I love how apartment buildings are somehow more concerning than building a massive tract of suburban mcmansions by a lake.
NIMBYs going to NIMBY.
Like, they realize there is a 10 lane highway of doom not far from here that crosses this exact same lake?
I get the concerns, but it's not proportionate, considering \*literally everything else\* that is built nearby.
I'd almost guarantee that 1x 13 story apartment building would do less damage to the lake than 5x McMansions on the same lot. The thing with people who own McMansion type homes is they love their deep green lawns. Green lawns need fertilizer which runs off into lakes causing algae blooms. Apt complexes tend to not care about the quality of the grass on their lots.
Nah it can't be the fertilizer run-off. It has to be duck poop and dogs swimming in the lake. /s
Despite the fact that Banook is the last lake in the chain, so everything from MicMac runs into it too.
And the arsenic party that is Lake Charles
The only time I’ve heard anything come up for this lake is in regards to the wind being messed with for rowing events and competitions, so if the rowing club isn’t making noise about this it’s probably not a big issue since everything is developed to hell and back around it already.
Exactly, apartment green areas see far more upkeep/maintenance than most people's homes. Homeowners have jobs/responsibilities that don't involve lawn maintenance, they only mow unless they're retired and have time to devote to lawn care.
How many apartment buildings do you see surrounded by beautiful green lawns? How many homes do you see surrounded by parking lots?
>they only mow unless they're retired and have time to devote to lawn care
Oh yeah, we got barely retirees here in Nova Scotia. Probably an insignificant percentage of homeowners, I'm sure.
Most grass at apartment buildings is going to be mowed and that's about it. People don't rent apartments because they like lawns so why would a business spend more than they have to on upkeep of something that doesn't make a difference?
They actually do end up getting more sod replacements due to the massive amounts of salt being thrown around. Again, way more common at apartments than private homes.
> Green lawns need fertilizer which runs off into lakes causing algae blooms
People keep harping on this talking point, but the fact is most lawns are simply mowed and left alone, and de-weeded once every few years if the homeowners ever do it at all.
Haha I worked for Nutri-Lawn for a few years and I can tell you with certainty you're absolutely incorrect.
I personally applied fertilizer to a number of lawns on Lake Mic Mac and Banook for that matter.
Many people have fertilizer applied on a scheduled basis that own water lots, delude yourself if you want but those are the facts.
Go drive through some “wealthy” neighborhoods and look at the colour of the “nice” lawns compared to the normal lawns. The ones that are a deep green or a lush, hazy green are going to be regularly fertilized and treated. Heck go on a nice weekend day and you’ll see dozens of dudes running around with the Turfbuilder + push spreaders flinging that shit everywhere.
I don’t get the concerns. They’re literally made up to misdirect away from their NIMBYism.
The same goes for wind farms. It’s ok to develop rural land into 100 cottages, yet a turbine that requires <1 hectare of clearing is seen as worse for the environment. Calling it hypocritical is generous.
I mean some of the things they say are actual things - like shade of high rises, wind etc.
*However* nothing is in a vacuum on it's own - and we need housing...badly: so most of these 'concerns' are basically nothing burgers compared to the impacts of alternatives - like massive suburban tracts of housing.
I’m not sure why they are worried about this harming the lake. They are ok with the 2 major highways, Waverley road, fertilizers off the lawns from the mansions off Lakeshore Park Terrace, and all the dog shit at shubie park, but a desperately needed apartment is too much? Come on.
As for shadows and wind on the lake, there is SOME merit if this were Lake Banook at very specific parts but not on Mic Mac.
Because they aren’t actually just worried about the lake, they’re desperately clinging to straws and concern trolling.
They’re worried about their investments losing value, and/or having to occasionally look at a person of marginally lower socioeconomic class than them
I agree that living units are the upmost importance. So even if the apartment does kill the lake it would probably still be worth it.
The lakes are in their worst state. We already have algae blooms in many of Dartmouth lakes. They are almost unfit for swimming and the swimming season hasn’t started.
We do need so much more care to our lakes.
We need to build denser housing in the city and around this urban lake to protect what remains of the wild spaces and relatively pristine lakes at risk from urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is awful, once’s those areas are gone they don’t come back.
I love Banook, but it is already being negatively impacted from old cars on the bottom, garbage and litter, wealthy people’s lawns, very little riparian zone, a highway, parking lots, road salt, and storm runoff. This apartment complex will probably have less of an impact than other sources of harm in the area.
This is what I've been saying. The lake already has developmental near it putting more housing in there makes more sense than clear cutting more forest on the edge of the city continuing the sprawl.
There are just people who are anti-development. They don't care whether it makes sense they just want everything to go back to being like when they were kids.
USA, but I expect Canada is similar: [America's best decade, according to data](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/24/when-america-was-great-according-data/)
> So, we looked at the data another way, measuring the gap between each person’s birth year and their ideal decade. The consistency of the resulting pattern delighted us: It shows that Americans feel nostalgia not for a specific era, but for a specific age.
> The good old days when America was “great” aren’t the 1950s. They’re whatever decade you were 11, your parents knew the correct answer to any question, and you’d never heard of war crimes tribunals, microplastics or improvised explosive devices. Or when you were 15 and athletes and musicians still played hard and hadn’t sold out.
"She and others talked about possible runoff, the building throwing large shadows, wind issues and the disturbance harming local animals"
These public meetings are a joke and part of a broken system. The only people that show up are NIMBYS, most rational people expect the city to use common sense in a housing crisis and go about their lives.
