[St. John's] Tiffany Condos | 2x58m | 2x16 Floors | Approved - Page 7

statbass · #**121** Posted **Mar 9, 2013, 4:44 PM**

If there's one thing this city doesn't have is too much density. Her comment made me laugh out loud.... literally!

SignalHillHiker · #**122** Posted **Mar 9, 2013, 4:50 PM**

Seems like it's time for someone else to submit a letter to the The Telegram. If you don't want us to know your name, just don't let us know here that you did.

I'm not going to read the response because I'll want to reply and, assuming the Telegram operates like most newspapers, you don't get to. Point, response, the end. They're not our shouting board.

jeddy1989 · #**123** Posted **Mar 11, 2013, 10:41 AM**

City to Decide on New Seniors Buildings

Quote:

St. John's city council is expected to make a decision today on whether to allow two 16-storey buildings on Tiffany Lane. KMK Properties Inc. wants to construct two new seniors-oriented buildings, both 16-storeys in height, with a combined total of 240 condo units. The condos would be constructed next to the former Salvation Army Training Centre off Tiffany Lane. Up to three levels of parking is proposed, containing 300 spaces. In order for the development to proceed, council would need to allow two site-specific amendments to accommodate the extra height. Currently, the zone only allows for buildings up to 10-storeys high.

Numerous letters of opposition and support have been sent to council for review.

http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?...31860&latest=1

statbass · #**124** Posted **Mar 11, 2013, 11:51 AM**

Just to get this straight in my head: Council will be deciding to either approve or reject a text amendment that will allow a height change from 10 to 16 stories. So if this is approved it means the developer has the go ahead to start building, and there's no need for another public hearing since the original development was approved in 2007. Is this the case? Can anyone confirm?

Copes · #**125** Posted **Mar 11, 2013, 12:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by statbass

Just to get this straight in my head: Council will be deciding to either approve or reject a text amendment that will allow a height change from 10 to 16 stories. So if this is approved it means the developer has the go ahead to start building, and there's no need for another public hearing since the original development was approved in 2007. Is this the case? Can anyone confirm?

I believe that is the case, but I could be wrong since there are such substantial changes to the proposal. Generally speaking though, a text amendment to development regulations is another way to get a project approved if everything else falls within zoning. If you meet all zoning regulations, then its a much easier approval process. So, from my understanding, the developer won't need to do anything else. They'll be good to go.

It tends to be easier to get a text amendment to the rules then it is to approve a project that breaks the rules.

jeddy1989 · #**126** Posted **Mar 11, 2013, 12:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copes

I believe that is the case, but I could be wrong since there are such substantial changes to the proposal. Generally speaking though, a text amendment to development regulations is another way to get a project approved, and tends to draw less attention (although that is changing, as seen here). So, from my understanding, the developer won't need to do anything else. They'll be good to go.

well they can't be expecting much delay because it says in the LAUR that they want to start this spring! .. in other words in a couple of months

RyeJay · #**127** Posted **Mar 11, 2013, 12:21 PM**

16-storeys, to many cities, is still considered in the realm of 'low-rise'. These are most certainly not high-rise buildings; although, I understand they may feel as though they are, relative to St. John's other buildings.

I hope these are approved, but at the same time I would prefer for the city to not spend too much energy dwelling on building heights. If St. John's is actually concerned about developing sustainably, which means committing to core infill and preventing urban sprawl, a steady pace of 10-storey proposals would do just that.

The taller you go, the higher risk you run of oversaturating your market. Given St. John's projected growth however, 16-storeys is very reasonable and you may find that the city's rate of growth would be able to handle even taller.

But one step at a time...

statbass · #**128** Posted **Mar 11, 2013, 12:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyeJay

16-storeys, to many cities, is still considered in the realm of 'low-rise'. These are most certainly not high-rise buildings; although, I understand they may feel as though they are, relative to St. John's other buildings.

I hope these are approved, but at the same time I would prefer for the city to not spend too much energy dwelling on building heights. If St. John's is actually concerned about developing sustainably, which means committing to core infill and preventing urban sprawl, a steady pace of 10-storey proposals would do just that.

The taller you go, the higher risk you run of oversaturating your market. Given St. John's projected growth however, 16-storeys is very reasonable and you may find that the city's rate of growth would be able to handle even taller.

But one step at a time...

Well put, I agree. It would be so nice just to have even a few taller buildings (by St. John's standard) gracing our skyline.

SignalHillHiker · #**129** Posted **Mar 11, 2013, 12:29 PM**

Agreed as well. We know we're WAY too excited about this by big city standards,

- but it is a giant leap in the right direction for us.

jeddy1989 · #**130** Posted **Mar 11, 2013, 12:35 PM**

all the same there are cities in Europe that have 5 times our population and zero high rises so it's all context of city. tall buildings do not always mean it's doing better or that one city has 30 story buildings while we are getting proposals for 10-16 story.. it all has to do with the context

those other big cities in Canada (IMO) tend to compensate their lack of visual interest (geographically) with man made structures such as higher buildings. However that's just IMO

note- of course some have mountains and such but for example you cannot compare the geography of a prairie city to ours and their visual interest have more to do with their man made structures and skylines

Edit:
People in Dubai may not get excited over a skyscraper that in Montreal would be exciting .. even though they have a fraction of the population of Montreal it all has to do with context

jeddy1989 · #**131** Posted **Mar 11, 2013, 12:45 PM**

Another point.. the grade of the land here has a HUGE impact on how buildings appear.. imagine if St. John's was flat it, the rooms and basilica would not have the impact they do.. and if you look at where these condo buildings are going, they will feel much larger than they would in a flat city, they will be city on a higher elevation.

Architype · #**132** Posted **Mar 11, 2013, 2:36 PM**

They will be very visible but I think they are not at the top of a hill, they are on the slope of a hill which continues up beyond Kennys Pond. I wouldn't necesarily think the top of a hill would be the best place for a highrise because of the extra wind exposure.

statbass · #**133** Posted **Mar 11, 2013, 7:51 PM**

I just read on Twitter (via The Scope) that the text amendment was unanimously passed... woohoo!

Final score: SSP - 1; Elizabeth Winter- Big 'ol goose egg!

cam477 · #**134** Posted **Mar 11, 2013, 7:54 PM**

That's great news!

AllBlack · #**135** Posted **Mar 11, 2013, 8:06 PM**

Great work people!
I'm sure our letters, poll participation, etc contributed to this.

Architype · #**136** Posted **Mar 11, 2013, 8:18 PM**

It's good for St. John's that they approved the ammendment. I can understand nearby residents having concerns, but the development is taller but not any bigger than what was approved before.