[St. John's] The Official Project Thread - Page 264

christopher_chafe · #**5261** Posted **Nov 8, 2012, 7:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Townie709

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I can't seem to find any of the councilors e-mail addresses on the new website.. Can somebody point me in the right direction

just sent you a private message

Townie709 · #**5262** Posted **Nov 8, 2012, 7:47 PM**

Thanks! I'll be sure to fire off a few e-mails!

statbass · #**5263** Posted **Nov 8, 2012, 7:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by christopher_chafe

Just got a response from Galgay and O'Leary on a revised letter about the Marriott and other issues. My gut tells me that Galgay's response that I got was a standard response he sends out to all emails.

I got that impression as well, but look at the bright side, communicating your point across is much better than doing nothing at all. At least council has documented proof that support for this development exists.

SignalHillHiker · #**5264** Posted **Nov 8, 2012, 8:02 PM**

I wouldn't even be offended if there is a generic response (mine was, literally, just a thank you). I just appreciate that they acknowledge they received the letter. That's all I can ask.

statbass · #**5265** Posted **Nov 8, 2012, 8:16 PM**

As an added point, I think headlines in the media are blowing this out of proportion. There were 6 residents at the public meeting last night who were in opposition. The other 50-60 or so who live in the nearby vicinity did not attend, and I think we can safely assume it's because they have little to no concerns with the development. If you read this storey's comments posted on CBC you'll quickly see that the vast majority are in support of the project. This is a common problem in many cities, you'll always have a minority who will oppose developments, and they are usually the ones who show up to public meetings. I guess they feel they're the ones who have the most to gain or loose.

J_Murphy · #**5266** Posted **Nov 8, 2012, 8:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by statbass

As an added point, I think headlines in the media are blowing this out of proportion. There were 6 residents at the public meeting last night who were in opposition. The other 50-60 or so who live in the nearby vicinity did not attend, and I think we can safely assume it's because they have little to no concerns with the development. If you read this storey's comments posted on CBC you'll quickly see that the vast majority are in support of the project. This is a common problem in many cities, you'll always have a minority who will oppose developments, and they are usually the ones who show up to public meetings.

I noticed that too. It's a bit misleading when the headline reads "St. John's residents oppose....". It's funny that six people opposing something gets a news story on three of the major news outlets in the province. What about a story reading "99% of St. john's residents in favour of hotel development".

statbass · #**5267** Posted **Nov 8, 2012, 8:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_Murphy

I noticed that too. It's a bit misleading when the headline reads "St. John's residents oppose....". It's funny that six people opposing something gets a news story on three of the major news outlets in the province. What about a story reading "99% of St. john's residents in favour of hotel development".

Like the saying goes, "There's no good news like bad news". The media have a tendency to report the negative side of a story. It always seems to generate much more ratings. If you don't believe me check out CNN from time to time.

SignalHillHiker · #**5268** Posted **Nov 8, 2012, 8:37 PM**

Bahaha... excellent points.

To play devil's advocate (former journalist here):

Journalists are supposed to just cover the events, not get involved and certainly not influence them. So they're really limited to just covering the public hearing. If they go beyond the public hearing to try to find residents who are opposed and interview them, for this story about the public hearing, then that would be getting involved in an unfair way.

The best a journalist can do is a separate, man-on-the-street type story to try to show what the general public at large actually thinks - but this is the absolute laziest form of journalism and it's used very sparingly and, even then, generally only for a fluff things.

A larger media company, like CBC, could do a proper poll - but that is hugely expensive and such an expenditure would never be approved for every little development, especially when there's only 6 people, all opposed, showing up to the meetings.

The only way to solve this is to show up. If you're there, if you speak for the development, the stories will reflect that side of the equation too. But that's our responsibility.

statbass · #**5269** Posted **Nov 8, 2012, 8:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Bahaha... excellent points.

