[St. John's] The Official Project Thread

[Architype]

If the zoning regulations allow only 1 storey buildings on that site, the developer might as well go ahead and build 3 or 4 one storey ranch style homes there since that seems to be in the city's vision.

[nl_eng]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

The city tried to buy this land "based on market prices" but the owner rejected their offer, even though the land has been for sale.


CBC Article

I would assume that the market value is deflated based on the lower chance of any permit to develop the land, given the location. It would be smart of the owner to reject the City's attempts to buy them out - if the City has to expropriate, the owner will get fair market value, which can very well be higher than the City's current offer.

[PoscStudent]

The piece of land on Blackmarsh Road that city council just approved that ugly condo development is now for sale for $6 500 000, hopefully someone buys is and builds something attractive there.

[niccanning]

Oh... I thought those condos on Blackmarsh Road were going up.
It would be nice to introduce some class in the west end. I grew up in Cowan Heights and the place in vinyl heaven.
It's a real good location and a decent size property for some 10ish story condos.
Views of Cabot Tower and everything....

[Architype]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

The piece of land on Blackmarsh Road that city council just approved that ugly condo development is now for sale for $6 500 000, hopefully someone buys is and builds something attractive there.

That's too bad, it's unusual for a development to be approved and then cancelled right away. In cases like this the reasons are usually financial, but this one is not that much loss to the city. However, I think this is indicative of all the problems which have always prevented or hindered development in St. John's; restrictive city policies; a limited demand for condos, problems with construction costs, and some difficulty in planning, building and marketing higher density developments. On the other hand, this might be just a sign that growth is slowing down.

[PoscStudent]

Here is something I found a bit odd, St. John's has placed number 9 on Up Magazine's list of Canada's Most Walkable Cities.

"Despite the hills and weather, the hardy citizenry are some of the biggest walkers in the country, with very low vehicle ownership."

Up Magazine's List
Yahoo Article

[tch1005]

"Despite the hills and weather, the hardy citizenry are some of the biggest walkers in the country, with very low vehicle ownership."

??? What?
I have a VERY hard time believing this.

[ConundrumNL]

Originally Posted by tch1005

"Despite the hills and weather, the hardy citizenry are some of the biggest walkers in the country, with very low vehicle ownership."

??? What?
I have a VERY hard time believing this.

We may be bigger walkers, but I can't believe the low vehicle ownership. I always figured that most adults would have a car, especially since the St. John's area is pretty spread-out, and public transit is lacking.

[Architype]

^ Thanks for finding that PoscStudent. That suprises me too, but it apparently does not include any of the suburbs like Mt 'peril or CBS. There is a high percentage of students and older people too, maybe low income too, probably fewer car collectors (climatic), so that might figure into low vehicle ownership. It's nice to see St John's on another good list. Now that is encouraging even though they didn't give the actual stats; so giving people more useful destinations to walk to would be a good thing. I once asked my younger relative if she ever in her life walked from home in suburban St. John's to a store and the answer was "no". One thing though is only downtown has lots of residential near commercial and is walkable.

"Judges determined which cities made travel by foot more accessible. The key indicator of a walkable city is its population density, that is, the number of people per square kilometre."

But in some cases, like Calgary it was not based on how much people actually walked, but on the extensive trail system. "Walkable" doesn't mean they actually walked.

Canada's Most Walkable Cities 2010

1. Vancouver
2. Victoria
3. Montreal
4. Toronto
5. Halifax
6. Quebec City
7. Ottawa
8. Calgary
9. St. John's
10. Winnipeg

source

[PoscStudent]

I found the list very very odd when I saw it, especially the low vehicle ownership, I didn't want to say anything because I didn't want to sound so negative about it. When you consider places like Churchill Park and downtown though it makes sense. I walked around downtown today and was very surprised by how busy it was, there were navy ships in the harbour but it also looked like there were a lot of tourists around.

[Architype]

To me, "walkable" is - you can do at least some shopping and access many other services within about 10 minutes walk without a car. I don't know if I consider recreational (trails) walking "walkable", but it helps a lot if you have nice relaxing places to walk.

"Winding staircases, historic streetscapes and brightly coloured buildings make downtown St. John's delightful as a pedestrian," says judge Amanda Mitchell. "That is, provided you have strong legs."

Link To The St. John's Article

[HomeInMyShoes]

Another restaurant quick photo synopsis.

Beachy Cove Cafe, 13 Beachy Cove Road, Portugal Cove - St. Philips






What I Ordered seafood chowder, fish and chips, coke
Food the fish and chips have been better here and they were out of dressing for the fries with gravy (disappointed)
Selection traditional family food from NL, reasonable selection and some sandwiches for the non-seafarers
Price reasonable; $10-$18 is the general range for a dish
Would I Go Again probably
Comments There are many places serving the same fare and the food is good here, but the reason to go here is the view of Conception Bay, Bell Island and Portugal Cove. I've been here a lot. And love the roast beef dinner with fries, gravy and dressing. Definite comfort food.

