General Updates and News

[yal]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

OK, from the pic, it appears that he is a little older. He's a professor, does that make him wealthy? Does his financial status matter?

But really, I don't understand how his views would be considered NIMBY. He seems to have concerns about the loss of history and character of the entire city. Could you explain how this is NIMBY? Not questioning your views, but I really want to understand.

First of all, his background: http://www.smu.ca/research/profiles/.../Haiven98.html
We can dig into the salaries if they are public but I assure you he wasn't making minimum wage throughout his career. It is not hard to assume that he is an upper-middle class citizen.

Second, taking his background into consideration and the fact that he is the chair of the Schmidtville Stakeholder Steering Committee suggests that he is either living in Schmidtville or in the South End. We all know about the Schmidtville crowd right? It also takes some sort of financial maturity for people to make time to engage in projects like that. NIMBYism is not cheap.

Third, the fact that the developments he is shitting on are/were ALMOST all empty lots, mostly parking lots which were levelled decades ago like it was mentioned above. The only point I agree with him is the Elmswood building.

Let's go one by one:

The Cunard: Parking lot
The Vic: "which replaced the gorgeous old Victoria Hotel at Morris and Hollis, victim of demolition-by-neglect)" (his words). This is the gorgeous hotel he is talking about: https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.64196...7i13312!8i6656
The Roy: Probably one of the best buildings in that area. Bricks were falling off of it before the project.
The Alexander: Vacant Lot
The Mary Ann and The Margaretta: Parking Lot / Vacant Lot
"shamelessly sit on a part of Schmidtville that has been levelled." He is almost talking like it was levelled couple months ago to make way for these projects.
Robie and Quinpool Tower: A very ugly and outdated office building with a crumbling multilevel parking lot behind it.
Queen’s Marque: Parking Lot

Apart from his criticism, he doesn't give us any clue about what he would envision instead of those projects since almost all of them were empty lots.

If this is not NIMBYism, honestly I don't know what is. I hope I could explain my point of view

[yal]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

He's a professor, does that make him wealthy?

I think I found an answer to that question

http://www.smu.ca/webfiles/Public%20...cal%202016.pdf

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by yal

First of all, his background: http://www.smu.ca/research/profiles/.../Haiven98.html
We can dig into the salaries if they are public but I assure you he wasn't making minimum wage throughout his career. It is not hard to assume that he is an upper-middle class citizen.

Again, I don't see the relevance of his financial status. Anyone has the potential to be considered NIMBY - it's a state of mind, not necessarily a sign of wealth. I'm sure that everybody who opposes development in their neighborhood is not wealthy, they just don't want change in their area, likely for a variety of reasons.

Second, taking his background into consideration and the fact that he is the chair of the Schmidtville Stakeholder Steering Committee suggests that he is either living in Schmidtville or in the South End. We all know about the Schmidtville crowd right? It also takes some sort of financial maturity for people to make time to engage in projects like that. NIMBYism is not cheap.

Yeah, I know there is resentment of the Schmidtville people on this forum. Perhaps justifiable in some cases, but the preservation of an old neighbourhood isn't necessarily a bad cause. Perhaps the motivation may be property value retention, but there's also the heritage aspect which makes it a reasonable assertion, IMHO.

Third, the fact that the developments he is shitting on are/were ALMOST all empty lots, mostly parking lots which were levelled decades ago like it was mentioned above. The only point I agree with him is the Elmswood building.

Let's go one by one:

The Cunard: Parking lot
The Vic: "which replaced the gorgeous old Victoria Hotel at Morris and Hollis, victim of demolition-by-neglect)" (his words). This is the gorgeous hotel he is talking about: https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.64196...7i13312!8i6656
The Roy: Probably one of the best buildings in that area. Bricks were falling off of it before the project.
The Alexander: Vacant Lot
The Mary Ann and The Margaretta: Parking Lot / Vacant Lot
"shamelessly sit on a part of Schmidtville that has been levelled." He is almost talking like it was levelled couple months ago to make way for these projects.
Robie and Quinpool Tower: A very ugly and outdated office building with a crumbling multilevel parking lot behind it.
Queen’s Marque: Parking Lot

Apart from his criticism, he doesn't give us any clue about what he would envision instead of those projects since almost all of them were empty lots.
If this is not NIMBYism, honestly I don't know what is. I hope I could explain my point of view

As mentioned, I agree with you on this one (with the exception of the old hotel on the VIC lot - I thought it had a lot of character and was actually an example somewhat unique within the area - it was allowed to be a little run down by the owners, but I would like to have seen it retained).

