[Moncton] Infinity | Harper & Main & Bateau | 104m | 30 Storeys | Proposed

[new kid in town]

That makes sense. Thanks! Glad this is moving forward with 30-storeys.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Very glad to hear it's going to be 30 storeys.

Next step will be a 40+ storey!

[sailor734]

I'm curious about this development. AFAIK it is usually quite a bit cheaper to build the same number of units in several low/midrise buildings rather than a single high rise. I get that population density and very high land values in large cities make 25-35-40+ floor high rises the preferred option from a ROI point of view. Is land that scarce in Moncton or is this site so uniquely valuable that going high rise is needed to make the build financially viable?

I guess I'm curious as to what factors drive this choice for developers?

[MonctonRad]

The property would have been big enough for two towers.

I presume there is prestige in having the tallest building in the province. At one point there was speculation that Ashford wanted a really tall signature tower as part of the Downing Street project. Maybe it was a bit of a pissing contest.

I currently don't think we will see a tall signature tower at Downing Street. The tower there (if and when built) is more likely to be about 20 storeys. Back when Dawn Arnold was still mayor, she gave an interview to CBC Radio where she mentioned a 19 storey tower on a podium measuring three storeys, giving an overall height of 22 storeys. This is the closest we have ever come to any official announcement of the overall scale of the Downing project,

ICON's plans however seem apparently unchanged. They seem happy with having the tallest building.

I like some variety in building height anyway. I don't want to see a downtown with only six storey buildings.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The property would have been big enough for two towers.

I presume there is prestige in having the tallest building in the province. At one point there was speculation that Ashford wanted a really tall signature tower as part of the Downing Street project. Maybe it was a bit of a pissing contest.

I currently don't think we will see a tall signature tower at Downing Street. The tower there (if and when built) is more likely to be about 20 storeys. Back when Dawn Arnold was still mayor, she gave an interview to CBC Radio where she mentioned a 19 storey tower on a podium measuring three storeys, giving an overall height of 22 storeys. This is the closest we have ever come to any official announcement of the overall scale of the Downing project,

ICON's plans however seem apparently unchanged. They seem happy with having the tallest building.

I like some variety in building height anyway. I don't want to see a downtown with only six storey buildings.

Oh, I agree about the varying heights of a city skyline being desirable and I am all in favour of seeing some substantial buildings going up in NB cities. for example, I think the cluster of high rises at Fundy Quay is going to be a great addition to the waterfront.

I was just wondering what drives the decision to build up at additional cost. It makes perfect sense in cities like Toronto or Vancouver and even somewhere constricted like Halifax's peninsula even though Halifax is a relatively small city. .....The reasons in small, spread out cities like Moncton, Saint John etc aren't as clear to me.

[nwalbert]

Originally Posted by sailor734

Oh, I agree about the varying heights of a city skyline being desirable and I am all in favour of seeing some substantial buildings going up in NB cities. for example, I think the cluster of high rises at Fundy Quay is going to be a great addition to the waterfront.

I was just wondering what drives the decision to build up at additional cost. It makes perfect sense in cities like Toronto or Vancouver and even somewhere constricted like Halifax's peninsula even though Halifax is a relatively small city. .....The reasons in small, spread out cities like Moncton, Saint John etc aren't as clear to me.

Interesting that you mentioned that, as I certainly had the same thoughts. Moncton has an abundance of available open lots, and developers are typically in the business for profit and not prestige. This project does not really make fiscal sense so it's a bit perplexing. I would think there would be more prestigious ways to blow millions of dollars, but each to their own.

[lirette]

Originally Posted by nwalbert

Interesting that you mentioned that, as I certainly had the same thoughts. Moncton has an abundance of available open lots, and developers are typically in the business for profit and not prestige. This project does not really make fiscal sense so it's a bit perplexing. I would think there would be more prestigious ways to blow millions of dollars, but each to their own.

I mean 294 unitsx$2500 a months is like 7-8 million a year in revenue.

I'd imagine there is also some value to Icon having a "signature" development like this to add to their portfolio. At this point most of their developments while nice are relatively low key. They are still getting their name out there.

In saying that, I understood and heard some rumors they have "significant" financial backing beyond just what the faces are you see on their website.

[jonny golden]

Originally Posted by lirette

I mean 294 unitsx$2500 a months is like 7-8 million a year in revenue.

I'd imagine there is also some value to Icon having a "signature" development like this to add to their portfolio. At this point most of their developments while nice are relatively low key. They are still getting their name out there.

In saying that, I understood and heard some rumors they have "significant" financial backing beyond just what the faces are you see on their website.

ICON has over 500 existing units, so I would think that their cash flow is significant. That said, I believe that they purchased most of their units, so yes indeed they must have significant financial backing.

