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

Empire
Dec 28, 2015, 9:19 PM
Couple of Halifax sunsets:
Photos by Empire...pls excuse the quality.

Downtown from Woodside ferry....new convention centre far left
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/1_zpsl6xpmqbo.jpg (http://s132.photobucket.com/user/empire1_2007/media/1_zpsl6xpmqbo.jpg.html)

South end of Downtown....Fenwick tower far left
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/2_zpsefjlezog.jpg (http://s132.photobucket.com/user/empire1_2007/media/2_zpsefjlezog.jpg.html)

1801 Hollis in centre of photo
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/IMG_4610-1.jpg (http://s132.photobucket.com/user/empire1_2007/media/IMG_4610-1.jpg.html)

Rapelling down 1801 for charity
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/1801_zpsx9m0snr6.jpg (http://s132.photobucket.com/user/empire1_2007/media/1801_zpsx9m0snr6.jpg.html)

fenwick16
Dec 28, 2015, 10:01 PM
Couple of Halifax sunsets:
Photos by Empire...pls excuse the quality.
.
.
.

Even though the re-purposed NS Power Inc. headquarters isn't overly tall, it really stands out when lit up at night. I think this has to be one of the best reuses of an old structure in all of Canada.

portapetey
Jan 3, 2016, 12:09 AM
The Junior Ranks development doesn't seem to get much attention here, and doesn't seem to have its own thread. I drove past this evening and was surprised to see how big it is now.

I see our dmajackson has some older updates on it on his blog:

http://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/tagged/JuniorRanks

It seems to be topped out and has quite a bit of the cladding finished now, since those pics were taken.

counterfactual
Jan 4, 2016, 5:51 PM
Last day to send in comments for this Quinpool development!

http://shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/quinpool6067

portapetey
Jan 7, 2016, 4:27 PM
Nice little bit of recognition to celebrate for something in our downtown:

http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax/2016/01/06/mural-artwork-in-halifax-nabs-international-praise.html

HaliStreaks
Jan 8, 2016, 7:34 AM
Nice little bit of recognition to celebrate for something in our downtown:

http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax/2016/01/06/mural-artwork-in-halifax-nabs-international-praise.html

I heard about this! Fantastic news! Although I read the article about this on the CBC as well and they had a lot more to say about the people that felt negatively towards this art piece. I don't (and never have, really) understand the mentality of people around here.. at all. :shrug:

fenwick16
Jan 8, 2016, 12:28 PM
Nice little bit of recognition to celebrate for something in our downtown:

http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax/2016/01/06/mural-artwork-in-halifax-nabs-international-praise.html


Here is a link showing the top 20 - https://www.facebook.com/allcitycanvas/videos/791226700988976/?theater from their Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/allcitycanvas/#_=_

OldDartmouthMark
Jan 8, 2016, 1:30 PM
I heard about this! Fantastic news! Although I read the article about this on the CBC as well and they had a lot more to say about the people that felt negatively towards this art piece. I don't (and never have, really) understand the mentality of people around here.. at all. :shrug:

To what 'mentality' are you referring? In our society shouldn't people have the right to express their opinions on something, especially something that is so prominent in our downtown?

I have to say that graffiti/urban art doesn't appeal to my tastes, but I understand that not everybody shares my taste. I'm happy for their international recognition, but I'm not going to lie and tell you I think it's beautiful.

Regarding the article, somebody speaking passionately at a bar after a few "wobbly pops" shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. And hey, he compared Halifax people to the people of Paris in their expression of their opinions towards art... shouldn't that be taken as a compliment?

Sorry, but I can't agree with your negativity regarding Haligonians.

Here's a link to the CBC article, for those who haven't seen it:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/freak-lunchbox-mural-online-recognition-1.3391843

Hali87
Jan 9, 2016, 1:49 AM
^It was more an issue of conflicting tastes than conflicting mentalities, IMO.

Probably a lot of people were sad to see the old mural go, a lot of people don't find the new one particularly appealing (I do, but I can see why others wouldn't). Some are probably upset that the space was awarded to a Montreal artist and not a local one. Some probably love the juxtaposition of this with Province House and City Hall (and the oldest building in the city) right there next to it - so hip and unexpected! - while others probably find that tacky and offensive.

It's a conversation starter, for sure.

Edit: expanding on this, part of the "problem" is that it was the removal of something that tended to appeal to the older generations and its replacement with something that tends to appeal much more to the younger ones, and generally less to the older ones (though of course there are exceptions).

Colin May
Jan 9, 2016, 2:06 AM
^It was more an issue of conflicting tastes than conflicting mentalities, IMO.

Probably a lot of people were sad to see the old mural go, a lot of people don't find the new one particularly appealing (I do, but I can see why others wouldn't). Some are probably upset that the space was awarded to a Montreal artist and not a local one. Some probably love the juxtaposition of this with Province House and City Hall (and the oldest building in the city) right there next to it - so hip and unexpected! - while others probably find that tacky and offensive.

It's a conversation starter, for sure.
We need at least another dozen; get people talking, looking,disagreeing,thinking.
Many years ago I lived in a town of 140,000 where the council bought a Henry Moore sculpture and put it at the steps to the library. Generated a lot of talk and media coverage across the country and beyond.

Hali87
Jan 9, 2016, 2:12 AM
We need at least another dozen; get people talking, looking,disagreeing,thinking.
Many years ago I lived in a town of 140,000 where the council bought a Henry Moore sculpture and put it at the steps to the library. Generated a lot of talk and media coverage across the country and beyond.


I'm fairly sure there are "dozens more", if you keep your eyes open.
This one is probably the boldest/loudest, but there are plenty of murals ("traditional" and otherwise) around the city.

Dmajackson
Jan 9, 2016, 9:44 PM
3138 Isleville

http://56.media.tumblr.com/01efcd08b315b213de889effe58c6c54/tumblr_o0jy2byYIL1tvjdq8o1_1280.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (http://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

someone123
Jan 9, 2016, 9:51 PM
This one is nicely scaled and I think it's a positive addition to the area, but the quality of finishes on "faux historic" new builds like this always seems to be kind of low. I wonder if or when there will be a new building that gets the Hal Forbes type treatment? It should be possible, and aesthetically it makes perfect sense to go all in like that. If they're not going to add that kind of rich detailing I think architects should just avoid historic styles and build something modern that's suited to the simpler building materials that are easiest and cheapest to put up today.

