Updated below.
Mike Cosgrove, a teacher at Dartmouth High School, has been one of the most vocal critics of placing the Bridge Terminal on the Dartmouth Common—in any orientation.
With the premier suddenly raising concerns about the terminal, Cosgrove sends the following email, which I’m posting here with his permission:
Hi Tim,
As you know, I’ve been following the bus terminal issue, and you have been doing a good job reporting it, as you generally do.
One thing that you may not fully realize is that no public consultation was held to reorientate the terminal. You will not find evidence of that claim anywhere.
The Sperry architect told me himself that he called Metro Transit to get them to reorietate the terminal because it made more engineering sense. [Editor’s note: Troy Scott of Sperry disputes this assertion– see below.]
At every public hearing the unanimous voice was against locating the terminal on the Common at all.
In fact one could make the claim that the new location is actually closer to the school if you average out the distance of all the bus bays combined. It definitely displaces more green space than the original plan.
The notion that the public was responsible for reorientating the terminal just isn’t true, so you may not want to report this claim of Metro transit’s unless you can substantiate it.
Mike Cosgrove
Update, June 24:
Troy Scott of Sperry Partners Architects sends the following note:
The terminal location and orientation came out of the CBCL Consultants process not ours (Sperry’s). When the project was first released as a Design Build project and before Sperry was involved in the project I call Strategic Transportation at HRM (again not Metro Transit), to discuss the orientation of the Terminal as a concerned citizen and local resident myself, not the Project Architect. Once the Design Build option was cancelled, Sperry & Partners was selected to design the building, and again the orientation was decided out of the Commons Master Planning Process, a project being executed by CBCL. Michael is miss quoting me.
This article appears in Jun 17-23, 2010.
So, let me guess Mike Cosgrove drives a car to work… right?
Agreed Hhishighness.
That area is wasted, and the mewing about the re-orientation is simply another chance to delay the building.
I take the bus every day, and the folks bitching about the “green space” are the same one’s shooting down the road, bombing through the crosswalk as I try to get to that hell-hole.
Man, let’s just call them an off-shoot of Heritage Trust and be done.
Does Cosgrove even live in the area?
I use the bus every day fucktards, doesn’t mean I can’t be against HRM “wisdom” and their bending of the rules to let their half-assed half-baked ideas let loose on the community I’ve lived in all my life.
Green space???? That small piece of dirty scrub is definately not green space.
The one time I walked through I saw about 10 high school age kids smoking pot.
This appears to be the only usefull thing that so called ‘green space’ is good for, except a bus terminal of course.
Public land used for public transit. Makes sense to me.
hishighness – Dead wrong. He walks a couple of hundred yards and there he is at Dartmouth High.
Why would you be so bold as to suggest he drives to work, when you obviously have not been following the issue ? At public meetings he gave his address and Tim has written that he teaches at Dartmouth High. If you had those two facts you would be in the know and able to retract your comments or apologise.
Luthor – most of the folks against the orienatation live in the area and are strong proponents of public transit.
The nature park you are all so negative about is the last vestige of the original untouched common land. It has never been groomed (other than the trails)… Those paths are actually original streets that were put through in the mid 1800s… now they are paths. There is history there.
Sure I agree it isn’t a very safe place at night, though I’ve walked through plenty of times and usually I never see a soul. Most of our city isn’t safe at night, and I see a lot more crack heads on Spring Garden Road than I ever have in the wilderness park.
On another Coast post (http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archiv…) about this Terminal, “Charles The Great”said The Wilderness Park is where people have been murdered and bodies have been dumped there, but I have lived 6 blocks away all my life and never heard of that before – when I challenged the poster on his “dangerous” assertions he never came back to post sources.
Sounds like an ardent supporter trying to build support for a rushed idea with not enough thinking, much like just about every other civic project we contend with here in our backwoods burb.
The city of Dartmouth created that wilderness park around the same time Dexter was a councilor for the city (he was the one who was instrumental in getting a green line painted on the streets around the bounds of the original common).
I’m not on side with Dexter…. for anything really! lol. But at least he sees the same stink I do.
Just because HRM in it’s infinite wisdom (or lack thereof) has let that park rot, hasn’t installed lighting or paved the trails, doesn’t mean the park is a bad place or a bad idea. It just means HRM doesn’t have the needs of Dartmouth very high on the radar, on the planning front, and especially on the aesthetic front.
Status Quo thinking for a status quo city, I guess.
Ok, joeblow. My comment was meant to intimate that he probably doesn’t ride the bus through this nightmare of a terminal and thus doesn’t have to suffer like the rest of us at the dithering on replacing it. So you saying that he walks to work doesn’t change that at all. But nice try on the fake outrage thing, 9 out of 10 for effort.
