The Official Saint John, NB Project Thread

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by sailor734

Interesting take on residential development costs in the US. I wonder how the Canadian numbers would compare?

https://willowdaleequity.com/blog/co...tment-complex/

I'd love to see some soaring 20-30 floor luxury glass towers overlooking the harbour but the question is who is going to rent the units at 2.5-4K a month or buy the condos at 700K-1.5M?

I'm guessing developers are building what will rent and that appears to be mostly 4-6 floor stick built structures with a decent but relatively moderate level of fit, finish and features.

Horse for courses and all that.

Not all 20+ storey buildings need be high cost luxury housing. Some gleaming ocean front condos and apartments would be nice, but I think Neo Art deco buildings would suit the aesthetic of Saint John even better.

Where Saint John probably has the best opportunity for growth is the sweet spot of around 10-15 storeys, where the construction costs per floor are a lot closer to linear, and where wood construction is still feasible.

Height can still be an affordable part of the solution, and should be part of any city’s strategy to deal with the housing crisis. Lessening height restrictions would be a positive thing here in SJ.

What’s getting built in Moncton is absolutely possible here in Saint John too, so it’s not a case of “horses for courses”. Not sure where you’re pulling those figures, Sailor, but I don’t think there’s going to be any 700k-1.5 million dollar units in that 30 storey development in Moncton.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

What’s getting built in Moncton is absolutely possible here in Saint John too, so it’s not a case of “horses for courses”. Not sure where you’re pulling those figures, Sailor, but I don’t there’s going to be any 700k-1.5 million dollar units in that 30 storey development in Moncton.

If so, they'd be the penthouse units. The ones in 55 Queen (Moncton) sold for over 900K. I'm not sure about the Three Sisters... but I know the 3bed/3bath units rent at $4300/month. Not sure if there are any penthouse units that are purchaseable, for what it's worth.

[MonctonRad]

I believe penthouse apartments in the Three Sisters are going for a little over $4000.00 per month in rent.

[sailor734]

My only real experience with condos and rentals is Vancouver and that market has a very odd relationship between rents and condo values. There are also relatively few actually apartment buildings (at least in the downtown). My daughter rents a condo and while she pays a lot her rent wouldn't come close to paying the taxes, condo fees and carrying costs for even a conventional mortgage for the owner based on the condo's market value. People buy condos (sometimes foreign investors buy 5 or 10 at a time) as investments and are looking as much for security and capital appreciation as they are for income.

BC has rent control too so if you stay in a place for a few years you can soon be paying well under market rents.

My point in the earlier post was that SJ doesn't have enough of a higher end market to fill more expensive construction. The SJ market has also never really embraced the condo concept. I have to imagine that rectangular 4-6 floor wood frame buildings with mostly surface parking are probably the most economical way to get reasonably priced housing units. That's what's mostly in demand so that's the majority of what gets built.

[DyAm00394]

An interesting item from the Committee Of The Whole at tonight's (extra) 4-minute long Council Meeting. "A land matter". The description the city clerk gave was "Related to the Spruce Lake Industrial Park expansion and the resolution is that the city enter into an agreement of purchase and sale with "65770 NB Limited", for the purpose of acquiring parcel of land at Spruce Lake Industrial Park".

And then mentioned was "taking $750,000 from the Strategic Land Reserve and $750,000 from the General Capital Reserve to fund the purchase of the property. And to authorize a signing of a letter authorizing the Regional Development Corporation to access the city owned parcel of land at PID 55233456".

[cdnguys]

Originally Posted by DyAm00394

An interesting item from the Committee Of The Whole at tonight's (extra) 4-minute long Council Meeting. "A land matter". The description the city clerk gave was "Related to the Spruce Lake Industrial Park expansion and the resolution is that the city enter into an agreement of purchase and sale with "65770 NB Limited", for the purpose of acquiring parcel of land at Spruce Lake Industrial Park".

