PDA

View Full Version : General Updates and News


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

HalifaxRetales
Apr 14, 2014, 2:43 PM
That Creighton Manor re-do was lickety-split. I just passed there last week and it looked like it was in total disarray still.

Looks like a restaurant?

not really a place for kitchen venting , but might make a nice cafe or quirky boutique

halifaxboyns
Apr 14, 2014, 5:37 PM
not really a place for kitchen venting , but might make a nice cafe or quirky boutique

A walk up cafe would be really interesting in that area. Looks awesome.

Drybrain
Apr 14, 2014, 7:47 PM
A walk up cafe would be really interesting in that area. Looks awesome.

I'd actually love a proper, simple bar without restaurant/cafe element. The Nook and on Gottingen, and Lion and Bright on Agricola, are all nearby, and I like them both, but they have a distinctive cafe vibe. Field Guide goes more resto. A dedicated bar (that isn't Gus's) is needed, I think...

It might be a bit too enmeshed in the residential area to be a bar though. Not sure the neighbours would love that.

counterfactual
Apr 14, 2014, 8:23 PM
I'd actually love a proper, simple bar without restaurant/cafe element. The Nook and on Gottingen, and Lion and Bright on Agricola, are all nearby, and I like them both, but they have a distinctive cafe vibe. Field Guide goes more resto. A dedicated bar (that isn't Gus's) is needed, I think...

It might be a bit too enmeshed in the residential area to be a bar though. Not sure the neighbours would love that.

North End is slowly but surely becoming a new level of cool.

Someone should re-zone a little portion of a neighorhood and create a Kensington Market like mini market. :)

someone123
Apr 14, 2014, 9:37 PM
That is a great looking project.

Drybrain
Apr 15, 2014, 12:37 PM
North End is slowly but surely becoming a new level of cool.

Someone should re-zone a little portion of a neighorhood and create a Kensington Market like mini market. :)

I feel like this are would be perfect for that--it could be better than Kensington, because the buildings are MUCH more attractive. But yeah, it's a lot of residences, and the density around it isn't yet sufficient, so that's probably unlikely in the short to medium term.

Which is fine. Agricola needs more retail uses, so I'm happy to see things continue to open there.

counterfactual
Apr 15, 2014, 12:49 PM
I feel like this are would be perfect for that--it could be better than Kensington, because the buildings are MUCH more attractive. But yeah, it's a lot of residences, and the density around it isn't yet sufficient, so that's probably unlikely in the short to medium term.

Which is fine. Agricola needs more retail uses, so I'm happy to see things continue to open there.

Very true about the density. Main streets need to be filled first.

Jonovision
Apr 15, 2014, 2:13 PM
These new light standards started going up this week on Spring Garden.

https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/1506970_10100365126875559_8316242155183250564_n.jpg

counterfactual
Apr 15, 2014, 2:19 PM
These new light standards started going up this week on Spring Garden.

https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/1506970_10100365126875559_8316242155183250564_n.jpg

Cool. Looks like there's room for banners on there...

Jstaleness
Apr 16, 2014, 12:10 AM
Anyone else care to discuss the new #HRMbrand logo unveiled today. Personally I don't think it's worth posting but I thought others might share a different opinion.

counterfactual
Apr 16, 2014, 12:20 AM
Anyone else care to discuss the new #HRMbrand logo unveiled today. Personally I don't think it's worth posting but I thought others might share a different opinion.

What's wrong with the logo?


http://halifaxdefined.ca/img/halifax_logo_new.gif


I don't mind it at all. Much more modern looking, and I'm *quite* happy it loses the lame ass "regional municipality" crap. Change feels good.

We actually look like we've entered, you know, the 20th, if not 21st Century, with this thing. No lighthouse, FTW.

Let's face it. Nobody in Halifax likes change, any kind of it. Logo change? "Boo". Re-branding? "why?". Modern thinking? "Where's the lighthouse?". Gone. Gone. Gone. Yes.

xanaxanax
Apr 16, 2014, 12:43 AM
What's wrong with the logo?


http://halifaxdefined.ca/img/halifax_logo_new.gif


I don't mind it at all. Much more modern looking, and I'm *quite* happy it loses the lame ass "regional municipality" crap. Change feels good.

We actually look like we've entered, you know, the 20th, if not 21st Century, with this thing. No lighthouse, FTW.

Let's face it. Nobody in Halifax likes change, any kind of it. Logo change? "Boo". Re-branding? "why?". Modern thinking? "Where's the lighthouse?". Gone. Gone. Gone. Yes.

It looks a bit cross between the logo for a LaserJet printer company, a toner cartridge or a logo for a 1980s PBS show like 3-2-1 Contact

Jstaleness
Apr 16, 2014, 1:08 AM
I'm all for change but I'm pretty sure I could have made this in Microsoft Word. I dont see how it looks modern. It looks unfinished. To me it says "Halifax, we almost got it right"

fenwick16
Apr 16, 2014, 1:15 AM
I'm all for change but I'm pretty sure I could have made this in Microsoft Word. I dont see how it looks modern. It looks unfinished. To me it says "Halifax, we almost got it right"

:haha: Good point. I think I can restate that as. "Halifax, something is missing here"

http://halifaxdefined.ca/img/halifax_logo_new.gif

I like that they want to drop the HRM and just call it Halifax. As far as the logo goes, I have a feeling that it might become like NHL team logos and change every year or two.

OldDartmouthMark
Apr 16, 2014, 3:11 AM
"What? Do you know how much capital A's cost these days?! However I did get a great deal on some upside down V's..." :haha:

http://halifaxdefined.ca/img/halifax_logo_new.gif

teddifax
Apr 16, 2014, 3:21 AM
I don't absolutely love the new Logo, but I don't hate it either. I am just glad they are leaving HRM behind and going with Halifax again. I understand we still have distinct neighbourhoods in metro, but we need Halifax as our main name. I never liked HRM. It was too vague. Everyone says Halifax as the area, but always say they live in Clayton Park or Spryfield or the North End or Hydrostone. I believe this is a good thing.

counterfactual
Apr 16, 2014, 4:53 AM
But wait, is it really that official? Don't we need to pass a law to banish "HRM" from the books?

Until we have safely change the wikipedia page, we'll never be safe from HRM. :D

Colin May
Apr 16, 2014, 3:03 PM
But wait, is it really that official? Don't we need to pass a law to banish "HRM" from the books?

Until we have safely change the wikipedia page, we'll never be safe from HRM. :D
It will change when the proposed new legislation is passed. The contents are being prepared in discussions between the province & HRM. The public will be able to comment when the bill goes to Law Amendments committee.

Hali87
Apr 16, 2014, 4:53 PM
That logo looks awful. The As should be As. Is there somewhere I can vote against this?

scooby074
Apr 16, 2014, 8:38 PM
I dont like it. As mentioned it looks unfinished, not moderne.

The "A"s look like pairs of pants!

And how many hundreds of thousands will end up being spent on relabeling everything from fire engines to the Mayors stationary? Apparently $217000 was paid to consultants to come up with that piece of crap.

coolmillion
Apr 16, 2014, 9:45 PM
A walk up cafe would be really interesting in that area. Looks awesome.

I heard that although the zoning permits a non-conforming (non-residential) use, there is a restriction on f and b. I'm not sure why that is, but apparently the neighbours are expecting some kind of retail based on conversations with Adam, the owner.

Keith P.
Apr 17, 2014, 11:40 PM
I dont like it. As mentioned it looks unfinished, not moderne.

The "A"s look like pairs of pants!

And how many hundreds of thousands will end up being spent on relabeling everything from fire engines to the Mayors stationary? Apparently $217000 was paid to consultants to come up with that piece of crap.

It's fine. Far better than the former one which looked dated the day it was adopted. Branding is more than just a logo. It's a way of doing things, an attitude. The former logo was poisoned by its association with Peter Kelly. Hence the other "attitudinal" work that was done in connection with the rebranding project. This will help greatly with a badly-needed attitude adjustment.

counterfactual
Apr 18, 2014, 12:55 AM
It's fine. Far better than the former one which looked dated the day it was adopted. Branding is more than just a logo. It's a way of doing things, an attitude. The former logo was poisoned by its association with Peter Kelly. Hence the other "attitudinal" work that was done in connection with the rebranding project. This will help greatly with a badly-needed attitude adjustment.

