[St. John's] The Official Project Thread

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by Arrakis

There’s only one way to fix the aesthetics of Atlantic Place on the waterfront and that involves quite an amount of dynamite.

From the document: "On January 21, 2013, an agreement was signed between the City of St. John’s and Sonco Group Inc. stating that the public parking spaces located in the A.P. Parking Garage will not be reduced below 670 public parking spaces. This requirement was also established in the A.P. Parking Garage Zone of the Development Regulations."

And I wonder why downtown feels so stagnant with regards to development...the cities own rules are preventing it.

[Horsell]

Originally Posted by Arrakis

There’s only one way to fix the aesthetics of Atlantic Place on the waterfront and that involves quite an amount of dynamite.

It might not take all that much dynamite because the place looks like it is falling apart anyway. Not sure I would want to add 4 more floors on top.
The city should do the right thing and allow the developer to tear it down and replace it with a new 8 story (or even ten) structure incorporating some parking (maybe even less than is there now) and a more appealing look on the waterfront.
I thought it was pretty "cute" of council to create a brand new zone (AP Parking) a couple of years ago to force an future development to maintain the parking component. Time for a "re-do" on this whole block.

[jjavman]

Originally Posted by wmemeadusjr

I'm the biggest pro development guy around, and that gotta be the most hideous thing I've ever seen. Let's just hope it's a rough draft.

There's that old adage about, "lipstick on a pig" !

[statbass]

Originally Posted by jjavman

There's that old adage about, "lipstick on a pig" !

Ahhhh... my eyes!!!! It looks like an old abandoned container ship got grounded ashore.

[PoscStudent]

I kinda like it.

[goodgrowth]

Council Advances Proposal For New Downtown Hotel:
http://vocm.com/news/council-advances-proposal-for-new-downtown-hotel/

Councillor Hope Jamieson doesn’t approve of the development.

She says the sheer height of the building is what turns her off to the proposal. She doesn’t want the developer to spend the extra time and money on a land use assessment review when she knows she won’t give it the green light.

Mayor Danny Breen supports advancing the proposal, that is still in the conceptual phase. He thinks it opens up an important discussion about the future of the downtown core.

Breen says the amendment brings up an important conversation that residents must have about the area. He feels it’s a impetus to get at crucial issues.

Between the NIMBY's who don't want anything over 10ft high and rules set by the city to maintain the parking garage I'd hate to be a developer in this city...

Again, no wonder downtown is not what it could be with the lack of an overall vision....

[Crisisnf]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

I kinda like it.

Me too. Looks much better from the harbour side than what's there now. Also not opposed to taller buildings within reason. Been a long time since I've been to NYC but pretty sure I saw historic churches between skyscrapers.

[Engibeer]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

I kinda like it.

Agreed. Anything is better than the garage as-is.

It may not look great but considering its' relative young age, I doubt there are major structural flaws. There is absolutely zero chance of it being torn down.

Might as well make something better of it...

[goodgrowth]

Yeah I think the proposal is better than what is there currently. But it's not like the bar is set very high with that...

The renders themselves are not doing any favours for it...they are pretty low quality. For instance I can't exactly tell what they are doing for the parking garage part. It looks like they are removing the brick and putting some sort of translucent panelling up?(I'm assuming it's not glass)

I mean when I look at it up close I think this could look good in theory as far as parking garages go it's just hard to get a feel with these particular renders.

[jjavman]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Yeah I think the proposal is better than what is there currently. But it's not like the bar is set very high with that...

The renders themselves are not doing any favours for it...they are pretty low quality. For instance I can't exactly tell what they are doing for the parking garage part. It looks like they are removing the brick and putting some sort of translucent panelling up?(I'm assuming it's not glass)

I mean when I look at it up close I think this could look good in theory as far as parking garages go it's just hard to get a feel with these particular renders.

By the comments I saw on social media regarding this, I doubt it will pass.
The usual stuff, from the usual suspects. "gonna ruin my view", etc.

I agree that however hideous, it simply cannot be worse than what is there now. That dated 70's brick finish badly needs a cladding makeover!

[statbass]

Originally Posted by Engibeer

Agreed. Anything is better than the garage as-is.

It may not look great but considering its' relative young age, I doubt there are major structural flaws. There is absolutely zero chance of it being torn down.

Might as well make something better of it...

Better than what currently exists doesn't necessarily translate to better overall. I, like most everyone here, am pro development and would love nothing more than to see the AP garage transformed to something nicer. But I don't think this design fits the case. It looks very forced and out of place to me. As mentioned, the renders don't help matters either - but it looks like we're trying to keep the white walkers at bay. I have no issues with the height (it'd be great if it were higher, IMO). I just think the design could be better.

[Downtown_1]

I travel quite frequently. I have seen successful mixes of old and new in many cities. Personally I like the design and overhang over Clift Bairds Cove. With some tweaks this proposal should proceed. Anything to cover-up the existing parking garage would be welcome in my opinion.

[jeddy1989]

I just wanted to post some pics of the proposal:


This is from when it was talked about ages ago:






These are the current renders:








And if anyone has forgotten...this is what the site currently looks like:

[jeddy1989]

Works Begins On New ‘Centre Of Hope’ In Downtown St. John’s

The Salvation Army in Newfoundland and Labrador calls today a “game changer.”

