The Official Saint John, NB Project Thread

[SJTOKO]

Probably because they are negotiating with the port (land swap) which would make much more sense..

[Helladog]

There was a developer (not sure of his reputation) interested in developing a good portion of that area, also including the Barrick green and some apts north of the sugar refinery site. The proposal was to include a hotel, condos, apts and a casio with racino on site. He wasn't given the one year option he needed on the land to attract investors.

So here we are with a big bunch on undeveloped land and a go ahead for a casino which will likely go to Moncton. Hopefully, someone else with more money will do do something there. The condos slated for the West side would do better there too.

[GUB]

Yes, I heard of the failed racino attempt. I didn't much care for that proposal, which seems to be the general consensus. I do agree with you though helladog, that I'd like to see a res. development similar to the one proposed for the west side to set-up on this land.
It could be a good location for a casino, but I also have a feeling Moncton will be the city of choice, even though a casino makes far more sense in a larger, denser, more touristy city.

[PostModernPrometheus]

I dont know....I'd disagree a little with some of the expressed comments....I think SJ has some distinct advantages when it comes to becoming the destination gaming centre for the province...tourism numbers in the SJ region have been bucking the provincial trend of a decrease.....the city is in a better position to attract US traffic....the city has the *potential* for a very interesting gaming complex to be built (IMHO the best location from an aesthetic point of view as well as visible access from the highway would be along the waterfront....)

[PostModernPrometheus]

Originally Posted by SJTOKO

I'm not with Kwajo on this one, the West Side hasn't had any devlopment in decades and it's about time something get's done. Does anyone have any photographs of the land in question? I have no doubt Pugsley wharf will be developed quickly. I'm suprised nobody has suggested building the New Police HQ and courthouse on the Lantic site.. I think it would be cool to have a group of towers on the Westside... before you know it there will be restaruants coffee shops and much more...I hate how the Port refuses to give up Long Wharf, I actually would love to see the entire thing ripped out of there and filled in with water... It's AN EYESORE.... nobody wants to see that gigantic slab of concrete grace the waterfront.. DO SOMETHING WITH IT NOW>>>>>

A proposal of this magnitude in and of itself i think is a testament to the overall level of economic confidence that is building ..... as for where it should go...yes, it probably would fit better in the uptown area...however, keep in mind that long term (next 15-20 years....) i would imagine that any and all potential development space around the harbour will eventually be built on anyway...from that perspective, ANY major development project can be viewed as a catalyst for further harbour development....it's all good in the end

[Helladog]

Originally Posted by PostModernPrometheus

A proposal of this magnitude in and of itself i think is a testament to the overall level of economic confidence that is building ..... as for where it should go...yes, it probably would fit better in the uptown area...however, keep in mind that long term (next 15-20 years....) i would imagine that any and all potential development space around the harbour will eventually be built on anyway...from that perspective, ANY major development project can be viewed as a catalyst for further harbour development....it's all good in the end

I always thought it was funny there wasn't any dense building on the West Side. As far as I can tell, if this development happens, it will be to the benefit of this part of the city for sure.

[Ronald Jack]

Kwajo.... thanks for posting those aerial oblique photos of the proposed development site facing Partridge Island breakwater. It was good of you. I'm not sure I agree with you that Fort Dufferin is worth saving. I remember photographing the 19th century Ft. Dufferin ruins in 1974 when there was almost nothing left. Further, the WW2-era concrete searchlight shelters down on the beach are not of any particular value.

Originally Posted by kwajo

Secondly: I am completely against developing Fort Dufferin if it will destroy the historic sites there. That site has been used for military installations for 200 years (if not longer), and remnants of the 19th century fort can still be seen today - so why destroy them? snip/snip

On the whole, very exciting news, I just wonder if they have chosen the right site. And as a side note, I think it's funny that they are referring to the area as Fort Dufferin, instead of its other name, 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Point. I can't imagine why they didn't want to use that name....

