[halifaxboyns]

In light of the series which CBC did on infrastructure and the cost to replace the Gardiner in Toronto - I too am glad that we never got Harbour Drive.

That being said the transportation system does need to be rethought in dealing with how you get people to and from downtown and I am one who believes road capacity isn't going to do it.

I think others have also pointed out that the overall system doesn't seem to be thought about either. So you widen Bayer's Road - but what about the other bottlenecks down the line...its these things that also seem to get missed so all you end up doing is moving the log jam somewhere else. Personally, I'd like to see some transit investment first. Get something like regional rail or HS ferries, LRT or some combination there of going before you start widening the road.

[q12]

I would actually like to see Highway 102 connect to the Windsor Street Exchange.

Then Bayers Road could be more of an exit than the end of the Highway. That way the highway could be nearly continuous all the way to Woodside on Highway 111. There is a lot of traffic that connects from the Mackay Bridge to Highway 102 daily.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1981/102ext.jpg

[Keith P.]

The above is what was proposed a few years ago. The late erik Nielsen, the former MP who retired to Halifax, drew up a similar plan which was actually quite brilliant. It sacrificed a relatively small number of houses and utilized the land behind the Superstore to connect to a presumably redesigned Windsor St exchange. Naturally, nothing was done.

[halifaxboyns]

The above is what was proposed a few years ago. The late erik Nielsen, the former MP who retired to Halifax, drew up a similar plan which was actually quite brilliant. It sacrificed a relatively small number of houses and utilized the land behind the Superstore to connect to a presumably redesigned Windsor St exchange. Naturally, nothing was done.

I recall that somewhat - but I don't remember the alignment. I wonder if there is a diagram somewhere on the internet?

[sdm]

In light of the series which CBC did on infrastructure and the cost to replace the Gardiner in Toronto - I too am glad that we never got Harbour Drive.

That being said the transportation system does need to be rethought in dealing with how you get people to and from downtown and I am one who believes road capacity isn't going to do it.

I think others have also pointed out that the overall system doesn't seem to be thought about either. So you widen Bayer's Road - but what about the other bottlenecks down the line...its these things that also seem to get missed so all you end up doing is moving the log jam somewhere else. Personally, I'd like to see some transit investment first. Get something like regional rail or HS ferries, LRT or some combination there of going before you start widening the road.

The lots mostly along part of bayers road were done with the intentions of widening the road in the future. If you look you can see a number of the lawns of houses on bayers road are owned and managed by HRM. This isn't a new concept (1950's era i believe).

Part of the problem is people are leaving the core because its hard to get to. Increasing transit is the first priority, however its of no benefit if the chose of transit is going to be caught in these traffic/ bottle necks. Like you said Halifaxboyns, the best solution is LRT.

[goosnarrggh]

I don't know what they were thinking 60 years ago when they ended the 102 at bayer's road which in fact isn't even on the peninsula yet. They should have built the 102 to connect right through to barrington street and the mackay bridge. If you look at google maps, they could have done that before they built the Joe Howe Superstore. Then they should have built Harbour Drive, which would have been designated as part of Hwy 102 and take cars right into downtown.

The original plan was for Hwy 102 to continue along the roadway that is currently designated as Connaught Avenue, and it was going to extend all the way to the current Pt. Pleasant container terminal, via the CN Rail cut. Originally, the 2nd harbour bridge would have originated there, crossing over to Woodside, perhaps with a pit stop on MacNab's Island to open it up for development. (The MacKay bridge's current location was considered after all these plans fell apart.)

Landowners south of Jubilee fought that plan, refusing to sell the property which would have allowed Connaught to be extended into the CN cut. They lobbied to have the land designated as a park, which effectively shut down that idea.

Instead, the compromise idea was to extend the Hwy 102 designation along Connaught as far as Quinpool, and then use Quinpool to connect Hwy 102 to Harbour Drive. As late as the late 1980s (at least), provincial road atlases still showed Connaught, Quinpool, and several other streets, as non-controlled-access segments of Hwy 102. The directional signs are still standing.

[gm_scott]

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?q=connaught&mkt=en-CA&FORM=BYFD#JndoZXJlMT1Db25uYXVnaHQrQXZlJTJjK0hhbGlmYXglMmMrTlMlMmMrQjNMJmJiPTQ0LjY1MTA1NzM3ODQyMTklN2UtNjMuNjAwNTE2NzEwOTkxNiU3ZTQ0LjY0MzMzMTk0MzI4MDYlN2UtNjMuNjE0OTk0MDkwMTYyNA==
Wow, I have never noticed this until now. Connaught Avenue is marked as the 102, which continues into Quinpool, then Cogswell, then Upper Water, then Sackville, and finally Bell. The 102 apparently makes a complete loop around the Citadel. very interesting

[q12]

http://novascotia.ca/news/release/?id=20130328002

Joseph Howe Interchange Upgrade Begins April 1

Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal
March 28, 2013 11:36 AM

One of the oldest and most heavily travelled sections of Nova Scotia's 100-series highways is getting an overhaul starting Monday, April 1.

The Joseph Howe Overpass in Halifax, which carries traffic on Highway 102 over Joseph Howe Drive to connect with Bayers Road is getting new pavement, concrete, bridge rails, deck joints and lighting. The $3.4-million upgrade was awarded to Eastern Infrastructure Inc., and will take about nine months.

