HRM charter changes proposed to speed up housing builds

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by OliverD

The alternative would be to provide underground parking. I've seen examples of that in Montreal and even Calgary.

The Barrington St. Superstore has enough room for a comprehensive mixed-used redevelopment and it certainly wouldn't surprise me if something were to happen on that site in the next decade or two.

Interestingly enough, Sunnyside Mall in Bedford has underground parking alongside surface parking, plus rooftop parking. Anecdotally, the surface lot seems to be used the most, but if people didn't have a choice they would definitely use underground. I prefer rooftop as it's usually less busy and the stairwell exits right next to Pete's.

This makes me wonder which would be more expensive to build and maintain - rooftop parking (or a parkade) or underground? The footprint of a Superstore style of building would definitely be conducive to providing enough area to park vehicles, thus freeing up the land used by the surface lot for redevelopment.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The more I think of it, the more it comes full circle and really it's all about personal choices and choosing the lifestyle that bets fits your wants, needs, and budget. Simple, actually. The posters who respond that it's bad, really mean that it's bad for them, as Arrdeeharharharbour points out - people have chosen to live there, so it can't be completely horrible or nobody would want to live there. ILoveHalifax confirms this.

I think that's a bit of a fallacy. Just because people have chosen to live there doesn't mean it's their preference, or ideal for their lifestyle.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, it depends. In the '80s and '90s I lived in the DT south end and often walked for groceries or stopped in at a store on my way home.

My paragraph assumes the person is driving to work and that stopping at the store by car on the way home is still driving to the store.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

This makes me wonder which would be more expensive to build and maintain - rooftop parking (or a parkade) or underground? The footprint of a Superstore style of building would definitely be conducive to providing enough area to park vehicles, thus freeing up the land used by the surface lot for redevelopment.

And then building on top of it too. So if you had 2-3 levels of underground parking, it should be sufficient for a grocery store + housing above.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by OliverD

I think that's a bit of a fallacy. Just because people have chosen to live there doesn't mean it's their preference, or ideal for their lifestyle.

Well thank you very much for suggesting that I am STUPID and cannot make a choice that best suits me.

A similar apartment in DT Halifax would have cost 3 or 4 thousand dollars if they were/are available at all.

AND I did check out apartments all over the city looking for something to spaciously accommodate our furniture including a grand piano and dining table for 8 and china cabinet.

BUT no worry, no need to be concerned, I am still very happy in my apartment in Palm Beach - I don't walk to the store but have a choice of several supermarkets all within 3 miles, and about 4 Pete's style markets within 4 miles and additional markets not much further - I walk every nite to our private beach on the Intracoastal for exercise and relaxation

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Well thank you very much for suggesting that I am STUPID and cannot make a choice that best suits me.

Now, now, don't take offense. Just keep in mind that The Urbanists (TM Regd.) always know what's best for everyone.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by OliverD

I think that's a bit of a fallacy. Just because people have chosen to live there doesn't mean it's their preference, or ideal for their lifestyle.

I think you're relying on too many assumptions. Sure, in a housing crisis you can assume that perhaps some of the people living there may have taken the first place that came available because they couldn't find an option that they would have preferred, but there were people living in the LU apartment/condos long before the current situation arose, when there were a reasonable number of vacancies all throughout the city.

For example, see ILoveHalifax's post above.

To your point, though, does anybody live in their "ideal" dream situation? I suspect not, but it doesn't mean they can't tick off enough boxes to live in relative contentment. So I disagree with your point that it's a fallacy. I don't think so, practically speaking.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Now, now, don't take offense. Just keep in mind that The Urbanists (TM Regd.) always know what's best for everyone.

Yes there is an element of preachiness in some/many that is off putting and may in some way detract from what might otherwise be good ideas (a particular youtube channel comes to mind).

Kind of like how I have consciously reduced my meat consumption, but when I see some militant vegan it motivates me to plan a nice big steak dinner.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Well thank you very much for suggesting that I am STUPID and cannot make a choice that best suits me.

