HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2015, 11:06 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
This isn't just something interesting that we can sit back and casually watch like fashion trends. This is something which affects our energy and resource budget (and therefore economy), our physical health, and overall quality of life. We know we're running out of fossil fuels and we have no replacement option to give us as much energy for as little cost. And we know the effects it's having on the environment. We have to change and the urgency is too great for sitting around thinking "Hmm, it looks like things will eventually change at some point so let's not worry about it". Of course they're going to change at some point because we won't have oil forever. But we need to prepare for that transition if want to make it as painless as possible.
You're making the assumption that technological advancement of the automobile has stagnated and therefore its use will be tied to oil consumption and oil combustion products forever. That is not the case.

On top of that, the environment is a global entity and thus affected by many things, not just the automobile. While it is often easy and convenient to target that as the main source of pollution, there are many more which also need to be targeted but do not have a clear pathway to a solution, mainly due to political and financial reasons.

That's a huge topic, not suited to this thread, so I'll leave it at that.



Quote:
No one said anything about legislation, and I didn't advocate letting it run it's natural course (I was interpreting that as your preference). My post was simply condemning what I considered a problematic suggestion that counter made without going into potential solutions.

That being said, I reject suggestion that the concept of planning in the content of a society is anti-freedom or somehow a form of coercion. In order to live in a society and enjoy the benefits of such there are things we must share including basic infrastructure, and we cannot have separate infrastructure to suit every possible taste or preference as it isn't financially feasible. Planning based on the type of infrastructure we can actually afford is our society responding to reality, not an active intent to oppress anyone.

When it comes to freedom, I believe in real freedom, but not false freedom. Real freedom is what I would describe as being able to sustain the cost or side affects of a particular choice or action rather than externalise them (like stealing from someone) or be limited by the costs of adverse affects later on (like choosing to sit around the apartment all day and relax only to be kicked out for not paying the rent). For instance, a real freedom would be to choosing to buy a fancy car when you have $50,000 in the bank or the reliable income to finance it. False freedom would be to take out loans and run up credit card debt to live in a way you feel entitled to when you cannot afford it. Eventually you'll run out of credit.

Now it may not be illegal to manage one's finances poorly, but I feel it should be open to criticism. And that's basically what I was doing with my criticism of counter's suggestion that encouraging more downtown parking is a positive thing, except on a societal level rather than on an individual level. Letting the market decide and having things run their course would be like a consumer living above their means until they run out of credit and are forced to change, and perhaps end up declaring bankruptcy, rather than seeing the trend ahead of time and adjusting accordingly. It isn't just bad planning, it isn't planning at all.



Given the amount of disposable income some people devote to their automobiles, I think saying that they're "Focusing their lives around the car" is quite fair. Not to mention the amount of space allocated for this method of conveyance.



I remember reading a study out of Seattle I believe showing the relationship between the rates of car ownership and their mandatory parking spaces laws. I'll have to see if I can find it.
Many good points here. I don't have the time to answer them individually, but I appreciate the thought you put into your response.

Quote:
Also, i don't believe that last statement for a second. Most people do what is fastest and most convenient and/or cheapest. Many people use cars now because they're the fastest and most convenient option (because we've designed things that way) but if that stops being the case, most people are not going to put themselves through torment as some sort of political protest when there's an easier way for them to get to their destination. Have you even heard of the concept of induced demand? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

Plus, designing things is a less auto-focused way improves the quality of life for other people, and lowers costs in terms of road infrastructure and maintenance, so I would dispute the claim regarding the end result. The net results would include a variety of things with the positives easily outweighing the negatives.
Yes, but you've just supported my assertion that if we make transit efficient, easy, and convenient, that people will be drawn away from the car and thus the situation will be improved. The whole concept is to make it a positive experience rather than a negative one - that's all I was getting at.

So yes, I agree.

Anyway, let's get back to the Brenton Place project... we've beaten this tangent to death. Thanks for answering my initial question re: parking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2015, 11:26 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
If you believe that going car-free has the momentum and is the way of the future, then why would we insist on investing in large amounts of parking in brand new buildings that will be around at least a good 50-100 years?

