Building Boom Causing a Shortage in Tower Cranes

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by q12

The premier said on Global's Morning news on Friday that there are more than 30 tower cranes up in Halifax.

Anyone know how accurate that is?

Good question. Hopefully more accurate than the last budget.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by q12

The premier said on Global's Morning news on Friday that there are more than 30 tower cranes up in Halifax.

Anyone know how accurate that is?

Did the Premier state that the NDP has done very little to encourage it? It seems as though the NDP would prefer that it were happening in rural Nova Scotia.

PS: Here is an interesting, somewhat related thread in the Canadian section - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=202518 . Halifax seems to be holding its own in terms of other similar and larger sized Canadian cities.

[RyeJay]

Oh, yes...clearly...shipbuilding (under this NDP government) is having zero impact on regional development. All of these cranes are miracles.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Oh, yes...clearly...shipbuilding (under this NDP government) is having zero impact on regional development. All of these cranes are miracles.

We can thank the Federal Progressive Conservatives for that initiative. All reports indicated that Halifax would get it without the NDP's involvement. The NDP became involved after the fact so that they could take credit for it - and it was unwelcomed involvement according to PC Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

I never hear you giving the PCs any credit.

[someone123]

Hmm.. 30 cranes sounds about right.

It is funny because this is a slow time for development news, but partly that is because there is so much under construction right now. There can only be so many active projects at once, although I am a bit surprised that there appears to be no active downtown condo project similar to the Trillium (I think the Sister Sites are apartment).

There have been a lot of incremental changes to the core of the city since 2000 or so, but this latest round of construction is the first "boom" type of scenario. I think Halifax will feel significantly larger and more vibrant in a few years. So many hypothetical projects on important sites are actually happening now.

In a couple of years I hope we see a similar construction boom centred below Hollis Street in the waterfront area.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

We can thank the Federal Progressive Conservatives for that initiative. All reports indicated that Halifax would get it without the NDP's involvement. The NDP became involved after the fact so that they could take credit for it - and it was unwelcomed involvement according to PC Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

I never hear you giving the PCs any credit.

There has been no Federal Progressive Conservative Party in existence, since 2003.

You haven't offered a single link to what is apparently 'all reports' surmising that Halifax would have gotten the contract regardless. The NDP insist that without Irving getting forgivable loans from the province to upgrade the yards, Vancouver had a greater chance of receiving the larger contract. I hope your 'all reports' is at least non-partisan. Isn't this a guessing game since an outside organisation made the final choice?

And I am unconcerned about Peter MacKay's political spin, and more concerned about him using military craft during leisure time.

I acknowledge the military spending has begun with the Conservatives (which is now overspending), and that is where credit to this anti-democratic government ends.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

There has been no Federal Progressive Conservative Party in existence, since 2003.

You haven't offered a single link to what is apparently 'all reports' surmising that Halifax would have gotten the contract regardless. The NDP insist that without Irving getting forgivable loans from the province to upgrade the yards, Vancouver had a greater chance of receiving the larger contract. I hope your 'all reports' is at least non-partisan. Isn't this a guessing game since an outside organisation made the final choice?

And I am unconcerned about Peter MacKay's political spin, and more concerned about him using military craft during leisure time.

I acknowledge the military spending has begun with the Conservatives (which is now overspending), and that is where credit to this anti-democratic government ends.

So you are right, only provincial governments go by the Progressive Conservative name (but is there really much difference between the federal Conservative Party and Progressive Conservatives of old?). Personally, I don't pay much attention to party names; I vote based on which party I think will be best for the country.

In any case, it is good to see all the cranes in the Halifax area.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

So you are right, only provincial governments go by the Progressive Conservative name (but is there really much difference between the federal Conservative Party and Progressive Conservatives of old?). Personally, I don't pay much attention to party names; I vote based on which party I think will be best for the country.

In any case, it is good to see all the cranes in the Halifax area.

"Best for the country" is a bit cliché, but I think I understand your intent.

I value your comments on this forum, but I suspect you (just like party names) don't pay much attention to the issues; otherwise, you wouldn't be habitually voting Conservative.

I have voted for the PCs before. I am not an ideologue; I vote based on issues and the party that can present the best long-term platform for best solving those issues. I realise governments are rarely long-term, but the decisions of a single government makes can affect social well-being and economic growth for an entire generation, if not longer.

This is why I certainly will not be voting Conservative in the next federal election.

