General Updates and News

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Sadly, we are losing the Cunard Centre as a venue in which to hold events open to the public. First the farmer's market, and now this.

They are blaming it on Covid, but that doesn't make sense as we are on the cusp of opening up again and the thirst of the public to get back out there and attend events should have been extremely beneficial to this as a venue. Makes me wonder if anything else is going on here...

I don't think the Port particularly likes being landlord to civic amenities. Their mind is on the multi-billion-dollar business of shipping logistics, and to a lesser degree the cruise ship industry. Where they do deal with civic amenities they only see them as window dressing for the cruise ship passengers; this was very much reflected in the way they arranged and treated market vendors.

That being said, I actually like the new market location much better; it feels cozier and it's focused again on vendors and being a weekend market rather than trying to be a permanent fixture.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

The problem with urban planning is that it's susceptible to 'leftist' subversion(?) because of how dogmatic the rhetoric has become, particularly the past 10 years..

The problem with urban planning is that it's really complex. Cities are our lives laid out in physical form. They are human psychology, economy, and sociology made tangible. They mean different things to everyone, and every resident comes with differing perspectives formed from their unique combination of resources and life pressures. That makes it really, really, really hard to have a nuanced discussion, particularly in the format of public meetings or civic lectures. The rhetoric tends to be dogmatic because that's pretty much the depth of conversation you can accommodate.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

The problem with urban planning is that it's really complex. Cities are our lives laid out in physical form. They are human psychology, economy, and sociology made tangible. They mean different things to everyone, and every resident comes with differing perspectives formed from their unique combination of resources and life pressures. That makes it really, really, really hard to have a nuanced discussion, particularly in the format of public meetings or civic lectures. The rhetoric tends to be dogmatic because that's pretty much the depth of conversation you can accommodate.

I agree it is complex. I think one problem is that it is tempting for planners and architects etc. to speak with unjustified pseudo-scientific authority. This phenomenon is obvious if you look back at rhetoric from the 1960's and earlier, but it's still happening today, with a different set of values. It is not just the fault of the public, nor does it only have to do with the planners themselves who have all sorts of political pressures on them. This problem affects all social sciences and I think it might be getting worse since those fields have grown so much.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I don't think the Port particularly likes being landlord to civic amenities. Their mind is on the multi-billion-dollar business of shipping logistics, and to a lesser degree the cruise ship industry. Where they do deal with civic amenities they only see them as window dressing for the cruise ship passengers; this was very much reflected in the way they arranged and treated market vendors.

That being said, I actually like the new market location much better; it feels cozier and it's focused again on vendors and being a weekend market rather than trying to be a permanent fixture.

IMHO, if they don't want to deal with it, maybe they should just gift it to the city, who could keep it as an events venue. I may be the only one who feels this way, but IMHO the harbour waterfront is Halifax's jewel, and as much of it as possible should be made available for some level of public enjoyment.

Regarding the current market location, I think it's fine but once cruise ships start docking in Halifax again, the plan is to kick it out into the parking lot during the cruise ship season. I agree with Keith that the Cunard would also be a good locale for the market - maybe they could use it as such but still keep it available for booking events.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I don't think the Port particularly likes being landlord to civic amenities. Their mind is on the multi-billion-dollar business of shipping logistics, and to a lesser degree the cruise ship industry. Where they do deal with civic amenities they only see them as window dressing for the cruise ship passengers; this was very much reflected in the way they arranged and treated market vendors.

That being said, I actually like the new market location much better; it feels cozier and it's focused again on vendors and being a weekend market rather than trying to be a permanent fixture.

I visited the other week and it's not bad, but after a visit to both the Seaport market and the Brewery market last weekend, the Brewery is head and shoulders better. More prepared food, more bustle, way less out of the way.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by atbw

I visited the other week and it's not bad, but after a visit to both the Seaport market and the Brewery market last weekend, the Brewery is head and shoulders better. More prepared food, more bustle, way less out of the way.

