[St. John's] The Official Project Thread - Page 257

SignalHillHiker · #**5121** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 1:57 PM**

It's downtown St. John's, not Trepassey. You shouldn't have the expectation that no one ever be able to see into your yard.

kwajo · #**5122** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 2:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

It's downtown St. John's, not Trepassey. You shouldn't have the expectation that no one ever be able to see into your yard.

Having lived a block away from there, if I were her I'd be more concerned about privacy issues from random strangers walking into your yard than the prying eyes of the people that can afford a brand new condo downtown.

The buildings proposed are hardly that large, and are a huge improvement over what is there now (although I have some issues with a few of the design elements in the renderings, nothings perfect I guess).

jeddy1989 · #**5123** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 2:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

It's downtown St. John's, not Trepassey. You shouldn't have the expectation that no one ever be able to see into your yard.

also these people are not NIMBYs I remember following the story, they just had concerns and were actually in conversation working with the developer. because if you go to the site it is very very close to their back yards, I think they just wanted to see that the design didn't have someones livingroom window looking into their bathroom or something hahaha that's all I got from it and I remember in a TV interveiw with one of the residents they said that they are definitely NOT against it they just had a concern

well when I reread that article I think she was the NIMBY hahaha but the other fella who I remember hearing about wasn't against it

Edit: it was too long ago I cant friggin remember hahahah

statbass · #**5124** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 2:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwajo

Having lived a block away from there, if I were her I'd be more concerned about privacy issues from random strangers walking into your yard than the prying eyes of the people that can afford a brand new condo downtown.

The buildings proposed are hardly that large, and are a huge improvement over what is there now (although I have some issues with a few of the design elements in the renderings, nothings perfect I guess).

My thoughts exactly, but this is the type of 'Nimbyism' mentality that goes on here and really puts a damper on development.

As for Jeddy's comment above, I agree the lady is a pure example of NIMBY while the guy raised as legitimate concern.

jeddy1989 · #**5125** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 2:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by statbass

My thoughts exactly, but this is the type of 'Nimbyism' mentality that goes on here and really puts a damper on development.

Agreed, however it has backed off concideribly in the last say year or so. after they started abiding by east/ west DT people started to sit back.. just look at developments and the crazy NIMBYism from say 2009 era

and yes this type is the type where you think .. why don't they move to Clarenville or something .. oh wait! they want it ALL .. veiw, no houses around them, every service around them and live in the downtown of a capital city ... doesn't work .

edit: all that AND for IT to be affordable housing ..

christopher_chafe · #**5126** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 3:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeddy1989

Agreed, however it has backed off concideribly in the last say year or so. after they started abiding by east/ west DT people started to sit back.. just look at developments and the crazy NIMBYism from say 2009 era

and yes this type is the type where you think .. why don't they move to Clarenville or something .. oh wait! they want it ALL .. veiw, no houses around them, every service around them and live in the downtown of a capital city ... doesn't work .

edit: all that AND for IT to be affordable housing ..

Exactly.........plus they also want the cliquish title of being a "dowtown resident".

One would think that a resident would rather see those designs go there versus the ugly buildings that are already on those parcels of land.

christopher_chafe · #**5127** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 3:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Haven't heard a word. What buildings, exactly, will it replace? Looks like Red Ochre Gallery remains, so I assume it would involve only destroying these:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Duckworth...Jy4XsazcgkqahJsAA&cbp=12,263.91,,0,-1.25

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Duckworth...Jy4XsazcgkqahJsAA&cbp=12,130.74,,0,-4.78

Is that correct? If so, bring it on. Great improvement. And it'll go well with the apartments and condos stretching on toward Temperance Street. It'll also increase the density of the downtown East End, which will frame our old town better.

Exactly SignalHill........ the tiny old buildings should be in the center of DT and have the east end and west end build new taller more denser buildings which would enhance our bland skyline for DT.

jeddy1989 · #**5128** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 3:12 PM**

I have to be honest, these buildings DO fit in for a heritage area, they are designed to inhance the historic sector and be fit in as infill which IMO is in a heritage style

I wouldn't want highrises in that area, the ugly "modern" ones they put up are enough lol keep the highrises to the West end DT. These are perfect for the setting

definitely helps continue the european style feeling in that end of DT.

on a side note... I'm sad that the old Newfoundland Hotel was torn down

they should have built on/ up or around or something

SignalHillHiker · #**5129** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 3:13 PM**