As far as building taller Vis-à-vis profitability, I seem to recall the builder of the Westgate (tomato) building stating that they needed the height of their original proposal in order to make the project financially viable. Then they dropped from 10 floors to 6. So who knows, maybe it's a case by case thing. It was really disappointing to Westgate, and now St. Bernard's being reduced to 6 floors though.

[sailor734]

Well, if you are trying to move away from car-centric sprawl to a more urban centre (15 minute cities), going up for densification certainly makes sense. I'm just not sure what is driving it in such small cities. Fundy Quay makes some sense given the high value harbourfront site and the cost of site prep with the seawall and all. I don't know Moncton well enough to know if the Icon site has something unique about it.

[WhipperSnapper]

Have they applied to federal housing loan programs? That would be a difference maker in the costing which, according to the last page, is still up in the air if 30 storeys is feasible.

Let's not conflate urbanity with an extreme, socialistic idea of a city such as a 15 minute city. I'm a firm believer in multi-use neighbourhoods allowing as many residents as possible the choice to not have to commute to employment. IMHO, this vertical skyscraper subdivision in the middle of nowhere trend forcing everyone to commuteby transit miles away is not ideal city planning or what transit oriented development is supposed to represent. However, The 15 minute city doesn't give people any choice. It's something the Chinese communist party probably devised

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Let's not conflate urbanity with an extreme, socialistic idea of a city such as a 15 minute city. [snip] However, The 15 minute city doesn't give people any choice. It's something the Chinese communist party probably devised

That's an absolutely ridiculous statement and entirely untrue. If anything 15 minute cities are about giving people more choices.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Have they applied to federal housing loan programs? That would be a difference maker in the costing which, according to the last page, is still up in the air if 30 storeys is feasible.

Let's not conflate urbanity with an extreme, socialistic idea of a city such as a 15 minute city. I'm a firm believer in multi-use neighbourhoods allowing as many residents as possible the choice to not have to commute to employment. IMHO, this vertical skyscraper subdivision in the middle of nowhere trend forcing everyone to commuteby transit miles away is not ideal city planning or what transit oriented development is supposed to represent. However, The 15 minute city doesn't give people any choice. It's something the Chinese communist party probably devised

The idea of being able to access goods and services relatively close to your home is hardly socialism. Was 1950 small town USA or Canada socialistic? Everything you needed was on Main St and the residential area started a block or two away.

[josh_cat_eyes]

I love how boomers think everything is socialism now lol. Trudeau? Socalist. CBC, Communist. Authoritarianism? Communist. 15 minute cities? Socialist. Covid-19? Communist. Do you even know the definition of these terms? Read a damn book and turn off the mainstream media.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by sailor734

Oh, I agree about the varying heights of a city skyline being desirable and I am all in favour of seeing some substantial buildings going up in NB cities. for example, I think the cluster of high rises at Fundy Quay is going to be a great addition to the waterfront.

I was just wondering what drives the decision to build up at additional cost. It makes perfect sense in cities like Toronto or Vancouver and even somewhere constricted like Halifax's peninsula even though Halifax is a relatively small city. .....The reasons in small, spread out cities like Moncton, Saint John etc aren't as clear to me.

I think it would be very interesting to see a cost comparison between one thirty storey, versus two 15 storeys... or five 6 storeys for that matter.

I think you may be surprised to find out the 30 storey building could end up costing less than two 15 storeys. Moncton is considered a lot more swampy than Saint John, right? At least swampy is term I've heard thrown around quite often, not meaning to cause offence.

There's substantial work and investment that has to be put into this site to make it safe to build a 30 storey building on... or a 15 storey building!

I'm just speculating, but I don't think it's entirely unlikely that a single 30 storey building could end up costing less than building two 15 storeys, or even three 10 storey buildings. It would all depend on the location, geology, and engineering solutions.

If anyone has some insight on this ... would love to hear!

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by josh_cat_eyes

I love how boomers think everything is socialism now lol. Trudeau? Socalist. CBC, Communist. Authoritarianism? Communist. 15 minute cities? Socialist. Covid-19? Communist. Do you even know the definition of these terms? Read a damn book and turn off the mainstream media.

I don't think sailor734 was espousing or promoting a right wing reaction to a "15 minute city." He was just honestly wondering why smaller cities like Moncton are suddenly moving to skyscraper development when there is so much vacant land in the core that multiple medium sized buildings could be built instead. It was an honest question. I am confident he is not anti-skyscraper, nor do I think he believes in any worldwide intelligentsia conspiracies forcing us to live in downtown commie blocks.

