The Official Saint John, NB Project Thread

[Joe]

From an article in the Telegraph Journal.

"Teams in the PBL play 20 games a season with 10 of those games at home. The season begins in January and concludes with the playoffs in April. Season tickets are expected to be about $120 and game tickets would be $9-$14."

[nwalbert]

Originally Posted by Joe

From an article in the Telegraph Journal.

"Teams in the PBL play 20 games a season with 10 of those games at home. The season begins in January and concludes with the playoffs in April. Season tickets are expected to be about $120 and game tickets would be $9-$14."

That is pretty reasonable. I don't see them having too hard of a time selling a few thousand seats per game. Looking forward to it.

[kwajo]

Originally Posted by nwalbert

That is pretty reasonable. I don't see them having too hard of a time selling a few thousand seats per game. Looking forward to it.

Ditto, I'm thinking of picking up season tickets too

[JHikka]

Basketball's not my thing, but i'll try to make it out for a game or two.

[nwalbert]

Has anyone seen the new $1 million video screen on the center ice scoreboard yet? It will be great for the basketball games.

[Joe]

Here's a link to some pictures of the video screen.


http://qmjhleast.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=sj&action=display&thread=11681

[JHikka]

Construction on both the Stadium & Allied Health Building


A (relatively poor) photograph of the Hospital Expansion


Front of the Allied Health Building


Rear of the Allied Health Building


All photos by myself. Link to my Flickr is in my signature.

I'll get out there again soon at some point to get better pictures of the Hospital expansion, as well as the new Dal Med Building, new Commons building, parking lot expansion behind the residences, and the new subdivision in that area.

[Southpaw78]

Would it be possible to get some updated pics of the Harbourfront Condos?

[DoyleSJ]

Rumor has it there is a new Italian resturant opening at the old Peppers location, beside Happinez. Also a new sports bar rumored to be called "Scores" at the old Sebastian's location, Ive heard this is being funded by the Grannan's group so i'm looking forward to it. Also Ive heard the old Melvin's is being turned into a Martini bar and has been going under considerable renovations as well.

Princess Street is turning into a focal point for a new resturant district, complimented with the opening of the new Bourbon Quarter on the corner of Prince William/Princess.

Now if only council had installed granite curbs...

[nwalbert]

I had also heard a rumor of Scores and the new Grannan's restaurant. Agreed, that portion of uptown is really becoming a nice area for restaurants. It would be great to see some sort of pedestrian only street setup where street vendors could setup and keep people in the area.

[mylesmalley]

Quite a ruckus over the highway widening...

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by mylesmalley

Quite a ruckus over the highway widening...

Yeah...

... if the only convenience of adding the extra lane is to get people in and out of the city faster, then there is no benefit but create more urban spawl.
-Mayor Ivan Court

Correct. If the people using the highway in the morning and afternoon had stayed in the city rather than moving to the suburbs, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

it's one of the most travelled highways in the province. ... the traffic counts show it is warranted to be upgraded to the first six-lane highway in the province.Graham says the government's upgrade will allow goods to flow safely in and out of Saint John.
-Premier Shawn Graham

Also correct, kind of. As far as I know, goods flow in and out of the city safely regardless of whether there are four or six lanes. As someone has previously mentioned on this forum (perhaps in the highway thread?), six lanes over four lanes encourages people to drive faster rather than slower and more effectively.

My point-of-view is obviously bias on the matter, but I guess it would be kind of neat to have the highway expanded. Would I absolutely dislike it if that were to be the case? Absolutely not.

My only problem with it is what the mayor has brought up, essentially saying that it's getting people into (and more importantly) out of the city faster. I can just imagine how bad the Millennium Drive exit and on-ramp is going to be when there are three lanes converging instead of two. People drive crazily enough as it is trying to get to and from home, I can't imagine how an extra lane on each side is going to remedy that.

If you drive on this highway before 7AM, between 10AM and 3PM, and after 6PM, it's absolutely empty, and will just look emptier with added lanes.