"This upgrade modernizes this busy overpass," said Maurice Smith, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal. "The upgrading of the lighting system includes the installation of 70 high-efficiency, state-of-the-art LED lights."

Two lanes of traffic will be open, as much as possible, in the direction of the peak traffic flow, meaning two inbound lanes in the morning rush and two outbound during the evening.

The project is part of a multi-year project and is in the department's 5-Year Highway Improvement Plan.

[fenwick16]

http://novascotia.ca/news/release/?id=20130328002

Joseph Howe Interchange Upgrade Begins April 1

Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal
March 28, 2013 11:36 AM

One of the oldest and most heavily travelled sections of Nova Scotia's 100-series highways is getting an overhaul starting Monday, April 1.

The Joseph Howe Overpass in Halifax, which carries traffic on Highway 102 over Joseph Howe Drive to connect with Bayers Road is getting new pavement, concrete, bridge rails, deck joints and lighting. The $3.4-million upgrade was awarded to Eastern Infrastructure Inc., and will take about nine months.

"This upgrade modernizes this busy overpass," said Maurice Smith, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal. "The upgrading of the lighting system includes the installation of 70 high-efficiency, state-of-the-art LED lights."

Two lanes of traffic will be open, as much as possible, in the direction of the peak traffic flow, meaning two inbound lanes in the morning rush and two outbound during the evening.

The project is part of a multi-year project and is in the department's 5-Year Highway Improvement Plan.



Is widening of Bayers Road still a possibility or is that a taboo subject now on par with the North West Arm bridge? The squeaky wheels (ecological conscious ones) in Halifax seem to have an undue influence over municipal planning.

At times I think that some of us older forum members want progress more than the younger ones instead of vice versa as is often assumed.

[q12]

Is widening of Bayers Road still a possibility or is that a taboo subject now on par with the North West Arm bridge? The squeaky wheels (ecological conscious ones) in Halifax seem to have an undue influence over municipal planning.

It is required to correct the ridiculous termination of one of the busiest expressways in Halifax onto a narrow residential street.

Widening of the bi-hi is needed in additon to bayers road which is the province's responsibility and not the municipality between Ashburn Ave and Highway 103.

[sdm]

Is widening of Bayers Road still a possibility or is that a taboo subject now on par with the North West Arm bridge? The squeaky wheels (ecological conscious ones) in Halifax seem to have an undue influence over municipal planning.

At times I think that some of us older forum members want progress more than the younger ones instead of vice versa as is often assumed.

it would make sense to do that project at the same time as this as to be less disruptive.

Nevertheless, i haven't heard boo on what the plans are for bayers road. Funny thing, while reviewing property online you can see where HRM either owns and or maintains easements accross the front of a lot properties on Bayers Road. So a couple of houses need to be taken, all for the sake o progress for tens of thousand? seems simple to me.

[ILoveHalifax]

At times I think that some of us older forum members want progress more than the younger ones instead of vice versa as is often assumed.

I think you are right about that. It seems to me they read a theory in a book, for example, that we should not add lanes. They do not remember what it was like before we added lanes or build some of the roads we have built in the last 60 years. Just imagine had we not built hwy 102 or Bayers Rd.
I remember as a kid watching traffic on the Bedford Hwy; it was the only road into town in those days. It was generally bumper to bumper for a lot of the time. We could wait 10 minutes for a break in the traffic just to cross the highway.
I also remember when it took 4 hours to travel from Moncton to Halifax. Again bumper to bumper and stop and go thru Wentworth. The same from Lantz into the city. It was so exciting when BiHi got built out to the airport and the traffic eased.
I also remember the 401 in Toronto when it was a 4 lane divided highway. Just imagine that same highway without the extra lanes.
I also remember when gas was $0.30 per gallon and who ever thought we would pay today's prices. Well we do, so I am sure we will when the price goes up to $200.00 per barrel.
It is an interesting experiment to not add lanes or improve roads; we do not know how it will have affected us until 60 years into the future and then it could be too late to try and catch up.

[Drybrain]

At times I think that some of us older forum members want progress more than the younger ones instead of vice versa as is often assumed.

I think we all want progress—it's just a different idea of what progress is. For me, creating communities where car use is not a daily necessity is progress. Increasing population in the inner city, while respecting the existing built environment that gives us a sense of place and permanence (and contributes to a healthy, necessary mix of building types that we need for a diverse business sector), is progress.

In the 50s-60s, progress was considered knocking down those buildings for high-rises, and routing traffic arteries through the downtown, which was no longer considered a viable residential community. That's changed. (Maybe in 50 years I'll be arguing with another young generation when the pendulum swings back, or some as-yet unseen planning dogma takes over.)

[RyeJay]

(Maybe in 50 years I'll be arguing with another young generation when the pendulum swings back, or some as-yet unseen planning dogma takes over.)

We don't know what kind of technologies will be invented by then so it's hard to predict, but I would say it's safe to bet that -- with a growing population of mostly poor, working-class people on a planet with finite resources and a degrading environmental stability -- public transit will become the staple of our transportation needs, throughout our increasingly compact and vertical cities.