Not at all what I'm saying.

A similar apartment in DT Halifax would have cost 3 or 4 thousand dollars if they were/are available at all.

AND I did check out apartments all over the city looking for something to spaciously accommodate our furniture including a grand piano and dining table for 8 and china cabinet.

You're basically making my point for me.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by OliverD

You're basically making my point for me.

Not really. You made your point so broad and nonspecific that you could use it to argue against anybody's living situation. Like, this penthouse condo in The Roy is nice but it really doesn't fit my lifestyle like a villa in southern France would... Aha! See? You chose that penthouse because you couldn't find any housing appropriate for your lifestyle... or *ahem* maybe you couldn't afford it? Point proven!

I think you are using an unfair argument against this poster to try to prove your point.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OliverD

Not at all what I'm saying.



You're basically making my point for me.

Beware the Florida Man!
I understand what you are saying, there is a natural tension between how the city is conceived and how it is used. It’s not as if what we see is spontaneously responding to demand, Larry U is the way it is because 20+ years ago some numbskull planner said developers can build X here in Y shape. It’s also not like these plans are democratically shaped either, there’s no public autonomy in this respect, no matter how much freedom an individual has. Whether it be well-planned or not it’s not as if cities grow organically like the Middle Ages.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Not really. You made your point so broad and nonspecific that you could use it to argue against anybody's living situation. Like, this penthouse condo in The Roy is nice but it really doesn't fit my lifestyle like a villa in southern France would... Aha! See? You chose that penthouse because you couldn't find any housing appropriate for your lifestyle... or *ahem* maybe you couldn't afford it? Point proven!

Not a great example. Odds are if you can afford a penthouse condo in the Roy you could instead get a villa in southern France. There’s also a difference between choosing two luxury items and trying to build decent life.

& Yes really! It’s also no secret that downtowns everywhere have become ludicrously expensive and that people have been forced to leave against their will.
Even among the middle class; you may be able to rent there, but if you want to own a family-sized place good luck.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think you are using an unfair argument against this poster to try to prove your point.

OliverD was simply raising the question over who decides how cities get built, not that people don’t know what’s good for them. There’s nothing personal about this statement.

In all honesty I think this whole discussion started in bad faith. Perhaps playfully, but still so. It seems everyone is in accordance with the general principles of a walkable community despite our differences. Perhaps if this forum were more “walkable”, we’d actually be able to walk away from the discussion.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Not a great example.

Not meant to be great It was sarcasm.

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

In all honesty I think this whole discussion started in bad faith.

If your intention is to become a mind reader, I would suggest that you don't quit your day job.

Not sure why you are appearing to question my integrity, but it's all good. Remember, it's just a discussion, even if it's being perceived as being in bad faith.

It does often seem, though, that the swords come out when certain philosphies are questioned, or in this case, a simple explanation or some context is requested.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Do amenities that make an area convenient for people to use cars automatically mean that you can't live there if you don't drive?

Really, I'm wanting to root out why people think it's so bad, and what should be done to take advantage of a high density area to make it desirable to somebody who doesn't want to have a car.

Sidewalks and signalled crosswalks kind of make it walkable, IMHO. That's why I asked about what hurdle does the area have to get past to actually be determined to be a walkable community? What is the line in the sand between it being OK or even great, and being "bad".

It can't be all about transportation because Larry Uteck is going to be included in the BRT routes.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thanks for the response. I'm getting the feeling that walkable means different things to different people. For example, if you don't mind walking longer distances and up/down hills then it may not be bad at all. If you don't mind that there isn't much to do or see between point A and B, then maybe it's OK. Of course anything walkable will be worse in winter conditions, so the level of sidewalk clearance/maintenance will be an important point as well.