Anything but the previous logo works for me. But this logo is not bad. Not the greatest, but not horrible.

kph06
Apr 18, 2014, 3:59 AM
Tonight I was driving by the fleet club where the new building is set to go and the Barrington Street property limits had erosion control silt fencing in place. It was too dark to tell but maybe this is about to get going.

scooby074
Apr 18, 2014, 4:41 AM
It's fine. Far better than the former one which looked dated the day it was adopted. Branding is more than just a logo. It's a way of doing things, an attitude. The former logo was poisoned by its association with Peter Kelly. Hence the other "attitudinal" work that was done in connection with the rebranding project. This will help greatly with a badly-needed attitude adjustment.

Ill agree the old logo was a bit cheesy. But this is not much of an improvement. It doesnt scream "Halifax" to me. Its just too plain and basic. Any 8 year old playing with Word or Paint could come up with something just like this.

All this talk of "ways of doing things" and "attitudes" sounds like corporate HR speak. Who are you and what have you done with plain talking no BS Keith? :D

alps
Apr 18, 2014, 6:50 AM
I would almost prefer something even more "plain and basic". Those types of logos, with some kind of distinctive but simple differentiating factor, seem to have the most staying power. Think of those entities whose logos have remained the same for decades but don't seem dated...like Sony, Government of Canada, HSBC, IBM, Mitsubishi, etc.

I like the strange logo of the Urban Council (Hong Kong). Simple but unforgettable, and with the stylised bauhinia flower, distinctly local too:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/HKUrbanCouncil.svg/200px-HKUrbanCouncil.svg.png

I don't mind the new Halifax logo, especially in comparison to all the "my 5 year old could do better!" attempts I'm seeing elsewhere online, with added bridges, swooshes, waves, etc.

scooby074
Apr 18, 2014, 1:11 PM
I would almost prefer something even more "plain and basic". Those types of logos, with some kind of distinctive but simple differentiating factor, seem to have the most staying power. Think of those entities whose logos have remained the same for decades but don't seem dated...like Sony, Government of Canada, HSBC, IBM, Mitsubishi, etc.

I like the strange logo of the Urban Council (Hong Kong). Simple but unforgettable, and with the stylised bauhinia flower, distinctly local too:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/HKUrbanCouncil.svg/200px-HKUrbanCouncil.svg.png

I don't mind the new Halifax logo, especially in comparison to all the "my 5 year old could do better!" attempts I'm seeing elsewhere online, with added bridges, swooshes, waves, etc.

Got a link to those attempts? A bridge, wave or swoosh is what Im thinking the logo needs.

"plain and basic" was a bad choice of words. A good logo can be plain and basic, yet iconic, as your logo from HK shows.

Maybe something simple, does it get any more Halifax than the Town Clock?

Just the outline of the Town Clock itself would be iconic and 100% Halifax.

Keith P.
Apr 18, 2014, 2:29 PM
Maybe something simple, does it get any more Halifax than the Town Clock?

Just the outline of the Town Clock itself would be iconic and 100% Halifax.

The last thing the area needs is a logo featuring one icon from the center of downtown. You would then have Gloria complaining it needed a picture of a Lake Banook canoe, Hendsbee wanting a spruce tree from the Eastern Shore, etc. This is representative of a large community and iconography does not work in such cases.

I imagine there were voices around the table at Sony way back when who said in Japanese "It's too plain! Who will remember that?" The more I see this one, the more I like it. The screams of anguish over this entire exercise are just perfectly illustrative of the huge problem we face with community attitudes - the hard-done-by types who think every dime of tax money must be spent on their pet issue or refunded back to them. We need leadership to get us out of that. I don't know if Savage is that guy, but at least he was right to insist on doing this. HRM spends money on all sorts of useless things like bike lanes and urban farms, but this is not one of those.

counterfactual
Apr 18, 2014, 3:40 PM
The last thing the area needs is a logo featuring one icon from the center of downtown. You would then have Gloria complaining it needed a picture of a Lake Banook canoe, Hendsbee wanting a spruce tree from the Eastern Shore, etc. This is representative of a large community and iconography does not work in such cases..

LOL. Sooo true.

worldlyhaligonian
Apr 18, 2014, 3:50 PM
No kitchy stuff. e.g. bridge, fish of any sort, town clock, etc.

We are trying to be a world city here. Let's do it properly. This is fine.

There should be a cut out of the lettering moved around town like the 1812 one was, and how Amsterdam and Lyon both do. This is how to promote a city.

scooby074
Apr 18, 2014, 3:53 PM
The last thing the area needs is a logo featuring one icon from the center of downtown. You would then have Gloria complaining it needed a picture of a Lake Banook canoe, Hendsbee wanting a spruce tree from the Eastern Shore, etc. This is representative of a large community and iconography does not work in such cases.

I imagine there were voices around the table at Sony way back when who said in Japanese "It's too plain! Who will remember that?" The more I see this one, the more I like it. The screams of anguish over this entire exercise are just perfectly illustrative of the huge problem we face with community attitudes - the hard-done-by types who think every dime of tax money must be spent on their pet issue or refunded back to them. We need leadership to get us out of that. I don't know if Savage is that guy, but at least he was right to insist on doing this. HRM spends money on all sorts of useless things like bike lanes and urban farms, but this is not one of those.

Of course they'd all have their own self interests there, ie: Gloria's canoe..

Ill give you that it is a large surface area with lots of little fiefdoms out there wanting to be recognized, but Halifax has taken steps to unify that by dropping the HRM and just going to Halifax (a great first step).

The people who are going to complain that they are being slighted because of the name change would be the same ones who would be upset by the Clock Tower icon... Might as well go all the way and adopt the Clock because those people will never be happy anyways.

If you step back and look unbiasedly the Clock Tower and Citadel is Halifax.

Yes some will say it should show the Peggys Cove lighthouse, A canoe, maybe the PoW Martello Tower but at least to me, the Clock Tower's profile is iconic for Halifax proper and by extension HRM.

Although it is in the centre of downtown, it's so iconic that it would be able to exist without a text label eliminating the awkwardness of Halifax vs. Halifax Regional Municipality name argument that is sure to come up if it hasnt already.

Leadership... I agree. We desperately need it in Halifax and this province in general, however I still see this re-branding as a waste at this time (this is already well over $1/4M and its only the "design", the relabeling itself will be this much or more). It's every bit as much of a waste as bike paths and urban farms. Feel good "fluff".

I dont buy into the argument that logos and slogans can foster change within an organization. I hear "Im lovin it" a billion times a day, but that doesnt change my opinion that McDonalds is stomach-ache-inducing crap. Slogans are usually feelgood buzzwords nothing more.

Do something about the rampant abuse of sick days by employees, 10.5/yr avg when many Nova Scotians only are allowed 3, that'll be a more beneficial change towards attitudes and external appearances as compared to a new logo which really changes nothing in and of itself.

Colin May
Apr 18, 2014, 5:02 PM
Can any poster remember the logos for Paris, Hamburg, Rotterdam, Tokyo, London, Glasgow, Oslo, Rio, Sydney, Singapore, Beijing, Delhi, Moscow, Madrid, Prague ?
No cheating - searching the net is not allowed
Stand on Spring Garden Road and ask the public to identify a series of city logos, with the words removed and all you will get is blank stares.
Then ask them what they think of when you say Paris, Sydney, Hamburg, Brussels, etc.

Halifax - the largest city in the world ( by area )
Halifax - the city with the longest coastline in the world
Halifax - the city with the most islands in the world

counterfactual
Apr 18, 2014, 5:13 PM
Can any poster remember the logos for Paris, Hamburg, Rotterdam, Tokyo, London, Glasgow, Oslo, Rio, Sydney, Singapore, Beijing, Delhi, Moscow, Madrid, Prague ?
No cheating - searching the net is not allowed
Stand on Spring Garden Road and ask the public to identify a series of city logos, with the words removed and all you will get is blank stares.
Then ask them what they think of when you say Paris, Sydney, Hamburg, Brussels, etc.

