while likely contributing to other historic buildings downtown being revitalized as traffic demands on Barrington and Hollis were significantly changed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2017, 12:17 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
I would submit that Historic Properties has always been and remains a failure. Harbour Drive would have allowed a far more user-friendly waterfront to be created while likely contributing to other historic buildings downtown being revitalized as traffic demands on Barrington and Hollis were significantly changed.
I agree that Historic Properties isn't as successful as I'd like it to be, but it's certainly not a dead zone. I've walked through there many times during the summer and it's always quite busy. Despite the dead zone created by the law courts people always seem to make their way over to it. When Cogswell is gone it will only get better, I think. Better management would likely help as well, IMHO.

I'm wondering how having an expressway cutting off the waterfront from the downtown would have made the waterfront more user-friendly. What are your thoughts there?

Getting rid of all the historic buildings in the Marriott/Purdy's/casino area hasn't livened it up at all, in fact I would contend that it's had the opposite effect.

Also, how would this have caused other historic buildings to be revitalized?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2017, 2:32 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
The Marriott/Casino is on an island of sorts so it is not surprising they are a dead zone.

It would be easy to create a waterfront area that is attractive and welcoming and hopefully much less Disneyfied than what is now there. Whatever alignment of the roadway was chosen there would be ways to move pedestrians over or under it.

The removal of most heavy truck and commuter traffic on Barrington and Hollis would have made those streets far more desirable for either residential or retail use. In turn the historic buildings on those streets would have been attractive for sensitive renovation for those purposes instead of what happened - low-end retail at rents that let the buildings deteriorate and become candidates for demolition, or attempts at retail (Founders Square being the prime example) that were instant failures.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2017, 6:10 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
It would be easy to create a waterfront area that is attractive and welcoming and hopefully much less Disneyfied than what is now there. Whatever alignment of the roadway was chosen there would be ways to move pedestrians over or under it.
This hasn't been the typical experience in other North American cities with waterfront expressways. There are lots of examples of cities that built what was planning in Halifax, created a dead zone on the other side of downtown next to the water, and then spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to fix the problem to little effect. Some of those cities have since torn down the expressways.

Some examples I can think of are Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Toronto, and various parts of Manhattan.

I don't think that strategy would have been successful in Halifax. I'm not sure the vision of a mixed-use waterfront with a recreational component goes back that far either. The waterfront dead zones were, at the time, semi-abandoned industrial areas that were not considered valuable. The modern waterfronts happened because of containerized shipping, the decline of heavy industry in North America, and better pollution controls.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2017, 6:16 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
The issue of poor management of publicly-owned land hasn't been fully resolved but I think that situation is somewhat better in 2017 than it was in 2008.

There is a waterfront development being built right now and the library projects and Sister Sites proceeded.

There still hasn't been a solution for the Dennis Building or hospitals and there probably should have been 1-2 more major waterfront developments by now. I believe there are a couple of other government-owned sites (below the Maple?) that don't get much attention and just lie fallow.

The city has, predictably, failed to come up with and implement a good plan for the old central library.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2017, 10:04 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
The Marriott/Casino is on an island of sorts so it is not surprising they are a dead zone.
This statement doesn't support the idea that the existing development was an improvement over potentially leaving the historic buildings in place and following a different direction.

Quote:
It would be easy to create a waterfront area that is attractive and welcoming and hopefully much less Disneyfied than what is now there. Whatever alignment of the roadway was chosen there would be ways to move pedestrians over or under it.
someone123's points are valid. Also, I think that evidence already exists in Halifax that disproves this idea in the way that the Cogswell interchange cut off the downtown in that area.

Quote:
The removal of most heavy truck and commuter traffic on Barrington and Hollis would have made those streets far more desirable for either residential or retail use. In turn the historic buildings on those streets would have been attractive for sensitive renovation for those purposes instead of what happened - low-end retail at rents that let the buildings deteriorate and become candidates for demolition, or attempts at retail (Founders Square being the prime example) that were instant failures.
A 3rd harbour crossing, a Northwest Arm bridge or utilizing the rail cut for truck traffic or rail service to a depot outside of the city would have alleviated the heavy truck traffic. An expressway would not have had a large effect on commuter traffic as it would still have to bottleneck its way from the expressway to the downtown streets regardless.

I also can't see how Barrington would have benefited from less commuter/bus traffic as this should help to bolster local businesses. If you're looking for a smoking gun for Barrington's decline then look no further than the attempt to center retail in Scotia Square and the attempt to convert the downtown to a business centre with little to no residential - this tack will most assuredly create a ghost town on nights and weekends and a traffic nightmare at rush hours.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2017, 12:42 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
This hasn't been the typical experience in other North American cities with waterfront expressways. There are lots of examples of cities that built what was planning in Halifax, created a dead zone on the other side of downtown next to the water, and then spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to fix the problem to little effect. Some of those cities have since torn down the expressways.

Some examples I can think of are Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Toronto, and various parts of Manhattan.

