The Official Saint John, NB Project Thread

[Scarface]

Originally Posted by Walk then Run

First of all, great job kwajo on with the CBC radio interview this morning! Very informative and can't wait for the 2017 results of the harbour water.

My opinion on City Road...burn it all down and start from scratch, this is got to be the largest eyesore of mixed zoning in the city. Yikes

The new Irving tower is looking really good (city skyline) from the West Side, what a great compliment to the uptown core!

I think a lot of people share your sentiment about City Road, and would probably add Main Street to the areas that need to be knocked down/burned down, and restarted from scratch.

[Franco401]

Sweeping urban renewal is a terrible idea that was the single biggest mistake in the history of Saint John. Tearing down entire neighbourhoods is not the answer, especially when there are still people and businesses in those areas. Revitalization is the way to fix a neighbourhood, not brute force like we saw in the '60s and '70s. Wide-scale clearing is a great way to end up with a crater in place of a neighbourhood, like what part of Main St is today.

[cdnguys]

Originally Posted by Franco401

Sweeping urban renewal is a terrible idea that was the single biggest mistake in the history of Saint John. Tearing down entire neighbourhoods is not the answer, especially when there are still people and businesses in those areas. Revitalization is the way to fix a neighbourhood, not brute force like we saw in the '60s and '70s. Wide-scale clearing is a great way to end up with a crater in place of a neighbourhood, like what part of Main St is today.

I agree, however the housing in the east end of Saint John stretching from Union Street to Haymarket Square was squalid housing - falling down and slum conditions. Same with some of what was torn down between Main St and the harbour. Ideally be nice to have a tunnel under harbour that reemerged after Rockland Rd. And saved "the valley" along Paradise Row. But I think Saint John learned the lesson. When I think of the buildings built the last few years a lot of thought was put into architecture - like the court house, three sisters, IOL headquarters and NBLIQ

[RaginRonic]

Originally Posted by Franco401

Sweeping urban renewal is a terrible idea that was the single biggest mistake in the history of Saint John. Tearing down entire neighbourhoods is not the answer, especially when there are still people and businesses in those areas. Revitalization is the way to fix a neighbourhood, not brute force like we saw in the '60s and '70s. Wide-scale clearing is a great way to end up with a crater in place of a neighbourhood, like what part of Main St is today.

It's odd that you'd mention that urban renewal that happened from 1965-1985, because, in my mind, that project didn't really end in 1985.

When I look at that time in the history of Saint John, that project actually took another 10 years to end. What was the point of conclusion?

The implosion of the Saint John General Hospital on Sun., Dec. 10, 1995 at 1:45PM that afternoon.

If you think about it, with the Regional Hospital already floating along for 10 years helping to fix people up, the General Hospital kind of represented the end of what was then the era of Saint John's history that started at the beginning of the 1930s.

Once the General came down, that was the end of that era, the end of that phase of urban renewal, and Saint John finally moved on from what that time had in it.

Does that make sense?

=P

[Franco401]

Yeah, I suppose. My point isn't really contingent on when the renewal programs ended, it's that they were a huge mistake in the first place.

[saintjohnirish☘]

LOL So Gallant is the Minister for Saint John now? Give me a break

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by saintjohnirish☘

LOL So Gallant is the Minister for Saint John now? Give me a break

What are you referring to? Gallant hasn't been brought up here.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Franco401

What are you referring to? Gallant hasn't been brought up here.

Today's NB Government cabinet shuffle listed the Premier as the regional Minister responsible for Saint John & Southwestern NB. [Source]

For anything relating to political discussion i'd recommend posting it in this thread.

[JHikka]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/rockwood-park-development-plan-1.4272391

60 units possible under Rockwood Park development proposal
City planners propose medium-density mix of semi-detached homes and apartments on parkland
By Connell Smith, CBC News Posted: Sep 05, 2017 6:30 AM AT Last Updated: Sep 05, 2017 6:34 AM AT



City of Saint John planning staff have laid out their proposal to bring residential housing to a plot of land in Saint John's Rockwood Park.

Councillors are being advised to open the door to medium-density development on the controversial 15-hectare site on Sandy Point Road.

That could result in a 60-unit project with a mix of semi-detached homes and apartments.

The development would be accompanied by a public road to a new trail head for the park, along with a lookout and some additional walking trails.

It is recommended that proceeds from the sale of the land go toward upkeep of the park.

"This option infills a vacant property on a developed corridor within the primary development area where infrastructure exists," said the report written by Jody Kliffer and Phil Ouellette.

It is projected that such a development would generate between $168,000 and $248,000 in annual property tax revenue.

Members of the city's growth committee are to review the recommendation at their meeting Tuesday afternoon.

Joan Pearce of Friends of Rockwood Park said she expected city staff to push ahead with a development proposal for the site.

An earlier proposal for the same property was rejected by a previous city council in 2010 in the face of fierce opposition from the community.

Pearce fears the move on the Sandy Point Road property will open the door to further development incursions into the park.