[haligonia]

I think we all want progress—it's just a different idea of what progress is. For me, creating communities where car use is not a daily necessity is progress. Increasing population in the inner city, while respecting the existing built environment that gives us a sense of place and permanence (and contributes to a healthy, necessary mix of building types that we need for a diverse business sector), is progress.


Quoted for truth.

[Keith P.]

I think we all want progress—it's just a different idea of what progress is. For me, creating communities where car use is not a daily necessity is progress. Increasing population in the inner city, while respecting the existing built environment that gives us a sense of place and permanence (and contributes to a healthy, necessary mix of building types that we need for a diverse business sector), is progress.


That's one definition. Not all would agree with it.

[haligonia]

That's one definition. Not all would agree with it.

Which is why he prefaced it with For me. We all need to accept that our personal opinion isn't the only one or necessarily the right one.

[Drybrain]

Which is why he prefaced it with For me. We all need to accept that our personal opinion isn't the only one or necessarily the right one.

Yeah, exactly.

But, Keith, I do believe if we take look at which cities in North America are really experiencing downtown revitalization and re-investment, we'd largely (not always, of course) find cities that hew close to the vision I put forth.

Even the posterchild for sunbelt sprawl, Phoenix (Phoenix!) is sloooowly starting to get it, with a plan to direct development to LRT corridors, in a mixed-use model, and preserve the meagre remains of its built heritage.

[someone123]

I won't speak for everybody, but I think there's a growing group of younger people who just aren't that interested in what suburbia has to offer. They don't want the lawn, the two-car garage, and the commute by car. They want to live in the city where there is a lot of activity going on, even if it means accepting less living space. They'll drive if they have to, but they'd prefer to walk or bike. Increasingly this group of people includes some of the most talented who would move to a city like Halifax, the sort of people who often drive economic development. Halifax can't compete for talent with Wal-Mart suburbia. Its urban charm and natural environment are its only really marketable assets.

Some road improvements are necessary as a city grows but it's not a mere coincidence that so much of the decline of the city went hand-in-hand with car-oriented redevelopment projects. We paid for the suburban growth with a hollowed out core that has only recently started to recover (without any substantial investment in new roads). Furthermore, a lot of the need for road capacity was driven by deliberately car-oriented plans to develop areas like Burnside and Bayers Lake. I understand why it makes sense to put industrial development on the fringe of the city where there are fewer residents and where there's more space, but why does it make sense to put office buildings in those areas? Why did HRM permit big box stores in a place that required a $16M underpass to handle a fraction of its traffic?

PS - the city just sold off 185 nearby acres for about 2/3 the price of that interchange. HRM is effectively paying businesses to relocate to inconvenient areas and exacerbate regional planning problems.

[RyeJay]

I won't speak for everybody, but I think there's a growing group of younger people who just aren't that interested in what suburbia has to offer. They don't want the lawn, the two-car garage, and the commute by car. They want to live in the city where there is a lot of activity going on, even if it means accepting less living space.

I think you're right.

Nearly everyone I know around my age (people in their 20s) is choosing non-suburban living options -- even my peers who have children. This is partly due to financial restrictions (it's cheaper to own a condo and be near large parks than it is to settle down in the suburbs).

Interestingly enough, my friends who have strongly considered the 'burbs ultimately chose against them because, in their opinion, that sort of lifestyle is 'greedy'. Expecting the government to provide perfect roads, with perfect police and fire protection, near perfect schools and perfect hospitals (and there had better not be long waiting times!!) just so you can live far away from the masses and have your own little castle in the middle of what was once lush forest...is pretty damn greedy; I agree.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I have to say this again, but a major reason for the widening help public transportation. The buses currently don't operate as fast (i.e. traffic is so heavy they barely move and obstruct other traffic as well, trapping people behind them). Active transportation could be built into this also. Don't buy into the blanket statements of Watts and company. This was planned for and now can be approached in a modern fashion with dedicated bus lanes and even bike lanes if done properly (i.e. inside of the sidewalk). Painting bike lanes is not appropriate any time, ever.

In terms of walkability, I usually walk behind... not on Bayers Rd. I bet alot of you anti-widening people have never even been in the pubs before... there could be bike paths installed. Unfortunately there are social problems back behind there and many of you would feel uncomfortable walking through there at night.

This is not as a big deal as the opponents are making it out to be. In fact, for the city to function like a modern european city... its required. This ain't downtown and flows need to be sorted.

If you think there won't be some sort of "car" in the future... you are crazy. Even in the places with the availability of great public transportation, cars are owned by people. I'm not saying they have to be powered by oil.

Given that Halifax's population continues to grow, this is an important piece of infrastructure going forward.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I think you're right.

Nearly everyone I know around my age (people in their 20s) is choosing non-suburban living options -- even my peers who have children. This is partly due to financial restrictions (it's cheaper to own a condo and be near large parks than it is to settle down in the suburbs).

Interestingly enough, my friends who have strongly considered the 'burbs ultimately chose against them because, in their opinion, that sort of lifestyle is 'greedy'. Expecting the government to provide perfect roads, with perfect police and fire protection, near perfect schools and perfect hospitals (and there had better not be long waiting times!!) just so you can live far away from the masses and have your own little castle in the middle of what was once lush forest...is pretty damn greedy; I agree.

