Daylighting Sawmill River
 

I'm a proponent of daylighting Sawmill River right from Sullivan’s Pond straight through to where it empties out into the habrour for a number of reasons. I believe it would boost resale value to the downtown of Dartmouth. Also believe it would kick start additional development. Also believe it would add to eco-tourism. And lastly, I believe it would do wonders for beautification.

It's happening.

What is happening?

Daylighting Sawmill River. A local engineering firm has done the design for it. Sorry, I don't have much more at the moment because it was a little while ago I had a talk with my source, and I feel like they told me the design wasn't public yet. I'll check in on that and see if I can give more info.

Maybe this is the RFP?: http://novascotia.ca/tenders/pt_files/tenders/P022013.pdf

No tourists are going to visit to look at the creek.

As for beautification, that is arguable. It depnds on how it is done and more importantly how it is maintained. A creek bed full of Tim's cups, abandoned shopping carts and city litter is hardly attractive.

Probably a waste of money.

That is exciting that others feel the same way I do, with the upcoming anniversary of the Shubie Canal, we have an opportunity to show it off and it would be popular with Kayaking crowd if done right.

Resale values in downtown Dartmouth don't need a boost. Homes sell in a day or two at asking price or above. There are more buyers than sellers.
HRM planned to get $400,000 from the developer at Seagate but that plan is in the dumpster after he left town and put the land up for sale early this year. The 'For Sale' sign is no longer there and the lot is now a parking lot.
Tourism in DD is woeful; signage is almost non existent and cruise passengers wander around trying to figure out what they are looking at.

I don't think the whole thing is getting daylighted. Daylit? Part of the water race is being revealed but one of the guys on the Ekistics team who did the first study told me it might cost $20 mil to do the whole river.

Does anybody know what's under there, for example does stonework from the original canal still exist underground (was there even stonework in this section?), or was that destroyed when the pipes were put in?

Just curious, as it would be cool to unearth some of the original structure from the canal as part of the daylighting plan (or maybe that's what is being proposed?). http://i59.tinypic.com/30azvp5.jpg

Bringing in an excavator and digging up soil and digging up a small stretch of pavement is not going to cost $20 million.

It easily could if you start digging up the road and rearranging the intersection of Portland and Alderny.

Yes, my understanding was that it would just be the portion between the Esso station and Irishtown Road.

Does absolutely everything other than filling potholes have to be a negative? Dear lord. Is there anything about the current Sullivan's Pond + exposed canal by Kings Wharf that would lead you to think this would be a mess? And no, tourists don't come to visit a creek, but the experience of the tourists (and residents) who do come would certainly be enhanced.

Yes, there is a lot of existing stonework and, IIRC, maybe even machinery from the inclined plane. Last time they were digging in that area they did a full archeological survey. They didn't have any mandate at the time to do anything with what's there so they carefully covered it over to preserve it until a comprehensive plan/design could be made for the area.

Now you have my attention! :tup:

Having grown up in the area I have done a little reading on the canal over the years, so this would be a very fascinating project for me.

I personally think it could be an interesting point for tourists, but I think its importance is much higher from the viewpoint of local history. This was an extremely ambitious project that had a lot of effort and expense devoted to it, only to ultimately fail. It has significance far beyond a tourist attraction IMHO.

That said, I think it would indeed be an interesting site for tourists to visit - the key would be proper marketing to make them aware of the history and site locations.

I'll make sure I keep checking back here to keep up on info as it is released. Thanks very much! :)

I think daylighting is a geat idea, but I can't envision kayaks there.

Hmmm. Looks like this one has been having troubles with getting inthe budget: http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/512350/...ed-over-funding-delay-of-canal-greenway/

The 2014 construction season is coming to a close so evidentially it's been delayed another year. Maybe this one needs some Council pressure to make sure things get started in 2015.

Looks like the scope of work is in the $2mil range.