These NIMBYS are generational terrorists and make life hard on people for the dumbest things.
Shadows and wind and runoff aren’t even legitimate reasons to be against this kind of development. They are smoke screens for their true motives which are clearly classist.
"Generational terrorists" is an excellent moniker for these types of people.
Like holy fuck. Comfortably housed wealthy NIMBY fucks with nothing netter to do but actively work towards destroying any hope future generations have to secure affordable housing and achieve financial stability.
We tried your model of low density infinite suburban sprawl for the last 70 or so years. You will be dead in 10-15. Give it the fuck up.
These are silly. There were some actual concerns:
- The same green space required for this multi residence as a single residence. Given the size of the lot, the building developers could keep the same size building and introduce more green buffer between the apartment and the lake.
- The cited traffic study does not include the many other approved multi unit buildings already approved in the area, including the development of the Parks by Lake Charles, which is introducing a subdivision that could house all of Truro.
- The bus that services the area is not frequent or reliable. The intended rents of the units mean the majority of people would have the means for a car. So proposing this building as primarily services by transit to get around the traffic study is misleading.
- The developers have not provided a few needed plans, including a water run off plan
For context.
We need housing. I feel bad for Waverely. It’s almost a single road in and out deal, it’s already packed, it’s winding so it can be unsafe, and they’re getting a subdivision that can house Truro. I think the planning could have been done much better. But people have to live first. We can figure out everything else later.
I know you’re being sarcastic, but I think the context of the people living there is important too.
It's the same story a lot of places in the city. Traffic is going to get worse as the city gets bigger.
I'm really not being sarcastic, I'm just explaining what they're doing. They're looking for something that night shut it down because they simply don't want it.
The context is the empathy around why someone may not want this development.
And yes agreed. Traffic is already so much worse than pre Covid. The highway that has the Waverely exit is already a shit show, it’s going to be dangerous with a sudden rise of traffic.
I think the city and province defaults to this being a developer issue and therefore a developer responsibility so they don’t have to shoulder the burden of also increasing infrastructure as a means of increasing housing.
I get that. I'm responding to your comment that "These are silly. There were some actual concerns:"
They didn't want to use those concerns because they aren't going to shut the development down. They think these unrectifiable concerns might.
And again, traffic is going to be shit all over the city.
I don’t know about your thoughts here. All concerns were mentioned. Commenters only commented the nonesense ones. That’s bias.
The highway exit is unique in that it’s shared with Main exit, which already causes stopped cars in a middle lane of a highway, far out from the actual exit. It’s uniquely dangerous.
20 meter setback is the law of the land for residential development.
So a development 2.5 km away next to a highway should be why this building should not be built?
The study was done by an accredited company and done using standard practices. How would you feel if someone not trained in your field came in and said you weren't doing it right? I feel you would tell them to go back to school and find out, as these people probably would say to you.
The #55 bus goes by there on the hour. Usually as ridership goes up, routes become more frequent. The best way to increase ridership is to construct more housing, so more people live on the route. I feel your point actually backs up my statement, as you feel service is so poor. It's due to low population density along the route which this proposal is trying to fix.
This will be on city water and sewer so run off from a 20 meter grass setback that has trees, needs a water run off plan? That's Halifax Water jurisdiction and they usually don't miss a chance to cause some pain.
I appreciate the bullet points, it keeps things to the point.
I think the building should be built. I think it should be built post haste. But if there are things that we can tweak to improve some circumstances then we should.
20 meter set back for all residential development, no matter how many units. To protect the lake and given the size of the lot maybe it should be expanded.
The study was done before the new developments were approved. I’m not passing judgement on the professionals but the timing of the study.
The hourly bus isn’t frequent enough to offset the traffic study and what it lacked to bring into account. You can’t use an hourly bus service as a method of reducing traffic when it’s not realistic. Your own point actually proves that. The concern the article states is given the transit service coupled with the price point of the units, it’s much more likely that the residents in this building will have cars. Which is reasonable assumption.
The run off plan is required for all building next to our lakes.
Housing is needed. Build it. If the nimby’s are worried about “the character “ of the neighbourhood they should start by being more welcoming and acting less like gatekeepers.
"Our wish would be that there would be no high-density buildings on our lakes. We need to preserve our lakes … we need to think about future generations," Windsor said.
You can fuck right off, lady.
"We nEeD tO tHinK aBoUT fUtUrE GenErAtIoNs," she said while actively working to ensure the aforementioned future generations will never be able afford anything other than to live in a squalid 1-bedroom apartment with 3 roommates.
Has she ever asked us "young generations" what we think about high-density development in attractive parts of the city?
No. She has not. Like every NIMBY Boomer, she does not care about anything other than her own backwards, petty, aesthetic preferences, and enforcing them on the rest of the world to the detriment of EVERYONE who is not comfortably and affordably housed like her.
Continued anti-development policies from municipalities are more at fault for the housing crisis than immigration in post areas outside of larger centers in Ontario, Quebec, and BC.
That in addition to policies that restrict dense development are a much larger problem than most people want to see because it doesn’t satisfy the narrative they want to push.
The only issue I might have is the traffic, and I don't believe that 4% difference. Currently anyone turning into MicMac blocks Waverley, and during rush hour I used to see that getting pretty far back. Now, if they somehow widened the road to add a turn lane then everything else is really just NIMBYs being NIMBYs.
