[St. John's] The Official Project Thread - Page 72

Architype · #**1421** Posted **May 25, 2010, 2:27 AM**

It also says "In Canada, official sites include Waterton Glacier International Peace Park, a UNESCO world heritage site spanning the Alberta-Montana border, and Montreal, the first city to sign the society's geotourism charter."

I don't expect Montreal would let their development be restricted.

Check out the Wikipedia article on this for more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotourism

HomeInMyShoes · #**1422** Posted **May 25, 2010, 8:50 AM**

^No, but development within the Old Port and some of the historic residential areas would probably be restricted. Although, that's the first I've heard of Montreal being on UNESCO's list. I know the historic center of Quebec City is on the list. Montreal signed the geotourism charter and is not an actual UNESCO site. It's not even on Canada's nomination list yet.

List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites

If St. John's were to sign this it would be the last nail council would need to bury all development within the heritage area. There is very little land outside of the heritage area that is central enough for larger development.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeotourismCharterTemplate

Land use: Anticipate development pressures and apply techniques to prevent undesired overdevelopment and degradation. Contain resort and vacation-home sprawl, especially on coasts and islands, so as to retain a diversity of natural and scenic environments and ensure continued resident access to waterfronts. Encourage major self-contained tourism attractions, such as large-scale theme parks and convention centers unrelated to character of place, to be sited in needier locations with no significant ecological, scenic, or cultural assets.

Geotourism Charter Template

The biggest issue I see for St. John's and NL in general with geotourism is that the tourist season for NL (outside of some skiing in Steady Brook) is about four months long. It's difficult to survive economically with that kind of income period. Although with snow conditions on the Avalon, it's hard to market the snow/rain mix for outdoor winter activities. Although staking their economic lives on temporary and fluctuating economic activities is a large part of NL heritage. I love this place, but it's hardly an economic boomtown for most residents.

PoscStudent · #**1423** Posted **May 25, 2010, 9:37 AM**

^ The tourism industry in St. John's is starting to drive me nuts, it's being used by nimby's as a way to stop developments, like Fortis, from happening. You would swear someone from Ontario is going to find out about a development happening downtown and cancel their trip to St. John's because of it. The industry really doesn't bring in enough money in a couple of months to justify saying sorry to new developments and to new industries.

PoscStudent · #**1424** Posted **May 26, 2010, 9:41 PM**

I cannot remember anyone bringing up this development by Leger Holdings Ltd.

Quote:

Leger Holdings Ltd. (Mr. Bill Clarke) has made application to the City to subdivide land located on the south side of Murphy’s Right-of-Way located off Signal Hill Road for the purpose of developing a nine (9) lot residential housing project consisting of single-detached houses. The applicant advises the houses are proposed to be two (2)-storey houses; the two (2)-storeys being on the lower side of the building lots, with the houses being one (1)-storey in height on the upper side of the building lots.

Continue Reading

Viewplane Analysis

A public meeting is being held tonight, I like the idea of a development here but I need to see better drawings.

Architype · #**1425** Posted **May 27, 2010, 4:19 AM**

^ That will be higher up than any existing residential development.

It will probably look like it belongs in Mt. Pearl (sorry to be negative), so that is one development maybe the Nimbys should oppose.

PoscStudent · #**1426** Posted **May 27, 2010, 5:16 PM**

Quote:

A developer who wants to build homes on the boundary of Signal Hill National Historic Site in St. John's faced opposition from many area residents at a public meeting to discuss the proposal Wednesday evening.

The developer wants to put up nine, two-storey, town houses on an area across from the Johnson GeoCentre.

Current city regulations would not allow the development and many people who attended the meeting want those rules enforced. "Of all the tourists that come into St. John's, over 98-percent of them go up to Signal Hill and I would say this is absolutely, totally, inappropriate," said one St. John's resident who spoke at the meeting.

Coninue Reading

I don't really care that this development isn't going ahead but I think something should be done on that vacant lot, whether it's a development or some kind of green space/park.

HomeInMyShoes · #**1427** Posted **May 27, 2010, 8:39 PM**

Agreed on the housing in that area being inappropriate. While I'd love to live steps from Signal Hill it is just wrong.

Green space, park, museum kind of thing would make sense. Townhomes do not make sense to me.

PoscStudent · #**1428** Posted **May 27, 2010, 9:12 PM**

If the city won't allow develpment there they should have to buy the land. The developer only bought the lot last year and now he could be out a ton of money if nothing is allowed to proceed.

It's a bit odd that the government is totally changing Signal Hill Road and nobody mentions it.

niccanning · #**1429** Posted **May 28, 2010, 3:28 AM**

I like the idea of developing here though I think detached housing is a poor idea. Would be nice to make better use of the space and have more and nicer looking row housing -squeeze more people in.

niccanning · #**1430** Posted **May 28, 2010, 3:31 AM**

Honestly though... people who purchase land in the downtown district need to get real. Any simple amount of research would tell you it's virtually impossible and a pain is the 🞵🞵🞵 to have any sort of development approved. As sad as that is!

