[St. John's] The Official Project Thread

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Exactly - but I'm unsure why you're pointing this out? They're still not paying their fair share.

In my opinion, it just proves our Metro is functionally a single city and should be governed or, at minimum, planned and taxed as such.

There are few cities that tolerate a suburb like Mount Pearl, which is functionally a large subdivision operating as a tax haven, for long.

Most cities have far more control over their suburbs - and most suburbs that are separate municipalities are far more than a big subdivision like Mount Pearl.

That's the problem here - not interdependency (which I would still argue is skewed FAR more in Mount Pearl's favour than St. John's. If we wiped St. John's off the map tomorrow, Mount Pearl would collapse faster than Detroit. If we wiped Mount Pearl off the map tomorrow - and even threw in Paradise and CBS for good measure - the impact would be severe but St. John's would keep chugging along no problem. A labour shortage in St. John's is easier to deal with, especially with a comparable drop in the number of consumers, than the complete economic collapse Mount Pearl would suffer).

The city still gets a significant amount of revenue because of the neighbouring towns. 351 and Fortis tower would likely never be built if St. John's was a city of 106,000 without suburbs. These communities are also negatively impacted by being so close to St. John's. Look at the difference in Torbay and Clarenville. Torbay has several thousand more people but little commercial and retail buildings, unlike Clarenville. Residents of St. John's also travel to neighbouring communities for work and recreational purposes too.

St. John's could find other ways of bringing in revenue from these communities without forcing them to amalgamate, especially seeing the city hasn't figured out how to take care of the residents they already have.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Copes

We live in a CMA where half acre lots are considered small and undesirable. Trust me, my job is land development. Its hard to get half acre lots passed in some areas. 15 units / acre is incredibly dense for the Avalon.

EDIT: As a matter of fact I stand corrected. Pleasantville could prove as dense, or more dense, than downtown St. John's. http://spacing.ca/atlantic/2011/09/1...oods-st-johns/

DT is 5th densest neighbourhood in Atlantic Canada. 37 units / hectare. There are 2.47 acres / 1 hectare. So, Pleasantville will have about 37.05 units / hectare. I think that's pretty reasonable for our area.

The Pleasantville plan itself says 15 units per acre (edit - just noticed you are referring to hectares, so correct). I guess it seems like a reasonable density, but as I pointed out, that density is contingent upon the construction of only (either two or) four high rise buildings, otherwise it would be much lower. You will find urban areas that have densities of maybe three or four times this amount, so for a planned development in a city it's not really very high.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

St. John's could find other ways of bringing in revenue from these communities without forcing them to amalgamate, especially seeing the city hasn't figured out how to take care of the residents they already have.

I agree completely. A Regional Authority has actually surpassed amalgamation in my list of options ranked by preference.

The only thing I'd say... and mostly just for the sake of playing devil's advocate... is that St. John's could probably do a much better job of taking care of its citizens if it was actually able to collect taxes from all of them (including the suburbs).

[Copes]

Originally Posted by Architype

The Pleasantville plan itself says 15 units per acre (edit - just noticed you are referring to hectares, so correct). I guess it seems like a reasonable density, but as I pointed out, that density is contingent upon the construction of only (either two or) four high rise buildings, otherwise it would be much lower. You will find urban areas that have densities of maybe three or four times this amount, so for a planned development in a city it's not really very high.

Your not wrong, but larger cities also have 4 or 5 times the population. Unless 5% of the Avalon are going to live in Pleasantville, we aren't going to get much higher. I understand your argument, but we're never going to be pleased if we compare ourselves to urban standards in larger cities. When comparison to St. John's, and other cities in the region, Pleasantville is going to be one of the densest neighbourhoods.

So I see your point, and assure you we have the same long-term dream, I just don't necessarily agree with you on the standard to which we should hold ourselves to today. Baby-steps, in my opinion. We need multiple 15 unit / acre neighbourhoods before we can start building 30 unit / acre neighbourhoods. We also need more population growth. Building it for the sake of building it won't create a denser neighbouhood if we don't have the people to fill it.

