[Saint John] Uptown Thread

[DyAm00394]

Originally Posted by bingun

It also seems they installed the wrong windows at 40 King St and are now in trouble. $350K down the toilet if the Heritage Board don't let them keep the windows, and that could jeopardize the whole project.

There is a new permit registered to the permit database yesterday to replace the windows at 40 King Street.

[bingun]

Letter from Homestar for reference. I feel bad for them; to me, this is on the general contractor.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Heritage is important, but the heritage board is clearly way too powerful and too restrictive.


Uptown Saint John has much bigger problems than non period correct windows being installed in homes.

[bingun]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

Heritage is important, but the heritage board is clearly way too powerful and too restrictive.


Uptown Saint John has much bigger problems than non period correct windows being installed in homes.

It doesn't excuse them from incompetence. The Heritage Board can't flip-flop every time someone 'accidentally' puts the wrong design in place.

Confirmation below on the vet.

Veterinarian clinic set to open uptown

https://tj.news/saint-john-south/veterinarian-clinic-set-to-open-uptown

The Uptown Animal Clinic is expected to open its doors at 160 Union St. at the end of March. And that opening will see owner and veterinarian Alison Messina fulfilling a long-time goal.

“There isn’t, which I can’t believe,” she said. “I live in the uptown and that’s one of the things I’ve noticed, there’s not even a clinic really close to uptown. I had a lot of clients at my previous job that didn’t drive or they had to get a ride from someone and it was very difficult for them to get to the clinic and very few clinics are even accepting new clients, so that’s the other thing.”

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by bingun

It doesn't excuse them from incompetence. The Heritage Board can't flip-flop every time someone 'accidentally' puts the wrong design in place.

Confirmation below on the vet.

Veterinarian clinic set to open uptown

https://tj.news/saint-john-south/veterinarian-clinic-set-to-open-uptown

Good news about the Vet opening. The more amenities and services we can get Uptown the easier it will be to regrow the population there.

[Pugsley]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

Heritage is important, but the heritage board is clearly way too powerful and too restrictive.


Uptown Saint John has much bigger problems than non period correct windows being installed in homes.

I agree there are bigger problems, but disagree with letting this slide. This is a common scenario I've seen here in NB a few times - where a builder or general contractor and a sub-contractor have a "miscommunication" and then come back asking for forgiveness. In Saint Andrews, the new apartments on Water Street had to go back for a variance because the building's foundation was higher than street level - causing a signifiant change to the design. In that scenario, the wrong plans were used by the general contractor. In this case, it looks like the wrong set of plans were given to the window manufacturer by the general contractor.

In both scenarios, I'd argue that these are not massive job sites, nor are they one of many projects being managed at scale where the general contractor could be excused for making these errors. It is either not caring or not having proper oversight of the project to make sure these mistakes are not happening. In both scenarios, the excuse was that they were working off the wrong plans - which is a pretty big screw-up to make when you have one, maybe two projects at a time.

If the Heritage Board or a PAC doesn't make an example of this, it basically says it is OK to build something that isn't compliant with approved plans - which is a slippery slope. It is also a discussion topic we see on here all the time - the "will it look like the drawings" debate. If the drawings are approved, then it SHOULD look like them when finished. The fact we (those on this site) question this whenever something is proposed or under construction is a major issue and concern for everyone - so maybe this is what is needed to reinforce expectations.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by Pugsley

I agree there are bigger problems, but disagree with letting this slide. This is a common scenario I've seen here in NB a few times - where a builder or general contractor and a sub-contractor have a "miscommunication" and then come back asking for forgiveness. In Saint Andrews, the new apartments on Water Street had to go back for a variance because the building's foundation was higher than street level - causing a signifiant change to the design. In that scenario, the wrong plans were used by the general contractor. In this case, it looks like the wrong set of plans were given to the window manufacturer by the general contractor.

In both scenarios, I'd argue that these are not massive job sites, nor are they one of many projects being managed at scale where the general contractor could be excused for making these errors. It is either not caring or not having proper oversight of the project to make sure these mistakes are not happening. In both scenarios, the excuse was that they were working off the wrong plans - which is a pretty big screw-up to make when you have one, maybe two projects at a time.

If the Heritage Board or a PAC doesn't make an example of this, it basically says it is OK to build something that isn't compliant with approved plans - which is a slippery slope. It is also a discussion topic we see on here all the time - the "will it look like the drawings" debate. If the drawings are approved, then it SHOULD look like them when finished. The fact we (those on this site) question this whenever something is proposed or under construction is a major issue and concern for everyone - so maybe this is what is needed to reinforce expectations.

All valid points and I agree. This business of doing whatever you want and then claiming it was an honest "mistake" while asking for a free pass needs to stop.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

I was making a general comment as I certainly couldn’t care less about learning the detailed specifics of this particular case

My point stands, the heritage board is too power and too restrictive. I agree everyone should abide by the same rules, but I think we all know that that isn’t how life works… especially not here in the Saint John Region.

Heritage is important, but Uptown could benefit from lessening the strictness on some heritage rules for the sake of energy efficiency and affordability (like in the case of windows and especially if they are non street facing windows) having some modern windows in some beautiful Victorian buildings won’t ruin the vibe of our city.