I don't think that strategy would have been successful in Halifax. I'm not sure the vision of a mixed-use waterfront with a recreational component goes back that far either. The waterfront dead zones were, at the time, semi-abandoned industrial areas that were not considered valuable. The modern waterfronts happened because of containerized shipping, the decline of heavy industry in North America, and better pollution controls.
Yes, the old waterfront was a miserable area that nobody would visit except on business. I well remember the pungent smell of rotting fish and raw sewage.

However, look at what Boston did in recent years with their Big Dig project. The former Central Artery was undergrounded and the area above is now green space, with a large area of park and recreation space. While I would not consider that ideal for Halifax, a similar plan at least in sections would have allowed easy access to whatever use was intended for the waterfront, and surely at less cost than the Arm Bridge/rail cut developments mentioned by another member.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2017, 4:35 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
However, look at what Boston did in recent years with their Big Dig project. The former Central Artery was undergrounded and the area above is now green space, with a large area of park and recreation space. While I would not consider that ideal for Halifax, a similar plan at least in sections would have allowed easy access to whatever use was intended for the waterfront, and surely at less cost than the Arm Bridge/rail cut developments mentioned by another member.
I am not sure it would cost less. The old railcut study looked at running trucks alongside the rail tracks or building an inland terminal to transfer containers onto trucks in some suburban location. The estimated cost was around $20-60M in 2006.

The Big Dig cost over $24B (complete financial disaster; a lot of Northeastern US cities make Halifax look competently run). It was a much larger project than Halifax would need but each lane-kilometer of tunnel costs $100M+ these days. I agree that tunnels downtown might be a nice solution, but they would not be cheap.

Cogswell is a great opportunity to build underground infrastructure, but there doesn't seem to be much vision behind that project, or if there is it hasn't yet manifested itself in the plans. There's nothing particularly impressive about rebuilding some surface streets and selling off the new plots of land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2017, 5:11 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
I would love to see an inland terminal but I wonder how it would function. CN can't be counted on to provide cost effective service to an inland terminal when they would be making truck delivery more efficient. Trucking from an inland terminal to places within a day's transit would be less efficient fuel and cost wise than by train, but quicker. I think many companies who rely on quick service, would pay extra if they can get truck delivery within a day from an inland NS terminal than rely on train service. So an inland terminal would be good for the port of Halifax but bad for CN due to more truck competition.

I remember the Halifax waterfront in the 1970's, although it was an interesting place it was somewhat dirty and it lacked the public assess that exists today with the boardwalk. Halifax certainly dodged a bullet when it stopped the Harbour Drive project. Today it is a walkabout city with a great waterfront that wouldn't exist with an expressway cutting through the city. Anyone who travels to Toronto knows what an eyesore the Gardiner Expressway is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2017, 12:00 AM
ILoveHalifax ILoveHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Palm Beach Gardens FL
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
I would love to see an inland terminal but I wonder how it would function. CN can't be counted on to provide cost effective service to an inland terminal when they would be making truck delivery more efficient. Trucking from an inland terminal to places within a day's transit would be less efficient fuel and cost wise than by train, but quicker. I think many companies who rely on quick service, would pay extra if they can get truck delivery within a day from an inland NS terminal than rely on train service. So an inland terminal would be good for the port of Halifax but bad for CN due to more truck competition.

I remember the Halifax waterfront in the 1970's, although it was an interesting place it was somewhat dirty and it lacked the public assess that exists today with the boardwalk. Halifax certainly dodged a bullet when it stopped the Harbour Drive project. Today it is a walkabout city with a great waterfront that wouldn't exist with an expressway cutting through the city. Anyone who travels to Toronto knows what an eyesore the Gardiner Expressway is.
I remember the waterfront from back in the early 50s. My father worked for Construction Equipment Company in what is now the Waterfront warehouse. The offices were on the second floor and the yard was always wet and with potholes any time I was there. Lots of heavy equipment in the yard. My uncle worked for Irving in the building at the foot of Sackville St and I visited his office at least once - It was worse than dad's office. If you touched anything your hand were filthy. Of course I remember Barrington from that time as well with lots of stores and people. I remember seeing Santa at Eaton's and the chicks in the window at Wood Brothers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2017, 1:19 AM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Yes, the old waterfront was a miserable area that nobody would visit except on business. I well remember the pungent smell of rotting fish and raw sewage.

However, look at what Boston did in recent years with their Big Dig project. The former Central Artery was undergrounded and the area above is now green space, with a large area of park and recreation space. While I would not consider that ideal for Halifax, a similar plan at least in sections would have allowed easy access to whatever use was intended for the waterfront, and surely at less cost than the Arm Bridge/rail cut developments mentioned by another member.
At the time I thought a working waterfront was kind of cool actually, you know - real, not 'Disneyfied'. That said, I was just a kid at the time. I only recall the pungent fish smell around the Fisherman's Market, as soon as you stepped off the ferry. To be fair, the sewage smell was only due to Halifax's waste water strategy (or lack thereof) and was independent of roadway development, though one might question whether we could afford sewage treatment after having blown the wad on Harbour Drive.