Oh yeah, the Brewery is amazing again these days, though my daughter prefers Seaport for some reason so we go to that one if I'm going with her. Actually, we should probably be quiet about Brewery being awesome again; I'm not sure everyone has figured that out yet and while it's bustling it's not yet overcrowded.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Oh yeah, the Brewery is amazing again these days, though my daughter prefers Seaport for some reason so we go to that one if I'm going with her. Actually, we should probably be quiet about Brewery being awesome again; I'm not sure everyone has figured that out yet and while it's bustling it's not yet overcrowded.

I hadn't been in some months and seeing how that prepared food area has completely filled in has me ready to go back. I do miss being a stone's throw from it in the Alexander.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

The problem with urban planning is that it's really complex. Cities are our lives laid out in physical form. They are human psychology, economy, and sociology made tangible. They mean different things to everyone, and every resident comes with differing perspectives formed from their unique combination of resources and life pressures. That makes it really, really, really hard to have a nuanced discussion, particularly in the format of public meetings or civic lectures. The rhetoric tends to be dogmatic because that's pretty much the depth of conversation you can accommodate.

You make good points, I guess the focus of my rant is that contemporary planning has become absolute with little compromise or understanding of the human condition almost mirroring post-WW2 planning which is its antithesis; full libertarian-style build everything people want with little form over function. We understand now the importance of walkability, sustainable density vs cost and so on, but to go all-in in that direction is also flawed. Many contemporaries legitimately think that cars=hitler and they will not be convinced otherwise. It's really asinine and I'm not a fan of telling people how to live and they will like it not matter what.

If HRM had its act together they would have been planning and organizing funding for LRT 15 years ago so we wouldn't be in the mess we're currently in. The history and geography of the city and its surroundings cannot be solved by simple infill or banning all suburban detached housing because "sustainably" only. A majority of people, particularly young couples with families prefer that mode of housing and it won't go away no matter how much urbanists screech about its evils. Why not plan around TOD and village centres? Why does everything need to be completely centered around the CBD? There is no room to expand and there are too many heritage blocks that need to be preserved (oh god I'm siding with NIMBYs for once ). Why not compromise with planned growth around HRM? It seems like the only viable way.

Look at the lands along the west area of Hammonds Plains and Stillwater Lake west of the wildlife land preserve. Why not partner with developers to construct a town centre there complete with detached, semi-detached townhomes and "missing middle" style residential & commercial connected by LRT to downtown and Burnside? What about connectivity to Bedford and the Sackvilles where you can reasonably and affordably rezone medium density along Sackville Drive with park & ride access along the new interchange they're building on Margeson Drive? What about Dartmouth? I've never come across any of these long-term planning strategies incorporated in the Centre Plan or other documents. It's incredibly short-sighted because "dynamic" urbanism is only tolerable and thus only possible on the peninsula.

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree it is complex. I think one problem is that it is tempting for planners and architects etc. to speak with unjustified pseudo-scientific authority. This phenomenon is obvious if you look back at rhetoric from the 1960's and earlier, but it's still happening today, with a different set of values. It is not just the fault of the public, nor does it only have to do with the planners themselves who have all sorts of political pressures on them. This problem affects all social sciences and I think it might be getting worse since those fields have grown so much.

What we see now is a 180 of post-WW2 planning. It's as if anything remotely related to that outdated style of suburban planning cannot be allowed to be integrated into contemporary planning by any means. That methods changed but the attitudes didn't and I'm not a fan of it.