To play devil's advocate (former journalist here):

Journalists are supposed to just cover the events, not get involved and certainly not influence them. So they're really limited to just covering the public hearing. If they go beyond the public hearing to try to find residents who are opposed and interview them, for this story about the public hearing, then that would be getting involved in an unfair way.

The best a journalist can do is a separate, man-on-the-street type story to try to show what the general public at large actually thinks - but this is the absolute laziest form of journalism and it's used very sparingly and, even then, generally only for a fluff things.

A larger media company, like CBC, could do a proper poll - but that is hugely expensive and such an expenditure would never be approved for every little development, especially when there's only 6 people, all opposed, showing up to the meetings.

The only way to solve this is to show up. If you're there, if you speak for the development, the stories will reflect that side of the equation too. But that's our responsibility.

Your points are well taken. Technically speaking the headline of the CBC article is accurate, but it's also very ambiguous and can be misleading. I guess as a reader we should take on the responsibility to collect information from multiple sources before forming our opinion.

jeddy1989 · #**5270** Posted **Nov 8, 2012, 8:53 PM**

I just got a response from Ken O'Brien as well! they are circulating them!

it says

Quote:

thank you for your comments, which will be forwarded to Council

christopher_chafe · #**5271** Posted **Nov 8, 2012, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by statbass

I got that impression as well, but look at the bright side, communicating your point across is much better than doing nothing at all. At least council has documented proof that support for this development exists.

Don't get me wrong I am more than glad to get a generic confirmation. As you said they have documented proof that support for development exists

christopher_chafe · #**5272** Posted **Nov 8, 2012, 9:06 PM**

In all seriousness though fellow forumer's we should get a facebook group or page on the go. There needs to be a push by the majority of residents to say enough is enough.

SignalHillHiker · #**5273** Posted **Nov 8, 2012, 10:32 PM**

Councillor Breen emailed (I'm sure you've all gotten one as well). He supports the project. Excellent!

I'm curious to see who will support it and who won't. I won't begrudge anyone their personal choice. I'm sure we can all agree they're doing what they think is best for the city. It's just nice to know that they at least know there are some of us who support the development. Otherwise they might have thought they had 6 people opposed and 106,000 indifferent. Now they know some of us are supportive and excited and think it's going to be great!

SignalHillHiker · #**5274** Posted **Nov 8, 2012, 10:48 PM**

Can you just imagine how nice it will look with that empty parking lot developed?

I think that's been the only unintended and one of the very few negative consequences of heritage preservation. We've gradually accumulated too many empty lots that developers simply can't do much with, for profit, if all they're allowed to build are Victorian-era homes.

And my main concern with that is that these open spaces, these surface parking lots, greatly detract from the overall old town feeling of St. John's. They make certain parts of the city feel like a wide-open, frontier town out west.

Part of the charm of St. John's is the density, everything build on top of everything else. Projects like this Marriott expansion help to recreate that.

That said, we can never lose sight of the fact that what makes downtown St. John's special is the quantity of our heritage buildings, not the quality. There's nothing especially grand or impressive about what we have - it's just that we've keep so much of it, it creates a continuous whole. Our heritage buildings, NOT our modern ones, set the tone of the downtown. We feel like an old city peppered with modern buildings - not like a modern city peppered with old ones, which is the best many of our Canadian neighbours have managed to do.

We cannot lose that. It would be a crime against our city's past, present and future.

christopher_chafe · #**5275** Posted **Nov 8, 2012, 11:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Can you just imagine how nice it will look with that empty parking lot developed?

I think that's been the only unintended and one of the very few negative consequences of heritage preservation. We've gradually accumulated too many empty lots that developers simply can't do much with, for profit, if all they're allowed to build are Victorian-era homes.

And my main concern with that is that these open spaces, these surface parking lots, greatly detract from the overall old town feeling of St. John's. They make certain parts of the city feel like a wide-open, frontier town out west.

Part of the charm of St. John's is the density, everything build on top of everything else. Projects like this Marriott expansion help to recreate that.