A tunnel would be cool, but I can't imagine it being cheaper than the other options that I (the 'other member'... lol) mentioned. With the scenario you're suggesting, we would have paid for the Harbour Drive project, realize we made a mistake, and then paid for its demolition and the building of a tunnel... hardly the most economic strategy in my eyes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2017, 1:27 AM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
I would love to see an inland terminal but I wonder how it would function. CN can't be counted on to provide cost effective service to an inland terminal when they would be making truck delivery more efficient. Trucking from an inland terminal to places within a day's transit would be less efficient fuel and cost wise than by train, but quicker. I think many companies who rely on quick service, would pay extra if they can get truck delivery within a day from an inland NS terminal than rely on train service. So an inland terminal would be good for the port of Halifax but bad for CN due to more truck competition.

I remember the Halifax waterfront in the 1970's, although it was an interesting place it was somewhat dirty and it lacked the public assess that exists today with the boardwalk. Halifax certainly dodged a bullet when it stopped the Harbour Drive project. Today it is a walkabout city with a great waterfront that wouldn't exist with an expressway cutting through the city. Anyone who travels to Toronto knows what an eyesore the Gardiner Expressway is.
I'm curious on how an inland terminal would work as well. I'm actually thinking of the configuration which would allow the containers to be moved to and from Halterm by rail to a depot where they would be distributed to and from trucks as required. Of all the potential options, it seems like the best way to get container traffic out of the city, but you're right in that it would add an extra step in getting containers to the trucks. I'm not sure that it would result in extra mileage for the trucks, though, as I don't imagine too many containers are loaded or unloaded downtown. I would think most of that would link up quite well with a depot near a major highway to bring the containers to and from other parts of Nova Scotia, NB, PEI, and NL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2017, 1:33 AM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax View Post
I remember the waterfront from back in the early 50s. My father worked for Construction Equipment Company in what is now the Waterfront warehouse. The offices were on the second floor and the yard was always wet and with potholes any time I was there. Lots of heavy equipment in the yard. My uncle worked for Irving in the building at the foot of Sackville St and I visited his office at least once - It was worse than dad's office. If you touched anything your hand were filthy. Of course I remember Barrington from that time as well with lots of stores and people. I remember seeing Santa at Eaton's and the chicks in the window at Wood Brothers.
Interesting story, ILH. Your Irving memory is reinforced by the photos taken 'behind the arch' from the Municipal Archives - it looks pretty run down (though interesting nonetheless):



Source Search for 171-175 Lower Water St.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2017, 2:01 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
I'm curious on how an inland terminal would work as well. I'm actually thinking of the configuration which would allow the containers to be moved to and from Halterm by rail to a depot where they would be distributed to and from trucks as required. Of all the potential options, it seems like the best way to get container traffic out of the city, but you're right in that it would add an extra step in getting containers to the trucks. I'm not sure that it would result in extra mileage for the trucks, though, as I don't imagine too many containers are loaded or unloaded downtown. I would think most of that would link up quite well with a depot near a major highway to bring the containers to and from other parts of Nova Scotia, NB, PEI, and NL.

I was thinking that it would make shipping from an inland terminal more feasible for trucks and therefore create competition for CN. Trucks could probably save a couple of hours, or more, by picking up containers at an inland terminal versus Halterm and then carry them directly to places like Quebec, Maine, and Massachusetts. So it would create more competition for CN. Trucks could get containers to such relatively closeby destinations within a day's drive versus CN hauling them to Toronto or Montreal and then off-loading them onto trucks. So will it be realistic to expect CN to offer competitive rates to an inland terminal if they lose longer-haul traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2017, 1:27 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
I see what you're getting at, but would it make that much of a difference?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2017, 2:14 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
I see what you're getting at, but would it make that much of a difference?
I think so. Can a company like CN with no competition be relied on to offer cost competitive service to an inland terminal; IMO, only if it benefits them. I doubt that their motivation will be doing what is best for the city and port.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2017, 3:14 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
The Port of Halifax container piers biggest problem is and always has been CN's poor service. Handling cost per ton and speed to market are the two biggest factors in a shipper's decision process on which port to use. The longshoremen's union rates are noncompetitive on the former and CN's service levels are horrid on the latter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2017, 3:27 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Good info, but I'm still thinking that Halifax should be looking for a cleaner solution than letting these container trucks rumble through the downtown in such large numbers. Not sure what the best solution is, but I think as Halifax continues to grow its downtown, the noise, pollution, traffic, and wear-and-tear on the roads caused by large numbers of these trucks going to the container terminal is unacceptable.

For that matter, it would be good if we could take a step back and find alternatives to diesel powered buses as well. Go back to electric, hydrogen fuel cell technology, or perhaps trolley/light rail service - any of those would be a step in the positive direction IMHO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:23 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.