Dmajackson
Jan 9, 2016, 9:56 PM
The Junior Ranks development doesn't seem to get much attention here, and doesn't seem to have its own thread. I drove past this evening and was surprised to see how big it is now.

I see our dmajackson has some older updates on it on his blog:

http://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/tagged/JuniorRanks

It seems to be topped out and has quite a bit of the cladding finished now, since those pics were taken.

http://40.media.tumblr.com/50a4dfd62de52ee493570ab7c7303b1e/tumblr_o0pef2GSIV1tvjdq8o1_1280.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (http://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

Drybrain
Jan 9, 2016, 10:02 PM
This one is nicely scaled and I think it's a positive addition to the area, but the quality of finishes on "faux historic" new builds like this always seems to be kind of low. I wonder if or when there will be a new building that gets the Hal Forbes type treatment? It should be possible, and aesthetically it makes perfect sense to go all in like that. If they're not going to add that kind of rich detailing I think architects should just avoid historic styles and build something modern that's suited to the simpler building materials that are easiest and cheapest to put up today.

This is about two blocks from my house, and it looks pretty bad when contrasted with the buildings its trying to emulate. The one with Mother's Pizza on Young Street is okay, but this one is very poor. I really hope builders in the area knock this off, because it'd look ridiculous if the real Hydrostone strip on Young Street were slowly surrounded by a bunch of cheap-looking knockoffs.

I'd be all for the faux-historic thing if it were done sparingly, and builders really went all-out and made them look genuinely historic and high-quality (i.e., the Forbes route). Otherwise, forget it.

someone123
Jan 9, 2016, 10:21 PM
This is about two blocks from my house, and it looks pretty bad when contrasted with the buildings its trying to emulate. The one with Mother's Pizza on Young Street is okay, but this one is very poor. I really hope builders in the area knock this off, because it'd look ridiculous if the real Hydrostone strip on Young Street were slowly surrounded by a bunch of cheap-looking knockoffs.

I'd be all for the faux-historic thing if it were done sparingly, and builders really went all-out and made them look genuinely historic and high-quality (i.e., the Forbes route). Otherwise, forget it.

I wonder if this is the kind of thing that a design review committee would reject if the Centre Plan required design reviews or if this sort of quality is too subtle for even the best planning regimes in the city? The quality downtown seems to be better but I'm not sure if that's because HRM by Design is forcing developers' hands or because the projects themselves are simply more valuable and there's a bigger economic incentive to using better materials and creating better designs.

Development agreements in other parts of the city are so vague that you can't say much about qualitative aspects of new buildings. The developers will agree to use things like "stone or material with a stone-like appearance", which could mean sandstone or could mean hideous precast. When the Marriott hotel at Argyle and Sackville was proposed it was originally sold as a "brick and sandstone" building, and the early renderings looked kind of like the building at Barrington and Prince. In some abstract quantitative respects those two buildings are very similar but in reality they are like night and day in terms of built quality.

Ziobrop
Jan 9, 2016, 11:16 PM
sadly the richmond area seems to be getting alot of buildings with low quality finishes.
they look good in the renderings, but when built are crap.

i also dont get the tudor thing. sure if you were building right across the street from the hydrostone, you want to fit in, but nither of these buildings are that close. so why?

Keith P.
Jan 10, 2016, 1:15 AM
You could be right, but Chedrawe is definitely right about the pointlessness of view planes in this direction.

For me, I think the best way to preserve the BMO, and actually to make it more grand, would be for it to be incorporated into a larger tower development. It would be podium for a higher tower. Would be great here.

Until some mayor or provincial government comes along who has the guts to finally take on, and reign in, the idiotic view planes, we will have worse developments, and developers will still have an excuse to hide behind.

Well, if this bunch gets their way, forget about all that:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-library-neighbouring-development-1.3396207

Sweet mother of god, only in Halifax. I think all the nuts now roll to the right coast.

Hali87
Jan 10, 2016, 2:42 AM
Ugh. Everything about the Doyle Block redevelopment seems like such a failure. I really wish the developer, city, and/or HT could have come to some sort of compromise, à la Vic (as in, cooperating and actually saving some heritage + an excellent development) to save parts of the original structures. If that had been achieved then I don't think as many people would be annoyed with losing that particular view. But at this point, blocking the view is kind of adding insult to injury and a lot more people are going to be bothered by that simply because they don't like the development in the first place.

At least the building design is relatively nice. Imagine if he'd proposed a clone of the Gottingen/Falkland building.

portapetey
Jan 10, 2016, 5:08 AM
sadly the richmond area seems to be getting alot of buildings with low quality finishes.
they look good in the renderings, but when built are crap.

i also dont get the tudor thing. sure if you were building right across the street from the hydrostone, you want to fit in, but nither of these buildings are that close. so why?

They could at least add some diagonal braces and make it look like a swiss chalet.

Keith P.
Jan 10, 2016, 3:17 PM
And now Peggy Cameron, that noted development expert, weighs in too!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/southwest-ymca-advocate-staff-report-1.3397254

No wonder people want the CBC de-funded when they continually provide a platform to nuts like this.

teddifax
Jan 10, 2016, 5:15 PM
What do friends of the Common have to do with this?

fenwick16
Jan 10, 2016, 6:44 PM
What do friends of the Common have to do with this?

The CH story has to provide a title (co-chair person of the Friends of Halifax Common :uhh:) to someone who opposes almost every high density proposal on the Halifax peninsula. I think that it is amusing that the CH author refers to her as "an advocate for regulated development" whereas I would refer to her as an anti-development enthusiast.

counterfactual
Jan 11, 2016, 3:27 AM
And now Peggy Cameron, that noted development expert, weighs in too!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/southwest-ymca-advocate-staff-report-1.3397254

No wonder people want the CBC de-funded when they continually provide a platform to nuts like this.

I think Friends of the Common has a total membership of one -- Peggy Cameron.

Ziobrop
Jan 11, 2016, 2:45 PM
The key thing about the view planes is that the advocates are complaining in many cases about stuff that complies with the View Planes.

The planes are actual defined lines - not a blanket tough shall not build high rule.

counterfactual
Jan 15, 2016, 5:06 AM
Every once and a while, Halifax usually goes through a fit of self-reflection, wondering how we can be a "world class" city. Some will say we are in ways (** I think our library is world class... our public transit, however, is more third world class), most-- like Tim Bousquet the inveterate boosterism deflater (seen him being called that-- will say not. We are so, so, so, are NOT world class.