The plan was reliant on the federal infrastructure plan and the $400,000+ from the developer of Seagate. The metronews pegs the project at $2.6 million. Perhaps 2015 when the feds will be looking for nice projects for more pre-election Infrastructure spending.
I remind readers that the NDP was not keen to put a nickel into the new library until John Baird came to town and said the feds were good for about $14 million (1/3 of the then estimated cost). Eventually Dexter reluctantly came on board.
And it depends on when the province wants to spend money - I can see Joanne Bernard wanting cash for northend Dartmouth - a modern and larger Boys & Girls club is probably near the top of her list; the area certainly needs substantial public investment.

I assume this will happen eventually... probably the city will be the only thing standing in the way of itself.

A fund for a number of these small projects would do wonders for HRM... but that would be too innovative.

Keeping the Esso station from falling into that trench might though. EDIT just dug into my notes, the all up early Ekistics proposal, that included full daylighting, revealing the stone bridge that is under Prince Albert Road (paved over) and all the fixings was 15-20 mil. Daylighting by itself would be a big part of that but not the whole cost. Daylighting is problematic where the watercourse runs directly adjacent to buildings built within a few feet of their property lines. I believe the 2 million is to daylight part of the mechanism that is still on the Starrs sight, but not the whole river. I'd love to be wrong though!

The last part is correct. The Walter Regan obsession with putting salmon back in the river and up through the lakes knows no bounds.

Just make it happen, do a full daylighting of the river, it is something that would be useful for us as a society to embrace for a change instead of bitching about a building being to tall.

I hate to single you out, because I do see others doing this, but I must share my thoughts after seeing this. I realize people may not share the same opinion as Waye, but we shouldn't create a hostile environment if we disagree with someone. I think it is great we have a city councillor who is genuinely interested in planning but if we keep this kind of thing up he may not come back. I find this board very respectful compared to others and we should keep that going, for all members.

If he wants to do that then let him and his special-interest organization pay for it. They have already tapped into a serious amount of public funds. Otherwise it is a total waste of money that would be better spent elsewhere.

So the Ekistics plan says $15-$20 million for daylighting the whole river. That's a big chunk of change. Has to be measured in terms of what has to be spent anyway and in the shelf-life of the project. My understanding of the situation is almost the entire pipe has to be dug up to replaced because it is at the end of its life and doesn't mitigate enough of the flood risk. The traffic signals at the intersection of Alderney are at the end of their life and need to be replaced and its my understanding HRM was looking at taking the opportunity to redo that problematic intersection at the same time. We're also looking at spending money to finally get something happening with the Greenway Park. This a lot coming together all at once. It's an opportunity that only comes around every few decades. In deciding whether daylighting Sawmill River is worth it, a key question is how the cost of daylighting compares to what has to be spent in the status quo scenario? Without that information, it's hard to judge, in a financial perspective, whether it's worth it.

It's also worth thinking in terms of the life expectancy of the whole project. The existing pipe was installed 40 years ago. $15-$20 million is a big sum up front, but over a long-time horizon like that, it diminishes. Could some of the cost also be offset by allowing additional development in that row of houses that have all been modified to hold busineses on Ochterloney at the end of Maple? Having a park and daylighted river would do a lot of their property value and development potential. Anyway, just some of my jumbled thoughts that I'm working on getting into a Spacing article

Hello Dartmouth has a piece on this project:

http://www.hellodartmouth.ca/the-time-is-now-daylight-the-sawmill-river/

I haven't been following this - is this about ensuring there is lighting along the pathways?

You're just pulling our leg, right? But then, you didn't put lol: just read Ian's link and you will be enlightened. ;)

there is mention that the fish going upstream might take care of the weed problems in Lake Banook, that would be dandy.

New job here - lack of time so I'm not as up to date as I used to be.

I feel the same way about the UARB info, just daunting; hope the new job has been good for you.

Kate Watson is a activist who seems to think we are made of money. It is interesting that she references the reason why it was put underground in the first place. I am old enough to remember Hurricane Beth. Much of the area near Sullivans Pond and downtown was under water as a result. With the likelihood of more severe storms on our future, is she condemning us to more frequent flooding and resultant property damage?

I'm not sure where she was going with this, as her concept of 90% of the water going to the underground conduit and 10% going above ground confounded me a little. I'm not sure what would be involved technically in making that happen or how the increased cost of having both would help to make her case.