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I agree completely. A Regional Authority has actually surpassed amalgamation in my list of options ranked by preference.

The only thing I'd say... and mostly just for the sake of playing devil's advocate... is that St. John's could probably do a much better job of taking care of its citizens if it was actually able to collect taxes from all of them (including the suburbs).

With the exception of roadways what other areas is the city responsible for that people from the suburbs are using?

[Copes]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

With the exception of roadways what other areas is the city responsible for that people from the suburbs are using?

Parks. Sewer. The parking problem.

[cam477]

Originally Posted by Copes

Parks. Sewer. The parking problem.

Government buildings including MUN, CONA, the hospitals, confederation building etc don't pay municipal taxes. This alone justifies a change to either our municipal tax system or amalgamation. At any given moment half the people in these buildings do not live in St John’s city proper. I would support all provincial and federal government buildings paying taxes to their respective municipalities.

Edit: This is just a small example. http://ntv.ca/st-johns-fears-loss-of...battery-hotel/

Everyone in the region benefits from this yet St John's foots the bill for the infrastructure.

[cam477]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

The city still gets a significant amount of revenue because of the neighbouring towns. 351 and Fortis tower would likely never be built if St. John's was a city of 106,000 without suburbs. These communities are also negatively impacted by being so close to St. John's. Look at the difference in Torbay and Clarenville. Torbay has several thousand more people but little commercial and retail buildings, unlike Clarenville. Residents of St. John's also travel to neighbouring communities for work and recreational purposes too.

St. John's could find other ways of bringing in revenue from these communities without forcing them to amalgamate, especially seeing the city hasn't figured out how to take care of the residents they already have.

I agree that the St. John's city council are about as incompetent as they come and as such, I understand why the other municipalities of our CMA are not lining up to amalgamate. However, it would be tough to argue that the councils of CBS, Paradise, Mount Pearl, etc are better stewards of their town's resources. I've yet to be impressed by a mayor/councilor from any of those communities either. I think it’s a matter of scale. The bigger the responsibility, the bigger the mess you can make of it.

I also don't feel that it is fair to compare Clarenville and Torbay. If St John's didn't exist, Torbay may be a village of a couple hundred people... if anything at all. I don't know a soul from Torbay who doesn't work in St john's. I agree with you in that it is a two way street. Talk to anyone who plays rec hockey and they will tell you it's easier to get ice time in Mount Pearl and Torbay than St. John's. St John's does a terrible job of funding recreational activity. However, my problem is that, that two-way street is far more often than not... heading towards St John's at 8am and out of St john's at 5pm. I don't fail to see why people in the other communities that make up the CMA don't want to amalgamate... but that doesn't mean it it’s fair.

[SignalHillHiker]

March 3, 2013





I can't WAIT for MIX!

[Townie709]

Yay, more pictures

I wish this fog would lift though, haha

[Copes]

Originally Posted by cam477

Government buildings including MUN, CONA, the hospitals, confederation building etc don't pay municipal taxes. This alone justifies a change to either our municipal tax system or amalgamation. At any given moment half the people in these buildings do not live in St John’s city proper. I would support all provincial and federal government buildings paying taxes to their respective municipalities.

Edit: This is just a small example. http://ntv.ca/st-johns-fears-loss-of...battery-hotel/

Everyone in the region benefits from this yet St John's foots the bill for the infrastructure.

Government buildings not paying municipal taxes is garbage in my opinion. Completely agree with you.

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by Copes

Parks. Sewer. The parking problem.

What extra problems are having people from other communities using the parks having? I don't know what you mean by swear but he parking problem is an issue.

When it comes to roads St. John's continues to build them to create their own suburbs. So even without the suburbs they'd still have the same snow clearing budget, and some have said the amount of traffic on roads don't affect potholes and whatnot.

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by cam477

I agree that the St. John's city council are about as incompetent as they come and as such, I understand why the other municipalities of our CMA are not lining up to amalgamate. However, it would be tough to argue that the councils of CBS, Paradise, Mount Pearl, etc are better stewards of their town's resources. I've yet to be impressed by a mayor/councilor from any of those communities either. I think it’s a matter of scale. The bigger the responsibility, the bigger the mess you can make of it.