As far as the Nova Scotia NDP is concerned, I think they're terrible. I hate how they've de-centralised provincial jobs out of Halifax. I hate how they've subsidised dying pulp factories. I hate how Liverpool has been given special treatment.

However: The Liberals and the PCs in Nova Scotia are more terrible. They pander just as much to rural Nova Scotia, if not worse. The Liberals, for instance, have presented rural stimulus proposals without a plan to pay for even half of it... At least the NDP realises that Halifax is the province's economic engine, and that investment in the city shouldn't stagnate in favour of small town Nova Scotia.

[kph06]

Originally Posted by q12

The premier said on Global's Morning news on Friday that there are more than 30 tower cranes up in Halifax.

Anyone know how accurate that is?

I have a running chart in excel and by my count there are 25 tower cranes, however, don't count the mobile and crawler cranes working around the city.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

So you are right, only provincial governments go by the Progressive Conservative name (but is there really much difference between the federal Conservative Party and Progressive Conservatives of old?).

Very much so. Canada's current federal government is arguably more conservative than the current American government for the first time since I was born. Harper's government tends to focus on the economy at the exclusion of all other considerations, and had displayed a near-totalitarian distain for the democratic process. Also, the current incarnation of the federal Conservative actually has more of its roots in the old Reform and Alliance parties than the PCs. MacKay is one of the only remaining PCs that I can think of.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

To make a gamble: I will guess that Spring Garden Road will be freed from all its currently remaining parking lots, by, say, 2020. I'm being optimistic about the basilica's potential plans.

Parking along Spring Garden Road, however...

I keep hearing people complaining about the lack of parking gargage, though. I don't even know where would be an appropriate place to build one (perhaps closer toward Dal?).

I'm not even sure how close to full capacity the Parklane Mall's 440 unit garage is.

One of the things I often find jarring when Google street-viewing or watching Youtube tours of US cities is the large amount of big parking garages right downtown. And it isn't just stereotypical sprawopolises like Dallas or Atlanta, but also cities we think of as being fairly transit friendly, like Portland OR, and Pittsburgh. It's one of the things I appreciate about major Canadian cities. These things are big, hulking bunkers, and even though they use space more efficiently than surface lots, are just as ugly if not uglier imo.

As it stands, we already have two huge above ground parking garages downtown (not counting hidden ones like the one at Park Lane) and I'd hope we can aim a little higher than building more.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

...You can't move the buses you have now, so why would you add more? ...

Because increasing the ratio of buses to cars allows traffic to move more freely, since transit requires fewer vehicles and road space to transport the same number of people.

You're right in that buses alone will not be enough. But you're wrong if you think we need expanded road capacity. All that will do is induce more car usage which is by far the most expensive way to transport people.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Let us all hope this boom continues... but with more rental units.

I think the lack of rental is the biggest obstacle facing Halifax.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by kph06

I have a running chart in excel and by my count there are 25 tower cranes, however, don't count the mobile and crawler cranes working around the city.

It is great to see others who are so interested in development.

Do you have, or are you considering a job in a related field such as architect, engineer, planner, developer ...?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Because increasing the ratio of buses to cars allows traffic to move more freely, since transit requires fewer vehicles and road space to transport the same number of people.

Only if people use it. People do not use it in HRM because it does not work. It does not work for a variety of reasons, chief among them is the inability to maintain a schedule because of rush hour congestion due to our 1950s road network and inadequate bridge capacity.

You're right in that buses alone will not be enough. But you're wrong if you think we need expanded road capacity. All that will do is induce more car usage which is by far the most expensive way to transport people.

Not that old chestnut again? Nobody is advocating for a 401 through the center if the peninsula. But we do need added capacity on a number of key arteries like the Bayers Rd corridor and the harbor crossings.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Very much so. Canada's current federal government is arguably more conservative than the current American government for the first time since I was born. Harper's government tends to focus on the economy at the exclusion of all other considerations, and had displayed a near-totalitarian distain for the democratic process. Also, the current incarnation of the federal Conservative actually has more of its roots in the old Reform and Alliance parties than the PCs. MacKay is one of the only remaining PCs that I can think of.

Canada is far too rational for the Conservative government to push an agenda for social change. Even in socially lagging/conservative areas of Alberta and Ontario, there is a majority support for gay rights, a woman's right to choose, a freedom of and a freedom from religion, etc...