You make a good point in that returning it to the same configuration as we had pre-1971 would likely damn us to a repeat of Hurricane Beth's flooding. There would have to be some kind of backup/emergency diversion plan, which would most definitely mean more $$$.

I dunno - I like the idea - but there would be a lot involved in making it work, IMHO.

HRM and the Shubenacadie Canal Commission jointly undertook two major studies for the
Canal Greenway between Sullivan’s Pond and Halifax Harbour. Each of these studies, prepared in 2003 and 2006 by professional engineers, landscape architects and planners, concluded that it was feasible to daylight a large portion of the existing stormwater pipe, extending from the intersection of Portland Street and Prince Albert Road across "Irishtown Road and up onto a portion of the Starr Manufacturing site. This would allow a substantial surface stream. A plan prepared for the SRA in 2012 by a fisheries biologist demonstrated how a surface stream could be created to provide fish passage, while a revitalized underground pipe would continue to carry most of the stormwater below grade. Neither option interferes with the preservation or interpretation of historic features on the site."
https://www.ecologyaction.ca/files/image...er/Briefing%20Note_Sawmill%20River_0.pdf
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we have daylighting and no stormwater backup. We can have our cake and eat it too!

In response to OldDartmouthMark and KeithP, the point is not to return the Sawmill River to its pre-Beth state. We're getting smarter. We know the capacity to convey water in an extreme weather event is important AND we know having nature and water in urban spaces is important. This achieves both.

My argument is that while the sewer renewal is happening, it makes financial and logistic sense to daylight the river.

Check out page 28 here to get an idea of cost. (I figure the stream would be about 600m)
http://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/49482/VWRRC_sr200735.pdf?sequence=1

Before I post on this topic I should mention that I am an active member of the Sackville Rivers Association (SRA), a former director, and good friends with Walter Regan.

As for my opinion I strongly believe that Sawmill River should be daylighted. The stream would not only increase the aesthetic appeal of Downtown Dartmouth but it would also provide a gathering spot for nearby residents with plenty of passive recreational potential. The increased property values would be a nice side effect and turning the Trans Canada Trail into a major greenway would increase civic pride.

The SRA has overseen some daylighting projects out in Sackville and I can say that they have made a noticeable impact in their immediate area even if most people don't know about them.

If this is done well I think Halifax Water should look into daylighting a portion of Freshwater Creek from the Public Gardens down to the redeveloped VG parking lot.

The property values in downtown have increased significantly because it was undervalued for decades. We got rid of many rooming houses by ensuring that welfare recipients were housed in decent properties, not with slum landlords who had bought into the area in the 70's hoping to make a quick buck from all the blather about 'rejuvenation' aka knock-em-down-and-build-apartments.
Downtown is popular because older properties are available, no worries about sitting in traffic jams, closeness to bus & ferry and plenty of green space.
If HRM has money to spend on making the area more attractive I am sure a new P-9 school to replace the 50+ year old Bicentennial School would be a major attraction for families, and families, unlike seniors, spend more money in the local economy. Schools don't exist at City Hall, they hate sending money to the school board - that is provincial jurisdiction, whereas spending money on a stadium is municipal jurisdiction. Go figure.
Property values will continue to increase without the expenditure at the Starr site. We could sell our house tomorrow if we were so inclined, any agent will tell you they have clients lined up to buy homes in the area (does not apply to King's Wharf)

All it takes is our money!

If the EAC is for it, I'm against it.

Whatever, I'm not going to be like opponents of things!

Money is money, lets spend and make this city proper... convention centre, stadium, canal daylighting, whatever!

Sober politician alert.

My understanding is that not doing anything will condemn us to frequent flooding and property damage. The current underground pipe was designed on 1970s level of development in the area. Since then a lot more has been paved over (more runoff) so the current pipe is undersized. The pipe needs to be replaced with something bigger no matter what.

