HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2013, 2:35 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason View Post
What I have done 'in favor' of downtown are two main things:

1 - I got council talking and staff working on actually acting on the economic strategy, the Community Planning Economic Development Standing Committee has a report coming to create the $50 million dollar Urban Core fund, $10 mil over 5 years and an ongoing strategic reserve - we will see paving and street scaping accelerate in the main commercial areas. http://halifaxmag.com/2013/03/featur...-for-downtown/

2 - I have a open for business approach to downtown/SGR. I meet with the BID Exec Dir regularly, attend their board meetings, and call and email every business or developer in the papers saying they may move to or build in downtown. I set up my office at city hall as a place to meet informally with all these investors and stakeholders, so for example the paper had the news about the NFB development on a Thursday or Friday and in less than a week was meeting Steve and his architect in my office to talk about what I could do to help.
Well, streetscaping might help a bit, but prettiftying an area that is largely parking lots, abandoned run-down buildings and crumbling facades doesn't help much if those who want to build things are frustrated by development rules that make it uneconomic to invest in projects. As I stated the the Skye thread, something you voted to make go away:

It appears the new Council is already on track to rival the old Council for their record of ineptitude. To reject this proposal and to deem the site must fall under HRMbD rules of no more than 20 storeys - even though they already approved a DA for height well in excess of that - will simply drive developers to other markets. Clearly a developer who was willing to spend $350 million in Halifax is not welcomed. I hope UG goes to Moncton and builds something iconic there.

This became an ego exercise, with Andy Fillmore lobbying hard in social media for his baby, claiming it was the reason downtown is "booming", and with the likes of Waye Mason leading the charge to defend a deeply flawed planning document by spurning someone willing to invest heavily in our bombed-out downtown in order to protect Andy Fillmore's opus. Once again HRM Council proves it has its collective head firmly up its arse.
"


Quote:
Bikes - The thing is, all the data nationally shows that people and employers place a very high value on walking or biking to work, so it IS important to the economic well being to the city, all $1 million a year that goes on AT trails for the entire area. While the entire regions modal split is nothing too amazing (10% walk, 1% bike to work) the splits in the core (Dartmouth and peninsula) are high, 40% and more walk and bike to work. This is a great thing that is increasing, so it has worked to keep cars in driveways, keeping pressure off roads. This is measurable progress that saves the city money and these investments help attract and retain business in the core.
By combining the walk & bike numbers you and others who do the same are deceiving the audience. The walk numbers are likely the same as they have always been - if you are lucky enough to live close to where you work then you can walk to work. Sidewalks have been in place forever and council does nothing to change that or affect those numbers much. In reality, by rejecting projects like Skye you are doing just the opposite. Lumping those numbers into those who bike - perhaps 1% of workers - makes the bike numbers ridiculously inflated over reality. The thing is, all it takes is simple observation to see that virtually nobody uses the lanes that have been built. They cost money and reduce traffic flow and parking. As the anti-development types invariably say at public hearings, "We're not Toronto!". And we aren't, and we're certainly not Portland or Seattle or San Diego either. They are largely useless in a hilly downtown that is in the grip of winter nearly half the year. Only the hard-core fringe bike nuts use them. That is not a wise use of tax dollars.

Look, I respect that you ran and got elected. I truly do. It's not something I would attempt. But it seems that you and some of your colleagues lose perspective on what the majority wants from Council shortly after taking office. We want the downtown to be vibrant, not bombed-out, we want to be able to get around it easily, we want a reason to go there and we want a way to get there and spend time there. Supporting bus routes to Porters Lake and spending money on bike lanes and sending developers away and making it harder to go downtown and park and spend money isn't the way to do that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2013, 2:54 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 4,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
We want the downtown to be vibrant, not bombed-out, we want to be able to get around it easily, we want a reason to go there and we want a way to get there and spend time there. Supporting bus routes to Porters Lake and spending money on bike lanes and sending developers away and making it harder to go downtown and park and spend money isn't the way to do that.
Hear, hear.

Council should focus on things like LRT and increasing high-rise residential development in the downtown. Not the artys fartsy, hippie crap we already have enough of. Next thing we'll hear is they are working on more art projects to be placed in the remaining bombed out craters downtown.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2013, 3:06 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 4,500
How about using some of the Cogswell Interchange to create a LRT/Bus transit terminal (below ground?) and the rail line could be extended above ground from the via rail station along lower water street to the Cogswell interchange. This street is now one way anyways and would have the capacity to allow for a rail line.