In any event, I think Moncton should promote height and density especially south of Main Street, and along East Main becuase the city is continuing to grow, and, probably all of those oceanic parking lots downtown will likely be built upon in 30 years or so. We should build the skyscrapers now to maximize downtown density for the long term, rather than accepting a slew of 5-6 storey midrises now, only to regret in 30 years time that all the land is gone, and there is no place for additional vertical growth.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I don't think sailor734 was espousing or promoting a right wing reaction to a "15 minute city." He was just honestly wondering why smaller cities like Moncton are suddenly moving to skyscraper development when there is so much vacant land in the core that multiple medium sized buildings could be built instead. It was an honest question. I am confident he is not anti-skyscraper, nor do I think he believes in any worldwide intelligentsia conspiracies forcing us to live in downtown commie blocks.

How many people are that self hating to have thousands of posts on a forum called skyscraperpage.com if they hate skyscrapers?

I can attest to notion that Sailor is not anti-skyscraper... he's said many times in the Saint John threads that he'd like to see more ambitious high rise developments get built in Saint John.

Though, I wish people would just forget the term "commie block" as it's an entirely unhelpful term to have floating around when there are legitimate solutions for the government to subsidize high rise apartment developments with affordable rent that don't suck and aren't "housing projects".

Personally, I think it would be a very good thing for all three main cities of NB to see some major, high rise developments with affordable rental apartments within the three city centres. Not housing projects or "commie blocks", but high rise apartment buildings with affordable rent, that are desirable place to live. Apartment buildings built by private construction companies and owned by the public could be very effective solutions for the housing crisis, and finally give NB's minister of housing some developments worthy of all the photo-ops on his instagram account.

Last time I checked, Austria was not a communist or even a socialist country... yet, more than half the residents of Vienna live in some form subsidized rental housing.

I don't think the term "commie blocks" is part of the Austrian vernacular.

However, I do think that Vienna among the most livable cities on earth!



_____


What I would like to see... is a more healthy spirit of competitive between Saint John and Moncton (and Freddy). If the announcement of this 30 storey tower wasn't enough to light to fire under our butts here in Saint John, I'm not sure what will. I think Fundy Quay getting upgraded to a 23 or 24 storey tower from 19 is a good sign in that regard... and at least that's what it looks like based on the renders

I refuse to believe that our two cities are cases of "apples and oranges"... yet!

[MonctonianSentinel01]

Originally Posted by OliverD

That's an absolutely ridiculous statement and entirely untrue. If anything 15 minute cities are about giving people more choices.

I think you need to look up what a real 15 minutes city is. It's control, not choice, especially punishing people for using a car inside the 15 minute radius from their home. Look at the UK. It's not all roses. It has to start somewhere, it's all about controlling the populace because of environmentalism and reducing pollution, rather than choice.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by MonctonianSentinel01

I think you need to look up what a real 15 minutes city is. It's control, not choice, especially punishing people for using a car inside the 15 minute radius from their home. Look at the UK. It's not all roses. It has to start somewhere, it's all about controlling the populace because of environmentalism and reducing pollution, rather than choice.

welcome back.

I think a real 15 minute city couldn't really exist in NB, outside of some very few very walkable locations, which doesn't make it a 15 minute city.

While I'd love to see the government massively invest in public transit and affordable high rise apartments that people with jobs might actually want to live in... I'm not sure we will ever see anything like that, even with the current PM who never shuts up about building big, bold, and beautiful. Okay the last one he might not have said, but he's definitely said it countless times now that, "Canada needs to build big, build bold, and build now".

I think Moncton building a 30 storey high rise is an example of building big and building bold... not an example of some sort of plan for a "15 minute city".

Why is investing in public transit and active transit infrastructure so frightening to some people? I just don't get the conspiracy.

[MonctonianSentinel01]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

welcome back.

Thanks bud!

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

Why is investing in public transit and active transit infrastructure so frightening to some people? I just don't get the conspiracy.

It shouldn't be, good public transit is a must. I think where the conspiracy comes in is how untrustable our governments are these days and so everything that they push or recommend we act in a negative fashion. However I will say that sometimes the conspiracy is actually truth (it really depends what we're talking about here though). We see in the UK people getting fines or tickets or worse if they are using their car inside the 15 minutes which is really insane. We see these things and then we see our government (even if only municipal) recommending the 15 minute city and then people react negatively. If they setup a 15 minute city with infrastructure and policies then what is to stop them from doing the same to us? I think this is where most of the panic comes into play. Most people in the UK never would of thought they would actually see something like this. So how long till we get it? 15-20 years until we are treated the same way? With all of the negativity surrounding it, I'm not surprised that people think and react this way.

[sailor734]

Just to be clear. I am certainly NOT anti high rise. The question was more curiosity about what drives the decision to build a taller building on a specific site? I was hoping someone with knowledge of construction and engineering might comment about relative costs between midrise and high rise.

The conventional wisdom is that high rises have a higher cost per unit and you tend to see them in major urban centres where vacant land is scarce and very expensive. Envision SJ questioned that in a post above. Anybody know which is correct.