[jeddy1989]

^ thats nice, but what does it have to do with development?

[PoscStudent]

Council discussed downtown development once again tonight, it was recommended that the area between Bishop's Cove and Waldegrave St. be taken out of the heritage area, and there is debate wether there should be regulations put in place or not in that block. Some councillors, I believe Duff and most likely O'Leary and Galgay, want regulations put in place so that the area blends in with the rest of downtown while Tom Hann is arguing that the city should not have regulations in this block at all.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by jeddy1989

^ thats nice, but what does it have to do with development?

New signage was up I suppose.

[Architype]

It's ok to have a little "colour" in the thread, even though it's got nothing to do with development. There is a Kitchen Party Thread, but I don't know if it would fit in there either. The photos alone make me hungry, and it might even bring them some business. The 'Local' sections have a food etc. section (Arts, Culture, Dining, Recreation and Entertainment), but there isn't one for here (yet).

Also, I guess it would fit in with geotourism development.

_________________________________

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

Council discussed downtown development once again tonight, it was recommended that the area between Bishop's Cove and Waldegrave St. be taken out of the heritage area, and there is debate wether there should be regulations put in place or not in that block. Some councillors, I believe Duff and most likely O'Leary and Galgay, want regulations put in place so that the area blends in with the rest of downtown while Tom Hann is arguing that the city should not have regulations in this block at all.

I think they would still need 'some' regulations after all, just not the same ones.

However, by "regulations" they probably still mean "heritage" regulations.

Was there a story on this ?

[Architype]

Here's an interesting response (audio clip below) from the owner of the land on Signal Hill. He says he is dead set against the townhouses or rowhouses concept. He says there "shall be no row houses or townhouses on my land". He also believes the houses need to be two-storey, which is traditional in Nfld, and as he says will it not block any private views, also the renderings shown do not accurately represent the designs. He says the federal government actually did not want as much land as the park actually occupies.

MP3 Link: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/nlstjohnmo...0531_33118.mp3

Historic parks, or other parks in urban settings do usually have lots of development around them. Think of Central Park in New York, or Stanley Park in Vancouver, both of which are well known, and do have tall (20 stories and up) buildings built right up to the park boundaries. I think there is also a bit more land in the area, other than this which could be developed properly, such as between Forest Rd and the park boundary, since the downtown area not development friendly and is in desperate need of places to build. In the context of downtown St. John's the park actually takes up a relatively large area (260 acres) (larger than Point Pleasant Park in Halifax -185 acres). IMO the area is underutilized as an urban park, or even as a park; why not have a restaurant up there somewhere, so people can enjoy the view? The elevation of this site is about 250' or only about half way to the top of the hill. Much of the existing city is developed at similar or higher elevations.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Controversial St. John’s salvage yard to expand

Originally Posted by cbc.ca

St. John's City Council has voted to allow a controversial expansion of an auto salvage yard in the Shea Heights area.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundlan...#ixzz0paq09lFF

Hurray for more salvage yard to drive through on the way to Cape Spear.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Regarding Signal Hill. I agree with the developer that the area is underutilized. But the developer should have expected a backlash if the renderings aren't accurate. How can people decide if the concept is reasonable for an area if the style isn't even accurately indicated? Development in an area like this is touchy enough. Look at the new two-stories in The Battery (image by me) which look out of place simply because building houses in a row parallel to each other is out of character with traditional development patterns in outport communities. If the three structures had been offset, slightly angled, one of them elevated back just a smidge, and used a different window layout on each it could have turned out much more in character.



I don't think any of these issues are really rocket science, but no one in St. John's seems to have any brain. As people here have stated before. Get a development plan and zoning that is current with the times St. John's and stop wasting city and developers time with this back and forth go nowhere dialog.

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by Architype

I think they would still need 'some' regulations after all, just not the same ones.

However, by "regulations" they probably still mean "heritage" regulations.

Was there a story on this ?

They talked about it on Here and Now, about 32 minutes in.

It looks like Freshwater Road Development could be a step closer to realizing a proposal for number 154. They want to build 22 townhouse dwellings and 4 semi-detached units on the property, down from 30 townhouses in the original plan. Councillor Bruce Tilley says the proposal has been found acceptable by the city's Transportation Engineer and the Manager of Streets and Parks.Tilley says they'll hold a public hearing on the proposal.

Article
Do all citiy's have public meetings on all these little developments?