Just think of how many people would use this just for metro centre events alone.



Edit:

I see this has already been discussed in the rail-based transit thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...140589&page=40

The issue may be if its allowed by Transport Canada. I also see Hollis street was suggested instead of lower water street.

Last edited by q12; Mar 23, 2013 at 3:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2013, 6:31 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by q12 View Post
Hear, hear.

Council should focus on things like LRT and increasing high-rise residential development in the downtown. Not the artys fartsy, hippie crap we already have enough of. Next thing we'll hear is they are working on more art projects to be placed in the remaining bombed out craters downtown.
Actually, if we want to attract the kind of white-collar professional-class workers and industries who are driving most urban economies today, we do, actually, need to invest in some of that "hippie crap."

Arts and culture employment and infrastructure drives tourism, education, employment, and local industries like music, film, etc, which employ a hell of a lot of people. City governments from Seattle to London to Toronto are realizing this, and that arts investment, generally, provides a higher rate of return GDP than most corporate tax breaks, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2013, 6:43 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 4,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
Actually, if we want to attract the kind of white-collar professional-class workers and industries who are driving most urban economies today, we do, actually, need to invest in some of that "hippie crap."

Arts and culture employment and infrastructure drives tourism, education, employment, and local industries like music, film, etc, which employ a hell of a lot of people. City governments from Seattle to London to Toronto are realizing this, and that arts investment, generally, provides a higher rate of return GDP than most corporate tax breaks, etc.
The airport employs a hell of a lot of people. Most of the artys fartys stuff in this country is funded through tax dollars.

I'm not against art, and have no problem with decent things like Neptune Theatre. My problem is most of the people who are pushing for more art crap are the same group that belong to the Citizens Against Virtually Everything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2013, 7:25 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Well, streetscaping might help a bit, but prettiftying an area that is largely parking lots, abandoned run-down buildings and crumbling facades doesn't help much if those who want to build things are frustrated by development rules that make it uneconomic to invest in projects.
I guess it depends on what specific streets you're talking about. Spring Garden Road for example is a lot more affected by this than, say, Sackville Street, although even along Sackville there are still some overhead power lines that make the whole neighbourhood look very dumpy and neglected. Apparently Apple was considering SGR (I don't know how seriously), but it is not kept in the same sort of shape as the malls.

It also seems like having councillors follow up with developers to facilitate new projects is important. So many initiatives and developments in HRM stall because they hit some trivial snag and there's zero leadership to overcome the bureaucratic inertia.

A while ago Wadih Fares offered to pay $250,000 to maintain ferry service levels. Nobody from the city bothered to follow up with him, either to accept the money or explain why it wouldn't work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2013, 8:23 PM
Waye Mason's Avatar
Waye Mason Waye Mason is offline
opinionated so and so
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Well, streetscaping might help a bit, but prettiftying an area that is largely parking lots, abandoned run-down buildings and crumbling facades doesn't help much if those who want to build things are frustrated by development rules that make it uneconomic to invest in projects. As I stated the the Skye thread, something you voted to make go away

By combining the walk & bike numbers you and others who do the same are deceiving the audience. The walk numbers are likely the same as they have always been - if you are lucky enough to live close to where you work then you can walk to work. Sidewalks have been in place forever and council does nothing to change that or affect those numbers much. In reality, by rejecting projects like Skye you are doing just the opposite. Lumping those numbers into those who bike - perhaps 1% of workers - makes the bike numbers ridiculously inflated over reality. The thing is, all it takes is simple observation to see that virtually nobody uses the lanes that have been built. They cost money and reduce traffic flow and parking. As the anti-development types invariably say at public hearings, "We're not Toronto!". And we aren't, and we're certainly not Portland or Seattle or San Diego either. They are largely useless in a hilly downtown that is in the grip of winter nearly half the year. Only the hard-core fringe bike nuts use them. That is not a wise use of tax dollars.

