The Official Moncton, NB Project Thread

[ColSJ]

Originally Posted by jonny golden

That would be a significant announcement. Their parking lot is huge.

Just looked at google maps and the amount cars surrounding this building is crazy!!

The building itself looks very suburban so that wouldn’t be a loss but all those employees leaving downtown can’t be good for the commercial scene.

[jonny golden]

Originally Posted by ColSJ

Just looked at google maps and the amount cars surrounding this building is crazy!!

The building itself looks very suburban so that wouldn’t be a loss but all those employees leaving downtown can’t be good for the commercial scene.

If they're working from home anyway, it shouldn't be too bad. And if they're eventually replaced by people living in a development that replaces all that surface parking, it's a win for downtown.

I remember that parking lot being a real bone of contention when the Rogers call center was built.

[Monctoncore]

According to Ashford properties, they own the rogers building.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Monctoncore

According to Ashford properties, they own the rogers building.

And the plot thickens..........

[jonny golden]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Interesting. If true, not many people would mourn the loss of this building. It is the sort of generic structure one would see in an anonymous suburban office park. It's demise could free up substantial new land for repurposing.

Spoke to a manager who confirmed this. They're closing all the customer contact centers, and the Moncton center will be the last one to close.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by jonny golden

Spoke to a manager who confirmed this. They're closing all the customer contact centers, and the Moncton center will be the last one to close.

Well, it's nice to see that we are not being picked on.

This building will be no loss. This adds to the impressive amount of land that Ashford has available in Moncton south of Main Street. Having a single developer controlling all this property allows for the possibility of significant collaborative and innovative projects backed by all three levels of government. We could see significant investment in housing (including affordable housing), arts and cultural venues, enclosed parking, some retail and commercial and perhaps even educational investment. Almost anything could be on the table!

I really want to see a well thought out innovative and integrated plan for this area.

[Monctoncore]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Well, it's nice to see that we are not being picked on.

This building will be no loss. This adds to the impressive amount of land that Ashford has available in Moncton south of Main Street. Having a single developer controlling all this property allows for the possibility of significant collaborative and innovative projects backed by all three levels of government. We could see significant investment in housing (including affordable housing), arts and cultural venues, enclosed parking, some retail and commercial and perhaps even educational investment. Almost anything could be on the table!

I really want to see a well thought out innovative and integrated plan for this area.

I agree. I would like them to have a well thought out plan, ground floor retail/restaurants, a new market, library, a well thought out street grid, walkable ,pedestrian friendly and well lit. It would be nice if they went with a mix of different architectural styles as well, add some spice to the buildings , things that stand out and make people talk, as well as excited.

[MonctonRad]

"A Fresh Palette, City Planners Predict Big Changes Downtown"
https://tj.news/times-and-transcript/101951329 (paywall)


T&T photo

A paywalled article, but the T&T is making a case for transformative development in the downtown south of Main Street over the next decade, and city planning officials do not disagree. They mention several projects ready to go, only waiting for infrastructure upgrades (already announced by the three levels of government) earlier this week.

It sounds like exciting times coming up for urban enthusiasts on SSP, but we may have to patient for another couple of years while they upgrade the infrastructure to get things going.

[Monctoncore]

I wonder if it’s possible that some of these projects could get underway and coincide with the street restructuring.

[jonny golden]

Yep, and Ashford can work on the Lorentz Drive buildings while the infrastructure upgrades are being done. It's all about the timing.

Talking about infrastructure upgrades, it's a real shame that the St. Bernard's Square project didn't get off the ground after the city did all that underground work in the area. I hope the new owners will proceed with a similar project some day.

[MonctonRad]

Interesting CBC article about yet another failure for the "Vision Lands."

N.B. Power plan to test solar-powered subdivision in Moncton fizzles
Utility partnered with Siemens Canada, developer on cluster of 100 homes in Vision Lands
Shane Magee · CBC News · Posted: Aug 30, 2022 7:00 AM AT | Last Updated: 3 hours ago
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/vision-lands-moncton-development-nb-power-1.6565376

It's the latest in a series of efforts to build homes marketed as eco-friendly that have not materialized in the Vision Lands, an area the city has wanted to see developed for decades.

The utility planned a self-sufficient neighbourhood focused on an area off McLaughlin west of Leopold F. Belliveau Drive.