That said, we can never lose sight of the fact that what makes downtown St. John's special is the quantity of our heritage buildings, not the quality. There's nothing especially grand or impressive about what we have - it's just that we've keep so much of it, it creates a continuous whole. Our heritage buildings, NOT our modern ones, set the tone of the downtown. We feel like an old city peppered with modern buildings - not like a modern city peppered with old ones, which is the best many of our Canadian neighbours have managed to do.

We cannot lose that. It would be a crime against our city's past, present and future.

That's where I respectfully disagree to a certain point with you Signal Hill. I would rather see a smaller area of well kept heritage properties than a larger area where you have some butt ugly derelict heritage properties (not talking about business(s) but residential properties).

J_Murphy · #**5276** Posted **Nov 9, 2012, 12:59 AM**

http://www.thetelegram.com/media/photos/unis/2012/11/08/photo_2211593_resize.jpg

Has anyone else noticed the photograph in the telegram story? The design looks different than before.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundla...dway-duckworth-marriott-changed-719.html

Not sure if the one on the telegram site is new or an older, outdated version or not...

Townie709 · #**5277** Posted **Nov 9, 2012, 1:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by christopher_chafe

That's where I respectfully disagree to a certain point with you Signal Hill. I would rather see a smaller area of well kept heritage properties than a larger area where you have some butt ugly derelict heritage properties (not talking about business(s) but residential properties).

Like it or not, heritage will always make up a large part of our downtown. It's our heritage that attracts the tourists, not our tall buildings. There are hundreds and hundreds of big city immitators throughout North America; Cities similar to our size that have done away with much of their heritage to put a modern downtown. Do they draw many tourists or seem unique in any way? Nope. What's unique about St. John's is that such a large part of our history is intact.

Yes, we have a great opportunity to build a taller and modern downtown in the west end, but the east end will stay intact, and rightfully so. Like it or not, heritage is who we are and what makes us unique.

Townie709 · #**5278** Posted **Nov 9, 2012, 1:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_Murphy

http://www.thetelegram.com/media/photos/unis/2012/11/08/photo_2211593_resize.jpg

Has anyone else noticed the photograph in the telegram story? The design looks different than before.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundla...dway-duckworth-marriott-changed-719.html

Not sure if the one on the telegram site is new or an older, outdated version or not...

Looks the same to me. Just a different angle.

Architype · #**5279** Posted **Nov 9, 2012, 1:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_Murphy

http://www.thetelegram.com/media/photos/unis/2012/11/08/photo_2211593_resize.jpg

Has anyone else noticed the photograph in the telegram story? The design looks different than before.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundla...dway-duckworth-marriott-changed-719.html

Not sure if the one on the telegram site is new or an older, outdated version or not...

They changed the design when they added the 2 stories, and then they changed it slightly again to a more colourful version. However, they said this design shown in the rendering was mainly conceptual and subject to change in the details.

BTW, The old links to the PDF files (where this and others were shown) don't seem to work anymore since the city changed their website.

christopher_chafe · #**5280** Posted **Nov 9, 2012, 1:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Townie709

Like it or not, heritage will always make up a large part of our downtown. It's our heritage that attracts the tourists, not our tall buildings. There are hundreds and hundreds of big city immitators throughout North America; Cities similar to our size that have done away with much of their heritage to put a modern downtown. Do they draw many tourists or seem unique in any way? Nope. What's unique about St. John's is that such a large part of our history is intact.

Yes, we have a great opportunity to build a taller and modern downtown in the west end, but the east end will stay intact, and rightfully so. Like it or not, heritage is who we are and what makes us unique.

You are right, but what you will see in those places is a higher rate of people working with decent wages, due to the fact that those cities have a wider variety of industries in their city.

It baffles me to comprehend how people value tourists more than they value their own people.

If you take out the minimum wage jobs here in St. John's you will find that our unemployment rate is not so good after all.