kevinharding.ca
Public policy nerd, co-op believer, photographer, wannabe polyglot. I talk a lot about co-ops, policy, laws, legislation, economies, and more.
📍 Vancouver, unceded Coast Salish land
【EN/FR/廣東話/中文】
Views here are my own and do not represent my employer.
594 posts
543 followers
2,201 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Indeed. And I think the porcelain one was in the "Dean of the House" office, so the longest serving MP. For a while that was Bill Blaikie who wasn't allowed to use it, if I recall correctly.
comment in response to
post
I guess one challenge is that we don't all use AECOs the same way, as an example.
comment in response to
post
Yikes Stephen. Isn't Part 3 just simpler?
comment in response to
post
The new thing I'm hearing is that EU has better "post market surveillance" than North America, hence why we can't adopt their standards.
comment in response to
post
There's never a stair *only* for emergency use - the theory is that one stair is redundant. Fire services arrive, designate one stair as the fire stair after investigation, somehow this is communicated to occupants.
comment in response to
post
And because it is in Part 3, it doesn't apply to Part 9
comment in response to
post
...though an escalator wouldn't accommodate a wheelchair. In other places we omit "escalator" and "inclined moving walk" as accessible paths of travel (3.8.3.2) though that may be because of occupancy type differences.
But - because 3.8 is our main zone for accessibility, I'm going to pin it there
comment in response to
post
We may do it differently by requiring accessible paths of travel in Part 3 (cf. 3.3.1.7, 3.8.2.3) but we sometimes allow vertical travel to be "a ramp, a passenger elevator, a platform-equipped passenger-elevating device, an escalator, or an inclined moving walk"...
comment in response to
post
well, now you've got me because i don't know the building code inside out ;) i'm looking, because I know we changed it to 3 storeys in 2023 and i'm not sure where or how
comment in response to
post
Ours has a similar rule but for 3 storeys. The code itself isn't perfectly harmonized yet, btw - that will be the 2030 code
comment in response to
post
Wasn't this the point of the beard?
comment in response to
post
Rounding I wager.
comment in response to
post
It's been warm for us too, which was a bit surprising. Had the fan on to help.
comment in response to
post
This is my memory of SEPTA as well
comment in response to
post
Or even like two or more booths for voting? They wouldn't begin ID verification until the person before had deposited their ballot.
comment in response to
post
I feel like it's the first time I've ever seen it like that, and as tedious as it was.
comment in response to
post
Yep, but I guess I didn't give up this time. At least I was in the door by 920, just had to sit and wait since they only allowed one person to approach the desk at a time.
comment in response to
post
Yesterday it was 1.5 hours and I gave up not getting near the door. Today I went at 815, was done at 945
comment in response to
post
I enjoyed greatly leaving the front door and seeing the line at the station I could not use.
comment in response to
post
This was a great irony as I had to go to Thurlow and Davie to vote.
comment in response to
post
Love this
comment in response to
post
Yeah. The Electrical Code contains specifications that are defined in standards and tells you when to use them, it doesn't include materials testing rules because there are standards that do that.
comment in response to
post
Ultimately I think B44 is a code that references standards contains a lot of standards language in it.
comment in response to
post
All I know for certain is that the Canadian Electrical Code is a National Standard of Canada
comment in response to
post
I have one source that says that codes are standards that are adopted into law; another says codes are not laws but standards generally are. Then another says codes tell you what to do, and standards tell you how to do it.
comment in response to
post
Best kind of film, that
comment in response to
post
In Canada at least, there is a difference in how codes and standards are treated by internal trade agreements (standards are within the zone of harmonization, codes are not) but ask anyone to tell you the difference between a code and a standard and we'll just panic.
comment in response to
post
There's no suggestion here in the slightest about a connection to the convoy. I don't get it.
comment in response to
post
Yeah I've played around with arrangements like this and even smaller ones - like seniors being supported in creating upper-level suites in SFD and then they live in ground floor suites. It's not easy even at that scale.
comment in response to
post
All you did constantly was call me a Yimby - as you did just now - and told me that I was using slurs against you. Sigh.
comment in response to
post
I was trying to sort the sweaty part, haha
comment in response to
post
Fascinating! I wonder if it's just solicitor-advice-inertia carrying over.
comment in response to
post
I'm often fascinated by the quasi-public space in NYC - all the little medallions in the concrete that delineate "private property allowed by revokable license" etc etc
comment in response to
post
I ask this multiple times a day.
comment in response to
post
Vacancy controls - a great idea to control the cost of rental, but will push developers away from building rental stock. You may disagree with that, but it's what they say.
comment in response to
post
So, land trusts -
They require the land to be sold or donated to a land trust, and the land trust allowed to densify to build affordable apartments.
Problem 1 in a NIMBY space - if the trust can't build apartments on the land that it holds in trust, what's the point?
comment in response to
post
But how do you "raise the bar" to require delivery of affordable housing if developers can't build it because of the current market not allowing projects to pencil that way because of limited land that allows multi-unit and astronomical costs?
comment in response to
post
so what are your solutions?
comment in response to
post
lol smh, please - for the love of front doors, what's your actual position other than "We've tried absolutely nothing and none of it works"
comment in response to
post
Sure, I agree with that. But what's the policy solution? Is it "stop upzoning" or is it something else?
comment in response to
post
So you're saying stop upzoning, perhaps downzone, and we'll get appropriate housing......how exactly
comment in response to
post
We can't solve the problem by doing nothing and then saying we've solved it.
comment in response to
post
Because of the market, we can't build affordable because the base land cost is so high. We're only building more units on the land that is already dense, so we're removing supply while we densify, and when we densify, becomes of carrying costs, it becomes too expensive for locals.
comment in response to
post
Zoning does not dictate what gets built. Show me where neighbourhoods are actually moving away from SFD and building multiplex without lawsuits and Tieleman campaigns against it.
comment in response to
post
it's electromagnetic and requires you to push the crash bar for a set period of time after which the circuit is deactivated. if power fails to the station or an alarm is triggered, the circuit is cut and the magnet releases, unlocking.
as it's typically a magnetic lock, next to no "fail unsafe"
comment in response to
post
time for you to call your sworn opposition - the fire marshal