[Moncton] Gateway Towers | 2 x 18s | Mixed Residential | Under Construction

[jnaygull]

Has there been any follow-up from that original story? Or any other news/multi media sites that covered the story? I see that the CBC link is no longer working and I can't seem to find anything about their concerns anywhere online:

Link https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/lafford-towers-moncton-citizen-concerns-1.7287564

I feel that this is much ado about nothing.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by jnaygull

Has there been any follow-up from that original story? Or any other news/multi media sites that covered the story? I see that the CBC link is no longer working and I can't seem to find anything about their concerns anywhere online:

Link https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/lafford-towers-moncton-citizen-concerns-1.7287564

I feel that this is much ado about nothing.

T&T and CBC both covered it. The T&T article mentioned that they received an e-mail from the Gang of 34 (apparently looking for publicity for their cause). The article was run in response to their e-mail.

There has been no follow-up.

But, just because there is radio silence doesn't mean there isn't a lot going on in the background. If I was to guess, the Gang of 34 were probably surprised at the level of online backlash to their cause. They may be retreating currently to rethink their strategy. The other wingnuts and Luddites have no such media savvy, but, are too disorganized to do much other than be disruptive at the public meeting (when it occurs). I expect the Sandpiper Lady to be there is all her glory.........

[MonctonRad]

Moncton starts bylaw changes for proposed 17-storey riverfront towers
Public hearing set for early October for Gateway Towers
Shane Magee · CBC News · Posted: Aug 20, 2024 6:00 AM ADT | Last Updated: 2 hours ago
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/moncton-bylaw-gateway-towers-riverfront-1.7298908


First ever revealed rendering of the Assumption Blvd facing side of the Gateway Towers.

"The developer will help create a gateway and create amenities for people that use the park, which probably will make it a safer environment as well," Bill Budd, the city's director of planning and development, told council on Monday.

City staff recommended council approve first reading of bylaws amending the municipal plan, downtown plan and zoning bylaw to allow the proposal to move ahead.

Council voted unanimously in favour.

Deputy Mayor Paulette Thériault asked about whether the proposal opens the door to further development in or around Riverfront Park.

Budd said it wouldn't create a precedent. He said most of the Gateway Towers site covers land Lafford already owned it has the right to develop and has the right zoning already.

Earlier this summer, council voted to sell some municipally-owned land to the developer.

"Because of the huge cost that developing there, he's trying to make the most efficient development possible and required some additional land to make it feasible," Budd said of the land sale.

Budd described the land the city is selling as a "ditch area" that has been "problematic" because of homeless encampments in the past.

And while residents have suggested the Gateway Towers proposal would go against city plans by developing green space, Budd appeared to push back on that idea.

Budd pointed to a map in the city's 2017 downtown plan showing the site, part of which occupied by a building and parking lot for years, redeveloped with four buildings.

"Some form of this type of development was always contemplated at this location," Budd said. "It's just slightly becoming a little larger."

2017 plan for the riverfront showing planned development in this location

If there was ever any concern that this project had the 100% support of city council, I think this has been allayed by this first reading. The Gang of 34 doesn't have a chance of stopping this.

[adamuptownsj]

Have there been any renders of this project's EAST side? I'm curious if it's just a blank wall on the podium, which would indicate future plans for the vacant lot between the towers and the skate park. It's a 55,000sf lot, so you wouldn't have to build wall to wall, but a blank facade would indicate there's something brewing for sure.

[jnaygull]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

If there was ever any concern that this project had the 100% support of city council, I think this has been allayed by this first reading. The Gang of 34 doesn't have a chance of stopping this.

Lafford has proven to be a quality developer with the community in mind. If they spat in that face, it would haunt them for future development downtown. Thankfully the powers that be are committed to a vibrant and population-dense downtown. 34 signatures and an argument using popular cliches should never derail a development.