Because the developer needs to sell these units now, not 50 years from now. Jeezus!
.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2015, 11:30 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post

When it comes to freedom, I believe in real freedom, but not false freedom. Real freedom is what I would describe as being able to sustain the cost or side affects of a particular choice or action rather than externalise them (like stealing from someone) or be limited by the costs of adverse affects later on (like choosing to sit around the apartment all day and relax only to be kicked out for not paying the rent). For instance, a real freedom would be to choosing to buy a fancy car when you have $50,000 in the bank or the reliable income to finance it. False freedom would be to take out loans and run up credit card debt to live in a way you feel entitled to when you cannot afford it. Eventually you'll run out of credit.

Now it may not be illegal to manage one's finances poorly, but I feel it should be open to criticism. And that's basically what I was doing with my criticism of counter's suggestion that encouraging more downtown parking is a positive thing, except on a societal level rather than on an individual level. Letting the market decide and having things run their course would be like a consumer living above their means until they run out of credit and are forced to change, and perhaps end up declaring bankruptcy, rather than seeing the trend ahead of time and adjusting accordingly. It isn't just bad planning, it isn't planning at all.

Given the amount of disposable income some people devote to their automobiles, I think saying that they're "Focusing their lives around the car" is quite fair. Not to mention the amount of space allocated for this method of conveyance.

It sounds mostly like you simply personally do not approve of what you describe. Now, does that extend to people taking out mortgages to buy these units? Clearly if they do not have the available cash, they cannot afford them. What about HRM or other govts borrowing millions to construct infrastructure projects? Do you not approve of those either?

Frankly, this has been very instructive in reading the intent in any future posts you may make.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2015, 11:32 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason View Post
And the market is self driving car shared cars within 20 years. It is hard to see parking being needed in anywhere near the way it has been in the past.
Will they fly too? Because they promised us flying cars! Perhaps we need to mandate rooftop landing pads instead of parking spaces.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2015, 11:39 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 5,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
You're making the assumption that technological advancement of the automobile has stagnated and therefore its use will be tied to oil consumption and oil combustion products forever. That is not the case.
People are forgetting that the supply of oil isn't an issue of internal combustion, it's an issue of overall energy. Internal combustion is just a way of accessing stored energy, which is energy that was pre-stored and in the ground waiting for us that we didn't need to harness ourselves. Talking about things like electric cars is completely beside the point. Most of our electricity comes from fossil fuels. Having oil is having access to millions of years of solar energy in the form of buried plant material. We have no other free energy inheritance to draw from. Other automobile technologies might be more efficient than internal combustion, but no where near enough to support high automobile usage without access to our cheap energy inheritance.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2015, 5:57 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
People are forgetting that the supply of oil isn't an issue of internal combustion, it's an issue of overall energy. Internal combustion is just a way of accessing stored energy, which is energy that was pre-stored and in the ground waiting for us that we didn't need to harness ourselves. Talking about things like electric cars is completely beside the point. Most of our electricity comes from fossil fuels. Having oil is having access to millions of years of solar energy in the form of buried plant material. We have no other free energy inheritance to draw from. Other automobile technologies might be more efficient than internal combustion, but no where near enough to support high automobile usage without access to our cheap energy inheritance.
Your argument is a valid one, but it's also rooted in the present. There is a lot of work being done to open up new ways of harnessing energy. Again, a huge topic for another forum. Don't discount the likelyhood that future advancements in technology will continue to discover viable alternatives to what we have in the present.

But, let's be clear, if we are talking energy use, pollution, etc., everything we do has to be taken under scrutiny, the whole world over. How about developing countries that are now making the environmental mistakes we made 50 years ago? What about astronomical world population? Etc. etc. etc. Another huge topic that I will not pursue here.

That's all for me. I don't intend to water down this thread with any further discussion on this topic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2015, 6:18 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Well, since it's now back to the future:



Forget self-driving cars. I'm looking to buy a Hoverboard:



Has Canadian Tire gotten these in for Christmas season, yet?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2015, 3:49 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
Well, since it's now back to the future:

Forget self-driving cars. I'm looking to buy a Hoverboard:

Has Canadian Tire gotten these in for Christmas season, yet?
Good choice. And I believe they are powered by a miniature version of the flux capacitor, which is known to have no negative effects on pollution nor the dead dinosaur reserves.