Interesting line of thinking. What do the numbers say? How much more expensive is it to live in the suburbs than to live downtown, and where do the increased costs come from?

I don't really get the 'greedy' conclusion, but you're entitled to your opinion. However, you make it sound like people in the suburbs don't pay taxes, like they are getting all these government services for free...

You also make the assumption that everybody who lives outside of the downtown works downtown, also not true. Nor do they all live in "castles". There are lots of "castles" on the peninsula (take a walk through the south end sometime) - are you suggesting that these 'greedy' people should donate their land so their houses could be torn down to build skyscrapers?

It seems to me like many people want to put others into pigeonholes and project those who don't prescribe to their exact beliefs and preferences as being "bad". I wish we could all try harder to accept one another and see things from their point of view so we could all develop a greater understanding. I think there's room for all of us in this great city.

Thankfully, there are people out there with vision and who strive for a greater understanding of the entire situation to try to arrive at a goal that works for everybody. This article from the Herald, in my opinion, is an indication of such thinking:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1120937-reshaping-downtown-for-pedestrians

Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't, but creative thinking which accepts that people will never always want to live the same lives as others is the type of thinking that will arrive at the greatest solutions (IMHO).

[someone123]

I don't really get the 'greedy' conclusion, but you're entitled to your opinion. However, you make it sound like people in the suburbs don't pay taxes, like they are getting all these government services for free...

This report has a bunch of interesting information on this question: http://strategicurbanpartnership.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SUP-50m-and-Reserve-as-approved.pdf

The reality is that, under HRM's property tax system, there's little relationship between the cost to provide services and taxes paid. Suburban residential property owners pay the lowest taxes (lowest mill rate and lower assessments), while commercial property owners pay much higher rates that subsidize residents. In my experience, few suburban homeowners are aware of this subsidy.

Here's a breakdown from the report. The only thing that made this possible is that HRM is maybe 5% Kingswood type developments subsidized on the backs of a much larger urban and commercial tax base. If that were to go up to 50%, the city would have chronic problems paying for its services and infrastructure. This style of development simply isn't a viable long-term option, unless people want their property taxes to triple.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1350/servicest.png

[OldDartmouthMark]

This report has a bunch of interesting information on this question: http://strategicurbanpartnership.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SUP-50m-and-Reserve-as-approved.pdf

The reality is that, under HRM's property tax system, there's little relationship between the cost to provide services and taxes paid. Suburban residential property owners pay the lowest taxes (lowest mill rate and lower assessments), while commercial property owners pay much higher rates that subsidize residents. In my experience, few suburban homeowners are aware of this subsidy.

Here's a breakdown from the report. The only thing that made this possible is that HRM is maybe 5% Kingswood type developments subsidized on the backs of a much larger urban and commercial tax base. If that were to go up to 50%, the city would have chronic problems paying for its services and infrastructure. This style of development simply isn't a viable long-term option, unless people want their property taxes to triple.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1350/servicest.png

Great information. Thanks for that! :tup:

It's an interesting document which was definitely created by a side wishing to promote an idea (which is not a bad thing, just an observation).

I didn't read over the whole 30 pages in great detail, nor am I an expert on city planning, but to me it seems like the gist of the presentation is that since property taxes are based on assessment cost rather than area quantities of the land being used, that Halifax is no longer bringing in enough tax dollars from the urban core and thus the move should be to increase residency (by both business and private dwelling) in these areas to increase the total taxes collected.

In the document you've posted, I think the fact that they are using a Kingswood-type development is interesting as they are comparing an urban environment to the extreme suburban environment (as you mentioned, in the 5% range). That being said, I would like to see numbers that more reflect what the average suburban dwelling would be (i.e. smaller "postage stamp" lots, such as in Bedford and Clayton Park West, as well as many parts of Dartmouth). I would suspect that these areas are much less subsidized than this document would make it appear.

Also, I'm curious, if the suburbs are such a drain on the city economy why did Halifax push for amalgamation into HRM when many of these outlying communities which are now being considered (by some) as "greedy" suburbs were doing fine as stand-alone communities beforehand? For example, when I lived in Dartmouth I recall that the services provided their citizens appeared to be superior to that of Halifax (road clearing and maintenance being one of the obvious ones, but water and sewer also included). It appeared that once amalgamation occurred, Dartmouth's services suffered as a result.

Bedford and Sackville seemed to be doing fine as well.

Perhaps if these communities had been left to survive on their own, then urban Halifax would have been able to thrive without the "drain" of the "greedy" suburban communities? :shrug:

All in all, though, I agree that HRM should be concentrating on making improvements to the urban core that it has neglected for decades and give the people who want to live downtown the option to do so. It will benefit everybody in the long run. :tup:

[halifaxboyns]

Being a planner - this information is quite telling. In terms of ODM's comment about places like Clayton Park or Dartmouth, while the costs to service would not be as extreme as the rural example provided - it would still be high. I'd guess somewhere past the average of the two, I'd guess in the $2500 to $3000 range. Keep in mind, most of Fairview/Clayton Park still use the 40 to 50' lot frontage formula as does Dartmouth, Bedford and Sackville.

