HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > General


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 2:58 PM
curnhalio's Avatar
curnhalio curnhalio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaustin View Post
I have done a follow-up on this. Recent site plan that came out in December for the Greenway is a big step back from what was originally envisioned and not just on daylighting. Problematic to be making these kind of choices without any kind of process to consult the people who are actually going to use the space.

http://spacing.ca/atlantic/2015/01/2...anal-greenway/
I am disappointed in the direction this appears to be taking. The coolest element of this by far was the daylighting aspect, and now it's being replaced by a "decorative walkway". This may save a few short-term $$$ to keep the "not my taxes" crowd happy, but in the long term will result in a far less attractive space. Without the waterway there is little incentive to spend time there, other than just passing through to get to somewhere else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 11:55 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by curnhalio View Post
I am disappointed in the direction this appears to be taking. The coolest element of this by far was the daylighting aspect, and now it's being replaced by a "decorative walkway". This may save a few short-term $$$ to keep the "not my taxes" crowd happy, but in the long term will result in a far less attractive space. Without the waterway there is little incentive to spend time there, other than just passing through to get to somewhere else.
Read the AG report regarding the fiasco of Washmill Lake and you may not want HRM running any large project.
Lies, coverup, nobody in charge; it all makes sorry reading.

http://www.halifax.ca/auditorgeneral...12015FINAL.pdf

page 106 :
" However, the OAG is able to comfortably state the HRM portion of total project
cost is in excess of $17 million (charged to at least three separate accounts)
against a budget of $5,927,244 (excluding developer portion) originally approved
by Regional Council in 2008 (see Exhibit 2 below). The OAG also notes costs
continued to be charged to the Washmill project as late as March 2014, more than
two full years after the road was opened and it appears there may be a
contemplated Phase IV, which has not yet been started (the true status of the
phase is not clear). As a result, the OAG notes this total could still rise. "

Dec 2008 cost estimate : $8.64 million
March 2014 actual : $20.3 million

Last edited by Colin May; Jan 22, 2015 at 12:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2015, 4:19 PM
IanWatson IanWatson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by curnhalio View Post
I am disappointed in the direction this appears to be taking. The coolest element of this by far was the daylighting aspect, and now it's being replaced by a "decorative walkway". This may save a few short-term $$$ to keep the "not my taxes" crowd happy, but in the long term will result in a far less attractive space. Without the waterway there is little incentive to spend time there, other than just passing through to get to somewhere else.
This doesn't seem to be so much a "not my taxes" issue as a "not my mandate" issue. Halifax Water is responsible for the piping/stream, and not the park. HRM is responsible for the park, and not the piping/stream. Neither party seems to have any desire to go beyond their mandate and/or put the effort into coordinating between the two of them. Hopefully the good turnout at the meeting is enough to convince Council to prioritize coordination between HRM and HW. And hopefully it's not too late.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2015, 8:01 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
There seems to be a growing culture at the staff level of HRM that they no longer have the best interests of the community in mind and instead are adopting an inwardly focused "for the good of the corporation" mindset. I blame Mr. Butts and his importation of a number of retreads from the provincial govt for this problem, none of whom have any background in what it means to work at a municipal level. This project is just one example, but there are many others of late. I think HRM staff needs to be cleaned out from the top down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted May 11, 2015, 7:58 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
This doesn't sound good:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...-sawmill-river

It appears that the city is not handling this one very well...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted May 12, 2015, 1:08 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
This doesn't sound good:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...-sawmill-river

It appears that the city is not handling this one very well...
A number of times in the article there is reference to Federal guidelines; which seem pretty specific about what Halifax is required to do. Perhaps we should all make our wants known to our local councillors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted May 12, 2015, 2:17 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
A number of times in the article there is reference to Federal guidelines; which seem pretty specific about what Halifax is required to do. Perhaps we should all make our wants known to our local councillors.
Yeah, it's a curious point, as quoted from the article:

Quote:
The municipal staff report also doubts a fish passage, either in an underground culvert or in a daylighted river, would be effective.

“Given the length of the pipe, it is unknown if the fish passage is even technologically feasible,” the report said. “Staff are not confident that an ‘in-sewer’ or ‘at-grade’ fish passage solution would facilitate the movement of fish up or down the route.”

Rankin said it is odd that Halifax staff would weigh in on the effectiveness of fish passage, given that it is a federally mandated requirement.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada requires passage for migratory fish that go between salt water and freshwater.

