Cogswell Interchange

[terrynorthend]

Trying to envision that north roundabout. It seems to me there is a pretty significant grade change there. (Confluence of Barrington, Cornwallis and the entrance to the naval yard at Valour Way)

[DT Hfx]

The end of the existing rather dead Granville Mall would become part of a large park/square which would wrap around a good part of the existing historic properties and extend all the way to Hollis/Lower Water making a nice pedestrian-friendly northend transition from the Waterfront Walk into the upper downtown.

Also I like that the existing deadend Proctor Street would be extended to provide another connection between Barrington and Brunswick better knitting the two streets together.

[someone123]

A much more ambitious plan for Cogswell shared on Twitter:


https://twitter.com/mikepaulmurphy/media

40 storey height limits, rail right of way, nicer block plan. I am not sure how realistic the land assembly north of Cogswell would have been.

I think the interchange will still be hugely improved if the current municipal plan is implemented, but there was a unique opportunity for something much bigger.

[Keith P.]

At first glance that looks much better thn what the city came up with. The lack of unnecessary roundabouts and much less wasted space is a big plus.

[IanWatson]

That's a nice looking design, and I like the inclusion of the rail ROW. That being said, I'm not sure it's all that realistic once you consider grades. That Barrington/Cogswell intersection would be brutal. When Ekistics did the concept plans they did have one that was more grid-like (Concept 2, here) but it was much less efficient than that concept because it took into account the grade changes.

Plus, the whole idea north of the sewage treatment plant is pretty much a non-starter because half of it is on DND land. HRM has had a hell of a time getting even a small piece of land from DND at the entrance to Valour Way to fit the roundabout in.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

That's a nice looking design, and I like the inclusion of the rail ROW. That being said, I'm not sure it's all that realistic once you consider grades. That Barrington/Cogswell intersection would be brutal. When Ekistics did the concept plans they did have one that was more grid-like (Concept 2, here) but it was much less efficient than that concept because it took into account the grade changes.

Plus, the whole idea north of the sewage treatment plant is pretty much a non-starter because half of it is on DND land. HRM has had a hell of a time getting even a small piece of land from DND at the entrance to Valour Way to fit the roundabout in.

The grade issues were my first thought when viewing it. Looks great in plan view, but not sure how well it would work in actual practice. They might be able to smooth out some of the grades in the critical areas, but would have to limit their impact on existing buildings. It wouldn't be cheap, but then none of this will be cheap, so maybe not a factor.

I do like the commuter rail ROW, though it looks sketchy around the water treatment plant (grades and layout). Would be nice if the city could negotiate with DND to run commuter rail through the old rail ROW in that it would also benefit DND employees to have access to it at their workplace. Probably wouldn't happen because it would have to cut right through their parking area, plus up around Irving it's a little tight for access around the ship factory. There's also the onramp for the Macdonald to contend with and an 'active trail' which could be reconfigured though.

[teddifax]

I really like this new layout, it will help stop the tabletop look to the skyline. What chances do we have to get this to happen?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

That's a nice looking design, and I like the inclusion of the rail ROW. That being said, I'm not sure it's all that realistic once you consider grades. That Barrington/Cogswell intersection would be brutal.

Doesn't the official HRM plan put a roundabout on one of those steep sidehills? I cannot imagine the nightmare that would be.

[OldDartmouthMark]

To give an idea of how some of those grades used to be (mostly in the area currently occupied by Scotia Square), here are a few pics from the Municipal Archives:

Jacob St. looking north, between Starr St. and Poplar Grove, 1961:


Looking north-west along Bell Lane between Argyle St. and Barrington St., 1961:


Looking westerly on Buckingham St. from the intersection with Argyle St., 1961:


Halifax Municipal Archives

[Acadie_1755]

I like the density and LRT, but the naval base parking lot occupies most of the space. I also don't know how much research went into making this design, the plan done by the city has been years in the making. I think it's good to be critical of the planning process in HRM, but Mike Murphy comes off as more of a rabble-rouser to me.

[kwajo]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

To give an idea of how some of those grades used to be (mostly in the area currently occupied by Scotia Square), here are a few pics from the Municipal Archives:

Jacob St. looking north, between Starr St. and Poplar Grove, 1961:


Looking westerly on Buckingham St. from the intersection with Argyle St., 1961:


Halifax Municipal Archives

You quite literally could have posted these photos with the caption "Saint John, 2018" and I doubt anyone would have noticed the difference.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Except in Saint John there has been more activity to fix up said old buildings (though there are still quite a few in need of repair). I was there last month and was pleasantly surprised at how nice the downtown (or uptown, depending on who you ask) area has become, and literally the stock of 19th century buildings (built after the big fire) that still remain.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acadie_1755

I like the density and LRT, but the naval base parking lot occupies most of the space. I also don't know how much research went into making this design, the plan done by the city has been years in the making. I think it's good to be critical of the planning process in HRM, but Mike Murphy comes off as more of a rabble-rouser to me.

I have to agree. Lots of armchair planners out there that don't really understand the complexities of the process. Looking at the process with a critical eye is a good thing, but it has its limitations, and one who thinks they can do better because they can pick out a few flaws... usually can't.