So while it's still less than the rural example; it's not great compared with a higher density, which will often be the lesser cost. Just to give a different example of these costs, this (http://youtu.be/WQ-MWrGJ6AQ) is a video of a presentation which Rollin Stanley (the GM of Planning out here in Calgary) gave to a civic group and he talks about the servicing costs for new subdivisions out here. If you skip to 22:00 minutes, he starts giving examples and some of it is quite frightening.

His talk about the good tax generators (at 31:00) is quite interesting. The study that Fenwick included; really supports Rollin's comments that we want to build more of the 'green' versus the 'red' (watch the video - you will understand).

[Antigonish]

Really interesting video HBNS, enjoyed that.

[Drybrain]

Yeah, WOW. Infrastructure costs of greenfield communities are a net drag on city revenues for at least 30 years from the date of construction. That alone is enough reason to say: Stop greenfield construction and build within our existing infrastructure-serviced area.

Part of the problem with this discussion is how intense and polarized people are about their own personal choices—observing the situation in Toronto, where a "suburban" mayor has pitted himself against "downtown elites," it's become terribly clear that the downtown vs. suburbs conversation is super-unproductive, especially as people start taking their own prejudices as talking points.

So you have people on one side shouting that suburbanites are stupid sheep who live horrible, unsustainable lives, and then you have suburbanites accusing urbanites of wanting to cram everybody into high-rises. Those are caricatures, but the people with the most caricatured and simplistic viewpoints tend to dominate the discussion, unfortunately, leading to bad feeling on both sides, and little rationality when it comes to what should be a supremely rational issue--like, say, property-tax reform.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Being a planner - this information is quite telling. In terms of ODM's comment about places like Clayton Park or Dartmouth, while the costs to service would not be as extreme as the rural example provided - it would still be high. I'd guess somewhere past the average of the two, I'd guess in the $2500 to $3000 range. Keep in mind, most of Fairview/Clayton Park still use the 40 to 50' lot frontage formula as does Dartmouth, Bedford and Sackville.

So while it's still less than the rural example; it's not great compared with a higher density, which will often be the lesser cost. Just to give a different example of these costs, this (http://youtu.be/WQ-MWrGJ6AQ) is a video of a presentation which Rollin Stanley (the GM of Planning out here in Calgary) gave to a civic group and he talks about the servicing costs for new subdivisions out here. If you skip to 22:00 minutes, he starts giving examples and some of it is quite frightening.

His talk about the good tax generators (at 31:00) is quite interesting. The study that Fenwick included; really supports Rollin's comments that we want to build more of the 'green' versus the 'red' (watch the video - you will understand).

Excellent information! Thanks for posting that! Didn't have time to watch the video in its entirety, but what I did see was an eye-opener for me.

I really appreciate this forum as an educational opportunity.

Looks like HRM has it's work cut out for it, but it is not too late to make something happen.

I have a question... we pay quite a bit of tax on fuel in this province. Do the municipalities get any percentage of that for infrastructure maintenance? I believe that is the purpose of the tax, to maintain the roads used by the purchasers of gasoline/diesel, but I'm doubting that's what it is entirely used for.

[OldDartmouthMark]

So you have people on one side shouting that suburbanites are stupid sheep who live horrible, unsustainable lives, and then you have suburbanites accusing urbanites of wanting to cram everybody into high-rises. Those are caricatures, but the people with the most caricatured and simplistic viewpoints tend to dominate the discussion, unfortunately, leading to bad feeling on both sides, and little rationality when it comes to what should be a supremely rational issue--like, say, property-tax reform.

Here here! :tup:

[OldDartmouthMark]

Now that this thread has been sufficiently derailed, I have another question. :rolleyes:

Where do business/industrial parks fit into the picture? They are generally in suburban areas and I would think tend to take traffic out of the urban core.

It sounds to me like they could be good revenue generators, if taxed at similar rates to the downtown, and also could contribute to relieving the pressure on infrastructure by contributing to the "reverse commute" situation that was referred to in the video.

Sorry to throw this discussion too far off topic (not about skyscrapers either...)

[halifaxboyns]

Wow, great comments - I'll have to pass this along to my GM that you enjoyed his video. I'd actually suggest watching it in full and he gave a similar presentation to staff. One thing I like about Rollin is the way he presents - it's very similar to my style (I like videos like that - I totally want that cul-de-sac video he has).

To answer your question ODM - business parks would be in the 'red' in his presentation; they don't make a lot of money. There is very little about suburban development that actually makes good money to pay for the cost - and building more of it; doesn't help because while you may get more revenue, you spend more to get it so the net effect is bad.

In terms of your comment Drybrain - I'm going to blow everyone's mind and post yet another video, which I think would really help HRM with it's Regional Centre plan. This video will also further illustrate the cost differential of suburban growth - looking at Australia. This also adds to the point I made in one of the other threads about converting office buildings into residential - for the downtown.

This (http://youtu.be/ZYJpdH-VGwc) video is a presentation done by Rob Adams, who is the Director of Urban Development with the City of Melbourne (I had the chance to meet him a few years ago - really interesting guy and I am a huge fan). This is his presentation at TED Sydney - but he talks about how Melbourne could double it's population using 7.5% of it's total area. I won't say anything more about it - it's about 18 minutes long. But worth watching...it blew my mind. This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfnynzD0yDI) is a much longer version of his presentation he gave at SFU - which gives more of the history, which is really interesting...enjoy!