The federal department has directed that Halifax Water must come up with an engineered solution to allow fish, including Atlantic salmon, gaspereau, American eel and sea-run trout, to navigate through the new culvert — and maintain that fish passage for the next 100 years — or daylight some or all of the river.
So the city is musing that it probably won't work so therefore they will just ignore the federal requirement??

It sounds like this report was prepared by a bunch of amateurs. Aren't there standards that a city staff report must meet? Surely council wouldn't be dumb enough to push this through one way or the other without first demanding things like "facts", "solutions", "costs", etc....

God, what a circus!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted May 12, 2015, 4:52 PM
Ziobrop's Avatar
Ziobrop Ziobrop is offline
armchairitect
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Halifax
Posts: 721
the Ecology action center said on 95.7 last night that it is aware of a draft report from CBCL that outlines various options and costing for the culvert replacement, including daylighting.

this is the report we need to see to make an informed decision. I agree, the report sent to council is useless, and does not cost the options.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted May 12, 2015, 7:40 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,481
FCM, Federation of Canadaian Municipalities, lobbied for and supported the federal government changes to environmental legislation such as Navigable Waters Act in order to remove barriers to municipal projects.
Can anyone provide the specific legislative references that support the proposition put forth by Walter Regan and EAC - I have yet to hear them quote the exact wording of legislation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted May 12, 2015, 10:00 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Found this interesting video of the Hurricane Beth floods from 1971 that precluded the river being put underground:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAVWEuXBOs0
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 1:06 AM
spaustin's Avatar
spaustin spaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Downtown Dartmouth
Posts: 705
I have read a bunch of municipal reports over the years and I can't recall one as one-sided as the one going to Community Council tomorrow on Sawmill River. It's deeply flawed and doesn't do what council asked for, costing of options. Not really surprising. The new draft plan has been out for months and it didn't include daylighting so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that staff had already made up their minds. With their minds set, it's hardly surprising that any opinion from them would be overwhelmingly negative. I wonder how the internal dymanics of Halifax Water versus HRM Parks/Planning have played out. A project that sprawls across jurisidictional boundaries is always going to be difficult. Anyway, here's my dissection of the mess.

http://spacing.ca/atlantic/2015/05/1...-staff-report/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 3:14 AM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,481
Having read and listened to many staff reports I can safely say that the only reports that see the light of day are those that agree with the stance of the CAO.
The May 11 meeting of the Board of Police Commissioners provided a perfect example of telling an independent board what the CAO wants them to be told. The solicitor constantly referring to an MOU between HRM and the province but being unable to provide an answer when Adams pointed out that the last sentence in the MOS stated that the MOU was not legally binding.More of what took place will appear in the Herald in due course.
This Sawmill report is an insult to those who expect a thorough review of the pros and cons of a project that has informed support. Unfortunately, Mayor Savage and councillors have decided to remain almost mute and no doubt already have a list of project priorities prepared for submission to the federal government infrastructure programme. Open government apparently is not so important these days.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 1:24 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
I find it difficult to understand how DFO can demand HRM construct a "fish passage" here when such migration has not occurred for 50 years at least.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 2:19 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,811
A very neat picture of the current excavation of the turbine chamber is on the front of todays Metro. http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/136...ing-excavated/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 5:08 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
A very neat picture of the current excavation of the turbine chamber is on the front of todays Metro. http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/136...ing-excavated/
That is very cool! Will look forward to the day when it might be open to the public.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 7:54 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
That is very cool! Will look forward to the day when it might be open to the public.
It couldn't have been all that great if someone decided to bury it all those years ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 8:26 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
It couldn't have been all that great if someone decided to bury it all those years ago.
Ha ha, it just needed those years in seclusion to transform from not-so-great working marine highway to amazing historical artifact...

I would be seriously happy if they could make that into an historical attraction that the public could enjoy. Would have to find a way to keep it from being a graffiti magnet though...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 10:51 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
It couldn't have been all that great if someone decided to bury it all those years ago.
Yep, same as king Tut's tomb, nothing down there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 11:25 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
Yep, same as king Tut's tomb, nothing down there.
In one line, that is completely symptomatic of Halifax's problem. Our old garbage is perceived as treasures by a fringe who never want anything new.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 1:16 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
In one line, that is completely symptomatic of Halifax's problem. Our old garbage is perceived as treasures by a fringe who never want anything new.
I'll have you know that I havn't had a fringe since my hair started receeding.

I know that you don't like old stuff Keith, but that arch where the turbine is, it's magnificent, amazing that it was under all that dirt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > General
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:09 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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