The rest of his twitter feed didn't impress much, either, FWIW. I'll leave it at that.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I have to agree. Lots of armchair planners out there that don't really understand the complexities of the process. Looking at the process with a critical eye is a good thing, but it has its limitations, and one who thinks they can do better because they can pick out a few flaws... usually can't.

I would think of it more as food for thought than a complete plan.

Sure, part of the old rail right of way is used for parking, but does this make sense? Better transit service would eliminate some of the need for parking and structured parking could be used instead for the rest. HRM has really dropped the ball on transit and continues to fail to plan for the future in this area, or produce comprehensive plans that match up future transit service with land use (saying "we hope we can add buses here in the future" is not adequate when traffic is already bad).

I don't agree that HRM plans are the best thing possible and are the product of years of careful evaluation of optimal outcomes for the city that no amateur can possibly improve upon. Around 2000 the Cogswell plan called for a couple of large and curvy highway-like routes with little apparent consideration for anything other than traffic. These HRM plans can't both be perfect.

HRM plans reflect constraints on staff given weird directions from council, the constraints of the imaginations of the people who put the plans together, and the internal politics of the municipal government. Once in a while something good happens like with HRM by Design, driven by Andy Fillmore who has since moved on.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I would think of it more as food for thought than a complete plan.

Sure, part of the old rail right of way is used for parking, but does this make sense? Better transit service would eliminate some of the need for parking and structured parking could be used instead for the rest. HRM has really dropped the ball on transit and continues to fail to plan for the future in this area, or produce comprehensive plans that match up future transit service with land use (saying "we hope we can add buses here in the future" is not adequate when traffic is already bad).

I don't agree that HRM plans are the best thing possible and are the product of years of careful evaluation of optimal outcomes for the city that no amateur can possibly improve upon. One could have said the same thing around 2000 when the Cogswell plan proposed a couple of large and curvy highway-like routes with little apparent consideration for anything other than traffic.

HRM plans reflect constraints on staff given weird directions from council, the constraints of the imaginations of the people who put the plans together, and the internal politics of the municipal government.

I was merely stating that, the same person with less training and experience, faced with the same constraints (unless you have a magic formula to make them go away) would not likely be able to do as great a job as the professional staff at HRM has been able to. Sure, we all like to complain about the city, especially when the result doesn't align itself with the outcome that we'd like, but it's a different thing entirely when you are faced with the challenges of politics, budgets, private concerns, federal government priorities (i.e. DND properties), etc. etc.

As far as judgement for the times is concerned, you have the luxury of looking at everything that was done in hindsight - it is really easy to look at flaws (or sometimes not really flaws but change in needs and priorities) and pick them apart when you have the benefit of seeing how it turned out. I'm 100% certain that many of today's planning idioms and decisions will be judged as being wrong and criticized by future generations, and the cycle will continue.

My post was not intended as a put-down, but just statement about context.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

As far as judgement for the times is concerned, you have the luxury of looking at everything that was done in hindsight - it is really easy to look at flaws (or sometimes not really flaws but change in needs and priorities) and pick them apart when you have the benefit of seeing how it turned out. I'm 100% certain that many of today's planning idioms and decisions will be judged as being wrong and criticized by future generations, and the cycle will continue.

No hindsight was required for the ~2000 Cogswell plan. Lots of people said it looked terrible back then.

There is an interesting online book about this subject: https://equilibriabook.com/toc/

When should we be modest and defer to experts, and when do experts fail?

HRM dynamics are much closer to the expert failure case than the competitive case where lots of people are driven to find an optimal solution and adding one more person is unlikely to improve anything.

One thing to note is that "would you do better as a staff member?" is not the same as "can you propose something better as an outsider?". Sometimes there are things members of the public can say or do that staff members can't or won't.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

No hindsight was required for the ~2000 Cogswell plan. Lots of people said it looked terrible back then.

There is an interesting online book about this subject: https://equilibriabook.com/toc/

When should we be modest and defer to experts, and when do experts fail?

HRM dynamics are much closer to the expert failure case than the competitive case where lots of people are driven to find an optimal solution and adding one more person is unlikely to improve anything.

One thing to note is that "would you do better as a staff member?" is not the same as "can you propose something better as an outsider?". Sometimes there are things members of the public can say or do that staff members can't or won't.

I don't recall the Cogswell plan from 2000. Do you have info to share? One would assume that it wasn't built for a reason, though, and twitter wasn't in the picture then.

This is not an either-or choice - we don't get to choose whether we use Joe Blow's proposal on twitter over a design brought about by planners, engineers and politicians.

One is not being modest and deferring to the experts, we don't have a choice. The job has to be done by people trained and certified in the profession. I think we will all agree that things like grades, drainage, functionality, capacity, costs, etc etc have to be worked out before it is committed to.

Sure, we can all say what we like or don't like about it, but we're still not designing it. As an outsider you sure can propose something better, but the process, with the aforementioned constraints, will still have to be done before any concrete is poured.