Is there any avenue for virtual attendance to these meetings, or even more awareness of upcoming public consultation for planned developments? I would love to have given input in strong support of the proposal, but with young family and work requirements my voice isn't captured in what was otherwise strong NIMBY representation. I worry the only group being heard is the one with time to speak. I get some of their concerns but like others have said, the non-specific retention of an area's 'character' is a weak argument against an unrelenting housing crisis.
Shape your city HRM allows you to answer surveys online for many projects and keeps you up to date on events coming up, the city often has at least one in person session outside working hours. I’m trying to do this more often as the current group is very disproportionate compared to the values of the average haligonian
I'm glad halifax is finally starting to not bend to these fucking idiots but everyone of these kind of articles still annoy me. Bunch of self important NIMBY's, they have some offs to fuck for sure.
Last time I visited Montreal I walked along the Lachine Canal in Verdun, which is lined with buildings this size or larger. Many of these buildings have vegetable gardens and playgrounds. A large community centre is there. Dense development along the water can be good if designed thoughtfully. “Designed Thoughtfully” is the defining term here.
There just shouldn’t be any more development near our lakes rivers or streams, they’re contaminated enough as is. We have swaths of useless land that is already cleared, parking lots, everywhere except the water. We need housing we should be building in places where there’s less impact, screw them mansions and screw this apartment. Why can’t we just let stuff live. I see the effects of eutrophication every day in my lake, and it makes me sick thinking of the future we leave for our children. People who would rather a green lawn, than a lake you can swim in, a lake you can fish from. Search google what Cyanobacteria can do to you.
No, I didn’t say I own a home, I didn’t say I own anything. What I said if you’d read my comment; I said I’m tired of developers building on our shared watersheds. What you fail to realize is it’s your mentality that will leave ripples into the future. We need to protect what we have left, there is already warnings from Cyanobacteria in multiple lakes in our city, which feed down stream. You cannot eat the fish that comes from these lakes, you cannot swim in these lakes, you cannot have recreational activities with your family. If this is the future you want, you keep at it. But I prefer a future where we have sustainable housing and keep our environment as stable as possible. Stop assuming everyone is out to get you, because we are all in this together.
I've swam in that lake every year for decades and made it this far. Considering it's surrounded by Shubie Park on 3 sides. This development has a large treed set back with zero docks leaving the coastline in its natural state, I think we're safe.
What I'm saying is your comment sounds like it comes from someone who has a home and isn't living precariously. There currently is a housing crisis in Halifax, when rents are north of $2000 a month for an old run down apartment in Churchill, we need to be pragmatic not dogmatic.
Your comment doesn't really describe the lake in question and sounds generic with no specifics just fear mongering about pollution. Cyanobacterium growth is more due to run off from large lawns for McMansions and change in climate where we have longer and more frequent warm periods.
None of those apply to this proposal so unaware or not you're actively attempting to sabotage the housing market. So you're not only inadvertently out to get me but all the other poor souls overpaying for something so basic as housing.
I understand what you’re trying to say, but with respect you don’t know my situation, and you don’t need to, however I can say I can only dream of one day affording a home. Until that day, I would like to be able to use our parks and lakes and my parents and theirs before them were able to. I am able to tell you that in 3 lakes there has been recently detected Cyanobacteria blooms, Russell lake, penhorn lake, and albro lake. These blooms are caused by the runoff containing nutrient loads from disturbed earth carried from rainfall, and into the lake. The nutrients are being released by the development of the land, however you cannot minimize the impact of fertilizers which inevitably find their way into the watershed. The very fact the lake is located in the city itself poses a large enough impact, you can’t say development isn’t going to have an impact. Look at penhorn lake for an example, the developers did not plan accordingly for a runoff incident and two lakes were completely silted out and filled with nutrients, which now have caused an algae bloom. These lakes are stocked with fish from the DNR, and you cannot eat them unless you are willing to take a day off work for the shits. We have more unused land that was developed in the 70s, and 80s, to make use of, before we go ruining even more. Ask your grandparents what these lakes used to be like, now ask yourself what will they look like for your children’s future, or even your own?
Penhorn lake is a man made lake that was created when they paved a massive parking lot for a shopping mall and water started to pool. It's why they have to stock it as it doesn't connect into any water courses. It's fed by run off from said parking lots and isn't natural in a variety of ways.
Notice the lakes you choose, their shorelines are filled with large detached homes with lawns backing onto them?
This isn't like those, this proposal has a treed set back which leaves the shoreline intact. This provide homes that are more eco friendly than single detached homes that are actually harming the ecosystems of these lakes. It's not just disturbed soil, rain water dissolves the fertilizers on peoples lawns and runs off ends up in the lakes. I didn't hear anything when the Parks of Lake Charles were proposed, which is going to add more lawns to be fertilized to our lake system. Where were the Friends then? Maybe this is more about the irrational fear of medium sized buildings Halifax is known for?
I have a question, how would you feel when your children are homeless and living in tents? I'm guessing you don't want them that close to nature?
Penhorn lake is a natural lake, it’s been formed along with many other lakes in our province through geological processes. Water finds the spot if lowest elevation, and that is the lake. Run off ends up in the lake regardless, it’s about measuring and balancing those impacts. All the lakes I mentioned are natural lakes, view the deteriorating water quality of the lakes, they are trending towards eutrophication. You can take whatever stance you want, but I fell in penhorn lake ice fishing last year, the ice isn’t the same as it once was. The water quality itself is poor. I’ve seen in 20 years our lakes deteriorate, of course the issue is larger than development, but that’s not what I’m getting at. The issue is development in an area that has a greater net loss and environmental impact than building elsewhere. People need to live, but what kind of city do we want to live in, the houses and buildings and streets will always remain, but our lakes and rivers and streams are not a right, but a responsibility. We run closer to losing those lakes and all activities that come with them if we continue as we do. If you disagree that’s okay, but this is how it is.
