HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > St. John's


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2013, 11:33 AM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is online now
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 28,475
Aww, cool!
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2013, 12:04 PM
statbass statbass is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: St. John's
Posts: 1,575
I think we can change the status of this development to 'Approved'. I think it'll make the title that much nicer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2013, 12:04 PM
jeddy1989's Avatar
jeddy1989 jeddy1989 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 2,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by statbass View Post
I think we can change the status of this development to 'Approved'. I think it'll make the title that much nicer.
done
__________________
-Where Once They Stood-
-We Stand-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2013, 2:55 PM
Townie709's Avatar
Townie709 Townie709 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 1,774
They may be our first real twin towers, but they are not the first symmetrical development. Most of our buildings, if you split them down the middle would be symmetrical.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2013, 2:56 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is online now
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 28,475
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2013, 5:47 PM
statbass statbass is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: St. John's
Posts: 1,575
I was just looking back at the renders for the new Tiffany estates condos. It's really refreshing to see something around the 60m mark being built. I think I've had enough of buildings in the 45-50m range.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2013, 5:50 PM
jeddy1989's Avatar
jeddy1989 jeddy1989 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 2,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by statbass View Post
I was just looking back at the renders for the new Tiffany estates condos. It's really refreshing to see something around the 60m mark being built. I think I've had enough of buildings in the 45-50m range.
we just need to break the ceiling and others will not be so afraid in clear areas
__________________
-Where Once They Stood-
-We Stand-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2013, 5:58 PM
Townie709's Avatar
Townie709 Townie709 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 1,774
They should have just proposed one 32 story building! That would have been cool but probably wouldn't have been approved. Two, 60m twins will look great in that area without looking too our of proportion!

I would love to see something built the beat the 80m mark. I agree with posters in the Official Project thread who say the skyline is bland with only 45-50m buildings in the downtown. While the hills cover for it somewhat, we really need some height to add some variety. 60m is a great start for projects outside the downtown, but DT we should be way past 60m by now!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2013, 9:38 PM
codyLawrenceDylan14's Avatar
codyLawrenceDylan14 codyLawrenceDylan14 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: clarenville NL
Posts: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Townie709 View Post
They should have just proposed one 32 story building! That would have been cool but probably wouldn't have been approved. Two, 60m twins will look great in that area without looking too our of proportion!

I would love to see something built the beat the 80m mark. I agree with posters in the Official Project thread who say the skyline is bland with only 45-50m buildings in the downtown. While the hills cover for it somewhat, we really need some height to add some variety. 60m is a great start for projects outside the downtown, but DT we should be way past 60m by now!
I 100% agree! there does need to be some more height variation. Constantly building at a height downtown of ~40-50m will not only make the skyline seem boring but it will also be wasting valuable land , which has great potential for taller buildings!. I think something in between the 70-85m range would be an excellent start to achieving a nicer skyline. At least then there won't be as much of a flat roof effect.

In other words I really like this development! Hopefully this will make developers more aware that they can get away with something a little bit higher!Hopefully this is the start of not having a fear to height

By the way spring is just around the corner! which means that there may and hopefully be some new proposals coming up!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2013, 10:59 PM
Townie709's Avatar
Townie709 Townie709 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by codyLawrenceDylan14 View Post
By the way spring is just around the corner! which means that there may and hopefully be some new proposals coming up!!
Hopefully there will be some more proposals! Besides Tiffany there has been no new developments announced yet this year. I was hoping for at least something by now. Lets hope the developers are just perfecting their big proposals and will bring them to the public eye in the next few weeks
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted May 30, 2013, 11:12 AM
J_Murphy's Avatar
J_Murphy J_Murphy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 1,248
http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Loca...hool-council/1

Quote:
The school council at Mary Queen of Peace Elementary in St. John’s is concerned a proposal to build two tall buildings next to it to house seniors will cast a large shadow on school grounds.

In a letter sent to the city clerk’s office, school council chairman Tony Roche says the move to increase the height of the buildings for the Tiffany Village seniors development while reducing the number of buildings constructed there will block sunlight “to varying degrees throughout the school year.”

As an example, he said the amended proposal’s shadow studies show that in December, portions of either the play field or school will be covered all day by shadow, with a portion of the play field covered by shadow during the lunch period.

Coun. Danny Breen, whose Ward 1 district includes many of the school’s students, said the proposal to build two 16-storey buildings will reduce the size of the shadows in comparison to what was initially proposed for the area — five 10-storey buildings along with 30 townhouses.

“I don’t really understand that, because No. 1, you’re talking about two 16-storey buildings and a 10-storey building (that’s already built) as opposed to five 10-storey buildings,” said the councillor.



“Secondly, the playground and the soccer pitch are on the MacDonald Drive side of the school. They’re not on the side closest to Tiffany Village,” Breen said.

Breen said the view plane analysis included in the land use assessment report for the project shows the current proposal reduces the effect of shadowing when compared with the original proposal.