Look, I respect that you ran and got elected. I truly do. It's not something I would attempt. But it seems that you and some of your colleagues lose perspective on what the majority wants from Council shortly after taking office. We want the downtown to be vibrant, not bombed-out, we want to be able to get around it easily, we want a reason to go there and we want a way to get there and spend time there. Supporting bus routes to Porters Lake and spending money on bike lanes and sending developers away and making it harder to go downtown and park and spend money isn't the way to do that.
There is no silver bullet, you need to move forward slowly and steadly on all fronts. You need to look at what business are actually saying about why they locate or do not located in down town, why people do or do not shop downtown.

The public realm stuff is part of competitiveness but not a silver bullet. We need to move forward on ALL those things big and small, and a city this size with this many staff with an almost billon dollar budget needs to be able to talk about taxes, competativeness, incentives, transportation, parking and public realm all the same time, you have to create the conditions for private sector to want to build, for people to want to shop downtown.

I don't agree at all on your summary of AT - we are doing better, the numbers are improving, and there are actual user data to support it, and we will keep getting better, but we can be smart about it... local bike way on Creighton Maynard might cost a million, bike lanes on Agricola with more parking on side streets is about $20,000 in paint. Lets do Agricola.

But as far as transit goes, you know I am against coverage at the expense of quality. Simply put, every Metro X bus costs the same as FOUR city buses. You want the 52 to run at 7 minute intervals? That costs the same as a bus to Porters Lake. It does not make ANY sense to try and extend transit to rural HRM, or to tax people in rural HRM for the service. Tax and service should end and the municipal service boundary IMHO. Rural transit is killing Metro Transits cost recovery stats, and that is Council's fault for making it happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2013, 9:03 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason View Post
I don't agree at all on your summary of AT - we are doing better, the numbers are improving, and there are actual user data to support it, and we will keep getting better, but we can be smart about it... local bike way on Creighton Maynard might cost a million, bike lanes on Agricola with more parking on side streets is about $20,000 in paint. Lets do Agricola.
Is this necessarily being smart about it though? It will be cheaper, but will the bike lanes on Agricola just be the same ~1m wide space between the sidewalk and street? Because spending some extra money to do it "right" might be worth it in the long run. With Creighton and Maynard space would be less of an issue because these streets get very little vehicular traffic as it is, so the bike lanes would be a lot more safe and pleasant to use and would likely be less disruptive to traffic. Where will the "more parking on side streets" go? It seems like you can already park on most side streets in that area as it is. New parking lots?

I'm not advocating spending $1M instead of $20,000 for a system that wouldn't be significantly better, but you did say "'might' cost a million" and "about $20,000", so I'm hoping that the price difference doesn't have to be this high.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2013, 9:25 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Lumping those numbers into those who bike - perhaps 1% of workers - makes the bike numbers ridiculously inflated over reality.
There's more to a city than just workers though. I would assume that a much larger percentage of students bike, and I don't just mean uni kids, I'm also talking about primary/secondary students. Making it easier for them to bike means fewer and shorter school bus stops, and less having mom/dad driving them around dropping off and picking them up from places.

Having bike lanes along a corridor like Agricola (or parallel to it) makes sense because more and more students (post-secondary) are moving into the North End (and will probably continue to do so as more apartment units become available) and the areas they are moving to are not really "within walking distance" of most of the schools (NSIT being the possible exception, and maybe Sexton to some extent). In any case, creating space for bikes in the inner city makes sense based on current demographic/social trends, and the fact that bikes are becoming more popular as gas prices continue to rise.

Along with students, there are also tourists and business travellers to consider. Cities like Vancouver and Montreal (and I think even Victoria) make it really easy for visitors to rent bikes, which for many is logistically easier, and more fun, and much cheaper than renting a car. Again this works particularly well for those who are too young to rent a car, or don't have a license.

Also, biking is exercise, doesn't cost money (beyond the purchase/use of equipment), and doesn't pollute.

Last edited by Hali87; Mar 23, 2013 at 9:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2013, 9:37 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by q12 View Post
My problem is most of the people who are pushing for more art crap are the same group that belong to the Citizens Against Virtually Everything.
Something I've noticed in Halifax is that there's a weird assumption that everyone is either "pro-economy and pro-development" or "pro-enviroment/art/poor and anti-development". I can say at least in my experience that's not really true at all. Sure there are maybe the couple dozen highly quoted people who are literally against everything, but by and large different projects (Nova Centre, Market, Skye, Library, Stadium...) and movements (infill, midrise, highrise, gentrification, public/private, roads/transit/infrastructure) will garner support and opposition from different people in different cases. A lot of it is true NIMBYism, another large factor is that people (especially my age) seem to be skeptical of the quality of projects or the gracefulness of execution, or the ability of the municipality to handle its finances or even a project budget, or to commit to anything. Hard to blame them, just based on local experience.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I know a lot more people who "are pushing for more art crap" that aren't Citizens Against Virtually Everything
than ones who are.