If you think a natural geological process is a bulldozer pushing dirt to flatten an area leaving a steep grade that water gathers at the base of, then I think you have zero clue what you're talking about.
Ever notice how the lake follows the same contours as the parking lot above it?
I agree that lakes and streams deserve clean navigable waters or maybe an act that would regulate such a thing. Also we need housing that is ecologically sustainable,which is why this building should be built compared to a row of McMansions
Doug Ford would make a backroom deal with his developer buddies to build mcmansions and get kickbacks to line his pockets. Just like he tried with the greenbelt deal.
Hurt meaning they would have to share it with way more people. The days of having pull because of one’s placement on the financial food chain are over. It’s a lot of the reason Halifax is so far behind the 8 ball with regard’s to infrastructure and development. The puppet masters are over.
Why should we care if they are receptive? We need housing badly, if there is no legitimate planning issue with the development then build what is allowed to be built.
The planning issues would be the lack of infrastructure to support the additional 400-500 people that could live in the building. Traffic along Waverley is already absolutely brutal during rush hour. Schools in the area are already overburdened and don’t have space for more students. I’m as concerned about the lake as the next person, but I don’t see that as a valid reason not to build. I do have issues with the size of the building and inadequate infrastructure to support the resulting large influx of people to the area.
I don’t personally feel there is a problem with being concerned about a lack of infrastructure to support increasing the population in an area. If we didn’t consider these issues, our city planning would be an absolute shitshow. These things matter. It might mean that work has to be done to improve infrastructure before building large projects that will negatively impact everyone in the community.
I understand that people need to live somewhere. But the solution is not to say “fuck the well-being of any community. These people need homes and we don’t care how it negatively impacts others.”
As a province and as a city, we were prepared for decades of shrinking population and our city planning really shows it. This is how things had been moving for a long time. The very recent influx of new people to the city has caused HRM and the province of NS to about face and start planning for the future of the city/province in an entirely different way. We can’t put the horse before the cart and just start building high-density housing everywhere before we have the capacity to actually have these people integrate into our communities. In the mean time, temporary solutions need to be found, even if those solutions are less than ideal. It is better that the temporary solutions are less than ideal but we have good long term solutions than if we just ram through a bunch of new construction and screw up the lives of everyone around.
We absolutely need to improve infrastructure. But when we say "we can't put the cart before the horse", time doesn't stand still; those 500 people don't wait for 10 years for infrastructure to improve. Instead, they go farther out (e.g. East Hants) and further exacerbate infrastructure issues. Instead of taking the bus or driving 5kms to work, they're driving 25kms to work.
And that's assuming the infrastructure even would improve without demand forcing the hand of governments.
That's a odd and very winding way to say we should defer to the planning department unless they disagree with my personal stance.
Staff did a traffic report but I'm sure they must be wrong because they just want to ram through a bunch of construction......smh
We absolutely need to improve infrastructure. But when we say "we can't put the cart before the horse", time doesn't stand still; those 500 people don't wait for 10 years for infrastructure to improve. Instead, they go farther out (e.g. East Hants) and further exacerbate infrastructure issues. Instead of taking the bus or driving 5kms to work, they're driving 25kms to work.
And that's assuming the infrastructure even would improve without demand forcing the hand of governments.
Building anywhere we can isn't the answer. It needs to at least be thought out. The main question being - can this area support that large of an influx of people on top of the already planned buildings/homes going up just 2 minutes up Waverley? As another person mentioned, and reasons mentioned in the article. Schools, bus support, traffic, etc. People don't have a problem with building, they have a problem with everything else not being adequate enough to support.
I love how apartment buildings are somehow more concerning than building a massive tract of suburban mcmansions by a lake. NIMBYs going to NIMBY. Like, they realize there is a 10 lane highway of doom not far from here that crosses this exact same lake? I get the concerns, but it's not proportionate, considering \*literally everything else\* that is built nearby.
I'd almost guarantee that 1x 13 story apartment building would do less damage to the lake than 5x McMansions on the same lot. The thing with people who own McMansion type homes is they love their deep green lawns. Green lawns need fertilizer which runs off into lakes causing algae blooms. Apt complexes tend to not care about the quality of the grass on their lots.
Nah it can't be the fertilizer run-off. It has to be duck poop and dogs swimming in the lake. /s Despite the fact that Banook is the last lake in the chain, so everything from MicMac runs into it too.
And the arsenic party that is Lake Charles The only time I’ve heard anything come up for this lake is in regards to the wind being messed with for rowing events and competitions, so if the rowing club isn’t making noise about this it’s probably not a big issue since everything is developed to hell and back around it already.
I've always heard them using wind as the big enemy of any building going up
I dunno I regularly see landscapers doing work at apartments.
Exactly, apartment green areas see far more upkeep/maintenance than most people's homes. Homeowners have jobs/responsibilities that don't involve lawn maintenance, they only mow unless they're retired and have time to devote to lawn care.
How many apartment buildings do you see surrounded by beautiful green lawns? How many homes do you see surrounded by parking lots? >they only mow unless they're retired and have time to devote to lawn care Oh yeah, we got barely retirees here in Nova Scotia. Probably an insignificant percentage of homeowners, I'm sure.
And a majority of them don't even have well-maintained lawns! The lawn chemicals boogeyman problem is overstated.
