[Moncton] Downtown Developments

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by josh_cat_eyes

The only building with the parking in the back in the one on the corner of Grand Trunk street. There was LOTS of space to reorientate the buildings so they could create a street wall with the parking in the back. There actually was probably even room for there to have been another road along the back of the property to create more buildings. There is ZERO justification for this much surface parking. The city NEEDS to eliminate this outrageous parking minimums for projects like this.

Parking minimum issue is real-- there's excessive parking here-- but I don't blame them for putting the apartment buildings along the park edge instead of along a busy arterial. Would this be egregious on, like, St. George St? Yeah. But I'm not sure Millennium Boulevard and small setbacks would be a good fit, as much as I like small/no setbacks in good areas.

[MonctonRad]

There are a bunch of photos on this Facebook page showing the interior of the new Taverna Greek resto-bar soon to open on Main Street downtown.

The place looks fantastic!!!

https://www.facebook.com/AuraConstMgmt/

[josh_cat_eyes]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Parking minimum issue is real-- there's excessive parking here-- but I don't blame them for putting the apartment buildings along the park edge instead of along a busy arterial. Would this be egregious on, like, St. George St? Yeah. But I'm not sure Millennium Boulevard and small setbacks would be a good fit, as much as I like small/no setbacks in good areas.

It would be no different than the plan that Thrive had for Twin Oaks. I’d actually argue that it fits better on millennium as it’s closer to downtown and is an infill project. You could have had a couple smaller 4 storey buildings closer to the Killam end and then had 6 storey buildings along most of the road, with a 10 storey building on the corner of Grand Trunk. Put some ground floor retail in the building and it could have been the most desirable place to live in Moncton. Centrally located, immediately adjacent to Centennial Park and the CN Sportsplex. Good access to transit. It can still be a desirable place to live, but not nearly as much.

[sailor734]

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that for many people a “desirable place to live “ still includes plentiful and convenient parking.

[josh_cat_eyes]

Originally Posted by sailor734

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that for many people a “desirable place to live “ still includes plentiful and convenient parking.

It’s not like there isn’t parking for these peoples cars. All these buildings have underground parking. There just doesn’t need to be 1000 parking spots or whatever the number is.

[new kid in town]

Underground parking, and perhaps, multilevel parking buildings. If we expect downtown to be bustling with all sorts of unique retail, I would expect visitors from other cities/towns to drive into our downtown.

[pierremoncton]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I had a look around yesterday, and, I am not convinced there has been any real change to this lot from before. I take your point about the gravel path, but, I think this was pre-existing.

There is a large ICON sign affixed to the fence, but this was there before.

I imagine ICON has plans for this lot, but, I honestly think they will start on the Infinity tower before they do anything here.

Yeah, I kinda started questioning myself today when I walked past it again. I just had never noticed it before and I'm not sure the gravel is fresh.

[jonny golden]

Originally Posted by pierremoncton

Yeah, I kinda started questioning myself today when I walked past it again. I just had never noticed it before and I'm not sure the gravel is fresh.

If downtown living is your thing, this would be a heck of a location. I wonder if a taller building would look awkward next to the existing building? They could do it if they could do under ground parking. I think the existing building has surface parking only.

[monctonwatch]

underground parking is an upsell that many people are opting out of, so the surface parking is definitely needed

[sailor734]

In bigger cities underground parking usually comes with the unit. For those tenants that don’t want the space there is a steady demand for sublet spaces from other tenants who want an extra spot.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

There are a bunch of photos on this Facebook page showing the interior of the new Taverna Greek resto-bar soon to open on Main Street downtown.

The place looks fantastic!!!

https://www.facebook.com/AuraConstMgmt/

It appears that Taverna is now open. There is a Facebook post stating that they are fully booked for the next three nights.

I predict this restaurant will be insanely successful.

I'm going to wait about 6 weeks before attempting to try this place out.

I wish them well. Welcome to Moncton!

[Sandbagger]

There is a lot of talk (albeit unsubstantiated rumours) within the local softball community that the city may have sold some of the Hal Betts Sportsplex land to a developer back in January. Specifically fields 5 and 6 which are to the east of the parking lot. I have nothing else to corroborate this - just that I have heard this from at least a dozen different people and I have no idea on their reliability.

But for speculation sake, this is a huge swathe of essentially downtown waterfront property and is located next to what will be the 2 Brothers project.

[MonctonRad]

Not sure how I feel about this. Hal Betts appears quite well utilized by the softball community, and is also the home of the Moncton Highland Games. It also makes for a nice swath of greenspace along the waterfront.

Still, a development to complement the Two Brothers would create good synergy, and an increasing dense cluster of highrises in the area (Three Sisters across the street, and whatever Lafford has planned for the old Timmies drive-thru).

[Ifyoubuildit]

Originally Posted by Sandbagger

There is a lot of talk (albeit unsubstantiated rumours) within the local softball community that the city may have sold some of the Hal Betts Sportsplex land to a developer back in January. Specifically fields 5 and 6 which are to the east of the parking lot. I have nothing else to corroborate this - just that I have heard this from at least a dozen different people and I have no idea on their reliability.

