The Official Saint John, NB Project Thread

[darkharbour]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

AFAIK this has always been the plan, down to the footprint of the building and its contents. Extra parking was never needed, and why pave if you're gonna build anyway?

I was involved in some of the original planning for the Field House - namely the wetland project that offset the stormwater runoff - and yes the building and the adjacent pad were all designed with the intention of expanding the facility at a later date. Actually even the wetland has excess capacity to offset more hard surface runoff.

Exciting to see it get expanded as this will be much more affordable than renewing some of the other facilities scattered around the city, and as a user of the Field House it is an incredible building that stands out in the Maritimes for its quality. I'm in the camp that believes that for the hockey family demographic - which is one of the wealthiest in Canada, and diminishing in participation rates - multiplexes that are more centralized make sense, since the number of kids riding transit or walking to rinks is very, very small. Neighbourhood fields for soccer, baseball, cricket, etc. are essential, but rinks can be done region-wide on a per capita basis. I know some people feel very differently, and I acknowledge how emotional hockey and all sports can be, however there are real arguments to be made for how incredibly costly ice rinks are for communities to maintain compared to virtually all other forms of recreation.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

Exciting to see it get expanded as this will be much more affordable than renewing some of the other facilities scattered around the city,

Got # to back that up? Or is it just feels?

[RR Drummer]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

I was involved in some of the original planning for the Field House - namely the wetland project that offset the stormwater runoff - and yes the building and the adjacent pad were all designed with the intention of expanding the facility at a later date. Actually even the wetland has excess capacity to offset more hard surface runoff.

Exciting to see it get expanded as this will be much more affordable than renewing some of the other facilities scattered around the city, and as a user of the Field House it is an incredible building that stands out in the Maritimes for its quality. I'm in the camp that believes that for the hockey family demographic - which is one of the wealthiest in Canada, and diminishing in participation rates - multiplexes that are more centralized make sense, since the number of kids riding transit or walking to rinks is very, very small. Neighbourhood fields for soccer, baseball, cricket, etc. are essential, but rinks can be done region-wide on a per capita basis. I know some people feel very differently, and I acknowledge how emotional hockey and all sports can be, however there are real arguments to be made for how incredibly costly ice rinks are for communities to maintain compared to virtually all other forms of recreation.

Well said. It was always the intent & had it not been for Covid this would already be built and well used. That alone slowed down the initial Field House usage etc so plans were altered. That said I have used the facility, inside & out, I feel it was well built and necessary as is and with the expanded facility will be all the more worthwhile. The wetlands area is a great asset, I walk my dog there often. Looking forward to the expansion of a great facility in my neighbourhood. 👏

[darkharbour]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

Got # to back that up? Or is it just feels?

I don't have the numbers directly in front of me, but PlaySJ - and other reports - identified the high costs of keeping existing arenas and updating them to meet contemporary standards versus building new multiplexes. There is a reason most cities are doing this now.

PlaySJ is now 12 years old but even back in 2012 it stated that:

"Operating 4 Centennial era ice arenas spread throughout
the city represents a great burden to Saint John taxpayers
due their aging mechanical and structural infrastructure
and outdated or scant amenities popular with sports
organizations and spectators alike. These arenas are now
45 years old and are nearing the end of their life cycle."

"Today, new arena facilities in urban municipalities are
rarely built as single pads, but rather are provided in
multiple ice-surface combinations. Multiple ice surface
facilities permit efficiencies with both capital and
operating costs, and attract larger, revenue-generating
sports tournaments and competitions. Additional traffic
makes consolidated ancillary services such as food and
beverage, and advertising more viable."
"This approach is very
popular and cost effective as it optimizes economies of
scale in terms of infrastructure; such as heating, water and
waste water systems, parking and the like."

