Community Thread (Off Topic)

[SignalHillHiker]

Fantastic post RE the suggestions for the future. I hope you'll spread the word, let council know your suggestions. Seems like a great list of reforms to me.

[davelane]

Originally Posted by jthetzel

On the topic of Quinnipiac at 25 Winter Ave, I find myself confused as to the reasoning of City Council in denying the heritage designation after a strong recommendation from the Heritage Advisory Committee. City Council explained that heritage designation was denied because of concern that such designation could interfere with a pending sale, and the city could be liable for loss of compensation. Specifically, Councilman Dave Lane asked, "What says that, if we designate it heritage and the sale falls through, she can’t come in and say, ‘Well, you know, I had a $1.6-million sale, and here’s the bill, so pay up’? And I don’t know if she probably would have a good legal case to do that" (http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Loca...ar-old-house/1).

Hi jthetzel,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. The first point I want to make is that you've misread the article. I'm not the one who made those quotes. In fact, you'll note earlier in the article it says I was one of only two Councillors to vote to save the structure. So I'd really like to make clear that I'm WITH you on this.

As for your suggestions, they are good ones. Here are some things we are currently exploring at City Hall:

• Make use of the correct approach to designation which is to request 90 days to assess the structure before recommending designation or not (yes, we have this policy, but our Committee missed this when we reacted quickly to try and save the property last fall);
• Build a comprehensive inventory of all properties of historical significance so we can begin to be proactive and designate in partnership with owners rather than against them. Good news: Council approved exploring this project on Monday past! and,
• Divide the Heritage Advisory Committee into two groups: one focused on policy, another focused on expert issues such as designations and one-offs such as siding and window replacement appeals.

There's much more going on, and I'll take your notes into consideration as we explore policies to better support and celebrate our built heritage.

By the way, if you want to stay connected, I have blog and email newsletter. Click here to check them out.

[jthetzel]

Originally Posted by davelane

The first point I want to make is that you've misread the article. I'm not the one who made those quotes. In fact, you'll note earlier in the article it says I was one of only two Councillors to vote to save the structure.

I mistakenly attributed to Councillor Dave Lane a quote from a Telegram article ( http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Loca...ar-old-house/1 ) made by Councillor Tom Hann.

To clarify, Councillor Lane and Councillor Hickman voted in favor of designating 25 Winter Avenue as a heritage property. Deputy Mayor Ellsworth, and Councillors Hann, Puddister, Breen, Galgay, Tilley, and Collins voted against. The votes are recorded here, specifically on page 6: http://www.stjohns.ca/sites/default/...%2C%202014.pdf .

[SignalHillHiker]

Oh it's no problem. Happens to all of us.

[Uhuniau]

Only ever been to St. John's once for any protracted length of time. The cabbie took me on a bit of a tour from the airport to my hotel downtown, including along this street.

Such a shame.

Spotted this video on Twitter, which spoofs the NL gov't tourism ads, particularly the one which features the history of St. John's:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/GgOs_H5z8k4

[niccanning]

Thanks for sharing that spoof. I often think of those ads and the strong NL marking campaigns when I see something like this happen, new subdivisions are approved, or big box stores pop up. Such a shame is right! But, to keep things positive, I think St. John's still has a lot of potential, and discussions throughout these threads are encouraging.

[SignalHillHiker]

• Video Link

[J_Murphy]

So I'm playing around in Google Earth and found out a few interesting geographical facts about St. John's:

1)We are closer to France, Portugal, Spain and the continent of Africa than we are to Calgary. Casablanca, Morocco is 4,046 km away and Calgary is 4,335 km.
2) We are closer to Ireland than Winnipeg.
3) We are further south than Vancouver and Paris, and on the about the same parallel as Seattle, WA.

Some interesting trivia facts to share with your friends.

Now I wish I could get a direct flight to Morocco.

[SignalHillHiker]

My favourite one of those:

If you're driving from Toronto to St. John's, Halifax is roughly the halfway mark.

[SignalHillHiker]

Seattle has a few good ideas related to parking working through its council:

http://www.seattle.gov/news/detail.asp?ID=14968

[SignalHillHiker]

And something else we'll definitely need to look at in the near future - recreating commercial corridors.