This point of yours amuses me. I do believe that if the developer, and S.J.'s head of development...Baird is it?... have any marketing savvy they would go for "🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Point" which has greater significance. Since everyone seems hell bent on gentrifying the waterfront and turning S.J. into a cruiseship stopover, consider the tourist passengers. Middle class American blacks have long had higher incomes than the average Canadian, and millions of them are now reaching retirement/cruising age. Imagine the pleasure they will have arriving in a Canadian port which demonstrates an interest in preserving vestiges of post-colonial Black history. By the way, today I posted an 1894map on my Saint John history Blog which is pertinent.
http://thelostvalley.blogspot.com/
It shows 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Point, but also note that by 1894 Fort Dufferin was no longer deemed worthy of noting on
the local map.
Cheers!
Ron Jack in B.C.

[SJTOKO]

I think the Casino would look better on Long Wharf. I'm so frustrated with the port, THEY DON'T NEED long wharf why are they making so many excuses. Take the Lantic site, build it up, improve it, tear down that other ugly shed and use the land. Continue to improve your facilities on the west side... Have you ever taken a drive around there.. They have lots of land with lots of potential,, i'll say it again.. there is NO WAY they need Long Wharf .. Hotels restaurants a Casino and a second privatlely funded Cruise Terminal a Marina... offices which would add to the city's density.. there needs to be separation between the port and the Uptown area....

[SJTOKO]

Originally Posted by Ronald Jack

Kwajo.... thanks for posting those aerial oblique photos of the proposed development site facing Partridge Island breakwater. It was good of you. I'm not sure I agree with you that Fort Dufferin is worth saving. I remember photographing the 19th century Ft. Dufferin ruins in 1974 when there was almost nothing left. Further, the WW2-era concrete searchlight shelters down on the beach are not of any particular value.


This point of yours amuses me. I do believe that if the developer, and S.J.'s head of development...Baird is it?... have any marketing savvy they would go for "🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Point" which has greater significance. Since everyone seems hell bent on gentrifying the waterfront and turning S.J. into a cruiseship stopover, consider the tourist passengers. Middle class American blacks have long had higher incomes than the average Canadian, and millions of them are now reaching retirement/cruising age. Imagine the pleasure they will have arriving in a Canadian port which demonstrates an interest in preserving vestiges of post-colonial Black history. By the way, today I posted an 1894map on my Saint John history Blog which is pertinent.
http://thelostvalley.blogspot.com/
It shows 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Point, but also note that by 1894 Fort Dufferin was no longer deemed worthy of noting on
the local map.
Cheers!
Ron Jack in B.C.

I'm all for educating the public on Black History in Canada and especially the Maritimes. I'm trying not to go on a rant here but's lets just say most of my history degree was done on this topic. There used to be slaves all over southern New Brunswick (Yes, that's right, SLAVES)... Basically Canadians are very very ignorant of their own history (still trying not to rant)... Did you know a black man from the East Coast invented the slapshot? There were even slaves on Grand Manan island. Anyway, I know your probably joking but NO, it should not be called "🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Point".. HOWEVER, there should be a massive plaque on the site explaining it's former name and a little bit about the history of slavery in Canada..

[Coyett]

Originally Posted by Ronald Jack

This point of yours amuses me. I do believe that if the developer, and S.J.'s head of development...Baird is it?... have any marketing savvy they would go for "🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Point" which has greater significance. Since everyone seems hell bent on gentrifying the waterfront and turning S.J. into a cruiseship stopover, consider the tourist passengers. Middle class American blacks have long had higher incomes than the average Canadian, and millions of them are now reaching retirement/cruising age. Imagine the pleasure they will have arriving in a Canadian port which demonstrates an interest in preserving vestiges of post-colonial Black history. By the way, today I posted an 1894map on my Saint John history Blog which is pertinent.
http://thelostvalley.blogspot.com/
It shows 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Point, but also note that by 1894 Fort Dufferin was no longer deemed worthy of noting on
the local map.
Cheers!
Ron Jack in B.C.

To my mind, the developers would have a lot more success marketing the property using the original name - Bruyères Head.

While we're on the topic, here's a few suggestions for other places:
Pugsley - Middle Cove
Coast Guard Site: Upper Cove
Harbour Bridge - Secoudon Bridge

[kwajo]

I don't know about that - If you bring back the names Lower Cove and Upper Cove, those are extremely loaded terms about class identity and a lot of other things, and I think they would be best left out (although I do often use the terms in real life settings myself, like if someone says something dumb, I call them 'Lower Cover').