Funny: looks like Ottawa is in the midst of its own similar crisis/debate:

World-class whine: Why Ottawa’s haters are wrong
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/world-class-whine-why-ottawas-haters-are-wrong/

Hali87
Jan 24, 2016, 7:05 PM
https://scontent.fyhz1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlf1/t31.0-8/s960x960/12496225_10156409052470048_3212466458527213976_o.jpg
Source (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156409052470048&set=a.16858010047.72560.615005047&type=3&theater)

counterfactual
Jan 25, 2016, 2:50 AM
Hey Hali, if there was any question as to whether Halifax City bureaucrats are conservative and by-law zoning tyrants, then I think their aggressive prosecution of this little cafe in north end Dartmouth answers it:

https://twitter.com/Darkside_Cafe/status/691380481447845889

https://www.facebook.com/thedarksideartcafe/

Of course, I'm sure City bureaucrats are out in the business parks every single day, ensuring zoning restrictions are strictly complied with like a downtown cafe...

IanWatson
Jan 25, 2016, 12:58 PM
I've been trying to find out the complete story on the Darkside. It's quite clear that they break the zoning rules, but I'm trying to figure out what caused staff to look into it in the first place...

Keith P.
Jan 25, 2016, 3:13 PM
Could be nothing more than an out-of-control HRM bureaucrat. I had similar experience a few times dealing with people in HRM planning & development who do their own interpretations of bylaws and then dig in their heels. Miserable so and sos. :hell:

eastcoastal
Jan 25, 2016, 5:06 PM
I've been trying to find out the complete story on the Darkside. It's quite clear that they break the zoning rules, but I'm trying to figure out what caused staff to look into it in the first place...

What I think I understand from the links that were shared is:
1. It's approved as an art gallery with accessory food and beverage components
2. The city feels that the food and beverage is primary, instead of accessory, and is fining the business on this basis.

Anyone know anything different?

Seems like, if this is the case, that the business is bending the rules, but that it's a mismatch to fine them so heavily for what I'd consider a minor difference: "Oh, we sell art, but also coffee and cookies." "Oh, we are a cafe with art for sale on the walls."

No idea the personalities involved, but it could be a story of grudges and hidden agendas on both sides. I tend to root for the little guy (or gal) though, and I hope that a business that I'd expect to be of real benefit to the livability of a neighbourhood is able to survive and continue to provide value to the city that goes well beyond being good little zoning adherents. Particularly when we know that the rules can and should be examined THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS in the interest of a better city - isn't that what Development Agreements should be about (not that this is a DA)?

JET
Jan 25, 2016, 5:56 PM
What happens at the Darkside in the Darkside should be left to the Darkside; who's it hurting?

OldDartmouthMark
Jan 25, 2016, 6:11 PM
What happens at the Darkside in the Darkside should be left to the Darkside; who's it hurting?

Exactly. If it's providing a useful service to the neighborhood, and the neighbors are happy with it, the only zoning problem is that it's improperly zoned.

The city needs to step away from the letter of the law and look around to see what's really happening out there.

Hali87
Jan 25, 2016, 9:09 PM
Hey Hali, if there was any question as to whether Halifax City bureaucrats are conservative and by-law zoning tyrants, then I think their aggressive prosecution of this little cafe in north end Dartmouth answers it:

https://twitter.com/Darkside_Cafe/status/691380481447845889

https://www.facebook.com/thedarksideartcafe/

Of course, I'm sure City bureaucrats are out in the business parks every single day, ensuring zoning restrictions are strictly complied with like a downtown cafe...

This seems out of the ordinary, and frankly, I'm baffled. It's unusual for staff to be this inflexible unless the business in question is something along the lines of a strip club or an abattoir. I'm really not sure what the point of all this is, but (on the bright side, I guess?) I've never heard about this much trouble for this kind of business. Ultimately I think public opinion will be on the Darkside's, uh, side, making this whole process a huge waste of time and money. Hopefully it will also open the door to a discussion on revamping the zoning bylaws or allowing more flexibility within zones (which seemed to be the trajectory things were going prior to this case).

I've only really heard about this over the last couple days, but I'm wondering whether the Darkside knew about/understood the zoning restrictions, when/how they found out that they were in violation, and what options, if any, they were presented with. This kind of thing runs counter to the city's goals but is unfortunately in line with current policy.

Hali87
Jan 25, 2016, 9:14 PM
What I think I understand from the links that were shared is:
1. It's approved as an art gallery with accessory food and beverage components
2. The city feels that the food and beverage is primary, instead of accessory, and is fining the business on this basis.


I wonder what the situation is with other gallery/cafes in the region? I can think of a few, and the ones I'm thinking of are definitely "primarily cafes, with art", not vice versa.

Keith P.
Jan 25, 2016, 10:53 PM
My sense from reading all the online info I could find about this, and reading between the lines somewhat, is that the proprietors originally applied to open a cafe in the location and were turned down because the zoning would not allow it, even though it was zoned commercial. Apparently a cafe needs a parking lot, which this site did not have, along with other specific things other types of commercial operations do not need. Clearly it is foolish for plannng and development types to write down a laundry list of how a business is supposed to operate considering none of them have ever run a business, but no matter. This is the folly of the planning professions. "Those that can, do; those that can't, teach; those that can't teach, become planners."

In their wisdom, the planners told them that an art gallery does not require parking and the other things they were deficient in having for their cafe and offered that use up; the proprietors took it with an agreed provision for "accessory coffee service" whatever that means. They then set up a coffee shop with art for sale on the walls, and made, as best I can tell, a legitimate attempt to engage the arts community to use the space. But it was primarily a small neighborhood coffee shop. I have been there; it has something like 4 tables.

This apparently angered the planning dept and they set their bureaucrats loose on them to assess their coffee business versus their art business and to generally try to prove it is mostly a cafe. This was not hard to do I suspect. Where it gets fuzzy is whether HRM offered them a quick and easy development agreement to fix the issue or not; the proprietors are suggesting it was not, though they seem to have made some conflicting statements on that issue. The heavy hand of $47,000 in penalties is equally murky as to the source, though it is likely that the fine of $100/day in the bylaw has been merely extended to come up with the figure.