I also notice a large number of people with sociology and even philosophy BAs digging their talons into important planning positions which admittingly irks me the wrong way. Not because those philosophies themselves don't have merit but I've noticed a pattern through my own experiences working for contractors on the geomatics and technical side that a lot of these people have an attitude predicated on an agenda based mostly on qualitative means rather than quantitative. In Saskatoon it was (and still is) really bad. Halifax doesn't seem that much better, based more on what I see rather than personally experienced, mind.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

Look at the lands along the west area of Hammonds Plains and Stillwater Lake west of the wildlife land preserve. Why not partner with developers to construct a town centre there complete with detached, semi-detached townhomes and "missing middle" style residential & commercial connected by LRT to downtown and Burnside? What about connectivity to Bedford and the Sackvilles where you can reasonably and affordably rezone medium density along Sackville Drive with park & ride access along the new interchange they're building on Margeson Drive? What about Dartmouth? I've never come across any of these long-term planning strategies incorporated in the Centre Plan or other documents. It's incredibly short-sighted because "dynamic" urbanism is only tolerable and thus only possible on the peninsula.

You're correct, there is very little, if any "proactive" planning in HRM. Part of this is because I think we (the collective psyche of the area) have only in the last couple of years viewed ourselves as a big city warranting any kind of comprehensive view to the future.

However, the bigger issue is that HRM is just barely treading water when it comes to planning. This is for a bunch of reasons:

1. Planning was historically understaffed at HRM (as much as Keith would suggest otherwise).
2. Amalgamation created a huge mess of planning documents that are a pain to administer and an even bigger pain to keep up-to-date. This created a death spiral where the documents get even more and more out-of-date, which spawns "bandaid" amendments to sort of accommodate modern development, which makes the documents harder to administer, which saps resources from keeping them up-to-date.
3. Procedural decisions in the past have created unintended headaches today. E.g. West Bedford was done by development agreement, which made sense at the time to deal with the complex nature of building whole new communities from scratch; however, every time a lot or condo unit gets created a new instance of that development agreement is created. There are now tens of thousands of instances of development agreements, so any changes are overwhelming to administer, which takes planning resources.
4. Many of the existing planning documents are extremely conservative (*cough*Bedford*cough*) and basically reflect what already exists, so any new development requires amendments, which takes planning resources.

This is why Centre Plan is so, so, so, so, so, so, SO important. People on here get hung up on it not reflecting their exact vision for Halifax, but miss the fact that at the end of the day it's finally getting to the heart of everything that's been wrong with planning in HRM. Centre Plan fundamentally restructures planning from an organizational point-of-view and frees up resources. If HRM can keep the momentum and bring a similar approach to the rest of the region, they may actually have a chance of reversing the death spiral and instead be in a position to update documents proactively, thus keeping the need for administration down, thus having more resources to plan proactively.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Planning was historically understaffed at HRM (as much as Keith would suggest otherwise).

There are two different questions, "are there enough people to do the work our planning system requires" and "should this work be done by planners?".

I don't have strong opinions here one way or the other but often in HRM discussions (in the public consultations or on council etc., but it's common in many cities) there is sentiment that the municipality should control what developers or people do or try to do. An example of this is the idea that the city should try to make sure there isn't enough traffic in a given neighbourhood and there is plentiful street parking. Lately we hear more and more is that it's the responsibility of the municipality or developers to make sure everybody is housed.

Individuals self-organize in a hugely complicated way given their incentives and a city is such a complex system that nobody can predict what it will look like over the course of even one human or building lifespan. Even in 2015 I am not sure anybody predicted that the city would grow as fast as it's growing today a few years later.

This of course doesn't mean planning shouldn't be done, and it is needed for managing public infrastructure even if the errors are large. But it needs a healthy dose of humility that isn't always there (most frequently the fault of voters/politicians, not planners).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

What we see now is a 180 of post-WW2 planning. It's as if anything remotely related to that outdated style of suburban planning cannot be allowed to be integrated into contemporary planning by any means. That methods changed but the attitudes didn't and I'm not a fan of it.

Around here I see a kind of unholy alliance between NIMBYs and the reaction to postwar planning that slants the debate too heavily against new road development. I would not want to go back to the 60's when cities were bulldozing huge areas for brownfield highways but sometimes new roads are needed. My basic reasoning is that modal shares will only get so extreme and so as a city grows, some additional road capacity will be needed. A city that's 80% suburban is not going to pleasantly go from 90% car travel to 45% as it doubles in size. 70-80% modal share is aggressive and this requires more capacity.

