[St. John's] The Official Project Thread

[jjavman]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

If this hotel were proposing to demolish the heritage buildings behind the garage along water street I would understand the uproar. But this is literally the type of development we should be wanting downtown.

Totally agree with Marty_Mcfly.

Also as for "letting it run it's course, and putting something else up after", apparently these structures are in good engineering condition?

So you would rather look at something hideous for another 15/20 years because you don't like the proposed design, instead of covering it with something to at least mask the ugliness until someone gets a better idea.

[SignalHillHiker]

I'm kind of torn.

Just look at what's happening in Carbonear. They announced today that they're investing about $750K to revitalize downtown, meaning Water Street. It died in the 1970s after they build the first strip mall out on the highway, where most commercial properties in Carbonear are today.

What would've happened, really, in 1970 if Carbonear had the vision to say - no, sorry. You can't get permission to build that, but we will give you this block of Water Street at the same price, you have to do it there, preserving the heritage facades.

I bet you Water Street in Carbonear today would be like West Street in Corner Brook.

So I wonder in St. John's... what if we say no? You can't built Park Hotel like that, it's ugly. Do better. You can have the entire footprint of the parking garage, start from scratch. Give us one or two buildings that are exciting.

Would they have said no? I don't know... I think Carbonear would've still grown even if they didn't allow the lowest-common-denominator shit on the highway to become their main commercial area. Maybe we could end up with better too if we say no and clearly state what's expected downtown.

[IronMan]

They would have built it in Harbour Grace.

[SignalHillHiker]

[Marty_Mcfly]

The problem with rejecting projects outright because they're deemed ugly is then you're forcing the developer to go back and re-design (more architect costs) a building that may be above the budget they have designated for the build. Ugly is a personal opinion too. I don't think the ALT hotel on Water is ugly, but a lot of people do. For the Park hotel, I think the hotel part is fine. The garage really does deter from it truly looking nice, but there's nothing really to be done about that.

Not saying that helpful back and forth for tweaking designs shouldn't happen. They're not proposing another Atlantic Place or Scotia Centre (both ugly buildings regardless of how you look at them or your preference), so it's all good. But ultimately this "it's ugly, try again" mentality will just result in the project never going ahead; the company will just decide that the added costs will push the project beyond the financially viable threshold, and never build it.

I'm amazed that the Garden Inn is being built right now considering the amount of bullshit they had to go through for the past 5 plus years.

[jjavman]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

... For the Park hotel, I think the hotel part is fine. The garage really does deter from it truly looking nice, but there's nothing really to be done about that.

I wasn't impressed by the design either, but I will say that the more I look at it, the more it seems to mitigate somewhat the ugliness of the existing structure; the garage covering notwithstanding.

It's too bad a more detailed rendering wasn't provided, before people started outright rejecting the proposal. Some of the more vocal names BTW are the same ones you see about ANYTHING being built in that area!

I think if a more inspired garage covering could be realized, it would make a big difference to the look.

[jjavman]

Up before council again this evening.

http://vocm.com/news/controversial-p...again-tonight/

[J_Murphy]

Originally Posted by jjavman

Up before council again this evening.

http://vocm.com/news/controversial-p...again-tonight/

I don't think there has ever been a downtown development that hasn't been labelled by media as "controversial".

[613_YYT]

Originally Posted by jjavman

I wasn't impressed by the design either, but I will say that the more I look at it, the more it seems to mitigate somewhat the ugliness of the existing structure; the garage covering notwithstanding.

It's too bad a more detailed rendering wasn't provided, before people started outright rejecting the proposal. Some of the more vocal names BTW are the same ones you see about ANYTHING being built in that area!

I think if a more inspired garage covering could be realized, it would make a big difference to the look.

I figured I should finally chime in on something

I like the overall design. It has the potential to be marquee building for the skyline. There is texture and different shapes that make it interesting. Better than the existing brick and glass walls that we currently have. And the covering on the existing garage looks pretty good. Especially if they use lighting to liven it up at night.

My suggestions are:

There is nothing for locals. This is a great opportunity to add in ground floor shops and redo the side walk especially on Clift-Baird's Cove. If they moved the garage entrance to Harbour Drive a lot of traffic would be off the side street. This would make room for a small plaza with cafes and shops. Add trees and benches so people can hang out and spend money and the entire area wins. Some parking is lost but even the city's report says the garage is under utilized.

Some people are worried about the loss of view or that the building is cold. It would be nice to see a green roof or gardens on the terraces. This would help blend the building into Southside Hill. Plus there is the added benefit water run off control, helps with heat control and reduces noise and air pollution.

The building is a bit tall for me. I know it still needs to be economical but it would be nice if they could cut off a level or 2 of parking. The garage is not fully used anyway. Too bad we have very high parking requirement and that would probably be a deal breaker until the regulations are updated.

[goodgrowth]

Seems like it has been approved to go on to the next stage:

https://twitter.com/DavidMaherNL/sta...15933291024384

St. John’s City council has voted to proceed to the next step on a proposed hotel at the parking garage nearest Atlantic Place.

Council wants to work with the developer on the design.

Council voted 7-3 in favour.

[jeddy1989]

I am not one to agree with O'Leary, but she has a point on this one with the parking requirements hindering downtown development.

St. John’s City Council is moving forward with the next phase of a proposed four-storey rooftop hotel. However, Deputy Mayor Sheilagh O’Leary fears Council is letting an issue like parking dictate city development.

Council is taking the proposal to residents for public engagement, while the proponent Sonco, completes a Land Use Assessment Report. The City’s Experts Panel on Heritage will also review the proposal due to its close proximity to heritage zoning on Harbour Drive.