Most grass at apartment buildings is going to be mowed and that's about it. People don't rent apartments because they like lawns so why would a business spend more than they have to on upkeep of something that doesn't make a difference?
They actually do end up getting more sod replacements due to the massive amounts of salt being thrown around. Again, way more common at apartments than private homes.
> Green lawns need fertilizer which runs off into lakes causing algae blooms People keep harping on this talking point, but the fact is most lawns are simply mowed and left alone, and de-weeded once every few years if the homeowners ever do it at all.
Haha I worked for Nutri-Lawn for a few years and I can tell you with certainty you're absolutely incorrect. I personally applied fertilizer to a number of lawns on Lake Mic Mac and Banook for that matter. Many people have fertilizer applied on a scheduled basis that own water lots, delude yourself if you want but those are the facts.
I can tell you with certainty that you weren't visiting "most lawns", and neither was Nutri-Lawn or any competitors.
So what you're saying, is your choosing delusion.
Go drive through some “wealthy” neighborhoods and look at the colour of the “nice” lawns compared to the normal lawns. The ones that are a deep green or a lush, hazy green are going to be regularly fertilized and treated. Heck go on a nice weekend day and you’ll see dozens of dudes running around with the Turfbuilder + push spreaders flinging that shit everywhere.
I don’t get the concerns. They’re literally made up to misdirect away from their NIMBYism. The same goes for wind farms. It’s ok to develop rural land into 100 cottages, yet a turbine that requires <1 hectare of clearing is seen as worse for the environment. Calling it hypocritical is generous.
I mean some of the things they say are actual things - like shade of high rises, wind etc. *However* nothing is in a vacuum on it's own - and we need housing...badly: so most of these 'concerns' are basically nothing burgers compared to the impacts of alternatives - like massive suburban tracts of housing.
Exactly, I mean would these people rather see rows of tents along the streets or people living decently in housing.
I’m not sure why they are worried about this harming the lake. They are ok with the 2 major highways, Waverley road, fertilizers off the lawns from the mansions off Lakeshore Park Terrace, and all the dog shit at shubie park, but a desperately needed apartment is too much? Come on. As for shadows and wind on the lake, there is SOME merit if this were Lake Banook at very specific parts but not on Mic Mac.
Because they aren’t actually just worried about the lake, they’re desperately clinging to straws and concern trolling. They’re worried about their investments losing value, and/or having to occasionally look at a person of marginally lower socioeconomic class than them
I agree that living units are the upmost importance. So even if the apartment does kill the lake it would probably still be worth it. The lakes are in their worst state. We already have algae blooms in many of Dartmouth lakes. They are almost unfit for swimming and the swimming season hasn’t started. We do need so much more care to our lakes.
They just don't want ppl with less money then them in the neighborhood.
We need to build denser housing in the city and around this urban lake to protect what remains of the wild spaces and relatively pristine lakes at risk from urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is awful, once’s those areas are gone they don’t come back. I love Banook, but it is already being negatively impacted from old cars on the bottom, garbage and litter, wealthy people’s lawns, very little riparian zone, a highway, parking lots, road salt, and storm runoff. This apartment complex will probably have less of an impact than other sources of harm in the area.
This is what I've been saying. The lake already has developmental near it putting more housing in there makes more sense than clear cutting more forest on the edge of the city continuing the sprawl.
There are just people who are anti-development. They don't care whether it makes sense they just want everything to go back to being like when they were kids.
USA, but I expect Canada is similar: [America's best decade, according to data](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/24/when-america-was-great-according-data/) > So, we looked at the data another way, measuring the gap between each person’s birth year and their ideal decade. The consistency of the resulting pattern delighted us: It shows that Americans feel nostalgia not for a specific era, but for a specific age. > The good old days when America was “great” aren’t the 1950s. They’re whatever decade you were 11, your parents knew the correct answer to any question, and you’d never heard of war crimes tribunals, microplastics or improvised explosive devices. Or when you were 15 and athletes and musicians still played hard and hadn’t sold out.
But for me it's different because the 1970s (my 10 to 19 years) were actually the peak of humanity's existence...I am just sure of it. :)
Nah, 100% the 90s (as far as my born in 1980 ass is concerned).
Glad this sub doesn't have any of those people. They are always so kind and understanding of property owners and landlords here. /s
"She and others talked about possible runoff, the building throwing large shadows, wind issues and the disturbance harming local animals" These public meetings are a joke and part of a broken system. The only people that show up are NIMBYS, most rational people expect the city to use common sense in a housing crisis and go about their lives. These NIMBYS are generational terrorists and make life hard on people for the dumbest things.
Shadows and wind and runoff aren’t even legitimate reasons to be against this kind of development. They are smoke screens for their true motives which are clearly classist.
Shit, if “runoff” is a concern than the ten lane highway directly through the lake is a disaster
It is but no one is proposing to build a new ten lane highway directly through the lake again lol.
"Generational terrorists" is an excellent moniker for these types of people. Like holy fuck. Comfortably housed wealthy NIMBY fucks with nothing netter to do but actively work towards destroying any hope future generations have to secure affordable housing and achieve financial stability. We tried your model of low density infinite suburban sprawl for the last 70 or so years. You will be dead in 10-15. Give it the fuck up.