[dhottawa729]

Originally Posted by mylesmalley

Quite a ruckus over the highway widening...

I am SO against the highway widening that it enrages me every time I think of it. Spend the money on improving public transit and on/off ramp reconfigurations. Adding lanes is a short-term fix and creates a latent demand (i.e. if you built it, they will come). This will certainly not improve safety. It will result in:
- people driving faster
- increased traffic
- side swipes when people merge from the outside lanes to the middle lane at the same time. (This happens all the time in Ottawa!)
- increasing weaving as you go from a 3-lane road to a single-lane off-ramp.

A third lane does NOT make the highway safer, it simply provides more capacity in the short-term and allows vehicles to flow at a higher speed (provided there are no bottle necks - and in this case, the bottle neck will be even worse).

[kwajo]

Originally Posted by dhottawa729

I am SO against the highway widening that it enrages me every time I think of it. Spend the money on improving public transit and on/off ramp reconfigurations. Adding lanes is a short-term fix and creates a latent demand (i.e. if you built it, they will come). This will certainly not improve safety. It will result in:
- people driving faster
- increased traffic
- side swipes when people merge from the outside lanes to the middle lane at the same time. (This happens all the time in Ottawa!)
- increasing weaving as you go from a 3-lane road to a single-lane off-ramp.

A third lane does NOT make the highway safer, it simply provides more capacity in the short-term and allows vehicles to flow at a higher speed (provided there are no bottle necks - and in this case, the bottle neck will be even worse).

I agree entirely, I've been vehemently against the idea since the beginning, it just makes no sense in a city this size in this day in age. The same investment (anywhere from 30-60 million are the numbers I've heard discussed) could go a long way toward reaching pretty much every active transportation goal the city has ever dreamt of, or simply gone toward increasing bus routes for commuters. At the very least the extra lanes should be reserved for multi-passenger vehicles (carpool/bus lane), but there is no way that DOT will ever do that.

[thefishingnut]

I don't support the full expansion, although I do think there are a few ramps which could use some attention for safety and flow purposes. However, there isn't nearly the traffic volume to require the 3 lanes IMO.

Everyone has to admit though, the article is pretty funny. A year after it was announced and construction deals have been signed, they're voicing and organizing their opposition. Although I suppose since they've pretty much run out of other developments to obstruct, it's time for them to gather together to try and stop this one. It's a real shame that they couldn't realize that if they spent their efforts to lobby for a fast completion of the Coast Guard site, to put in place incentives for high density housing downtown or to revitalize/replace run down housing stock, that their objective of keeping people in the city could at least partly come to fruition.

Irrespective of what road system is in place though, the 30,000 or so residents of KV, GBW and other outlying areas are very unlikely to have resided in the city in other than just a minor manner. It's a much different lifestyle and people are looking for different things in their housing situation, in the same way that around major cities people choose to live far outside the city core. The context that a road expansion should be prevented so that a family that would purchase a $300,000 home in Rothesay would be discouraged enough by traffic to stay in the city and live in an 800 sq' 60 year old frame house or a condo is ridiculous. There isn't enough suitable housing stock in the city for even a portion of the suburb residents. Condos fill a small niche, but again many people would never choose to live in a high density unit rather than their own property. It`s appropriate to develop high quality high density areas for people who will choose to live in high density areas, and acknowledge that there is a group of people who will choose not to live in them no matter what. And given mobility for most of us, forget about the context that if suburb housing is obstructed that we`ll move into high density housing in the city. We`ll just move away.

[kwajo]

Originally Posted by thefishingnut

I don't support the full expansion, although I do think there are a few ramps which could use some attention for safety and flow purposes. However, there isn't nearly the traffic volume to require the 3 lanes IMO.

Everyone has to admit though, the article is pretty funny. A year after it was announced and construction deals have been signed, they're voicing and organizing their opposition. Although I suppose since they've pretty much run out of other developments to obstruct, it's time for them to gather together to try and stop this one. It's a real shame that they couldn't realize that if they spent their efforts to lobby for a fast completion of the Coast Guard site, to put in place incentives for high density housing downtown or to revitalize/replace run down housing stock, that their objective of keeping people in the city could at least partly come to fruition.