And I’ll apologize for my comment when he gets with the 21st century and stops blocking progress over a bunch of land that is currently used to do drugs and smoke off school property. Green space, I bet all the people whining about it now didn’t use it for a damn thing before all this started. It’s not like they’re talking about getting rid of the ball fields or parts of the common that actually are useful for people.
Anyway, an improved transit terminal for the bridge would be “progress” and we can’t have any of that in Nova Scotia. Any idea conceived of past 1950 is witchcraft. Dexter should go back to what he’s good at (breaking promises about the budge) and leave the city alone.
hishighness has it right; before this was put together, how many people that oppose it actually use it? I would hazard a guess that very little do. But in typical NIMBY fashion, the residents get up in arms, whine about how it’ll ruin a “green” space (and I’d use that term very lightly). Or, you get people like Mike Cosgrove who are just worried that the city will take away a cheap lab for him to teach Bio in. I’m sure if they were to build a brand new DHS on that site Mr. Cosgrove would have absolutely no problem.
There’s nothing important (save for a few stones apparently, which can be moved) in the park. Sometimes I just wish HRM would just dispense with public consultation. Obviously, the public gets it’s panties in a bunch whenever something positive happens. Either that, or get rid of the “common land” concept within HRM. Both are unlikely to happen, but a guy can dream, huh?
Well, I am Mike Cosgrove. I walk to work, and walk my daughter through the park , and bring my philosophy and English students to the area. My goal was to argue for a better bus terminal site.
Unfortunately, the issue has taken on an unfriendly tone and has resulted in some unsound arguemnets. Opposing a bus terminal on the Dartmouth Common DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONE IS OPPOSED TO A NEW BUS TERMINAL. Is it wrong to question a proposed site? Have we had a productive dialogue about possible sites? Have we explored the pros and cons of different sites? Not really. That’s what we should be focused on.
The Wilderness Park has potential to be a central area that engages the local residents, whether it be a plaza, skate park, picnic area, field, in essence, all the things that the Halifax Commons is.
Parks are vital to cities. Think of the value Central Park has to New York. It is 843 acres. Somehow the city managed to keep it. Our park will have immense value in the future. At the very least allow the citizens of the area to decide what to do with their own park.
People do smoke up in the park, and some crimes have been committed, but paving parks as a crime prevention measure just doesn’t seem reasonable.
If caring about your comunity’s future, and getting involved in civic governance is stopping progress, then I disagree with this definition of progress.
Mr. Cosgrove, you talk about unsound arguments. Central Park is not Dartmouth Common, and wouldn’t even come close even if it was taken care of.
I might have a larger issue if the case was the “wilderness park” as you call it was groomed, clean, and potentially useful. However, as it is, it’s a piece of scrub land, not uncommon in the Dartmouth area. In fact, the walking paths around Lake Banook are a fine example. Sure, there’s a potential to have the community involved, but the community has shown no involvement, at least until recently. This is why it stinks of NIMBY.
Some of the other sites that have been proposed like the Wyse Rd. spot just make no sense. Buses turning left at that intersection during rush hour? Even with transit signals, the traffic flow would be severely compromised (and honestly, it’s poor to begin with). In fact, while we’re at it, why can’t the community rally around the Wyse Rd. lot for a park (not something that I can take credit for)? Oh wait. It doesn’t have a “common” tag associated with it, so the community would have to take care of it, would have to take responsibility for it. The community has already demonstrated they don’t care to, especially in the case of the Common.
My argument is not unsound with regards to Central Park. I did not say that the Wilderness park is Central Park. That would not make sense. Slow down for a second. I am saying that parks are a vital park of a city’s well being, and Central Park is an example of this. There are many other examples. Chicago’s Lincoln Park, Vancouver’s Stanley Park, London’s Hyde Park, even our own Halifax Commons or Public Gardens. The potential in greenspace is unlimited. The Dartmouth Common could become whatever we want it to.
I agree that citizens need to get involved maintaining and cultivating their parks. However, if we take them away this isn’t possible. We are trying to get involved and we want to organize ourselves to engage with this park space. We are not there yet, but it doesn’t follow that we won’t be.
Engaging in arguments about other sites is productive. The Wyse Rd. site doesn’t have to be a left turn entry. Buses could turn right off the bridge and go under it.
Alderney is the best location. Look up “Transit Orientated Development” on-line. We need to integrate businesses and other transit hubs with our terminals. The Commons site doesn’t allow for this. At the annual Dalhousie Planning conference it was hard to find planners who thought the Common site was a good choice.