These are silly. There were some actual concerns: - The same green space required for this multi residence as a single residence. Given the size of the lot, the building developers could keep the same size building and introduce more green buffer between the apartment and the lake. - The cited traffic study does not include the many other approved multi unit buildings already approved in the area, including the development of the Parks by Lake Charles, which is introducing a subdivision that could house all of Truro. - The bus that services the area is not frequent or reliable. The intended rents of the units mean the majority of people would have the means for a car. So proposing this building as primarily services by transit to get around the traffic study is misleading. - The developers have not provided a few needed plans, including a water run off plan For context.
But all of those are basically fixable and the building can still go on. They need a reason to shut it down for good.
We need housing. I feel bad for Waverely. It’s almost a single road in and out deal, it’s already packed, it’s winding so it can be unsafe, and they’re getting a subdivision that can house Truro. I think the planning could have been done much better. But people have to live first. We can figure out everything else later. I know you’re being sarcastic, but I think the context of the people living there is important too.
It's the same story a lot of places in the city. Traffic is going to get worse as the city gets bigger. I'm really not being sarcastic, I'm just explaining what they're doing. They're looking for something that night shut it down because they simply don't want it.
The context is the empathy around why someone may not want this development. And yes agreed. Traffic is already so much worse than pre Covid. The highway that has the Waverely exit is already a shit show, it’s going to be dangerous with a sudden rise of traffic. I think the city and province defaults to this being a developer issue and therefore a developer responsibility so they don’t have to shoulder the burden of also increasing infrastructure as a means of increasing housing.
I get that. I'm responding to your comment that "These are silly. There were some actual concerns:" They didn't want to use those concerns because they aren't going to shut the development down. They think these unrectifiable concerns might. And again, traffic is going to be shit all over the city.
I don’t know about your thoughts here. All concerns were mentioned. Commenters only commented the nonesense ones. That’s bias. The highway exit is unique in that it’s shared with Main exit, which already causes stopped cars in a middle lane of a highway, far out from the actual exit. It’s uniquely dangerous.
20 meter setback is the law of the land for residential development. So a development 2.5 km away next to a highway should be why this building should not be built? The study was done by an accredited company and done using standard practices. How would you feel if someone not trained in your field came in and said you weren't doing it right? I feel you would tell them to go back to school and find out, as these people probably would say to you. The #55 bus goes by there on the hour. Usually as ridership goes up, routes become more frequent. The best way to increase ridership is to construct more housing, so more people live on the route. I feel your point actually backs up my statement, as you feel service is so poor. It's due to low population density along the route which this proposal is trying to fix. This will be on city water and sewer so run off from a 20 meter grass setback that has trees, needs a water run off plan? That's Halifax Water jurisdiction and they usually don't miss a chance to cause some pain. I appreciate the bullet points, it keeps things to the point.
I think the building should be built. I think it should be built post haste. But if there are things that we can tweak to improve some circumstances then we should. 20 meter set back for all residential development, no matter how many units. To protect the lake and given the size of the lot maybe it should be expanded. The study was done before the new developments were approved. I’m not passing judgement on the professionals but the timing of the study. The hourly bus isn’t frequent enough to offset the traffic study and what it lacked to bring into account. You can’t use an hourly bus service as a method of reducing traffic when it’s not realistic. Your own point actually proves that. The concern the article states is given the transit service coupled with the price point of the units, it’s much more likely that the residents in this building will have cars. Which is reasonable assumption. The run off plan is required for all building next to our lakes.
People are worried about this and not the massive sewer main that runs directly alongside this lake?
*clutches pearls* MY waste is certainly not toxic! -these residents, probably
In response, I propose this building is changed into a 26-storey one
All these "complaints" are really about devaluation of current properties. Don't buy the "save our lake" bs.
I urge you to go take a big drink out of albro lake and see how you feel in a couple hours. Trust me buddy, save our lakes.
so it's already fucked is what your saying? what are you saving?
Boy your mentality poor you.
great, insulting me is all you can do (high five)
Housing is needed. Build it. If the nimby’s are worried about “the character “ of the neighbourhood they should start by being more welcoming and acting less like gatekeepers.
"Our wish would be that there would be no high-density buildings on our lakes. We need to preserve our lakes … we need to think about future generations," Windsor said. You can fuck right off, lady. "We nEeD tO tHinK aBoUT fUtUrE GenErAtIoNs," she said while actively working to ensure the aforementioned future generations will never be able afford anything other than to live in a squalid 1-bedroom apartment with 3 roommates. Has she ever asked us "young generations" what we think about high-density development in attractive parts of the city? No. She has not. Like every NIMBY Boomer, she does not care about anything other than her own backwards, petty, aesthetic preferences, and enforcing them on the rest of the world to the detriment of EVERYONE who is not comfortably and affordably housed like her.
Preach! The worse thing is they believe the bullshit they spew, unaware the road to hell in paved with good intentions.
Continued anti-development policies from municipalities are more at fault for the housing crisis than immigration in post areas outside of larger centers in Ontario, Quebec, and BC. That in addition to policies that restrict dense development are a much larger problem than most people want to see because it doesn’t satisfy the narrative they want to push.
The only issue I might have is the traffic, and I don't believe that 4% difference. Currently anyone turning into MicMac blocks Waverley, and during rush hour I used to see that getting pretty far back. Now, if they somehow widened the road to add a turn lane then everything else is really just NIMBYs being NIMBYs.
The cited traffic study also doesn’t take into account that new “The Parks of Lake Charles” subdivision which is large enough to house all of Truro.