Yeah, it was one of our nicer old buildings, like the Supreme Court. It would have been nice to keep the fascade, and have a MIX-style addition of a taller, glass tower.

jeddy1989 · #**5130** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 3:18 PM**

I think they could have just added a wing in the same old style added to the south and then an addition on the back

sad pic:

OMG I have never seen these pics till now, I did not know that the two hotels stood at the same time:

pics actually came from a post that Architype did
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=182762&page=2

and the extension could have had details added to it to enhance the building

SignalHillHiker · #**5131** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 3:20 PM**

Wow, I didn't know that either!

christopher_chafe · #**5132** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 3:52 PM**

This will go against everything I stand for , BUT..........why the hell did they get rid of the old building. It was much more regal and elegant versus the current one. Could have been marketed as a luxury high end hotel if they did it right.

jeddy1989 · #**5133** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 4:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by christopher_chafe

This will go against everything I stand for , BUT..........why the hell did they get rid of the old building. It was much more regal and elegant versus the current one. Could have been marketed as a luxury high end hotel if they did it right.

did I just read that right!? lol

btw if you hate heritage so much why dont you just move to Calgary or something (not in an offensive way but a genuine question)

I myself am ALL for development and big city urbaness but you ate like the polar opposite of a NIMBY lol

Edit:
I found the perfect city for you!! Astana, Kazakstan

It was only built in 1998 designed exactly to be a modern capital and now has over 700,000 ppl

All jokes aside it's a pretty cool looking city

SignalHillHiker · #**5134** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 4:25 PM**

That square is the perfect backdrop for sci fi costume pics.

christopher_chafe · #**5135** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 4:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeddy1989

did I just read that right!? lol

btw if you hate heritage so much why dont you just move to Calgary or something (not in an offensive way but a genuine question)

I myself am ALL for development and big city urbaness but you ate like the polar opposite of a NIMBY lol

Edit:
I found the perfect city for you!! Astana, Kazakstan

It was only built in 1998 designed exatly to be a modern capital and now has over 700,000 ppl

All jokes aside it's a pretty cool looking city

Jeddy, I don't hate Heritage, I just hate when people use "heritage" as a means to deter development. Funny you should mention Calgary.......... I am actually moving to Edmonton come January to work in my field.

SignalHillHiker · #**5136** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 4:41 PM**

Just be careful where you end up, Christopher. This was my view when I lived on the prairies:

http://imgur.com/a/5rXQC

How could you not get depressed?

Arrakis · #**5137** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 4:43 PM**

I would say the owners probably wanted a more modern hotel and it was probably too costly for them to renovate the old hotel to today's safety standards, plus they also needed convention space too which the old hotel lacked. Be interesting to know today if the hotel would be allowed to be torn down. I am sure it would fall into the heritage area rules. I do miss the old hotel though too. It had a grand scale and still is a nicer looking building than the new hotel (Sheraton) that replaced it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by christopher_chafe

This will go against everything I stand for , BUT..........why the hell did they get rid of the old building. It was much more regal and elegant versus the current one. Could have been marketed as a luxury high end hotel if they did it right.

christopher_chafe · #**5138** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 4:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Just be careful where you end up, Christopher. This was my view when I lived on the prairies:

http://imgur.com/a/5rXQC

How could you not get depressed?

See that's why I hate living in St. John's so much SignalHill. I am a city boy true to the form. I detest looking at pictures of water or trees on a hill top.

jeddy1989 · #**5139** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 4:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by christopher_chafe

See that's why I hate living in St. John's so much SignalHill. I am a city boy true to the form. I detest looking at pictures of water or trees on a hill top.

I wish you luck and happiness then

I've lived in big cities.. bigger ones than even Toronto and I must say every place has its pros and cons... and if you are not willing to enjoy a place for what it is than you will never be happy anywhere but some image in your head. someday you may realize that but maybe you wont and you will be perfectly happy there .. and if that's the case then thats good for you, however if you try to see and enjoy the uniqueness of every city and I am quite happy

(O am also someone who is a city guy but this city isn't near as bad as you think it is lol)

christopher_chafe · #**5140** Posted **Nov 6, 2012, 4:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeddy1989

I wish you luck and happiness then

Thank you Jeddy.......I've lived there before and I can honestly say I absolutely loved living in Edmonton. Their transit system is light years ahead of ours, plus there is a 1000 more things to do in their downtown versus just going to George Street or going to one of the Coffee Bistro's here just to be seen sipping on an over priced lattee.