[kwajo]

Originally Posted by Ronald Jack

Kwajo.... thanks for posting those aerial oblique photos of the proposed development site facing Partridge Island breakwater. It was good of you. I'm not sure I agree with you that Fort Dufferin is worth saving. I remember photographing the 19th century Ft. Dufferin ruins in 1974 when there was almost nothing left. Further, the WW2-era concrete searchlight shelters down on the beach are not of any particular value.
Cheers!
Ron Jack in B.C.

You're probably right, but I'm one of those guys that likes to preserve everything about our military heritage, no matter how poorly maintained it has been. I just think that SJ has such an amazing history (I'm talking pre-20th century), one that is so rich and interesting, yet so few people have ever heard it in the first place, let alone had the chance to have forgotten it.

I think someone needs to put pressure on the developer and say, "Okay, if you want to build over these military ruins, we want you to commit money (even as little as $500,000) to a fund for restoring Partridge Island." I think it would be in the best interest of everyone, including the developer, as it would draw positive PR (and detract some backlash from the neighbours who might oppose the buildings), and increase their resale value (improved views, tourist opportunities, walking trails for residents, etc.).

[random11]

Originally Posted by SJTOKO

I think the Casino would look better on Long Wharf. I'm so frustrated with the port, THEY DON'T NEED long wharf why are they making so many excuses. Take the Lantic site, build it up, improve it, tear down that other ugly shed and use the land. Continue to improve your facilities on the west side... Have you ever taken a drive around there.. They have lots of land with lots of potential,, i'll say it again.. there is NO WAY they need Long Wharf .. Hotels restaurants a Casino and a second privatlely funded Cruise Terminal a Marina... offices which would add to the city's density.. there needs to be separation between the port and the Uptown area....

I agree with you that the port can do without Long Wharf (and we can do without that huge pile of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 sitting there currently - what an eyesore) however, my observation is aimed at both waterfront sites. How long have these been sitting empty? Any city in it's right mind would have capitalized on these prime locations by now. It scares me that we have such a lack of vision. We can build restaurants, book stores and coffee shops but when it comes to our waterfront and it's untapped potential we are stunned. Honestly, think about it: Do you know of any major city that would be waiting this long? How long would land and potential such as we have be sitting in Halifax, Montreal, Portland, Boston? I know we are not Montreal or Boston but I think anybody can see the point.

[PersonPlaceorThing]

Originally Posted by random11

I agree with you that the port can do without Long Wharf (and we can do without that huge pile of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 sitting there currently - what an eyesore) however, my observation is aimed at both waterfront sites. How long have these been sitting empty? Any city in it's right mind would have capitalized on these prime locations by now. It scares me that we have such a lack of vision. We can build restaurants, book stores and coffee shops but when it comes to our waterfront and it's untapped potential we are stunned. Honestly, think about it: Do you know of any major city that would be waiting this long? How long would land and potential such as we have be sitting in Halifax, Montreal, Portland, Boston? I know we are not Montreal or Boston but I think anybody can see the point.

Long Wharf, for the first time in years, is being used. Bulk cargo and cruise docking might not require buildings, but the site is hardly empty.

[Coyett]

Originally Posted by kwajo

I don't know about that - If you bring back the names Lower Cove and Upper Cove, those are extremely loaded terms about class identity and a lot of other things, and I think they would be best left out (although I do often use the terms in real life settings myself, like if someone says something dumb, I call them 'Lower Cover').

Perhaps you're reading too much into this. In Saint John the distinction between the Lower Cove and Upper Cove had nothing to do with wealth or class. The names simply reflect their postion in regard to the mouth of the harbor. If you really want to examine class identity in a modern context, you might consider the neighborhood identity of the residents of York Point and Roberton's Wharf - Uptown or South End?

[Ronald Jack]

Originally Posted by taiwan ren

To my mind, the developers would have a lot more success marketing the property using the original name - Bruyères Head.

It does no good to split hairs, I know. We are speaking of development and tourism, and not cartographic history. But as a "Taiwan ren" you will appreciate more than most the hazards of choosing one man's map over another. More to the point, the Taiwan capital, TAIPEI, was for fifty years known as TAIHOKU, but today's residents would justly resist any attempt to revert to that old name, merely to entice modern Japanese tourists.