And then mentioned was "taking $750,000 from the Strategic Land Reserve and $750,000 from the General Capital Reserve to fund the purchase of the property. And to authorize a signing of a letter authorizing the Regional Development Corporation to access the city owned parcel of land at PID 55233456".

The item was preceded by a motion to enter a NDA with InvestCanada. Not sure if the two are related.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by DyAm00394

An interesting item from the Committee Of The Whole at tonight's (extra) 4-minute long Council Meeting. "A land matter". The description the city clerk gave was "Related to the Spruce Lake Industrial Park expansion and the resolution is that the city enter into an agreement of purchase and sale with "65770 NB Limited", for the purpose of acquiring parcel of land at Spruce Lake Industrial Park".

And then mentioned was "taking $750,000 from the Strategic Land Reserve and $750,000 from the General Capital Reserve to fund the purchase of the property. And to authorize a signing of a letter authorizing the Regional Development Corporation to access the city owned parcel of land at PID 55233456".

This lot: https://paol-efel.snb.ca/paol.html?v...n&pan=06709791

I believe, per AllNB, that the industrial park is acquiring a lot of the vacant land here, barring the planned 5 additional windmill sites: https://paol-efel.snb.ca/paol.html?v...n&pan=06805123 I'd like to see them hand the coastal portion off for conservation.

So this fits.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by sailor734

My point in the earlier post was that SJ doesn't have enough of a higher end market to fill more expensive construction. The SJ market has also never really embraced the condo concept. I have to imagine that rectangular 4-6 floor wood frame buildings with mostly surface parking are probably the most economical way to get reasonably priced housing units. That's what's mostly in demand so that's the majority of what gets built.

What makes you think building 7-12 storeys is so much more expensive? From everything I’ve researched the construction costs per floor are quite linear between 6-15 or so storeys, it once you start getting into what can legitimately be considered high rises that the construction costs per floor start rising exponentially.

Have you looked up the zoning bylaws on height restrictions? They seem to be the far more obvious reason that so few projects taller than 4-6 storeys are being proposed and actually getting built in Saint John. 14 meters is the height limit for most of Uptown, and other “mid-rise” zoned areas. 30 meters is the height limit for areas zoned “high rise residential” which is around a 10 storey building That’s a mid rise, imo.

Developers don’t want to have to deal with getting zoning waivers for every single project they’d like to propose, so I have to imagine that’s the biggest reason we haven’t seen a single residential building ten storeys or higher get built in Saint John in the past 40 years.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

What makes you think building 7-12 storeys is so much more expensive? From everything I’ve researched the construction costs per floor are quite linear between 6-15 or so storeys, it once you start getting into what can legitimately be considered high rises that the construction costs per floor start rising exponentially.

Have you looked up the zoning bylaws on height restrictions? They seem to be the far more obvious reason that so few projects taller than 4-6 storeys are being proposed and actually getting built in Saint John. 14 meters is the height limit for most of Uptown, and other “mid-rise” zoned areas. 30 meters is the height limit for areas zoned “high rise residential” which is around a 10 storey building That’s a mid rise, imo.

Developers don’t want to have to deal with getting zoning waivers for every single project they’d like to propose, so I have to imagine that’s the biggest reason we haven’t seen a single residential building ten storeys or higher get built in Saint John in the past 40 years.

It takes two council meetings to get a waiver, that's not it. They hand them out like candy for projects that never materialize.

Over 6, you cannot use wood (I believe mass timber can be used up to 8-10 as of ~2018), fire safety requirements become more elaborate, stairwells must be pressurized, water pressure becomes an issue, and many more things I don't know.

Plus did you forget Saint John spent much of the last 50 years in near-terminal decline? The only growth happened on the fringes for a LONG time. We had a mountain of underpriced rental stock, and high vacancy rates commercial and residential alike. People don't build towers for the sake of a skyline. Uptown/Waterloo/South still hasn't clipped our 1950s population levels-- 12,000 or more people lived south of City Road then. We're maybe around 8,500 now. Max.