Halifax - the largest city in the world ( by area )
Halifax - the city with the longest coastline in the world
Halifax - the city with the most islands in the world

Not sure the first is something to be proud of; its a reminder of how ridiculous our cities boundaries are.

The outer rural boundaries should be cut out, into their own self-taxing municipal areas. They don't want to be part of the city, and really, we shouldn't want them to be part of the city (they don't have the population to contribute any actual taxes and actually drain our funds to do more efficient / smart / cost effective things). For example:

http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/1003011/its-a-start-funding-for-rural-transit-programs-in-halifax-clears-first-hurdle/

Ridiculous to try to fund mass transit out in the middle of nowhere, where there is no one to pay for it or use it. This even blatantly contradicts the recent consultations from people that we are to cut down on Transit sprawl and focus on shorter, faster, routing.

Benefits other than wasting tax dollars:

First, some of the most useless and annoying councillors will be gone from Council. For example, Steve Adams or Barry Dalrymple! Daldrymple can go be the mayor of Sheet Harbour for all I care, just get him out of Halifax Council.

Second, having to listen to fewer people writing complaining emails into CBC Mainstreet about being "rural" and hating now being forced to be "Haligonian".


Best argument against: sprawl developers will just keep buying up land and building shitty sprawl biz parks out in the middle of nowhere.

fenwick16
Apr 18, 2014, 9:11 PM
I think the new logo looks ok but how does it symbolize Halifax? Or does it have to?

http://halifaxdefined.ca/img/halifax_logo_new.gif

counterfactual
Apr 18, 2014, 11:11 PM
I think the new logo looks ok but how does it symbolize Halifax? Or does it have to?

http://halifaxdefined.ca/img/halifax_logo_new.gif

I think it's fine.

The question, is how we use it. How do we promote Halifax?

fenwick16
Apr 19, 2014, 12:08 AM
I think it's fine.

The question, is how we use it. How do we promote Halifax?

I would prefer for the A's to be A's, but that is just my personal preference. There is information on the rationale for the logo design at http://halifaxdefined.ca/#why

I hope the promise to “Be Bold” will actually happen. Halifax has been held back by overly conservative thinking for too many decades, in my opinion.

counterfactual
Apr 19, 2014, 12:30 AM
Halifax has been held back by overly conservative thinking for too many decades, in my opinion.

Absolutely.

scooby074
Apr 19, 2014, 2:10 AM
What did we get for $300K here? For a company that is supposed to be creative, they weren't.

Halifax spelled out in Samsung's font! Maybe HRM should get into the Cellphone game.. Oh thats right they stole "Be Bold" from BB at the same time. I guess they really should get into the cell game lol.

http://i650.photobucket.com/albums/uu221/scooby074/HalifaxSamsung_zpsb8ec554a.jpg

ILoveHalifax
Apr 19, 2014, 12:38 PM
I like ours WAY better it has 2 shades of blue

Keith P.
Apr 19, 2014, 1:18 PM
What did we get for $300K here? For a company that is supposed to be creative, they weren't.

Halifax spelled out in Samsung's font! Maybe HRM should get into the Cellphone game.. Oh thats right they stole "Be Bold" from BB at the same time. I guess they really should get into the cell game lol.


It's not the same font and it's not the same color. Maybe you should get your eyes checked.

Phil Otto was in the media last week and said the logo design part of the exercise cost about $10K. The rest of it was the months of meetings and consultations with stakeholders that gave them the insights they needed to come up with the concepts behind the logo.

The letters to the editor in the Herald today are more of this same kind of bellyaching. I expected a bit more from the posters here who are generally more intelligent than online commentators in the Herald. But maybe I'm wrong on that.

Colin May
Apr 19, 2014, 2:01 PM
It's not the same font and it's not the same color. Maybe you should get your eyes checked.

Phil Otto was in the media last week and said the logo design part of the exercise cost about $10K. The rest of it was the months of meetings and consultations with stakeholders that gave them the insights they needed to come up with the concepts behind the logo.

The letters to the editor in the Herald today are more of this same kind of bellyaching. I expected a bit more from the posters here who are generally more intelligent than online commentators in the Herald. But maybe I'm wrong on that.
This logo recognises the usual rendition of the name of the city and has a slogan which describes its status in the world.
http://www.joburg.org.za/

counterfactual
Apr 19, 2014, 2:36 PM
It's not the same font and it's not the same color. Maybe you should get your eyes checked.

Phil Otto was in the media last week and said the logo design part of the exercise cost about $10K. The rest of it was the months of meetings and consultations with stakeholders that gave them the insights they needed to come up with the concepts behind the logo.

The letters to the editor in the Herald today are more of this same kind of bellyaching. I expected a bit more from the posters here who are generally more intelligent than online commentators in the Herald. But maybe I'm wrong on that.

Totally agree. The letters to the Herald this morning -- I just read them-- are the typical idiotic pablum from the whiners who usually surface when projects like these are undertaken.

It's a diverse group. Some like to pretend "they" could do better for $300K, but whenever I see actual attempts on twitter, etc, they are truly laughable. Some writers are the sorts of people who vote for mayors like Rob Ford: they don't conceive of their city doing anything other than filling potholes and plowing their road after it snows. They don't "get" the value in thinking bigger as a city. Others don't get the connection between branding and economic development. It's funny to see one letter complain about Council "not caring" about the Imperial refinery shutting down in Dartmouth while ripping it for the branding exercise. The branding is part of attracting new business, investment, economic development, and ultimately jobs you idiot.

It's a diverse crowd but all have something in common: when they hear some money was spend on branding... well, goodness gracious! Time to write a letter to the newspaper!

More conservatism, provincialism, whining. Maybe that should be our motto?

The logo's *political* problem is that it is fairly basic and clean and does not pander to any particular group or stakeholder. There's no group with a vested interest to write in letters in support. So the whole thing is one-sided.

The logo is a helpful change and the "Be Bold" line isn't our city's new motto, it's what is called a brand promise. Meaning, the marketing strategies used to roll out the brand, will attempt to be bold. Which is what we need.

counterfactual
Apr 19, 2014, 3:01 PM
And just so we know we're not alone, London, Ontario, recently rebranded their city and created a new city logo. Here it is:

http://media.zuza.com/a/3/a3f9d43c-e8b3-4e54-ad06-8f07fcf9499e/Canada's_London_logo-0108-sm_web___Content.jpg

And the typical public response:

Far from a perfect 6.0. London’s new logo to promote the world figure skating championships isn’t exactly wowing some Londoners.

“The work shown is frankly pathetic, and should not be considered as a professional design. Sad,” one user chimed in.

Said another: “If this is how we represent our city, we have the right to be critical; especially when that kind of money and agencies are involved.”

http://www.lfpress.com/2013/01/20/judging-by-its-looks

And:

"However the approximately $200,000 cost of marketing the logo is concerning some Londoners who are speaking out against the new design."

http://www.westerngazette.ca/2013/01/22/london-unveils-new-national-city-logo/


A few other typical city logos, all pretty boring. I think by comparison, Halifax's is uniquely futuristic. I like that.


http://groupeteq.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/logoMontreal-1.jpg

http://www.hctoronto.org/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/toronto-logo.gif

http://www.dandyhorse.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/cityLogo.jpeg

http://www.no2pencil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/branding-ottawa11.jpg

fenwick16
Apr 19, 2014, 5:22 PM
It's not the same font and it's not the same color. Maybe you should get your eyes checked.

Phil Otto was in the media last week and said the logo design part of the exercise cost about $10K. The rest of it was the months of meetings and consultations with stakeholders that gave them the insights they needed to come up with the concepts behind the logo.

The letters to the editor in the Herald today are more of this same kind of bellyaching. I expected a bit more from the posters here who are generally more intelligent than online commentators in the Herald. But maybe I'm wrong on that.