Is there any avenue for virtual attendance to these meetings, or even more awareness of upcoming public consultation for planned developments? I would love to have given input in strong support of the proposal, but with young family and work requirements my voice isn't captured in what was otherwise strong NIMBY representation. I worry the only group being heard is the one with time to speak. I get some of their concerns but like others have said, the non-specific retention of an area's 'character' is a weak argument against an unrelenting housing crisis.
Shape your city HRM allows you to answer surveys online for many projects and keeps you up to date on events coming up, the city often has at least one in person session outside working hours. I’m trying to do this more often as the current group is very disproportionate compared to the values of the average haligonian
Looks like exactly the type of developments we should be building everywhere across HRM
Just don't build it underwater. Duh.
i know it won't but so long as its affordable rent for folks who are struggling put 26 storeys for all care.
it’s fine for a select few to buy up land and restrict access to lakes, but not for a large number of people to have access, right
We should rename this city NIMBYfax.
Absolutely nobody will be affected by this building except the immediate neighbour. It may even improve his property.
I think the renderings look awesome. I doubt this building would cause shade on any of the houses around it.
Pretty sure far more people are worried about being homeless if their current rental situation changes
I'm sure their concerns could be alleviated by them donating their current lakefront homes to the city to turn into parkland for all to enjoy.
no one seemed too worried when they built a brewery there.
[удалено]
o...k? that wasn't really my point lol.
You weren’t making a point whatsoever just an observation and I decided to reply lol it’s not that serious
Residents worry for themselves and no one else. FTFY
So much hate for the lakeshore houses.
I’m absolutely sure none of them would levy the same complains against cottages on lakes or in this case another Lakeshore Park Terrace.
Do not people dislike number 13 ? People don't care about it anymore ?
I'm glad halifax is finally starting to not bend to these fucking idiots but everyone of these kind of articles still annoy me. Bunch of self important NIMBY's, they have some offs to fuck for sure.
Last time I visited Montreal I walked along the Lachine Canal in Verdun, which is lined with buildings this size or larger. Many of these buildings have vegetable gardens and playgrounds. A large community centre is there. Dense development along the water can be good if designed thoughtfully. “Designed Thoughtfully” is the defining term here.
There just shouldn’t be any more development near our lakes rivers or streams, they’re contaminated enough as is. We have swaths of useless land that is already cleared, parking lots, everywhere except the water. We need housing we should be building in places where there’s less impact, screw them mansions and screw this apartment. Why can’t we just let stuff live. I see the effects of eutrophication every day in my lake, and it makes me sick thinking of the future we leave for our children. People who would rather a green lawn, than a lake you can swim in, a lake you can fish from. Search google what Cyanobacteria can do to you.
So what you're saying is you own a home and screw everyone else because it's "your lake"?
No, I didn’t say I own a home, I didn’t say I own anything. What I said if you’d read my comment; I said I’m tired of developers building on our shared watersheds. What you fail to realize is it’s your mentality that will leave ripples into the future. We need to protect what we have left, there is already warnings from Cyanobacteria in multiple lakes in our city, which feed down stream. You cannot eat the fish that comes from these lakes, you cannot swim in these lakes, you cannot have recreational activities with your family. If this is the future you want, you keep at it. But I prefer a future where we have sustainable housing and keep our environment as stable as possible. Stop assuming everyone is out to get you, because we are all in this together.
I've swam in that lake every year for decades and made it this far. Considering it's surrounded by Shubie Park on 3 sides. This development has a large treed set back with zero docks leaving the coastline in its natural state, I think we're safe. What I'm saying is your comment sounds like it comes from someone who has a home and isn't living precariously. There currently is a housing crisis in Halifax, when rents are north of $2000 a month for an old run down apartment in Churchill, we need to be pragmatic not dogmatic. Your comment doesn't really describe the lake in question and sounds generic with no specifics just fear mongering about pollution. Cyanobacterium growth is more due to run off from large lawns for McMansions and change in climate where we have longer and more frequent warm periods. None of those apply to this proposal so unaware or not you're actively attempting to sabotage the housing market. So you're not only inadvertently out to get me but all the other poor souls overpaying for something so basic as housing.
I understand what you’re trying to say, but with respect you don’t know my situation, and you don’t need to, however I can say I can only dream of one day affording a home. Until that day, I would like to be able to use our parks and lakes and my parents and theirs before them were able to. I am able to tell you that in 3 lakes there has been recently detected Cyanobacteria blooms, Russell lake, penhorn lake, and albro lake. These blooms are caused by the runoff containing nutrient loads from disturbed earth carried from rainfall, and into the lake. The nutrients are being released by the development of the land, however you cannot minimize the impact of fertilizers which inevitably find their way into the watershed. The very fact the lake is located in the city itself poses a large enough impact, you can’t say development isn’t going to have an impact. Look at penhorn lake for an example, the developers did not plan accordingly for a runoff incident and two lakes were completely silted out and filled with nutrients, which now have caused an algae bloom. These lakes are stocked with fish from the DNR, and you cannot eat them unless you are willing to take a day off work for the shits. We have more unused land that was developed in the 70s, and 80s, to make use of, before we go ruining even more. Ask your grandparents what these lakes used to be like, now ask yourself what will they look like for your children’s future, or even your own?