Another interesting, or ironic, piece of information is that the architect designing the current terminal did his thesis on a bus terminal design at the Alderney location. The other architect did his thesis on the viability on rail in HRM. There are a lot of things to think about.
But you did draw a comparison. In any case, we’re mincing words.
Alderney (and surrounding area) doesn’t work either. It’s significantly less central than the current terminal, and would add at least a 1.5 Km round trip to each route that would service that terminal; thereby requiring more fuel, so on and so forth. You also mention business and transit integration, but what businesses would benefit from the additional foot traffic afforded by the new terminal at Alderney? Do you mean the oft-closed deli? Or the NSLC? Oh, I get it! Tim’s! There are no local businesses that would be serviced additionally that aren’t already getting a boost from the ferry terminal. Keep in mind, most of Alderney and surrounding buildings are Government offices, and not business fronts.
Your suggestion of turning right onto Wyse and under the bridge, would add at least 1.5 Km one way (right on Wyse, right onto Windmill, and then right onto Faulkner). This would also most likely require the existing right hand lane that merges into traffic onto Windmill turned into a bus-only lane, to add priority. You might as well send the traffic onto Alderney.
If we take this “green space” away, the community would lose nothing. Just the potential that it might be, which as frustrating as it is, is entirely the community’s fault. They don’t use it. There are all kinds of “green” spaces in Dartmouth, people just rarely use them, or even care to know about their existence. As such, the argument of losing a green space lacks substance. If the community wanted to, they could have had that area lighted, taken care of, and made into a decent park. But, they didn’t, and at the 11th hour, they decide all of a sudden, it’s important. Sorry to say, it’s too late.
Fever – the empty land at Wyse, Dawson & Faulkner should be returned to the Common because it was part of the original Common.
HRM has no intention of leaving green space as is.
They want buildings and taxes to feed the overpriced help.
JB— Sure it should. Then they could make the area a decent park, and it would serve the adjacent residential area quite well.
It still doesn’t change the fact that a new terminal is needed. The current one is far too inadequate, and dangerous to passengers, I might add. But if the NIMBY residents and Dexter have their way, it won’t happen. Just another reason for Dartmouth residents to whine about how HRM doesn’t care about Dartmouth, and wax poetic about the “ol’ Dartmouth council”.
I’ll say it here , why not, but I am old enough to remember the buses uesd to stop at a bus station where the car wash is at the Esso.
So why not get rid of the Esso station. rip out the car wash & put in a metro transit .
There is a lot of room there, they can expand into the parking lot along Wyse rd.
No green space lost, its simple.
If they really want to build it by the Sportsplex…tear down the Scotia bank building & expand the present place into that space.
No more loss of common land, It solves a shit load of concerns about buses to close to the school etc.
Fever- Why is is that people who disagree with you “whine”? Also I don’t think the “NIMBY residents” reference is that thoughtful. Is it anyone who is concerned about the development of their community (their backyard), because if it is, then we need more of them.
If I don’t want an incinerator, or a landfill, or a strip bar in my neighborhood does that make me a NIMBY resident? I think the NIMBY tag is judgemental. Do I have to agree to everything in my community to not be a NIMBY resident? Are you a NIMBY resident in any way? Let’s talk about the issue and forget the labels designed to demean. They’re a distraction from good dialogue.
I’m seeing a lot of people bringing forth ideas that they feel weren’t discussed and/or considered with regards to the location of the proposed bus terminal. The fact is that these locations have already been considered and Tim linked the documentation in a previous blog post.
If you’re going to debate the issue, can you please make sure you have all the information? Dr. Fever has obviously read the study in question, have you Mr. Cosgrove?
I’d like to add that we’re not talking about demolishing the entire Dartmouth Commons. We’re talking about re-purposing a (small) portion of it, still for common use.
Mr. Cosgrove, I use the term only in a sociological sense. Perhaps I drop the NIMBY designation, and use selfish? Both are equally as descriptive and accurate. See, I have an English degree too!
I’d really like to say that if the community actually looked like it cared about the Common, I’d support the argument against it. But the community doesn’t even appear to. In the past 3 months, going past that area twice a day, I’ve seen only one person using it, outside of your students using it as a shortcut or a smoking area.
That’s my argument; along with carefully considering other options such as the Wyse/Faulkner site, Alderney, and understanding the reasons for not using them. Such arguments are indeed valid, like how Alderney is not central, or how Wyse/Faulkner would require either a left hand turn, or a significant detour, resulting in longer routes and possibly resulting in longer waits. Buying the Scotiabank property or the Esso property would add significant costs (especially with the Esso property), meaning the development is not cost-effective, which is why the Common is being considered, no?