Such is the absurdity of dealing with city hall on such things, and HRM is by no means unique in this. The cafe seems to be welcomed and used by the community, so unlike many other bylaws, I suspect this action was not complaint-driven. Why the first move cannot be to look at the way it is used and the bylaw and try to solve the problem, I do not understand unless there are personality conflicts in play here.

terrynorthend
Jan 26, 2016, 12:13 AM
Could be nothing more than an out-of-control HRM bureaucrat. I had similar experience a few times dealing with people in HRM planning & development who do their own interpretations of bylaws and then dig in their heels. Miserable so and sos. :hell:

If you ever get a chance, listen to the NPR documentary "Petty Tyrant". I think it was part of the "This American Life" series. Astounding story about a bureaucrat in a New York state school district who terrorized everyone around him.

terrynorthend
Jan 26, 2016, 12:18 AM
...Apparently a cafe needs a parking lot...

Really? Tell that to Starbucks on Barrington.

planarchy
Jan 26, 2016, 1:17 AM
My sense from reading all the online info I could find about this, and reading between the lines somewhat, is that the proprietors originally applied to open a cafe in the location and were turned down because the zoning would not allow it, even though it was zoned commercial. Apparently a cafe needs a parking lot, which this site did not have, along with other specific things other types of commercial operations do not need. Clearly it is foolish for plannng and development types to write down a laundry list of how a business is supposed to operate considering none of them have ever run a business, but no matter. This is the folly of the planning professions. "Those that can, do; those that can't, teach; those that can't teach, become planners."

In their wisdom, the planners told them that an art gallery does not require parking and the other things they were deficient in having for their cafe and offered that use up; the proprietors took it with an agreed provision for "accessory coffee service" whatever that means. They then set up a coffee shop with art for sale on the walls, and made, as best I can tell, a legitimate attempt to engage the arts community to use the space. But it was primarily a small neighborhood coffee shop. I have been there; it has something like 4 tables.

This apparently angered the planning dept and they set their bureaucrats loose on them to assess their coffee business versus their art business and to generally try to prove it is mostly a cafe. This was not hard to do I suspect. Where it gets fuzzy is whether HRM offered them a quick and easy development agreement to fix the issue or not; the proprietors are suggesting it was not, though they seem to have made some conflicting statements on that issue. The heavy hand of $47,000 in penalties is equally murky as to the source, though it is likely that the fine of $100/day in the bylaw has been merely extended to come up with the figure.

Such is the absurdity of dealing with city hall on such things, and HRM is by no means unique in this. The cafe seems to be welcomed and used by the community, so unlike many other bylaws, I suspect this action was not complaint-driven. Why the first move cannot be to look at the way it is used and the bylaw and try to solve the problem, I do not understand unless there are personality conflicts in play here.


Great post. There often seems to be an inability on the part of development officers to use common sense in interpreting the regulations. It also seems to be common that they like to use small business to set examples, being overly punitive even when not required to do so by policy. This is a fundamental failure of planning, where public sector planners see themselves as regulators, looking for ways to say no (or being too afraid to say yes), rather than as enablers and public servants, helping people work within the rules for the best interest of the community.

worldlyhaligonian
Jan 26, 2016, 1:23 AM
Keith P has been on point lately.

For all the disagreements between members on this board... I'm certain we all dislike the bureaucrazy.

counterfactual
Jan 26, 2016, 3:51 AM
My sense from reading all the online info I could find about this, and reading between the lines somewhat, is that the proprietors originally applied to open a cafe in the location and were turned down because the zoning would not allow it, even though it was zoned commercial. Apparently a cafe needs a parking lot, which this site did not have, along with other specific things other types of commercial operations do not need. Clearly it is foolish for plannng and development types to write down a laundry list of how a business is supposed to operate considering none of them have ever run a business, but no matter. This is the folly of the planning professions. "Those that can, do; those that can't, teach; those that can't teach, become planners."

In their wisdom, the planners told them that an art gallery does not require parking and the other things they were deficient in having for their cafe and offered that use up; the proprietors took it with an agreed provision for "accessory coffee service" whatever that means. They then set up a coffee shop with art for sale on the walls, and made, as best I can tell, a legitimate attempt to engage the arts community to use the space. But it was primarily a small neighborhood coffee shop. I have been there; it has something like 4 tables.

This apparently angered the planning dept and they set their bureaucrats loose on them to assess their coffee business versus their art business and to generally try to prove it is mostly a cafe. This was not hard to do I suspect. Where it gets fuzzy is whether HRM offered them a quick and easy development agreement to fix the issue or not; the proprietors are suggesting it was not, though they seem to have made some conflicting statements on that issue. The heavy hand of $47,000 in penalties is equally murky as to the source, though it is likely that the fine of $100/day in the bylaw has been merely extended to come up with the figure.

Such is the absurdity of dealing with city hall on such things, and HRM is by no means unique in this. The cafe seems to be welcomed and used by the community, so unlike many other bylaws, I suspect this action was not complaint-driven. Why the first move cannot be to look at the way it is used and the bylaw and try to solve the problem, I do not understand unless there are personality conflicts in play here.

Thanks for this Keith.

I'm absolutely floored by how STUPID the relevant rules appear to be.

You need to have a freaking PARKING LOT to operate a small local cafe?

And the reaction of bureaucrats isn't outrage at the stupidity of the rules which would stand in the way of a nice local cafe, for an area that could use it, enjoy it. No, the outrage is at the business, selling some coffee, as an art gallery, without a parking lot.

Boggles the mind. Speechless. Truly.

Keith P.
Jan 26, 2016, 2:12 PM
Interesting that the Deputy Mayor, Matt Whitman, has gone on a bit of a social media campaign overnight to defend "the rules" and the staff involved, and to suggest that the proprietors were trying to circumvent process. Seems a strange strategy for an elected official to embrace.

Drybrain
Jan 26, 2016, 2:49 PM
Interesting that the Deputy Mayor, Matt Whitman, has gone on a bit of a social media campaign overnight to defend "the rules" and the staff involved, and to suggest that the proprietors were trying to circumvent process. Seems a strange strategy for an elected official to embrace.

He's a bit of a wildcard, that one. He can be a little too...impolitic, online.

portapetey
Jan 26, 2016, 3:06 PM
I would like to rail against the rules; a lot of them are stupid. And I'd like to rail against the bureaucrats; a lot of them are little tyrants.

That said, when I read the various stories about this case, including the cafe owner's own Facebook page, and when I look at the photos of the "art gallery", I am left with the impression that the owners said "hey, we want to open a cafe, and maybe sell some art too!" And the city said, "this isn't zoned for a cafe, but is is zoned for an art gallery - you can have an art gallery, and you can sell cups of coffee to your art gallery customers if you want, but the coffee can't be your primary purpose and product; otherwise, you can apply for a zoning amendment to try to work toward having a cafe."