Work began on a new four-storey facility which will allow the organization to offer programs and services under one roof, and to provide housing. There will be 20 units on the top two levels for homeless people...

http://vocm.com/news/works-begins-on-new-centre-of-hope-in-downtown-st-johns/

[overboard]

Originally Posted by Downtown_1

I travel quite frequently. I have seen successful mixes of old and new in many cities. Personally I like the design and overhang over Clift Bairds Cove. With some tweaks this proposal should proceed. Anything to cover-up the existing parking garage would be welcome in my opinion.

Many of the pro-heritage crowd actually do want a good mix of new and old. The issues arise when a) we have to knock down good older buildings to get the new, b) large developments are sought in the wrong places, and c) the proposed new is actually not a good addition to the streetscape. Of course there are those immediately impacted in terms of views or traffic but those mostly give conservationists a bad name.

In my view there are enough sites for infill and building up that we do not need to degrade the historic parts of downtown, we have done a terrible job of responding to the harbour (how did we allow Scotiabank, Fortis, Atlantic Place, and this damn garage to all turn their backs on the harbour?), and the state of contemporary architecture here is largely garbage.

I thought Cllr. Burton's points were reasonable. It is against current regulations and we should not be further walling off the harbour. Tall buildings can get harbour views from anywhere - we don't need their underground parking to have them too. The new development regulations should address these concerns but they currently do not and the latest draft is lost in bureaucratic hell.

[Marty_Mcfly]

What view? That portion of water street is already a wall; you're can't see that section of the harbour anywhere as is. Water street you're at grade and can't see above Atlantic place or the smaller buildings along the street. Duckworth line of view of that area is completely blocked by the courthouse. And above that on church street you can't see past Duckworth anyway. It's a tired and broken argument in this situation.

So then what's next: does this building destroy any heritage buildings? No. Does this building seek to improve the area? Yes: downtown's second biggest eyesore (AP parking garage) can't get any worse, and this proposal is trying to mitigate as much of the ugliness of the garage as possible.

Build it. People don't like "modern monstrosities", but this is attempting to fix a huge eyesore. If you have gripe with the design, that's fair. That can be fixed. What can't be fixed is the moaning and groaning of "modern development" or "it's too high". This literally blocks nothing.

[jeddy1989]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

What view? That portion of water street is already a wall; you're can't see that section of the harbour anywhere as is. Water street you're at grade and can't see above Atlantic place or the smaller buildings along the street. Duckworth line of view of that area is completely blocked by the courthouse. And above that on church street you can't see past Duckworth anyway. It's a tired and broken argument in this situation.

So then what's next: does this building destroy any heritage buildings? No. Does this building seek to improve the area? Yes: downtown's second biggest eyesore (AP parking garage) can't get any worse, and this proposal is trying to mitigate as much of the ugliness of the garage as possible.

Build it. People don't like "modern monstrosities", but this is attempting to fix a huge eyesore. If you have gripe with the design, that's fair. That can be fixed. What can't be fixed is the moaning and groaning of "modern development" or "it's too high". This literally blocks nothing.

[overboard]

Well I didn't say my concern was about the view. I think continuing to build 12+ storey buildings along Harbour Drive (at least like the ones we have) will erase any hope of making it a pedestrian-friendly area. People need streetscapes with human scale to them and design that engages the street. Even the developer's own renderings depict it as an industrial zone. It is in fact industrial but I don't think we should abandon the idea of better connecting to the harbour for the forseeable future. Maybe (hopefully) they have grand plans for the pedestrian realm that will change my opinion.

Edit: Yes yes, I know. They're improving the parking garage. I dunno, I'd rather not have the thing rehabilitated. Let it run its course and put something better there.

[goodgrowth]

I agree with what overboard is saying to some extent.

The problem for me is that the heritage/NIMBY crowd only say what they don't want...that doesn't really help create a vision for future developments and the developers who are trying to make plans...

In my opinion the future success of the waterfront/DT core is whether it can become a pedestrian friendly entertainment/tourist district. I don't really believe office buildings and even some of the parking garages should be in that area...those can go anywhere. The harbour front/downtown is way to constrained and cramped and unique to act as a "generalist urban core".

Which means the council really needs to take the lead and have a vision for what the harbour front/downtown area should become..

[Marty_Mcfly]

Originally Posted by overboard

Well I didn't say my concern was about the view. I think continuing to build 12+ storey buildings along Harbour Drive (at least like the ones we have) will erase any hope of making it a pedestrian-friendly area. People need streetscapes with human scale to them and design that engages the street. Even the developer's own renderings depict it as an industrial zone. It is in fact industrial but I don't think we should abandon the idea of better connecting to the harbour for the forseeable future. Maybe (hopefully) they have grand plans for the pedestrian realm that will change my opinion.

Edit: Yes yes, I know. They're improving the parking garage. I dunno, I'd rather not have the thing rehabilitated. Let it run its course and put something better there.

Like it or not, that parking garage is key to solving the downtown's supposed parking shortage. It's going nowhere, even if it is ugly as all sin. I somehow doubt the city would even approve its demolition unless an exact number of parking spots would be available in whatever replaces it (aka another parking garage). We cant fix mistakes from the past, but we can not repeat them in the future. This proposal doesnt take away any store front commercial to replace it with a glass wall, nor does it create a wall separating downtown from the harbour. What it does to is provide a face lift to an unfortunate eyesore, and provide a place for said tourists to stay right in the heart of downtown. Tourists do not want to stay in hotels on Kenmount road.

If this hotel were proposing to demolish the heritage buildings behind the garage along water street I would understand the uproar. But this is literally the type of development we should be wanting downtown.