[new kid in town]

Jeff just shared MonctonRad's post above on FB Retail Talk. I wonder what the general consensus there would be

[jonny golden]

Originally Posted by new kid in town

Jeff just shared MonctonRad's post above on FB Retail Talk. I wonder what the general consensus there would be

More unaffordable "luxury" apartments, what about the "average" people who can't make ends meet now, rich people lining their pockets etc...blah blah blah.

[new kid in town]

Originally Posted by jonny golden

More unaffordable "luxury" apartments, what about the "average" people who can't make ends meet now, rich people lining their pockets etc...blah blah blah.

Someone asked whose pockets are getting filled, Jeff responded eloquently. I think the original commenter might have deleted her comment as I can't see it now. Jeff's response garnered 7 likes within 20 minutes last I saw it.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by jonny golden

More unaffordable "luxury" apartments, what about the "average" people who can't make ends meet now, rich people lining their pockets etc...blah blah blah.

How do these people have such a woeful understanding of the basic concept of supply and demand?

Also, it's funny what some of them try and label and luxury and unaffordable. Just be thankful they're not nearly as bad in Moncton as they are in Saint John.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by jonny golden

More unaffordable "luxury" apartments, what about the "average" people who can't make ends meet now, rich people lining their pockets etc...blah blah blah.

The CBC article stated 10-25% of the units could be considered "affordable". meaning "below market rate". I doubt this means council housing however, just relatively more affordable for middle income people.

Bill Budd made an excellent point about how this development will help make the whole Riverfront Park feel more safe. This has always been my contention too. Right now, the further west you walk on the trail, the more sketchy it feels. The point was made about homeless encampments, especially around the infamous ditch.

By bookending the Riverfront Park with the Ashford development on the east, and Gateway on the west, this will boost pedestrian activity within the whole park, and, will make pedestrians feel more comfortable, less alone, and less apprehensive while walking the trail system.

This should really be the #1 argument against the Gang of 34.

[jonny golden]

By bookending the Riverfront Park with the Ashford development on the east, and Gateway on the west, this will boost pedestrian activity within the whole park, and, will make pedestrians feel more comfortable, less alone, and less apprehensive while walking the trail system.

And as you and others have stated before, the NB Power land just to the east of Gateway is screaming for a similar project, and I don't doubt that Lafford has his eye on it. So a few years down the road, (considering Ashford as well) the riverfront park will be much more vibrant than it is today. There's a lot of untapped potential for our waterfront.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

How do these people have such a woeful understanding of the basic concept of supply and demand?

Yeah. They have trouble understanding that by filling demands at the mid-high end of the market, you take pressure off the market below, as well, by freeing up more units there. No developer is going to put "low-rent" units in a 90m development and have the other tenants subsidize them.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Have there been any renders of this project's EAST side? I'm curious if it's just a blank wall on the podium, which would indicate future plans for the vacant lot between the towers and the skate park. It's a 55,000sf lot, so you wouldn't have to build wall to wall, but a blank facade would indicate there's something brewing for sure.

I'm sure the east facing side won't be a "blank wall."

The NB Power lot is large enough for another two towers without crowding out the Gateway development.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I'm sure the east facing side won't be a "blank wall."

The NB Power lot is large enough for another two towers without crowding out the Gateway development.

I was thinking more, 'if the Gateway's podium is featureless along its eastern side, would that not indicate near-term plans to build wall-to-wall on the NB Power-owned lot?' I mean it's like 55K sf so there's plenty of room for anything there, of course.

[josh_cat_eyes]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I'm sure the east facing side won't be a "blank wall."

The NB Power lot is large enough for another two towers without crowding out the Gateway development.

I mean it could be a blank wall, that attaches to a gateway towers phase 2. I could see a little pedestrian extension of lutz border the east side of a 3rd gateway tower. Perhaps this could even be a signature tower of the whole thing, think like 20-25 storeys. A father looking over his family, if you will.