I guess it also depends how you define "art crap". The city's approach to public art/placemaking is pretty dismal, and I think a lot more could be done if the strategy were just reworked.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2013, 10:43 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 4,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
I guess it also depends how you define "art crap". The city's approach to public art/placemaking is pretty dismal, and I think a lot more could be done if the strategy were just reworked.
I hear what your saying. There is big difference between good art and bad art, and I'd rather not see my property taxes wasted on some crappy art idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2013, 1:25 PM
Nilan8888 Nilan8888 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 199
Quote:
How about using some of the Cogswell Interchange to create a LRT/Bus transit terminal (below ground?) and the rail line could be extended above ground from the via rail station along lower water street to the Cogswell interchange. This street is now one way anyways and would have the capacity to allow for a rail line.

Just think of how many people would use this just for metro centre events alone.
Rather than rail lines along water street, I'm wondering if, long term, the plan should be something more expensive in terms of an actual subway.

That is, not a real subway for most of HRM where the existing facilities would be used. But would it be too expensive to someday run an underground line from a little bit before the VIA station to cogswell, placing it below either Barrington or Brunsiwick? Yes, it would cost a lot more, but considering it might be the only mass transit line needed for a long time, I wonder if that might not be better. So what we'd get is a mostly above-ground train that just someday switches to a subway when running through the downtown and maybe north end.

It would seem a shame to bring back that cohesive downtown + waterfront just to divide it with a mass transit line. Wouldn't it have the same effect as the Gardner expressway?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2013, 1:54 PM
Antigonish Antigonish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home sweet home
Posts: 758
An at grade line along Hollis would do if a subway couldn't be affordable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2013, 3:20 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
Something I've noticed in Halifax is that there's a weird assumption that everyone is either "pro-economy and pro-development" or "pro-enviroment/art/poor and anti-development". I can say at least in my experience that's not really true at all.
That's true, I think. The number of people who are truly ultra-NIMBYish and anti- development is very small, but they get a lot of press. Likewise, I think the "let's tear all the old stuff down and build new!" crowd is also small, and exists largely as a reaction to the perception of the former.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2013, 7:19 PM
Waye Mason's Avatar
Waye Mason Waye Mason is offline
opinionated so and so
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
That's true, I think. The number of people who are truly ultra-NIMBYish and anti- development is very small, but they get a lot of press. Likewise, I think the "let's tear all the old stuff down and build new!" crowd is also small, and exists largely as a reaction to the perception of the former.
Well put. I love tall buildings, if well designed, and I love heritage. I love New York, in fact, where you can walk from Soho, Tribeca or the Village and the historic streets and be in one of the tallest biggest livable cities in the world in moments. We can do both, I feel.

As for AT stuff - price is not the only issue at play, for sure, but again, there is a finite amount of money to go around. I'd rather see the AT bridges get built and the on ramp to the Halifax side of the MacDonald fixed (expensive) and to a more modest project on the CTC on Agricola.

I heard a talk from an AT planner from Copenhagen and he said basically we cannot go from where we are to where they are in one step. Europe started with closed streets on weekends, reclaiming public squares, and painted bike lanes, and spent 40 years building toward totally separated bike lanes and all the fantastic stuff they have now.

Build a network, improve it incrementally over time, spend wisely. That's the ticket.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2013, 9:59 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
Actually, if we want to attract the kind of white-collar professional-class workers and industries who are driving most urban economies today, we do, actually, need to invest in some of that "hippie crap."

Arts and culture employment and infrastructure drives tourism, education, employment, and local industries like music, film, etc, which employ a hell of a lot of people. City governments from Seattle to London to Toronto are realizing this, and that arts investment, generally, provides a higher rate of return GDP than most corporate tax breaks, etc.
It works the opposite way actually. Once the economic base has reached critical mass, the art is attracted to the city.