Moncton found success and now towers go up. The opposite is Field of Dreams thinking.

[MonctonGoldenTri]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

It takes two council meetings to get a waiver, that's not it. They hand them out like candy for projects that never materialize.

Over 6, you cannot use wood (I believe mass timber can be used up to 8-10 as of ~2018), fire safety requirements become more elaborate, stairwells must be pressurized, water pressure becomes an issue, and many more things I don't know.

Plus did you forget Saint John spent much of the last 50 years in near-terminal decline? The only growth happened on the fringes for a LONG time. We had a mountain of underpriced rental stock, and high vacancy rates commercial and residential alike. People don't build towers for the sake of a skyline. Uptown/Waterloo/South still hasn't clipped our 1950s population levels-- 12,000 or more people lived south of City Road then. We're maybe around 8,500 now. Max.

Moncton found success and now towers go up. The opposite is Field of Dreams thinking.

It took 3 decades of sustained economic an population growth before any substantial projects got started in Moncton though. I do feel like the Maritimes as a whole is entering a new(positive/growth) era, but I wouldn't blame developers for being cautious.

[KnoxfordGuy]

This

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

It takes two council meetings to get a waiver, that's not it. They hand them out like candy for projects that never materialize.

Over 6, you cannot use wood (I believe mass timber can be used up to 8-10 as of ~2018), fire safety requirements become more elaborate, stairwells must be pressurized, water pressure becomes an issue, and many more things I don't know.

Plus did you forget Saint John spent much of the last 50 years in near-terminal decline? The only growth happened on the fringes for a LONG time. We had a mountain of underpriced rental stock, and high vacancy rates commercial and residential alike. People don't build towers for the sake of a skyline. Uptown/Waterloo/South still hasn't clipped our 1950s population levels-- 12,000 or more people lived south of City Road then. We're maybe around 8,500 now. Max.

Moncton found success and now towers go up. The opposite is Field of Dreams thinking.

Thank you. I knew it had a lot to do with fire safety but didn't know all the specifics.

I agree about population. You say fifty years but the Canadian Encyclopedia suggests it's more like 150.....

"Saint John has struggled to maintain its population for more than 150 years. By the 1860s the city’s population was no longer growing, and during the 1870s and 1880s it began to decline. Many residents migrated to the nearby United States in search of better economic opportunity. In addition, the city was largely bypassed by the huge influx of late-19th-century immigrants to Canada. However, some of the new arrivals, notably eastern European Jews and Lebanese, did choose to remain in Saint John, enriching the city's cultural profile.

In 1901, there was a modest reversal to the trend of people leaving Saint John, due in part to residents from communities along the Saint John River moving to the city. But by then, the question of whether to stay or leave was ingrained in many Maritimers. The exodus continues to this day, with young people leaving Saint John and New Brunswick more generally for jobs in Quebec, Ontario, and the western provinces."

Yes, the trend has shown signs of reversing in the past 5-10 years but only time will tell if any significant growth will continue.

Confederation has not always been kind to the Maritimes.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

It takes two council meetings to get a waiver, that's not it. They hand them out like candy for projects that never materialize.

Over 6, you cannot use wood (I believe mass timber can be used up to 8-10 as of ~2018), fire safety requirements become more elaborate, stairwells must be pressurized, water pressure becomes an issue, and many more things I don't know.

Plus did you forget Saint John spent much of the last 50 years in near-terminal decline? The only growth happened on the fringes for a LONG time. We had a mountain of underpriced rental stock, and high vacancy rates commercial and residential alike. People don't build towers for the sake of a skyline. Uptown/Waterloo/South still hasn't clipped our 1950s population levels-- 12,000 or more people lived south of City Road then. We're maybe around 8,500 now. Max.

Moncton found success and now towers go up. The opposite is Field of Dreams thinking.