To be fair to the posters on this forum, I think people have given honest, intelligent comments. I think selecting a logo is important and having a recognizable, enduring logo will be an important component of re-branding Halifax. Among the city logos above (posted by counterfactual) the only one that I actually like is the Toronto logo. The Toronto logo is relatively simple but shows what Toronto is about - a modern, progressive city with bold architecture. The other city logos aren't meaningful to the majority of people, in my opinion.

The two colour Halifax logo seems to contradict the purpose as stated below. Having the two tones in the logo is extremely distracting to me. A simpler, less contrived logo would be one solid colour.

(source: http://halifaxdefined.ca/#why)
"The logo. The new Halifax logo is bold in its simplicity. Like our region, the logo is not cluttered, over-embellished or contrived. Its strength is in its simplicity, and its simplicity makes a bold statement. Clean, geometric lines bring quiet strength, energy and balance. It has subtle nods to upward momentum and forward progress. While the colour palette is based on bright colours from our local environment and nature, the base colours are shades of blue, which represent our many lakes, the ocean and the sky."
http://halifaxdefined.ca/img/halifax_logo_new.png


Instead of having two colour tones, which is visually distracting, a simple logo that shows the seafaring nature of Halifax could have been portrayed in a similar manner as the following ACL logo:

(source: https://flagspot.net/flags/gb~hfan.html#acl )
https://flagspot.net/images/g/gb~acl.gif


It would be almost impossible to come up with a completely unique logo. The two tone Halifax logo isn't really unique, so why not just do something similar to the ACL logo?

xanaxanax
Apr 19, 2014, 9:09 PM
"Toronto is about - a modern, progressive city with bold architecture" but Toronto is such architecturally bland city

Keith P.
Apr 19, 2014, 9:19 PM
It would be almost impossible to come up with a completely unique logo. The two tone Halifax logo isn't really unique, so why not just do something similar to the ACL logo?

Because then people would be crying, "It's too similar to the ACL logo!! I could do better than that!!"

scooby074
Apr 20, 2014, 5:03 PM
It's not the same font and it's not the same color. Maybe you should get your eyes checked.

Phil Otto was in the media last week and said the logo design part of the exercise cost about $10K. The rest of it was the months of meetings and consultations with stakeholders that gave them the insights they needed to come up with the concepts behind the logo.

The letters to the editor in the Herald today are more of this same kind of bellyaching. I expected a bit more from the posters here who are generally more intelligent than online commentators in the Herald. But maybe I'm wrong on that.

If you dont think they are the same, you should have YOUR eyes checked.

"months of meetings with stakeholders".. Do you own stock in Revolve or something? I see NOTHING in that new logo that would have came from any consults... There is just nothing there! "Do you want the dark blue on the left or right of the letters?" Thats about it. :koko:

So it's bellyaching when people write in that they think this new logo is crap, yet when you CONTINUOUSLY shit on the library and "Queen Judith", both here and in the Herald, it isnt? Because you happen to like said logo. Give your head a shake.

For the record I do like Toronto's bold text juxtaposed with city halls unique architecture. A derivative of that would be Halifax and the clock tower outline.

For a script logo, I really like Ottawa's. London's good too, but Id lose the "Canada's". At least both those logo's have some flare. Halifax's is just blah.

But dont let me seem too critical of of Revolve Branding... They do Great, Unique work. I mean, its not like they stole Orange's logo when they did Eastlink's new one!!! Eastlink is blue and that K is totes different:sly:

http://mediaserver.pulse2.com/uploads/2009/11/orange-logo.jpg

http://thegeorgetownconference.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/eastlink-298x300.jpg

OldDartmouthMark
Apr 20, 2014, 11:10 PM
I actually like the new Halifax better than those of the other cities shown here. Would still prefer actual "A"s, but realize what they were trying to do here.

Let's see what it looks like once the transformation is in place... it'll probably look good on police cars, city vehicles and such.

Keith P.
Apr 21, 2014, 1:12 PM
If you dont think they are the same, you should have YOUR eyes checked.

"months of meetings with stakeholders".. Do you own stock in Revolve or something? I see NOTHING in that new logo that would have came from any consults... There is just nothing there! "Do you want the dark blue on the left or right of the letters?" Thats about it. :koko:

Demonstrating my point about the shocking ignorance of the public once again, I see. They weren't consulting about graphic design features. They wanted to know how people felt about this place. Which, based on reactions like yours, must have been a pretty depressing process.

So it's bellyaching when people write in that they think this new logo is crap, yet when you CONTINUOUSLY shit on the library and "Queen Judith", both here and in the Herald, it isnt? Because you happen to like said logo. Give your head a shake.


My criticism of that project isn't based simply on the "Waaaah, I don't like it! My KID could have done better!" bellyaching I see from the likes of you. It is based on budgets and process and cost and need. Try to keep up.

Hali87
Apr 21, 2014, 5:54 PM
Is it a good logo if most people think it looks bad though?

counterfactual
Apr 21, 2014, 7:09 PM
Is it a good logo if most people think it looks bad though?

Do you think that is the case? Has there been polling done? I don't think it's true. I think we hear from the whiners because we love to whine in this city. And then the silent majority of people who think it looks good or fine, or "fine enough, have better things to do than to write letters of support.

Also, the logo doesn't pander to anyone, so there are no groups with vested interest to defend it. For example, if it had a reference to the bridges, I'm sure the FRIEND OF HALIFAX BRIDGES group would be letter writing or something.

PS: If I see one more complaint about the money spent on this should be used for potholes... The people who think the sole role of City Government is to fill potholes are the people who vote for Rob Ford and Peter Kelly and are part of the reason why we've had such crappy City Government, urban planning, and city economic development for so long.

ILoveHalifax
Apr 21, 2014, 8:45 PM
Moderator, I don't think these last couple of posts have anything to do with Halifax

scooby074
Apr 21, 2014, 9:34 PM
Demonstrating my point about the shocking ignorance of the public once again, I see. They weren't consulting about graphic design features. They wanted to know how people felt about this place. Which, based on reactions like yours, must have been a pretty depressing process.



My criticism of that project isn't based simply on the "Waaaah, I don't like it! My KID could have done better!" bellyaching I see from the likes of you. It is based on budgets and process and cost and need. Try to keep up.

Reactions like mine? Its not only me. Look around. Maybe they should have asked opinions about the logo? Its an obvious flop. Wants and needs? We need the new library considerably more than this logo.

The Logo sucks. My kid COULD have done better, anyone's kid could have done better. Its a complete rip off of the Samsung logo. A joke for $300k, even $10k, the number that was thrown around for the graphic itself.

Whilst I think this is a complete waste of money given just how deep we are in red ink and how much other stuff should come first, if the logo itself was decent it could be tolerated, but the logo is NOT decent. Its crap.

There are lots of great City logos in this thread. Vancouver's, Ottawa's and Toronto's for example. Halifax's new pair of pants logo isn't close to being the same calibre.

scooby074
Apr 21, 2014, 9:37 PM
Is it a good logo if most people think it looks bad though?

Exactly. It isnt. People need to feel a connection to a good logo. This new one lacks that connection.

fenwick16
Apr 21, 2014, 9:52 PM
Do you think that is the case? Has there been polling done? I don't think it's true. I think we hear from the whiners because we love to whine in this city. And then the silent majority of people who think it looks good or fine, or "fine enough, have better things to do than to write letters of support.

.
.
.

PS: If I see one more complaint about the money spent on this should be used for potholes...
.
.
.

For many people the money spent is not a factor. After all the money spent on re-branding isn't just for the logo. However, I am not sure that the majority of people actually like the logo.

When people on this forum read the description of the logo did anyone have the following impression pop into their mind - "The logo. The new Halifax logo is bold in its simplicity. Like our region, the logo is not cluttered, over-embellished or contrived. Its strength is in its simplicity, and its simplicity makes a bold statement. Clean, geometric lines bring quiet strength, energy and balance. It has subtle nods to upward momentum and forward progress. While the colour palette is based on bright colours from our local environment and nature, the base colours are shades of blue, which represent our many lakes, the ocean and the sky." The only way to understand the logo is by reading the thoughts expressed by the designer (http://halifaxdefined.ca/#why). For that reason it is contrived (which is what it is not supposed to be). A definition of contrived - "Obviously planned or calculated; not spontaneous or natural; labored" (source - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contrived).