It's a weak argument for him to assert that buildings shouldn't have been built on empty lots, and it takes focus away from the point he was trying to make. It would have been much more effective to simply talk about cases where buildings were removed specifically to make way for new developments, and would have made his points much harder to refute, IMHO.

I still can't agree that this is purely a NIMBY motivation, since he can't possibly live in all the neighbourhoods where these buildings are being built. I would concede that the argument of not building on empty lots is anti-development, but I don't see NIMBY in it. And... I don't think that was the point of it all.

Thanks for responding to my questions and giving me the opportunity to present my views. It's a good exchange, I think.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by yal

I think I found an answer to that question

http://www.smu.ca/webfiles/Public%20...cal%202016.pdf

Wow, there are more members of the Haiven clan on that payroll than Jesuits, I think. Between him and wife Judy they are pulling in a quarter of a million a year not counting govt grants, book royalties, etc.

[yal]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Again, I don't see the relevance of his financial status. Anyone has the potential to be considered NIMBY - it's a state of mind, not necessarily a sign of wealth.

For some reason, I have the association on my mind that in the downtown/south-end neighborhoods, the anti-development "activism" we see is usually done by the wealthy elder residents. I am making a generalization, yes, but I don't think this is far from the truth for this particular region.

I still think Schmidtville type of NIMBYism is more for people that are in certain financial status and relatively wealthy. As a result, they have more time to dedicate to their cause and have more influence than your average NIMBY.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

As mentioned, I agree with you on this one (with the exception of the old hotel on the VIC lot - I thought it had a lot of character and was actually an example somewhat unique within the area - it was allowed to be a little run down by the owners, but I would like to have seen it retained).

It's a weak argument for him to assert that buildings shouldn't have been built on empty lots, and it takes focus away from the point he was trying to make. It would have been much more effective to simply talk about cases where buildings were removed specifically to make way for new developments, and would have made his points much harder to refute, IMHO.

Yeah. I'm with him Mr. Haiven entirely on the loss of historic buildings. And as much as I like the Vic, the unique building on the corner would have been wonderful to preserve. Almost as much of a loss as the Elmwood.

But when he refers to something like the Vic as a "pile of undistinguished building elements" he loses credibility. (Likewise calling Queen's Marque "modernist".)

And what's wrong with invoking a bit of history by referring to a new building by a historic name? Absolutely nothing, except that he seems to think anything that's A: Large, or B: Contemporary in appearance somehow diminishes the city.

[beyeas]

If it is inappropriate to give more weight to someone's opinion because they have money, why is it appropriate to give it less?

Arguing that someone's opinion is wrong based on their social class etc is just as wrong an argument as basing it their race or gender. Frankly it is just a cheap way out rather than actually debating facts.

I think the author has some valid points that we need to figure out what built heritage we value and therefore wish to save long term. I also very much disagree with many of their other points, including that development/change is bad for this city, however none of my disagreement is based on his job or apparent wealth, but on factual disagreement.

[yal]

Originally Posted by beyeas

If it is inappropriate to give more weight to someone's opinion because they have money, why is it appropriate to give it less?

Arguing that someone's opinion is wrong based on their social class etc is just as wrong an argument as basing it their race or gender. Frankly it is just a cheap way out rather than actually debating facts.

I think the author has some valid points that we need to figure out what built heritage we value and therefore wish to save long term. I also very much disagree with many of their other points, including that development/change is bad for this city, however none of my disagreement is based on his job or apparent wealth, but on factual disagreement.

I merely made a statement about the social demographics of a certain group of activists. Where did I exactly argue his opinion is wrong based on his social class? I went through the developments one by one in my post. What facts am I missing?