If that's not the case then I'll come up with a proposal that removes the sewage treatment plant and the on-ramp to the Macdonald, expropriates the DND parking lot and part of the Irving property and put some light rail right through it all. I'll also have the trade mart building and the casino torn down and put the land to better use. Is it that easy? If so, I'll get my powerpoint software fired up and get right at it.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

No hindsight was required for the ~2000 Cogswell plan. Lots of people said it looked terrible back then.

There is an interesting online book about this subject: https://equilibriabook.com/toc/

When should we be modest and defer to experts, and when do experts fail?

HRM dynamics are much closer to the expert failure case than the competitive case where lots of people are driven to find an optimal solution and adding one more person is unlikely to improve anything.

One thing to note is that "would you do better as a staff member?" is not the same as "can you propose something better as an outsider?". Sometimes there are things members of the public can say or do that staff members can't or won't.

This gets to my pet peeve about the planning profession and the dogma that planners learn in school. Those principles are based on the thinking of the profession today, as a way to fix the ills of the recent past. But what profession helped create those ills at the time? The very same professional planners, who advocated for all of the things that today's group now want to tear down, based upon the principles that they were taught at the time. It is interesting that what they now consider the best way to go - street level cafes and small shops with other uses above - is what was commonplace in the 1800s when there was little to no professional planning. It just happened organically. Unfortunately the profession is still grappling with how to handle the increased population and mobility desires of today's residents. Expecting people to walk, bike or use transit for all of their mobility needs just is not practical in today's world. Neither is expecting families to live closely packed in high-density urban cores. Yet the profession continues to look on private vehicles as the enemy because they do not fit well into their present frame of reference as to what is good. I therefore conclude it is quite possible for someone from outside the profession to come up with ideas and concepts that are much more practical than what the HRM planning staff (or any planning staff) might churn out.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

This gets to my pet peeve about the planning profession and the dogma that planners learn in school. Those principles are based on the thinking of the profession today, as a way to fix the ills of the recent past. But what profession helped create those ills at the time? The very same professional planners, who advocated for all of the things that today's group now want to tear down, based upon the principles that they were taught at the time. It is interesting that what they now consider the best way to go - street level cafes and small shops with other uses above - is what was commonplace in the 1800s when there was little to no professional planning. It just happened organically. Unfortunately the profession is still grappling with how to handle the increased population and mobility desires of today's residents. Expecting people to walk, bike or use transit for all of their mobility needs just is not practical in today's world. Neither is expecting families to live closely packed in high-density urban cores. Yet the profession continues to look on private vehicles as the enemy because they do not fit well into their present frame of reference as to what is good. I therefore conclude it is quite possible for someone from outside the profession to come up with ideas and concepts that are much more practical than what the HRM planning staff (or any planning staff) might churn out.

Keith, you add some salient points. It makes me wonder if the whole thing isn't much more complicated than the fashion industry. Chuck out what's out of style and buy into what the current trendy stuff is, because somebody said we have to like it and we're a luddite or some similar undesirable if we don't accept it.

But, you still have to have a profession to do the grunt work, and that's all I was trying to say. Joe Blow's idea had lots of questionable areas mixed in with some good ideas, but at the end of the day the view through rose coloured glasses does not make the constraints go away.

As far as the 'flavour of the day' is concerned, I very much agree with you.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

This gets to my pet peeve about the planning profession and the dogma that planners learn in school. Those principles are based on the thinking of the profession today, as a way to fix the ills of the recent past. But what profession helped create those ills at the time? The very same professional planners, who advocated for all of the things that today's group now want to tear down, based upon the principles that they were taught at the time. It is interesting that what they now consider the best way to go - street level cafes and small shops with other uses above - is what was commonplace in the 1800s when there was little to no professional planning. It just happened organically. Unfortunately the profession is still grappling with how to handle the increased population and mobility desires of today's residents. Expecting people to walk, bike or use transit for all of their mobility needs just is not practical in today's world. Neither is expecting families to live closely packed in high-density urban cores. Yet the profession continues to look on private vehicles as the enemy because they do not fit well into their present frame of reference as to what is good. I therefore conclude it is quite possible for someone from outside the profession to come up with ideas and concepts that are much more practical than what the HRM planning staff (or any planning staff) might churn out.

The planning profession suffers from multiple problems. Urban planning is super complicated and highlight political.

The politicization means that most cities optimize for little other than high housing prices (Halifax is better than average in this area, although the Centre Plan shows that it is not that different!). The boutique style planning with small shops and cafes is tolerated because it drives up prices and doesn't disturb existing homeowners.

In the absence of accurate formal models and objectivity it's easy for people to come in and claim to be experts. This happens in the field of urban planning and it happens in macroeconomics. I'm not suggesting that planners necessarily know less than laypeople, that it's all just meaningless fashions, or that everyone knows what's best. I'm saying that often nobody knows which solutions are best or the process is completely subverted by narrow special interests, and sometimes free markets give us better solutions than anybody could plan. I think this is why 20th century planning often seemed worse than 19th century organic systems. It was worse.

(And in a sense we can think of real public consultation and media like Twitter as a free market for ideas, and contrast that with top-down planning at the other extreme end.)