Keith P.
Apr 21, 2014, 11:31 PM
Exactly. It isnt. People need to feel a connection to a good logo. This new one lacks that connection.

Yeah, because if it hasn't been universally embraced after 6 days, it's obviously a failure. Let's scrap it and get someone's kid to design one with bridges and lighthouses and waves and kingfishers. Yeah, that's the ticket!!

OldDartmouthMark
Apr 21, 2014, 11:40 PM
I agree that we need to give it time. I wasn't a fan of it at first, but it's growing on me, upside-down V's and everything...

I haven't read through the documentation, but will the rebranding mean a shift in colours for city vehicles as well?

counterfactual
Apr 21, 2014, 11:42 PM
For many people the money spent is not a factor. After all the money spent on re-branding isn't just for the logo. However, I am not sure that the majority of people actually like the logo.

When people on this forum read the description of the logo did anyone have the following impression pop into their mind - "The logo. The new Halifax logo is bold in its simplicity. Like our region, the logo is not cluttered, over-embellished or contrived. Its strength is in its simplicity, and its simplicity makes a bold statement. Clean, geometric lines bring quiet strength, energy and balance. It has subtle nods to upward momentum and forward progress. While the colour palette is based on bright colours from our local environment and nature, the base colours are shades of blue, which represent our many lakes, the ocean and the sky." The only way to understand the logo is by reading the thoughts expressed by the designer (http://halifaxdefined.ca/#why). For that reason it is contrived (which is what it is not supposed to be). A definition of contrived - "Obviously planned or calculated; not spontaneous or natural; labored" (source - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contrived).

Fenwick, come on. All marketing and branding is contrived. Almost by definition. Why would anyone in their right mind pay $300K for an improvised or "spontaneous" new logo?

Hali87
Apr 22, 2014, 7:20 PM
Do you think that is the case? Has there been polling done? I don't think it's true. I think we hear from the whiners because we love to whine in this city. And then the silent majority of people who think it looks good or fine, or "fine enough, have better things to do than to write letters of support.

Also, the logo doesn't pander to anyone, so there are no groups with vested interest to defend it. For example, if it had a reference to the bridges, I'm sure the FRIEND OF HALIFAX BRIDGES group would be letter writing or something.

PS: If I see one more complaint about the money spent on this should be used for potholes... The people who think the sole role of City Government is to fill potholes are the people who vote for Rob Ford and Peter Kelly and are part of the reason why we've had such crappy City Government, urban planning, and city economic development for so long.

I'm not basing this off anything scientific, just the fact that every single person I've talked to about it reacted negatively. Maybe not "I hate this" but definitely a lot of "it would make more sense as a logo for the airport". I haven't heard anything exclusively positive about it from a single person that I know, and I wouldn't consider my friends to be particularly conservative or afraid of change or what have you. It's just not a particularly good logo from a design standpoint.

scooby074
Apr 22, 2014, 10:25 PM
Yeah, because if it hasn't been universally embraced after 6 days, it's obviously a failure. Let's scrap it and get someone's kid to design one with bridges and lighthouses and waves and kingfishers. Yeah, that's the ticket!!

You know when you hit a home run when it leaves the bat... This logo isnt a home run, it's a strike out.

Empire
Apr 23, 2014, 10:14 PM
Time for a good chuckle. Here is a logo I did for an HRM amalgamation logo contest in 1997.
- yes it is far too busy
- once I started I included everything from Ecum-Secum to Peggy's Cove with a strong pillar of Halifax in the middle
- in light of the simplicity of our new logo we are lucky it doesn't look like mine
- and yes, that's the Bluenose telling time


Sketch by Empire 1997:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/ckempton1/IMG_0001_zps187a42a1.jpg (http://s1172.photobucket.com/user/ckempton1/media/IMG_0001_zps187a42a1.jpg.html)

worldlyhaligonian
Apr 24, 2014, 12:03 AM
Best in the world:

http://typophile.com/files/i__amsterdam_logo_6294.jpg

counterfactual
Apr 24, 2014, 12:42 AM
Best in the world:

http://typophile.com/files/i__amsterdam_logo_6294.jpg

I unsure. What means.

Keith P.
Apr 24, 2014, 1:40 AM
I unsure. What means.

You have to be stoned to have it make sense I guess.

MountPleasant
Apr 24, 2014, 2:26 AM
New logo is fantastic— really sends a strong message about the City's desire to progress

...We redesigned ours a few years back:
http://atlanticcanadashowcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Saint-John-Discover.jpg

MountPleasant
Apr 24, 2014, 2:52 AM
and yeah.. Amsterdam's is right bold

halifaxboyns
Apr 24, 2014, 3:15 AM
I've always liked the new Saint John logo. Has that historic seafaring past but the guy in the pic is looking (almost like looking to the future). Always a fave. :)

counterfactual
Apr 24, 2014, 3:34 AM
New logo is fantastic— really sends a strong message about the City's desire to progress

...We redesigned ours a few years back:
http://atlanticcanadashowcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Saint-John-Discover.jpg

That's great, but why did make your fellow there play the Clarinet? Is this sort of an ode to Saint John's musical future?

....

:runaway:

hokus83
Apr 25, 2014, 12:17 AM
Does any expect thy'll be anymore major development proposals in the next few years or do you think what there is now and the rumors of a few other proposals will be the last we'll have for the next few decades. Does development come in spurts in Halifax like a small a amount once every 20 years?

someone123
Apr 25, 2014, 2:11 AM
Does any expect thy'll be anymore major development proposals in the next few years or do you think what there is now and the rumors of a few other proposals will be the last we'll have for the next few decades. Does development come in spurts in Halifax like a small a amount once every 20 years?

I keep reading "no cranes for 20 years" type canards in the media but they're untrue. There has been a steady stream of residential projects in the urban core since 2000 or so. For example, around 2000 there were buildings like Garden Crest and the Waterford and around 2004-2005 there was the Martello and Paramount. Even if you don't consider Spring Garden Road to be downtown, there have been buildings like the Marriott hotel on Sackville Street. There was also a new office building that went up on Market Street around 2001 and a few of the residential towers have contained small amounts of office and commercial space.

I have a feeling the residential buildings will keep coming because the city is still growing and urban living is becoming more and more attractive.

Office buildings do seem more cyclical. Apparently a bunch of these proposals are coming forward now because the leases for the banks are running out. I don't think this pace of office development is sustainable, although it's hard to predict what will happen in the future. Halifax's economy is predicted to be much stronger in the coming years than it was back in the 1990's when there was relatively little construction.

Drybrain
Apr 25, 2014, 12:37 PM
I hope that office space centralizes more in the core, but with TD Waterside and Nova Centre and 1592 Barrington and Espace coming online or being built, and projects like Commerce Square and Westhill on Duke planned and likely to be built, our already high downtown office vacancy rates(well over 10 percent, compared to the mid single digits in most cities) are going to go even higher.

Even with a decently humming urban economy and a trend back to the core, there's going to be a lot of space compared with demand, so I imagine office development is going to slow a lot.

But I think residential development is going to continue--we may be seeing an unusually large amount of planned projects now due to pent-up demand getting satisfied, but as the city sees a trend toward more urban living options, I think a reasonable pace of development will continue--partly due to population growth, but partly just due to a re-orientation of the city's existing population.

Colin May
Apr 25, 2014, 12:52 PM
Cogswell Interchange documents at HRM Executive Cttee Monday April 28

http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/SCadmin/140428escAgenda.html

3 documents to download

Drybrain
Apr 25, 2014, 1:19 PM
Cogswell Interchange documents at HRM Executive Cttee Monday April 28

http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/SCadmin/140428escAgenda.html

3 documents to download

Cool doc. The historic photos again depict how insane the scale of destruction was when Cogswell/Scotia Square were built. We really lost our collective mind as city builders back then. The stretch of Barrington knocked down was almost as impressive as what we still have south of George Street.