You are absolutely twisting my arguments so you can "refute" my point. I think taking a statement and trying to turn it into and argument about class, race and gender is the cheap way out. And if you think the equation "wealth = influence" does not apply in that situation, you are very naive.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It's a weak argument for him to assert that buildings shouldn't have been built on empty lots, and it takes focus away from the point he was trying to make. It would have been much more effective to simply talk about cases where buildings were removed specifically to make way for new developments, and would have made his points much harder to refute, IMHO.

I still can't agree that this is purely a NIMBY motivation, since he can't possibly live in all the neighbourhoods where these buildings are being built. I would concede that the argument of not building on empty lots is anti-development, but I don't see NIMBY in it. And... I don't think that was the point of it all.

Thanks for responding to my questions and giving me the opportunity to present my views. It's a good exchange, I think.

I think you're being too generous, Mark. I don't think he's simply making a point about the loss of heritage in Halifax. If he were, there would be no need for him to exaggerate. There are several good recent examples, like the Doyle on SGR.

But the reason he has to exaggerate, obviously cynically hoping to capitalize on the ignorance of readers, is he's trying to establish a much broader and more significant claim: that new developments in the City are, literally, destroying it; this is a far more alarmist, apocryphal, and quite frankly, stupid claim. A total fabrication for which there is little evidence.

If you're wondering where I'm getting this, it's from the byline of the article:

Halifax is surely and inexorably being destroyed by rampant developers and an obliging council.

His final paragraph echoes this same Big Lie.

And I have to agree -- it's utter NIMBY garbage.

If he were simply wanting to preserve heritage, he'd offer constructive proposals, ways of developers and the heritage community to work together. Maybe policy changes to allow development to happen, and the benefits that come with it, along with preserving and protecting valuable heritage.

But he doesn't do anything like that. He clearly sees no value in development or change, or at least doesn't indicate so in the piece. Rather, his aim is clearly to demonize development and the "destruction" he claims it has wrought on the City.

This is not only NIMBY, it's cynical and based on ignorance and exaggeration by an professor emeritus who should know better.

I also don't mind pointing out that he's a former professor and no doubt would have fallen among the wealthiest 5% in Canada by income standards. He probably also owns property in Schmidtville.

Why is it relevant? Because it indicates there's a clear self-interest here, as is often with NIMBY property owners, which would provide another motive for his ludicrously over-the-top column, based on exaggeration and BS.

It's often the case that NIMBYism is pushed by wealthy property owners to stop new housing developments that would making housing more affordable for others, and potentially bring down related costs.

It's simple supply and demand. Stopping new development both preserves, and inflates, the monetary value of existing properties. We've seen this in major cities all over Canada. Halifax remains reasonable, but it won't be in the long term if NIMBYs like Haiven get their way.

He may truly believe the city is being destroyed; but the net result of his advocacy/NIMBYism is the preservation and inflation of the property values, and thus the investment, of those who own in these areas, and an increase in housing costs and cost of living for the rest of us.

[yal]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I also don't mind pointing out that he's a former professor and no doubt would have fallen among the wealthiest 5% in Canada by income standards. He probably also owns property in Schmidtville.

Why is it relevant? Because it indicates there's a clear self-interest here, as is often with NIMBY property owners, which would provide another motive for his ludicrously over-the-top column, based on exaggeration and BS.

It's often the case that NIMBYism is pushed by wealthy property owners to stop new housing developments that would making housing more affordable for others, and potentially bring down related costs.

It's simple supply and demand. Stopping new development both preserves, and inflates, the monetary value of existing properties. We've seen this in major cities all over Canada. Halifax remains reasonable, but it won't be in the long term if NIMBYs like Haiven get their way.

This is exactly why I brought up the wealth and NIMBYism in the South End. I think you put it together better than I did.

I would also like to point out that he is the very same person who wanted to "save the view of the Citadel Hill" from the library that did not exist couple years ago.

https://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/we-n...nt?oid=5316813

[musicman]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

OK, from the pic, it appears that he is a little older. He's a professor, does that make him wealthy? Does his financial status matter?

But really, I don't understand how his views would be considered NIMBY. He seems to have concerns about the loss of history and character of the entire city. Could you explain how this is NIMBY? Not questioning your views, but I really want to understand.

He is a nimby of the worst type. He lives in an area and does not want to see anything change in and around it. He is against some of the most affordable units going up on the paninsula, and sees all these new people moving into his neighbourhood as a threat.