[Hali87]

I think you are right about that. It seems to me they read a theory in a book, for example, that we should not add lanes. They do not remember what it was like before we added lanes or build some of the roads we have built in the last 60 years. Just imagine had we not built hwy 102 or Bayers Rd.
I remember as a kid watching traffic on the Bedford Hwy; it was the only road into town in those days. It was generally bumper to bumper for a lot of the time. We could wait 10 minutes for a break in the traffic just to cross the highway.
I also remember when it took 4 hours to travel from Moncton to Halifax. Again bumper to bumper and stop and go thru Wentworth. The same from Lantz into the city. It was so exciting when BiHi got built out to the airport and the traffic eased.
I also remember the 401 in Toronto when it was a 4 lane divided highway. Just imagine that same highway without the extra lanes.
I also remember when gas was $0.30 per gallon and who ever thought we would pay today's prices. Well we do, so I am sure we will when the price goes up to $200.00 per barrel.
It is an interesting experiment to not add lanes or improve roads; we do not know how it will have affected us until 60 years into the future and then it could be too late to try and catch up.

The thing is, if the 401 was still 2 lanes each way (or 4 lanes each way, or really anything ressembling a "normal" highway), it would simply be acknowledged that it's not a very quick route into the city and fewer people would choose to live in suburbs along it. If the 401 had fewer lanes, I can almost guarantee that the GO network would be much more developed by now (out of necessity) or that there would be alternate routes into the city and traffic would simply be dispersed more evenly, in addition to residential development simply being focused in other areas. As it stands now you basically end up with 6+ lanes (one direction) of bumper-to-bumber traffic every rush hour for very long stretches.. adding more lanes will create a positive effect for traffic reduction for a very short time, then development will shift heavily towards the 401 corridor (because of the sudden improvement in convenience) and then the new lanes will quickly be filled by the new commuters moving into the new 401-oriented subdivisions. It's not just a theory from a book, it's pretty much exactly how the GTA has been/continues to be developed.

[Hali87]

That's one definition. Not all would agree with it.

How do you define progress? Don't be afraid to be specific.

[Hali87]

I won't speak for everybody, but I think there's a growing group of younger people who just aren't that interested in what suburbia has to offer. They don't want the lawn, the two-car garage, and the commute by car. They want to live in the city where there is a lot of activity going on, even if it means accepting less living space. They'll drive if they have to, but they'd prefer to walk or bike. Increasingly this group of people includes some of the most talented who would move to a city like Halifax, the sort of people who often drive economic development.

I think a factor that isn't very well recognized is that the urban environment generally seems to be preferred by younger, mostly single people, while the suburbs appeal mostly to families with young or school-aged children. In Halifax, there is a disproportionate number of 20-somethings due to the universities and the military bases, and perhaps more importantly, people in Halifax tend to wait longer to get married/settle down and have children than elsewhere. In the area of BC where I'm living most of the people I've met over the age of 24 are married and/or have children. Conversely, most of my friends in Halifax have no interest in marrying before the age of 30 (with a few exceptions - and the exceptions are the ones who chose to live in the suburbs).

[RyeJay]

So you have people on one side shouting that suburbanites are stupid sheep who live horrible, unsustainable lives, and then you have suburbanites accusing urbanites of wanting to cram everybody into high-rises. Those are caricatures, but the people with the most caricatured and simplistic viewpoints tend to dominate the discussion, unfortunately, leading to bad feeling on both sides, and little rationality when it comes to what should be a supremely rational issue--like, say, property-tax reform.

Hear, hear! :yes:

That sort of reform, however, is quite difficult to accomplish, considering the amount of politicians who are willing to pander to suburbanites, as suburbanites most often (I've found) complain about already paying too many taxes.

No one enjoys paying more taxes, but with the information we're seeing on this forum from halifaxboyns and someone123, clearly, suburbanites are not paying their fair share.

If you want to live far away from the masses, you should be expected to pay more for public sevices and infrastructure. Subsidising the 'burbs and rural areas is a major debt burden for provinces.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Wow, great comments - I'll have to pass this along to my GM that you enjoyed his video. I'd actually suggest watching it in full and he gave a similar presentation to staff. One thing I like about Rollin is the way he presents - it's very similar to my style (I like videos like that - I totally want that cul-de-sac video he has).

To answer your question ODM - business parks would be in the 'red' in his presentation; they don't make a lot of money. There is very little about suburban development that actually makes good money to pay for the cost - and building more of it; doesn't help because while you may get more revenue, you spend more to get it so the net effect is bad.

In terms of your comment Drybrain - I'm going to blow everyone's mind and post yet another video, which I think would really help HRM with it's Regional Centre plan. This video will also further illustrate the cost differential of suburban growth - looking at Australia. This also adds to the point I made in one of the other threads about converting office buildings into residential - for the downtown.

This (http://youtu.be/ZYJpdH-VGwc) video is a presentation done by Rob Adams, who is the Director of Urban Development with the City of Melbourne (I had the chance to meet him a few years ago - really interesting guy and I am a huge fan). This is his presentation at TED Sydney - but he talks about how Melbourne could double it's population using 7.5% of it's total area. I won't say anything more about it - it's about 18 minutes long. But worth watching...it blew my mind. This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfnynzD0yDI) is a much longer version of his presentation he gave at SFU - which gives more of the history, which is really interesting...enjoy!