Good to see the re-built historic grid, filled with dense mixed-use development, being recommended over mega-blocks. Hope the suggestion of a Dundas Square-esque area doesn't come to fruition, however. Downtown has enough gathering space, and Dundas Square is a terrible template for that sort of thing anyway. Just a bunch of irritating electro-billboards.

Colin May
Apr 25, 2014, 1:39 PM
Cool doc. The historic photos again depict how insane the scale of destruction was when Cogswell/Scotia Square were built. We really lost our collective mind as city builders back then. The stretch of Barrington knocked down was almost as impressive as what we still have south of George Street.

Good to see the re-built historic grid, filled with dense mixed-use development, being recommended over mega-blocks. Hope the suggestion of a Dundas Square-esque area doesn't come to fruition, however. Downtown has enough gathering space, and Dundas Square is a terrible template for that sort of thing anyway. Just a bunch of irritating electro-billboards.
The media haven't clued on to the documents because they are all listed in the agenda for the Exec Cttee and no press release in the HRM Media Room page.

IanWatson
Apr 25, 2014, 3:02 PM
Cogswell Interchange documents at HRM Executive Cttee Monday April 28

http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/SCadmin/140428escAgenda.html

3 documents to download

Lots of roundabouts. Keith will be pleased ;)

I haven't had more than a skim of the document so I look forward to reading it in more detail this weekend. What I'm skimmed past looks pretty awesome though.

someone123
Apr 25, 2014, 3:51 PM
Don't have time to look at the report in detail but here's one of the renderings. Looks pretty good:

http://imageshack.com/a/img842/7717/45dl.png

hokus83
Apr 25, 2014, 4:27 PM
A lot more green space than I would have liked, looks a little too spread out. Isn't block A where the International Place is meat to be, it looks like they are messing with the site plans for that area a lot, putting a walk way through part of it and reducing the area of the building, I thought the International Place was going to be right up against Barrington Place, are they allowed to mess with a approved proposal like that.

Drybrain
Apr 25, 2014, 4:50 PM
It's a bit more boulevard-y looking than I'd like to see at ground level (where a more intimate, urban scale is preferable) and the towers look a bit dated, but I assume this isn't really a rendering of exactly what to expect--more of a hypothetical.

Really, the worst thing would be to over-think it. Just rebuild some of the lost streets to restore walkability, get some well-designed buildings with streetfront-facing uses, and no setbacks along Barrington, Brunswick and Water, and a variety of building scales (i.e., not all highrises; should be mid- and high-rises to create aesthetic variety, and not have it look like some mono-block). Just create a finer urban grain and put some good buildings with good street interaction down, at a variety of sizes.

I agree there really isn't much need for green space. There's plenty already nearby.

ILoveHalifax
Apr 25, 2014, 6:05 PM
I am not seeing any tall buildings.
Thought we would see some 30, 40 50 stories.

Colin May
Apr 25, 2014, 6:33 PM
There is very little green space on the HRM properties and most of it is surrounds the sewage treatment plant. HRM owns 9 of the 14 properties and the green space to the south of the sewage plan is an NSP sub station.

Wolkenkratzerliebhab
Apr 25, 2014, 7:01 PM
That's great, but why did make your fellow there play the Clarinet? Is this sort of an ode to Saint John's musical future?

....

:runaway:

It's not a clarinet, he's looking through a telescope! :cheers:

Drybrain
Apr 25, 2014, 7:06 PM
I am not seeing any tall buildings.
Thought we would see some 30, 40 50 stories.

At the risk of re-starting the eternal tall buildings debate, I think that A: There's only so much demand for new residential coming on the market at the same time, so a bunch of gigantic towers may be untenable, and B: This is about fixing the area's broken urbanism and, really, creating a whole new neighbourhood. A few towers would be great, but height is very far from being the major concern here. Look at what was done to Toronto's St. Lawrence neighbourhood in the 70s--a brilliant example of wholesale community-building, and no significant towers at all, just consistent density. Ditto for the current East Donlands development.

It would be really unfortunate to turn this into another pissing match over height.

Keith P.
Apr 25, 2014, 11:25 PM
Lots of roundabouts. Keith will be pleased ;)


Exactly. This is beyond ridiculous. This is the downtown core, not some suburban greenspace. Two effing roundabouts taking up a ton of real estate - with one apparently on a sidehill by the entrance to the Dockyard! That ought to be a joy. Plus the usual wasted space on bike lanes, and parkland everywhere. Give me a break. This is a DOWNTOWN. The inmates again grabbed the keys to the asylum. I can only imagine how the container trailers will navigate thru this mess. Only a cursory mention of any kind of transit focus, and no mention at all of future rail links. Massive fail.

Keith P.
Apr 25, 2014, 11:28 PM
It would be really unfortunate to turn this into another pissing match over height.

The document rules out anything tall by default by saying that Halifax is a low-and-medium rise city. While there may indeed be questions of demand and capacity, these lots are the only ones in HRMxD that allow anything even approaching a high-rise. If this is accepted, I presume it takes that opportunity away.

hokus83
Apr 25, 2014, 11:51 PM
The worst of all this is 19 months of technical design work and 4 years of demolition work with 13 years of proposals pending approvals and construction on top of all of this so right of the bat we're looking at 20 year time frame this area of town to be redeveloped to fit right into the the old have some new development every 20 years. The time allotted for design work and demolition is a effing long time that could only come out of the stupidity of Halfiax. All the demolition work should be done and finished by next year and there should be tenders put out for proposals this year. All this redevelopment should be finished in 5 year not 20 years but I have a feeling it will stretch out to be 30 years or more of a ugly slow-paced construction zone.

ILoveHalifax
Apr 26, 2014, 12:33 AM
Probably decades longer once the downtown garden club, or restore the ancients slums, or nothing over 3 stories, or bicycles only, groups get into action.

Colin May
Apr 26, 2014, 1:20 AM
The worst of all this is 19 months of technical design work and 4 years of demolition work with 13 years of proposals pending approvals and construction on top of all of this so right of the bat we're looking at 20 year time frame this area of town to be redeveloped to fit right into the the old have some new development every 20 years. The time allotted for design work and demolition is a effing long time that could only come out of the stupidity of Halfiax. All the demolition work should be done and finished by next year and there should be tenders put out for proposals this year. All this redevelopment should be finished in 5 year not 20 years but I have a feeling it will stretch out to be 30 years or more of a ugly slow-paced construction zone.
Did you read any of the reports ?
The issue of timing of development is not dreamed up by HRM, it is an analysis by people who have intimate knowledge of the real estate market.
Try this as a starter : http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/SCadmin/documents/CogswellReportAttachment1CogswellTransformed.pdf

From Section 6.5 page 102 : The Cogswell Lands Plan provides a feasible direction,
meeting the highest balance of municipal objectives set
by Council and the public for the Cogswell Interchange
Lands. Indications are that the redevelopment of these
public lands will have a positive impact on the region
while being financially feasible. A highly concentrated
mix of streets, public spaces, residential and commercial
activity will serve to knit the downtown, North End,
CFB Halifax Dockyard, and the waterfront together.
The addition of 2,500 persons in a desirable, compact,
and walkable new neighbourhood is one of several
initiatives contributing to Council’s goal of sustaining
and growing the regional centre. The release of six
acres of underutilized public lands to the market will
serve to attract more development to the downtown
and impact an additional six acres in the direct vicinity.
An anticipated 8-13 year build-out for redevelopment
reflects a realistic approach to market absorption and
market shifts.
Council has set the direction and a good number of
parameters for its demolition and redevelopment.
Therefore, it is not anticipated that MPS and LUB
changes will be dramatic if we choose to stick to the
direction Council has set.
There must be a public understanding that the
Municipality is embarking on a long term project to seek
long term benefits. This is not unlike other strategic
opportunities that are brought before Council. However,
like all development, the final details of cost and impact
will only be known at the end of the project. Therefore,
Council must make its decisions based on the best
information that it has available now and as the project
advances.
The Cogswell Transformed project is a city-scale urban
redevelopment initiative designed to change the focus
of the area from the car to people, trucks to transit
and active transportation, concrete to art, abandoned
patches of grass to beautiful open spaces, barriers to
connectivity, and ramps and overpasses to new places
to work and live. These new features better reflect our
community’s current priorities while anticipating our
priorities for future generations.