Art in Toronto is largely a result OF the economic development. Just like Heritage types don't understand that heritage won't be significantly valued until we have more business activity and money in Halifax. This requires development and growth in real industries. The arts industries are important, but they are attracted to those areas where the money is. Eventually though, a city does work somewhat in the way you suggest, yet nobody moves to these places for that reason... they move for a job. Look at the rise and fall of Dubai.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2013, 10:05 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
It works the opposite way actually. Once the economic base has reached critical mass, the art is attracted to the city.

Art in Toronto is largely a result OF the economic development. Just like Heritage types don't understand that heritage won't be significantly valued until we have more business activity and money in Halifax. This requires development and growth in real industries. The arts industries are important, but they are attracted to those areas where the money is. Eventually though, a city does work somewhat in the way you suggest, yet nobody moves to these places for that reason... they move for a job. Look at the rise and fall of Dubai.
Mmm, there seem to be a lot of examples of the opposite, though. The Portlands (Maine and Oregon). Providence. Austin. Certainly throwing loads of money at the arts isn't going to create a boomtown, but Halifax can and should spend more on arts, as part of a multifaceted economic strategy. (I hate to reduce pro-arts arguments to pure economy, but if that's what's convincing for skeptics, so be it.)

I think it is somewhat true though, that heritage starts to be valued when there's more business activity--it attracts a better, more sophisticated breed of developer, if nothing else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2013, 11:11 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
The question of whether or not art comes first is based on the premise that there's an ordering, but that isn't the case. In reality there's usually feedback between different parts of the economy. Good cities have a virtuous cycle where fundamental economic drivers and higher level sectors like the art grow together and complement each other. Portland OR and particularly Austin are good examples of this -- they have a good economic base and culture.

It's a mistake to think that Halifax can run off of art or to think that it can be an attractive place to live without local culture. Why would anybody who has a choice move to Halifax if the city had no local distinctiveness? There will always be places with better jobs or better weather.

When it comes to arts funding I get the feeling most people don't know the first thing about it. I don't. Events like HPX are popular but then again some public art initiatives like the Trillium salt shakers are at best questionable. The Khyber feels like a clubhouse. I think more people would be in favour of arts funding if they knew more about it. Why is it needed (why can't you just fund yourself on iTunes or Etsy or whatever)? What's the direct public benefit (why would an average non-artist taxpayer actually want to for arts)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2013, 12:37 AM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post

It's a mistake to think that Halifax can run off of art or to think that it can be an attractive place to live without local culture. Why would anybody who has a choice move to Halifax if the city had no local distinctiveness? There will always be places with better jobs or better weather.

When it comes to arts funding I get the feeling most people don't know the first thing about it. I don't. Events like HPX are popular but then again some public art initiatives like the Trillium salt shakers are at best questionable. The Khyber feels like a clubhouse.
That's all true. And it's true that places like the Khyber can feel a bit like an insider-y clubhouse--but much of what gestates in those insider-y sorts of venues eventually percolates out to the community at large, or fosters artists who become known outside the city (Shary Boyle, Joel Plaskett, etc).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2013, 12:39 AM
haligonia's Avatar
haligonia haligonia is offline
Urban Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The question of whether or not art comes first is based on the premise that there's an ordering, but that isn't the case. In reality there's usually feedback between different parts of the economy. Good cities have a virtuous cycle where fundamental economic drivers and higher level sectors like the art grow together and complement each other. Portland OR and particularly Austin are good examples of this -- they have a good economic base and culture.

It's a mistake to think that Halifax can run off of art or to think that it can be an attractive place to live without local culture. Why would anybody who has a choice move to Halifax if the city had no local distinctiveness? There will always be places with better jobs or better weather.

When it comes to arts funding I get the feeling most people don't know the first thing about it. I don't. Events like HPX are popular but then again some public art initiatives like the Trillium salt shakers are at best questionable. The Khyber feels like a clubhouse. I think more people would be in favour of arts funding if they knew more about it. Why is it needed (why can't you just fund yourself on iTunes or Etsy or whatever)? What's the direct public benefit (why would an average non-artist taxpayer actually want to for arts)?
I agree with most of what you said, but the Khyber is definitely not a clubhouse. To an outsider it can definitely seem like one - I didn't bother going in for years - however once you get past the initial visit I found it to be a very friendly and welcoming space for the arts. Not only is the building super charming on the inside, but the music and art programming is top-notch and somewhat cutting-edge for this city. It's a great space.
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 > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:15 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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