Staeben attributed the collapse of the plan announced in 2020, called North Branch, to market conditions and pandemic-related supply problems experienced by the developer.

This bit was particularly interesting:

But by this spring, Staeben said the utility began exploring other options in Moncton, including working with a separate proposal called Eastgate Village off Elmwood Drive that recently went before city council.

A document from Eastgate includes the N.B. Power logo and "Smart Grid Atlantic," but Staeben said they are no longer involved in the project.

So, NB Power and Siemens have given up on the Vision Lands for their demonstration project, and instead considered focussing on the Eastgate Village development.

I have nothing particularly against Eastgate (aside from looming traffic issues, including congestion in and around the Elmwood/TCH interchange). It seems to be a well thought out, relatively high density planned suburban development. Although north of the TCH, in an ersatz sense, Eastgate could in fact also be considered "infill" in the sense that in quick succession to the north of Eastgate, you have the Pine Tree Estates mini home park, Royal Oaks and Moncton High School. All Eastgate will be doing is making the development corridor contiguous with the rest of the city.

I mean, if you are going to locate the eponymous Moncton High School out by the Kent County line, you might as well let the city grow out to meet it - right???

If the city wants to be successful with the Vision Lands, they really need to come up with a successful strategy. So far this has been a failure. Aside from some minor development along the margins of the Vision Lands, nothing much has happened over the last 20 years.

The Vision Lands has become a bit of a Jonah for the city. There must be some reason for this.

[MonctonRad]

City council meeting tonight. Both the Eastgate Village and Vineyard subdivisions off of Elmwood will be discussed. It will be interesting to see what transpires. This topic touches a lot of sensitivities, both in the neighbourhood and within the greater city (both pro and con), as well as challenging urban planning fundamentals as well.

[josh_cat_eyes]

When they eventually build an interchange at McLaughlin road, what would the design look like? I’m sure the city has to have had discussions about this at some point. I wonder if it will be brought up at the upcoming meeting.

[MonctonRad]

A number of years ago, we discovered a diagram of what a McLaughlin Road interchange would look like, and it was posted on the forum. I'll dig around a little later to see if I can find it.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

City council meeting tonight. Both the Eastgate Village and Vineyard subdivisions off of Elmwood will be discussed. It will be interesting to see what transpires. This topic touches a lot of sensitivities, both in the neighbourhood and within the greater city (both pro and con), as well as challenging urban planning fundamentals as well.

This is from Mayor Dawn Arnold's summary of the city council deliberations this evening:

In Planning Matters, we had the public presentations for two expansions beyond the serviceable boundary on Elmwood, setting the Public Hearing for October 17th (this will the an opportunity for the public to express their views on this publicly, but there will also be opportunities to submit in writing). Additionally, it still needs to come to the Planning Advisory Committee.

A pretty bare boned paragraph, devoid of real content. There is more information in this T&T article released online this evening:

https://tj.news/times-and-transcript/101958430 (paywall)

It is abundantly clear that there is intense opposition to the Eastgate and Vineyard subdivisions within the Mayors Office and the City Planning Department. Meanwhile there is considerable support for these two developments in City Council itself. Lines are being drawn. The upcoming public hearings and PAC meeting should be quite interesting. The final city council meeting to approve these developments should be downright Machiavellian. Fasten your seatbelts!!!

[MonctonRad]

Park envisioned by Moncton councillors as city updates Vision Land plans
City, major landowners reach agreement to fund new plan for 500 acre-area

Shane Magee · CBC News · Posted: Sep 09, 2022 7:00 AM AT | Last Updated: 2 hours ago
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/moncton-vision-lands-park-1.6575715

Revisions to Moncton's urban planning document for a vast area of the city's northwest known as the Vision Lands are prompting councillors to propose creating parkland.

Several councillors raised the idea during a council meeting Tuesday.

"My vision is a central park right in the middle of it, a huge chunk of land right in the middle," Coun. Daniel Bourgeois said.

He suggested the city set aside 500 metres on both sides of the North Branch of Halls Creek, which runs through the Vision Lands.

Mayor Dawn Arnold suggested the city look at a federal (urban) parks program.