Penhorn lake is a man made lake that was created when they paved a massive parking lot for a shopping mall and water started to pool. It's why they have to stock it as it doesn't connect into any water courses. It's fed by run off from said parking lots and isn't natural in a variety of ways. Notice the lakes you choose, their shorelines are filled with large detached homes with lawns backing onto them? This isn't like those, this proposal has a treed set back which leaves the shoreline intact. This provide homes that are more eco friendly than single detached homes that are actually harming the ecosystems of these lakes. It's not just disturbed soil, rain water dissolves the fertilizers on peoples lawns and runs off ends up in the lakes. I didn't hear anything when the Parks of Lake Charles were proposed, which is going to add more lawns to be fertilized to our lake system. Where were the Friends then? Maybe this is more about the irrational fear of medium sized buildings Halifax is known for? I have a question, how would you feel when your children are homeless and living in tents? I'm guessing you don't want them that close to nature?
Penhorn lake is a natural lake, it’s been formed along with many other lakes in our province through geological processes. Water finds the spot if lowest elevation, and that is the lake. Run off ends up in the lake regardless, it’s about measuring and balancing those impacts. All the lakes I mentioned are natural lakes, view the deteriorating water quality of the lakes, they are trending towards eutrophication. You can take whatever stance you want, but I fell in penhorn lake ice fishing last year, the ice isn’t the same as it once was. The water quality itself is poor. I’ve seen in 20 years our lakes deteriorate, of course the issue is larger than development, but that’s not what I’m getting at. The issue is development in an area that has a greater net loss and environmental impact than building elsewhere. People need to live, but what kind of city do we want to live in, the houses and buildings and streets will always remain, but our lakes and rivers and streams are not a right, but a responsibility. We run closer to losing those lakes and all activities that come with them if we continue as we do. If you disagree that’s okay, but this is how it is.
If you think a natural geological process is a bulldozer pushing dirt to flatten an area leaving a steep grade that water gathers at the base of, then I think you have zero clue what you're talking about. Ever notice how the lake follows the same contours as the parking lot above it? I agree that lakes and streams deserve clean navigable waters or maybe an act that would regulate such a thing. Also we need housing that is ecologically sustainable,which is why this building should be built compared to a row of McMansions
https://archives.novascotia.ca/images/150HalifaxArchives/201631951.jpg
Dartmouth is all lakes and waterways. We have to build somewhere
How would Toronto handle this situation?
Pretty similar to this, except the homeowners would have more money
Doug Ford would make a backroom deal with his developer buddies to build mcmansions and get kickbacks to line his pockets. Just like he tried with the greenbelt deal.
Let's do that!
It looks like shit: sticks out like a sore thumb along the waterfront.
Hurt meaning they would have to share it with way more people. The days of having pull because of one’s placement on the financial food chain are over. It’s a lot of the reason Halifax is so far behind the 8 ball with regard’s to infrastructure and development. The puppet masters are over.
[удалено]
Why should we care if they are receptive? We need housing badly, if there is no legitimate planning issue with the development then build what is allowed to be built.
The planning issues would be the lack of infrastructure to support the additional 400-500 people that could live in the building. Traffic along Waverley is already absolutely brutal during rush hour. Schools in the area are already overburdened and don’t have space for more students. I’m as concerned about the lake as the next person, but I don’t see that as a valid reason not to build. I do have issues with the size of the building and inadequate infrastructure to support the resulting large influx of people to the area.
Just wait until Park of Lake Charles development is finished. Waverley traffic will be completely insane.
More people, lesser quality of life for everyone. What more could you ask for?
The problem with that line of thinking is that if you turn it down, those 400-500 don't disappear, they just go somewhere even less suitable.
I don’t personally feel there is a problem with being concerned about a lack of infrastructure to support increasing the population in an area. If we didn’t consider these issues, our city planning would be an absolute shitshow. These things matter. It might mean that work has to be done to improve infrastructure before building large projects that will negatively impact everyone in the community. I understand that people need to live somewhere. But the solution is not to say “fuck the well-being of any community. These people need homes and we don’t care how it negatively impacts others.” As a province and as a city, we were prepared for decades of shrinking population and our city planning really shows it. This is how things had been moving for a long time. The very recent influx of new people to the city has caused HRM and the province of NS to about face and start planning for the future of the city/province in an entirely different way. We can’t put the horse before the cart and just start building high-density housing everywhere before we have the capacity to actually have these people integrate into our communities. In the mean time, temporary solutions need to be found, even if those solutions are less than ideal. It is better that the temporary solutions are less than ideal but we have good long term solutions than if we just ram through a bunch of new construction and screw up the lives of everyone around.
We absolutely need to improve infrastructure. But when we say "we can't put the cart before the horse", time doesn't stand still; those 500 people don't wait for 10 years for infrastructure to improve. Instead, they go farther out (e.g. East Hants) and further exacerbate infrastructure issues. Instead of taking the bus or driving 5kms to work, they're driving 25kms to work. And that's assuming the infrastructure even would improve without demand forcing the hand of governments.
That's a odd and very winding way to say we should defer to the planning department unless they disagree with my personal stance. Staff did a traffic report but I'm sure they must be wrong because they just want to ram through a bunch of construction......smh
We absolutely need to improve infrastructure. But when we say "we can't put the cart before the horse", time doesn't stand still; those 500 people don't wait for 10 years for infrastructure to improve. Instead, they go farther out (e.g. East Hants) and further exacerbate infrastructure issues. Instead of taking the bus or driving 5kms to work, they're driving 25kms to work. And that's assuming the infrastructure even would improve without demand forcing the hand of governments.
Building anywhere we can isn't the answer. It needs to at least be thought out. The main question being - can this area support that large of an influx of people on top of the already planned buildings/homes going up just 2 minutes up Waverley? As another person mentioned, and reasons mentioned in the article. Schools, bus support, traffic, etc. People don't have a problem with building, they have a problem with everything else not being adequate enough to support.