And then the owners said, "Ok! We'll have an art gallery, and only sell coffee to our art gallery customers!", and then they went ahead and opened a cafe and threw some art up on the walls and pretended it was an art gallery. Occasionally, a cafe customer will buy a little piece of art, but most cafe customers do not. They sit and drink coffee, as one does in a cafe.

I'm not defending the city, not really, but my impression is that the owners have made a fairly bold and blatant attempt to just flout the rules - instead of actually challenging the rules through a process, or applying for an amendment - but they didn't fool the people who are supposed to enforce the rules.

I know I'm the odd man out here, but that is my read on the situation. I'd have to agree, based on the limited information we have, that it's likely true that "the proprietors were trying to circumvent process"

JET
Jan 26, 2016, 3:19 PM
It's on an odd stretch of road, where there is very mixed use: convenience stores, 'pawn' shop, Church, variety of residential; seems like most anything could fit.

portapetey
Jan 26, 2016, 3:41 PM
It's on an odd stretch of road, where there is very mixed use: convenience stores, 'pawn' shop, Church, variety of residential; seems like most anything could fit.

Yes, and I want to add, despite my previous post, that I think the very best "urban" environments are the ones that are a near-chaotic mix of anything and everything - residential, all types of commercial - little shops with grand storefronts, unassuming doorways leading into huge cavernous department stores, art, food, furniture, liquor, pharmacies, bars, book stores, electronics, even adult entertainment - anything goes. I love the variety and spice of a little-regulated stretch of urban madness.

But, if you are in a regulated area that is mostly small residential homes rather than a major urban artery, and you want to operate there, you can't just do whatever you want. You can work with the rules, or you can work to try to get them changed. You can't just ignore them. I'm not convinced the owners in this case made a good faith effort to go through the process; they seem to me to have just tried to see what they could get away with.

Go check it out on Google Maps Street view. https://goo.gl/maps/wjezw48Zcn92 To my eye, it is quite clearly far more a restaurant than anything else. And I think that would be OK, if it was actually supposed to be a restaurant, which it's not.

eastcoastal
Jan 26, 2016, 3:56 PM
My sense from reading all the online info I could find about this, and reading between the lines somewhat, is that the proprietors originally applied to open a cafe in the location and were turned down because the zoning would not allow it, even though it was zoned commercial. Apparently a cafe needs a parking lot, which this site did not have, along with other specific things other types of commercial operations do not need. Clearly it is foolish for plannng and development types to write down a laundry list of how a business is supposed to operate considering none of them have ever run a business, but no matter. This is the folly of the planning professions. "Those that can, do; those that can't, teach; those that can't teach, become planners."

In their wisdom, the planners told them that an art gallery does not require parking and the other things they were deficient in having for their cafe and offered that use up; the proprietors took it with an agreed provision for "accessory coffee service" whatever that means. They then set up a coffee shop with art for sale on the walls, and made, as best I can tell, a legitimate attempt to engage the arts community to use the space. But it was primarily a small neighborhood coffee shop. I have been there; it has something like 4 tables.

This apparently angered the planning dept and they set their bureaucrats loose on them to assess their coffee business versus their art business and to generally try to prove it is mostly a cafe. This was not hard to do I suspect. Where it gets fuzzy is whether HRM offered them a quick and easy development agreement to fix the issue or not; the proprietors are suggesting it was not, though they seem to have made some conflicting statements on that issue. The heavy hand of $47,000 in penalties is equally murky as to the source, though it is likely that the fine of $100/day in the bylaw has been merely extended to come up with the figure.

Such is the absurdity of dealing with city hall on such things, and HRM is by no means unique in this. The cafe seems to be welcomed and used by the community, so unlike many other bylaws, I suspect this action was not complaint-driven. Why the first move cannot be to look at the way it is used and the bylaw and try to solve the problem, I do not understand unless there are personality conflicts in play here.

After some additional reading online, I've come to much the same understanding. I have seen the city's spokesperson (Tiffany Chase) quoted in the press saying that the first application, for a cafe, included a floor plan - it was turned down as it didn't meet the criteria AT THE TIME, but the owners were told they could go through a process to apply to have a cafe allowed. The application for a gallery with supplementary refreshments had a different floor plan and was approved. What was constructed was the floor plan submitted for the application that was not approved.

I think that a cafe is probably an appropriate use for the location, so the rule is inappropriate in this case. But, that doesn't mean it can be ignored without consequence.

I hope that an agreement can be reached to allow the business to operate within the framework of current zoning - perhaps a wrist slap and some sort of (vastly reduced) fine.

Keith P.
Jan 26, 2016, 3:59 PM
Yes, and I want to add, despite my previous post, that I think the very best "urban" environments are the ones that are a near-chaotic mix of anything and everything - residential, all types of commercial - little shops with grand storefronts, unassuming doorways leading into huge cavernous department stores, art, food, furniture, liquor, pharmacies, bars, book stores, electronics, even adult entertainment - anything goes. I love the variety and spice of a little-regulated stretch of urban madness.

But, if you are in a regulated area that is mostly small residential homes rather than a major urban artery, and you want to operate there, you can't just do whatever you want. You can work with the rules, or you can work to try to get them changed. You can't just ignore them. I'm not convinced the owners in this case made a good faith effort to go through the process; they seem to me to have just tried to see what they could get away with.

Go check it out on Google Maps Street view. To my eye, it is quite clearly far more a restaurant than anything else. And I think that would be OK, if it was actually supposed to be a restaurant, which it's not.


I would be inclined to agree with your reading of what happened in regard to the proprietors and their intent. However I disagree with your conclusion given that rules are usually changed when someone is violating them and the govt cannot find any valid reason for maintaining them. Think of Pete's and the Sunday shopping debacle; think of the old early closing bylaws in Halifax; think of the U-vint laws. It is often impossible to get laws changed unless and until there is a public outcry for change, and the most effective way to do that is to bend or break the rules that make no sense. This sounds like such a situation.

portapetey
Jan 26, 2016, 4:21 PM
I would be inclined to agree with your reading of what happened in regard to the proprietors and their intent. However I disagree with your conclusion given that rules are usually changed when someone is violating them and the govt cannot find any valid reason for maintaining them. Think of Pete's and the Sunday shopping debacle; think of the old early closing bylaws in Halifax; think of the U-vint laws. It is often impossible to get laws changed unless and until there is a public outcry for change, and the most effective way to do that is to bend or break the rules that make no sense. This sounds like such a situation.