Ironically he fought the new library and now hold his nimby meetings in "this lovely space" so yeah he is a nimby.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Many good points made here. Too many to address them all individually.

I can understand where you all are coming from, but I still have a problem with generalizing somebody's intentions based on their age or financial status. I don't know this man personally, maybe some of you do, so I will defer to your experience. I will always have a problem with generalizing about people - period.

I can understand the need for preservation of historic structures and neighbourhoods, but I couldn't give a damn about property values. I think the goal should be to make the city a great place to live, for everybody. If that means mixing historic areas with shiny new structures, then that's the best outcome. I think most people here would want this, so I'll leave it at that.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Many good points made here. Too many to address them all individually.

I can understand where you all are coming from, but I still have a problem with generalizing somebody's intentions based on their age or financial status. I don't know this man personally, maybe some of you do, so I will defer to your experience. I will always have a problem with generalizing about people - period.

I can understand the need for preservation of historic structures and neighbourhoods, but I couldn't give a damn about property values. I think the goal should be to make the city a great place to live, for everybody. If that means mixing historic areas with shiny new structures, then that's the best outcome. I think most people here would want this, so I'll leave it at that.

Excellent post. I dislike NIMBY's (especially the BANANA variant) but historical preservationism has to be taken seriously. Sometimes that means entire streetscapes need to be preserved, despite the fact that not every building on that street is particularly historic or noteworthy. In most circumstances though, new construction is good, especially if alterations can be made in the design so that it fits into the context of the neighbourhood. Balance is necessary in these decisions, and this requires reasoned and thoughtful debate.

I also don't know this particular individual or have any real understanding of his history of activism, but it troubles me that some people have gone out of their way to publish his occupation and salary and then justify this as an indication of his character and motives. This is just plain wrong. If you want to vilify him, do so based on his actions, not because of who he is or where he comes from.

[yal]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I also don't know this particular individual or have any real understanding of his history of activism, but it troubles me that some people have gone out of their way to publish his occupation and salary and then justify this as an indication of his character and motives. This is just plain wrong. If you want to vilify him, do so based on his actions, not because of who he is or where he comes from.

All of the information disclosed above is public. I literally takes one Google search and couple of clicks to get it all. There is nothing to "publish" there.

His articles are "his actions". His background and who he is gives us clues about his possible future actions/motivations. This is particularly important when he has access to media outlets and can influence public opinion and development in particular regions.

Do you really think a person's background and who that person is, has no relationship with that person's actions and motives?

Also, criticism is not equal to vilification. This oversensitivity is killing me.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Excellent post. I dislike NIMBY's (especially the BANANA variant) but historical preservationism has to be taken seriously. Sometimes that means entire streetscapes need to be preserved, despite the fact that not every building on that street is particularly historic or noteworthy. In most circumstances though, new construction is good, especially if alterations can be made in the design so that it fits into the context of the neighbourhood. Balance is necessary in these decisions, and this requires reasoned and thoughtful debate.

I also don't know this particular individual or have any real understanding of his history of activism, but it troubles me that some people have gone out of their way to publish his occupation and salary and then justify this as an indication of his character and motives. This is just plain wrong. If you want to vilify him, do so based on his actions, not because of who he is or where he comes from.

I think it's been a pretty civil discussion with fair criticisms raised. No one has called him names or made false claims about him. And the only vilification in this discussion comes in the article itself-- which uses exaggeration and multiple caricatures of existing developments to demonize not only developers but also city politicians.

We've offered pretty measured criticism his ludicrous article and claims. And given his many exaggerations in it, it's fair to ask -- why? Why the exaggeration? Why the caricatures and inflated claims?

Mark responded in kind, thoughtfully, as he usually does. I disagree with Mark, but it's civil.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I think it's been a pretty civil discussion with fair criticisms raised. No one has called him names or made false claims about him. And the only vilification in this discussion comes in the article itself-- which uses exaggeration and multiple caricatures of existing developments to demonize not only developers but also city politicians.

We've offered pretty measured criticism his ludicrous article and claims. And given his many exaggerations in it, it's fair to ask -- why? Why the exaggeration? Why the caricatures and inflated claims?