I also notice a large number of people with sociology and even philosophy BAs digging their talons into important planning positions which admittingly irks me the wrong way. Not because those philosophies themselves don't have merit but I've noticed a pattern through my own experiences working for contractors on the geomatics and technical side that a lot of these people have an attitude predicated on an agenda based mostly on qualitative means rather than quantitative. In Saskatoon it was (and still is) really bad.

The "two solitudes" of qualitative humanities style disciplines and quantitative science/math/engineering disciplines is quite old. Sometimes things went off the rails from having engineers do planning too. Notoriously traffic engineers would design whole neighbourhoods based on optimizing narrow parameters that didn't really capture what is needed to make an area desirable to be in. For an example of this look at early Cogswell Interchange redevelopment studies.

One thing I notice lately is that there are some very abstract and general bachelor's degrees. For example if you graduated high school you can go right into a degree of community design at Dalhousie. Is this really a good area of study for a 19 year old? And are people coming out with master's degrees in planning when they just did 2 similar degrees? It doesn't look like they need much math or science either. This seems like a recipe for groupthink.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

You make good points, I guess the focus of my rant is that contemporary planning has become absolute with little compromise or understanding of the human condition almost mirroring post-WW2 planning which is its antithesis

Planners clearly do not have the tools to understand the human condition, yet…

Originally Posted by Antigonish

I also notice a large number of people with sociology and even philosophy BAs digging their talons into important planning positions which admittingly irks me the wrong way. Not because those philosophies themselves don't have merit but I've noticed a pattern through my own experiences working for contractors on the geomatics and technical side that a lot of these people have an attitude predicated on an agenda based mostly on qualitative means rather than quantitative. In Saskatoon it was (and still is) really bad. Halifax doesn't seem that much better, based more on what I see rather than personally experienced, mind.

Those choosing to understand the human condition are blamed for inserting themselves into planning…

Sociologists and philosophers have had their talons dug into planning topics at least since the days of Engels and later Simmel. The torch was carried through the modern era with Lefebvre and Castells arguing over the role of the city. This is nothing new.

The problem is not qualitative vs quantitative; a purely quantitative approach becomes a ruse of concept since modifying quantities in turn modifies qualities. Technocrats can and do use quantitative data to fit their predetermined conclusion. We of course need this technical ability, but let’s not pretend it exists independently of other abilities. The real problem is dogmatism, no matter what field you hail from. Planners, scientists and philosophers all need to consistently verify and re-evaluate their hypotheses.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

We of course need this technical ability, but let’s not pretend it exists independently of other abilities.

Do planners need to take undergraduate level statistics and linear algebra courses? Calculus?

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

One thing I notice lately is that there are some very abstract and general bachelor's degrees. For example if you graduated high school you can go right into a degree of community design at Dalhousie. Is this really a good area of study for a 19 year old? And are people coming out with master's degrees in planning when they just did 2 similar degrees? It doesn't look like they need much math or science either. This seems like a recipe for groupthink.

The problem with these programs is not that they’re too generalized. It’s that they claim to be generalized when in fact they are very focused; in essence the narrative doesn’t fit the program. The best example is in the name “Community Design”. What is being designed? The public spaces, how developments can look? Sure. But the social side is under-examined. Math or science alone do nothing against “groupthink”, but becoming over-disciplined will certainly not help. I’d argue much of the problem comes from over relying on math or science to back dogmas, and systemizing philosophy to achieve the same.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

Do planners need to take undergraduate level statistics and linear algebra courses? Calculus?

As for my program, yes to statistics and multiple courses with options for specialization. I opted for the environmental sciences with a focus on urban ecology and park management. No to calculus or linear algebra, but I’ll call that out as an irrelevant curveball question. Your doctor or lawyer don’t need it, nor would they benefit from it and they are far more respectable than a planner. I highly respect those who pursue calculus or linear algebra but I don’t think their “worth” should be determined by planning knowledge.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

What is being designed? The public spaces, how developments can look? Sure. But the social side is under-examined. Math or science alone do nothing against “groupthink”, but becoming over-disciplined will certainly not help. I’d argue much of the problem comes from over relying on math or science to back dogmas, and systemizing philosophy to achieve the same.