"If that goes through, then there are maybe nine other city-owned properties that border the park that are right now in parkland," said Pearce.

"So this likely means that all of [these] are going to be taken in. What we have now is an erosion of the park and this will continue to happen."

The report says city staff reviewed the option to develop the property with six developers, a majority with successful projects in the Millidgeville area.

Two said they would have an "active" interest in developing the site but, given the opposition, would consider the matter only if the "park" zoning is lifted in advance.

In the meantime, Deputy Mayor Shirley McAlary said big questions remain unanswered.

She's particularly concerned that there's been no discussion of how much money the city will make from the land, other than property tax revenue, if it is successfully developed.

"The city has made the statement 'We're going to get a lot of money from these two pieces of land,' but they have never said, 'Well, we're going to sell that land for x number of dollars.' That's never come up in a conversation. Are you just going to give it to some developer that might come along?

"Nobody at city hall, nobody from the growth committee, we have never discussed that."

If the development proposal is approved by the growth committee, it will move to city council and the city's planning advisory committee for consideration.

[Franco401]

The article title (in addition to the quote from Ms. Pearce) are quite misleading. That land is not part of the Park.

[Scarface]

Originally Posted by Franco401

The article title (in addition to the quote from Ms. Pearce) are quite misleading. That land is not part of the Park.

This sound a little bit like when there was houses, and apartment buildings planed in Moncton in the Birchmount Area. People automatically used "It's parkland" to stop the development of the private owned property that is not, and has never been parkland.

It seems to be the go to for NIMBY types.

[saintjohnirish☘]

City curious to see where they are considering for a new city hall if not the old county court house.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/jim-bezanson-county-courthouse-city-hall-1.4284009

There must be some fed grants the city could apply no?

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by saintjohnirish☘

City curious to see where they are considering for a new city hall if not the old county court house.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/jim-bezanson-county-courthouse-city-hall-1.4284009

There must be some fed grants the city could apply no?

It's likely not a matter of money, as the courthouse might not be a viable site or it was ruled out for some other reason.

I think there are some interesting sites around uptown that could work. I previously expressed my pipe dream of making it part of the Coast Guard development, but it and Long Wharf are mega-developments for another time, as is the Lantic Sugar site.

I think the former Customs House site (across from SJ High and the Jubilee Terminal) is a fantastic site. Previously home to a historic building, built into the hill, entrances from two streets, very visible to cruise tourists, fills a huge hole in the Water Street streetscape, near plenty of parking (more underground parking possible) and it's a small plot, so they can build up instead of out, creating a landmark.

The Red Rose parking lot, one of the lots around the new NB Liquor on Union, or the sloped part of Sewell Street are also very convenient, high-profile sites.

[saintjohnirish☘]

Maybe a new NB Museum and new City Hall would be enough of an anchor for Fundy Quay. It seems likely that the museum will for sure be building a new facility

[Fischbob]

SJ can now be viewed in 3D in Google Earth, which is pretty cool.

If you have Google Chrome, you can follow this link, otherwise get the desktop app and zoom in.

[RR Drummer]

Originally Posted by Fischbob

SJ can now be viewed in 3D in Google Earth, which is pretty cool.

If you have Google Chrome, you can follow this link, otherwise get the desktop app and zoom in.

Very cool indeed! Thanks for the post.

[Fischbob]

There are a couple letters near the end of next week's council agenda from neighbouring business owners and Commercial Properties Inc voicing opposition to the plan to redevelop the Canterbury Street parking garage, with the usual concern that the reduction in parking spaces will hurt nearby businesses.

As a reminder, here's the conceptual massing model from the RFP:

Originally Posted by Fischbob

Source

Personally, I think that the benefits of a high quality development on the site outweigh the risks associated with losing a few off-street parking spaces, especially considering that the Parking Commission anticipates around 300 monthly parking spaces will be freed up once JDI completes their garage (this piece of information also in next week's council agenda).

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Fischbob

Personally, I think that the benefits of a high quality development on the site outweigh the risks associated with losing a few off-street parking spaces, especially considering that the Parking Commission anticipates around 300 monthly parking spaces will be freed up once JDI completes their garage (this piece of information also in next week's council agenda).

Isn't there still a plan to retain the lower level of parking? The top level is almost literally 14 parking spaces - I think they'll survive.

Business owners on that street seem to complain about a lot. Construction dates, redevelopment of properties, losing parking spaces...

[saintjohnirish☘]

So senseless, get rid of the parking lot. NIMBY business owners are being a bit selfish here.
This parking lot offers nothing to the area

[kwajo]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Isn't there still a plan to retain the lower level of parking? The top level is almost literally 14 parking spaces - I think they'll survive.

Business owners on that street seem to complain about a lot. Construction dates, redevelopment of properties, losing parking spaces...

I also recall a requirement of keeping the lower parking level in the call for proposals, but I'll have to check it again. If the final building includes residential units, the loss of 12-14 parking spaces will not just be completely negated, it will give the area more permanent residents who will support businesses beyond the 9-5 window.