Wasting millions of dollars on creations like the 'Office of Religious Freedom' is pretty much the only form of social pandering the Harper Government may accomplish. I guess Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms isn't good enough for Harper... because in the Charter are provisions for protecting religious beliefs.

My opinion: Canada needs an 'Office of Scientific Freedom'.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Only if people use it. People do not use it in HRM because it does not work. It does not work for a variety of reasons, chief among them is the inability to maintain a schedule because of rush hour congestion due to our 1950s road network and inadequate bridge capacity.

The actual reason is that transit lacks an independent right of way. Transit will always be slower (and therefore less desirable) in mixed traffic since not only does it need to stop for all the same things as other traffic (stop signs/lights, congestion, pedestrians, etc.) but has to stop to picks up and drop off passengers as well. Separate right of ways (ROWs) help eliminate that advantage and thus correct the "people do not use it" part.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Not that old chestnut again? Nobody is advocating for a 401 through the center if the peninsula. But we do need added capacity on a number of key arteries like the Bayers Rd corridor and the harbor crossings.

I'm afraid this is more about wishful thinking. It's so old because it's been witnessed so many times. When you look at the number of road lanes relative to the population, and compare it to numerous of other cities (Montreal/South Shore, NYC/NJ, Vancouver/North Shore, etc.) we definitely don't need this extra capacity. We just need it with the current way we're doing this (expecting to provide adequate road capacity for everyone to get around in a car).

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

. It's so old because it's been witnessed so many times. When you look at the number of road lanes relative to the population, and compare it to numerous of other cities (Montreal/South Shore, NYC/NJ, Vancouver/North Shore, etc.) we definitely don't need this extra capacity. We just need it with the current way we're doing this (expecting to provide adequate road capacity for everyone to get around in a car).

Exactly. A city with adequate road capacity for everyone to get around in a car would look like, well, Calgary. As an ex-Calgarian, lemme say, that's definitely not the model to follow. And even they're starting to get gridlock.

People who need cars should be able to get around via an effective road network, but we should be aiming for a city where most trips within city limits can be accomplished efficiently and pleasantly without a car.

[someone123]

I think there are some traffic improvements that make sense, but in an older city like Halifax that also has complicated geography it can be expensive and painful to put in a lot of extra lanes. This dilemma is part of the reason why the city should be looking at transit; it's a more efficient use of land. The people who think things like "there's nowhere to put LRT!" have it exactly backwards.

I'm not sure I've seen a growing city anywhere with great traffic. Some of them have tons of road infrastructure (and are perfectly flat and very easy to develop compared to Halifax), but those places tend to sprawl out to the point where people drive more and it all pretty quickly reaches a new, congested equilibrium point. Some road investment is needed, but it has to happen along with correct planning and transit investment in order to be effective. If the city keeps subsidizing office parks and encouraging Hammonds Plains type areas, people will have to drive more and travel times will suffer as a result.

[halifaxboyns]

If we can learn one thing from Toronto - you can't build your way out of gridlock. Look at the 401 - it's 9 lanes of traffic each direction and it's a parking lot at rush hour. Same with the Don Valley Parkway.

I seem to recall that the cost of the 102 expansion up Bayer's Road was pegged over $5 billion? Can someone confirm that? That wasn't just the portion in the city but I think as far out as Larry Uteck or possibly even Bedford, as I recall. Part of me thinks it was even more than $5 billion; possibly $20 billion?! Can someone confirm that...

...but if that's the case - imagine what sort of transportation improvements (excluding Bayers) we could build with that amount of money. I'm sure with a combined grade/underground set of lines you could get at least 2 LRT lines built with that (if they shared a tunnel into the DT). Combined with some surface streetcar lines in dedicated right-of-ways (where possible); $20 billion would get you a lot of transit.

That is assuming that my memory isn't as shot as I recall and the number was correct.

[q12]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I seem to recall that the cost of the 102 expansion up Bayer's Road was pegged over $5 billion? Can someone confirm that? That wasn't just the portion in the city but I think as far out as Larry Uteck or possibly even Bedford, as I recall. Part of me thinks it was even more than $5 billion; possibly $20 billion?! Can someone confirm that...

Can't see it being anywhere near that expensive as all of the 102 overpasses and underpasses are already built wide enough for six-lanes between the 101 and 103.

The section that needs the most work currently is between the 103 and Connaught avenue. Which is always at a complete standstill in the morning. (Mostly due to the 103 merging with the 102)