Oh, I think the rules likely need to be changed, and I hope the cafe owners get some political will behind them to try to make the case for that.

I'm just not convinced the cafe owners shouldn't be fined in the meantime. I also can't help but wonder what kinds of regulatory fees or taxes or insurance or what have you they might be avoiding by calling themselves an art gallery. (I don't know the business, so this is obviously pure speculation.)

JET
Jan 26, 2016, 5:23 PM
It was a construction company that was there before, this is an improvement.

"if you are in a regulated area that is mostly small residential homes rather than a major urban artery" Windmill Road is a major artery, and this section isn't mostly anything in particular.

portapetey
Jan 26, 2016, 5:36 PM
It was a construction company that was there before, this is an improvement.

"if you are in a regulated area that is mostly small residential homes rather than a major urban artery" Windmill Road is a major artery, and this section isn't mostly anything in particular.

You're right it is an artery; I supposed I should have said "heavily developed" or something.

This little section is mostly homes, apartments, and a church. That's what the restaurant is surrounded by on either side.

In any case, thats not the point; the point is that they are operating a restaurant that they claimed was going to be an art gallery.

Should they be "allowed" to run a restaurant here? Yes, probably. But that's not what they got permission to do at this time.

Let's hope to see the rule changed.

Keith P.
Jan 26, 2016, 6:17 PM
Should they be "allowed" to run a restaurant here? Yes, probably. But that's not what they got permission to do at this time.

Let's hope to see the rule changed.


This is the part I am having trouble understanding. The comms lady from HRM said yesterday that the development agreement process was available and with the payment of a fee would have gone through most likely, and quickly, but that the proprietors did not pursue that (paraphrasing). My question is, if that statement is in fact true, why they would not just do that. Seems a no-brainer.

JET
Jan 26, 2016, 7:17 PM
This is the part I am having trouble understanding. The comms lady from HRM said yesterday that the development agreement process was available and with the payment of a fee would have gone through most likely, and quickly, but that the proprietors did not pursue that (paraphrasing). My question is, if that statement is in fact true, why they would not just do that. Seems a no-brainer.

There was mention of a meeting today to try to resolve this. My hope is that the proper paperwork will get done, and there will be no fine; maybe the amount of press there has been will be good for business.

IanWatson
Jan 26, 2016, 8:06 PM
I'm mostly trying to stay out of the debate about this one. My one contribution: The area is currently zoned R1. However, my reading of the Dartmouth MPS is that a development agreement to allow neighbourhood convenience uses (which I would read to include cafes) is a possibility on this site.

EDIT: I see that Keith mentioned this merely two posts above!

fenwick16
Jan 31, 2016, 3:56 PM
According to Explore HRM a building permit has been issued for 5540 Kaye Street for a commercial building with no dwelling units valued at $1'350'862.

Does this match what your source told you?

I see that you have a construction update on this project - http://36.media.tumblr.com/e81956bca55133e6d5409c5c7cc76009/tumblr_o1s0ddCfh31tvjdq8o1_1280.jpg on your tumblr page - http://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/

I haven't been able to find a project rendering, does anyone have one?

someone123
Jan 31, 2016, 7:41 PM
I see that you have a construction update on this project - http://36.media.tumblr.com/e81956bca55133e6d5409c5c7cc76009/tumblr_o1s0ddCfh31tvjdq8o1_1280.jpg on your tumblr page - http://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/

I haven't been able to find a project rendering, does anyone have one?

According to Google, Michael Napier Architecture had offices here. Maybe it's a new office building for them?

fenwick16
Jan 31, 2016, 11:52 PM
According to Google, Michael Napier Architecture had offices here. Maybe it's a new office building for them?

If it is, then hopefully it will be a nicely designed little building.

Jonovision
Feb 3, 2016, 11:29 PM
They've dug a decent sized hole now in front of Scotia Square for the addition.

https://41.media.tumblr.com/adebfc1f14bd316b728cf97b877b21f0/tumblr_o1zplp0SIy1sk8kjeo1_1280.jpg

https://41.media.tumblr.com/f99000183d539023c2ad09c37f5aa454/tumblr_o1zplp0SIy1sk8kjeo2_1280.jpg

Northend Guy
Feb 4, 2016, 4:11 PM
According to Google, Michael Napier Architecture had offices here. Maybe it's a new office building for them?

My understanding is that Napier sold the property. Not sure who is doing the design work for this. My understanding is that is a multistorey (4-6) office building, and if I recall what I heard correctly it will be a mainly glass/curtainwall building. We'll see how well memory serves...

someone123
Feb 4, 2016, 7:09 PM
My understanding is that Napier sold the property. Not sure who is doing the design work for this. My understanding is that is a multistorey (4-6) office building, and if I recall what I heard correctly it will be a mainly glass/curtainwall building. We'll see how well memory serves...

Interesting. I don't think there was a development agreement for this property so I would guess that it is an as-of-right development limited to about 4 floors (40 feet IIRC).

Metalsales
Feb 4, 2016, 7:36 PM
Design work was done by Studioworks. First three levels are a Spa with upper level office space. 6 storys total.

Front is mostly glass with a small glazing area on one side and around back at top levels.

someone123
Feb 5, 2016, 3:45 AM
Not sure if this rendering of the Doyle redevelopment has been posted yet:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/555f3a1be4b0246ef3117558/t/56253a00e4b05d8f59834bcf/1445280262980/Board+2.png

http://www.springgardenarea.com/new-development/

counterfactual
Feb 5, 2016, 5:11 AM
Not sure if this rendering of the Doyle redevelopment has been posted yet:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/555f3a1be4b0246ef3117558/t/56253a00e4b05d8f59834bcf/1445280262980/Board+2.png

http://www.springgardenarea.com/new-development/

Uh, why the hell are the A/C exhaust fans and garage doors facing SGR?

Is this rendering backwards or something?

IanWatson
Feb 5, 2016, 12:39 PM
Uh, why the hell are the A/C exhaust fans and garage doors facing SGR?

Is this rendering backwards or something?

I don't think they are. Those look like wood louvre cladding with really poorly rendered store logos on them.

IanWatson
Feb 5, 2016, 12:42 PM
Also, I wonder if those three trees will make it through demo and construction. They are currently existing trees, but they're pretty close to the building.

