[St. John's] The Official Project Thread

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by Architype

I think the Bell Street site would be the best because of its close location to the existing courthouse and many legal offices, and because it doesn't require any significant demolition, but either the Grace or Horwood sites would probably be more practical in terms of space. There is no mention of how much space they need, so it's hard to evaluate this. I think the established downtown area is better suited to a courthouse than the Grace site, which is ideally suited to residential and commercial development, and as for Water St or the old museum site, they would (IMO) require unnecessary demolition of heritage buildings. The site near the Rooms would be difficult to design, especially being so close to the Rooms, but is a prominent location. Hopefuly the design fo any of these sites would be well thought out, and would include indoor parking.

^ Whether people like it or not, I do now, the design of The Rooms was well thought out so I'm sure this will be as well. I think it will be very interesting, I wish we new when they plan to have this done though.

[Architype]

One thing to consider is - Height limits were never intended to apply to public buildings like churches, courthouses, city halls etc. That argument has always been used by the heritage conservation movement; the preference is for public and institutional buildings to stand out (as they did traditionally), as opposed to offices or apartment buildings.

[PoscStudent]

^ Besides probably the Water Street location and maybe the old museum site there's no need for height restrictions on the other sites.

[Architype]

I don't even think height limits should apply to public building anywhere, it's always been that way traditionally everywhere, including St. John's. If they want to build their "Sydney Opera House" on the waterfront they should be allowed to do it as long as it's a public bulilding.

[PoscStudent]

^ I don't think there is either but the province may try and respect regulations to an extent if they were to build on Water Street.

It would be nice to have an actual nice building on the waterfront though. The land where the Water/Presecott Street hotel is suppose to be going would have been a great spot.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

^ I don't think there is either but the province may try and respect regulations to an extent if they were to build on Water Street.

It would be nice to have an actual nice building on the waterfront though. The land where the Water/Presecott Street hotel is suppose to be going would have been a great spot.

I agree, that would ba the most ideal spot but I guess it's not in the running since it's already aproved for the hotel development.

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by Architype

I agree, that would ba the most ideal spot but I guess it's not in the running since it's already aproved for the hotel development.

That may never happen, I'd like the courts to go there it's a perfect spot for our "Sydney Opera House". The hotel that is going there isn't really that great.

[ConundrumNL]

I've been told by a few people who work on Water Street that crews have began preparing the old Fabulous Fifties Nightclub (corner of Bishops Cove, and Water across from Templetons) for demolition. Can't find any details on what's going to replace it, does anyone here know?

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by ConundrumNL

I've been told by a few people who work on Water Street that crews have began preparing the old Fabulous Fifties Nightclub (corner of Bishops Cove, and Water across from Templetons) for demolition. Can't find any details on what's going to replace it, does anyone here know?

On one of the publications on the city's website it shows a map of downtown and some of the developments that are expected to happen over the next few years and I think Fabulous 50's was one of them, I believe a hotel was suppose to go there. I'll look and see if I can find it again.

[Horsell]

When I first read the options for a new court complex my initial preference was for the Baird property as an opportunity to expand from the existing Courthouse towards the harbour and as they said create a "Court Precinct". Unlike a private developer the Government might be more open to retaining the historic character and they wouldn't need to build high for economic reasons. My only concern with that site however might be the loss of a retail presence on Water St.
My second choice might be the Bell St. option partly due to the fact that the hotel proposal hasn't taken off and the site is in need of development. The Grace site might be better used in the future for something more residential such as a senior's complex...too far away from all the Law offices for a court complex.
One interesting part of the evaluation was the apparent emphasis on "views". It's nice to know someone cares about views

[Horsell]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

On one of the publications on the city's website it shows a map of downtown and some of the developments that are expected to happen over the next few years and I think Fabulous Fifties was one of them, I believe a hotel was suppose to go there. I'll look and see if I can find it again.

I can't confirm if a hotel is the intended use but the site was noted for development in the parking study that was done. I think it would be a great opportunity to some how take the Murry Premises parking lot and incorporate it into a two or possibe three story structre with retail / resturant or something on top, being very careful to blend it into the style of the Murray Premises. If only I had the spare cash...must check my lottery ticket

[PoscStudent]

^ While the government may try and keep the historic feel of a new building on the Baird site I doubt they would only build four stories. They want to fit as many offices in the one building as they can so there will be just as much economics in height for this development as it would be for any other development. As well when the rumours were going around about Fortis wanting to build a 15 story office tower on Water Street Danny Williams said he was all for it, so he may not care about respecting height restricitions.

As for the Fabulous 50's site, there probably won't be enough room in the area but I always thought that it would be great if St. John's had an all pedestrian street for retail shops or even for a farmers market kind of thing, like most other cities seem to have. It doesn't look like there is enough to get rid of Fabulous 50's and build a long building, the length of Bishop's Cove, and have a pedestrian street in between it and the Murray Premises though.

