[Saint John, NB] 99 King Street | 13 storeys | Under Construction

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

I just walked past on King St. and can say that this photo is a bit misleading, the new panels are exactly the same colour as the sandstone-look trim from the lower levels.

Ah, good to know.....much better.

[cdnguys]

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by cdnguys

IDK....still looks like grey concrete to me.

[NewIreland]

Originally Posted by Sabien

I'm pro development to the core, and I can't STAND Nimbyism, so I'm ashamed to write this, but holy 🞵🞵🞵🞵! Put a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 roof on this already! I can tolerate maybe one more floor, but this development is objectively HORRIBLE and one of the worst in the entire country; only Clockzilla in Laval can compete. Put a hat on it and forget about it. Please for the love of God don't taint our skyline with this monstrosity, Percy (if you're reading this). The seams in the faux brick panels.... ... the already damaged faux sandstone concrete window frames... someone intervene.... PLEASE.

[sailor734]

I agree it's not great but I think your assessment might be just a little over the top.

To me the adjectives that most readily come to might are words like mediocre, unimaginative, uninspired, a bit boring and vaguely institutional. It also looks a little cheap to me.....the "faux-ness" is showing.

In a nutshell it is pretty "meh" and nothing to get too excited about. That is unfortunate given the prominent location.

Is there actually an architectural firm attached to the project or is this the product of some anonymous Strescon draughtsman using a CAD program ?

[nwalbert]

Originally Posted by sailor734

I agree it's not great but I think your assessment might be just a little over the top.

To me the adjectives that most readily come to might are words like mediocre, unimaginative, uninspired, a bit boring and vaguely institutional. It also looks a little cheap to me.....the "faux-ness" is showing.

In a nutshell it is pretty "meh" and nothing to get too excited about. That is unfortunate given the prominent location.

Is there actually an architectural firm attached to the project or is this the product of some anonymous Strescon draughtsman using a CAD program ?

Drove by in person for the first time today and think it's going to look awesome and fit right in with the city market and surrounding buildings.

Great addition to King Square.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by nwalbert

Drove by in person for the first time today and think it's going to look awesome and fit right in with the city market and surrounding buildings.

Great addition to King Square.

Well, it would be a boring old world if everyone had the same tastes wouldn't it?

[cdnguys]

The best view will be from a distance as it continues theme you see in UNBSJ, IOL, admiral Beatty and justice centre

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by cdnguys

The best view will be from a distance as it continues theme you see in UNBSJ, IOL, admiral Beatty and justice centre

Yeah, just don't get too close and make sure you squint if you do.

[cdnguys]

[IMG] [/IMG]

[bridgeoftea]

Originally Posted by cdnguys

[IMG] [/IMG]

Going against the grain but I actually quite like it. And it's 1 billion times better than the giant hole in the ground. Once it gets above the city market height, it'll add something to uptown.

[dalmik]

I quite like it as well.
Just need to get another tower up on north side of the square and Golden Ball corner.

[darkharbour]

Originally Posted by dalmik

I quite like it as well.
Just need to get another tower up on north side of the square and Golden Ball corner.

The North side of the square is going to be very conspicuous looking in its vacancy once this is done, especially with the new theatre project/expansion at the old courthouse building out next year too. I'd love to see King Square look like a true city centre park surrounded by a diverse range of buildings and uses.


The other lot I'd love to see the city push is the old Odeon theatre [now parking area] between RBC and the adjacent buildings on Charlotte. They could issue an RFP for the site and gauge interest, but I understand in the grand scheme it's hardly top of the list, even as city parking lots go (I'd easily rank it below the corner of Canterbury/Princess, for example).

[bingun]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

The North side of the square is going to be very conspicuous looking in its vacancy once this is done, especially with the new theatre project/expansion at the old courthouse building out next year too. I'd love to see King Square look like a true city centre park surrounded by a diverse range of buildings and uses.


The other lot I'd love to see the city push is the old Odeon theatre [now parking area] between RBC and the adjacent buildings on Charlotte. They could issue an RFP for the site and gauge interest, but I understand in the grand scheme it's hardly top of the list, even as city parking lots go (I'd easily rank it below the corner of Canterbury/Princess, for example).

It goes under the radar, but uptown actually has a shortage of parking spaces now. Last time I checked the waiting lists, the only one available was the lot next to the Max Pub. I'd rather get a parking ticket than park there. Peel Plaza is full, as far as I understand it, though you can get a space within a few months.

While I think that would be an excellent spot for long-term development, there is significant parking there, which would worsen things further.