“From my perspective, what’s being proposed now is an improvement over what was approved in 2007. Is it going to cause more shadowing than it is now? Absolutely, but it’s going to cause less than what could be going there.”

Breen said the current proposal is preferable to the original when considering its effect on the local area.

“There’s less units, less density, more green space. It’s a lower-impact development, but the two new buildings are higher.”

The developer for Tiffany Village is KMK Properties Inc.

Amendments were adopted by council on May 13 that would permit building the 16-storey structures. That height exceeds current regulations in the area for a height not exceeding 10 storeys, therefore the amendments must be registered with the Department of Municipal Affairs.

A public hearing on the amendments is scheduled for June 4 at city hall. In a separate letter to parents at Mary Queen of Peace, Roche suggested parents contact city council members or write to the city clerk’s office if they share the school council’s concerns.

Roche stated in his letter to the city clerk’s office that the school council’s objections do not question the merit of the project, going on to note the shortage in accommodations for seniors in the city. Tiffany Village will provide independent and assisted living options.

Parents had previously ex-pressed concerns about traffic around the school in relation to the Tiffany Village project. In his letter, Roche said concerns remain about the project’s effect on traffic during the construction period for Stage 2 and in the long run.

Breen said the city is prepared to sit down with the developer, school administration and the school council to address any concerns that may arise relating to the construction phase — pending final approval for Stage 2 of the project
Better put the brakes on this project. We can't have a shadow being cast on a portion of a playground for part of the year in the middle of winter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted May 30, 2013, 11:18 AM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is online now
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 28,475
God love Breen. I'm very impressed with him.

It takes a lot for a councilor to release the vocal, anti-development minority doesn't actually represent what most voters want. Trust, courage, the works.

I hope it also shows some people campaigning the other way. ;-)
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted May 30, 2013, 11:27 AM
J_Murphy's Avatar
J_Murphy J_Murphy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
God love Breen. I'm very impressed with him.

It takes a lot for a councilor to release the vocal, anti-development minority doesn't actually represent what most voters want. Trust, courage, the works.

I hope it also shows some people campaigning the other way. ;-)
Yeah I must say that I really like Danny Breen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted May 30, 2013, 11:48 AM
statbass statbass is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: St. John's
Posts: 1,575
+1 for Danny Breen for standing up for this project. I've said it many times (and I'm sure I sound like a broken record sometimes)- this city needs a development like this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted May 31, 2013, 2:47 PM
SparkDT's Avatar
SparkDT SparkDT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Murphy View Post
http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Loca...hool-council/1



Better put the brakes on this project. We can't have a shadow being cast on a portion of a playground for part of the year in the middle of winter.
It's not like the sun actually comes out in St. John's anyway, but seriously someone is always going to complain about something. I'm glad Danny Breen actually stood up with his support for this proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted May 31, 2013, 4:11 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,398
I was wondering, does St. John's have any regulation barring buildings taller than the Confederation Building, or does it just happen to be the tallest building?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted May 31, 2013, 4:24 PM
jeddy1989's Avatar
jeddy1989 jeddy1989 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 2,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beedok View Post
I was wondering, does St. John's have any regulation barring buildings taller than the Confederation Building, or does it just happen to be the tallest building?
downtown you cannot build over 4 floors (heritage protection regulations) and outside of downtown you cannot build over 10 floors (don't know why not) .. this however has been met with exceptions recently and they are altering the regulations for some proposals .. a full new municipal plan is in the works.
__________________
-Where Once They Stood-
-We Stand-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted May 31, 2013, 4:32 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeddy1989 View Post
downtown you cannot build over 4 floors (heritage protection regulations) and outside of downtown you cannot build over 10 floors (don't know why not) .. this however has been met with exceptions recently and they are altering the regulations for some proposals .. a full new municipal plan is in the works.
Okay, thank you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2013, 1:29 PM
statbass statbass is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: St. John's
Posts: 1,575
Towers may put schoolyard in shade, forum told

CBC NL
June 5, 2013
Author unknown

Quote:
A plan to erect what would be the tallest towers in Newfoundland and Labrador could have a negative impact on a neighbouring school, a public forum has been told.

Only a few people attended a meeting Tuesday on KMK Properties' proposal to put up two 16-storey condominium towers on Tiffany Lane in St. John's.

Neighbours expressed concern that the towers may pose a traffic problem on the thin road that winds through other condominiums as well as the grounds of Mary Queen of Peace Elementary School.

Valerie Hynes, a mother who volunteers at the school, said the towers would cast large shadows right over the school, including a playground....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...eting-605.html

Oh brother... here we go again! If the biggest concern is partial blockage of the sun for part of the day, I'm pretty sure that is a weak argument. Let's get this over with and start building these things!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2013, 1:33 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is online now
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 28,475
That playground is going to spend A LOT of time out of the sun and it has nothing to do with those buildings.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > St. John's
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:21 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.