The Vision Lands cover a largely undeveloped track of about 1,400 acres bounded by Mapleton Road, the Trans-Canada Highway, McLaughlin Road and Wheeler Boulevard.

Longstanding planning documents have called for developing the area with new homes and businesses. City staff have described it as one of the last readily developable areas within existing municipal limits.

There is some heavy duty cognitive dissonance going on here. City planning and the Mayor strongly oppose the Vineyard and Eastgate developments off of Elmwood Drive because they fall outside the municipal service boundary, and the city supposed has enough developable land within the boundary (especially within the Vision Lands) to last at least 30 years. Yet, at the same time, city council is approving a study to look at converting up ti 50% of the Vision Lands into parkland! What gives here!!! If they are going to lop off a huge portion of the land available for development within the service boundary, shouldn't they be looking at replacing this lost land elsewhere (like with Eastgate & Vineyard)???

Something is not right here. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

I mean, make a choice. If you are going to vote against these new subdivisions, then you need to take a pro development stance with the Vision Lands. It's just that simple. You can't have it both ways...........

[Ifyoubuildit]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Park envisioned by Moncton councillors as city updates Vision Land plans
City, major landowners reach agreement to fund new plan for 500 acre-area

Shane Magee · CBC News · Posted: Sep 09, 2022 7:00 AM AT | Last Updated: 2 hours ago
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/moncton-vision-lands-park-1.6575715





There is some heavy duty cognitive dissonance going on here. City planning and the Mayor strongly oppose the Vineyard and Eastgate developments off of Elmwood Drive because they fall outside the municipal service boundary, and the city supposed has enough developable land within the boundary (especially within the Vision Lands) to last at least 30 years. Yet, at the same time, city council is approving a study to look at converting up ti 50% of the Vision Lands into parkland! What gives here!!! If they are going to lop off a huge portion of the land available for development within the service boundary, shouldn't they be looking at replacing this lost land elsewhere (like with Eastgate & Vineyard)???

Something is not right here. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

I mean, make a choice. If you are going to vote against these new subdivisions, then you need to take a pro development stance with the Vision Lands. It's just that simple. You can't have it both ways...........

Council also needs a lesson in math. If the Vision Land owners are expected to pay for infra-structure and give up 50% of the value of their land, good luck making that math work, especially in light of todays costs of construction. They need to be realistic and find a good balance between density and green space, trail networks etc. But if they expect to lop off 50% and then lose another 25% to roads, setbacks, etc it is going to be a futile exercise.

It seems ridiculous that council is even considering Eastgate and the Vineyard. How much infra-structure is the tax payer going to have to pay to support roads, services, intersections, etc that lead to this area? I would suspect tens of millions. Will Elmwood need to be upgraded to a Boulevard with intersections? Will a highway overpass be needed? Will services need to be extended or upgraded the entire length of Elmwood? Whereas, the surrounding infrastructure is in place at the western Vision Lands, being flanked by two major boulevards (Mapleton and Wheeler) and the Trans-Canada Highway. Any added infrastructure to support Eastgate and Vineyard is also going to require maintenance forever, on the back of the tax payer. Not to mention the carbon dioxide emissions for all the traffic that is going to travel way outside of the municipal boundaries to access these sites plus the lack of public transportation.

[Riberview]

In regards to the Eastgate development..

I for one find it difficult to understand what's happening behind closed doors. Staff and the mayor are dead set against any development North of the TCH on Elmwood. This is bizarre to me, as the developments proposed are quite a distance from the municipal boundary.

I get they want density before more sprawl. I personally would prefer to live NOT in city centre, but be a 6 min drive from same.

Fix the problems plaguing the core, before you insist all development be in the core.

The City allowed Granite Drive to happen, North of the TCH.. The Province moved a high school there. The City put a fire station north of the highway..

Elmwood Drive was upgraded to the high-school. Are you telling me they rebuilt the sewer and all, ONLY to accommodate current builds?

Whose fault is that then?

Short sightedness is a funny thing, especially when you've got oodles of "master plans" kicking around..

Don't even get me started on this new pivot for Vision Lands. Insist on development here but when it falls through, insist it be a federal park?! So we can't build in the literal centre of the city.. and we can't build where all these new businesses are going..

Make up your mind, or hire planners who can actually plan shit.

/endrant

[Ifyoubuildit]

Originally Posted by Riberview

In regards to the Eastgate development..