Keith P.
Feb 5, 2016, 2:08 PM
Also, I wonder if those three trees will make it through demo and construction. They are currently existing trees, but they're pretty close to the building.


Well, the library took out all the trees on their side of the street without a whimper, so fair is fair I guess.

OldDartmouthMark
Feb 5, 2016, 2:29 PM
I don't think they are. Those look like wood louvre cladding with really poorly rendered store logos on them.

I think you're right, as there is no sign of a driveway opening in this view from the site someone123 linked to:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/555f3a1be4b0246ef3117558/t/56253c33e4b0afdac08ed897/1445280825042/?format=500w

Not a high-resolution image so it's difficult to determine details, other than it's kind of ugly. :2cents:

counterfactual
Feb 5, 2016, 3:41 PM
I think you're right, as there is no sign of a driveway opening in this view from the site someone123 linked to:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/555f3a1be4b0246ef3117558/t/56253c33e4b0afdac08ed897/1445280825042/?format=500w

Not a high-resolution image so it's difficult to determine details, other than it's kind of ugly. :2cents:

It's like they're moving the ugly old CBC building from South Park over to SGR.

OldDartmouthMark
Feb 5, 2016, 3:50 PM
It's like they're moving the ugly old CBC building from South Park over to SGR.

...after stripping away any character it may have had.

Welcome to the 1970s all over again! :D

IanWatson
Feb 5, 2016, 3:56 PM
Well, the library took out all the trees on their side of the street without a whimper, so fair is fair I guess.

I'm definitely all for preserving street trees when we can, but I would indeed say it'd be fair for them to remove these. That being said (and really the point of my comment), is I have a huge dislike of renderings that show trees that aren't or won't be there. I get that renderings are glossy sales images, but they should at least be honest. Non-existent trees and the disappearance of surrounding buildings are, in my mind, big sins when it comes to a lot of renderings.

kph06
Feb 12, 2016, 12:52 PM
http://40.media.tumblr.com/50a4dfd62de52ee493570ab7c7303b1e/tumblr_o0pef2GSIV1tvjdq8o1_1280.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (http://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

This crane came down yesterday.

beyeas
Feb 12, 2016, 3:46 PM
:previous:
sets the a new record for blandest building in Halifax.

ns_kid
Feb 12, 2016, 6:01 PM
:previous:
sets the a new record for blandest building in Halifax.

I'll second that. I was astonished watching this building take shape. Stalinesque is how I described it.

OldDartmouthMark
Feb 12, 2016, 6:34 PM
I'll second that. I was astonished watching this building take shape. Stalinesque is how I described it.

I agree, but the problem is that if it were made more attractive everybody would be complaining about the government wasting money to make the building look attractive... ;)

IanWatson
Feb 12, 2016, 6:44 PM
It's especially frustrating because they got the officers' mess building so right. The officers' mess building is not overly flashy, but is done well and is one of those supporting buildings that will stand the test of time and leads to an overall pleasing skyline.

worldlyhaligonian
Feb 12, 2016, 7:42 PM
The mid-rise version of vinyl siding? :shrug:

mr.wheels
Feb 12, 2016, 9:35 PM
It complements the lower building.

Jonovision
Feb 12, 2016, 10:49 PM
Saw this in a newsletter today.
http://wspengage.civicly.io/midtown-north

It seems Westwood is planning something big up at Robie and Almond. I assume they are referring to the old Piercys site but I'm not entirely sure.

kph06
Feb 12, 2016, 11:46 PM
Saw this in a newsletter today.
http://wspengage.civicly.io/midtown-north

It seems Westwood is planning something big up at Robie and Almond. I assume they are referring to the old Piercys site but I'm not entirely sure.

I think this is for the old Acadian Lines depot. There may be some more buildings in the area they bought.

Jonovision
Feb 14, 2016, 4:01 PM
I think this is for the old Acadian Lines depot. There may be some more buildings in the area they bought.

The ad I saw said the corner of Almond and Robie, so maybe they own the whole line of buildings?

kph06
Feb 14, 2016, 4:10 PM
The ad I saw said the corner of Almond and Robie, so maybe they own the whole line of buildings?

I think you're right. If I remember correctly he bought Acadian Lines a year or two ago, and a month or so ago they announced he bought a lot of properties from Joe Shannon (Shannex).

Colin May
Feb 14, 2016, 9:51 PM
Nov 30 2015 he bought 6050 Almon, 6070 Almon, 61,00 Almon, 6061 St Albans, for $6,000,000.
Add in the bus station and a few adjacent properties and he now has a large development opportunity. In November and December he spent over $10,000,000 buying the Almon properties and Ben's.

Or it could be proposed development following the sale of Colonial Honda on Robie, the 8 properties were bought February 1 2016 for $9.19 million : 2657 Robie and 2671 Fern Lane & 2692 FERN LANE

Keith P.
Feb 14, 2016, 11:38 PM
Interesting. Those properties in that section of town have always been shabby commercial space for the most part, which probably served a purpose for the types of businesses that were found there - marginal local operations, but the low rent probably allowed them to survive. Those properties are immediately adjacent to Gladstone Ridge but I hope he doesn't just recycle those designs. Whatever goes there, it will certainly transform this section of the city.

Drybrain
Feb 15, 2016, 3:05 AM
Nov 30 2015 he bought 6050 Almon, 6070 Almon, 61,00 Almon, 6061 St Albans, for $6,000,000.
Add in the bus station and a few adjacent properties and he now has a large development opportunity. In November and December he spent over $10,000,000 buying the Almon properties and Ben's.

Or it could be proposed development following the sale of Colonial Honda on Robie, the 8 properties were bought February 1 2016 for $9.19 million : 2657 Robie and 2671 Fern Lane & 2692 FERN LANE

I'm predisposed against Westwood because of the BS Chedrawe is pulling on Spring Garden, but genuinely, I'm not sure it's healthy for one property owner to own so much in a particular area. Besides that the neighbourhood's fortunes are far too tied to the whims of one company or individual, it also means that inless the developer is especially committed to good design (which Westwood certainly isn't) it's almost a guarantee of monolithic development rather than a real finer urban scale.

Colin May
Feb 15, 2016, 4:00 AM
I'm predisposed against Westwood because of the BS Chedrawe is pulling on Spring Garden, but genuinely, I'm not sure it's healthy for one property owner to own so much in a particular area. Besides that the neighbourhood's fortunes are far too tied to the whims of one company or individual, it also means that inless the developer is especially committed to good design (which Westwood certainly isn't) it's almost a guarantee of monolithic development rather than a real finer urban scale.