But for speculation sake, this is a huge swathe of essentially downtown waterfront property and is located next to what will be the 2 Brothers project.

I thought those baseball fields were built over top of the old city dump? If so, there would be some incredible remediation requirements. Also, where does marshland technically start and end? It would be interesting to see aerial studies of this area 50 years ago.

[lirette]

It would be good to get an understanding on the usage of fields 5/6 currently and overall capacity around the city for softball.

If these 2 fields are still in high use then any plan to sell and develop this land should come with a plan to add some fields somewhere else in the city. I believe this site has held big time national tournaments for softball and as a city we shouldn't be sacrificing all of our recreation and park space as its something Moncton has had some success with.

Understanding that these developments could be big tax dollars for the city I think an easy compromise here would be to have a plan in place replacement fields to be built somewhere else in the city.

I have a lot of concerns about how slow some of the development of current projects are, I'd hate to see a developer grab these 2 lots, tear down the fields and have them sit unused for years

Development of this land + the 2 brothers would significantly change the urban feel (in a good way) of this part of downtown for years to come so that needs to be considered. If we are sacrificing recreation space this better be a serious development of large scale.

[MonctonRad]

I just checked the NB Property Assessment Online site, and, ballfields 5 & 6 are considered a separate parcel than the remainder of the Hal Betts complex. This lends some credence to the rumour.

Curiously, this parcel is not clickable and, is "not considered a valid property." I don't know quite what this means, but, this is a similar status afforded to Centennial Park, so, perhaps it is considered municipally owned property currently in use for recreational purposes.

In any event, the fact that ballfields 5 & 6 are separate from the remainder of the Hal Betts complex is most intriguing.......

[MonctonPerson]

Originally Posted by Ifyoubuildit

I thought those baseball fields were built over top of the old city dump? If so, there would be some incredible remediation requirements. Also, where does marshland technically start and end? It would be interesting to see aerial studies of this area 50 years ago.

The dump was farther upstream between the causeway and the older Gunningsville Bridge (1976 imagery):


Image from here about the river and the landfill's legacy.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I just checked the NB Property Assessment Online site, and, ballfields 5 & 6 are considered a separate parcel than the remainder of the Hal Betts complex. This lends some credence to the rumour.

Curiously, this parcel is not clickable and, is "not considered a valid property." I don't know quite what this means, but, this is a similar status afforded to Centennial Park, so, perhaps it is considered municipally owned property currently in use for recreational purposes.

In any event, the fact that ballfields 5 & 6 are separate from the remainder of the Hal Betts complex is most intriguing.......

All the PANs and PIDs along Assomption are a total mess. I guess Moncton didn't 'clean them up' when building Assomption.

The four ballfields, most of Assomption between Albert and Euston, and some vacant and north of Assomption are on this PAN: https://paol-efel.snb.ca/paol.html?v...n&pan=05792929

While this PAN includes the outfields of the two ballfields and is worrying labeled 'FORMER INCINERATOR SITE': https://paol-efel.snb.ca/paol.html?v...n&pan=01878105

And this one is two chunks of land on opposite sides of Vaughan Harvey, and some of the street itself at the intersection: https://paol-efel.snb.ca/paol.html?v...n&pan=06491102

Since PAOL doesn't have PID view, maybe someone is buying the land NORTH of Assomption and the ballfields, kitty-corner from 1 Foundry, which you could definitely build on. It would complement the Sisters and Brothers. Or, maybe it's just a chunk of disused land immediately east of the easternmost field.

[MonctonPerson]

Originally Posted by Ifyoubuildit

I thought those baseball fields were built over top of the old city dump? If so, there would be some incredible remediation requirements. Also, where does marshland technically start and end? It would be interesting to see aerial studies of this area 50 years ago.

The city's open data site has some great aerial imagery.
This one from 1956 shows the river pre-causeway.


This from 1969 shows the river just after the causeway was built.


And 2008, before the causeway gates were opened.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by lirette

Development of this land + the 2 brothers would significantly change the urban feel (in a good way) of this part of downtown for years to come so that needs to be considered. If we are sacrificing recreation space this better be a serious development of large scale.

if there is any factual basis to this rumour, and, given the location of this land, I would have no qualms about suggesting Lafford as the probable buyer. This is immediately adjacent to the "Two Brothers" site, and, kitty corner to the Three Sisters. It would contribute to an overall high density downtown cluster of mixed use high rise apartment buildings. The results could be spectacular.

The Three Sisters will not be complete until 2026. Lafford will not turn his attention to the Two Bothers until the Three Sisters is nearly complete. The Two Brothers will take about three years to build. As such, if Lafford is the proponent, then I don't really see anything happening to fields 5/6 until 2029 at the earliest. This gives about five years to sort out what to do with the ballfield situation. In the meantime, I can't imagine any reason why they wouldn't allow the fields to continue to be used.