Same goes with height limits and sunshading… if some buildings would end up getting shaded out by taller buildings built elsewhere for parts of the day, then so be it, that’s the cost of growth, development, and progress…. Something this city used to stand for (and is the reason these Victorian buildings were built in the first place)


I think Uptown’s Victorian architecture is one of the best parts of this city, but the buildings aren’t going to be any less impressive or architecturally impressive if they face a bit more shade everyday, or even have some modern windows.

I’ll concede that some buildings with especially ornate windows and other external features should be maintained to maintain that aesthetic using period correct or modern reproductions when it comes to replacing things like windows, roof accents, etc, as some buildings in Saint John have such ornate designs that would be aesthetically ruined by throwing in standard modern windows, etc. The heritage board is simply too powerful and too restrictive, and their influence extends further than the limits of specific areas like Trinity Royal Conservation Area, as things like sun shadows within Trinity Royal impact what can be built in other parts of Uptown, which is mostly ridiculous imo.

If Saint John wants to grow and bring back real density to the central peninsula, we can’t have high rise projects proposed outside of Trinity Royal rejected over stuff like sun shadows they’d cause within the heritage district.


Moreover, I think Saint John should embrace some high rise development within the heritage district. Other than the old general hospital, Saint John didn’t really see any notable Neo classical or Art Deco high rises go up in the early 1900’s when those buildings were going up in other more economically vibrant Canadian and American cities. Allowing some truly aesthetically pleasing 10-15 story buildings go up within Trinity Royal built in the Neo classical or Neo Art Deco style wouldn’t take away from the vibe or the area… they’d only add to the vibe and urban fabric of what is one the oldest neighbourhoods in the country.

[bingun]

Regardless of the decision, I hope the development continues. With 40 King Street converted to residential and 56 King Street planned for some point soon, almost the entire south side of King Street will be in active use, with ground-floor commercial, office space, and residential.

[bingun]

177 St James Street is up for sale. Great opportunity for an infill project. Just down the street from the new school.

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29426804/177-st-james-street-saint-john

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by bingun

177 St James Street is up for sale. Great opportunity for an infill project. Just down the street from the new school.

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29426804/177-st-james-street-saint-john

Certainly looks like it might be an ex service station site. First thought would be what are the odds of petrochemical soil contamination?

[bingun]

Originally Posted by sailor734

Certainly looks like it might be an ex service station site. First thought would be what are the odds of petrochemical soil contamination?

I am not 100%, but I don't think there was a gas station there. That doesn't mean there isn't other remediation required, but the price suggests it isn't in terrible condition.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by bingun

I am not 100%, but I don't think there was a gas station there. That doesn't mean there isn't other remediation required, but the price suggests it isn't in terrible condition.

You may well be right although the building certainly resembles a 60's era service station with two bays and a little office/counter area. Even down to the concrete pad in the middle of the asphalt where the pumps might have been.

[bingun]

Street reconstruction confirmed for -

• Canterbury Street - Princess to Queen St
• Charlotte Street - Princess to Queen St N
• Sydney Street - Broad to St James St

I am most excited for Canterbury. I wonder what they will do on the east side of the street between Princess and Duke. Will they retain the parking, use a different design, or remove it altogether?

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by bingun

Street reconstruction confirmed for -

• Canterbury Street - Princess to Queen St
• Charlotte Street - Princess to Queen St N
• Sydney Street - Broad to St James St

I am most excited for Canterbury. I wonder what they will do on the east side of the street between Princess and Duke. Will they retain the parking, use a different design, or remove it altogether?

Based on city planning's anti car bias in recent years alone I'd bet on them getting rid of or at least greatly reducing the parking.

[darkharbour]

Originally Posted by sailor734

Based on city planning's anti car bias in recent years alone I'd bet on them getting rid of or at least greatly reducing the parking.

The city just added a bunch of similar angled parking to King Square last year where there had been almost none, what makes you think they'd remove the spaces on Canterbury? There might be a net loss of a few once they update them to contemporary width standards and make space for curbing, but that's about it.

[bingun]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

The city just added a bunch of similar angled parking to King Square last year where there had been almost none, what makes you think they'd remove the spaces on Canterbury? There might be a net loss of a few once they update them to contemporary width standards and make space for curbing, but that's about it.

There was an information session yesterday, but I didn't make it. I am sure they will keep some; there isn't the need for a sidewalk on that side, given there are no buildings. I am just curious about the layout, given that it is quite a unique setup compared to most of the adjacent streets.

[bingun]

Some new concept images, from Kate Wilcott's Facebook. The Facebook comments aren't enjoying this one; they've ruined the market with a food court!

[sailor734]

Lunch counters, food court, a bunch of cheap T-shirts and souvenirs......hardly a City Market but OTOH....... Maybe those days are gone and I think we need to preserve the "former" City market building and use it for something so I guess maybe whatever works?

[bingun]

The latest floor plan of Brunswick Square shows the small unit that used to be John's as leased. Any idea what that is? No other progress, unfortunately.

Suite R10 -258 sf LEASED

I also noticed that SJCommercialRE made YouTube videos for two units 7 months ago: 1A and B5. I wonder if they are trying to push those more so than others.