Many old local maps do not bother to even name the point, and there was also another "🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Point" down the shore at Pisarinco. 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Point Battery was constructed in 1863-64 during the U.S. Civil War era (a war in which many Saint John area men fought) to defend the city against the Americans. It was perceived at the time that the massive standing Union army might be employed in attacking British colonies on America's northeast border. The layers of irony here would not be lost on the well-educated and comfortable American Blacks, who form a successful Middle Class and as such are prime customers for cruising and other waistrel modern pursuits. Peering down from say, Martello Tower, they would "get it" if developers and tour guides resurrected the history. But of course this won't happen. Condo development and marketing involves convincing the buyer they will profit on the resale, (I've sold my share) not on preaching history to them.

By the way, the so called "Partridge Island Breakwater" is actually the 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Point Breakwater. Here is a photo of the 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Point Light House in 1895 from the NBM Collection. The lighthouse sat on the breakwater.


Cheers! Ron Jack in B.C.

[Coyett]

Originally Posted by Ronald Jack

It does no good to split hairs, I know. We are speaking of development and tourism, and not cartographic history. But as a "Taiwan ren" you will appreciate more than most the hazards of choosing one man's map over another. More to the point, the Taiwan capital, TAIPEI, was for fifty years known as TAIHOKU, but today's residents would justly resist any attempt to revert to that old name, merely to entice modern Japanese tourists.

Ron, come on, that's a rather poor comparison. If we were going to revert to old names then neither Taipei nor Taihoku would be used. The historic name of the settlement is actually Mankah.

What's wrong with acknowledging the original French name given to the Point? Isn't the name St. Jean (Saint John) also from this period?

[Helladog]

I think someone needs to put pressure on the developer and say, "Okay, if you want to build over these military ruins, we want you to commit money (even as little as $500,000) to a fund for restoring Partridge Island."

Or get Northrup to put another $100 000 set of lights there to attract attention in that direction...

[Ronald Jack]

Originally Posted by taiwan ren

Ron, come on, that's a rather poor comparison. If we were going to revert to old names then neither Taipei nor Taihoku would be used. The historic name of the settlement is actually Mankah.

Well as I implied, splitting hairs on cartographic issues is a game for map collectors... which it seems we both are.
By the way, I lived two years in Wanhua, the current name
for old "Mankah" or "Banka" on the Tamsui River. But there I go again...

[/QUOTE] What's wrong with acknowledging the original French name given to the Point? Isn't the name St. Jean (Saint John) also from this period?[/QUOTE]

There is nothing wrong in giving a tip of the hat to ANY old topographic name. If the intent were for ethno-cultural political reasons or carelessly handled, in a proud city like Saint John, there might be some local opposition. If it's done by the marketing team of a condominium project, and assuming the development becomes wildly popular landmark, the new moniker might even be adopted as a place name by the city. Who knows?
I was just making a case for "🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Point", which is a name that does not offend me in any way. I was mildly suggesting that the name "🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Point" might resonate with some of the American tour passengers, they whom the planners in Saint John seem to covet.
In my ignorance perhaps, I thought the name "Bruyeres Head" must be a reference to a British artillery officer, and not an echo of the earlier French colonial period. I will have to look it up, verify, and get back to you. I ban't remember everything, alas.

Ron Jack in B.C.

[Seely32]

Originally Posted by random11

I agree with you that the port can do without Long Wharf (and we can do without that huge pile of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 sitting there currently - what an eyesore) however, my observation is aimed at both waterfront sites. How long have these been sitting empty? Any city in it's right mind would have capitalized on these prime locations by now. It scares me that we have such a lack of vision. We can build restaurants, book stores and coffee shops but when it comes to our waterfront and it's untapped potential we are stunned. Honestly, think about it: Do you know of any major city that would be waiting this long? How long would land and potential such as we have be sitting in Halifax, Montreal, Portland, Boston? I know we are not Montreal or Boston but I think anybody can see the point.

Its funny you should mention this philly's waterfront has been an ogoing debate for centuries. They just cant get a good enough plan together to utilize it. Waterfront's are touchy areas they are worth so much that people become too picky which is good but can also leave the land vacant for many years and thats what we see now. The only reason we are getting the welcome center is because of the money it helps bring and thats it, they didnt deliberate too long there because it increases our image and deepens our pockets. Hardman group is good but I wish more developers would throw proposals at the city.