Each of the older arenas requires complete overhauls including change rooms to meet current building code and accessibility requirements, not to mention structural, mechanical, and efficiency upgrades. Even if they did the bare minimum renewal there is no way it would be less than $10-15 million each (the Town of Rothesay is currently looking for $22 million to fix its arena which is of a similar vintage). Multiplied by the number of arenas and this new multiplex plan ($45 million) is more cost effective for capital costs now, on top of reducing long-term operational expenses for the reasons stated above, as well as leveraging the Y partnership which will further distribute the cost.

Once they decommission the old arenas, they can sell the land for development - prime land on University Avenue for example which could easily have a large 4-6 storey apartment building or two - and recoup costs and bring in tax revenue.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

I don't have the numbers directly in front of me, but PlaySJ - and other reports - identified the high costs of keeping existing arenas and updating them to meet contemporary standards versus building new multiplexes. There is a reason most cities are doing this now.

PlaySJ is now 12 years old but even back in 2012 it stated that:





Each of the older arenas requires complete overhauls including change rooms to meet current building code and accessibility requirements, not to mention structural, mechanical, and efficiency upgrades. Even if they did the bare minimum renewal there is no way it would be less than $10-15 million each (the Town of Rothesay is currently looking for $22 million to fix its arena which is of a similar vintage). Multiplied by the number of arenas and this new multiplex plan ($45 million) is more cost effective for capital costs now, on top of reducing long-term operational expenses for the reasons stated above, as well as leveraging the Y partnership which will further distribute the cost.

Once they decommission the old arenas, they can sell the land for development - prime land on University Avenue for example which could easily have a large 4-6 storey apartment building or two - and recoup costs and bring in tax revenue.

Yes, and that was 12 years ago. Some of these rinks are closing in on 60 years old and those points are even more valid today. Buildings have a lifespan.

[adamuptownsj]

Received word of a three phase, 100-apartment + 3 semi-detached project at Sand Cove and Seawood (old Seawood School playground and field) that seems to include an extension of Cherry Tree Lane through to Seawood.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by sailor734

Buildings have a lifespan.

If (and only if...) the continued improvements and maintenance is ignored or deferred.

I was struck on the placement of the Rothesay arena -- what a perfect location next to the two schools. Its too bad the millidgeville rink hadn't been placed between the two millidgeville HS.

[darkharbour]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

If (and only if...) the continued improvements and maintenance is ignored or deferred.

I was struck on the placement of the Rothesay arena -- what a perfect location next to the two schools. Its too bad the millidgeville rink hadn't been placed between the two millidgeville HS.

Yes, to an extent, but not all buildings are created equal. Those 60 year old arenas are basically cinderblock boxes with very basic roof structures and no insulation, and many built on former wetlands that have settled unevenly under their weight (look what happened to the old arena on McAllister Drive that didn't even last 40 years, let alone 60+). My point is they were never intended to last for a hundred years or whatever number, that wasn't how they were designed.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Received word of a three phase, 100-apartment + 3 semi-detached project at Sand Cove and Seawood (old Seawood School playground and field) that seems to include an extension of Cherry Tree Lane through to Seawood.

I'm sure the residents of Cherry Tree Lane will be pleased.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

Yes, to an extent, but not all buildings are created equal. Those 60 year old arenas are basically cinderblock boxes with very basic roof structures and no insulation, and many built on former wetlands that have settled unevenly under their weight (look what happened to the old arena on McAllister Drive that didn't even last 40 years, let alone 60+). My point is they were never intended to last for a hundred years or whatever number, that wasn't how they were designed.

So then Brent Harris’s plan especially doesn’t make sense to extend the life of the Belyea Arena building for ten years minimum, then decades more as a soccer facility. If the city refuses to reopen the rink, it should just be torn down and the entire six acres opened up for residential development.

It’s crazy that there’s even a chance Brent Harris’s proposal could be approved… it shouldn’t have even be allowed to be presented to council based on the criteria set out by the city in their REOI.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

Once they decommission the old arenas, they can sell the land for development - prime land on University Avenue for example which could easily have a large 4-6 storey apartment building or two - and recoup costs and bring in tax revenue.