PoscStudent · #**1431** Posted **May 28, 2010, 5:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by niccanning

Honestly though... people who purchase land in the downtown district need to get real. Any simple amount of research would tell you it's virtually impossible and a pain is the 🞵🞵🞵 to have any sort of development approved. As sad as that is!

It's different if a developer is just totally not following the guidlines, like the developer was in this case, but if council decides that this is to close to signal hill for any kind of development then they cannot expect the developer to be stuck with the land.

jeddy1989 · #**1432** Posted **May 28, 2010, 1:32 PM**

^ MY GOD council needs to get their arses in gear with the municipal plan or whoever is in charge of the regional one needs to get it DONE so the city can have a difined plan for god sakes, so developers will not have to shot in the dark and then there will be direction and designated places.... because the developers are just gonna get tierd of this situation and give up soon ... because they honestly have no idea how their development will be recieved (chances are it wont be good) ..... that being said , suburbia on signal hill is not really in my vision for the capital :S oh my ... this city needs direction

PoscStudent · #**1433** Posted **May 28, 2010, 2:22 PM**

^ I agree a plan needs to be put in place, even if it's just for the downtown area.

I don't really care either way if a development goes ahead on Signal Hill, but there are other houses built around where the new ones would be built so it's unfair for those home owners to say nothing should ever be built there. I think the developer should look at building brightly coloured Newfoundland two story homes like would have been built 100 years ago. If done correctly it could probably be a bit of a tourist attraction.

jeddy1989 · #**1434** Posted **May 28, 2010, 2:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

^ I agree a plan needs to be put in place, even if it's just for the downtown area.

I don't really care either way if a development goes ahead on Signal Hill, but there are other houses built around where the new ones would be built so it's unfair for those home owners to say nothing should ever be built there. I think the developer should look at building brightly coloured Newfoundland two story homes like would have been built 100 years ago. If done correctly it could probably be a bit of a tourist attraction.

I agree with that, i think that the regulations should have more of an emphasis on style rather then height and just plain no developement... if it isn't cheap looking siding and typical subdivision house ... like if the development was made so it when it's done it added to the area like it looks like it could have been there for 100 years ... there are really nice architecture they can pull from too... and bright colours .. it could fit nicely ... but i think they should be row houses like not single ones ... or more dense then that if they are gonna do it ... but a plan is DEFINATLY needed .. like yesterday lol

PoscStudent · #**1435** Posted **May 28, 2010, 2:50 PM**

I think making the houses look like they're straight out of rural Newfoundland could be interesting, though density is always good.

HomeInMyShoes · #**1436** Posted **May 28, 2010, 5:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeddy1989

^ MY GOD council needs to get their arses in gear with the municipal plan or whoever is in charge of the regional one needs to get it DONE so the city can have a difined plan for god sakes, so developers will not have to shot in the dark and then there will be direction and designated places.... because the developers are just gonna get tierd of this situation and give up soon ... because they honestly have no idea how their development will be recieved (chances are it wont be good) ..... that being said , suburbia on signal hill is not really in my vision for the capital :S oh my ... this city needs direction

Agreed one hundred times over.

Architype · #**1437** Posted **May 28, 2010, 9:05 PM**

Aside from the fact that they are detached houses, the designs don't look good (even considering the bad graphics), and is worsened by the fact that it would be a boring straight line of houses out of context. I don't thiink the height regulations should be a big problem; a one storey height limit is a bit unusual even in Nfld, and probably impossible with the sloped land, and most of the existing houses across the street are traditional two storey wth the "8" storey hotel and the "tall" Geocentre nearby. A location like this needs much more thought put into making what loosely passes for "architecture" and site planning better and context sensitive.

nl_eng · #**1438** Posted **May 28, 2010, 9:07 PM**

Anyone else just catch the Here & Now interview with the developer in which he indicated that the renderings City released were completely incorrect (an admission the City apparently made at the public meeting)? I doubt it will make a difference in the application, but still, the City should not be dropping the ball on things like this ... maybe they didn't bother fixing it as the staff know that it is an impossible application to get approved because of the NIMBYs?

Architype · #**1439** Posted **May 28, 2010, 9:15 PM**

^ One thing is they need to do a better job at the renderings and graphics before presenting it to the public. A bad version of Google earth is not appropriate, but that doesn't mean the final product will look any better - look at the Battery townhouses.

PoscStudent · #**1440** Posted **May 29, 2010, 1:22 AM**

The city tried to buy this land "based on market prices" but the owner rejected their offer, even though the land has been for sale.

CBC Article