[Sandbagger]

Seeing this new rendering, the west building does look very close to the ball field. Assuming nothing changes there, someone (either the city or Lafford) will probably need to install some type of netting for foul balls. Not ideal visually, but I'd take that over no development at all. Honestly this is probably just step 1 toward the inevitable relocation of the fields anyway.

[adamuptownsj]

I feel compelled to hate-share some choice CBC comments. Sorry in advance.

Just as long as the taxpayers are not on the hook when it collapses. So near the river and it is every changing. They better not try to mess with it!

[Affordable] means they use that language now to get things approved but at the end of the day when these monstrosities are built they will be no where near affordable. What an eyesore all these buildings are going to be in the future with half vacancies because nobody can afford them

Remove the homeless ....move the rich in....Problem solved.

I'm sorry but that side of assumption Blvd should not be touched ,unless it would be to remove that's Northumberland place and replace it with some kind of zone to add to the park like a play park or some kind of attraction to bring people downtown.

When I use to live in moncton I would walk that trail at lease twice a week. Building thoes there would keep me away from downtown for sure

[MonctonRad]

So. Many. Bitter. People................

But, you are cherry picking. I saw positive commentary on there too.

[MonctonRad]

Bylaw changes for 17-storey riverfront towers pass first reading
Moncton council votes in favour of first reading for zoning ammendments for Gateway Towers project
Author of the article:Sarah Seeley
Published Aug 20, 2024 • Last updated 19 minutes ago • 4 minute read
https://tj.news/moncton-miramichi/bylaw-changes-for-17-storey-riverfront-towers-pass-first-reading (paywall).

A good T&T article, but, not really adding very much more to the discussion than the CBC article I referenced above.

This snippet however was interesting........

Earlier this month, a group of citizens headed by social activist Jean-Claude Basque submitted a petition to council with the signatures of 34 residents asking the city for the proposed project and to carry out an environmental and social impact study.

Basque said in an interview Tuesday he continues to have concerns about the project being built on a floodplain, and he will keep asking the city for a moratorium on the project and that environmental and social impact study should be done.

“We’re certainly going to talk to other councillors to try to get more information and try to have a discussion on the project,” he said. “Really there’s no discussion.”

Basque was also worried about parking around Riverfront Park if the project went ahead.

So, the Gang of 34 is not cowed, and vows to carry on the fight. They plan to lobby city councillors directly.

But, why is a social justice activist concerned about parking on Assumption Blvd??? I mean, WTF - talk about cognitive dissonance!!! The last thing I would think a SJW would be concerned about is parking!

I guess they must be looking for allies wherever they can find them (even if it is the pick-up driving yahoo types).

To be fair though, the article does mention that a traffic analysis suggests that Assumption Blvd westbound will require two travel lanes if this is built, and that some on street parking would be lost.

[josh_cat_eyes]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Bylaw changes for 17-storey riverfront towers pass first reading
Moncton council votes in favour of first reading for zoning ammendments for Gateway Towers project
Author of the article:Sarah Seeley
Published Aug 20, 2024 • Last updated 19 minutes ago • 4 minute read
https://tj.news/moncton-miramichi/bylaw-changes-for-17-storey-riverfront-towers-pass-first-reading (paywall).

A good T&T article, but, not really adding very much more to the discussion than the CBC article I referenced above.

This snippet however was interesting........


[/I][/B]
So, the Gang of 34 is not cowed, and vows to carry on the fight. They plan to lobby city councillors directly.

But, why is a social justice activist concerned about parking on Assumption Blvd??? I mean, WTF - talk about cognitive dissonance!!! The last thing I would think a SJW would be concerned about is parking!

I guess they must be looking for allies wherever they can find them (even if it is the pick-up driving yahoo types).

To be fair though, the article does mention that a traffic analysis suggests that Assumption Blvd westbound will require two travel lanes if this is built, and that some on street parking would be lost.

Assumption need 2 east and 2 west bound lanes now, let alone once this is built lol.