Thanks again for posting great educational material for those of us who really want to understand the big picture. Can't speak for the rest of us, but in my case, having little experience from the civic planning point of view, I might never have had the motivation to check out this type of presentation nor would I have found a 'good' one without some type of guidance.

I plan to watch them in their entirety this weekend, when I have a few spare minutes to really absorb the info.

:cheers:

[halifaxboyns]

I met Rob at a conference in Vancouver some years ago and it was amazing to speak to him. I found his idea of selling density profound because if HRM could even do 25% of the high density that he calculated; that's 500,000 people (roughly) without ever having to build another suburban house. Profound...

[someone123]

Where do business/industrial parks fit into the picture? They are generally in suburban areas and I would think tend to take traffic out of the urban core.

I am not sure this is correct. Let's say you move a big business from downtown to Burnside:

- You now have people living in places like Clayton Park who have to cross most of the city to get to work. The fact is that, in the context of metro Halifax, the peninsula is the easiest spot for an average group of people to get to.
- They might have taken the bus before, but they probably won't now if they can avoid it; the office parks are hard to serve with transit and so they have horrible transit service.
- On top of all this the city has to take a financial hit to build a bunch of new infrastructure. Or they could pass this all on to developers and suddenly downtown would be a lot more popular.
- Also, the physical environment of the office parks sucks. You have to drive to get anywhere and there aren't good lunch places or places to go after work. This is fine for some people but a big negative for others. It's why tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft have started building office campuses in urban settings. That's what their employees want in SF/Seattle/Portland/Vancouver. Expect the same trend to come to Halifax in 5-10 years.

I would say that the city has tried out the office park model pretty thoroughly with Bayers Lake and Burnside and the results are less than stellar. They even suffer from traffic congestion.

It would be much better if Halifax just built a proper transit system. That alone would probably "solve" traffic problems in the sense that it would create a quick way for large numbers of people to get downtown. If the downtown really did get unsustainably busy (highly debatable in a town with under half a million people), there would then be opportunities to build up secondary employment centres on brownfield sites near train stations.

[someone123]

Conversely, most of my friends in Halifax have no interest in marrying before the age of 30 (with a few exceptions - and the exceptions are the ones who chose to live in the suburbs).

There seems to be a big urban/rural divide and a blue/white collar divide, but the overall trend is toward smaller households and more mobility.

I am not sure how much of this is cultural and how much of it is dictated by economic factors. Young people now tend to spend a lot more time in school and they have to move around more now to find good jobs.

[Antigonish]

Another great video, thanks. The 7.5% model seems like the most practical approach to solving a number of Halifax's developmental and growth problems. Those examples he gave with accompanying diagrams shows that with proper transit corridors you could grow the population and tax base to support the growing infrastructure without even compromising the strict height bylaws on the peninsula.

The images showing the growth of 5-6 story buildings along the transit corridors with the [somewhat] suburban growth in between reminded me of the South/West/North End neighbourhoods in Halifax. Very thorough and pragmatic, a vision that seems to be currently lacking in HRM. Have you ever thought of working for HRM again HBNS?

[worldlyhaligonian]

Another great video, thanks. The 7.5% model seems like the most practical approach to solving a number of Halifax's developmental and growth problems. Those examples he gave with accompanying diagrams shows that with proper transit corridors you could grow the population and tax base to support the growing infrastructure without even compromising the strict height bylaws on the peninsula.

The images showing the growth of 5-6 story buildings along the transit corridors with the [somewhat] suburban growth in between reminded me of the South/West/North End neighbourhoods in Halifax. Very thorough and pragmatic, a vision that seems to be currently lacking in HRM. Have you ever thought of working for HRM again HBNS?

^ I wish he would too!

I think most of Halifax is built up in this way, we just need more 10 - 12 story apartment buildings to fill in the gaps along corridors.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I am not sure this is correct. Let's say you move a big business from downtown to Burnside:

- You now have people living in places like Clayton Park who have to cross most of the city to get to work. The fact is that, in the context of metro Halifax, the peninsula is the easiest spot for an average group of people to get to.
- They might have taken the bus before, but they probably won't now if they can avoid it; the office parks are hard to serve with transit and so they have horrible transit service.
- On top of all this the city has to take a financial hit to build a bunch of new infrastructure. Or they could pass this all on to developers and suddenly downtown would be a lot more popular.
- Also, the physical environment of the office parks sucks. You have to drive to get anywhere and there aren't good lunch places or places to go after work. This is fine for some people but a big negative for others. It's why tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft have started building office campuses in urban settings. That's what their employees want in SF/Seattle/Portland/Vancouver. Expect the same trend to come to Halifax in 5-10 years.

I would say that the city has tried out the office park model pretty thoroughly with Bayers Lake and Burnside and the results are less than stellar. They even suffer from traffic congestion.

It would be much better if Halifax just built a proper transit system. That alone would probably "solve" traffic problems in the sense that it would create a quick way for large numbers of people to get downtown. If the downtown really did get unsustainably busy (highly debatable in a town with under half a million people), there would then be opportunities to build up secondary employment centres on brownfield sites near train stations.