I for one find it difficult to understand what's happening behind closed doors. Staff and the mayor are dead set against any development North of the TCH on Elmwood. This is bizarre to me, as the developments proposed are quite a distance from the municipal boundary.

I get they want density before more sprawl. I personally would prefer to live NOT in city centre, but be a 6 min drive from same.

Fix the problems plaguing the core, before you insist all development be in the core.

The City allowed Granite Drive to happen, North of the TCH.. The Province moved a high school there. The City put a fire station north of the highway..

Elmwood Drive was upgraded to the high-school. Are you telling me they rebuilt the sewer and all, ONLY to accommodate current builds?

Whose fault is that then?

Short sightedness is a funny thing, especially when you've got oodles of "master plans" kicking around..

Don't even get me started on this new pivot for Vision Lands. Insist on development here but when it falls through, insist it be a federal park?! So we can't build in the literal centre of the city.. and we can't build where all these new businesses are going..

Make up your mind, or hire planners who can actually plan shit.

/endrant

I assume landowners such as those of the Vision Lands make investments based on city policies and planning. Namely, paying higher costs for land and taxes as one would expect in areas slated for future development. Allowing random projects to proceed outside the municipal boundary and deviating from established planning is poor governance. It is going to cost the tax payer dearly not to mention the negative environmental impacts of adding unnecessary infrastructure and emissions (thousands of cars traveling 10kms outside the municipal boundary daily with no public transit). Beyond considering a project outside of the municipal boundary, why is council suggesting 50% park land for Vision Land owners and not the same demands are being made of Eastgate or the Vineyard? There appears to be little to no green space on their plans, which further supports the nonsensical consideration of allowing these developments to occur outside the municipal boundary. It seems crazy to me that you have private land owners in both cases, but the ones who are actually within the boundary are being held to a higher standard? Council should listen to their professional planners and abide by sound municipal planning.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Riberview

In regards to the Eastgate development..

I for one find it difficult to understand what's happening behind closed doors. Staff and the mayor are dead set against any development North of the TCH on Elmwood. This is bizarre to me, as the developments proposed are quite a distance from the municipal boundary.

I get they want density before more sprawl. I personally would prefer to live NOT in city centre, but be a 6 min drive from same.

Fix the problems plaguing the core, before you insist all development be in the core.

The City allowed Granite Drive to happen, North of the TCH.. The Province moved a high school there. The City put a fire station north of the highway..

Elmwood Drive was upgraded to the high-school. Are you telling me they rebuilt the sewer and all, ONLY to accommodate current builds?

Whose fault is that then?

Short sightedness is a funny thing, especially when you've got oodles of "master plans" kicking around..

Don't even get me started on this new pivot for Vision Lands. Insist on development here but when it falls through, insist it be a federal park?! So we can't build in the literal centre of the city.. and we can't build where all these new businesses are going..

Make up your mind, or hire planners who can actually plan shit.

/endrant

Regarding the whole "municipal service boundary" farce. You can see the boundary in this image below:



The boundary is a zigzag ersatz sham which makes no geographic (or logical) sense. It zigs here and zags there with no coherent logic whatsoever. It includes the eastern half of Granite Drive and the Caledonia Industrial Park, hugs Elmwood Drive to the north (but skipping over the proposed Eastgate and Vineyard developments), and then widens to include the Pine Tree Estates mini home park, Royal Oaks Golf Course and subdivision and then Moncton High School.

Eastgate and Vineyard are essentially infill projects, but inexplicably lie outside this nonsensical service boundary. It is truly a bizarre situation.

Now, there will be consequences for approving these two subdivision (sewer and water upgrades, new signalized intersections, perhaps some upgrades to Elmwood Drive and perhaps a connector to McLaughlin Road, but a lot of this was going to have to happen in the next 25 years anyway.

I find it strange that city planning is drawing a line in the sand on the municipal service boundary in this particular part of the city given how nonsensical the boundary in this location is in the first place. If the city decides to deny these two subdivisions, then so be it, but FFS, don't turn half the Vision Lands into a federal urban park at the same time! The city needs to have room to grow. There has to be logical coherence to your planning goals. I see none here. The planning department, city council and the mayor are going off the rails. Decide what it is you want to do, and then do it!!!