Two council meetings in Saint John might be enough for a developer in Toronto or Vancouver to lose interest and move on to another city with less restrictive zoning regulations. Sounds like NB, as a whole, should be making some changes… BC already made changes to allow 12 storeys for wood construction, up from 6 stories… now they’ve changed their building code again to allow mass timber construction up to 18 storeys:

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...storey%20limit.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5055293

“Fire safety” might fly as a reason not to build higher on Loyalist City News Chasers, but not here on SkyscrapersPage.com

Look at the buildings that are usually catching on fire here in Saint John… it’s usually a bunch of super old, poorly maintained buildings owned by slumlords, from that “mountain of (once) underpriced rental stock” you spoke of. If BC can make these changes province wide, so can we here in NB. We’re not talking about comparing to China or some developing country with low safety standards… BC has the second highest level of human development among Canada’s provinces, while New Brunswick is second to last. There’s no issue with fire safety that can’t be properly dealt with in the building codes.

____

As for the last 50 years…How could I forget that Saint John spent most of the past 50 years going through systematic demographic decline, while KV boomed? It’s literally the defining feature of our city and region, that sets us apart from most Canadian cities… but, iirc, you still don’t even want to see amalgamation happen because it would be “unfair” to people out in KV? Like the last 50 years hasn’t been unfair enough to Saint John as is…

And no, I don’t think developers build towers simply to improve the skylines… that would be putting the cart before the horse. Developers build towers because it allows them to increase the number of units on a single piece of land, and maximize profits. Cities want towers because they help limit urban sprawl. Saint John and and New Brunswick limiting mass timber construction to 8-10 storeys, is not helping limit urban sprawl… we should be making changes in line with BC, the province that has been making the best, most impactful policy changes in response to Canada’s ongoing housing crisis. While the city should start lessening zoning restrictions on building height.

Bringing up “Field of Dreams” every time I point out that Saint John has been seriously lagging behind in terms of building higher, is a pretty weak counter point. If BC can build higher out of wood, why not NB? This NB/SJ exceptionalism is getting out of hand. There’s lots of room to increase height limits on wood and mass timber construction in our building codes, and lots of room to lessen height restrictions in our city’s zoning bylaws.

[DyAm00394]

Some interesting items in this upcoming council meeting on June 24th.

- Amending the Section 131 Agreement for 99 King Street:

"The proponent has applied to amend the Section 131 Agreement for 99 King Street regarding the proposed public use of the loading bay and the location of the proposed awning. Assent of Common Council is recommended by Staff".

He is requesting the removal of the shared use of the loading dock area, as the loading dock area is being eliminated from the design. The new proposed building frontage along Charlotte Street will extend to the corner of South Market Street and Charlotte Street and will create a more consistent commercial frontage along Charlotte Street to replica the existing historical Charlotte Street frontage. It also removes the need for the recessed loading dock area that fronts Charlotte Street which was problematic from the city's perspective.

So he has eliminated the internal loading dock and has replaced it with an established loading zone to be located on South Market.

The new proposed canopy location spanning over South Market Street will connect the entrance/exit of the new building and an entrance/exit for the City Market building.




- Assent to Money-in-lieu of Land for Public Purposes, 71-77 Visart Street:

"The proponent has applied to subdivide the site at 71-77 Visart Street, also known as PID 00411769, to create a lot for the development of four accessible, affordable units. Assent of the Money-in-lieu of Land for Public Purposes by Common Council is recommended by Staff".





- Proposed Public Hearing Date on August 19th for 949 Grandview Avenue: To facilitate the construction of a multi-unit apartment building

[cdnguys]

[IMG][/IMG]

[cdnguys]

[IMG][/IMG]

[cdnguys]

[IMG][/IMG]

[cdnguys]

[IMG][/IMG]

[cdnguys]

[IMG] [/IMG]

[cdnguys]

[IMG] [/IMG]