I'm lucky in Rabbittown as Grease Row is right here and the Downtown isn't far off - but if you live in, say, Southlands, you don't really have any commercial area - just Mount Pearl's big box region.

http://cornersideyard.blogspot.ca/20...-retrofit.html

[SignalHillHiker]

Bad news:



But some of the comments were great:

[SignalHillHiker]

I love this so much - I wish we'd do something like this here. Connect Signal Hill to Fort Amherst. People'd live on it sure.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...121934153.html

[SignalHillHiker]

Citylab.com has a story up explaining how car reliance squeezes the middle class. That'd be great positioning for the city to take in its efforts to increase density.

[SignalHillHiker]

This was a fascinating read:

http://www.fastcodesign.com/3042252/...king-districts

It's cute to see how average Europe compares with the best of North America.

[jthetzel]

The following is also a bit of a rant that can be ignored.

Does anyone here have a clear understanding of the process of approving demolition permits in St. John's? Specifically, for what purpose does City Council vote to approve the list of demolition permits (along with the list of all building permits) that were issued by Planning and Development during the previous week. Would it not make more sense for Planning and Development to issue conditional demolition permits that would not become lawfully valid until approved by City Council? Or at the very least require a public notification of demolition permit application prior to issuance? The current process, I'd argue, even violates municipal regulations.

Take, for example, the timeline of the demolition of 154 Waterford Bridge on Monday, which received some media attention.

1) April 9 (or a few days thereafter): Planning and Development issues demolition permit.
2) April 13: Building demolished
3) April 17: City publishes issuance of demolition permit to the public (Agenda for April 21 City Council meeting, page 42: http://www.stjohns.ca/sites/default/...%2C%202015.pdf )
4) April 21: City Council will presumably vote, "that the building permits list for the period April 9 - 15, 2015 be approved as presented."

I understand that under the City of St. John's Act ( http://www.assembly.nl.ca/legislatio...atutes/c17.htm ) §389(1)(b) City Council is allowed to delegate the issuance of demolition permits to an appointed building inspector (the Planning and Development Division). However, in accordance with §389(1)(g) it may also appoint a Building Regulations Board of Appeals with the power "to hear and determine appeals in respect to building regulations."

The jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals is a bit confusing, but according to the City of St. John's Development Regulations ( http://stjohns.ca/sites/default/file...ulations_5.pdf ) §4.3.2(1), it should hear appeals of any decision made by "any Officer of Council charged with administration of these regulations... with respect to an application to undertake development." Furthermore, §4.3.2(2) states that any person can make an appeal. Finally, §4.3.4, "where an appeal is made, the Development concerned shall not proceed pending a decision of the appeal and the subsequent issue of all required permits."

Now, regarding specifically 154 Waterford Bridge, Planning and Development did not violate any regulations in issuing the demolition permit. Any appeal of the demolition permit would have been immediately, and correctly, dismissed. However, since the demolition took place before the public was notified, arguably, the Board of Appeals was denied de facto the power to hear any appeal at all, which violates the Development Regulations §4.3.2(1) and §4.3.2(2). It seems that, since demolitions can take place quickly and irrevocably, the current process allows for evasion of the Building Regulations Board of Appeals and violates municipal regulations.

From reviewing past posts on this board, the building permit process seems to offer the public numerous opportunities to block construction, but almost no opportunity to block demolition, which might be detrimental to public interest.

[SignalHillHiker]

Great info. I sent it along to a councillor. Credited to you, of course.

[Horsell]

An interesting project nearing completion in Carbonear. A beautiful building being restored. We need more "American businessmen" with deep pockets around here to take on a few such projects.
http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?...54155&latest=1

[SignalHillHiker]

This is beautiful and engaging:

http://www.nytimes.com/video/nyregio...ion=title-area

Makes me even more excited to see the multimedia elements in the Colonial Building once it's done.

[statbass]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

This is beautiful and engaging:

http://www.nytimes.com/video/nyregio...ion=title-area

Makes me even more excited to see the multimedia elements in the Colonial Building once it's done.

Wow! Now that's an awesome way of doing a visual timeline.