We need to take all of this into consideration, not just the argument of it being a Common/”green space” (which is BS), and therefore untouchable. It’s a weak and tired argument, and if we take that stance all the time, both Halifax and Dartmouth lose. But the people in the area that don’t use the buses in the area don’t care.
DR Fever The Esso & all that area used to belong to the “common” land that was slowly eroded over the years. Buying it back now will be cheaper than buying it in the future.
While many may not want to see any developement on ‘common’ land, I see the schools & the Sportsplex as uses for this common land that is a real benefit for the local area. The Bank of NS or an Esso… I feel ever allowing them in was a huge mistake & the sale of the old transit property which the Esso has built a car wash on is as necessary for that community as the billboards are, in other words, something they could do without.
Appropriating more “common” land from the little what is left undeveloped shouldn’t be an option. Enhancing the park like setting should be. Removing business that are easily accommodated elsewhere IE; the Bank or Gas station is what I believe is the right thing to do.
More— if they would buy the Esso property, they would also need to pick up the environmental clean up costs for taking out the gas station (that alone would not make it cost effective). The BNS property would be expensive as well, depending on how the branch fits into their overall branch plan, and HRM could be responsible for relocation costs. Those areas are not cost-feasible, regardless if they were once part of the original Common or not.
The Wyse-Faulkner lot would make a fantastic park; take some extra cash and create a walking park, or a green space that the community can use. The existing scrub land serves no purpose. It lacks as a good walking park, no lighting, etc. You could even re-purpose money that would be used for such an endeavor to the Wyse-Faulkner site, and create a green space the adjacent residential area could use. The community wins both ways.
Fever – the bank is assessed at $2,000,000. Take that site, start the terminal at that corner and run it alongside Nantucket. Thi splan would be cheaper than the present plan, the bank could return to the prposed commercial development on the terminal see page 34 http://www.halifax.ca/RealPropertyPlanning/DCMP/d…
If HRM had their way most of the area would be developed for parking, commercial, retail, & a bus terminal.
If they want it consider letting them have the all land between Nantucket & Thistle and use the taxes and capital to buy Brightwood for a new green space.
Even with that current assessment, the costs would most likely exceed the proposed site. Banks aren’t cheap anymore, and BNS would have every right to get more money thanks to the forced move, especially a bank in such a strategic location. I don’t think it’s as simple as that, unfortunately.
It’s funny; everyone works on the assumption that HRM just wants to rip up what remains of the Common, just for the shits and giggles of it.
“if the community actually looked like it cared about the Common, I’d support the argument against it. But the community doesn’t even appear to.”
Exactly, no one gave a shit about that spot until someone proposed actually putting something useful there. Then everyone was up in arms.
God I hate this backwards city.
Fever – Define NIMBY again for us. It’s “selfish”? So anyone opposed to the bus terminal on the Commons is selfish?
You also didn’t comment about the fact that the Sperry architect who is designing our terminal did his thesis on designing a bus terminal at Alderney. He had condominiums and businesses included in his plan at Alderney. You can’t dismiss this. Then there is the convenience of the ferry terminal, and possible rail. You are only thinking about buses. Buses. Buses and more buses.
How does the bus terminal on the Common mesh with surrounding infrastructure and business. it doesn’t. Not one single bit. The site is terrible. You only talk about cost as if it is the only factor. Well, you get the city you pay for!
And yes I read the supplementary reports submitted by Metro Transit on site selection. They are the only party submitting reports. No other independent party was involved. They want the cheapest option. They’ve been clear about this.
Anyone involved in this debate should read this:
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/23…
NIMBY equates to selfishness, yes. Especially considering that the new terminal could expand service into areas that don’t have it, or lack adequate service. This forces more people that could use proper transit to drive, creating a bigger pollution issue (which, I might add is something that was brought up in the study for the new terminal). Again, this is land, that is, save for your students, unused.
They should be looking for the cheapest option. I’ve said it on another thread, but they can’t have it both ways. People want increased service, but they want the city to be financially prudent. We’re in agreement that the terminal is needed, but citizens like Joeblow here have made it quite clear that they don’t want them to spend the money. So yes, more buses. That is the best of both worlds, as rail would require significant infrastructure that lacks within the city, and it doesn’t work for a majority of the city, unless you’re looking at light rail from somewhere like Bedford (which is an idea that has been tossed around). Again, Alderney is not central. Nor has it ever been central. It functions as a purpose built ferry terminal, that’s it. Also, what is more integrated than a short walk to a strip mall? Agreed, it’s not entirely integrated, but the current one is not, and people seem to do alright with walking the 100 metres to go to the dollar store. In fact, a parade of your students cross the street every day to a certain fast food restaurant. I don’t think full integration is necessary, as proximity is good enough for most.