The discussion that's happening now is whether to simply replace the existing pipe with a bigger pipe, or to replace it with a bigger pipe and a surface stream (at least for a portion of the run). As Kate explained, the Feds now require fish passage for any works like this. One option is to design a fish ladder into the pipe (at increased cost). Another option is to put in the stream and use that for fish passage (also at some cost). The question is, does the fish ladder or stream cost more? What about when you consider the other benefits of the stream?

I was anticipating that, so when I was looking for a source that said that the plan was to have daylighting "while a revitalized underground pipe would continue to carry most of the stormwater below grade."; I was pleased to find the EAC information.

Welcome to the forum Kate, good to have another Dartmouth voice on here. Is it your article referrred to in post #23?

Hi Jet. Yes it was my article. I've been reading Skyscraper for a long time now, and decided it was time to take the plunge and contribute. There's a wealth of information to be shared!

Thanks all for the information presented thusfar. I am intrigued by this project and have a few questions:

(1) When I first started reading this thread I was under the impression that the intent was to unearth and restore/preserve the original Shubenacadie Canal structure, including whatever locks mechanisms etc. might still exist underground. Is this part of the scope of this project?

(2) I understand that the infrastructure needs to be replaced and now would be a good time to combine daylighting as part of the project. I'm still not clear technically how the 90%/10% diversion would be done. Is it possible to post some technical drawings that might help illustrate this clearly?

(3) I understand and agree that we need to increase the capacity for runoff, as the science of climate change seems to indicate that we will have the propensity for an increase in severe weather events in the future. However it has been mentioned that there is now more runoff due to there being more paved areas, which I don't see. I grew up in this neighborhood and to me there doesn't seem to be any increase in pavement area today compared to how it was 30 years ago. The neighborhood is old and thus contained without a whole lot of new development that is obvious to me. Where has this increase occurred?

I didn't realize that fish was a federal requirement. Very interesting.

I hope part of the requirement is the restoration/preservation of the Canal vs the creation of the appearance of a generic river running through the downtown. While I don't think the second option would be altogether bad, I do see it as a less-desirable option, given the history of the area. :2cents:

this is interesting
http://www.shubenacadiecanal.ca/how-canal-works
the turbine is still underground and had been excavated a few years back, after Starr burned down

That's really cool! Thanks! :)

the apartmnet building at the foot of Maple Street Lock4@Starr, 162 Ochterloney ST, I wonder if the Lock 4 comes form the proposed 5 locks up to Sullivans pond, which were planned but replaced by the inclined plane?

So JET, did the inclined plane go all the way from Portland St. to Sullivan's Pond?

If so, what exactly is buried under there?

According to this: http://www.shubenacadiecanal.ca/dartmouth-inclined-plane there is the remains of five partially constructed locks. "Although, never completed, the partial remains of these large locks remain buried underneath the sloping corridor of the former Starr Property." Not sure how much there might be left, St James Curch on Portland st has a lot of canal granite. There is also the turbine underground. The inclined plane did go from the waterfront up to Sullivan's pond.
This: http://www.halifax.ca/commcoun/hecc/docu...missionDartmouthGreenwaypresentation.pdf
has an interesting sketch of waht it might look like. I look forward to the end of Irishtown lane being closed off.

Thanks, that does look quite nice.

There was an excavation in 2007, and this article has a picture of waht was found, very neat. http://shubie.chebucto.org/documents/2007_09.pdf

"The purpose of the most recent investigation which took place in late July
and early August was to establish the precise locations of the two tracks of
the marine railway, uncover the upper features of the Turbine Chamber, along
with the remains of the Lock, within which it was constructed and finally, the
dig would uncover the stone-lined Tail Race which carried the water from
the stone Chamber returning it to the stream and subsequently the harbour.
Thanks to Bruce Stewart, lead Archaeologist from Cultural Resource
Management Group and his team of staff ,all of this was accomplished."

Thanks for that. Looks like there's quite a bit down there - would be quite exciting to see it daylighted eventually! :tup:

So we're going to spend $20 million (more likely double that when it's all over) to rebuild something that was never finished 150 years ago because it was a commercial failure?

What's next, a re-creation of the heavy water plant?

I am baffled why these people are fixated on this.