The six acres of land that the Belyea is built on is also prime real estate, and is one of the only large parcels of undeveloped land left on the Carleton peninsula with potential for ocean views. Even typically 6 storey apartments would have great ocean views from the Belyea property, especially the top 3 floors.

Not sure if you read the city’s report, but they claimed the entire property was only worth $150,000, and $500,000 for the Gorman property. Was that a typo? Because $150k seems ridiculously low, especially when even SNB values the entire property at over 1.5 million.

One of the city’s top urban planners at the time, Jody Kliffer, stated on FB that he felt the city should shut down the Gorman, because it represented a better opportunity for residential development. Yet, when the city decided to shut down the Belyea instead, he actually congratulated them for their “courage” to shut down the Belyea to save money, and made no mention of the potential for residential development. Soon after, the Belyea was used as a temporary homeless shelter.

I can’t help but think the city just doesn’t seem to care about the west side as much as other areas, and that they don’t tend to see the potential it has as a uniquely seaside community. I feel their decision to shut down the Belyea instead of the Gorman was politically motivated, and that they always had the “Belyea as a homeless shelter” plan in the back of their minds, as a solution to offload some of Uptown’s homeless problem onto the West Side.

I gotta hope the third time’s the charm here, and that the city will actually decide to go with a proposal that will be positive for the long term interests of the community surrounding the property, which would definitely not be Brent Harris’s incredibly short sighted proposal.

[cdnguys]

City won’t be selecting Brent’s plan. I wouldn’t give it any energy. They’ll select a developer who will build residential units - removing a liability from books and adding tax revenue which is consistent with their “grow and belong” strategic alignment.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

The six acres of land that the Belyea is built on is also prime real estate, and is one of the only large parcels of undeveloped land left on the Carleton peninsula with potential for ocean views. Even typically 6 storey apartments would have great ocean views from the Belyea property, especially the top 3 floors.

You are way too obsessed with ocean views.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OliverD

You are way too obsessed with ocean views.

Most of the time you can't see the ocean because of the fog.

[darkharbour]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Most of the time you can't see the ocean because of the fog.

If you can't see the ocean for the fog, but the fog only exists because of the ocean, aren't you still seeing the ocean?

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by OliverD

You are way too obsessed with ocean views.

Spoken like someone from the city the furthest from the ocean in NB.

But am I, really?

For a coastal city, not that many people have ocean views in Saint John, it’s not exactly a crazy thing to try and capitalize on considering how few Canadian cities are actually located on the coast, despite Canada having the longest coastline in the world by far.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

If you can't see the ocean for the fog, but the fog only exists because of the ocean, aren't you still seeing the ocean?

That is an extremely philosophical and existential question akin to "if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, did it make a sound???"

I will have to ponder the ramifications of this.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Most of the time you can't see the ocean because of the fog.

Is this like the 10th time you’ve made this “joke”?

There’s far more non foggy days in Saint John than foggy days. Not sure what you’re basing this on other than stereotypes and tropes about SJ, because it’s absolutely not true.

I don’t come into your Moncton threads and make fun of the muddy river that property developers in Moncton market as water-views

Not sure why you keep on going on about the fog in SJ, you sound like the people in the valley.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

I don’t come into your Moncton threads and make fun of the muddy river that property developers in Moncton market as water-views

At least you can see the river from your apartment balcony in Moncton.

In SJ, you have to settle for the foghorn,

I am joking by the way. Don't be so brittle.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

At least you can see the river from your apartment balcony in Moncton.

Well, you have a point… with Saint John’s dearth of mid rise and high rise residential developments, more people in Moncton may already have “water views” from their apartments, or will soon enough.

Moncton’s clearly doing something right, while Saint John is lagging behind. Saint John’s only 15 storey or taller apartment building was built in 1973, and who knows when the 19 storey Fundy Quay tower actually gets built…

It’s a shame, because Saint John has much more spectacular waterfront scenery to behold, in both the Bay of Fundy and the Saint John/Kennebecasis river valley.