My other concern is with the lot that they are selling to Lafford, which is currently a snow ban lot. If that is lost, the only two remaining snow ban lots are Sydney Street and Peter Street, both North of King's Square. I know they are probably angling for more people to utilize Peel, but there is a fee to use that, and it's a long distance from most of the South End. Are they expecting people to walk 20 minutes in foot-deep snow back home on the uncleared sidewalks?

[adamuptownsj]

A parking garage (with commercial at ground level?) would honestly be a great fit for the block of Carmarthen between Queen and St. James currently occupied by Matrix Mechanical. It's about 150' x 400', brownfield, centrally located.

Less than 500m from both St Mac's and Saint John High by foot.

3 PIDs assessed at $80K (177 St James, vacant garage), $370K (204 Carmarthen, office/warehouse), and $175K (200 Carmarthen, office) so land assembly wouldn't be too crazy.

ChatGPT tells me 145–160 stalls per floor would be reasonable. Couple this with a committed effort to kill surface lots and you've got a great solution with basically no negative externalities.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

A parking garage (with commercial at ground level?) would honestly be a great fit for the block of Carmarthen between Queen and St. James currently occupied by Matrix Mechanical. It's about 150' x 400', brownfield, centrally located.

Less than 500m from both St Mac's and Saint John High by foot.

3 PIDs assessed at $80K (177 St James, vacant garage), $370K (204 Carmarthen, office/warehouse), and $175K (200 Carmarthen, office) so land assembly wouldn't be too crazy.

ChatGPT tells me 145–160 stalls per floor would be reasonable. Couple this with a committed effort to kill surface lots and you've got a great solution with basically no negative externalities.

I think we need to move away from surface lots and more towards dedicated parking garages and/or underground or main floor parking incorporated into all new builds.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by sailor734

I think we need to move away from surface lots and more towards dedicated parking garages and/or underground or main floor parking incorporated into all new builds.

I'm on record as opposing SJ's recent bizarre and punitive anti-motorist measures, but I agree. Serviced land should not be surface parking.

Wasn't there a bylaw a few years ago that was supposed to prevent un-grandfathered surface lots? It seems to be ignored (75-77 Duke, and 171-175 Germain in particular stand out to me), if it exists.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

I'm on record as opposing SJ's recent bizarre and punitive anti-motorist measures, but I agree. Serviced land should not be surface parking.

Wasn't there a bylaw a few years ago that was supposed to prevent un-grandfathered surface lots? It seems to be ignored (75-77 Duke, and 171-175 Germain in particular stand out to me), if it exists.

There was certainly talk about trying to prevent creation of new surface lots. I don't know if a bylaw was ever passed.

[bingun]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

A parking garage (with commercial at ground level?) would honestly be a great fit for the block of Carmarthen between Queen and St. James currently occupied by Matrix Mechanical. It's about 150' x 400', brownfield, centrally located.

Less than 500m from both St Mac's and Saint John High by foot.

3 PIDs assessed at $80K (177 St James, vacant garage), $370K (204 Carmarthen, office/warehouse), and $175K (200 Carmarthen, office) so land assembly wouldn't be too crazy.

ChatGPT tells me 145–160 stalls per floor would be reasonable. Couple this with a committed effort to kill surface lots and you've got a great solution with basically no negative externalities.

That's a realistic idea, and I think another parking garage on the peninsula should be on the cards in the next decade. I would feel a lot more comfortable with them eliminating some of the surface lots if that occurred.

I appreciate the hesitation due to Peel Plaza not being fully occupied for quite some time, but if Brunswick Square Tower or the City Hall tower were fully occupied, or even more occupied than currently, there would be a noticeable shortage of parking. If you don't work for a company that has its own dedicated parking, it could put you off taking an opportunity uptown.

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

I'm on record as opposing SJ's recent bizarre and punitive anti-motorist measures, but I agree. Serviced land should not be surface parking.

Wasn't there a bylaw a few years ago that was supposed to prevent un-grandfathered surface lots? It seems to be ignored (75-77 Duke, and 171-175 Germain in particular stand out to me), if it exists.

Don't get me started on that Germain St lot, such wasted potential. Below is one of the original news articles from a decade ago. As mentioned in the article, I believe it is now used as parking for the adjacent buildings rather than standalone parking. When I walk past, there are typically only half a dozen vehicles.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/saint-john-illegal-parking-lots-1.3257771

Edit

This is an image of the adjacent building from another 2016 article. I had forgotten how bad it was at the time. It looks much better now and has been fully redeveloped.

The owner actually mentions this lot, sadly, his plans never seem to have moved forward.

Daeres says the lot is no longer being used as a parking lot, and he has plans to build there as well to complete the neighbourhood.

[michael_d40]

Anybody nearby have any update pictures of the progress?