Irrespective of what road system is in place though, the 30,000 or so residents of KV, GBW and other outlying areas are very unlikely to have resided in the city in other than just a minor manner. It's a much different lifestyle and people are looking for different things in their housing situation, in the same way that around major cities people choose to live far outside the city core. The context that a road expansion should be prevented so that a family that would purchase a $300,000 home in Rothesay would be discouraged enough by traffic to stay in the city and live in an 800 sq' 60 year old frame house or a condo is ridiculous. There isn't enough suitable housing stock in the city for even a portion of the suburb residents. Condos fill a small niche, but again many people would never choose to live in a high density unit rather than their own property. It`s appropriate to develop high quality high density areas for people who will choose to live in high density areas, and acknowledge that there is a group of people who will choose not to live in them no matter what. And given mobility for most of us, forget about the context that if suburb housing is obstructed that we`ll move into high density housing in the city. We`ll just move away.

I'm afraid I do not agree. There was, and is, more than enough space within the city boundaries to develop suburban areas accommodating of 30,000+ residents, all of which would be closer to the city core and less draining on resources - both financial and natural. KV developed the way it did for a variety of reasons, ranging from lower tax rates to the building of KVHS in the late 70s, but it still never been treated as it should be, as a part of the city. Building the kind of density that exists in KV, without also building the necessary services to support such a population (ie. transit, water service, sewerage, etc.), is a disaster waiting to happen. The sooner the area wakes up and realizes that they aren't rural communities, the better. And whether or not people moved out of the city because of it's council or management is irrelevant too, because the argument about the highway is [or should be] about best practices, not a KV versus SJ feud.

Also, yes condos are a niche in this region, but globally, or even on a national level, they are very much a key part of the real estate market.

[thefishingnut]

Originally Posted by kwajo

I'm afraid I do not agree. There was, and is, more than enough space within the city boundaries to develop suburban areas accommodating of 30,000+ residents, all of which would be closer to the city core and less draining on resources - both financial and natural. KV developed the way it did for a variety of reasons, ranging from lower tax rates to the building of KVHS in the late 70s, but it still never been treated as it should be, as a part of the city. Building the kind of density that exists in KV, without also building the necessary services to support such a population (ie. transit, water service, sewerage, etc.), is a disaster waiting to happen. The sooner the area wakes up and realizes that they aren't rural communities, the better. And whether or not people moved out of the city because of it's council or management is irrelevant too, because the argument about the highway is [or should be] about best practices, not a KV versus SJ feud.

Also, yes condos are a niche in this region, but globally, or even on a national level, they are very much a key part of the real estate market.

Well, that`s somewhere around 10,000 houses, it would be an interesting exercise to overlay that much development on the city map and see what results.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by kwajo

...And whether or not people moved out of the city because of it's council or management is irrelevant...

This is very true.

What's been said in this thread is all essentially true, in regards to funneling people in and out of the city on automobiles rather than some sort of public transportation or by any other means.

[Helladog]

If you drive on this highway before 7AM, between 10AM and 3PM, and after 6PM, it's absolutely empty, and will just look emptier with added lanes.

I drive this stretch different times, and it's never empty.

[MonctonRad]

1,000 posts Helladog!!



re: the highway debate..........

I agree, for the most part the MacKay Highway does not need to be six lanes. The 102 out of Halifax is only three lanes outbound and two lanes inbound!

Perhaps it could be widened to six lanes near the Rothesay Avenue interchange. Otherwise, it's probably OK.

I also agree that many of the exits off the thru-way shpuld be completely redesigned. Even somebody such as myself who is moderately familiar with SJ will frequently get lost and/or turned around. The interchanges just do not make any sense. This is where the infrastructure money should be spent!! If you make it easier to get on and off the highway, this in itself might help with congestion.