Pre-cogswell Interchange

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

yup, those would be there so they can study the thing to death to see if they should tear it down now, or in a few years!? Like seriously....WTF?! Why not just tear the bloody thing down!

People need to realize that tearing down such a project would be millions to tax payers, try like 30 million plus. Land created after would be sold, but at a rate that is 4 times plus current market. The demand is there, but not enough to recoup the capitial cost via taxes nor sale of the land.

Furthermore, look at the traffic issues it would create. Think about all the trucks sitting there trying to get to the terminal. Theres something we should be working on, limiting the amount of transport trucks downtown.

Fix the problems to existing development areas & timing first, then when we run out lets look at cogswell. Doing cogswell now just throws a bandaid at a major wound.

[Jonovision]

I'm not saying that Cogwell wouldn't be a band aid fix. I would much rather see all the other holes in the downtown filled. But what I don't like is how the city is spending however much tax payer money on studying the interchange. I think we all know it's coming down in the near future, so why bother waste money like this?

[reddog794]

Because we don't want to catch ourselves in the same situation that left us that... that (insert vile slander of concrete overpasses). Could you imagine what would happen if we got halfway through tearing that down only to realize that it would, i don't know, collapse most of the hidden military tunnels, sorta thing. But you're right Jono, another hallmark of the Kelly-era, equivocal decision making, and half measures, and plans, plans, plans, so many plans, and pretty drawings. They're even talking about slowing down the buying of the fast ferry!!! Sorry, I digress.

A project like this would be a serious message to the developers, that the city wants to avoid the silly sightlines, and push for more development in it's core. Action. The removal of the CwI, would be action alright. It would probably have a snowball effect, of taking the already glowing embers of a North-end renaissance, and reattaching them to the darkening DT, which is not bumping as hard ,and as fast as it should be or has.

True there is alot, alot alot, of infilling that should be going on, and it will, but to pull off, re-opening up a chunk of Downtown, long thought to be lost, right where N meets S, and Uptown (Quinpool area) meets the water, would be a coup against the NIMBY's and heritage nuts, that seem to snarl and bristle at any attempt of making us look, and act, like a dynamic, modern metropolis, that most of us want. Snap! Granville mall wouldn't be as dead as it's end. (Why have a dead end ped mall, I'll never understand, except for a cheap shoot-didn't-think-this-harbour-drive-thing-through problem solver).

Sorry for the rant, I did over 550 covers in 3 hours tonight, and my mind finally thought about something other than house bernaise sauce, and 30 oz Porterhouses, rare. (The dream!!)

[hfxfan]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't know any more about Cogswell than I've read in newspaper articles but it sounds like it's falling apart. The only reasonable course of action is to tear it down in the next few years. This doesn't necessarily imply that the land itself will be redeveloped anytime soon.

The slum clearance was in the 1950s and was certain specific blocks (along Market Street, etc.) which probably were terrible at the time. The Cogswell lands were mostly commercial buildings. The Scotia Square area was pretty mixed, likely on par with the area just North of Cogswell but slightly older and probably mostly brick. There were some buildings in this area that might have become landmarks had they survived but I don't know what state they were in by the 60s and 70s. It's hard to find any photos of the area.

The Jacob Street area (where Scotia Square is located) was primarily wood frame construction and contained some of the worse slums in the city at the time.

[Keith P.]

If/when it ever comes down, it would be cool to reinstate a street in the area called Buckingham Street. I think that is one of the best street names ever.

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by sdm

Furthermore, look at the traffic issues it would create.

I don't think tearing it down would create any traffic issues at all.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

If/when it ever comes down, it would be cool to reinstate a street in the area called Buckingham Street. I think that is one of the best street names ever.

They could even build a mini Buckingham Palace out of foam EIFS panels for the Paceys. Think of the tourism!

Here's Buckingham Street at Barrington (possibly posted earlier in the thread - from http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/halifax/):


Nearby shot showing a mix of buildings:

Source

There were certainly slum properties, and there were slums on Market Street and Grafton, but there would also have been interesting buildings. It's also important to note that many other parts of the city that were at one point slums (seemingly most of the city by the 1920s or so, while interestingly things seemed wealthier and more prosperous in a lot of earlier photos) have now gentrified -- some buildings were torn down and others were renovated. That pattern of development tends to produce much healthier and much more resilient neighbourhoods. It is probably also much cheaper.

If that part of the city had survived I think it would have turned out much like the southern end of Barrington/Hollis.

[c@taract_soulj@h]

In an odd way, the position of Purdys Wharf reminds me of the Renaissance Centre in Detroit with the Cogswell being Jefferson Ave (in Det) The RenCen though in comparison is just a bit farther away from the rest of the cluster of Detroit's buildings and built for obviously a different purpose. Kinda gets me wondering if a tunnel would ever be built to Dartmouth but they'd have to drill through all those condoms and such

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Originally Posted by someone123

There were certainly slum properties, and there were slums on Market Street and Grafton, but there would also have been interesting buildings. It's also important to note that many other parts of the city that were at one point slums (seemingly most of the city by the 1920s or so, while interestingly things seemed wealthier and more prosperous in a lot of earlier photos) have now gentrified -- some buildings were torn down and others were renovated. That pattern of development tends to produce much healthier and much more resilient neighbourhoods. It is probably also much cheaper.

It's true a lot of the older parts of the city were in bad shape by the 20s and 30s - a lot of the middle class had moved into new streetcar suburbs, taking their money with them. Also Halifax's economy suffered quite a bit after the First World War when military spending slowed down drastically. It was basically a long recession through the 20s followed by the Depression in the 30s.

The problem with a label like slum is it implies the area is totally without value. There was a large amount of small business and trade happening in that area, which was generally poor but working class. People had modest incomes and everyone needs food, clothing, etc. Plus all the incalculable social capital in the area. Closer to the waterfront there was a lot of industry related to the waterfront and shipping. Unfortunately planners missed a lot of this and looked purely at the "blight" and figured a modern society could do better. They bulldozed the buildings and took everything else - good, bad and ugly - with them.

[JET]

A lot of the downtown , even in the late 60's early 70's was dark and dirty. The area where ethe current trade centre is located was fairly depressing. losing the chocolate factory and gaining some new building and fixing up some others made a huge difference. JET