It is not that math or science cure groupthink but if you do 2 very different fields you'll get 2 different kinds of groupthink which brings some clarity. If you enter a field when you are more mature you also tend to have more of your own opinions.

And there's something to mastery of a narrow practical/applicable technical skill plus the humility that comes from realizing that it doesn't actually work that well in real life situations. It is not good to focus only on very abstract concepts, building castles in the sky.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

No to calculus or linear algebra, but I’ll call that out as an irrelevant curveball question. Your doctor or lawyer don’t need it, nor would they benefit from it and they are far more respectable than a planner. I highly respect those who pursue calculus or linear algebra but I don’t think their “worth” should be determined by planning knowledge.

They are useful tools and people who don't have them don't tend to appreciate their worth (e.g. understanding basic modeling used for planning purposes). Usually the math courses are viewed as gatekeeping but there is nothing really that hard about linear algebra, and calculus is taught in grade 12. If we can't teach a bunch of it to 20 year olds in university or worse still people doing a planning master's degree we don't have a very good education system.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

They are useful tools and people who don't have them don't tend to appreciate their worth (e.g. understanding basic modeling used for planning purposes).

You really don’t need more than the fragment of linear algebra included within an undergraduate statistics course to understand the modelling of economic growth or demographic change used in planning. My argument, again, is not that there’s no use for quantitative method. It’s that these methods used in planning, economic development and geomatics, and any additional ones that would be needed, are simple enough they should be open to critique from other fields such as Law, Sociology, Philosophy or the general public, and that vice-versa the already technocratic planners need to venture into these relatively unexplored areas.

Take Law as an arts-based example, so few people mention the contributions of legal opinions in shaping the planning system. These lawyers have very little planning or mathematical knowledge but have solved many of the arguments regarding NIMBYs. Let’s take the issue of compatibility: There is a precedent stating “compatible” does not mean “similar to”. Compatibility, while subjective, means having “regard for” the development’s surroundings. So hypothetically, if you built a 40-storey building next to Peggy’s house but took measures to mitigate the building’s effects on its surroundings, it would still be “compatible”. Legal opinions such as these are an influential treasure trove that quite frankly gets ignored within public debate.

Originally Posted by someone123

If we can't teach a bunch of it to 20 year olds in university or worse still people doing a planning master's degree we don't have a very good education system.

So the ideal planning system is a Jirga of elders who also happen to be mathematicians? “Afplanistan” - There’s a certain jingle to it

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Take Law as an arts-based example, so few people mention the contributions of legal opinions in shaping the planning system. These lawyers have very little planning or mathematical knowledge

Be careful with generalizations. I know (and know of) many lawyers and even a few judges in this area with so-called "hard science" (physics, chemistry, math, engineering) undergrad and even graduate degrees. It's much more common than generally understood by the public. And the NSUARB, the first-tier tribunal tasked with considering planning matters, actively solicits applications from people with that sort of technical expertise.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Be careful with generalizations. I know (and know of) many lawyers and even a few judges in this area with so-called "hard science" (physics, chemistry, math, engineering) undergrad and even graduate degrees. It's much more common than generally understood by the public. And the NSUARB, the first-tier tribunal tasked with considering planning matters, actively solicits applications from people with that sort of technical expertise.

The more the merrier (diversity of backgrounds that is), I admit my argument doesn’t capture the background of every lawyer but your insider knowledge reinforces my point. The law degree does not interfere with their hard-science background, it nurtures that scientific background and allows them to translate their knowledge across different fields, no?

Making planning more scientific doesn’t go beyond its problems, it intensifies them. They should learn from lawyers and oscillate between their narrow, already quasi-scientific discipline and other disciplines.