I also don't feel that it is fair to compare Clarenville and Torbay. If St John's didn't exist, Torbay may be a village of a couple hundred people... if anything at all. I don't know a soul from Torbay who doesn't work in St john's. I agree with you in that it is a two way street. Talk to anyone who plays rec hockey and they will tell you it's easier to get ice time in Mount Pearl and Torbay than St. John's. St John's does a terrible job of funding recreational activity. However, my problem is that, that two-way street is far more often than not... heading towards St John's at 8am and out of St john's at 5pm. I don't fail to see why people in the other communities that make up the CMA don't want to amalgamate... but that doesn't mean it it’s fair.

Mount Pearl seems to be much better run. They had curb side recycling before St. John's, their snow clearing is way better (and they usually get more snow), they have a new modern garbage collection system and it usually seems cleaner.

[cam477]

I do agree Mount Pearl seems to offer a higher level of service than St. John's. They also do it for less. I just reviewed the snow clearing budgets for SJ and MP and it seems not only do they do a better job, but they do it a fraction of the cost. However, I think the density of Mount Pearl, along with the topography and the fact that it is newer community help with snow clearing and garbage collection.

[Marty_Mcfly]

Yeah of course Mount Pearl has better snow clearing and does it for cheaper: there are less roads, higher density.

[Copes]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

What extra problems are having people from other communities using the parks having? I don't know what you mean by swear but he parking problem is an issue.

When it comes to roads St. John's continues to build them to create their own suburbs. So even without the suburbs they'd still have the same snow clearing budget, and some have said the amount of traffic on roads don't affect potholes and whatnot.

No extra problems. But is it easier to build and maintain parks used by 200,000 people if all 200,000 pay for them? Or if 50% pay?

Sewer is part of municipal infrastructure that municipalities pay for. The people who work in St. John's and live outside the city do not pay for the sewer and water lines they use for the majority of their day.

Traffic most certainly wears down roads. And when I'm referring to parking I'm simply implying that St. John's has to find parking for all the vehicles driving in from Mt. Pearl / CBS / Paradise because there are so many of them. This effects what St. John's can and can't develop.

But I wasn't trying to pick a fight. You just asked what else the city is responsible for that people from outside the city are using. So aside from roads, I suggested parks, water / sewer when in the city, and parking lots. I don't have any solution, but they are examples of other services St. John's must pay for that outside city tax dollars do not contribute to.

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by Copes

No extra problems. But is it easier to build and maintain parks used by 200,000 people if all 200,000 pay for them? Or if 50% pay?

Sewer is part of municipal infrastructure that municipalities pay for. The people who work in St. John's and live outside the city do not pay for the sewer and water lines they use for the majority of their day.

Traffic most certainly wears down roads. And when I'm referring to parking I'm simply implying that St. John's has to find parking for all the vehicles driving in from Mt. Pearl / CBS / Paradise because there are so many of them. This effects what St. John's can and can't develop.

But I wasn't trying to pick a fight. You just asked what else the city is responsible for that people from outside the city are using. So aside from roads, I suggested parks, water / sewer when in the city, and parking lots. I don't have any solution, but they are examples of other services St. John's must pay for that outside city tax dollars do not contribute to.

People who work in St. John's may not pay for swear but the companies they work for do.

I agree with the parking problem. I just don't agree that St. John's becoming responsible for the NEA will fix anything.

[SignalHillHiker]

Half of the scaffolding around TD Place has been taken down. I didn't get a picture because it's not that different... it's completely down along Duckworth, and almost all down along Prescott/Job's Cove.

[SignalHillHiker]

March 3, 2013

A reclad on Water Street:





The two new harbourfront restaurants:

[Arrakis]

I know there have been tons of rumblings about what those two restaurants are gonna be but has there been any official announcement yet on them. Last I heard it was gonna be "Legros & Motti" and "PF Changs". But have also heard a rumors of other big brand restaurants going there too. Be nice to know.

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

March 3, 2013

A reclad on Water Street:





The two new harbourfront restaurants: