Official Fredericton, NB projects thread

[adamuptownsj]

Great news, I've always been interested in that building. I take it the Carlton/Campbell street restoration plans never extended east of St. Anne's?

[cj6286]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Great news, I've always been interested in that building. I take it the Carlton/Campbell street restoration plans never extended east of St. Anne's?

The original Campbell Street terminated at Regent Street. It would have roughly followed the old shoreline before Pointe Sainte Anne was built:

[FreddyGuy]

Unpopular opinion, I'm really hopeful that this doesn't turn into low-income housing. I appreciate and understand that we need lots of low-income housing and this is not trying to be a jab at those who need it. But the City Motel is a good example of what happens in low-income housing, already there is garbage everywhere, shopping carts piled with stuff, I've seen the cops here multiple times now, the property is quickly going downhill.

The location of this is not only in a prime tourist area but it is directly next to where the city holds events and people gather for parades, fireworks, etc. This is not the place for it.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by FreddyGuy

Unpopular opinion, I'm really hopeful that this doesn't turn into low-income housing. I appreciate and understand that we need lots of low-income housing and this is not trying to be a jab at those who need it. But the City Motel is a good example of what happens in low-income housing, already there is garbage everywhere, shopping carts piled with stuff, I've seen the cops here multiple times now, the property is quickly going downhill.

The location of this is not only in a prime tourist area but it is directly next to where the city holds events and people gather for parades, fireworks, etc. This is not the place for it.

Everything doesn't need to have an affordable component, especially old buildings that are expensive and complicated to renovate in the middle of downtown. This should be a high end project.

[Taeolas]

I agree with your opinion; affordable housing doesn't need to be part of every project and this one should be a jewel in the downtown tourist area, not a way to get more people downtown.

As for the City Motel, I overheard a neighbour who works at the hospital about how they're having an increase in the number of incidents with people 'checking out' cars in the parking lot at the hospital, and the assumption is due to the City Motel changeover.

I'm not sure how that is being run, but it feels like (especially in its early days) it should have 24/7 presence to keep an eye on the place and make sure it stays in tip-top condition, to be an example of how it could be. Otherwise, it'll just get a bad reputation (as its getting now) and it will make future projects even harder to do.

[Franco401]

These myths about affordable housing are completely unfounded and incredibly classist. Mandating the construction of affordable units does not cause any of those problems, and the condition of the City Motel area is due to the large homeless population and horrific 1950s non-urban design of an area that is now built-up around outdated infrastructure. The city's complete failure to meaningfully address growing homelessness meant that the City Motel project was absolutely necessary to provide any help whatsoever, and the result is a affordable housing in a place not designed for it, right next to the best intersection imaginable from a panhandling perspective and a bunch of dead-zone woods to camp in and not have your very limited belongings disturbed, destroyed or confiscated by police officers that you rightfully do not trust.

Shame on anyone who blames the residents of affordable housing for planning and social problems that they are victims of. It's a narrative that is as false now as it was for crime-ridden housing projects in American inner cities. In this case there are three clear root causes:

1. Broad economic problems including rising housing costs, substance abuse and the pandemic
2. City government, like most of them, uninterested in truly helping people
3. A badly planned surrounding area suffering from a rural 1950s freeway layout that the city grew to surround and large swaths of ajacent useless land

[FreddyGuy]

Originally Posted by Franco401

These myths about affordable housing are completely unfounded and incredibly classist. Mandating the construction of affordable units does not cause any of those problems, and the condition of the City Motel area is due to the large homeless population and horrific 1950s non-urban design of an area that is now built-up around outdated infrastructure. The city's complete failure to meaningfully address growing homelessness meant that the City Motel project was absolutely necessary to provide any help whatsoever, and the result is a affordable housing in a place not designed for it, right next to the best intersection imaginable from a panhandling perspective and a bunch of dead-zone woods to camp in and not have your very limited belongings disturbed, destroyed or confiscated by police officers that you rightfully do not trust.

Shame on anyone who blames the residents of affordable housing for planning and social problems that they are victims of. It's a narrative that is as false now as it was for crime-ridden housing projects in American inner cities. In this case there are three clear root causes:

1. Broad economic problems including rising housing costs, substance abuse and the pandemic
2. City government, like most of them, uninterested in truly helping people
3. A badly planned surrounding area suffering from a rural 1950s freeway layout that the city grew to surround and large swaths of ajacent useless land

No one is saying that, no need to brigade. There is a difference between low-income and affordable housing. I for one agree that no Frederictonian should have to pay $2000 a month for a basic 3 bedroom apartment. The root reason in Fredericton why we find ourselves in a crisis of limited affordable housing ultimately always falls back to supply and demand. Occupancy rates remain low, prices remain high. This is remedied only when inventory growth outpaces demand, period. The city buying a small heritage building once every few years and designating it low-income is not going to fix the problem.

Never did I say the city does not have a homeless problem and never did I say it doesn't need to be properly addressed. I only say that I'm hopeful that this particular property does not become another City Motel.

[OliverD]

The December PAC agenda has approximately 1000 housing units in it when you count the phased developments.

First up... 390 York Street. This is a Colpitts development consisting of three towers (1x7 and 2x10), with the shorter (phase one) tower fronting on York Street. I think I counted 84 units in this building and it also has ground floor retail space. This is likely close to 300 units at full build out.







Next up, the Sarahs Lane property. Previously approved for 160 units in four four-storey buildings, they're now looking for approval for 296 units in four buildings.

Then on Greenwood Drive, a total of 202 units with two 99-unit five-storey buildings and four townhouses. The Gibson trail bisects this property right before it crosses Greenwood.

Finally, 190 units in four phases on the west side of Brookside Drive just north of Heron Drive. One 35-unit building is already under construction, and a second 27-unit building is also part of the first phase. This will include a new street called Hanna Street and eventually connect to Alex as well. Future phases also include townhouses.

Other items of note:
- a gigantic place of worship at 650 Alison Boulevard
- new school on Cuffman Street

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by FreddyGuy

No one is saying that, no need to brigade. There is a difference between low-income and affordable housing. I for one agree that no Frederictonian should have to pay $2000 a month for a basic 3 bedroom apartment. The root reason in Fredericton why we find ourselves in a crisis of limited affordable housing ultimately always falls back to supply and demand. Occupancy rates remain low, prices remain high. This is remedied only when inventory growth outpaces demand, period. The city buying a small heritage building once every few years and designating it low-income is not going to fix the problem.

Never did I say the city does not have a homeless problem and never did I say it doesn't need to be properly addressed. I only say that I'm hopeful that this particular property does not become another City Motel.

I think we have a big problem with people conflating affordable housing with subsidized housing. They're not the same thing, but we generally refer to subsidized housing as affordable housing in this province.

Regarding the supply side of things, I've been tracking new developments in a spreadsheet since early in the year. Including some buildings that have recently been completed, my spreadsheet has a total of 3270 units in it. These are all in some phase of development (proposed to completed). Some likely won't be built, but many are currently under construction. For Fredericton that number is insane. It also doesn't include stuff like the redevelopment of the FREX grounds, single family homes, new basement apartments, etc.

[Freddypop]

Things are really starting to ramp up! Methinks next year is going to be a very interesting and exciting year construction-wise in Freddy

Here is the link to the PAC agenda mentioned by OliverD above

https://www.fredericton.ca/sites/default/files/pac_agenda_december_8_2021_en.pdf

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by Freddypop

Things are really starting to ramp up! Methinks next year is going to be a very interesting and exciting year construction-wise in Freddy

Here is the link to the PAC agenda mentioned by OliverD above

https://www.fredericton.ca/sites/default/files/pac_agenda_december_8_2021_en.pdf

Thanks, I had meant to add the link.

[Freddypop]

Looks like construction for the previously approved 2 x 5 story apartment buildings proposed for the corner of Cliffe and Mabie (technically 547 Cliffe) will start soon. Ross Ventures had previously been on record that construction was sked to start in November and the utility locates have just been completed and marked. There will be a total of 115 units plus underground parking.

[Pugsley]

Originally Posted by OliverD

The December PAC agenda has approximately 1000 housing units in it when you count the phased developments.

First up... 390 York Street. This is a Colpitts development consisting of three towers (1x7 and 2x10), with the shorter (phase one) tower fronting on York Street. I think I counted 84 units in this building and it also has ground floor retail space. This is likely close to 300 units at full build out.

What a waste of a development and key site in the city. This surge of inbound and need to build build build is being done recklessly. This area has the opportunity to be a second downtown with retail, offices, and residential. Instead, a beautiful anchor like the old trains station is being surrounded by yet another multi-building apartment complex. I think the city should reject it and make the developer scale back the surface parking and make it a more pedestrian-friendly mixed-use development....with ample retail and connectivity to the surrounding streetscapes.

[SomeLad]

I'm happy to see it looks like there is going to be retail fronting York Street. I was concerned there was a large setback at first but it looks like they want a patio? If it gets built as it is laid out then the biggest surface parking lot in that area will be ANBL's, and it is way bigger than that store needs, they should develop the York facing part of the parking lot.

[Pugsley]

Originally Posted by SomeLad

I'm happy to see it looks like there is going to be retail fronting York Street. I was concerned there was a large setback at first but it looks like they want a patio? If it gets built as it is laid out then the biggest surface parking lot in that area will be ANBL's, and it is way bigger than that store needs, they should develop the York facing part of the parking lot.

Yes, agreed...at least there is that. What I was referring to is the surface parking in between the buildings. They should do more of this underground and convert the space into more park space and retail. There is also a missed opportunity to create a degree of continuity along the old rail line towards a reconfigured Sobeys store from York Street. It would be great if you could step out your building door to a corridor of shops and restaurants by the train station ending at a new entrance into the Sobeys store. It would be more of a destination development for downtown. Where you could stroll a few shops, get groceries, some wine, and more....all in one outdoor promenade surrounded by residences above.

[SomeLad]

Even putting the parking away from the trail and having stores or restaurants facing the trail would be really nice, and there is a large residential population in this area now. I just wish they would improve the trail connections to the west of here, the trail kinda peters out until Smythe street.

I also think York could benefit from getting the same treatment Brookside is getting right now and adding more cycling infrastructure, I think York Street could be made to be the main cycling route uptown (perhaps it and Hanwell) since it has lower traffic, has the room and is a slightly more forgiving grade than Smythe and Regent.

[Tridus]

Originally Posted by OliverD

Finally, 190 units in four phases on the west side of Brookside Drive just north of Heron Drive. One 35-unit building is already under construction, and a second 27-unit building is also part of the first phase. This will include a new street called Hanna Street and eventually connect to Alex as well. Future phases also include townhouses.

I really hope the city is pushing to get the roundabout done ASAP. This development is great for the area, EXCEPT Brookside/Ring Road is already a mess in both directions with how badly it backs up, how poorly traffic flows going up Brookside from the Douglas Avenue side, and how reckless the lines make people (and the serious accidents that cause).

Dumping hundreds more cars onto it in the morning/afternoon commute is going to be dreadful.

[Taeolas]

Supposedly according to a FB post recently, they were marking out the space for the Brookside Roundabout, so that may be coming in the spring next year. I didn't see any official word on it one way or another yet though.

The FB post I read it on (First response)

Started marking for it yesterday at brookside for its circle.
Can’t wait

[cl812]

There has been some vegetation clearing happening around that intersection the last week or so, hopefully it is related to intersection upgrades (ie, roundabout construction).

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

Supposedly according to a FB post recently, they were marking out the space for the Brookside Roundabout, so that may be coming in the spring next year. I didn't see any official word on it one way or another yet though.

Capital budget is coming in a couple weeks so we'll see if there's money for it.