Whether the architect did his thesis on the Alderney site really makes no difference, either. Proposed developments in the area like the King’s Wharf development show the community’s distaste for such condo developments, and that alone would make such a development of condos/businesses, at the best, unreliable. Because if this is a result that we can use as reference, the community would most likely oppose this as well. So the city would lose in all cases. Which is against your wishes, as you have already mentioned.
No, the community was not unanimously opposed to the King’s Wharf development. They have already sold units and construction is beginning.
No, the strip mall across 4 lanes of Nantucket is not integrated with the terminal. You need to look up “transit orientated development.”
No, the cheapest is not always the best option. Have you ever purchased furniture?
No, the Wilderness Park is not Central Dartmouth. Alderney is. The bridge doesn’t determine the centre, and we should be trying to decrease traffic on it. More ferries. Bring the people to the ferries. Hmm, but how can we do this? I have an idea.
The bridge determines what is central for transit considering that’s how a majority of people cross the Harbour. From a transit perspective, it’s more central than you’d like to admit.
Ferries are much more expensive to run, and as such, they’re always going to be relegated to supplemental transport, as opposed to primary. More ferries would be great, but they would need to expand the terminals, and this would not allow expansion into north end Dartmouth. It would only serve downtown Dartmouth, and the current woes at the existing terminal would continue to happen.
Cost should not be a consideration when it comes to transit, but it has to be, whether we like that or not. That’s just a purely economical issue, the city is strapped for cash, it’s tax base is shrinking, among other financial considerations. And for the record, I’ve had expensive furniture be just as bad as cheap furniture, that’s a poor comparison.
There was indeed a significant (not unanimous as you have misquoted me on) outcry from the community in response to the King’s Wharf developments, specifically the nearby gambling dens and non-profits that line Portland. That alone has been well documented in a few stories here in The Coast.
Also, transit oriented development has a number of issues to overcome before we even begin to consider it within HRM’s confines. Specifically, we lack the density and infrastructure (that’s a discussion for another day) of most cities that are implementing it; like Los Angeles for instance. As theory, it’s great. But for now, it’s not going to happen.
Fever and Cos, you have degenerated into a circular argument here. The normally reliable Fever has totally misstated the reaction to the Kings Wharf proposal at the time. I know, I was there. There was one couple who were classic NIMBYs who didn’t want it. Everyone else who got up and spoke — an astounding number of people in my experience — was in favor of it. Now, I wondered at the time how much of that was orchestrated by the developer, who strikes me as a little slick, but regardless, Kings Wharf had broad support.
Cos, I saw you at the public hearing on this and you quite clearly did equate the wilderness area to Central Park, an absurd argument. I also don’t know how you could say nobody supported the current version of the terminal plan because lots of people did. Did you leave early to go call Dexter’s office to get him to intervene in this? Shame on you if so.
Also, as for the “go under the bridge” idea: you know, don’t you, that this was how it was done originally when the bridge first opened and was serviced by electric trolleys? Even then it was considered a pain in the arse and was quickly abandoned when the owners of the Dartmouth Shopping Center saw an opportunity to get shoppers from those riders. It makes no sense to have such a configuration.
As for this ridiculous argument that what was once common land should be bought back and turned into a bucolic wonderland of parks and birds: get real. That has been in private hands for a very long time. Did you know that there used to be a restaurant and a used car lot where the bank now sits? That goes back to the 1950s and earlier. Same with the Faulkner St lands, which are in private hands and have plans for a hotel. The Sportsplex was not built on a grassy piece of common land either; before it was built there was the old Dartmouth Arena there, which dated way back and probably would still be there if it hadn’t burned down. If you want to start evicting people and taking away their property rights, maybe start with the gawdawful public housing projects that are a blight on the area and which are also on former common land.
Bo— in my defense, I’m only really going by the reaction that was here in The Coast, as well as some of my neighbors, from that I inferred that there was significant opposition to that, as well as the other units proposed beside the old Greenvale school.
Sadly, I was unable to attend the public hearing for the King’s Wharf development.
Cosgrove is a saint. He has done multiple things that have a positive reaction and effect throughout the Dartmouth/Halifax communities. You have no right to shut down his ideas when most of you don’t use the area, or see the potential that this green sapce has. As a former student of Dartmouth High School, I can see negative effects a bus terminal would have on our community and school. Dartmouth High School has the potential to become an athletic center or other positive developments using this green space for the betterment of the students and community as a whole.