[PoscStudent]

Here's a picture I took of a rainbow the another night on my phone from Kelsey Drive, had I realized it would come out as clear I would have got out of the car and not gotten the guard rail in the shot.

[IMG][/IMG]

[PoscStudent]

St. John's is the only Atlantic Canadian city to make it on the new Monolpoly board!

•Dark Blue: Chatham-Kent, Ont., Saint-Jean-Sur-Richelieu, Que.
•Green: Calgary, Sarnia, Ont., Edmonton.
•Yellow: Windsor, Ont., Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Que.
•Red: Medicine Hat, Alta., Gatineau, Que., Shawinigan, Que.
•Orange: Kawartha Lakes, Ont., Chilliwack, B.C., Montreal.
•Magenta: Kelowna, B.C., North Bay, Ont., St. John's.
•Light Blue: Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver.
•Brown: Beauceville, Que., Banff, Alta.

I'll finally admit that I think I deserve abit of credit for this. Being as cool as I am I actually emailed CBC, VOCM and NTV when I noticed St. John's was in pretty much last place during the first week of voting and soon after they all had it in the news. St. John's went up to like third or fourth place for a while but after it stopped being in the news it dropped, Corner Brook nearly made it as one of the wildcard cities too.

[PoscStudent]

The changes to Harbourside Condominium were approved unanimously by council tonight!

[Marty_Mcfly]

^Amazing! I kind of wish I stuck around longer to see the whole thing tonight.

[Architype]

It's great to see that St. John's got on the Monopoly board, however it's funny how they placed them on the board, according to votes, and not the actual real estate values.

Re: Approval of the Temperance St project - I hope this gets built; even though it's still a bit awkward looking, it's much better than before. Even so, only about 25% of approved developments ever seem to get built, let alone the difficulty of being approved to begin with. St. John's must be worse in this respect than any other city in the world.

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by Architype

It's great to see that St. John's got on the Monopoly board, however it's funny how they placed them on the board, according to votes, and not the actual real estate values.

Re: Approval of the Temperance St project - I hope this gets built; even though it's still a bit awkward looking, it's much better than before. Even so, only about 25% of approved developments ever seem to get built, let alone the difficulty of being approved to begin with. St. John's must be worse in this respect than any other city in the world.

They've already started like foundational work on the site so it looks like it will be built. Plus they've being selling the condos for like a year.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

They've already started like foundational work on the site so it looks like it will be built. Plus they've being selling the condos for like a year.

Thanks I forgot that, so it will definitely be a go.

[PoscStudent]

Neighbours support development — with questions
Townhouses on site of Seventh Day Adventist School would raise property values: developer

Tuesday evening’s public meeting was a marked departure from the heated, acrimonious development meetings the City of St. John’s is more used to seeing.

The meeting to discuss adding 25 units on the former site of the Seventh Day Adventist School attracted about 30 residents from the neighbourhood, but their concerns were mostly minor — snow clearing, onstreet parking and green space.

It probably helped that one of the developers, Tony Lockyer, started his presentation by saying the development will likely add more than 10 per cent to the property values in the area.

Lockyer said the development company, Freshwater Development, worked hard to make sure the city and the neighbourhood would be onside with the proposal — going so far as to reduce the size of the development by 11 units before it went to a public meeting.

The property is officially listed as 154 Freshwater Rd., but if the development goes through it will be cut off from Freshwater Road.

The developer will instead connect two cul-de-sacs to the north — Suez and Suvla Streets — to create a U-shape.

Those two streets already have snowclearing issues, which the city says will be solved with the U-shape, because plows will no longer have to pile snow at the ends of the streets.

The most consistent concern among neighbourhood residents was the loss of open space — the site is currently a popular place for dog walkers.

“I still think there needs to be some sort of a playground there, to some degree, with the new development,” said resident John Rowe.

However, he said at night the area attracts vandals — the school burned down in 2008, and Rowe said other small fires had been set before that.
“I understand the need for it,” he said of the development. going to improve the values in the neighbourhood.”

Tuesday night’s meeting was only for re-zoning the property from institutional to residential high-density.

As such, the developers hadn’t done a review of the specific engineering, so issues of retaining walls and exact building locations could not be answered.

Another meeting will have to happen before the development can be approved.

But as it stands now, the project has the support of Ward 2 Coun. Frank Galgay, who said it looks like a “ very good development.”

Article from The Telegram

I'm glad that it doesn't seem like there will be any trouble for this project to get approved, it's definitly the kind of projects we need around the city and in particular this area. I think there could be more units in the development but that's it and another problem I have is that there needs to be a second meeting on this, I think it's a total waste and just red tape.