I don't know who bought the Colonial Honda properties but I do know that HRM has long term plans to widen Robie Street from West Street to Almon. It will be interesting to see how HRM handles development proposals for properties on both sides of Robie from North to Almon.
HRM is now faced with protecting or abandoning their interest in widening Robie.
An interesting situation.
Council has shown no interest in aesthetics, I doubt many of them have stepped in an art gallery in the past decade. Someone should ask each councillor to name their 3 favourite towns/cities, with reasons. Or ask them if they know the name Frank Gehry.

Keith P.
Feb 15, 2016, 2:17 PM
I'm predisposed against Westwood because of the BS Chedrawe is pulling on Spring Garden

Yes, we need to protect the view of the AC unit and service shack on the roof of the NSSL building for the library patrons sipping their lattes!! :rolleyes:

I don't know who bought the Colonial Honda properties but I do know that HRM has long term plans to widen Robie Street from West Street to Almon. It will be interesting to see how HRM handles development proposals for properties on both sides of Robie from North to Almon.
HRM is now faced with protecting or abandoning their interest in widening Robie.


It is certainly desperately needed from Charles north to Almon. That is a true bottleneck for the main N-S street in the city. There is little of architectural value in that area to prevent a tear-down and the commercial properties could certainly afford to sacrifice a few feet for a wider ROW.

Colin May
Feb 15, 2016, 9:11 PM
The Rob Steele purchase of Colonial Honda closed on February 1 2016.
http://www.steeleauto.com/colonial.html

Ziobrop
Feb 15, 2016, 11:22 PM
I don't know who bought the Colonial Honda properties but I do know that HRM has long term plans to widen Robie Street from West Street to Almon. It will be interesting to see how HRM handles development proposals for properties on both sides of Robie from North to Almon.
HRM is now faced with protecting or abandoning their interest in widening Robie.
An interesting situation.
Council has shown no interest in aesthetics, I doubt many of them have stepped in an art gallery in the past decade. Someone should ask each councillor to name their 3 favourite towns/cities, with reasons. Or ask them if they know the name Frank Gehry.

Colonial Honda was Purchased by Steele - it will remain a Honda dealarship
The properties in question in part include the one and 2 store metal sided commercial buildings on Almon across from Canada post. I know one business was told to vacate at the end of april.

Colin May
Feb 16, 2016, 1:15 AM
Colonial Honda was Purchased by Steele - it will remain a Honda dealarship
The properties in question in part include the one and 2 store metal sided commercial buildings on Almon across from Canada post. I know one business was told to vacate at the end of april.
Are you referring to my earlier post re the Almon properties or the properties on Fern, May and Robie ? I presumed Westwood bought the properties on Almon.

Steele bought up other properties on May and Fern since 2014.
The Colonial property was bought by one of his companies, Dynamic Properties.
I haven't finished checking the all the May street properties from Robie to Fern but he does own 2696 May and 2697 Robie. I'll take a guess and say he owns all the properties bounded by Colonial, May and the west side of Fern.
On the east side of Fern he owns 2671 Fern as part of the purchase of Colonial, on the west side the deal included 2692 Fern.
A choice location for new residential development, a better use than an auto dealership.
And then there is the north side of McCully.

Northend Guy
Feb 19, 2016, 1:39 PM
I'm not sure what order Westwood is intending to develop the properties in this area. I have however, seen details on what they are planning for this property. (6100 Almon) 6 storey, 30 unit, with ground floor retail.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6560084,-63.6003935,3a,75y,91.98h,85.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7zrYvPM6idy795PgODJ8hg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

hokus83
Feb 19, 2016, 5:09 PM
I'm not sure what order Westwood is intending to develop the properties in this area. I have however, seen details on what they are planning for this property. (6100 Almon) 6 storey, 30 unit, with ground floor retail.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6560084,-63.6003935,3a,75y,91.98h,85.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7zrYvPM6idy795PgODJ8hg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Lol might as well leave that building as is, will look just as tacky as whatever Westwood puts in place

OldDartmouthMark
Feb 19, 2016, 8:29 PM
Halifax's Emera Oval sees more visits this year, so far

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/skating-up-at-oval-1.3454478

From the article:
http://i.cbc.ca/1.3454500.1455901872!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_620/skating-statistics.jpg

Keith P.
Feb 19, 2016, 9:08 PM
Halifax's Emera Oval sees more visits this year, so far


Drove past it this beautiful sunny afternoon, virtually deserted.

OldDartmouthMark
Feb 19, 2016, 9:29 PM
Drove past it this beautiful sunny afternoon, virtually deserted.

Perhaps the patrons were working or in school?

Keith P.
Feb 19, 2016, 11:21 PM
Perhaps the patrons were working or in school?

Perhaps. Or perhaps there just aren't many patrons.

OldDartmouthMark
Feb 20, 2016, 12:12 AM
Perhaps. Or perhaps there just aren't many patrons.

:haha: Can't argue with that... however I wonder how this compares to other forms of entertainment.

For example, how many people would you expect to find in a movie theatre on a weekay afternoon? Or, how many Metro ...errrr... Scotiabank Centre events are held on weekday afternoons? etc. etc.

I'm thinking, like most forms of entertainment, that the bulk of attendance happens on evenings and weekends. :hmmm:

I wouldn't exactly call over 100,000 visits from December to February a dismal failure... :2cents:

HaliStreaks
Feb 20, 2016, 12:17 AM
Drove past it this beautiful sunny afternoon, virtually deserted.

That's like driving past a bar at 9am on a wednesday and going "well, looks like nobody's there drinking, that place is clearly pointlessly existing"

Keith P.
Feb 20, 2016, 12:35 AM
That's like driving past a bar at 9am on a wednesday and going "well, looks like nobody's there drinking, that place is clearly pointlessly existing"

So you are suggesting it only gets people using it on weekends and holidays?

I would have expected a much broader appeal for the $15 million it cost.

TheNovaScotian
Feb 20, 2016, 3:28 AM
You're still beating that dead horse? :koko:

musicman
Feb 20, 2016, 5:04 AM
I've gone about a dozen times this year and it has been crazy busy every single time, weeknights and weekends. They do most of their maintenance during the day. They also have adult speed skating, and other various things that generaly would not pull in huge crowds.

The horse is dead and buried. Give it up.