Deputy Mayor O’Leary says a study that looked at attendance at the Atlantic Place parking garage in recent years, found it to be underutilized with hundreds of empty spaces each day.

She says the city has a number of other public parking agreements where the same situation is occurring. She doesn’t like the idea of expanding upward into the skyline when the parking garage below, has so much untapped potential.

O’Leary says it’s crucial to have parking however she points out that it isn’t a concern anymore. She doesn’t think it justifies creating more height in the city skyline.

Deputy Mayor O’Leary, along with Councillors Hope Jamieson and Maggie Burton voted against the proposal at Council last night.

http://vocm.com/news/why-build-more-...t-development/

[CBSNewbie]

Jag is looking at expansion.
http://vocm.com/news/jag-looking-to-...itys-downtown/

[Marty_Mcfly]

Interesting. That's about the same number of rooms they have now, so you could expect the expansion to probably be about the same size as the current Jag (6 floors, similar footprint).

Interesting that the Technip building itself had proposed a 6 (I think) storey extension on it that went nowhere other than a design in principle.

Unfortunate that this area is going to be filled in with lower-height buildings. If there's a place downtown for taller structures, here would be it.

[Horsell]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

...Unfortunate that this area is going to be filled in with lower-height buildings. If there's a place downtown for taller structures, here would be it.

Couldn't agree with you more. Planning is full of height restrictions...witness the upcoming battle over AP "Park" Hotel, but why can't we have "minimum" heights in order to better use our scarce downtown land. Eight or ten floors should be a minimum for most, if not all, of everything west of the Convention Center.

It's too bad that they can't add a few more floors to the existing JAG but I guess if they want a new ballroom/meeting room they need a new footprint for that. As for the new site I think it was approved for 6 floors...after an amendment..when Stantec originally proposed renovations to the existing building before deciding it was less hassle to mover to Kelsey Drive.

[Horsell]

Time to weigh in on the Park Hotel...unfortunately. I feel that this is going to get ugly...and I'm not just talking about the design...before this is over.

As for the proposal, is some regards it is kind of futuristic and doesn't look all that bad EXCEPT that it sticks out like a sore thumb in that area. If it was down at the west end of the harbour, say west of 351 Water I probably wouldn't care, but to stick it on top of the already UGLY AP Parking garage just blows my mind.

From where I sit I think Council has brought this upon themselves with their little bit of creative rezoning a couple of years ago to try and protect a few hundred parking spaces by creating the special zone "AP Parking Garage" that the developer is now looking to change.

Here's my simple solution...do away with that zone altogether, zone it commercial with a 6, maybe even 8 story limit and leave it up to the property owner to decide if they would rather flatten the garage altogether and replace it with a hotel or combination. Too often this City has tried to cater to the car...ie minimum parking requirements...rather than leave it up to the developer to decide what they need in terms of parking to make their properties marketable. (Side note...the City has partnered with at least two developers over the past few years, to the tune of $10 Million taxpayer dollars, to provide parking downtown. Maybe it is time to get out of the parking business, they seem to be messing it up on all levels.

Finally...sorry for the long rant..with respect to parking garages themselves, there is a way to disguise when without "wrapping" them in some glittery screen. I have walked by garages in many cities and had to look twice to notice that they were actually garages and not "normal" office or residential buildings. What this city needs is design standards/guidelines for downtown, not just WEAK regulations that can be amended with 6 votes.

[Engibeer]

Originally Posted by Horsell

Here's my simple solution...do away with that zone altogether, zone it commercial with a 6, maybe even 8 story limit and leave it up to the property owner to decide if they would rather flatten the garage altogether and replace it with a hotel or combination. Too often this City has tried to cater to the car...ie minimum parking requirements...rather than leave it up to the developer to decide what they need in terms of parking to make their properties marketable. (Side note...the City has partnered with at least two developers over the past few years, to the tune of $10 Million taxpayer dollars, to provide parking downtown. Maybe it is time to get out of the parking business, they seem to be messing it up on all levels.

AP Parking Garage has long been paid for and is now a structurally sound money generating machine for whomever owns it. It isn't pretty but it has served it's purpose quite well and will not be demolished for a very long time. It would make absolutely no financial sense for the owners to "flatten it".

Additionally, I fail to see the issue with building anything on top of it as long as it doesn't breach the height of neighboring Atlantic Place. Adding levels to the Parking Garage blocks absolutely zero lines of sight, as already discussed, so people might as well toss that argument too.

[Horsell]

Originally Posted by Engibeer

...Additionally, I fail to see the issue with building anything on top of it as long as it doesn't breach the height of neighboring Atlantic Place...

Atlantic Place was a mistake almost 50 years ago and we are still living with it. If AP is the standard then why don't we just get at it and build a 12 Story wall the length of Harbour Dr. Maybe the Mexicans will pay for it.

[Engibeer]

Originally Posted by Horsell

Atlantic Place was a mistake almost 50 years ago and we are still living with it. If AP is the standard then why don't we just get at it and build a 12 Story wall the length of Harbour Dr. Maybe the Mexicans will pay for it.

Who said it's the standard?

It's not getting torn down, it doesn't block any views, and if anything, this will improve/mask the APPG facade.

The other option is leave it as-is for X number of years. I would personally prefer they at least attempt improving it.

[jjavman]

Originally Posted by Engibeer

... The other option is leave it as-is for X number of years. I would personally prefer they at least attempt improving it.

Heartily agree!

[Horsell]

Another one bites the dust....this week's Council Agenda shows a demolition permit issued for the Waterford Manor. I saw the construction/"destruction" fence go up earlier this week. It has been in limbo for a couple of years now since the fire but still sad to see that nothing, within financial reason, couldn't be done to save it. Will be interesting to see if it is replaced, and with what.