Mark responded in kind, thoughtfully, as he usually does. I disagree with Mark, but it's civil.

Hey thanks for the good words. It is possible to disagree and yet keep the discussion fact-based and non-personal, and I appreciate that. It's something that's a little extraordinary in that even the current US president doesn't seem to be capable of it ().

As mentioned, I agree that many of the author's claims are baseless and definitely take away from his argument, and I've stated the aspects that I agree with, so we're all good there.

Not to beat a dead horse, but my comments regarding NIMBYism in this case were based on what I felt was the accepted definition of NIMBY. A couple of examples from a quick internet search:

not in my backyard: used to express opposition by local citizens to the locating in their neighborhood of a civic project, as a jail, garbage dump, or drug rehabilitation center, that, though needed by the larger community, is considered unsightly, dangerous, or likely to lead to decreased property values.

Source

and

NIMBY (an acronym for the phrase "Not In My Back Yard"[1][2]), or Nimby,[3] is a pejorative characterization of opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development because it is close to them (or, in some cases, because the development involves controversial or potentially dangerous technology) often with the connotation that such residents believe that the developments are needed in society but should be further away. The residents are often called Nimbys, and their state of mind is called Nimbyism.

Source


Given that he was concerned about buildings being built throughout the city, and not just in 'his' neighborhood (wherever that is), I felt that the judgement of NIMBY wasn't appropriate. It is speculated that he lives in Schmidtville (I haven't seen any proof, other than being involved in the Schmidtville movement), so perhaps NIMBY applies to the Schmidtville case, but IMHO still not applicable to the other cases.

As somebody mentioned, BANANA may be more appropriate, but he doesn't seem to object to every development, just ones that he doesn't like.

It's interesting that NIMBY has taken on such a negative connotation - as in some cases it is not necessarily a bad thing - and is quite subjective based on the personal tastes/interests of an individual. For example, there have been many cases where a significant historical structure has been lost to replace it with mediocre architecture - local residents who oppose it may be considered NIMBY, but that viewpoint can change over the years once the majority realizes it as a loss, and perhaps understands that the building which replaced it didn't live up to expectations or somehow had a negative effect on the neighborhood.

That's all I feel I need to say about that topic.

Regarding the other issue I had, with relation to his income and/or placement in the 'pecking order' of our society, I agree that this can play into similar situations whereby the person uses their 'influence' to make things go to their particular preference, but again I think it is unfair to make that assumption. I don't mean to make too fine a point about it, but in some ways it seems to shadow the resentment between generations that I've seen way too many times on the internet (i.e. "Millennials" deriding the 'privileged' "Boomers" and vice versa). Maybe that's not the circumstance, but in any case I think we're bigger than that here.

Maybe I'm being "oversensitive"... It's OK, I can dial back the sensitivity, but then I get to be insensitive in my responses too...

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Given that he was concerned about buildings being built throughout the city, and not just in 'his' neighborhood (wherever that is), I felt that the judgement of NIMBY wasn't appropriate. It is speculated that he lives in Schmidtville (I haven't seen any proof, other than being involved in the Schmidtville movement), so perhaps NIMBY applies to the Schmidtville case, but IMHO still not applicable to the other cases.

Larry & Judy live on Morris St, in the Dresden Row/Birmingham St. area, so they're on the edge of Schmidtville.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Larry & Judy live on Morris St, in the Dresden Row/Birmingham St. area, so they're on the edge of Schmidtville.

Thanks Keith. Then I guess it applies for the Schmidtville case.

[Jonovision]

Not to curtail this great discussion but I have a few updates to share.

Dartmouth Sportsplex

20170818_112840_HDR by Jonovision23, on Flickr

New Hilton Double Tree (Replacing old Holiday Inn)

20170818_112630 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20170818_112445_HDR by Jonovision23, on Flickr

The same developer who was working on the St Pats Rectory seen below has restored the Jesuits Centre a few doors down.

20170818_105936 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20170818_110044 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20170818_110026 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[yal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Larry & Judy live on Morris St, in the Dresden Row/Birmingham St. area, so they're on the edge of Schmidtville.

I had that gut feeling that they would be living around Schmidtville. My gut was right I guess