Thanks for a very insightful answer. From observation, it seems that the business parks (at least Burnside) have created traffic problems of their own. I know Burnside was originally conceived and developed in the late sixties before Dartmouth was part of HRM, but it appears that little thought was given to future traffic patterns, as if somebody never imagined that people from Bedford, Sackville and outlying areas (fed from the 118) would have to pass by and through the park to get to Halifax. The area was much smaller then and the road system was less complex, but still with a little imagination you would have to think that someday it will be a problem.

I pretty much agree with the negative aspects of the parks as well, especially the lack of transit. Coverage is poor and in some cases people have to walk in dangerous areas (no sidewalks or crosswalks) to get to the bus stop!

The lunch situation (in Burnside) is much better now than it was, with the opening of many new restaurants, including Dartmouth Crossing, but you still have to drive to many of them (unless you can take a long lunch break to walk).

All that being said, even the commute you mentioned from Clayton Park to Burnside (I used to do that one about 15 years ago) wouldn't be all that bad (especially in terms of a Toronto suburb commute) as you are going against the main flow of traffic, so it still is only about a 20 minute commute. The worst one is still from the suburbs to downtown Halifax, but even then... 45 minutes? A dream for many Torontonians (not those living downtown), I think. Luckily, we are still small enough that there is time to correct the situation before it gets really bad.

For the future - transit! Build it and they will ride...

[halifaxboyns]

^ I wish he would too!

I think most of Halifax is built up in this way, we just need more 10 - 12 story apartment buildings to fill in the gaps along corridors.

Working on it :) That is all I will say at this point... :P

[halifaxboyns]

I wanted to take a quick second to give a couple thoughts on some of the industrial parks and the question that ODM asked and SO123 gave a comment on...

I think the industrial parks really need to be left as a industrial/office or potential future manufacturing (if I remember the zonings correctly?). Cities need to have cheap office space (class B and I think they call it class C too?) as incubator space for businesses - that's how they evolve to eventually move into downtown and become big sized corporations. So their value is important and should the economy of HRM really grow with research/development, manufacturing or offshore oil support - these areas will become even more important for growing those sectors.

That said - where I really see the biggest potential for future change is the big box retail areas of Bayers Lake and Dartmouth Common. I say that with the catch that this should only happen if a future regional plan should identify future transportation routes to go through these areas. I've posted this (https://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?msid=202282502905246741857.0004cbe82f670f5f63aba&msa=0&ll=44.659862,-63.557281&spn=0.314533,0.529404) map of my ideas for future higher order transit in HRM that takes advantage (and boosts) the corridors concept in the Regional Centre Plan and really works with the 7.5% idea that Rob Adams has of densifying around transit. If you look at Portland Street, all that auto oriented commercial along Portland Street could convert to low or mid-rise mixed use with an LRT along there.

I think the same principle could work for DC/BL - assuming some form of this plan occurs in the future. Think of it from this perspective: These sites (Dartmouth Common/Bayers Lake) are pretty buffered from other residential, have huge land sites with lots of open space because of the surface parking lots. Where better (should a future transit go through the area) to put tall, high density buildings? Take the Costco site in Bayers Lake for example - if my math is correct, that site is about 1.1ha. If 500 ppl/ha is a 8 stories (from Rob's presentation), then imagine what you could get out there if you crank the densities up (to support the transit) to 1500 or 2000 ppl/ha? We're talking up to 32 stories! You could easily blow away the costco - rework the lot grading so that the mainfloor of the building lines up with Bayers Lake DR on the corner and then build up. You could easily get 3 or 4 towers on the site and the costco could go back into the mixed use building in a more urban form!

The only catch with this plan would be that considering the cost of putting in the original infrastructure (and the lack of it being paid back in property taxes) - there would be a need to significantly reinvest in providing additional sewer/water capacity since the area wasn't designed for those densities. That can be recouped through levies, tax increment financing, density bonusing - you name it. But if you think about how much land area that the big box area in both areas is - that's a significant amount of potential future density.

In looking at how some of the big box stores are moving, I can tell you that Costco and Target seem to be leading the way with moving towards urban format (same with best buy) while Walmart keeps lagging behind (and I couldn't be happier frankly). But this is food for thought that while we might not be able to change them now...in 20 years, if we build LRT/BRT - the potential is quite high.

[Hali87]

There seems to be a big urban/rural divide and a blue/white collar divide, but the overall trend is toward smaller households and more mobility.

I am not sure how much of this is cultural and how much of it is dictated by economic factors. Young people now tend to spend a lot more time in school and they have to move around more now to find good jobs.

Maybe the differences then are post-secondary employment rates and availability of good jobs. Most of the married young people I know are in the three westernmost provinces - in AB and Sask there are exceptionally strong job markets so it seems like more young people expect to be able to settle down conveniently whenever they want. BC is a little different but seems to have a very stable economy, a lot of well-paying jobs that don't necessarily require much post-secondary, and perhaps most importantly a post-secondary system that is distributed very well across the entire province, so young people are less likely to need to leave their hometown to go to school, again resulting in overall (voluntarily) reduced mobility compared to the much more pronounced mobility/reduced sense of stability seen in the eastern provinces (perhaps excluding Quebec)