So, really it comes down to which tradeoffs do you want to live with, I think. If you don't have a car, then maybe you have a little extra money to spend on rent/mortgage for a downtown apartment/condo that will be better situated for a car-free life. If you don't have the money to live downtown, then Uteck might seem more attractive for its nice apartments and relatively lower rent, but the walks are a little more difficult and you will have to rely on transit more, if you don't have a car. If you do have a car, it may actually be more convenient than living downtown without one - depends on your choices, I think.

Location also comes into it, as it always does with real estate. If you work downtown, then the most desirable place to live would be downtown. If you work in Bayer's Lake or Bedford/Sackville/Lakeside, then maybe a place like Uteck might actually work better for you - and you'd probably have a car anyhow as Halifax transit isn't really set up to work well for all places, just the most popular ones.

The more I think of it, the more it comes full circle and really it's all about personal choices and choosing the lifestyle that bets fits your wants, needs, and budget. Simple, actually. The posters who respond that it's bad, really mean that it's bad for them, as Arrdeeharharharbour points out - people have chosen to live there, so it can't be completely horrible or nobody would want to live there. ILoveHalifax confirms this.

OK, that helps. Thanks all!

No mind reading, just these two posts. The first post states that Larry U has sidewalks, density & retail so therefore it is walkable and people have no reason to complain. The response to the discussion says just a matter of opinion so just choose your favourite neighbourhood, even though in reality it’s not so simple which is where snowbird took this personally. But what’s the point of asking people to make a special list just for you if you already know what should be on it, especially when you’ve been on the forum longer and have seen more conversations on walkability?

I mean, I know you’re a car guy, so it’s not wild to think you enter the conversation looking to make a point against walkable/active transportation arguments.
(Edit: at least in their most imposing forms)

And that’s not to say there’s anything wrong with making a comment in bad faith on this forum, at least in my opinion. It’s just a different way of laying the foundation for an argument, on which I can make my counter-point. Even so, those who question your method are referred to as peers.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

No mind reading, just these two posts. The first post states that Larry U has sidewalks, density & retail so therefore it is walkable and people have no reason to complain.

I don't understand your take on what I wrote. I asked questions, gave my opinion (i.e. IMHO - In My Humble Opinion, if you're not familiar... which I know you are), and asked more questions... i.e. is there some kind of objective measure between good and bad?

Nowhere did I state, or even imply, that people have no reason to complain. I'm not sure where you got that in there. Stating that there are sidewalks and lighted crosswalks means that perhaps by some metric it would be considered walkable (TBH, sidewalks separated from traffic and lighted crosswalks to give me a chance to cross safely are enough for me). But somehow you perceived it as meaning people have no reason to complain?

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

The response to the discussion says just a matter of opinion so just choose your favourite neighbourhood, even though in reality it’s not so simple which is where snowbird took this personally. But what’s the point of asking people to make a special list just for you if you already know what should be on it, especially when you’ve been on the forum longer and have seen more conversations on walkability?

The response to the discussion is me absorbing what people have written, considering it, and giving MY OPINION on what it means to me. I could have just read everybody's responses to my questions and kept my opinion to myself, but that seems kind of antisocial to me - I mean, if I answer somebody's question and they clam up and don't respond, I ask myself why I bothered to 'help out'. Yeah, even if I don't agree with their opinion (which is fine... too many people today have a problem with people who don't agree with them - social comment of the day... my opinion )

And to be clear, the impression I got from the answers was that it's subjective, like the walk has to be useful, safe, comfortable, and interesting. Opinion, in other words. That's fine, but I was wondering if there was some metric, i.e. there must be amenities within 0.5 km of a residence with a grade of less than __, maintained sidewalk, X% of space free from car traffic, etc. I was surprised that there doesn't seem to be a 'spec'... it's just about what each person (or planner) feels, apparently. So, how is concluding my opinion "wrong"? Or is it just that my opinion doesn't line up with your opinion?

"Snowbird"... nice. What's the purpose of that insulting tag?