hokus83
Apr 26, 2014, 1:24 AM
I know its cost a bit but its not that time consuming to tare the thing down and pave some roads, you could probably have the whole tare down pave 100% competed over a 4 day long weekend. Just section off and close and redirect traffic for a weekend and bam done, maybe stretch some over final work for over a week, instead of dragging it out for 4 years. 4 years of demolition, 4 years, I can't get over how long and drawn out that timetable is. I thought this thing was coming down next year and now we have to wait for a 19 month technical date planning report, looking at this being 2017 when it starts to come down and 2021 when its completely torn down and 2023 when any proposals are finally approved, 2026 for the compilation of the first building

Colin May
Apr 26, 2014, 1:41 AM
I know its cost a bit but its not that time consuming to tare the thing down and pave some roads, you could probably have the whole tare down pave 100% competed over a 4 day long weekend. Just section off and close and redirect traffic for a weekend and bam done, maybe stretch some over final work for over a week, instead of dragging it out for 4 years. 4 years of demolition, 4 years, I can't get over how long and drawn out that timetable is. I thought this thing was coming down next year and now we have to wait for a 19 month technical date planning report, looking at this being 2017 when it starts to come down and 2021 when its completely torn down and 2023 when any proposals are finally approved, 2026 for the compilation of the first building
According to the experts the market demand is not there to support rapid development
I looked at residential property transfers in Halifax - former City boundaries- for the first 3 months of 2014 : January 129 February 127 March 128 Total 384 units and and 157 were not sales but transfers between relatives.
The 3 reports have a lot of detail and any criticism of the plan must be based on the details in the plan.

hokus83
Apr 26, 2014, 1:48 AM
According to the experts the market demand is not there to support rapid development
I looked at residential property transfers in Halifax - former City boundaries- for the first 3 months of 2014 : January 129 February 127 March 128 Total 384 units and and 157 were not sales but transfers between relatives.
The 3 reports have a lot of detail and any criticism of the plan must be based on the details in the plan.

its been established on here you know nothing about market demand and its kind of a null point to make anyways on transit infrastructure. You have one 21 story building already thats been approved that can't progress at all even if it wanted to until this Cogswell Interchange plan is done.

Colin May
Apr 26, 2014, 1:59 AM
its been established on here you know nothing about market demand and its kind of a null point to make anyways on transit infrastructure. You have one 21 story building already thats been approved that can't progress at all even if it wanted to until this Cogswell Interchange plan is done.
But did you read any of the 3 reports ?
What is your expertise compared with the International consultants ?
Go ahead and and present a well reasoned critique of the reports and people will listen, otherwise...............

counterfactual
Apr 26, 2014, 6:36 AM
Don't have time to look at the report in detail but here's one of the renderings. Looks pretty good:

http://imageshack.com/a/img842/7717/45dl.png

The "Cogswell Transformed" report talks a good game, and has a lot of interesting things in the report.

But after all that, this is the visualization they come up with? I don't like it. Really much at all.

It's an improvement over what's there. Yes. But what's there, is a concrete post-apocalyptic nightmare. I'd like to think we're setting our goals higher.

Like Drybrain said, too much like a boulevard, with massive setbacks. Why? Too low density. Why? I thought this area was supposed to be our "intense" residential density area? As in, we limit height everywhere because, well, once we get around to the Cogswell, this is where we're going to have some proper skyscrapers! Here we are, back at our typical 14-20 storeys. ZZZZzzz.

Also, as others said, too much useless green space in between roads. Who ever uses narrow green spaces bordered by major road arteries? Who is ever going to spend time near a fountain on a rotary island? Yes, yes, let me walk my kids in the useless Cogswell green spaces, dodging traffic, and breathing exhaust fumes. We don't need a G-d forsaken garden in Cogswell. Give me a break.

So much potential for this land. I don't see it here. Not with this vision.

Looks not so different from what is already there along Barrington towards the bridge; large setbacks, low density useless wasteland where no one spends any time. Disappointed.

counterfactual
Apr 26, 2014, 6:42 AM
There is very little green space on the HRM properties and most of it is surrounds the sewage treatment plant. HRM owns 9 of the 14 properties and the green space to the south of the sewage plan is an NSP sub station.

Oh yeah, I remember that. Peter Kelly, the Mayor from Bedford, deciding that downtown Halifax would be the best place for a sewage treatment plant.

He was keeping his suburban voters happy. Put it downtown. Who cares, right?

counterfactual
Apr 26, 2014, 6:56 AM
But did you read any of the 3 reports ?
What is your expertise compared with the International consultants ?
Go ahead and and present a well reasoned critique of the reports and people will listen, otherwise...............

I've read the Cogswell Reports. But a few things on these types of market assessments: I'm highly skeptical, particularly for Halifax.

First, the numbers can easily lie. The models easily jigged. As such, they have often been used and abused by the usual suspects as a means of opposing development or faster development. Whenever something over two storeys was proposed downtown, someone from Heritage or STV or whatever would appear with a new "market assessment" study, which, surprise, surprise, always seemed to suggest the market could not support whatever new residential units were being proposed. "It will suck up demand for 20 years!". I'm not casting aspersions on these reports, but there is good reason for skepticism.

Second, these assessments have gotten Halifax wrong more than once. A great example is the King's Wharf development. Consensus, including among consultants/local economists was those units would never sell, there is just no demand. Well, that turned out to be wrong laughably wrong. Frances Fares is selling out buildings before shovels are even in the ground.

In other words, these market assessment are highly speculative for major multi-year projects and their conclusions usually significantly qualified, simply because they are based on conditions and assumptions that can easily change, quickly too. So, when honestly done, these reports include conclusions that will be tentative at best.

This leads us back to the Cogswell Reports. They don't contain the detailed market assessment, so I cannot comment on the numbers.

But the reports do include a summary of the findings. The summer portion of the reports on market absorption rates and the market assessment are highly, highly, tentative and conditional. In fact, they basically admit their assessment of demand and absorption is just not predictable:

Market Absorption

Given the significance of the municipal infrastructure program and multi-year construction schedule it is difficult to precisely predict the lot sale and development program that follows. The market conditions will need to be continuously monitored and assumptions and revenue forecasts adjusted as required.

page: 102, Cogswell Transformed Report.

So, why not get it built faster?

counterfactual
Apr 26, 2014, 7:02 AM
At the risk of re-starting the eternal tall buildings debate, I think that A: There's only so much demand for new residential coming on the market at the same time, so a bunch of gigantic towers may be untenable, and B: This is about fixing the area's broken urbanism and, really, creating a whole new neighbourhood. A few towers would be great, but height is very far from being the major concern here. Look at what was done to Toronto's St. Lawrence neighbourhood in the 70s--a brilliant example of wholesale community-building, and no significant towers at all, just consistent density. Ditto for the current East Donlands development.

It would be really unfortunate to turn this into another pissing match over height.

I think *some* more significant height is warranted for this area, because we just don't have zoning for it anywhere else on the peninsula. This is it. This is all we have.

I'm not saying we need to plaster this with a bunch of condo towers-- it can be a mix-- but a bunch of midrise developments? Blah. Blah. Blah.

BTW, I'm all for consistent density and community building. I don't see it in this vision...

Colin May
Apr 26, 2014, 1:47 PM
Oh yeah, I remember that. Peter Kelly, the Mayor from Bedford, deciding that downtown Halifax would be the best place for a sewage treatment plant.

I'd call him an idiot again, but I don't think it had anything to do with his stupidity. He was just keeping his suburban voters happy. Put it downtown. Who cares, right?
Kelly didn't make the decision. There are several sewage plants around the harbour and they have to be adjacent to the water. It was an engineering and cost decision. The land was, and is, owned by the city Where else could they put it ?
The Cogswell plan is estimated to bring 2,500 people downtown.
I don't doubt there will be criticism of the plan and if you feel strongly about it send your thoughts and suggestions to mayor Savage and write to your councillor.