Personally, I'm taking delivery of my new flying car next week, so will be looking for one of those roof-top parking spots Keith was talking about...

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2015, 5:11 PM
hokus83 hokus83 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Will they fly too? Because they promised us flying cars! Perhaps we need to mandate rooftop landing pads instead of parking spaces.
The US passed a law that every brand new car has to have a self driving fiction in 15 years
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2015, 5:44 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by hokus83 View Post
The US passed a law that every brand new car has to have a self driving fiction in 15 years
"self driving fiction " Is that a fact ?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2015, 5:59 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by hokus83 View Post
The US passed a law that every brand new car has to have a self driving fiction in 15 years
Source?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2015, 6:09 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Source?
Must have been one of those Science Fiction publications.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2015, 7:48 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
Must have been one of those Science Fiction publications.
I think so...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2015, 11:44 AM
portapetey portapetey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 509
New article highlighting resident concerns about this and another proposal:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/busines...ects-of-towers

I really hope this proposal goes ahead. This is already a mid- and high-rise block, however much some people seem to want to deny that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2015, 2:55 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by portapetey View Post
New article highlighting resident concerns about this and another proposal:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/busines...ects-of-towers

I really hope this proposal goes ahead. This is already a mid- and high-rise block, however much some people seem to want to deny that.

The "Schmidtville" protectors - which as I said years ago here is largely a creation of property owners in the area and not anything historically factual - need to limit their hegemony to their little colony bounded by Morris, Brenton, Clyde and Queen Sts. They can knock themselves out adding Victorian gingerbread and "authentic" colors to their little stick-built structures, listen to the CBC, eat finger sandwiches and petit fours, and sip tea. Let the rest fo the city grow up around them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2015, 3:40 PM
portapetey portapetey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
The "Schmidtville" protectors - which as I said years ago here is largely a creation of property owners in the area and not anything historically factual - need to limit their hegemony to their little colony bounded by Morris, Brenton, Clyde and Queen Sts. They can knock themselves out adding Victorian gingerbread and "authentic" colors to their little stick-built structures, listen to the CBC, eat finger sandwiches and petit fours, and sip tea. Let the rest fo the city grow up around them.
LOL. That was...vivid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2015, 3:49 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
The "Schmidtville" protectors - which as I said years ago here is largely a creation of property owners in the area and not anything historically factual - need to limit their hegemony to their little colony bounded by Morris, Brenton, Clyde and Queen Sts. They can knock themselves out adding Victorian gingerbread and "authentic" colors to their little stick-built structures, listen to the CBC, eat finger sandwiches and petit fours, and sip tea. Let the rest fo the city grow up around them.
Translation: Let's give carte blanche to the developers to do whatever they want, because after all we should feel lucky that they are willing to invest their precious dollars in Halifax. We need more glass boxes because anybody who wants to preserve built heritage must be some kind of... zealot? Well, you know - those kind of people...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2015, 4:37 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Translation: Let's give carte blanche to the developers to do whatever they want, because after all we should feel lucky that they are willing to invest their precious dollars in Halifax. We need more glass boxes because anybody who wants to preserve built heritage must be some kind of... zealot? Well, you know - those kind of people...
Yes, because a 3-storey 1950s walk-up apartment building is so historic.




This indeed is worth chaining yourself to in order to protect it from the bulldozers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2015, 4:49 PM
Haliguy's Avatar
Haliguy Haliguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Halifax
Posts: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Yes, because a 3-storey 1950s walk-up apartment building is so historic.




This indeed is worth chaining yourself to in order to protect it from the bulldozers.
Hahahha
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2015, 5:04 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Yes, because a 3-storey 1950s walk-up apartment building is so historic.




This indeed is worth chaining yourself to in order to protect it from the bulldozers.
You know that building is not what everybody is talking about.

I think this quote is a good indication of their mindset:

Quote:
“It’s not that development shouldn’t happen,” he said. “But it’s called respectful development.”
But, whatever, we should just give developers free rein over the city, I don't really care to argue anymore.
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 > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:51 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.