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I mean, I know you’re a car guy, so it’s not wild to think you enter the conversation looking to make a point against walkable/active transportation arguments.
(Edit: at least in their most imposing forms)

Boom! There it is. I like cars so therefore how could I ever understand walkable/active transportation concepts (guess what? I like to walk and ride bikes...). I have been coming to SSP for several years now because i'm interested in buildings (old and new), planning and other city/infrastructure/etc. issues, and people here tend to be a good source of information, plus interesting and pleasant to exchange ideas with, for the most part.

But... hey, I'm a car guy, so how could I ever understand that? What reason would I ever have to enter any conversation unless it might be to push an agenda?

Board member Nouvellecosse opened one of his/her responses to me by saying something to the nature that I just want to get along with everyone - meaning, that I don't give my full opinion as I'm worried that I might offend someone (I think... at least that's how I took it). I responded that I don't really care whether I get along with everyone or not... but it wasn't entirely true after I pondered it for awhile. I may not write everything I'm thinking as I really don't want to offend anybody... so I thought about it some more and figured that it was a fair criticism. So what I will offer are my real thoughts. If you think I'm pushing some kind of agenda, then go ahead... I honestly don't really care. If you think I'm discussing in bad faith... then you have a right to think so, again I don't really care. But whatever you read comes from an honest place, and I can be happy with that, even if others can't.

Anyhow, here I go rambling again, and terribly derailing yet another topic. I don't have any more to say on this, and I'm sure people don't want to waste their time reading this drivel. So I'm happy to leave it here. Enough is enough.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

And that’s not to say there’s anything wrong with making a comment in bad faith on this forum, at least in my opinion. It’s just a different way of laying the foundation for an argument, on which I can make my counter-point. Even so, those who question your method are referred to as peers.

You added this while I was responding.

I don't equate "arguing in bad faith" with being "devil's advocate", but maybe they are similar enough to be considered the same. Either way, I wasn't doing either.

I do feel the need to ask questions, and challenge ideas if the answers don't seem adequate to me. I may have been doing some of that, although it wasn't a goal or intent of mine.

Anyhow... as I said. Enough. If I don't discuss this again (ever), I'll be fine with it.

[ILoveHalifax]

[QUOTE=OldDartmouthMark;9615504]I

"Snowbird"... nice. What's the purpose of that insulting tag?

If that is a reference to me - no problem, I have been a snowbird any times in my life.
I am originally from Halifax and have lived in Halifax many times in my life. I have lived in Dartmouth and downtown and the South End - Halifax is a beautiful city and the nicest small city (500,000) in Canada and/or North America.

Years ago when I worked in an office in Miami, a co-worker asked my plans for the weekend and since I was staying in town, her reply was BORING - I replied, "If I lived in Toronto as I have for many years and I had a long weekend my favorite place would be to fly to Fort Lauderdale - the fact that I lived there and did not have to rent a car (I had my own convertible) my own nice apartment with everything I could ever want' I was in paradise.

Now I lived In North Palm Beach and am very pleased with my accommodations, car and the amenities - PERMANENT - Lucky me no longer a SNOWBIRD

Sad that my comments about Larry Uteck caused such a kerfuffle -

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Now I lived In North Palm Beach and am very pleased with my accommodations, car and the amenities - PERMANENT - Lucky me no longer a SNOWBIRD

Sad that my comments about Larry Uteck caused such a kerfuffle -

Oh I just come on here to shake things up every once & a while, otherwise people would get along too well. I was more concerned you had the wrong impression from someone else’s comments.

Say hi to Jerry’s parents for me!

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Oh I just come on here to shake things up every once & a while, otherwise people would get along too well. I was more concerned you had the wrong impression from someone else’s comments.

Say hi to Jerry’s parents for me!

"My Wallets gone, MY WALLETS GONE."

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Oh I just come on here to shake things up every once & a while, otherwise people would get along too well.

Hero of the people!

Drat! Now that I've been outed and my "car guy" tendencies have been brought to attention, I'll have to find some other urban forum on which to continue my fight against walkable cities and active transit...

I love this place!