Drybrain
Apr 26, 2014, 6:10 PM
The "Cogswell Transformed" report talks a good game, and has a lot of interesting things in the report.

But after all that, this is the visualization they come up with? I don't like it. Really much at all.

It's an improvement over what's there. Yes. But what's there, is a concrete post-apocalyptic nightmare. I'd like to think we're setting our goals higher.

Like Drybrain said, too much like a boulevard, with massive setbacks. Why? Too low density. Why? I thought this area was supposed to be our "intense" residential density area? As in, we limit height everywhuere because, well, once we get around to the Cogswell, this is where we're going to have some proper skyscrapers! Here we are, back at our typical 14-20 storeys. ZZZZzzz.

Also, as others said, too much useless green space in between roads. Who ever uses narrow green spaces bordered by major road arteries? Who is ever going to spend time near a fountain on a rotary island? Yes, yes, let me walk my kids in the useless Cogswell green spaces, dodging traffic, and breathing exhaust fumes. We don't need a G-d forsaken garden in Cogswell. Give me a break.

So much potential for this land. I don't see it here. Not with this vision.

Looks not so different from what is already there along Barrington towards the bridge; large setbacks, low density useless wasteland where no one spends any time. Disappointed.

I may backtrack ever so slightly on the 'no green space' stuff. The report mentions a square at the triangle lands north of Granville as an entryway into the pedestrian mall, and given the street's grandeur, some large visual terminus might be good there, especially if it creates a view corridor into Granville from higher elevations further north--could be a really, robustly urban perspective into downtown.

I also like that the report talks about restoring the typical, unusually short ' halifax Block', which it indicates is part of what makes downtown so walkable.

And I'm not too worried about the rendering--Ekistics seems to use the same models and renders for all its studies, from this to the corner of Spring Garden and Grafton to the Sydney waterfront. Even that thing in the Emirates or wherever. All depicted some of the same buildings.

Anyway, yeah, setbacks = bad idea. I earlier used Toronto's St. Lawrence neighbourhood as an example of how to build a great neighbourhood from scratch. The corollary (how NOT to build a neighbourhood from scratch) would be what's happening now along Queens Quay in Toronto. A big wide road with mostly crappy mid rises and big streetwall setbacks. Bremner Boulevard through CityPlace is similar, only with crappy skyscrapers. In both cases, building height is irrelevant to the area's success--it's crummy design in other areas.

Anyway, the report seems to support building to ramparts max as long as there's market demand, and as long the buildings scale down somewhat approaching the north end, so as not to create big weird wall between the two areas.

Personally, I'd like a great, consistent string of high-quality mid rises, bookended by tall point towers at the street corners.

counterfactual
Apr 26, 2014, 6:24 PM
Kelly didn't make the decision. There are several sewage plants around the harbour and they have to be adjacent to the water. It was an engineering and cost decision. The land was, and is, owned by the city Where else could they put it ?
The Cogswell plan is estimated to bring 2,500 people downtown.
I don't doubt there will be criticism of the plan and if you feel strongly about it send your thoughts and suggestions to mayor Savage and write to your councillor.

Does it make sense-- from a cost perspective-- to put a sewage plant smack in the middle of an area that will eventually be *prime* development real estate in 10-20 years? That's a cost effective decision? That seems to me, from a development perspective, highly stupid. You're handicapping land value that could, in the future, constitute a rich revenue and tax base.

We don't often make decisions in Halifax based on economic development. We don't often make hard choices that now that would lead to better returns tomorrow. We make cheap, easy, path of least resistance decisions that keep current voter bases happy. And that, to me, is what went on with this decision. It may have been cost effective for 2001 or 2002, but not for 2014 and beyond. Is it so difficult to think ahead 10 years?

I don't know all the details, but you mean to tell me there was no other comparable site for the sewage plant anywhere along the harbour with comparable costing? Even if it would be more expensive elsewhere in the near term, I think that makes more sense than this decision.

No, the decision was not taken by Kelly alone. It was voted by an HRM Council, but without guidance or leadership from the (then) new Mayor. And they're complicit in supporting the decision.

And now from the Harbour Solutions Report, concerning selection of location for the different Sewage Treatment Plants.

"The STPs will be designed to restrict odour and noise. They will also be designed and landscaped to be compatible with surrounding land uses."

Report, page 11 https://www.halifax.ca/harboursol/documents/ea_federal_screening_001.pdf

Doesn't sound like a costing decision to me?

And then later, in the "Summary of Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements", this:

"Selection of location for outfalls and diffusers within areas with sufficient depth and currents to promote dispersion as well as to avoid sensitive areas (e.g. Narrows / Bedford Basin, Northwest Arm)."

Report, page 42: https://www.halifax.ca/harboursol/documents/ea_federal_screening_001.pdf


Bingo. So, it was one part engineering, one part being "sensitive" to certain areas. Gee, I wonder why Bedford Basin (which constitutes the entire inner portion of the harbour) was designated a "sensitive" area. Hmm?

Of course, these are the reports for Council. We can be excused for lacking knowledge of true details of decisions made on this count, given that decisions on all of these counts were taken, as usual, in secretive "IN CAMERA" sessions, as per usual, during Peter Kelly's Secretive Non-Transparent Regime:

http://www.halifax.ca/harboursol/HSCouncilDecisions2003.html

I should add one thing -- the report indicates that HRM did not own all the lands upon which the STPs were constructed. The report indicates, at that time, they were in the process of "acquiring" some. So, it's no excuse to say that HRM had no choice but to put the STPs in these locations because they owned the land. Again, that would make it more costly, but my point, is that this is a shortsighted way to doing the numbers.

someone123
Apr 26, 2014, 7:35 PM
And I'm not too worried about the rendering--Ekistics seems to use the same models and renders for all its studies, from this to the corner of Spring Garden and Grafton to the Sydney waterfront.

Yes, these are conceptual renderings meant to show how lots might be divided up and what sort of massing the buildings could have. They're not detailed renderings of the building designs. That should be left to the developers to decide based on their needs at the time. The important thing right now is just to come up with a good framework for the street network and transit, public spaces, and decide what the hard constraints on things like building heights will be (I think they should be ramparts max in a good percentage of this land).

There are some "Granville Square" site plans shown in one of the reports. They look great.

I agree that the downtown sewage treatment plant was a poor decision that lacked vision. A lot of people thought the same thing back when it was proposed. It may have cost less in terms of dollars up front but it was not the best option in terms of opportunity cost because it destroyed a disproportionate amount of land value and development potential. It's not the end of the world and it can probably be improved as the neighbourhood is built up but it could have been a lot better.

worldlyhaligonian
Apr 27, 2014, 10:42 AM
The "Cogswell Transformed" report talks a good game, and has a lot of interesting things in the report.

But after all that, this is the visualization they come up with? I don't like it. Really much at all.

It's an improvement over what's there. Yes. But what's there, is a concrete post-apocalyptic nightmare. I'd like to think we're setting our goals higher.

Like Drybrain said, too much like a boulevard, with massive setbacks. Why? Too low density. Why? I thought this area was supposed to be our "intense" residential density area? As in, we limit height everywhere because, well, once we get around to the Cogswell, this is where we're going to have some proper skyscrapers! Here we are, back at our typical 14-20 storeys. ZZZZzzz.

Also, as others said, too much useless green space in between roads. Who ever uses narrow green spaces bordered by major road arteries? Who is ever going to spend time near a fountain on a rotary island? Yes, yes, let me walk my kids in the useless Cogswell green spaces, dodging traffic, and breathing exhaust fumes. We don't need a G-d forsaken garden in Cogswell. Give me a break.

So much potential for this land. I don't see it here. Not with this vision.

Looks not so different from what is already there along Barrington towards the bridge; large setbacks, low density useless wasteland where no one spends any time. Disappointed.

I agree. The first bit looks ok to the left... but then it just looks like they gave up... there is no urbanity and quite frankly does not look like an area that would be nice to walk on.

This doesn't even take into account the lack of density!